As the planet heats up, the natural engine that keeps ecosystems turning is quietly slowing down.
For years, many ecologists have predicted that as global warming intensifies, nature would change more rapidly. As temperatures climb and climate zones shift, species were expected to disappear from some regions while expanding into others at increasing speed. The result, according to this view, would be faster turnover and a constant reshuffling of ecological communities.
However, new research from Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), published in Nature Communications, finds that reality looks very different.
Drawing on an extensive global database of biodiversity surveys covering marine, freshwater, and land ecosystems over the past century, researchers discovered that the rate of species replacement in local habitats, known as “turnover,” has not accelerated. Instead, it has slowed considerably.
Dr. Emmanuel Nwankwo, the study’s lead author, described the pattern this way: “Nature functions like a self-repairing engine, constantly swapping out old parts for new ones. But we found that this engine is now grinding to a halt.”
Species Turnover Has Declined Since the 1970s
The team focused especially on the period beginning in the 1970s, when global surface temperatures began rising more quickly, and environmental changes became more pronounced. They compared how fast species were replacing one another before and after this period of accelerated warming.
If climate change were driving ecological change directly, turnover should have increased. Instead, the researchers found that over 1-5 year intervals, the pace of species replacement generally slowed. This trend was consistent across very different environments, from bird communities on land to life on the ocean floor.
Professor Axel Rossberg, a co-author of the study at Queen Mary University of London, said: “We were surprised how strong the effect is. Turnover rates typically declined by one third.”
The Role of Intrinsic Ecosystem Dynamics
To understand this unexpected outcome, the researchers looked at how ecosystems function internally. Their findings suggest that ecological communities are not simply responding to external climate forces. Instead, many appear to operate in what is known as the “Multiple Attractors” phase, a concept proposed in 2017 by theoretical physicist Guy Bunin.
In the multiple attractors phase, species continually replace one another because of internal biological interactions, even without environmental change. The process can resemble an ongoing game of rock, paper, scissors, where shifting competitive advantages prevent any single species from dominating for long. The new research provides strong real-world evidence that this multiple attractors phase exists and plays a central role in shaping ecosystems.
Biodiversity Loss and Environmental Degradation
If these internal dynamics normally keep ecosystems in motion, why are turnover rates declining?
The researchers argue that environmental degradation and shrinking regional species pools are likely contributing factors. In a healthy “Multiple Attractors phase” ecosystem, a large regional pool of species supplies potential newcomers, keeping the cycle of replacement active.
As human activities damage habitats and reduce biodiversity across regions, the number of available colonizers decreases. With fewer species able to move in, the rate of turnover slows.
Dr. Nwankwo said: “In other research, we are seeing clear indications that human impacts cause the slowing of turnover. It is worrying.”
The study cautions that a stable-looking ecosystem may not be a healthy one. When local species composition appears unchanged, it may signal that biodiversity has been depleted at a broader scale, weakening the internal processes that normally keep ecosystems dynamic and resilient.
Reference: “Widespread slowdown in short-term species turnover despite accelerating climate change” by Emmanuel C. Nwankwo, and Axel G. Rossberg, 3 February 2026, Nature Communications.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-68187-1
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
8 Comments
Can’t win for losing! First the concern was that warming would accelerate ecosystem changes. Now, there is a claim that the changes are slowing down, albeit the monitoring period is so short that it just may be natural jitter in the metrics measured.
In any event, one should keep in mind the statement popularized by Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,”
“As human activities damage habitats and reduce biodiversity across regions, the number of available colonizers decreases. With fewer species able to move in, the rate of turnover slows.
Dr. Nwankwo said: “In other research, we are seeing clear indications that human impacts cause the slowing of turnover. It is worrying.” ”
Human activities damaging habitats seems to be what is mentioned. Anthropogenic Global Heating is just one of many changes involved, or perhaps not involved. What has happened is that the human global population has more than doubled since 1970 (3.6 to 3.7 billion) to about 8.6 billion now; that type of 50year doubling would damage any habitat.
“As human activities damage habitats and reduce biodiversity across regions, the number of available colonizers decreases.”
That isn’t what the people in Los Angeles have observed. With a ban on discharging firearms in city limits, and the freeway interchanges being inaccessible to people, the coyote population has exploded, making forays into the suburban surroundings to feed on small dogs and cats at night.
However, the title of the article and thesis is that global warming is responsible for an apparent decline in biodiversity. The suggestion that land use changes are responsible instead, or in addition to warming, comes late in the article and and is poorly supported. The claim that “The study cautions that a stable-looking ecosystem MAY not be a healthy one. When local species composition appears unchanged, it MAY signal that biodiversity has been depleted at a broader scale, …” is little more than speculation, not solid evidence. Population dynamics, such as the relationship with foxes and hares, varies on time scales of decades, not 5 years.
I find it interesting that this article suggests that invasion by peripheral species is a sign of a healthy ecosystem, while a recent article ( https://scitechdaily.com/thousands-of-alien-species-could-invade-the-arctic-scientists-warn/ ) advances the concept of a healthy ecosystem is one that excludes species that don’t “belong.” Sir David Attenborough has stated on his TV Nature series that the 1% of the world classified as tropical contains at least 50% of the known species of life. I would suggest that a comparison of the biodiversity of the polar regions versus the tropics is a good indicator of the role that temperature plays in biodiversity.
It is like the classic case of the “blind leading the blind.” I have no issue with a researcher offering up alternative hypotheses, couched in the framework of a tentative working hypothesis. What I take exception to is the tone of having just discovered sliced bread and extolling how their revolutionary observation and conclusions will revolutionize their discipline.
Apropos sliced bread. Its discovery has led to massive amounts of plastic wrappings being generated………………….
How ironic that this utter nonsense is published on a “science” site! LOL!
Agree D3F1ANT.
“Science” in name only.
Sadly, just like the “New Scientist” and “Scientific American” are these days – which I don’t bother to read any more.
In past weak moments (and railing against WOKE) – I also pointed out that anomaly – to the publishers of this and the above several times.
Also, additional 10 cents worth …
I like the comment made elsewhere, (the term superseding Global Warming, namely, Climate Change), that:
“CLIMATE CHANGE is NOT a causal event, it is a description of different weather patterns”
Buckminster Fuller spent his life coming up with the answers to all these problems we’re having. It’s called comprehensive anticipatory design science. Unfortunately the elites don’t want you to know that we can all live like millionaires and save the environment at the same time.
I’m all ears! Tell me about it. I wasn’t aware that the ‘free-lunch wagon’ had arrived. Are you going to tell me that your patent application for a perpetual motion machine has been accepted by the patent office? Actually, I hope your are right because Elon Musk’s forecast for a near-term economic revolution resulting from AI gives me concern about how the system will work to support everyone like him. But, what do I know? I’m not the world’s richest man. As far as that goes though, what does being the world’s richest man you buy? It’s unlikely he will live longer than me.