Advertisement
Research Article

All Is Not Loss: Plant Biodiversity in the Anthropocene

  • Erle C. Ellis mail,

    ece@umbc.edu

    Affiliation: Department of Geography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

    X
  • Erica C. Antill,

    Affiliation: Department of Geography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

    X
  • Holger Kreft

    Affiliation: Biodiversity, Macroecology & Conservation Biogeography Group, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    X
  • Published: January 17, 2012
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030535

Reader Comments (1)

Post a new comment on this article

Too simplistic ?

Posted by Gopikrishnan on 25 Jan 2012 at 04:39 GMT

It appears to me that treating loss of native species and gain of exotic ones in arithemetic terms is too simplistic. Exotic species have not always been beneficial to the new area where they have invaded. For eg, the Parthenium weed in India which is an exotic introduction has overrun large tracts of land, and is proving difficult to destroy. Rather an impact analysis of native species lost versus exotic species introduced should have been considered.

No competing interests declared.

RE: Too simplistic ?

erleellis replied to Gopikrishnan on 25 Jan 2012 at 14:28 GMT

Our model is quite simplistic, reflecting the state of global knowledge of anthropogenic changes in native and exotic plant species richness. We would have incorporated a model (or data) relating exotic invasions to native losses, but we searched for such a global model and there are none that we know of (if you are aware of one- please let us know!). This is not the only simplification- as we note in the paper, we also do not include climate-change-induced habitat shifts- and these may also be important, but are also not well documented for contemporary patterns, thought they have been applied to predict future changes.

No competing interests declared.