New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Wildlife Population Plummeted Since 1970

A World Wildlife Fund report estimates losses of 40 percent of all individual land and sea animals, and a 70 percent population crash of all river animals, since 1970. David Biello reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The river animals have it worst. Thanks to water extraction, dam building and other river-changing pursuits, more than three-quarters of river amphibians, fish and mammals have disappeared since 1970. That's not three quarters of species, mind you, it's three quarters of the individuals in a given population.
 
And it's not just the rivers. Nearly 40 percent of both land and sea animals, from sardines to elephants, have disappeared over the same time span. The numbers are from a new report from the conservation group World Wildlife Fund. [Living Planet Report 2014]
 
These lost animals have been replaced by either people or our domesticated animals—chickens, cows and pigs, among others. Farms to feed people displace forests that feed wildlife. And people also eat wildlife directly, from fish to bushmeat. As a result, the survey finds fewer and fewer individuals among more than 3,000 species and 10,000 populations surveyed.
 
But there is hope. The vast majority of these beleaguered species are not extinct. And in rich regions like the U.S., Europe and Japan, wildlife numbers are actually increasing: coyote, deer, turkey and other forest animals, for example, as the forest regrows along the east coast of North America. Exporting that trend could help stave off the gathering sixth mass extinction.
 
—David Biello
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe