Scientists looked at dozens of studies about whether we can stop losing plants and animals on Earth. The good news: it’s possible to turn things around. The catch: it requires big changes across many areas—like how we farm, what we eat, and how we protect nature. Most studies didn’t even include climate change in their predictions, which makes the solution seem easier than it probably is. The research shows that saving biodiversity isn’t just about protecting forests; it needs teamwork between farmers, food companies, governments, and everyday people making different choices.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Can we actually stop the loss of plants and animals around the world, or is it too late? Scientists reviewed studies that tried to predict the future of nature.
  • Who participated: This wasn’t a study of people—it was a review of many other scientific studies that used computer models to predict what might happen to wildlife and plants in the future.
  • Key finding: Stopping biodiversity loss is possible, but only if we make big changes in farming, food choices, waste reduction, and nature protection all at the same time. Most studies made it look easier than it probably is because they didn’t include climate change in their predictions.
  • What it means for you: The choices we make about food, waste, and supporting conservation actually matter. However, individual actions alone won’t solve this—we need big changes in how society works. This suggests supporting policies that address farming practices, food systems, and climate change together.

The Research Details

Scientists performed a meta-analysis, which means they looked at many different studies about biodiversity loss and recovery to find patterns. They examined studies that used computer models to predict what might happen to plants and animals in the future under different scenarios—some showing continued loss, others showing recovery. The researchers compared these studies to see what assumptions they made, what factors they considered important, and what tools they used to make their predictions.

They looked at key differences between studies that showed we could ‘bend the curve’ (stop and reverse the loss) versus those that showed continued decline. They examined what each study included in their predictions, like whether they considered climate change, what types of animals and plants they tracked, and what solutions they proposed.

This approach allowed scientists to step back and see the big picture across many different research projects, rather than just looking at one study in isolation.

Understanding whether biodiversity loss can be reversed is crucial for world leaders making decisions about environmental policies. By looking at many studies together, scientists can identify what conditions actually need to happen for nature to recover, rather than relying on one study that might be too optimistic or pessimistic. This helps separate realistic solutions from wishful thinking.

This research was published in Science Advances, a highly respected scientific journal. The meta-analysis approach is strong because it looks at patterns across many studies rather than relying on a single experiment. However, the strength of the conclusions depends on the quality of the individual studies reviewed. The researchers were transparent about finding that many studies don’t include climate change, which is an important limitation that affects how reliable their predictions are.

What the Results Show

The analysis found that studies showing we can reverse biodiversity loss are surprisingly rare. When scientists looked at what these optimistic studies had in common, they discovered something important: most of them didn’t include climate change in their predictions. This is a major problem because climate change is one of the biggest threats to wildlife and plants.

The research shows that reversing biodiversity loss requires coordinated action across multiple areas simultaneously. It’s not enough to just protect forests or create wildlife reserves. Instead, solutions need to include sustainable farming methods, changes in what people eat (like eating less meat), reducing food waste, protecting natural areas, and addressing climate change all together.

When studies included these multiple approaches, they showed biodiversity could recover. But when studies looked at just one or two solutions, the results were much less promising. This suggests that the problem is interconnected and requires interconnected solutions.

The analysis also revealed that different studies use different ways to measure biodiversity loss—some track specific animal species, others look at overall ecosystem health. This makes it hard to compare results across studies. The researchers found that studies using different computer models sometimes reached different conclusions about the same scenarios, suggesting that the tools we use to predict the future matter a lot.

This research builds on decades of conservation science showing that biodiversity is declining. Previous studies have documented species extinction and habitat loss. This new analysis takes the next step by examining whether the solutions scientists propose can actually work. It confirms what many conservation experts suspected: that previous optimistic scenarios may have been too simple and didn’t account for the full complexity of the problem, especially climate change.

The study has several important limitations. First, it’s a review of other studies, so it’s only as good as the studies it examines. Second, the researchers couldn’t find enough studies that actually showed biodiversity recovery—most studies focused on predicting loss. Third, the studies reviewed use different methods and measure different things, making direct comparisons difficult. Finally, the analysis shows that most existing studies don’t include climate change, which means we may not have good predictions for what will actually happen in the real world.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, support policies that address multiple areas at once: sustainable agriculture, reduced food waste, dietary changes, nature protection, and climate action. Individual actions like reducing food waste and making sustainable choices matter, but they work best when combined with larger systemic changes. Confidence level: Moderate to High—the research strongly suggests this integrated approach is necessary, though predicting exact outcomes remains uncertain.

This matters for everyone, but especially for policymakers, farmers, food companies, and people concerned about climate and nature. If you care about having healthy ecosystems, wildlife, and food security in the future, this research is relevant to you. It’s less about individual blame and more about recognizing that solutions require teamwork across society.

Reversing biodiversity loss won’t happen overnight. Based on the scenarios reviewed, meaningful recovery would likely take decades if we start making changes now. The longer we wait, the harder and more expensive it becomes. Some benefits of conservation efforts (like cleaner water or healthier soil) might appear within years, but full ecosystem recovery takes much longer.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track weekly food waste and plant-based meal choices. Measure: grams of food waste per week and number of plant-based meals per week. This connects to the research showing that diet change and reduced food waste are key levers for biodiversity recovery.
  • Use the app to set a goal like ‘reduce food waste by 20% this month’ or ’eat plant-based meals 3 times per week.’ The app can send reminders about meal planning to reduce waste and suggest plant-based recipes. Users can log meals and waste to see their impact over time.
  • Create a monthly dashboard showing food waste trends and plant-based meal frequency. Connect this to educational content about how these choices support biodiversity. Allow users to set longer-term goals (3-6 months) and celebrate milestones. Include information about how their choices contribute to the larger systemic changes needed.

This research is a scientific analysis of computer models and predictions about future biodiversity trends. It does not provide medical advice. The findings suggest that reversing biodiversity loss is possible but requires significant societal changes. Individual dietary and waste reduction choices are beneficial but are most effective as part of broader policy and systemic changes. For specific guidance on environmental actions or dietary changes, consult with environmental professionals, nutritionists, or your healthcare provider. This summary is for educational purposes and should not be considered a substitute for professional environmental or policy advice.