8/ 🔄 Fig. 5: Species vs Trait Mismatch
-While 59.3% of datasets show species and traits changing in the same direction, traits are disproportionately homogenised 📏🌱.
-No differences in effect magnitude, but baseline pressure shapes responses.
-Exponential ↗️ and saturating ➡️ turnover often pair.

7/ 🔄 Fig. 4: The Shape of Turnover
Species and trait turnover face tipping points under intense pressure.

Saturating responses dominate species turnover (43.7%) 🐟🌳, showing high sensitivity to small pressures.
Exponential responses dominate traits (34.4%) 🌆🌱, especially in urban areas.

6/ 📊 Fig. 3: Homogenisation Hits Harder
Differentiation is more frequent, but human pressures drive homogenisation much more strongly.

Urban areas are hotspots, with 73.3% of urban datasets showing trait homogenisation.

This intense impact leaves ecosystems fragile and less adaptable. 🌇⚠️

5/ 🧩 Fig. 2: Differentiation vs Homogenisation
Differentiation is more common globally (70% of datasets), but freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems show heightened vulnerability to homogenisation—species in 40% of freshwater datasets and traits in 46.3% of terrestrial datasets.

4/ 🧩 Fig. 1: Human Pressure > Climate & Geography
Our first key finding: Human pressure (as in human footprint) outweighs climate and geography, being responsible for 21.5% of species turnover and 20.6% of trait turnover.

Human activity reshapes biodiversity far beyond natural gradients. 🏙️🌾🌍

3/ 🔬 What We Did:
Analysing 160 datasets of over 13,000 local communities across 9 taxa and multiple ecosystems, we studied:

Species turnover (who’s replaced)
Trait turnover (what's replaced)
And how human pressure stacks up against climate or geography.