Arguably population decline without local or global species extinction isn't the same as loss of biodiversity. That said, here's a summary of a study with a fe

Arguably population decline without local or global species extinction isn't the same as loss of biodiversity. That said, here's a summary of a study with a few statistics to get more of a feel for the scale of human agriculture versus remaining wild animal population: https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.h... > while humans account for 0.01 percent of the planet's biomass, our activity has reduced the biomass of wild marine and terrestrial mammals by six times and the biomass of plant matter by half. > Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent. > The biomass of poultry is about three times higher than that of wild birds. > Overall, animals have nothing on the other other kingdoms. Plants dominate, accounting for about 80 percent of all of the earth's biomass, followed by bacteria at about 15 percent. > Since most plants are terrestrial, the study found that most of earth's biomass is found on land, but most animal biomass is found in the oceans.