Vertebrate Populations Plummet in 4 Decades

Deforestation and other human actions have cut the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians and fish by 58 percent since 1970

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is one of many freshwater species that is in decline because of habitat changes.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The populations of Earth’s wild mammals, birds, amphibians, fish and other vertebrates declined by more than half between 1970 and 2012, according to a report from environmental charity WWF and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).

Activities such as deforestation, poaching and human-induced climate change are in large part to blame for the decline. If the trend continues, then by 2020 the world will have lost two-thirds of its vertebrate biodiversity, according to the Living Planet Report 2016. “There is no sign yet that this rate will decrease,” the report says.

“Across land, freshwater and the oceans, human activities are forcing species populations and natural systems to the edge,” says Marco Lambertini, director-general of WWF International.


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.


Credit: Nature, October 31, 2016, doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20898; Source: Living Planet Report 2016

The main threat facing declining populations is habitat loss—caused by logging, agriculture and the disruption of freshwater systems such as rivers. Freshwater populations, which declined by 81%, are increasingly thought to be faring worse than those living in terrestrial regions.

“An average decline in population abundance exceeding 80% is, frankly, terrifying,” says Mike Hoffmann, senior scientist to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission in Cambridge, UK. “This is arguably the most damning evidence yet of the damage we are wreaking on our freshwater environments.”

Credit: Nature, October 31, 2016, doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20898; Source: Living Planet Report 2016

Data gaps

The analysis, which is published every two years, pulls together data from more than 3,000 sources that consistently track populations, including short-term and long-term monitoring projects. It tracks the status of 14,152 populations of some 3,700 vertebrate species. But it does not claim to be comprehensive: although several hundred species (many of them fish) have been added since the 2014 edition, the data set has “major geographic gaps”, the report acknowledges, with much of its data concentrated in western Europe.

Another bias of the study is that monitoring attention may be disproportionately focused on populations that are already declining, notes Hoffman. The overall pattern of decline will be hiding some population increases, he says. Still, Hoffmann says that the biases are likely to diminish as new monitoring schemes contribute data from under-sampled regions or species.

Rhys Green, a conservation scientist at the University of Cambridge, UK, agrees that the data may have a bias, but says that the methods and data are substantially improved from the 2014 report. “No data set or statistical procedure can yield a perfect result, but this is the best indicator we have, and it is valuable for policymaking,” he says.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 28, 2016.

Nisha Gaind is Nature’s Bureau Chief, Europe. She has been with Nature since 2013, and moved into her current position in July 2018. She has a MSci degree in astrophysics and physical chemistry from University College London.

More by Nisha Gaind

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe