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.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Forest-degradation thresholds shape tropical biodiversity

Can forest-degradation thresholds be identified to assess whether logged sites have conservation value? A long-term multi-species study reveals the effects on biodiversity when tropical forests are logged at differing intensities.
  1. Umesh Srinivasan

    1. Umesh Srinivasan is at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560012, India.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

Many of the world’s most biodiverse forests are being logged and degraded. How much degradation can be tolerated to retain considerable biodiversity and up to what extent of degradation do forests remain useful for conserving species? To ask and answer this crucial question, writing in Nature, Ewers et al.1 present a detailed assessment of how hundreds of species responded to forest degradation over 11 years.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Nature 631, 741-742 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02155-5

References

  1. Ewers, R. M. et al. Nature 631, 808–813 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Laurance, W. F. et al. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gibson, L. et al. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pimm, S. L. & Raven, P. Nature 403, 843–845 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright, S. J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 553–560 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards, D. P., Tobias, J. A., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E. & Laurance, W. F. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 511–520 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burivalova, Z., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Koh, L. P. Curr. Biol. 24, 1893–1898 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nowakowski, A. J. et al. Ecol. Lett. 21, 345–355 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stouffer, P. C. et al. Ecol. Lett. 24, 186–195 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Williams, J. J., Freeman, R., Spooner, F. & Newbold, T. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 797–815 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lapola, D. M. et al. Science 379, eabp8622 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Subjects

Nature Careers

Jobs

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

Search

Advanced search

Quick links