in

Biodiversity and natural capital in ecologically sensitive regions


Abstract

Biodiversity and natural capital support economic systems, human well-being and climate resilience. Yet conservation and planning have focused mainly on visible ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and agricultural landscapes, while overlooking belowground biodiversity and the complex interactions between rural and rapidly urbanizing regions. This Collection analyses species, community and microbiome responses to environmental gradients, management interventions and climate constraints, and the effects of these responses on productivity, habitat quality, ecosystem functioning and natural capital. Several contributions highlight that climate-adapted seed sourcing in grand fir can maintain forest growth and carbon sequestration under changing moisture regimes, and that diverse multi-crops in boreal conditions raise biomass and net energy yields while lowering environmental pressures. Other studies introduce integrated indicators such as habitat quality indices for wetland waterfowl, soil functional networks in shaded coffee systems centred on total organic carbon, and multidimensional niche assessments for zooplankton communities. Together, these papers demonstrate complementary approaches for treating biodiversity as natural capital and for sustaining the ecosystem services that support human well-being, sustainable production and informed conservation and management decisions.

Introduction

Biodiversity conservation and natural capital restoration have traditionally focused on visible components of ecosystems such as agricultural lands, forests, grasslands, wetlands, wildlife and freshwater. Yet an equally important layer of biodiversity lies belowground in the form of soil microbial communities, which regulate nutrient cycling, organic matter turnover, carbon storage, soil formation, water retention and plant productivity, and thereby underpin ecosystem health and resilience1. In fragile hilly and mountainous landscapes, where steep gradients, thin soils and rapid environmental change intensify vulnerability, these hidden microbial processes are especially critical for stabilising slopes, supporting vegetation and aiding recovery after disturbances such as landslides or glacier retreat2. As restoration efforts expand in ecologically sensitive regions, there is a growing need to move beyond a purely aboveground focus and integrate soil microbiota and other belowground processes into conservation and planning, so that both visible biodiversity and the less visible foundations of natural capital are restored together3.

Moreover, biodiversity and natural capital are under growing pressure as rapid urban expansion transforms ecological systems, particularly in ecologically sensitive hilly and mountainous regions4. From an ecological planning perspective, cities often sprawl into forested slopes, river valleys and fragile ridgelines, fragmenting habitats and altering hydrological cycles that underpin services such as clean water, soil stability and local climate regulation5. The loss of natural capital through deforestation for housing, road building, tourism infrastructure and quarrying reduces the capacity of these landscapes to buffer disasters such as landslides, floods and heatwaves, even as demand for ecosystem services rises. Integrating biodiversity and natural capital into land-use plans, zoning and infrastructure design is therefore critical, including protecting native vegetation, securing riparian buffers, connecting ecological networks and valuing services such as carbon storage and pollination6. In hilly, mountainous and other ecologically sensitive areas, conservation-oriented urban design and strict regulation of land conversion are essential to sustain both nature’s intrinsic value and the economic and social benefits that resilient ecosystems provide to growing urban populations7.

Ultimately, natural capital provides significant economic benefits through ecosystem services such as food production, water purification, carbon sequestration, climate regulation, renewable energy production, soil fertility, pollination and disaster risk reduction8. Furthermore, the maintenance and development of biodiversity, on the one hand, allows for diversification and differentiation of the production portfolio, whilst, on the other, it ensures greater resilience of various ecosystems as well as to climate change, thereby guaranteeing higher economic benefits9. Therefore, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss represent not only an environmental concern, but also a significant social and economic risk. Recognition of these intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of value underscores the importance of sustainable ecosystem management approaches for long-term planning, through which present and future generations can benefit from sustainable economic development10.

Overall, the Biodiversity and Natural Capital Collection at Scientific Reports brings together research that spans organisms, ecosystems and the services they provide, from forests and agroecosystems to aquatic communities and the ocean twilight zone. Across these contributions, authors examine species and community responses to environmental gradients, management practices and climate constraints11, and the effects of these responses on productivity, habitat quality and ecosystem functions12,13. The Collection also highlights the importance of functional indicators, sustainable productions, microbiomes and traditional ecological knowledge14,15 for understanding and managing nature as a form of natural capital. Together, these studies point to diverse but complementary ways of sustaining biodiversity and the ecosystem services that support human well-being.

References

  1. Mukhia, S., Kumar, A. & Kumar, R. Bacterial community distribution and functional potentials provide key insights into their role in the ecosystem functioning of a retreating Eastern Himalayan glacier. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 100(3), fiae012. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae012 (2024).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  2. Donhauser, J. & Frey, B. Alpine soil microbial ecology in a changing world. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 94(9), fiy099. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy099 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  3. Peddle, S. D. et al. Practical applications of soil microbiota to improve ecosystem restoration: Current knowledge and future directions. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 100(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13124 (2024).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  4. UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. In The United Nations World Water Development Report 2025, Mountains and glaciers: Water towers; executive summary (SC-2025/WS/1) https://doi.org/10.54679/UTAH5608 (UNESCO, 2025).

  5. Chettry, V., Kaur, H., Praharaj, S. & Dahiya, B. Geoinformatics for Hilly Regions: Sustainable Human Settlements (Springer, 2025).

    Book 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wu, C., Guo, X., Liu, F. & Dai, E. Land use zoning planning based on ecosystem services can improve regional comprehensive benefits. Ecol. Indic. 181, 114420 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chettry, V., Kaur, H., Praharaj, S., Dahiya, B. Introduction: Geoinformatics for Sustainable Human Settlements in Hilly Regions. In Geoinformatics for Hilly Regions. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. (eds Chettry, V., Kaur, H., Praharaj, S., Dahiya, B.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-0156-4_1 (Springer, Singapore, 2025).

  8. Brander, L. M., De Groot, R., Schägner, J. P., Guisado-Goñi, V., Van’t Hoff, V., Solomonides, S. & Thomas, R. Economic values for ecosystem services: A global synthesis and way forward. Ecosyst. Serv. 66, 101606 (2024).

  9. Hanley, N. & Perrings, C. The economic value of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11(1), 355–375 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brand, F. Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 68(3), 605–612 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chmura, D. J. & Banach, J. Abies grandis (Douglas ex. D. Don) Lindl. productivity in central European provenance trial reflects populations’ adaptation to seed source climate. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-54972-5 (2026).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  12. Crespo, C. M. G. et al. Topographic modulation of soil functional indicators in shaded coffee agroforestry systems: A multivariate and network-based approach. Sci. Rep. 16, 11455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37724-3 (2026).

    Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wu, C., Yan, Y. & Liu, J. Dynamic evaluation of waterfowl habitat quality based on an integrated multi-indicator framework and habitat function enhancement strategies in Xianghai Nature Reserve. Sci. Rep. 16, 15394. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44152-w (2026).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  14. Balandaitė, J. et al. Biomass formation and yield performance in diverse multicrops and their potential for biofuel use in short-growing boreal climate conditions. Sci. Rep. 16, 10665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46324-0 (2026).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khosravi Mashizi, A. & Escobedo, F. The role of traditional ecological knowledge and ecosystem quality in managing ecosystem services. Sci. Rep. 15, 31510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-17611-z (2025).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

VC, RK, RT contributed to the study conception and design. The first draft of the manuscript was written together by VC, RK, RT and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Vishal Chettry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chettry, V., Kumar, R. & Testa, R. Biodiversity and natural capital in ecologically sensitive regions.
Sci Rep 16, 23361 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-63956-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-63956-4

Keywords

  • Biodiversity
  • Natural capital
  • Ecosystem
  • Ecology
  • Habitat


Source: Ecology - nature.com

Canopy-mediated climate feedbacks in the boreal continuous permafrost zone

Immature anophelines and their habitat characteristics in an urban setting of central Ethiopia

Back to Top