View source for Carrying capacity

{{Short description|Maximum population size of a species that an ecosystem can support}}
{{distinguish|Biocapacity}}
The '''carrying capacity''' of an [[ecosystem]] is the maximum population size of a biological [[species]] that can be sustained by that specific environment, given the food, [[habitat]], [[Drinking water|water]], and other [[resource]]s available. The carrying capacity is defined as the [[Environment (biophysical)|environment]]'s maximal load,{{clarify|date=February 2024}} which in [[population ecology]] corresponds to the population equilibrium, when the number of deaths in a population equals the number of births (as well as immigration and emigration). Carrying capacity of the environment implies that the resources extraction is not above the rate of regeneration of the resources and the wastes generated are within the assimilating capacity of the environment. The effect of carrying capacity on [[population dynamics]] is modelled with a [[logistic function]]. Carrying capacity is applied to the maximum population an environment can support in [[ecology]], [[agriculture]] and [[Fishery|fisheries]]. The term carrying capacity had been applied to a few different processes in the past before finally being applied to [[human population]] limits in the 1950s.<ref name="Chapman-2018">{{cite journal |last1=Chapman |first1=Eric J. |last2=Byron |first2=Carrie J. |title=The flexible application of carrying capacity in ecology |journal=Global Ecology and Conservation |date=January 2018 |volume=13 |article-number=e00365 |doi=10.1016/j.gecco.2017.e00365 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2018GEcoC..1300365C }}</ref> The notion of carrying capacity for humans is covered by the notion of [[sustainable population]].

An early detailed examination of global limits on human population was published in the 1972 book ''[[Limits to Growth]]'', which has prompted follow-up commentary and analysis, including much criticism.<ref>Turner, Graham (2008) [http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf "A comparison of ''The Limits to Growth'' with thirty years of reality"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101128151523/http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf|date=28 November 2010}} Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation ([[CSIRO]]) Sustainable Ecosystems.</ref> A 2012 review in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' by 22 international researchers expressed concerns that the Earth may be "approaching a state shift" in which the [[biosphere]] may become less hospitable to human life, and in which the human carrying capacity may diminish.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Barnosky|first1=AD|last2=Hadly|first2=EA|display-authors=etal|year=2012|title=Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere|journal=Nature|volume=486|issue=7401|pages=52–58|bibcode=2012Natur.486...52B|doi=10.1038/nature11018|pmid=22678279|hdl-access=free|s2cid=4788164|hdl=10261/55208}}</ref> This concern that humanity may be passing beyond "[[Catastrophe theory|tipping point]]s" for safe use of the biosphere has increased in subsequent years.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Armstrong McKay |first1=David I. |last2=Staal |first2=Arie |last3=Abrams |first3=Jesse F. |last4=Winkelmann |first4=Ricarda |last5=Sakschewski |first5=Boris |last6=Loriani |first6=Sina |last7=Fetzer |first7=Ingo |last8=Cornell |first8=Sarah E. |last9=Rockström |first9=Johan |last10=Lenton |first10=Timothy M. |date=2022-09-09 |title=Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=377 |issue=6611 |article-number=eabn7950 |doi=10.1126/science.abn7950 |pmid=36074831 |hdl=10871/131584 |s2cid=252161375 |issn=0036-8075|hdl-access=free |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="Bradshaw-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=Bradshaw |first1=Corey J. A. |last2=Ehrlich |first2=Paul R. |last3=Beattie |first3=Andrew |last4=Ceballos |first4=Gerardo |last5=Crist |first5=Eileen |last6=Diamond |first6=Joan |last7=Dirzo |first7=Rodolfo |last8=Ehrlich |first8=Anne H. |last9=Harte |first9=John |last10=Harte |first10=Mary Ellen |last11=Pyke |first11=Graham |last12=Raven |first12=Peter H. |last13=Ripple |first13=William J. |last14=Saltré |first14=Frédérik |last15=Turnbull |first15=Christine |date=2021-01-13 |title=Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future |journal=Frontiers in Conservation Science |volume=1 |article-number=615419 |doi=10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419 |issn=2673-611X|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021FrCS....1.5419B }}</ref> Although the global population has [[Day of Eight Billion|now passed 8 billion]], recent estimates of Earth's carrying capacity run from two to four billion people, depending on how optimistic researchers are about the prospects for international cooperation to solve problems requiring collective action.<ref>Examples include Lianos, T. P., & Pseiridis, A. (2016). Sustainable welfare and optimum population size. ''Environment, Development and Sustainability'', ''18''(6), 1679-1699; Tucker, C. K. (2019). ''A Planet of 3 Billion: Mapping Humanity's Long History of Ecological Destruction and Finding Our Way to a Resilient Future: a Global Citizen's Guide to Saving the Planet''. Atlas Observatory Press; Dasgupta, P. (2019). ''Time and the generations: population ethics for a diminishing planet''. Columbia University Press; Tamburino, L., & Bravo, G. (2021). Reconciling a positive ecological balance with human development: A quantitative assessment. ''Ecological Indicators'', ''129'', 107973.</ref>

==Origins==
In terms of [[population dynamics]], the term 'carrying capacity' was not explicitly used in 1838 by the [[Belgians|Belgian]] [[mathematician]] [[Pierre François Verhulst]] when he first published his equations based on research on modelling population growth.<ref name="Verhulst1838">{{cite journal |first=Pierre-François |last=Verhulst |author-link=Pierre François Verhulst |year= 1838 |title=Notice sur la loi que la population poursuit dans son accroissement |journal = Correspondance Mathématique et Physique |volume = 10 |pages = 113–121 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=8GsEAAAAYAAJ |format = PDF |access-date = 3 December 2014}}</ref>

The origins of the term "carrying capacity" are uncertain, with sources variously stating that it was originally used "in the context of international [[shipping]]" in the 1840s,<ref name="Berkshire-2012">{{Cite book|title=Berkshire encyclopedia of sustainability.|date=2010–2012|publisher=Berkshire Publishing Group|isbn=978-1-933782-01-0|location=Great Barrington, MA|oclc=436221172}}</ref><ref name="informaworld.com">{{cite journal |last1=Sayre |first1=N. F. |year=2008 |title=The Genesis, History, and Limits of Carrying Capacity |journal=Annals of the Association of American Geographers |volume=98 |issue=1 |pages=120–134 |doi=10.1080/00045600701734356|s2cid=16994905 |jstor=25515102 |bibcode=2008AAAG...98..120S }}</ref> or that it was first used during 19th-century laboratory experiments with micro-organisms.<ref>{{Cite journal |url=http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/human_geog.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719152701/http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/human_geog.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-19 |url-status=live |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8306.1994.tb01731.x|title=Human Geography and the "New Ecology": The Prospect and Promise of Integration|journal=Annals of the Association of American Geographers|volume=84|pages=108–125|year=1994|last1=Zimmerer|first1=Karl S.}}</ref> A 2008 review finds the first use of the term in English was an 1845 report by the [[US Secretary of State]] to the [[US Senate]]. It then became a term used generally in biology in the 1870s, being most developed in wildlife and [[livestock]] management in the early 1900s.<ref name="informaworld.com"/> It had become a staple term in ecology used to define the biological limits of a natural system related to population size in the 1950s.<ref name="Berkshire-2012" /><ref name="informaworld.com"/>

[[Neo-Malthusians]] and [[eugenicist]]s popularised the use of the words to describe the number of people the Earth can support in the 1950s,<ref name="informaworld.com"/> although American [[Biostatistics|biostatisticians]] [[Raymond Pearl]] and [[Lowell Reed]] had already applied it in these terms to human populations in the 1920s.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pearl |first1=Raymond |last2=Reed |first2=Lowell J. |date=June 1920 |title=On the Rate of Growth of the Population of the United States since 1790 and Its Mathematical Representation1 |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=6 |issue=6 |pages=275–288 |doi=10.1073/pnas.6.6.275 |doi-access=free |pmc=1084522 |pmid=16576496 |bibcode=1920PNAS....6..275P }}</ref>

Hadwen and Palmer (1923) defined carrying capacity as the density of stock that could be [[Grazing|grazed]] for a definite period without damage to the range.<ref name=Dhondt1988>{{cite journal |last1=Dhondt |first1=André A. |date=January 1988 |title=Carrying capacity - a confusing concept |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229192031 |journal=Acta Oecologica |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=337–346 |doi= |access-date=19 March 2021}}</ref><ref name=McLeod1997>{{cite journal |last1=McLeod |first1=Steven R. |date=September 1997 |title=Is the Concept of Carrying Capacity Useful in Variable Environments? |journal=Oikos |volume=79 |issue=3 |pages=529–542 |doi=10.2307/3546897 |jstor=3546897|bibcode=1997Oikos..79..529M }}</ref>

It was first used in the context of [[wildlife management]] by the American [[Aldo Leopold]] in 1933, and a year later by the American [[Paul Lester Errington]], a [[wetlands]] specialist. They used the term in different ways, Leopold largely in the sense of grazing animals (differentiating between a 'saturation level', an intrinsic level of density a species would live in, and carrying capacity, the most animals which could be in the field) and Errington defining 'carrying capacity' as the number of animals above which [[predation]] would become 'heavy' (this definition has largely been rejected, including by Errington himself).<ref name=Dhondt1988/><ref>{{cite book |last=Leopold |first=Aldo |author-link=Aldo Leopold |date=1933 |title=Game Management |location=New York |publisher=Charles Sccribener's Sons |page=51 |isbn=}}</ref> The important and popular 1953 [[textbook]] on ecology by [[Eugene Odum]], ''Fundamentals of Ecology'', popularised the term in its modern meaning as the equilibrium value of the logistic model of population growth.<ref name=Dhondt1988/><ref name="Odum1959">{{cite book |last=Odum | first =Eugene P. | author-link =Eugene Odum | title =Fundamentals of Ecology | url =https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofec0000odum | url-access =registration | edition =2nd | publisher =W. B. Saunders Co. | year =1959 | location =Philadelphia and London | isbn =978-0-7216-6941-0 | oclc =554879 | pages =[https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofec0000odum/page/183 183]-188}}</ref>

==Mathematics==
The specific reason why a population stops growing is known as a limiting or [[regulating factor]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Limiting Factors |url=https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/limiting-factors |access-date=2023-12-01 |website=education.nationalgeographic.org |language=en}}</ref>
[[File:Logistic_Carrying_Capacity.svg|thumb|Reaching carrying capacity through a logistic growth curve]]
The difference between the [[birth rate]] and the [[death rate]] is the [[Rate of natural increase|natural increase]]. If the population of a given organism is below the carrying capacity of a given environment, this environment could support a positive natural increase; should it find itself above that threshold the population typically decreases.<ref name="Storch-2019">{{cite journal |last1=Storch |first1=David |last2=Okie |first2=Jordan G. |title=The carrying capacity for species richness |journal=Global Ecology and Biogeography |date=October 2019 |volume=28 |issue=10 |pages=1519–1532 |doi=10.1111/geb.12987 |bibcode=2019GloEB..28.1519S |s2cid=202026304 }}</ref> Thus, the carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a species that an environment can support in long run.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rees |first1=William E. |title=Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out |journal=Environment and Urbanization |date=October 1992 |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=121–130 |doi=10.1177/095624789200400212 |doi-access=free |bibcode=1992EnUrb...4..121R }}</ref>

[[Population decline|Population size decreases]] above carrying capacity due to a range of factors depending on the [[species]] concerned, but can include insufficient [[space]], [[Food security|food supply]], or [[sunlight]]. The carrying capacity of an [[Environment (biophysical)|environment]] varies for different species.{{citation needed|date=May 2020}}

In the standard ecological [[algebra]] as illustrated in the simplified [[Logistic function#In ecology: modeling population growth|Verhulst model]]<ref name="Verhulst18383">{{cite journal|last=Verhulst|first=Pierre-François|author-link=Pierre François Verhulst|year=1838|title=Notice sur la loi que la population poursuit dans son accroissement|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8GsEAAAAYAAJ|format=PDF|journal=Correspondance Mathématique et Physique|volume=10|pages=113–121|access-date=3 December 2014}}</ref> of [[population dynamics]], carrying capacity is represented by the constant <math>K</math>:

: <math> {\mathrm{d}N\over\mathrm{d}t} = rN \left(1 - {N\over K}\right), </math>

where

* {{mvar|N}} is the [[population size]],
* {{mvar|r}} is the intrinsic [[rate of natural increase]]
* {{mvar|K}} is the carrying capacity of the local environment, and
* {{math|''dN/dt''}}, the [[derivative]] of {{mvar|N}} with respect to time {{mvar|t}}, is the rate of change in population with time.

Thus, the equation relates the growth rate of the population {{mvar|N}} to the current population size, incorporating the effect of the two [[Constant (mathematics)|constant parameters]] {{mvar|r}} and {{mvar|K}}. (Note that decrease is negative growth.) The choice of the letter {{mvar|K}} came from the [[German language|German]] ''Kapazitätsgrenze'' (capacity limit).<ref name="Verhulst18383">{{cite journal|last=Verhulst|first=Pierre-François|author-link=Pierre François Verhulst|year=1838|title=Notice sur la loi que la population poursuit dans son accroissement|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8GsEAAAAYAAJ|format=PDF|journal=Correspondance Mathématique et Physique|volume=10|pages=113–121|access-date=3 December 2014}}</ref>

[[File:Logistic curve examples.png|thumb|This is a graph of population change utilizing the logistic curve model.  When the population is above the carrying capacity it decreases, and when it is below the carrying capacity it increases.]]

The [[Logistic function#In ecology: modeling population growth|Verhulst equation]] is a first-order [[ordinary differential equation]]. Combined with an [[initial value problem|initial value]] <math>N=N_0</math> for the population at time <math>t=0</math>, the [[initial value problem|solution]] takes the form of the [[logistic growth curve]]:

: <math>N(t) = {K\over 1 + A e^{-rt}},</math>

where

* {{mvar|e}} is [[e (mathematical constant)|Euler's number]],
* {{mvar|A}} is a constant determined by the initial population <math>N_0</math> via <math>A = {K\over N_0} - 1</math>.<ref>Murray, James D. "Mathematical biology: I. An introduction. Vol. 17." Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.</ref> When the initial population is below the carrying capacity, <math>A</math> is positive; when it is above, <math>A</math> is negative.
* {{mvar|r}} is the initial exponential growth rate, and
* {{mvar|K}} is the carrying capacity.

The logistic growth curve depicts how population growth rate and carrying capacity are inter-connected. As illustrated in the logistic growth curve model, when the population size is small, the population increases exponentially. However, as population size nears carrying capacity, the growth decreases and reaches zero at {{mvar|K}}.<ref>Swafford, Angela Lynn. "Logistic Population Growth: Equation, Definition & Graph." Study.com. N.p., 30 May 2015. Web. 21 May 2016. 
"Logistic Population Growth - Boundless Open Textbook." Boundless. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 May 2016.
</ref>

What determines a specific system's carrying capacity involves a [[Limiting factor#Ecology|limiting factor]]; this may be available supplies of [[food supply|food]] or [[water supply|water]], nesting areas, space, or the amount of [[waste]] that can be absorbed without degrading the environment and decreasing carrying capacity.

==Population ecology ==
{{Main|Population ecology|Population dynamics}}
{{See also|Ecological overshoot}}
Carrying capacity is a commonly used concept for [[biologist]]s when trying to better understand biological populations and the factors which affect them.<ref name="Chapman-2018"/> When addressing biological populations, carrying capacity can be seen as a stable dynamic equilibrium, taking into account extinction and colonization rates.<ref name="Storch-2019"/> In [[population biology]], logistic growth assumes that population size fluctuates above and below an equilibrium value.<ref name="Seidl-1999">{{cite journal |last1=Seidl |first1=Irmi |last2=Tisdell |first2=Clem A |title=Carrying capacity reconsidered: from Malthus' population theory to cultural carrying capacity |journal=Ecological Economics |date=December 1999 |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=395–408 |doi=10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00063-4 |bibcode=1999EcoEc..31..395S |url=https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:10486/ei_4_98.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170821010236/http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:10486/ei_4_98.pdf |archive-date=2017-08-21 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Numerous authors have questioned the usefulness of the term when applied to actual wild populations.<ref name=Dhondt1988/><ref name=McLeod1997/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hui|first1=C|year=2006|title=Carrying capacity, population equilibrium, and environment's maximal load|journal=Ecological Modelling|volume=192|issue=1–2|pages=317–320|doi=10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.001|bibcode=2006EcMod.192..317H}}</ref> Although useful in theory and in laboratory experiments, carrying capacity as a method of measuring population limits in the environment is less useful as it sometimes oversimplifies the interactions between species.<ref name="Storch-2019"/>

==Agriculture==
It is important for farmers to calculate the carrying capacity of their land so they can establish a sustainable [[stocking rate]].<ref name="MoreBeef2019">{{cite web |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=2019 |title=4 - Determine carrying capacity and stocking rate |url=https://mbfp-pastoral.mla.com.au/managing-your-feedbase/determine-carrying-capacity-and-stocking-rate/ |access-date=14 March 2021 |website=More Beef from Pastures |publisher=Meat & Livestock Australia Limited}}</ref>  For example, calculating the carrying capacity of a [[paddock]] in Australia is done in [[Dry Sheep Equivalent]]s (DSEs). A single DSE is 50&nbsp;kg [[Merino]] [[Sheep|wether]], dry [[Sheep|ewe]] or non-pregnant ewe, which is maintained in a stable condition. Not only sheep are calculated in DSEs, the carrying capacity for other livestock is also calculated using this measure. A 200&nbsp;kg weaned calf of a British style breed gaining 0.25&nbsp;kg/day is 5.5DSE, but if the same weight of the same type of calf were gaining 0.75&nbsp;kg/day, it would be measured at 8DSE. Cattle are not all the same, their DSEs can vary depending on breed, growth rates, weights, if it is a cow ('dam'), steer or [[ox]] ('bullock' in Australia), and if it [[Weaning#In cattle|weaning]], pregnant or 'wet' (i.e. [[Lactation|lactating]]).

In other parts of the world different units are used for calculating carrying capacities. In the United Kingdom the paddock is measured in LU, livestock units, although different schemes exist for this.<ref name="UK2006">[http://www.defra.gov.uk/rds/publications/technical/tan_33.pdf Chesterton, Chris, ''Revised Calculation of Livestock Units for Higher Level Stewardship Agreements, Technical Advice Note 33'' (Second edition), Rural Development Service, 2006] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070626001539/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rds/publications/technical/tan_33.pdf |date=June 26, 2007 }}</ref><ref>Nix, J. 2009. ''Farm Management Pocketbook''. 39th Ed. Corby: The Andersons Centre.</ref> New Zealand uses either LU,<ref>[http://www.ruralfind.co.nz/livestock-units-data.html New Zealand Livestock Units on Ruralfind] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100525233351/http://www.ruralfind.co.nz/livestock-units-data.html |date=2010-05-25 }}</ref> EE (ewe equivalents) or SU (stock units).<ref>[http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/best-management-practices/reassessment-of-the-stock-management-system/re-assessment-of-stock-unit-system03.htm Cornforth, I S and Sinclair, A G, ''Fertiliser Recommendations for Pastures and Crops in New Zealand'', 2nd Ed (New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture, Wellington, New Zealand, 1984), quoted in ''A History of the Stock Unit System'', New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100523160657/http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/best-management-practices/reassessment-of-the-stock-management-system/re-assessment-of-stock-unit-system03.htm |date=2010-05-23 }}</ref> In the US and Canada the traditional system uses [[animal unit]]s (AU).<ref>Jasper Womach, ''Report for Congress: Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition'' {{cite web|url=http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf |title=Ncseonline - Magazine d'actualité et d'information |access-date=2011-12-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110212033139/http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05jun/97-905.pdf |archive-date=2011-02-12 }}</ref> A French/Swiss unit is ''Unité de Gros Bétail'' (UGB).<ref>[http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/910_91/app1.html ''Coefficients de conversion des animaux en unités de gros bétail'' (French)]: Conversion factors for livestock units.</ref><ref>[http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/fr/lex_fr/report.htm ''La Commission Européen: Agriculture et Environnement'' (French)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100102003214/http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/fr/lex_fr/report.htm |date=2010-01-02 }} [http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/en/lex_en/report_en.htm European Commission, Agriculture and Environment (English version)].</ref>

[[File:Sömmerung von Milchkühen, Schweizer Alp im Wallis.jpg|thumb|[[transhumance|Summering]] of milk cows in the Swiss Alps in [[Valais]] Canton]]
In some European countries such as Switzerland the pasture ([[Alpine pasture|''alm'' or ''alp'']]) is traditionally measured in ''Stoß'', with one ''Stoß'' equaling four ''Füße'' (feet). A more modern European system is [[:de:Viehbesatz#Großvieheinheit|''Großvieheinheit'']] (GV or GVE), corresponding to 500&nbsp;kg in liveweight of cattle. In [[extensive agriculture]] 2 GV/ha is a common stocking rate, in [[intensive agriculture]], when [[grazing]] is supplemented with extra [[fodder]], rates can be 5 to 10 GV/ha.{{citation needed|date=March 2021}} In Europe average stocking rates vary depending on the country, in 2000 the Netherlands and Belgium had a very high rate of 3.82 GV/ha and 3.19 GV/ha respectively, surrounding countries have rates of around 1 to 1.5 GV/ha, and more southern European countries have lower rates, with Spain having the lowest rate of 0.44 GV/ha.<ref>''top agrar'' 11/2001, o.n.A.</ref>

This system can also be applied to natural areas. Grazing [[megaherbivore]]s at roughly 1 GV/ha is considered sustainable in central European grasslands, although this varies widely depending on many factors. In [[ecology]] it is theoretically (i.e. [[cyclic succession]], [[patch dynamics]], ''Megaherbivorenhypothese'') taken that a grazing pressure of 0.3 GV/ha by wildlife is enough to hinder [[afforestation]] in a natural area. Because different species have different [[ecological niche]]s, with horses for example grazing short grass, cattle longer grass, and goats or deer preferring to [[Browsing (herbivory)|browse]] shrubs, [[niche differentiation]] allows a terrain to have slightly higher carrying capacity for a mixed group of species, than it would if there were only one species involved.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kang |first1=Saruul |last2=Niu |first2=Jianming |last3=Zhang |first3=Qing |last4=Zhang |first4=Xuefeng |last5=Han |first5=Guodong |last6=Zhao |first6=Mengli |date=2020-12-01 |title=Niche differentiation is the underlying mechanism maintaining the relationship between community diversity and stability under grazing pressure |journal=Global Ecology and Conservation |volume=24 |article-number=e01246 |doi=10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01246 |bibcode=2020GEcoC..2401246K |issn=2351-9894|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Some [[niche market]] schemes mandate lower stocking rates than can maximally be grazed on a pasture. In order to market ones' meat products as [[Biodynamic agriculture|'biodynamic']], a lower ''Großvieheinheit'' of 1 to 1.5 (2.0) GV/ha is mandated, with some farms having an operating structure using only 0.5 to 0.8 GV/ha.{{citation needed|date=March 2021}}

The [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] has introduced three international units to measure carrying capacity: FAO Livestock Units for North America,<ref name=FAO1>{{cite web| url = http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/8/chil18117.htm| title = P Chilonda and J Otte, Indicators to monitor trends in livestock production at national, regional and international levels, ''Livestock Research for Rural Development'', '''18''' (8), 2006, Article #117}}</ref><ref name=FAO2>{{Cite FTP | url = ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/j0945e/j0945e00.pdf| server = FTP server| url-status = dead| title = ''Compendium of Agricultural-Environmental Indicators'', Annexe 2: Definitions, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (includes different values for various regions)}}</ref> FAO Livestock Units for sub-Saharan Africa,<ref name=FAO1/><ref name=FAO2/> and Tropical Livestock Units.<ref name=FAO3>[http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Mixed1/TLU.htm FAO paper about Tropical Livestock Units] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110223202019/http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Mixed1/TLU.htm |date=2011-02-23 }}</ref>

Another rougher and less precise method of determining the carrying capacity of a paddock is simply by looking objectively at the condition of the herd. In Australia, the national standardized system for rating livestock conditions is done by body condition scoring (BCS). An animal in a very poor condition is scored with a BCS of 0, and an animal which is extremely healthy is scored at 5: animals may be scored between these two numbers in increments of 0.25. At least 25 animals of the same type must be scored to provide a statistically representative number, and scoring must take place monthly -if the average falls, this may be due to a stocking rate above the paddock's carrying capacity or too little fodder. This method is less direct for determining stocking rates than looking at the pasture itself, because the changes in the condition of the stock may lag behind changes in the condition of the pasture.<ref name=MoreBeef2019/>

==Fisheries==
[[File:Sunset Fishery, Cochin, Kerala, India.jpg|thumb|A fishery at sunset in Cochin, Kerala, [[India]]]]
{{Main|Population dynamics of fisheries}}
In [[fisheries]], carrying capacity is used in the formulae to calculate [[Sustainable yield in fisheries|sustainable yields]] for [[fisheries management]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Quinn |first1=Terrance J. |title=Ruminations on the development and future of population dynamics models in fisheries |journal=Natural Resource Modeling |date=28 June 2008 |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=341–392 |doi=10.1111/j.1939-7445.2003.tb00119.x |s2cid=153420994 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The [[maximum sustainable yield]] (MSY) is defined as "the highest average catch that can be continuously taken from an exploited population (=stock) under average environmental conditions". MSY was originally calculated as half of the carrying capacity, but has been refined over the years,<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Tsikliras|first1=Athanassios C.|title=Encyclopedia of Ecology|last2=Froese|first2=Rainer|publisher=Elsevier|year=2019|doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10601-3|pages=108–115|chapter=Maximum Sustainable Yield|isbn=978-0-444-64130-4|s2cid=150025979|edition=2nd}}</ref> now being seen as roughly 30% of the population, depending on the species or population.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bousquet | first1 = N. | last2 = Duchesne | first2 = T. | last3 = Rivest | first3 = L.-P. | year = 2008 | title = Redefining the maximum sustainable yield for the Schaefer population model including multiplicative environmental noise | url = http://mat.ulaval.ca/pages/duchesne/BDR.pdf | journal = Journal of Theoretical Biology | volume = 254 | issue = 1 | pages = 65–75 | doi = 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.025 | pmid = 18571675 | bibcode = 2008JThBi.254...65B }}{{Dead link|date=November 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name ="Thorpe">{{cite journal | last1 = Thorpe | first1 = R.B. | last2 = LeQuesne | first2 = W.J.F. | last3 = Luxford | first3 = F. | last4 = Collie | first4 = J.S. | last5 = Jennings | first5 = S. | year = 2015 | title = Evaluation and management implications of uncertainty in a multispecies size-structured model of population and community responses to fishing | journal = Methods in Ecology and Evolution | volume = 6 | issue = 1| pages = 49–58 | doi = 10.1111/2041-210X.12292 | pmid = 25866615 | pmc = 4390044 | bibcode = 2015MEcEv...6...49T }}</ref> Because the population of a species which is brought below its carrying capacity due to fishing will find itself in the exponential phase of growth, as seen in the Verhulst model, the harvesting of an amount of fish at or below MSY is a surplus yield which can be sustainably harvested without reducing population size at equilibrium, keeping the population at its maximum [[Recruitment (biology)|recruitment]]. However, annual fishing can be seen as a modification of ''r'' in the equation -i.e. the environment has been modified, which means that the population size at equilibrium with annual fishing is slightly below what ''K'' would be without it.

Note that mathematically and in practical terms, MSY is problematic. If mistakes are made and even a tiny amount of fish are harvested each year above the MSY, populations dynamics imply that the total population will eventually decrease to zero. The actual carrying capacity of the environment may fluctuate in the real world, which means that practically, MSY may actually vary from year to year<ref name="Milner-Gulland and Mace 1998">Milner-Gulland, E.J., Mace, R. (1998), [https://books.google.com/books?id=SfozQRjheekC&q=%22Conservation+of+biological+resources%22 ''Conservation of biological resources''] Wiley-Blackwell. {{ISBN|978-0-86542-738-9}}</ref><ref name="Larkin">{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=P. A. |title=An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield |journal=Transactions of the American Fisheries Society |volume=106 |issue=1 |year=1977 |pages=1–11 |doi=10.1577/1548-8659(1977)106<1:AEFTCO>2.0.CO;2 |bibcode=1977TrAFS.106....1L }}</ref><ref name="Botsford">{{cite journal | last1 = Botsford | first1 = L.W. | last2 = Castilla | first2 = J.C. | last3 = Peterson | first3 = C.H. | year = 1997 | title = The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems | journal = Science | volume = 277 | issue = 5325 | pages = 509–515 | doi = 10.1126/science.277.5325.509 }}</ref> (annual sustainable yields and maximum average yield attempt to take this into account).{{citation needed|date=March 2021}} Other similar concepts are [[optimum sustainable yield]] and [[maximum economic yield]]; these are both harvest rates below MSY.<ref>Clark, C.W. (1990), ''Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources'', 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience, New York</ref><ref>National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of U.S. Living Marine Resources 1995. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS0F/SPO-19. NMFS, Silver Springs, Md.</ref>

These calculations are used to determine [[Individual fishing quota|fishing quotas]].{{citation needed|date=March 2021}}

== Humans ==

Human carrying capacity is a function of how people live and the technology at their disposal. The two great economic revolutions that marked human history up to 1900—the agricultural and industrial revolutions—greatly increased the Earth's human carrying capacity, allowing human population to grow from 5 to 10 million people in 10,000 BCE to 1.5 billion in 1900.<ref>{{Cite web   |title=Historical Estimates of World Population |url=https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/international-programs/historical-est-worldpop.html |website=Census.gov}}</ref> The immense technological improvements of the past 100 years—in applied chemistry, physics, computing, genetic engineering, and more—have further increased Earth's human carrying capacity, at least in the short term. Without the Haber-Bosch process for fixing nitrogen, modern agriculture could not support 8 billion people.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Smil |first=Vaclav |date=1999 |title=Detonator of the population explosion |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=400 |issue=6743 |page=415 |doi=10.1038/22672 |bibcode=1999Natur.400..415S |s2cid=4301828 |issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free }}</ref> Without the Green Revolution of the 1950s and 60s, famine might have culled large numbers of people in poorer countries during the last three decades of the twentieth century.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gollin |first1=Douglas |last2=Hansen |first2=Casper Worm |last3=Wingender |first3=Asger Mose |date=2021 |title=Two Blades of Grass: The Impact of the Green Revolution |journal=Journal of Political Economy |language=en |volume=129 |issue=8 |pages=2344–2384 |doi=10.1086/714444 |bibcode=2021JPoEc.129.2344G |s2cid=53401811 |issn=0022-3808|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Recent technological successes, however, have come at grave environmental costs. [[Climate change]], ocean acidification, and the huge dead zones at the mouths of many of world's great rivers, are a function of the scale of contemporary agriculture<ref name="Crist-2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Crist |first1=Eileen |last2=Mora |first2=Camilo |last3=Engelman |first3=Robert |date=2017-04-21 |title=The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection |journal=Science |volume=356 |issue=6335 |pages=260–264 |doi=10.1126/science.aal2011 |pmid=28428391 |bibcode=2017Sci...356..260C |s2cid=12770178 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> and the many other demands 8 billion people make on the planet.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ripple |first1=William J. |last2=Wolf |first2=Christopher |last3=Newsome |first3=Thomas M. |last4=Galetti |first4=Mauro |last5=Alamgir |first5=Mohammed |last6=Crist |first6=Eileen |last7=Mahmoud |first7=Mahmoud I. |last8=Laurance |first8=William F. |date=2017-11-13 |title=World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice |journal=BioScience |volume=67 |issue=12 |pages=1026–1028 |doi=10.1093/biosci/bix125 |issn=0006-3568|hdl=11336/71342 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Scientists now speak of humanity exceeding or threatening to exceed 9 planetary boundaries for safe use of the biosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last1=Steffen |first1=Will |last2=Richardson |first2=Katherine |last3=Rockström |first3=Johan |last4=Cornell |first4=Sarah E. |last5=Fetzer |first5=Ingo |last6=Bennett |first6=Elena M. |last7=Biggs |first7=Reinette |last8=Carpenter |first8=Stephen R. |last9=de Vries |first9=Wim |last10=de Wit |first10=Cynthia A. |last11=Folke |first11=Carl |last12=Gerten |first12=Dieter |last13=Heinke |first13=Jens |last14=Mace |first14=Georgina M. |last15=Persson |first15=Linn M. |date=2015-02-13 |title=Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet |journal=Science |volume=347 |issue=6223 |article-number=1259855 |doi=10.1126/science.1259855 |pmid=25592418 |hdl=1885/13126 |s2cid=206561765 |issn=0036-8075|hdl-access=free }}</ref> Humanity's unprecedented ecological impacts threaten to degrade the [[ecosystem service]]s that people and the rest of life depend on—potentially decreasing Earth's human carrying capacity.<ref name="MEA-2005">{{Cite book |last=(Program) |first=Millennium Ecosystem Assessment |title=Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis |date=2005 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=1-59726-039-8 |oclc=1264940723}}</ref> The signs that we have crossed this threshold are increasing.<ref>IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: ''Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Work- ing Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.</ref><ref name="IPBES-2019">IPBES. (2019). ''Summary for policymakers. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services.'' Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat.</ref>  

The fact that degrading Earth's essential services is obviously possible, and happening in some cases, suggests that 8 billion people may be above Earth's human carrying capacity. But human carrying capacity is always a function of a certain number of people living a certain way.<ref name="Pimentel-1994">{{Cite journal |last1=Pimentel |first1=David |last2=Harman |first2=Rebecca |last3=Pacenza |first3=Matthew |last4=Pecarsky |first4=Jason |last5=Pimentel |first5=Marcia |date=1994 |title=Natural resources and an optimum human population |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02208317 |journal=Population and Environment |language=en |volume=15 |issue=5 |page=348 |doi=10.1007/BF02208317 |bibcode=1994PopEn..15..347P |s2cid=153634463 |issn=0199-0039|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="Dasgupta-2019">{{Cite book |last=S. |first=Dasgupta, Partha |title=Time and the generations: population ethics for a diminishing planet |year=2019 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-16012-4 |oclc=1097199008}}</ref> This was encapsulated by Paul Ehrlich and James Holdren's (1972) IPAT equation: environmental impact (I) = population (P) x affluence (A) x the technologies used to accommodate human demands (T).<ref>P.R. Ehrlich and J.P. Holdren. One-dimensional ecology. ''Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'', May 1972: 16-27</ref> IPAT has found spectacular confirmation in recent decades within climate science, where the Kaya identity for explaining changes in {{CO2}} emissions is essentially IPAT with two technology factors broken out for ease of use.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Environment, energy, and economy: strategies for sustainability |date=1997 |publisher=United Nations University Press |others=Yōichi Kaya, Keiichi Yokobori, Energy, and Economic Development" Tokyo Conference on "Global Environment |isbn=0-585-22996-1 |location=Tokyo |oclc=45731212}}</ref>

This suggests to technological optimists that new technological discoveries (or the deployment of existing ones) could continue to increase Earth's human carrying capacity, as it has in the past.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Simon |first=Julian Lincoln |title=The ultimate resource |date=1981 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=0-691-09389-X |location=Princeton, N.J. |oclc=7177304}}</ref> Yet technology has unexpected side effects, as we have seen with stratospheric ozone depletion, excessive nitrogen deposition in the world's rivers and bays, and global climate change.<ref name="MEA-2005" /><ref name="Bradshaw-2021" /> This suggests that 8 billion people may be sustainable for a few generations, but not over the long term, and the term 'carrying capacity' implies a population that is sustainable indefinitely. It is possible, too, that efforts to anticipate and manage the impacts of powerful new technologies, or to divide up the efforts needed to keep global ecological impacts within sustainable bounds among more than 200 nations all pursuing their own self-interest, may prove too complicated to achieve over the long haul.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mark. |first=Gardiner, Stephen |title=A perfect moral storm: understanding the ethical tragedy of climate change |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-537944-0 |oclc=753470941}}</ref>

One issue with applying carrying capacity to any species is that ecosystems are not constant and change over time, therefore changing the resources available. Research has shown that sometimes the presence of human populations can increase local [[biodiversity]], demonstrating that human habitation does not always lead to deforestation and decreased biodiversity. 

Another issue to consider when applying carrying capacity, especially to humans, is that measuring food resources is arbitrary. This is due to choosing what to consider (e.g., whether or not to include plants that are not available every year), how to classify what is considered (e.g., classifying [[edible plant]]s that are not usually eaten as food resources or not), and determining if [[Calorie|caloric values]] or [[Nutritional value|nutritional values]] are privileged. Additional layers to this for humans are their cultural differences in culinary preferences (e.g., some consume [[termites|flying termites]]) and individual choices on what to invest their labor into (e.g., fishing vs. farming), both of which vary over time. This leads to the need to determine whether or not to include all food resources or only those the population considered will actually consume. 

Measuring water resources carrying capacity is likewise highly arbitrary: choices in temporal resolution (e.g., monthly versus annual), spatial resolution (e.g., how subbasins are delineated), and whether to include human activities such as inter-basin water transfers and reservoir storage in the assessment can all lead to vastly different WRCC results.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wu |first1=Zeqiang |last2=Fan |first2=Yifan |last3=Zhang |first3=Sheng |last4=Qian |first4=Xin |last5=Wang |first5=Guoqiang |date=2025-01-01 |title=Dynamic assessment of water resources carrying capacity under human impacts on the water cycle: A finer perspective at the spatiotemporal scale of basin |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652624040514 |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |volume=486 |article-number=144602 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144602 |bibcode=2025JCPro.48644602W |issn=0959-6526|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 

Carrying capacity measurements over large areas also assumes [[Homogeneity and heterogeneity|homogeneity]] in the resources available but this does not account for how resources and access to them can greatly vary within regions and populations. They also assume that the populations in the region only rely on that region's resources even though humans exchange resources with others from other regions and there are few, if any, isolated populations. Variations in [[Standard of living|standards of living]] which directly impact resource consumption are also not taken into account. These issues show that while there are limits to resources, a more complex model of how humans interact with their ecosystem needs to be used to understand them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cliggett |first=Lisa |date=2001 |title=Carrying Capacity's New Guise: Folk Models for Public Debate and Longitudinal Study of Environmental Change |journal=Africa Today |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=3–19 |doi=10.1353/at.2001.0003 |issn=1527-1978}}</ref>

== Recent warnings that humanity may have exceeded Earth's carrying capacity ==
Between 1900 and 2020, Earth's human population increased from 1.6 billion to 7.8 billion (a 390% increase).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022 |title=World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations |url=https://population.un.org/wpp/ |website=population.un.org |publisher=UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs}}</ref> These successes greatly increased human resource demands, generating significant [[environmental degradation]].<ref name=":0">Reid, W. V., et al. (2005). ''The millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being.'' Washington, DC: Island Press.</ref>

=== Millennium ecosystem assessment ===
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) of 2005 was a massive, collaborative effort to assess the state of Earth's ecosystems, involving more than 1,300 experts worldwide.<ref name=":0" /> Their first two of four main findings were the following. The first finding is:<blockquote>Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.<ref name=":1">Reid, W. V., et al. (2005). ''The millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being.'' Washington, DC: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Synthesis, p. 1.</ref></blockquote>The second of the four main findings is:<blockquote>The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.<ref name=":1" /></blockquote>According to the MEA, these unprecedented environmental changes threaten to reduce the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity. "The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this [21st] century," they write, serving as a barrier to improving the lives of poor people around the world.<ref name=":1" />

=== Ecological footprint accounting ===
[[Ecological footprint]] accounting measures the demands people make on nature and compares them to available supplies, for both individual countries and the world as a whole.<ref name=":2">Mathis Wackernagel and Bert Beyers, 2019. ''Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget.'' New Society Publishers.</ref> Developed originally by [[Mathis Wackernagel]] and [[William E. Rees|William Rees]], it has been refined and applied in a variety of contexts over the years by [[Global Footprint Network]] (GFN). On the demand side, the ecological footprint measures how fast a population uses resources and generates wastes, with a focus on five main areas: carbon emissions (or [[carbon footprint]]); land devoted to direct settlement; timber and paper use; food and fiber use; and seafood consumption.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Global Footprint |url=https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ |website=Global Footprint Network}}</ref> It converts these into per capita or total hectares used. On the supply side, national or global [[biocapacity]] represents the productivity of ecological assets in a particular nation or the world as a whole; this includes "cropland, grazing land, forest land, fishing grounds, and built-up land."<ref name=":3" /> Again the various metrics to capture biocapacity are translated into the single term of hectares of available land. As Global Footprint Network (GFN) states:<blockquote>Each city, state or nation's Ecological Footprint can be compared to its biocapacity, or that of the world. If a population's Ecological Footprint exceeds the region's biocapacity, that region runs a biocapacity deficit. Its demand for the goods and services that its land and seas can provide—fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, wood, cotton for clothing, and carbon dioxide absorption—exceeds what the region's ecosystems can regenerate. In more popular communications, this is called "an ecological deficit." A region in ecological deficit meets demand by importing, liquidating its own ecological assets (such as overfishing), and/or emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If a region's biocapacity exceeds its Ecological Footprint, it has a biocapacity reserve.<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>According to the GFN's calculations, humanity has been using resources and generating wastes in excess of sustainability since approximately 1970: currently humanity use Earth's resources at approximately 170% of capacity.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Footprint Data Platform |url=https://data.footprintnetwork.org |website=Global Footprint Network}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss |website=Climate Change and Law Collection|doi=10.1163/9789004322714_cclc_2020-0074-0399 }}</ref> This implies that humanity is well over Earth's human carrying capacity for our current levels of affluence and technology use. According to Global Footprint Network:<blockquote>In 2024, [Earth Overshoot Day] fell on August 1. Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has exhausted nature's budget for the year. For the rest of the year, we are maintaining our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We are operating in overshoot.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Earth Overshoot Day |url=https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/earth-overshoot-day/ |website=Global Footprint Network}}</ref></blockquote>The concept of '[[ecological overshoot]]' can be seen as equivalent to exceeding human carrying capacity.<ref>Catton, W. R. (1982). ''Overshoot: The ecological basis of revolutionary change''. University of Illinois Press.</ref><ref name=":2" /> According to the most recent calculations from Global Footprint Network, most of the world's residents live in countries in ecological overshoot (see the map on the right).  
[[File:Ecological_footprint.png|thumb|[https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.21888827.1692355221.1664332869-1465536352.1663440999#/ Nations living within their ecological means (shaded green) or in ecological overshoot] (shaded red) in 2022.]]This includes countries with dense populations (such as China, India, and the Philippines), countries with high per capita consumption and resource use (France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia), and countries with both high per capita consumption and large numbers of people (Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States).<ref name=":3" />

=== Planetary boundaries framework ===
According to its developers, the planetary boundaries framework defines "a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system."<ref name=":4" /> Human civilization has evolved in the relative stability of the [[Holocene epoch]]; thus crossing planetary boundaries for safe levels of atmospheric carbon, ocean acidity, or one of the other stated boundaries could send the global ecosystem spiraling into novel conditions that are less hospitable to life—possibly reducing global human carrying capacity. 

This framework, developed in an article published in 2009 in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rockström |first1=Johan |last2=Steffen |first2=Will |last3=Noone |first3=Kevin |last4=Persson |first4=Åsa |last5=Chapin |first5=F. Stuart III |last6=Lambin |first6=Eric |last7=Lenton |first7=Timothy M. |last8=Scheffer |first8=Marten |last9=Folke |first9=Carl |last10=Schellnhuber |first10=Hans Joachim |last11=Nykvist |first11=Björn |last12=de Wit |first12=Cynthia A. |last13=Hughes |first13=Terry |last14=van der Leeuw |first14=Sander |last15=Rodhe |first15=Henning |date=2009 |title=Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity |journal=Ecology and Society |volume=14 |issue=2 |article-number=art32 |doi=10.5751/es-03180-140232 |bibcode=2009EcSoc..14Tr.32R |issn=1708-3087|hdl=10535/5421 |s2cid=15182169 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> and then updated in two articles published in 2015 in ''Science''<ref name=":4" /> and in 2018 in ''PNAS'',<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Steffen |first1=Will |last2=Rockström |first2=Johan |last3=Richardson |first3=Katherine |last4=Lenton |first4=Timothy M. |last5=Folke |first5=Carl |last6=Liverman |first6=Diana |last7=Summerhayes |first7=Colin P. |last8=Barnosky |first8=Anthony D. |last9=Cornell |first9=Sarah E. |last10=Crucifix |first10=Michel |last11=Donges |first11=Jonathan F. |last12=Fetzer |first12=Ingo |last13=Lade |first13=Steven J. |last14=Scheffer |first14=Marten |last15=Winkelmann |first15=Ricarda |date=2018 |title=Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=115 |issue=33 |pages=8252–8259 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1810141115 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=6099852 |pmid=30082409 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2018PNAS..115.8252S }}</ref>  identifies nine stressors of planetary support systems that need to stay within critical limits to preserve stable and safe biospheric conditions (see figure below). Climate change and biodiversity loss are seen as especially crucial, since on their own, they could push the Earth system out of the Holocene state: "transitions between time periods in Earth history have often been delineated by substantial shifts in climate, the biosphere, or both." <ref name=":4" />  
[[File:Estimates_of_how_the_different_control_variables_for_seven_of_nine_planetary_boundaries_have_changed_from_1950_to_present.png|thumb|Estimates of how the different control variables for seven of nine planetary boundaries have changed from 1950 to present. The green shaded polygon represents the safe operating space.]]
The scientific consensus is that humanity has exceeded three to five of the nine planetary boundaries for safe use of the biosphere and is pressing hard on several more.<ref name=":5" /> By itself, crossing one of the planetary boundaries does not prove humanity has exceeded Earth's human carrying capacity; perhaps technological improvements or clever management might reduce this stressor and bring us back within the biosphere's safe operating space. But when several boundaries are crossed, it becomes harder to argue that carrying capacity has not been breached.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Higgs |first=Kerryn |date=2017 |title=Limits to growth: human economy and planetary boundaries |journal=[[The Journal of Population and Sustainability]] |volume=2 |issue=1 |doi=10.3197/jps.2017.2.1.15 |issn=2398-5496|doi-access=free }}</ref> 

Because fewer people helps reduce all nine planetary stressors, the more boundaries are crossed, the clearer it appears that reducing human numbers is part of what is needed to get back within a safe operating space.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Coole |first=Diana H. |title=Should we control world population ? |date=2018 |publisher=Polity press |isbn=978-1-5095-2340-5 |series=Political theory today |location=Cambridge, UK Medford, MA}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Conly |first=Sarah |title=One Child |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190203436.001.0001 |isbn=978-0-19-020343-6}}</ref> Population growth regularly tops the list of causes of humanity's increasing impact on the natural environment in Earth system science literature.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bourban |first=Michel |date=2019 |title=Croissance démographique et changement climatique: repenser nos politiques dans le cadre des limites planétaires |journal=La Pensée écologique |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=19–37 |doi=10.3917/lpe.003.0019 |s2cid=203184072 |issn=2558-1465 |url=https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/6900bf4c-4368-4032-9b2c-5cf8dcb603e0 }}</ref> Recently, planetary boundaries developer Will Steffen and co-authors ranked global population change as the leading indicator of the influence of socio-economic trends on the functioning of the Earth system in the modern era, post-1750.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Steffen |first1=Will |last2=Broadgate |first2=Wendy |last3=Deutsch |first3=Lisa |last4=Gaffney |first4=Owen |last5=Ludwig |first5=Cornelia |date=2015 |title=The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration |journal=The Anthropocene Review |volume=2 |issue=1 |page=84 |doi=10.1177/2053019614564785 |bibcode=2015AntRv...2...81S |issn=2053-0196|hdl=1885/66463 |s2cid=131524600 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==See also==

* {{Annotated link|Biocapacity}}
* {{Annotated link|Ecological footprint}}
* {{Annotated link|Ecological overshoot}}
* {{Annotated link|Earth Overshoot Day}}
* {{Annotated link|Overpopulation}}
* {{Annotated link|Overshoot (population)}}
* {{Annotated link|Planetary boundaries}}
* {{Annotated link|Population ecology}}
* {{Annotated link|Population growth}}
* {{Annotated link|r/K selection theory|''r''/''K'' selection theory}}

==Further reading==
*Kin, Cheng Sok, et al. "[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.05002.pdf Predicting Earth's Carrying Capacity of Human Population as the Predator and the Natural Resources as the Prey in the Modified Lotka-Volterra Equations with Time-dependent Parameters]." arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05002 (2019).

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{population}}
{{modelling ecosystems}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carrying Capacity}}
[[Category:World population]]
[[Category:Human overpopulation]]
[[Category:Control of demographics]]
[[Category:Global environmental issues]]
[[Category:Sustainability]]
[[Category:Population ecology]]
[[Category:Ecological metrics]]
[[Category:Ecological economics]]
[[Category:Environmental terminology]]