Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Biodiversity–productivity relationships are key to nature-based climate solutions

Nature Climate Change volume 11, pages 543–550 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The global impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change are interlinked, but the feedbacks between them are rarely assessed. Areas with greater tree diversity tend to be more productive, providing a greater carbon sink, and biodiversity loss could reduce these natural carbon sinks. Here, we quantify how tree and shrub species richness could affect biomass production on biome, national and regional scales. We find that GHG mitigation could help maintain tree diversity and thereby avoid a 9–39% reduction in terrestrial primary productivity across different biomes, which could otherwise occur over the next 50 years. Countries that will incur the greatest economic damages from climate change stand to benefit the most from conservation of tree diversity and primary productivity, which contribute to climate change mitigation. Our results emphasize an opportunity for a triple win for climate, biodiversity and society, and highlight that these co-benefits should be the focus of reforestation programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of a possible pathway to biodiversity-based climate solutions.
Fig. 2: Biome-level projections in alleviating the loss of tree diversity from 2005 to the 2070s.
Fig. 3: Biome-level projections in the effect of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent ΔP from 2005 to the 2070s.
Fig. 4: Biome-level sums in the effect of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent ΔP from 2005 to the 2070s.
Fig. 5: Subregion-level projections in the effect of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent ΔP from 2005 to the 2070s.
Fig. 6: Country-level outcomes of a climate change mitigation to conserve tree diversity-dependent productivity.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The source data underlying figures (Supplementary Data 1–6) are archived in the Dryad repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.vq83bk3s2.

Code availability

The code that supports the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. UNEP. Global Environment Outlook – GEO6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019); https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6

  2. Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mori, A. S., Spies, T. A., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. & Andrade, A. Reframing ecosystem management in the era of climate change: issues and knowledge from forests. Biol. Conserv. 165, 115–127 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Warren, R., Price, J., Graham, E., Forstenhaeusler, N. & VanDerWal, J. The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5° C rather than 2° C. Science 360, 791–795 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araujo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. IPBES secretariat. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds. Diaz, S. et al.) (IPBES, 2019); https://ipbes.net/global-assessment

  8. Midgley, G. F. et al. Terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity: key knowledge gaps and some policy implications. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 264–270 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, A. D., Calvin, K. V., Collins, W. D. & Edmonds, J. Accounting for radiative forcing from albedo change in future global land-use scenarios. Clim. Change 131, 691–703 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A. J. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Morecroft, M. D. et al. Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 366, eaaw9256 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mori, A. S. Advancing nature-based approaches to address the biodiversity and climate emergency. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1729–1732 (2020).

  14. Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hisano, M., Searle, E. B. & Chen, H. Y. H. Biodiversity as a solution to mitigate climate change impacts on the functioning of forest ecosystems. Biol. Rev. 93, 439–456 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang, J. et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354, aaf8957 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mori, A. S. Environmental controls on the causes and functional consequences of tree species diversity. J. Ecol. 106, 113–125 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hulvey, K. B. et al. Benefits of tree mixes in carbon plantings. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 869–874 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2020 https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020 (2020).

  21. Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Isbell, F., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Loreau, M. The biodiversity-dependent ecosystem service debt. Ecol. Lett. 18, 119–134 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gonzalez, A. et al. Scaling-up biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 23, 757–776 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mokany, K. et al. Integrating modelling of biodiversity composition and ecosystem function. Oikos 125, 10–19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Running, S., Mu, Q., Zhao, M. & MODAPS-SIPS. MOD17A3 MODIS/Terra Gross Primary Productivity Yearly L4 Global 1km SIN Grid (NASA, 2015); https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD17A3.006

  27. Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Ito, A., Takahashi, K. & Masui, T. Gridded emissions and land-use data for 2005-2100 under diverse socioeconomic and climate mitigation scenarios. Sci. Data 5, 180210 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohashi, H. et al. Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation. Nat. Commun. 10, 5240 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fadrique, B. et al. Widespread but heterogeneous responses of Andean forests to climate change. Nature 564, 207–212 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ammer, C. Diversity and forest productivity in a changing climate. New Phytol. 221, 50–66 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K. & Tavoni, M. Country-level social cost of carbon. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 895–900 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Potapov, P. et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600821 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mori, A. S., Lertzman, K. P. & Gustafsson, L. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest ecosystems: a research agenda for applied forest ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 12–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bastin, J. F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Quine, C. P., Bailey, S. A., Watts, K. & Hulme, P. Sustainable forest management in a time of ecosystem services frameworks: common ground and consequences. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 863–867 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Climate Change for Forest Policy-Makers: An Approach for Integrating Climate Change into National Forest Policy in Support of Sustainable Forest Management Version 2.0. FAO Forestry Paper No. 181 (FAO, 2018); http://www.fao.org/3/CA2309EN/ca2309en.pdf

  40. The Future We Want: Biodiversity and Ecosystems—Driving Sustainable Development. United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020 (UNDP, 2012); https://www.cbd.int/financial/mainstream/undp-globalframework2012-2020.pdf

  41. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S. & Mosseler, A. Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems. Technical Series No. 43 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009); https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-43-en.pdf

  42. CBD secretariat. Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second ad hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Technical Series No. 41 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009); https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-41-en.pdf

  43. Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dee, L. E. et al. When do ecosystem services depend on rare species? Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 746–758 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fois, M., Cuena-Lombraña, A., Fenu, G. & Bacchetta, G. Using species distribution models at local scale to guide the search of poorly known species: review, methodological issues and future directions. Ecol. Model. 385, 124–132 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jordano, P. & Rees, M. What is long-distance dispersal? And a taxonomy of dispersal events. J. Ecol. 105, 75–84 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Veldman, J. W. et al. Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Naudts, K. et al. Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351, 597–600 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature 562, 259–262 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Crowther, T. W. et al. Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature 540, 104–108 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585, 545–550 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Bellamy, R. & Osaka, S. Unnatural climate solutions? Nat. Clim. Change 10, 98–99 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wisz, M. S. et al. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 14, 763–773 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Watanabe, S. et al. MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 845–872 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Collins, W. J. et al. Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model – HadGEM2. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 1051–1075 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jones, C. D. et al. The HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 543–570 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Griffies, S. M. et al. The GFDL CM3 coupled climate model: characteristics of the ocean and sea ice simulations. J. Clim. 24, 3520–3544 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T. & Masui, T. In Post-2020 Climate Action (eds Fujimori, S., Kainuma, M. & Masui, T.) 305–328 (Springer, 2017).

  60. Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Ito, A., Takahashi, K. & Masui, T. Global land-use allocation model linked to an integrated assessment model. Sci. Total Environ. 580, 787–796 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Warren, D. L. & Seifert, S. N. Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol. Appl. 21, 335–342 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Boyce, M. S., Vernier, P. R., Nielsen, S. E. & Schmiegelow, F. K. A. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Model. 157, 281–300 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Pearson, R. G., Dawson, T. P. & Liu, C. Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 27, 285–298 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tamme, R. et al. Predicting species’ maximum dispersal distances from simple plant traits. Ecology 95, 505–513 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Engen, S., Lande, R., Walla, T. & DeVries, P. J. Analyzing spatial structure of communities using the two-dimensional Poisson lognormal species abundance model. Am. Nat. 160, 60–73 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. He, F. & Gaston, K. J. Occupancy, spatial variance, and the abundance of species. Am. Nat. 162, 366–375 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Magurran, A. E. & McGill, B. J. Biological Diversity (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  70. Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 785–794 (KDD, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

  71. He, F. & Hubbell, S. P. Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 473, 368–371 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Neigel, J. E. Species–area relationships and marine conservation. Ecol. Appl 13, 138–145 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Rogan, J. E. & Lacher, T. E. Impacts of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Terrestrial Biodiversity. in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.10913-3 (Elsevier, 2018).

  74. Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature 416, 427–430 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Botanic Gardens Conservation International. Global Tree Search Database. Version 1.3 (Botanic Gardens Conservation International, 2019); https://tools.bgci.org/global_tree_search.php

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper was formed, analysed and written through workshops hosted by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), USA. F.I., J.C. and L.E.D. acknowledge support from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network Communications Office (DEB-1545288). A.S.M. and K.O. acknowledge support from the Ichimura New Technology Foundation. A.S.M., K.O., T.M. and H.O. were funded by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (ERTDF; JPMEERF15S11420) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency (ERCA) of Japan. A.S.M. was supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS; 15KK0022). F.I. acknowledges support from a US NSF CAREER award (DEB-1845334). A.G. was supported by the Liber Ero Chair in Biodiversity Conservation. M.L. was supported by the TULIP Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-41). T.M. and H.O. were funded by the ERTDF (JPMEERF20202002) of the ERCA. We thank Y. Kobayashi and R. Inoue (Yokohama National University) for help organizing the data. M. Maeda provided illustrations for the conceptual diagram.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, Hodogaya, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan

    Akira S. Mori & Kei-ichi Okada

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Laura E. Dee

  3. Department of Biology, Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Andrew Gonzalez

  4. Department of Wildlife Biology, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    Haruka Ohashi

  5. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

    Jane Cowles & Forest Isbell

  6. California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Alexandra J. Wright

  7. Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station, CNRS, Moulis, France

    Michel Loreau

  8. Ecology and Biodiversity Group, Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Yann Hautier

  9. Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK

    Tim Newbold

  10. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

    Peter B. Reich

  11. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

    Peter B. Reich

  12. Center for International Partnerships and Research on Climate Change, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    Tetsuya Matsui

  13. Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan

    Wataru Takeuchi

  14. Faculty of Bioindustry, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Abashiri, Hokkaido, Japan

    Kei-ichi Okada

  15. School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany

    Rupert Seidl

  16. Berchtesgaden National Park, Berchtesgaden, Germany

    Rupert Seidl

Authors
  1. Akira S. Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura E. Dee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haruka Ohashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jane Cowles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandra J. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michel Loreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yann Hautier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tim Newbold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Peter B. Reich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Tetsuya Matsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Wataru Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Kei-ichi Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Rupert Seidl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Forest Isbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.S.M. designed the study with critical inputs from F.I., R.S. and T.N. H.O. and T.M. analysed species distributions, and A.S.M. and K.O. contributed to the following analyses. J.C., A.G. and A.S.M. developed a conceptual diagram of biodiversity-dependent climate solutions. H.O. and T.N. contributed to developing the protocol of species distribution modelling. W.T. contributed to developing land-use data. A.S.M., L.E.D., A.G., R.S. and F.I. prepared drafts to have further discussions among all authors. A.J.W., J.C., Y.H., P.B.R. and M.L. provided substantial inputs on drafts and revisions of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akira S. Mori.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Christian Ammer, Louis Iverson, Jacqueline Oehri and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Maps showing the projected changes in tree diversity under the mitigation scenarios from 2005 to 2070s.

The proportional changes (%) in mean α-diversity (remaining species richness estimated at the fine grid-scale) are shown within each of the coarse grids (n = 32,670 grids). Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Maps showing the projected changes in tree diversity under the baseline scenarios from 2005 to 2070s.

The proportional changes (%) in mean α-diversity (remaining species richness estimated at the fine grid-scale) are shown within each of the coarse grids (n = 32,670 grids). Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Biome-level projections in the effects of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity (ΔSR) from 2005 to 2070s.

The effect sizes [inverse of log(mitigation/baseline)] of ΔSR were estimated based on mean α-diversity values within each of the coarse grids (the total number of the coarse grids = 32,670). The effect size is shown as a log ratio scale; zero corresponds to the true absence of the outcome. Positive and negative values of effect size indicate more and less effectiveness of mitigation policy, respectively (green and red arrow, respectively). The points and horizontal bars indicate means and their 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs: SSP1, sustainability; SSP2, middle-of-the-road; SSP3, regional rivalry; SSP4, inequality; SSP5, fossil-fuelled development) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs). Results are also provided as Supplementary Data 2.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Biome-level projections in the effects of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent productivity (ΔP) from 2005 to 2070s.

The effect sizes [inverse of log(mitigation/baseline)] of ΔP were estimated at the local scale (at the 30 arcseconds; the total number of grids = ~ 115 million for each scenario). The effect size is shown as a log ratio scale; zero corresponds to the true absence of the outcome. Positive and negative values of effect size indicate more and less effectiveness of mitigation policy, respectively (green and red arrows, respectively). All points indicate mean effect size. Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs). See Supplementary Data 3 for the values of means and the associated 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Maps showing the effects of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent productivity (ΔP) from 2005 to 2070s.

The effect sizes [inverse of log(mitigation/baseline)] of ΔP were estimated at the local scale (at the 30 arcsec; the total number of fine grids ~ 115 million for each scenario). Positive and negative values of effect size indicate more and less effectiveness of mitigation policy, respectively. In these maps, means of the effect sizes within each of the coarse grids (n = 32,670 coarse grids) are shown. Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs). Files to produce these maps are provided as Supplementary Data 4.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Biome-level sums in alleviating the loss of tree diversity-dependent productivity (ΔP) from 2005 to 2070s.

Proportional reductions (%) in ΔP are summarised for each of 14 different biomes. Negative values indicate the relative magnitude of reduction in productivity loss by the implementation of additional climate mitigation policy compared to the estimates based on business-as-usual scenario. Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Subregion-level projections in the effects of a climate change mitigation to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent productivity (ΔP) from 2005 to 2070s.

The effect sizes [inverse of log(mitigation/baseline)] of ΔP were estimated at the local scale (at the 30 arcseconds; the total number of grids = ~ 115 million for each scenario). The effect size is shown as a log ratio scale; zero corresponds to the true absence of the outcome. Positive and negative values of effect size indicate more and less effectiveness of mitigation policy, respectively (green and red arrows, respectively). The points indicate means. Subregions are based on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES; https://www.ipbes.net/regional-assessments). Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs). See Supplementary Data 5 for the values of means and the associated 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes.

Extended Data Fig. 8 The relationships between the country-level social cost of carbon (CSCC33) and the country-level conservation of tree diversity-dependent productivity.

The lines and shaded areas are the estimates based on a generalized additive mixed model and their 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs). See Supplementary Data 6 for the values of means and the associated 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes [inverse of log(mitigation/baseline)] of climate change mitigation policy to alleviate the loss of tree diversity-dependent productivity for each country.

Extended Data Fig. 9 The relationships between the country-level social cost of carbon (CSCC33) and the country-level per-area conservation of tree diversity-dependent productivity.

The size of circles is proportional to the forested area of each country. The colors of circles correspond to the country-level sum of productivity conservation shown in Extended Data Figure 8 (see the color scale at the bottom right). Results are shown for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the three Global Climate Models (GCMs). Names of major and outlier countries are shown beside the symbols; ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code is used to indicate countries.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Tree species analysed.

The maps showing the total number of tree species reported in each country75, and the number of the target species (those analysed in the present study) and the proportion (%) of these target species within the total number of species reported in each country75.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1 and 2, and Figs. 1–6.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mori, A.S., Dee, L.E., Gonzalez, A. et al. Biodiversity–productivity relationships are key to nature-based climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 543–550 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01062-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01062-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing