Our recent paper in Nature summarizing the work of the Dark Diversity Network contains a simple – and for that reason rather horrifying – graph. It’s not much more than a linear regression, a line through some points:

It summarizes the relationship between the Human Footprint Index – a measure of the human modificiation of the landscape at a coarse scale – and the percentage of suitable plant species in our Dark Diversity plots.

That percentage is something unique: the network’s elaborate monitoring design was set up in such a way that we could estimate the total potential species pool of an area. The graph shows the percentage of that total species pool that was actually present at the site.

Now, what surprises nobody: the graph shows a steep decline – from around 35 to 20 % – in that percentage between sites without a human footprint up till an index of eighteen. Humans remove species from the land – clear and simple. What makes this analysis unique is that we find this after correcting for the potential of a certain area, and thus only look at the loss in potential, not the total loss of species. That correction is necessary to unearth these strong patterns, otherwise they get lost in the high variability in species diversity worldwide.

Now, the shape of the graph: a strong decline in realized diversity potential with increasing human footprint – is likely not a surprise to anyone. Nevertheless, it’s a story that needs repeating: it is the direct imprint of humans on a landscape that kills its diversity and it is that human footprint that we’ll have to keep fighting if we want to turn the tide for global biodiversity.

Now, how to win that fight in our multifunctional landscapes where biodiversity rarely plays the first violin, that’s a different story. But I am here to keep fighting that fight!

Find the paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08814-5