When millions of people died in Europe during the Black Death, biodiversity suffered too, new research suggests. The findings suggest that human activities once promoted biodiversity in the landscape — and experts say we could use these findings to boost biodiversity in our modern agricultural landscapes.

The 14th century was a tumultuous time for the people of Europe. Persistent cold, wet weather at the beginning of the century led to widespread agricultural failures and unprecedented levels of starvation in what became known as the Great Famine from 1315 to 1317.

This was followed by the Black Death, an epidemic of bubonic plague caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis that killed more than a third of Europe's population. As a result of the widespread deaths and resultant social upheaval, large swaths of agricultural land were abandoned. Population levels didn't begin to recover until the 16th century.

The Black Death era is the perfect opportunity to look at the effects of humans on biodiversity over a longer period, Jonathan Gordon, a paleoecologist at the Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity at the University of York and first author of the paper, told Live Science.

In the study, which was published March 4 in the journal Ecology Letters, the researchers compared more than 100 European pollen records that included about 4,600 samples. The records came from sites ranging from the lowlands of France and uplands of the southwest United Kingdom to the Swiss Alps.

The pollen records "give us information on the past diversity of the plant records," Gordon said.

For example, cereal grains ‪—‬ such as wheat, barley and rye ‪—‬ were a fundamental part of medieval agriculture. The representation of pollen from these types of crops in the pollen record points to historic land use.

The researchers divided the pollen data into three categories based on the presence of cereal pollen: places where agricultural production went up, places where it went down, and places where there was no evidence of cereal cultivation.

"We found a decline in biodiversity overall, but the decline overall was driven by those landscapes that declined in agricultural production," Gordon said.

"In those landscapes where agricultural production went down, there was a reduction in biodiversity of around 40%. Then, after about 150 years, as populations started recovering and landscape disturbances started increasing again, biodiversity went up to slightly above the level it was before."

Mosaic landscapes

Many people think there was a "stable and pristine world in which the entry of people has only one result: net loss of species and homogenization," Erle Ellis, an agroecologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County who was not involved in the research, told Live Science in an email. "The paleoecologists have always known the story is far more complicated."

There is a growing body of evidence showing that people's long-term cultural shaping of their landscapes often creates more diverse habitats, known as "mosaics," that can sustain more species than simple homogenous landscapes can, he said.

Whereas modern agriculture focuses on single crops on plots of land, in previous centuries, "you had all these different types of agriculture operating within the same landscape," Gordon said.

"In that landscape, you had lots of natural features that remained from the Middle or Early Holocene (which began after the last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago)," he added. "You had old bits of woodland, you had heaths, you had ponds, and bits of secondary forest. It was all interlaced with these agricultural mosaics, and that led to raised biodiversity because there were more habitats for different plant species to exploit."

The findings highlight the differences between medieval and modern land use practices — and their consequences for biodiversity. Research suggests that during the 20th century, global biodiversity declined by up to as much as 11% and human activities‬, such as land-use changes, pollution, and climate change‬, are the major culprits. In agriculture, the practice of monoculture — where a single crop species is grown over a large area — reduces biodiversity.

"What this work contributes to showing is that, until relatively recently, even in Europe, very different forms of land management and interaction were practiced than exist today," Patrick Roberts, director of Department of Coevolution of Land Use and Urbanisation at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology, told Live Science in an email.

"Rather than the monoculture, plantations, or uniform changes to landscapes we see in the 20th and 21st centuries, emphasis was placed on maintaining 'mosaics,'" said Roberts, who was not involved in the new research.

In the study, "we can see how relationships between people and biodiversity have changed through time and how people can actively use landscapes while maintaining biodiversity and mixed ecosystem functions," he said.

There is still more to understand about how humans' disappearance from landscapes in the Black Death era affected the natural world, Gordon said. "There are a lot of other types of diversity ‪—‬ not just the number of types, but what the different types present actually do." There may be a hundred types of plants in a landscape, but if they do the same thing, "you have low functional diversity," he said.

Functional diversity "is super important for how ecosystems adapt to changes in climate and how resilient they are, which is something we need for future-proofing our agricultural system," Gordon said.