
Human-driven bird extinctions over the last 130,000 years have cut avian functional diversity and erased 3 billion years of evolution, impacting pollination, pest control, and ecosystems. Understanding these losses is key for future conservation.
A new study published in Science reveals that human-driven extinctions of hundreds of bird species over the past 130,000 years have significantly reduced avian functional diversity — the variety of roles birds play in ecosystems — and led to the loss of around 3 billion years of unique evolutionary history.
Whilst humans have been driving a global erosion of species richness for millennia, the consequences of past extinctions for other dimensions of biodiversity are poorly known. New research led by the University of Birmingham highlights the severe consequences of the ongoing biodiversity crisis and the urgent need to identify the ecological functions being lost through extinction.
Well-Known Bird Extinctions and Their Broader Impact
From the well-documented Dodo to the recent Kauaʻi ʻōʻō songbird declared extinct in 2023, scientists currently have evidence of at least 600 bird species having become extinct as a result of humans since the Late Pleistocene when modern humans started to spread throughout the world. Using the most comprehensive dataset to date of all known bird extinctions during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, the paper ‘The global loss of avian functional and phylogenetic diversity from anthropogenic extinctions’ looks beyond the number of extinctions to the wider implications on the planet.

Lead author Dr Tom Matthews from the University of Birmingham explained: “The sheer number of bird species that have become extinct is of course a big part of the extinction crisis but what we also need to focus on is that every species has a job or function within the environment and therefore plays a really important role in its ecosystem. Some birds control pests by eating insects, scavenger birds recycle dead matter, others eat fruit and disperse the seeds enabling more plants and trees to grow, and some, like hummingbirds, are very important pollinators. When those species die out, the important role that they play (the functional diversity) dies with them.
“In addition to functional diversity each species also carries a certain amount of evolutionary history, therefore when that species becomes extinct, it’s basically like chopping off a branch of the tree of life, and all of that associated phylogenetic diversity is also lost.”
The Consequences of Extinction for Ecosystems
The research found that the scale of anthropologenic bird extinctions to date has resulted in a loss of approximately 3 billion years of unique evolutionary history, and 7% of global avian functional diversity – a significantly larger amount than expected based on the number of extinctions. Given the wide range of important ecological roles performed by birds, the loss of avian functional diversity in particular will likely have had far-reaching implications. These post-extinction aftershocks include reduced flower pollination, reduced seed dispersal, the breakdown of top-down control of insect populations – including many pests and disease vectors – as well as increased disease outbreaks due to reduced consumption of carrion. In addition, the downsizing of the global avifauna documented in the research will likely affect the ability of many plant species to track present and future climate change.
Dr Matthews concludes: “These results are a timely reminder that the current extinction crisis is not just about species numbers. By identifying declines in avian functional and phylogenetic diversity driven by human actions, our findings highlight the urgent need to understand and predict the impacts of past anthropogenic extinctions on ecosystem function in order to prepare for the magnitude of expected future loss from the projected 1,000 bird species that are expected to die out completely over the next two centuries. This information is vital for setting effective targets for global conservation strategies, as well as ecosystem restoration and rewilding efforts.”
Reference: “The global loss of avian functional and phylogenetic diversity from anthropogenic extinctions” by Thomas J. Matthews, Kostas A. Triantis, Joseph P. Wayman, Thomas E. Martin, Julian P. Hume, Pedro Cardoso, Søren Faurby, Chase D. Mendenhall, Paul Dufour, François Rigal, Rob Cooke, Robert J. Whittaker, Alex L. Pigot, Christophe Thébaud, Maria Wagner Jørgensen, Eva Benavides, Filipa C. Soares, Werner Ulrich, Yasuhiro Kubota, Jon P. Sadler, Joseph A. Tobias and Ferran Sayol, 3 October 2024, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adk7898
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
26 Comments
This is a problem with activist researchers. They seem to believe their field of study should be prioritized over not just all other fields, but above all human activity, above nature and reality itself. 3 Billion years of evolution haven’t been erased; this is evolution. Evolution isn’t just about creation, but also about destruction. For new species to have the room and pressure to exist, and for species to become more fit to their environment, unfit species have to go extinct.
Extinctions have occured long before humans showed up. But human ignorance and greed have destroyed habitat, poisoned the prey needed by Raptors to survive (think DDT and Bald Eagles, for example), and just plain over hunting have contributed to endangering various species of birds (and other animal species). It’s not always “unfit” species that go extinct.
I see their main point as the flow on effect of the loss of function provided by a species in the ecological Web.
There’s an interesting study on the effect if reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone Park, returning this “pest” actually rejuvenated the park
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
If they were not unfit, they would not go extinct. Humanity is still a part of nature, habitats have always changed, species risk predation, and species have to evolve tolerance to poisons whether they’re venom or man-made. The DDT & Bald Eagles is a good example; it’s still highly controversial, with ban-contemporary studies and population survey statistics refuting the link, but it’s pointless and hard to study since the EPA ban and Stockholm Convention especially when previous studies were ignored.
Regardless of our opinions on humanity or birds or DDT, take a look at the article, “Humans have erased 3 billion years of evolution and it’s getting worse”. We’ve set the “evolutionary history” back to the Archaean eon, to just after the Late Heavy Bombardment of Earth. That means we reduced all life on Earth to stramatolites, rock-like bacteria clumps in shallow water, so the atmosphere has no oxygen, and “it’s getting worse”! Neither the article nor the study abstract suggest a single way how we did that, and I must have been in the bathroom when we did, but maybe it’s explained in the paywalled study. Anyone want to pay to read it?
That is exactly the kind of arrogant attitude I am talking about. We are the most intelligent species in the history of this planet, and we are capable of altering its environment in ways like no other species can. And if, in our almost limitless avarice and stupidy, we happen to kill off various species in the process, well, it’s their own fault for being unfit? Unfit because they can’t adapt fast enough to having their forest habitats cut down? Unfit when their rivers and streams are being polluted? Unfit because they can’t learn to dodge bullets and birdshot? Some smarter humans have come to realize the self- destructive and immoral folly of that kind of attitude. Because of the speed and scale of our ability to affect the environment, we have an obligation to be carefull. This is not simply survival of the fittest. As the article points out, the ecological life cycles humans depend on are also affected by the destruction of other species.
I would say sadly, the opposite of arrogance. We’re the most intelligent species, yet as you say we’re doing unintelligent things. We’re only the most-clever chimps. Evolution led to mankind, led to us, led to bullets and pollution and avarice and stupidity, and it continues. ‘Unfit’ is not a judgement of fault, and not about fairness, but things are the way they are. A poisoned habitat with birdshot is still what it is, and what will survive in it has to adapt. As you say, humans depend on nature, and a simple virus shows we are not in control. Our habitat changes, and we degrade our habitat, and humanity continues to evolve in maladaptive ways. If you’re right, we are unfit, and we’ll face extinction too.
I just don’t have your faith in humans getting smarter. With the DDT example and the silly article above, which mentions “present and future climate change”, I would would say we don’t really know what we’ve done, so we don’t really know what to do about it. The article certainly had nothing to suggest. Your suggestions sound good, but you’re right being careful is often the best strategy.
A better example for your argument is probably rodent poison. Some raptors scavenge carrion, like endangered spotted owls dying from eating mice dead from warfarin. Predators facing that evolutionary pressure might go extinct, but mice already evolved resistance to warfarin at least three times. Supposedly because humans hunted beaver and buffalo, more trees grew in the great plains, favoring barred owls to outcompete spotted owls, so US Fish & Wildlife decided this August to shoot half a million barred owls to save the spotted owls; we don’t really know what we’re doing.
Simply put, the Earth 🌎 and life itself, animals and all creation is not billions of years old..it’s all BS and these evolutionists want people to believe this nonsense!!
The earth is only between 6000 and 8000 years old!!
Fact
No, it really isn’t. Take your precious book and make believe skydaddy elsewhere
Every person, whether a scientist or not, tends to value themselves more, along with their profession, field of research, race, beliefs, ideology, country, and much more. You don’t need to be an activist to have this bias! While you are correct in saying that extinction is part of the evolutionary process, as the universe is not static, you overlook the fact that our species may be the only one that has caused the extinction of so many others. Logically and scientifically, I believe that the existence of a single species on a planet is not beneficial. Likewise, no one can claim that all change is positive. Evolution itself can lead to extinction when species become too specialized, or when a celestial body changes course, potentially leading to destruction. Change is simply that—change. But let’s not forget that, theoretically, we are the intelligent ones, the rational beings capable of making decisions!
More junk scientific babble.
There is no such thing as evolution. Not one single evolutionary event has ever een observed nor replicated.
Hi Samuel. You are, regrettably, vastly incorrect. But I honestly couldn’t be bothered in attempting to educate your ignorance, because I suspect I’d be flogging a dead horse. Have a nice life.
Samuel, how do you deny the fossil record? If there is a fossil, then it actually existed at one point in time….
Darwin certainly did not see any evolution on the islands. Finches remained finches. A bigger beak is not evolution. It is variation.
Well said!
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-evolution-real-scientists-witness-year.html
You evolutionism believers will.never get anywhere if you insist on an old Earth. Once you trash that religion then you have to accept that life only comes from life.
Lastly you must realize life cannot, and will not, ever, evolve into a different species of life.
If you need help read Genesis in your bible. All of your questions of abiogenesis will be answered.
Agreed, we’re unfit due to shortsightedness and as a result, driving ourselves to extinction through human activities. Hopefully the earth can recover after we’ve done so.
Thank you for your post. I was going to write something along similar lines until I saw your post. Believe Me, my comment would have been much more brutal. Besides science the two other subjects that your average Joe has no idea about are politics and religion. There’s very few comprehensive thinkers out there who understand the concept of psychological warfare in relation to history.
“… and led to the loss of around 3 billion years of unique evolutionary history.”
Is the author suggesting that the previous well-documented extinction events can be ignored and had no impact? The apparent ancestor of birds, Archaeopteryx, evolved about 150 million years ago. However, the explosive diversification of birds didn’t happen until after the End-Cretaceous event about 66 million years ago. As Darwin demonstrated, birds can and did evolve quickly in the Galapagos Islands. Thus, what we see today, or in the last 130,000 years, are adapted to the ‘recent’ climate zones and vegetation, and are minimally impacted by what happened 3 billion years ago. What he is discussing should be of concern. However, I think that he over-states the importance. After all, even 130,000 years ago, humans had minimal impact on the biosphere. Besides that, extinctions are happening all the time and it is necessary to unravel the natural extinctions from those obviously caused by humans, and consider the evolution of unique species in places like Hawaii and the Galapagos where new land created an ecological opportunity to diversify with little competition. Coyotes appear to be quite happy with the changes made by humans. Are there no birds that are similarly experiencing positive impacts from humans?
No one has ever documented an extinction event. All that is seen
Are remains.
“No one has ever documented an extinction event.”
A remarkable claim! The last Tasmanian Tiger was documented in movies while still alive. Its dead body has been mounted by a taxidermist. There are innumerable species that only exist today in natural history museums. Your level of denial almost rises to the level of pathological.
Darwin certainly did not see any evolution on the islands. Finches remained finches. A bigger beak is not evolution. It is variation.
Archaeopteryx is 150 million years ago. Protoavis a modern bird is 225 million years so archaeopteryx is not a modern bird it is older probaly 230 million years ago .archaeopteryx did not have flight skull more like a reptile skull today bird do not have a reptile skull so your right evolution happen .the first dinosaur had reptile palate today dinosaur modern crocodilian has mammal and bird palate like today higher up animal the choana is push back .the oldest bird microraptor did not have flight arm it can fly it had big feather not like today birds other dromaeosaur bird had flight arm like archaeopteryx and today birds .the first dinosaur did not have full palate the greatest dinosaur modern crocodilian has a full palate like the great animal the mammal
These lack of flight skull bird like archaeopteryx the early birds were diverse .they were flying bird and flightless some have beak some do not .there ankles were different some have better perching feet and bigger brain like oviraptor some were kinetic akinetic and pygostyle and not pygostyle the dromaeosaur microraptor has same primitive feature as archaeopteryx but velociraptor has more advance feature.the sickle feet of archaeopteryx was different from velociraptor
3 billion years! What utter nonsense!
This sort of article is why I pay no attention to what is coming out of the modern ‘scientist’ labs of thought. They all appear to have a feeling about something and substitute that for any hint of science or with just enough babble to fake it.
Srsly, what kind of fatheaded hick thinks that everything must be locked in stasis with no changes allowed? Who made them God? We get geological and solar events that cover this planet in ice and some stupid jackass bursts out and claims mankind destroyed 3 billion years of evolution. What idiots.
Please, PLEASE, can we put aside all the personal slurs & allegations for just a moment & focus on how awful the illustration is?? Surely we can at least all agree that birds don’t have teeth? 😂