o Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other

aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species, and of ecosystems.
o Biodiversity forms the foundation of the vast array of ecosystem servicesthat critically contribute to human well-being.
o Biodiversity is important in human-managed as well as natural ecosystems.
o Decisions humans make that influence biodiversity affect the well-being of themselves and others.
Biodiversity is the foundation of ecosystem services to which human well-being is intimately linked. No feature of Earth is
more complex, dynamic, and varied than the layer of living organisms that occupy its surfaces and its seas, and no feature is
experiencing more dramatic change at the hands of humans than this extraordinary, singularly unique feature of Earth. This layer of
living organisms—the biosphere—through the collective metabolic activities of its innumerable plants, animals, and microbes
physically and chemically unites the atmosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere into one environmental system within which millions
of species, including humans, have thrived. Breathable air, potable water, fertile soils, productive lands, bountiful seas, the equitable
climate of Earth’s recent history, and other ecosystem services (see Box 1.1 and Key Question 2) are manifestations of the workings
of life. It follows that large-scale human influences over this biota have tremendous impacts on human well-being. It also follows that
the nature of these impacts, good or bad, is within the power of humans to influence (CF2).
Defining Biodiversity
Biodiversity is defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine
and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems.” The importance of this definition is that it draws attention to the many dimensions of
biodiversity. It explicitly recognizes that every biota can be characterized by its taxonomic, ecological, and genetic diversity and that
the way these dimensions of diversity vary over space and time is a key feature of biodiversity. Thus only a multidimensional
assessment of biodiversity can provide insights into the relationship between changes in biodiversity and changes
in ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services (CF2).
Biodiversity includes all ecosystems—managed or unmanaged. Sometimes biodiversity is presumed to be a relevant feature of
only unmanaged ecosystems, such as wildlands, nature preserves, or national parks. This is incorrect. Managed systems—be they
plantations, farms, croplands, aquaculture sites, rangelands, or even urban parks and urban ecosystems—have their own
biodiversity. Given that cultivated systems alone now account for more than 24% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, it is critical that any
decision concerning biodiversity or ecosystem services address the maintenance of biodiversity in these largely anthropogenic
systems (C26.1).

Pollution

Document Actions

All forms of pollution pose a serious threat to biodiversity, but in particular nutrient loading, primarily of nitrogen and
phosphorus, which is a major and increasing cause of biodiversity loss and ecosystem dysfunction. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition
represents a major threat to European biodiversity and a serious challenge for the conservation of natural habitats and species. In
addition, nitrogen compounds can lead to eutrophication of ecosystems. The main pollution sources are from transport and
agriculture. It is the only air pollutant for which concentrations have not decreased in Europe following the implementation of
legislation.

For many European ecosystem types, studies have concluded that nitrogen deposition results in loss of species richness. Peatland
ecosystems provide an example of how species replacement, resulting from nitrogen deposition, may alter ecosystems functionality.
For example, the carbon sequestration capacity of rain fed (ombrotrophic) bog ecosystems decreases when subjected to elevated
nitrogen inputs.

Figure 1 Exceedance of critical loads for eutrophication due to the deposition of nutrient nitrogen in 2010

The critical load of nutrient nitrogen is exceeded by more than 1 200 equivalents nitrogen per ha and year in western France, some
parts of Belgium and the Netherlands, and the North of Italy.

Pollution continues to be a major problem affecting most of the European seas, in spite of the reduction in point sources (e.g.
sewage outfall pipes or fish farm effluents) of nutrients in some areas. Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment can result in a chain of
undesirable effects, starting with excessive growth of planktonic algae, which increases the amount of organic matter settling to the
seabed. This accumulation may be associated with changes in species composition and altered functioning of the food web.

Air pollution, ecosystems and biodiversity

Ecosystems are impacted by air pollution, particularly sulphur and nitrogen emissions, and ground-level ozone as it affects their ability to function and

grow. Emissions of both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides deposit in water, on vegetation and on soils as “acid rain”, thereby increasing their acidity

with adverse effects on flora and fauna. Ultimately, acidification affects the ability of ecosystems to provide “ecosystem services”, such as for example

nutrient cycling and carbon cycling, but also water provision, on which the planet and human life is dependent.

Increased ground-level ozone also causes damage to cell membranes on plants inhibiting key processes required for their growth and development. The

loss of plant cover affects us all. Trees and other vegetation absorb pollutants such as excessive nitrogen dioxide, ozone and particulate matter, through

their leaves and needles and thereby help to improve air quality. Less plant cover thus means less filtering capacity to clean our air.

Eutrophication, the process of accumulation of nutrients, including nitrogen, in water bodies, often results from air pollution. Nutrient overloads in

aquatic ecosystems can cause algae blooms and ultimately a loss of oxygen, and of life. As ecosystems are impacted, so is the biological diversity.

Even worse, ultimately human populations are also affected. Harmful concentrations of pollutants may directly enter our drinking water, notably through

ground water seepage. Equally, water quality may be deteriorated as air pollution negatively affects vegetation which helps to naturally filter our water

systems. Affected vegetation also has negative consequences on another important ecosystem service: that of capturing carbon and thereby reducing the

impacts of climate change.

What we do

The Convention sets targets for various air pollutants, and thus assists countries in mitigating effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. A number of bodies

under the Convention monitor and investigate the effects of key air pollutants on different parts of ecosystems. Overall, this work will help countries in

achieving a number of targets under various Sustainable Development Goals, such as those on life on land (SDG 15), life below water (SDG 14),

and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12).

More concretely, the International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of the Effects of Air Pollution on Rivers and Lakes assesses

the degree and geographical extent of acidification of surface waters. The objective of the International Cooperative Programme on Integrated
Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystems is to monitor the state of ecosystems, their changes and effects of air pollutants and climate change

from a long-term perspective, and to develop and validate models for the simulation of ecosystem responses.

The International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests provides a periodic overview on the

condition of forest ecosystems in terms of health, productivity, diversity and nutrition. The International Cooperative Programme on Effects of Air

Pollution on Natural Vegetation and Crops is assessing the impacts of air pollutants, particularly ground-level ozone, on semi-natural vegetation and

crops. In addition, the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen develops technical and scientific information and encourages coordination of air pollution

policies on nitrogen in the context of the nitrogen cycle.

ANN ARBOR—Loss of biodiversity appears to impact ecosystems as much as climate change, pollution and other major forms of environmental
stress, according to a new study from an international research team.

The study is the first comprehensive effort to directly compare the impacts of biological diversity loss to the anticipated effects of a host of other
human-caused environmental changes.

The results highlight the need for stronger local, national and international efforts to protect biodiversity and the benefits it provides, according to
the researchers, who are based at nine institutions in the United States, Canada and Sweden.

“Loss of biological diversity due to species extinctions is going to have major impacts on our planet, and we better prepare ourselves to deal with
them,” said University of Michigan ecologist Bradley Cardinale, one of the authors. The study is scheduled for online publication in the journal
Nature on May 2.

“These extinctions may well rank as one of the top five drivers of global change,” said Cardinale, an assistant professor at the U-M School of
Natural Resources and Environment and an assistant professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Studies over the last two decades have demonstrated that more biologically diverse ecosystems are more productive. As a result, there has been
growing concern that the very high rates of modern extinctions – due to habitat loss, overharvesting and other human-caused environmental
changes – could reduce nature’s ability to provide goods and services like food, clean water and a stable climate.

But until now, it’s been unclear how biodiversity losses stack up against other human-caused environmental changes that affect ecosystem health
and productivity.

“Some people have assumed that biodiversity effects are relatively minor compared to other environmental stressors,” said biologist David
Hooper of Western Washington University, the lead author of the Nature paper. “Our new results show that future loss of species has the
potential to reduce plant production just as much as global warming and pollution.”

In their study, Hooper and his colleagues used combined data from a large number of published studies to compare how various global
environmental stressors affect two processes important in all ecosystems: plant growth and the decomposition of dead plants by bacteria and
fungi. The new study involved the construction of a data base drawn from 192 peer-reviewed publications about experiments that manipulated
species richness and examined the impact on ecosystem processes.

The global synthesis by Hooper and his colleagues found that in areas where local species loss this century falls within the lower range of
projections (loss of 1 to 20 percent of plant species), negligible impacts on ecosystem plant growth will result, and changes in species richness
will rank low relative to the impacts projected for other environmental changes.

In ecosystems where species losses fall within intermediate projections (21 to 40 percent of species), however, species loss is expected to reduce
plant growth by 5 to 10 percent, an effect that is comparable in magnitude to the expected impacts of climate warming and increased ultraviolet
radiation due to stratospheric ozone loss.

At higher levels of extinction (41 to 60 percent of species), the impacts of species loss ranked with those of many other major drivers of
environmental change, such as ozone pollution, acid deposition on forests, and nutrient pollution.

“Within the range of expected species losses, we saw average declines in plant growth that were as large as changes seen in experiments
simulating several other major environmental changes caused by humans,” Hooper said. “I think several of us working on this study were
surprised by the comparative strength of those effects.”

The strength of the observed biodiversity effects suggests that policymakers searching for solutions to other pressing environmental problems
should be aware of potential adverse effects on biodiversity, as well, the researchers said.
Still to be determined is how diversity loss and other large-scale environmental changes will interact to alter ecosystems. “The biggest challenge
looking forward is to predict the combined impacts of these environmental challenges to natural ecosystems and to society,” said J. Emmett
Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, a co-author of the paper.

Authors of the Nature paper, in addition to Hooper, Cardinale and Duffy, are: E. Carol Adair of the University of Vermont and the National
Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Jarrett E.K. Byrnes of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Bruce Hungate
of Northern Arizona University; Kristen Matulich of University of California Irvine; Andrew Gonzalez of McGill University; Lars Gamfeldt of
the University of Gothenburg; and Mary O’Connor of the University of British Columbia and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis.

Funding for the study included grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis.

“This analysis establishes that reduced biodiversity affects ecosystems at levels comparable to those of global warming or air pollution,” said
Henry Gholz, program director in the National Science Foundation’s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.

May 2, 2012sustainability.umich.edu.

Pollution: Garbage dumped into the water supply, chemical runoff from industrial applications, and air pollution from cars and factories all
have a negative effect.

Saying: Trying to save the whole planet is a lofty goal, but it's not something you can do alone. It will take everyone making small changes in the
way they live to create large, cumulative changes.

Recycle, Recycle, Recycle: The old adage to reduce, reuse and recycle is great, but at this point, we're just going to focus on the last part —
Purchase products that are made with recycled materials. Plastic, paper, wood and metal can all be recycled, so start there to make a
difference. On the other side of the coin, recycle as much as you can. Campaign for recycling programs in your area. Make recycling cool again.

Show map
Philippines - Country Profile

Biodiversity Facts

Status and trends of biodiversity, including benefits from biodiversity and ecosystem services
The Philippines is one of 18 mega-biodiverse countries of the world, containing two-thirds of the earth’s biodiversity and between
70% and 80% of the world’s plant and animal species. The Philippines ranks fifth in the number of plant species and maintains 5%
of the world’s flora. Species endemism is very high, covering at least 25 genera of plants and 49% of terrestrial wildlife, while the
country ranks fourth in bird endemism. The Philippines is also one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots with at least 700 threatened
species, thus making it one of the top global conservation areas. The national list of threatened faunal species was established in
2004 and includes 42 species of land mammals, 127 species of birds, 24 species of reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. In terms
of fishes, the Philippines counts at least 3,214 species, of which about 121 are endemic and 76 threatened. In 2007, an
administrative order issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources established a national list of threatened plant
species, indicating that 99 species were critically endangered, 187 were endangered, 176 vulnerable as well as 64 other threatened
species.

This unique biodiversity is supported by a large variety of ecosystems, landscapes and habitats, most of which are also greatly
threatened by human activities. According to the FAO definition, the Philippines has 7.2 million ha of forest ecosystems, comprising
approximately 24% of the total land area. It is however estimated that, between 2000 and 2005, the Philippines lost 2.1% of its
forest cover annually, representing the second fastest rate of deforestation in Southeast Asia (second to Myanmar) and seventh in
the world. The country’s agricultural ecosystem is also noteworthy. The Philippines is part of the center of diversity of rice, coconut,
mung bean, taro and yam, as well as the center of origin and diversity of bananas in Southeast Asia. Yet this agricultural biodiversity
is nowadays experiencing general decline, as is the land area devoted to these activities.

The trend is similar for inland water biodiversity, with findings indicating a decreasing trend in water quality, fish, biodiversity and
cultural value in the country’s largest lake (Laguna de Bay) and its tributary rivers. The Philippines presents unique coastal, marine
and island biodiversity. It is indeed located within the Coral Triangle, at the center of highest marine biodiversity. A study conducted
in 2005 noted that there is a higher concentration of species per unit area in the country than anywhere in Indonesia and Wallacea.
Yet this ecosystem is also greatly at risk. While the 2005 review of the state of the marine and coastal environment indicated an
increase in the mangrove cover, reef cover, seagrass cover and fishery production are nowadays decreasing substantially.

The Philippines derives large benefits from ecosystems. In particular, the country recognizes the important role played by
watersheds, river basins and coastal areas in the environment and in society as a source of livelihood (supporting fisheries,
recreation and tourism and many other activities). For instance, a watershed with adequate forest cover provides water that
supports lowland agriculture, prevents soil erosion and siltation of coasts and water bodies, and sustains the supply of surface and
groundwater for domestic use. Likewise, the forest ecosystem provides ecological services that benefit agriculture, industries, water
and power needs. Production forest areas for tree plantations and agroforestry activities are sources of jobs and revenues, with
agriculture having represented 18.4% of the country’s GDP in 2007.

Main pressures on and drivers of change to biodiversity (direct and indirect)

Threats to biodiversity differ from one ecosystem to another. In the forest ecosystem, the primary causes of forest loss are
commercial exploitation and population growth (including lifestyle and consumption patterns) and the introduction of invasive alien
species. Loss of biodiversity in the agricultural ecosystem is a direct consequence of habitat destruction via conversion of
agricultural land to other uses; the possible negative impacts of biotechnology; natural calamities or extreme weather events
associated with climate change; introduction of invasive alien species, pests and diseases; and inherent institutional problems of
government agencies responsible for conserving agrobiodiversity. Yet the observed decline is also the indirect result of the
increased demand for food, land and other agro-based resources; pursuit of economic growth through intensive agriculture, export-
oriented policies and the promotion of extractive industries, such as mining, that are potentially damaging to the environment; and
lifestyle change of farmers brought about by urbanization. Major threats to inland water biodiversity, as well as marine and coastal
environments, include chemical pollution and eutrophication, fisheries operations, habitat alteration, invasion of alien species and
global climate change.

Measures to Enhance Implementation of the Convention

Implementation of the NBSAP

The Philippines started formulating its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in 1994 with the formulation of the Philippine
Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity (PSCBD). In 1995, the Philippines undertook an assessment of the country’s
biodiversity through the UNEP-assisted Philippine Biodiversity Country Study. As a result, the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (NBSAP) was developed and published in 1997. Five years later, in 2002, a review of the NBSAP was undertaken that
identified 206 conservation priority areas and species conservation priorities, collectively known as the Philippine Biodiversity
Conservation Priorities (PBCP), which is considered the second NBSAP revision and incorporates six major strategies and
immediate actions. Finally, the PBCP was reinforced in 2006 with 228 key biodiversity areas (KBAs) identified covering an estimated
10.56 million hectares.

The updating of the NBSAP is on-going. The process builds on the current status and achievements of the Philippines with respect
to biodiversity planning and reporting. It aims to integrate the Philippines’ obligations under the CBD into its national development
and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process. It is expected
to produce measurable targets for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Interim biodiversity targets were also incorporated
into the Philippine Development Plan (2011-2016).

Actions taken to achieve the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets

Among the major achievements toward the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets is the increase of the forest cover from 23.9% in 2003 to
52.6% of the total land area in 2006 (2007 MDG report), the extension of the terrestrial protected areas network from 8.5% in 1992
to 12.8% of the total land area in 2008 (2007 MDG report), along with 1,169 marine protected areas (in the form of reserves,
sanctuaries and parks), and improvement in management effectiveness of these sites, which rose from 10-15% in 2000 to 20-30%
in 2007. In addition, threatened flora and fauna were given further protection through various species conservation programs and
executive and administrative issuances (with positive trends recorded for marine turtles and mangroves); the number of
confiscations of illegally traded wildlife species regulated under CITES increased from 513 heads in 2005 to 11,124 heads in 2011;
measures such as fish farming and eco-tourism in protected areas are being implemented to promote sustainable use and benefits
for local livelihoods; indigenous knowledge and the practices of 16 tribes were documented by the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) between 2005 and 2008; policy-making and access and benefit-sharing have been institutionalized
through the process of free and prior informed consent from indigenous and local communities.

Support mechanisms for national implementation (legislation, funding, capacity-building, coordination, mainstreaming,
etc.)
Traditionally, sectoral approaches have been used in the Philippines to manage environmental and natural resources, which have
led to separate governance mechanisms for different resource uses, and conflicts in management. In the 1990s, the watershed
approach, integrated Ecosystem Approach, bay regional planning, integrated river basin and coastal zone management approach to
development and management emerged for planning and addressing issues that cut across ecosystems. Presidential Memo Order
No. 289 (1995) was issued, directing the integration of the NBSAP, as was Executive Order No. 578 (2006) establishing national
policy on biodiversity and directing all concerned government agencies and offices and local government units to integrate and
mainstream the protection, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into their policies, rules and regulations, programs and
development planning processes.

Since then, several initiatives have been launched, notably in terms of integrated watershed management. Moreover, Executive
Order 533 (2006) mandated the adoption of integrated coastal management (ICM), with a recent review indicating that significant
resources had been invested into ICM, with the participation of various stakeholders, and that several concerns were taken into
account, ranging from poverty alleviation to food security and sustainable development.

Finally, enhanced cooperation on biodiversity management is promoted through the formalization of partnerships, either through
Executive Orders, as in the case of the Bicol River Basin and the Watershed Management Councils in Lake Lanao and Bukidnon
Watershed, or through a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding, such as in the case of the Kabulnan Watershed Multi
Sectoral Council. Under said councils, multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary task forces, committees, and technical working groups
are organized to address specific policy decisions or implementation problems or issues, either at the local, provincial or regional
level, depending on the extent of coverage of the river basin and watershed. A multi-sectoral, multi-institutional mechanism called
“Network for Nature” (N4N) should be put in place to proactively disseminate, monitor and coordinate the implementation of the
Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (PBCP).

Mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing implementation

Monitoring activities are led in relation to water quality, coral reefs cover (notably recording the impacts of climate change in the
framework of the ICE CREAM project), and species conservation. Several biodiversity monitoring tools have been developed but
sustaining the effort remains a challenge, especially after donor exit. In 1999, the Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) was
introduced as a tool to collect data on priority species and resource use and to guide decision-making by the Protected Areas
Management Board (PAMB). This was institutionalized through policy. For a time, monitoring efforts yielded promising results and
resulted in management interventions. In some protected areas, the BMS was sustained through local efforts but, in general,
monitoring ceased due to lack of funds. Efforts regarding the development and implementation of criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management, requiring the participation of multi-disciplinary teams, etc., had a similar fate after donor exit. The
Biodiversity Indicators for National Use (BINU) for Coastal and Marine Ecosystems remain to be implemented by other
stakeholders, although the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is slowly piloting them within its bureaucracy.
Implementation of Conservation International’s framework for monitoring biodiversity conservation outcomes held promise however
has failed to fully take off due to lack of funds.

Air [polluition

Atmospheric and hydrologic pollution have far-reaching negative effects on biodiversity. Pollutionfrom burning fossil fuels such
as oil, coal and gas can remain in the air as particle pollutants or fall to the ground as acid rain. ... Species' sensitivity
to pollutionis variable.

Thousands of chemicals are commonly used throughout the world for industrial, agricultural, and domestic purposes with many
new ones being produced yearly (Maugh 1991; Schroeder and Lane 1988). The majority of these chemicals, many of which are
toxic or radiatively active, eventually enter into the atmosphere and may pose a risk to the wellbeing of plants, animals, and
microorganisms. The consequences of air pollution to biota and the resulting impacts on biodiversity are not clearly known; o nly
fragmentary information is available. The purpose of this book is to evaluate what is known, identify information gaps, explore
policy issues, and provide direction for research.

The Effects of Air Pollution on Biodiversity: A Synopsis Jerry R. Barker and David T. Tingey INTRODUCTION Thousands of chemicals are
commonly used throughout the world for industrial, agricultural, and domestic purposes with many new ones being produced yearly (Maugh
1991; Schroeder and Lane 1988). The majority of these chemicals, many of which are toxic or radiatively active, eventually enter into the
atmosphere and may pose a risk to the wellbeing of plants, animals, and microorganisms. The consequences of air pollution to biota and the
resulting impacts on biodiversity are not clearly known; only fragmentary information is available. The purpose of this book is to evaluate what
is known, identify information gaps, explore policy issues, and provide direction for research. AIR POLLUTION Air pollution is the presence in the
atmosphere of one or more contaminants in quantities and durations such as to be injurious to humans, animals, plants, property, or to impair
the enjoyment of life and property. This broad definition covers an array of contaminants including dust, smoke, odors, fumes, mists, and gases.
Historically, the primary concern with airborne pollutants has been human health effects in industrial-urban areas. However, ecological
research strongly suggests that air pollutants, many of which are distributed worldwide, can also adversely affect biota and ecosystems (Moser,
Barker, and Tingey 1991; Schreiber and Newman 1988; Woodwell 1970) which in tum may impact human health and welfare through
contaminated food and water and the loss of ecosystem services and products. A good example of air pollution effects on biodiversity is the
change in forest vegetation of the San Bernardino Mountains of southern California (Miller, Taylor, and Wilson 1982). Prolonged exposure of
the vegetation to photochemical oxidants resulted in a shift in vegetation dominance from the ozone-sensitive pines to the ozone-tolerant oaks
and deciduous shrubs. The main causes for the decline of the pine trees were decreased photosynthetic capacity due to foliar injury and
premature needle fall, suppressed radial 3 J. R. Barker et al. (eds.), Air Pollution Effects on Biodiversity © Van Nostrand Reinhold 1992 growth
of the stems, and reduced nutrient retention in the needles. Indirect effects on the pine trees included increased susceptibility to insect attacks
and fire. Other processes that were affected in the forest ecosystem were changes in water flow, loss of nutrients, changes in carbon allocation,
and altered patterns of spatial and temporal diversity. All of these changes resulted in reduced commodities and amenities of anthropogenic
value such as commercial forestry and recreation. Continued research and monitoring by Miller et al. (1989) has documented that the improved
air quality of the last few years corresponds with increased pine tree growth and vigor. Realizing the importance of air pollution effects on biota
and ecosystems, Tingey, Hogsett, and Henderson (1990) argued for greater emphasis on the consideration of both known and potential
ecological impacts when developing ambient air quality standards. Airborne chemicals are emitted into the atmosphere from an array of point,
area, and mobile sources such as chemical, metal, plastic, and paper/pulp industries; energy processing plants; motor vehicles and aircraft;
municipal waste. incinerators; agricultural practices such as pesticide usage and field burning; and from household heating and cooking (Moser,
Barkey, and Tingey 1992). The emission of these contaminants into the atmosphere may occur directly through deliberate or inadvertent
releases or indirectly through volatilization following deliberate or accidental discharge into water or soil. Once the chemicals enter into the
atmosphere, they are subjected to physical, chemical, or photochemical processes that determine their ultimate environmental exposure and
fate (Schroeder and Lane 1988). The compounds are mixed and transported, with all but the most chemically stable (e.g.,
chlorofluorohydrocarbons) being transformed into new products. These reactions may result in the formation of compounds such as ozone or
peroxacetyl nitrate (PAN) that are more toxic than their precursors. The prevailing meteorological conditions and the physicochemical
properties of the contaminants will dictate the atmospheric residence times and deposition velocities to the ecosystem receptors-biota, soil,
and water. The potential ecological impact of air pollution is determined by the contaminant's environmental partitioning, exposure pattern,
toxicity, and species sensitivity (Weinstein and Birk 1989). For example, trace metals tend to accumulate in humus and organic matter and may
reduce plant growth and vigor through the disruption of nutrient uptake by the roots and decrease organic matter decomposition (Urban
1991). Gaseous pollutants partition to the atmosphere with the potential to disrupt plant-leaf biochemical processes after absorption through
the stomata or cuticle, with subsequent impacts on plant growth and reproduction (Foster 1991). Transfer of toxic chemicals among ecosystem
compartments may occur through processes such as the volatilization from water, soil, or vegetation surfaces, the leaching of soils, and the
decay of plant and animal tissues. BIODIVERSITY Diversity is characteristic of biological systems at all levels of organization (Noss 1990; Solbrig
1991a, b). Natural variation occurs among genes, species, populations, communities, ecosystems, and landscapes. Diversity originates at the
genetic level, and is extended to the higher levels of organization through populations. New diversity within a population arises from genetic
processes such as gene mutation or recombination and immigration of individuals. Natural selection and emigration are responsible for
removal of diversity from populations. Thus, diversity at anyone time is a function of both genetic and natural selection processes (Solbrig
1991b). 4 Air Pollution Effects on Biodiversity

Why is Biodiversity Important?

Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play.

For example,

 A larger number of plant species means a greater variety of crops

 Greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms
 Healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters.

And so, while we dominate this planet, we still need to preserve the diversity in wildlife.