Study Scope
The geographical scope of the study was sub-Saharan Africa, defined as comprising ecoregions46 in the Afrotropic realm within continental Africa. We calculated energy flows for the 1088 mammal and 1955 bird species for which data was available, composing 98% of total African species excluding seabirds. Energy flows were calculated independently for each 8x8 km grid cell, the scale at which biodiversity intactness data is available. The study area comprises ~317,000 cells. To assess change over time, energy flows were calculated twice for each cell: once based on estimated historical species abundances in the pre-industrial/pre-colonial Holocene (~1700 CE), and once based on contemporary abundances, given human land use, according to the population changes estimated by the biodiversity intactness index (BII)26.
Historical Species Abundances
To determine which bird and mammal species were historically present in each 8x8 km grid cell, we used historical IUCN range maps. For the 11 large mammal species for which historical range maps are not available within the IUCN database, we adapted them from other sources, following Hempson et al47 (see Supplementary Information). A caveat to this approach is that IUCN range maps are likely to overestimate species abundances, as they do not account for fine-scale habitat heterogeneity. However, available area-of-habitat maps48 limit species ranges based on anthropogenic land cover, and thus would not adequately predict historical species occupancy.
To calculate historical species abundances, we used published median population density estimates for bird25 and mammal24 species. These were modeled as a function of trait, environmental, and phylogenetic predictors, using additive mixed-effect models and Bayesian inference, based on 10,484 empirical records of bird and mammal population densities24,25. To estimate species abundances across sub-Saharan Africa, we used mean species population densities2. Mean densities were calculated using log-normal distributions based on published median densities and uncertainty intervals. Because population density distributions for most species are left-skewed, mean species population densities are higher than median values for species with wide confidence intervals. Given that ~75% of the global terrestrial surface is modified by humans to some extent49 the exclusion of non-natural population densities is not realistically possible, and is not necessarily desirable given that hominids have modified African species population densities for millions of years.
Contemporary Species Abundances from the Biodiversity Intactness Index
To estimate contemporary species abundances we multiplied historical abundances by the proportional intactness of each species in each 8x8 km cell under modern land use. We used the intactness values for species under various land uses that are published in the Biodiversity Intactness Index for Africa dataset (BII)19. The BII employs a structured expert elicitation process to estimate and validate the proportional changes to species abundances under nine land uses: strict protected areas, near-natural lands, rangelands, intensive croplands, smallholder croplands, tree croplands, timber plantations, dense settlements, and urban areas. The BII allocates each species into one of 17 bird and 76 mammal “response groups” containing species that respond similarly to land use change. The average impact of each land use class on the abundance of species in each response group was calculated from ~30,000 individual estimates produced by 200 experts on African biodiversity. To map changes in abundance, each cell was assigned a land use class and intensity according to the land use classification outlined in Clements et al in prep26. Cells within protected areas and timber plantations were classified categorically, and cells within croplands, rangelands, and settlements were classified and then scaled along a land use intensity gradient. In cases where land use change benefited a species, the intactness of that species was greater than 1, and its abundance increased compared to the historical baseline.
Daily energy expenditure and food uptake
To calculate ecosystem energy flows, we first calculated the short-term equilibrium rate of food consumption for each species following ref2. For each species, daily energy expenditure was calculated from body mass using multi-species allometric equations (See Supplementary Table 1 for equations).32 Food consumption was calculated from energy expenditure based on published assimilation efficiency values for each food type and taxonomic group of birds and mammals (See Supplementary Table 2). Where available, assimilation efficiency values were assigned at the family level; otherwise they were assigned at the order or class level. Values for the body mass of each species, and for the composition of food types within each species’ diet, were derived from the Eltontraits database for mammals50 and from the Avonet database for birds51. Energetic food intake was calculated in units of kJ m−2 year−1 and then averaged across cells.
Allocation of species into trophic guilds and functional groups
To understand how human land use has altered ecosystem structure, we allocated species into trophic (i.e. feeding) guilds. Each species was allocated into a single trophic guild, to shed light on how an ecosystem’s trophic structure, defined as the distribution of energy among guilds, varies between biomes and land uses. Species were allocated into guilds based on their taxonomic class, their diet (e.g. omnivore, carnivore, nectarivore, folivore, frugivore), and their lifestyle (e.g. arboreal, terrestrial). Data on diet and lifestyle was extracted from the Eltontraits database for mammals50 and from the Avonet database for birds51. Throughout the text, herbivore is used as an umbrella term to capture species eating any kind of plant matter, including foliage, seeds and nuts, nectar, and fruit. The terms folivore, granivore, nectarivore, and frugivore are used to refer to these groups independently. In addition, large and small terrestrial herbivores were split according to a published list of African large herbivores47 to better isolate how the distinctive vulnerability of large herbivores to human activity alters ecosystem structure.
To understand how human land use has altered ecosystem function, we allocated species into 23 functional groups: 11 for birds and 12 for mammals. Species that perform multiple functions were allocated into multiple groups, so that the sum of energy flows through functional groups is greater than the total flow through the ecosystem’s birds and mammals. By contrast, the energy flows through guilds sum to the total energy flow through birds and mammals. We adapted a list of 11 bird functions from a published list of major avian ecosystem functions11. We added a function for aquatic carnivory and subdivided the invertivory function based on species lifestyle (e.g. insessorial, aerial, terrestrial), as invertivory is performed by over half of all bird species. We sorted birds into functional groups based on their lifestyles and diets (see Extended Data Table. 1 for sorting criteria for both birds and mammals). Unlike for birds, there is a not a single authoritative source on functions performed by mammals. After reviewing the literature we designated twelve mammal functions performed by large herbivores10,29, carnivores52,53, primates33, bats54, fossorial mammals42, and other small mammals55. We sorted mammals into functional groups based on their diet, body mass, and lifestyle. For the grazing and browsing functions performed by large terrestrial herbivores we used published data on the leaf versus grass component of large herbivore diets47, and included large, terrestrial, herbivorous primates (Gorilla spp. and Theropithecus gelada) based on the expert knowledge of the authors. We additionally used published data on herd size47 to select herbivores that perform a nutrient dispersal function, as herd forming species have a distinctive effect on nutrient distribution within ecosystems10. We included in the megafauna impacts function those species that have unique ecological impacts because their large body size frees them from predation29. We determined the diet thresholds for each function iteratively, running the species allocation process multiple times and refining thresholds based on the authors’ expert knowledge. To increase the legibility of our results in the main text, we further aggregated our 23 preliminary functions into 10 aggregate functions, some of which are performed by both birds and mammals (See Extended Data Table 1).
Comparison of energy flows across functions, biomes, and land uses
To calculate energy flows through functions, we summed the energy flows through all species that contribute to each function. This approach weights the contributions of species to associated functions based on species’ average daily energy consumption. The proportionate contribution of each species to its functions therefore changes depending on whether energy flows are calculated based on historical species abundances or based on present day, human impacted species abundances. Beyond energy flow, we did not scale species-level contributions to functions based on other metrics of functional efficiency: for example, based on pollen deposition rates, seed dispersal distance, or diet proportion. These causes of efficiency vary widely between functions and species11 and are difficult to measure consistently. To avoid biases, we therefore assumed that all species use energy equally efficiently to perform their associated ecosystem functions. For the analysis, we compared energy flow within specific functions across space and time. It is not meaningful to compare energy flows across ecosystem functions (e.g. predation vs soil disturbance) as how each function uses energy is very different.
We also calculated the average energy flows through functional groups and trophic guilds across biomes and land uses. The biome is commonly proposed as the appropriate unit of analysis for assessing biodiversity trends, because biomes are biologically coherent subunits of the biosphere with structures and functions that respond to land use change in relatively consistent ways9. We allocated cells into biomes based on the biome map of the RESOLVE Ecoregions dataset46. To allow for broad comparisons between vegetation types, we further aggregated biomes into forests, grassy systems comprising savannas and grasslands, and arid systems comprising deserts and shrublands. For the biomes analysis, we excluded cells falling into the fynbos and thicket biomes, which are not easily classifiable and make up less than 2% of sub-Saharan Africa. We also excluded cells falling into mosaic biomes, as the low accuracy of available continent-scale vegetation maps makes it infeasible to subdivide mosaics into component biomes within the study scope. We calculated average energy flows through each guild and functional group across each of these three aggregated biomes under historical conditions and under modern land use conditions.
We allocated cells into land uses using an adapted version of the 8x8 km resolution African land use map created for the biodiversity intactness index for Africa (Clements et al., in prep)26. Following Clements et al., in prep26, cells were allocated into four land uses: strict protected areas (IUCN categories I:III); settlements (>20% urban cover or a population density over 1000 per km2); croplands (>20% crop cover); and unprotected untransformed land (remaining cells). We calculated average energy flows through each guild and functional group across each of these four land uses.
Comparison of energy flows to biodiversity intactness, and species richness values
To understand how well biodiversity intactness values predict functional intactness, we related the BII of each cell to the intactness of energy flows through each cell. We related the BII of birds and mammal species to the intactness of total energy flows through bird and mammal species (Fig 4a-b) and to the intactness of energy flows through species in each functional group (Extended data Fig 1). Functional groups with shallower slopes maintain high levels of energy consumption as biodiversity intactness declines, and were deemed more resilient to human impacts. We also related total energy flows to native bird and mammal species richness, to understand the extent to which high-energy keystone species versus rich communities of species drive ecosystem function (Fig 4c-d). We analyzed these relationships across all cells using linear regression.
Uncertainty Calculation
Following ref.2, we quantified uncertainty in our estimates of energetic intake by running 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations of energy flow through animal species and groups. For each simulation, we replaced the values in our original calculations with values drawn from random distributions. We assumed there was uncertainty in the following variables: species body mass, population density, daily energy expenditure equation (DEE), assimilation efficiency, and fractional diet composition of each species. Following ref.19, we also assumed there was uncertainty in the estimated intactness of each species in each land use.
For body mass, we drew values from a truncated normal distribution (lower bound = 1g) in which the mean was published mean body mass50,51 and standard deviation was 15% as described in ref.2 For population densities, we drew from a log normal distribution, using mean and uncertainty values for each species published in refs.24,25. For DEE, we estimated the 95% confidence intervals following the methods described in ref.32. For assimilation efficiency, we drew from a random beta distribution using the mean and standard deviation by taxonomic group and food type in the literature (Supplementary Table 1). For diet composition, we drew from a symmetrical beta distribution with uncertainty parameters assigned following ref.2. For the proportional intactness of species abundances in each land use, we drew from a random beta distribution using the mean intactness values and standard deviations published in ref.19. Intactness values were previously validated in ref.19 through a structured expert elicitation process.
The uncertainty in each of these variables captures the natural variability occurring within species among individuals and groups, as well as ecologists’ uncertainty about mean values. For example, the population density of a given species will naturally vary geographically based on habitat suitability, resource availability, and competition. But there is also absolute uncertainty about the mean species population density of each species based on limitations on empirical data and model accuracy. This division of uncertainty into geographic and absolute components is true of the other variables as well. The uncertainty derived from natural variability decreases as there is an increasing number of analyzed landscapes in which the species occurs. We assumed that half the uncertainty in species energy flow in a given landscape is from natural variability and that half is from absolute uncertainty about mean values, which does not decline as geographic area increases.
To account for the effects of area in our uncertainty estimates, we grouped species-level energy flows into 1˚ grid squares (~12,000 km2 at the equator) following ref.47. We treated uncertainty about natural variability as independent in each 1˚ square in which a given species occurs and drew from independent distributions in each square. For each species, we calculated range-wide spatial means of energy flow for each of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, and then propagated this area-scaled uncertainty into the absolute uncertainty about mean energy flow values generated from the area-independent Monte Carlo simulation estimates. We estimated total uncertainty by assuming uncertainty in all variables simultaneously, and calculated the 2.5th and 97.5th confidence intervals to derive 95th confidence intervals for our estimates.
Caveats
There are a number of caveats in our analysis. The approach uses range-wide average species population densities. However, due to the large number (~3000) of species included we were unable to model geographic variability in population densities within species. For the vast majority of species, there is insufficient data to predict how population densities respond to environmental gradients. In addition, population densities vary inconsistently along environmental gradients across species. Because the density estimates used here are average densities, they do not account for intra-specific competition. It is expected that species reach higher densities when competitors are missing. The approach is thus likely to overestimate energy flows through species-rich guilds in species-rich cells. Because the analysis relies on coarse-scale IUCN range maps to predict historical species ranges, it is also likely to overestimate species abundances for species restricted to specialized habitat. Energy flows through colonial species including many fossorial rodents and water birds may be overstated. While these caveats may cause the analysis to overestimate absolute energy flows, they are less likely to create biases when comparing variation within functional groups across biomes and land uses, the core aim of the study. There is also insufficient data to model whether biome or land use causes intra-specific variation in species trait data such as diet and body mass, although we accounted for the possibility of such variability in the uncertainty analysis. There are additional caveats about the BII input data. The BII estimates species responses to land use change as a function of land use, averaging responses from experts in different countries and regions. Consequently, the BII does not account for how national political factors impact species abundances. These factors include war, protected area management capacity, wildlife legislation, and cultural differences about hunting. This study analyzes continent-wide average energy flows through guilds in different land use classes and biomes, which are less likely to be affected by national factors. However, an effort to use this approach to analyze energy flows over smaller areas (e.g. within a country or protected area) would need to account for regional and national variables affecting species abundances.
Methods References
46. Dinerstein, E. et al. An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014
47. Hempson, G. P., Archibald, S. & Bond, W. J. A continent-wide assessment of the form and intensity of large mammal herbivory in Africa. Science 350, 1056–1061 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7978
48. Lumbierres, M. et al. Area of Habitat maps for the world’s terrestrial birds and mammals. Sci Data 9, 749 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01838-w
49. Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun 7, 12558 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12558
50. Wilman, H. et al. EltonTraits 1.0: Species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95, 2027–2027 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1917.1
51. Tobias, J. A. et al. AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Ecology Letters 25, 581–597 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13898
52. Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).
53. Dalerum, F., Cameron, E. z, Kunkel, K. & Somers, M. j. Diversity and depletions in continental carnivore guilds: implications for prioritizing global carnivore conservation. Biology Letters 5, 35–38 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frsbl.2008.0520
54. Kunz, T. H., Braun de Torrez, E., Bauer, D., Lobova, T. & Fleming, T. H. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223, 1–38 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06004.x
55. Bogoni, J. A., Peres, C. A. & Ferraz, K. M. P. M. B. Effects of mammal defaunation on natural ecosystem services and human well being throughout the entire Neotropical realm. Ecosystem Services 45, 101173 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101173