Der Kilimandscharo hat im letzten Jahrhundert 75 Prozent seiner natürlichen Pflanzenarten verloren. Zwischen 1911 und 2022 waren vom Menschen verursachte Landnutzungsänderungen die primäre direkte Ursache für den Verlust von 75 % der natürlichen Pflanzenarten an den unteren Hängen des Kilimandscharo.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334184
4 Kommentare
That’s a massive loss in just a century. It really shows how quickly human land use can reshape entire ecosystems. Kilimanjaro’s lower slopes were once rich in native vegetation that supported unique wildlife.
Once that balance breaks, recovery becomes incredibly slow. I hope the study sparks more focused restoration efforts before the higher zones start seeing similar decline.
Aluna is on YouTube (but I can’t link it). The Kogi’s mountain in South America contains a complex of multiple interacting ecologies at different altitudes and they can see exaxtly what’s happening.
*“The analysis revealed that land-use change—for instance, expanding urban areas or converting savanna habitats to agricultural land—was the main cause of plant biodiversity loss between 1911 and 2022. In this time, the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro saw a loss of 75 percent of natural plant species per square kilometer. Land-use change stemmed from rapid population growth and economic development, with population density rising from 30 to 430 people per square kilometer between 1913 and 2022.*
*Meanwhile, the analysis showed, climate change was not a significant direct cause of biodiversity loss on Kilimanjaro.“*
To be clear there are 75 percent less numbers of native plant species, not that 75% of native varieties are extinct in the area. I’ve noticed this sort of clickbaity phrasing before (specifically with that study on insects). The loss is alarming and surely does include some extinctions, (definitely in regards to the insects), but I think when people discovered they’ve been manipulated it makes them pay less attention and perceive future statements as akin to propaganda.
However, to be fair to whoever wrote the headline, it is hard to succinctly differentiate the two types of species loss, so maybe I’m irritated at nothing but the English language.