>>16719507 (OP)'Biodiversity' is a snowman and midwit take at best.
The best metric for a healthy ecosystem is: 'Natural'. This is because the natural state represents the best performing state available, natural selection and evolution have proven this and created this natural state. Antrophogenic changes we consider 'unnatural' happen on a far too small timescale for evolution to bring the neccessary adaptions.
'Biodiversity' is not an inherently natural concept. If it was the best indicator we would not have species, every individual would be entirely different than everything it is related to.
Instead biodiversity seems to be successfull to a certain degree. Which we naturally observe.
An example:
Trees in my area are naturally Fagus Sylvatica. Almost everywhere. Those trees will dominate everything, except for isolated and small areas where conditions are vastly unusual for the area. In those areas you'll find other trees. Beeches being so overly dominant and only existing in monocultures in my area goes back to the beeches strategy and adaption to this strategy. Beeches block out alot of light, year round, they mulch the ground heavily and are able to grow up in a deficit of light themselves.
Man has long ago cut down the majority of trees in my area and the mainstream 'eco activist' seem not to take offence with the millenia old clearings. Those same types also constantly push for 'biodiversity' and actions usually follow their words and they start forcing their ideas onto the remaining forested areas by planting all sorts of trees that will predictably never establish any permanent foothold for the above reasons and if they did they are probably invasive and more of a reason for concern than anything.
Long story short: Monocultures, especially local monocultures, are a perfectly natural thing and mantras like 'diversity' hardly ever signify a nuanced and ibformed take on any matter.
