Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass


Carbon stocks in vegetation have a key role in the climate system1,2,3,4. However, the magnitude, patterns and uncertainties of carbon stocks and the effect of land use on the stocks remain poorly quantified. Here we show, using state-of-the-art datasets, that vegetation currently stores around 450 petagrams of carbon. In the hypothetical absence of land use, potential vegetation would store around 916 petagrams of carbon, under current climate conditions. This difference highlights the massive effect of land use on biomass stocks. Deforestation and other land-cover changes are responsible for 53–58% of the difference between current and potential biomass stocks. Land management effects (the biomass stock changes induced by land use within the same land cover) contribute 42–47%, but have been underestimated in the literature. Therefore, avoiding deforestation is necessary but not sufficient for mitigation of climate change. Our results imply that trade-offs exist between conserving carbon stocks on managed land and raising the contribution of biomass to raw material and energy supply for the mitigation of climate change. Efforts to raise biomass stocks are currently verifiable only in temperate forests, where their potential is limited. By contrast, large uncertainties hinder verification in the tropical forest, where the largest potential is located, pointing to challenges for the upcoming stocktaking exercises under the Paris agreement.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


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

Figure 1: Differences in biomass stocks of potential and actual vegetation induced by land use.
Figure 2: Contribution of land-use types to the difference between potential and actual biomass stocks.
Figure 3: Uncertainty of biomass stock estimates.


  1. Bloom, A. A., Exbrayat, J.-F., van der Velde, I. R., Feng, L. & Williams, M. The decadal state of the terrestrial carbon cycle: global retrievals of terrestrial carbon allocation, pools, and residence times. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1285–1290 (2016)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Houghton, R. A. Balancing the global carbon budget. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 35, 313–347 (2007)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Saugier, B., Roy, J. & Mooney, H. A. in Terrestrial Global Productivity (eds Roy, J., Saugier, B. & Mooney, H. A. ) 543–557 (Academic, 2001)

  4. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)

  5. GTOS. Biomass (FAO, 2009)

  6. Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9899–9904 (2011)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185 (2012)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Thurner, M. et al. Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and temperate forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 297–310 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchard, E. T. et al. Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: a comparison of pan-tropical maps. Carbon Balance Manag. 8, 10 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchard, E. T. A. et al. Markedly divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 935–946 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Avitabile, V. et al. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1406–1420 (2016)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansis, E., Davis, S. J. & Pongratz, J. Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1230–1246 (2015)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Arneth, A. et al. Historical carbon dioxide emissions caused by land-use changes are possibly larger than assumed. Nat. Geosci. 10, 79–84 (2017)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Scholes, R. J., Monteiro, P. M. S., Sabine, C. L. & Canadell, J. G. Systematic long-term observations of the global carbon cycle. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 427–430 (2009)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FAO, 2010)

  16. Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H. & Krausmann, F. Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 363–391 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Erb, K.-H. et al. Biomass turnover time in terrestrial ecosystems halved by land use. Nat. Geosci. 9, 674–678 (2016)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haberl, H. et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12942–12947 (2007)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaplan, J. O. et al. Holocene carbon emissions as a result of anthropogenic land cover change. Holocene 21, 775–791 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tian, H. et al. Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: current status and future directions. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 775–792 (2015)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Malhi, Y. The productivity, metabolism and carbon cycle of tropical forest vegetation. J. Ecol. 100, 65–75 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Allen, C. D. et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 660–684 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holtsmark, B. Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Clim. Change 112, 415–428 (2012)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schulze, E.-D., Körner, C., Law, B. E., Haberl, H. & Luyssaert, S. Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 4, 611–616 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Le Toan, T. et al. The BIOMASS mission: mapping global forest biomass to better understand the terrestrial carbon cycle. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 2850–2860 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Neeck, S. P. The NASA Earth Science Flight Program: an update. In Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites XIX Vol. 9639, 963907 (SPIE Remote Sensing, 2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cai, X., Zhang, X. & Wang, D. Land availability for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 334–339 (2011)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Searchinger, T. D. et al. High carbon and biodiversity costs from converting Africa’s wet savannahs to cropland. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 481–486 (2015)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Erb, K.-H. et al. A comprehensive global 5 min resolution land-use data set for the year 2000 consistent with national census data. J. Land Use Sci. 2, 191–224 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. FAOSTAT. Statistical Databases. (2015)

  32. Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zomer, R. J. et al. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep. 6, 29987 (2016)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Bartholomé, E. & Belward, A. S. GLC2000: a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 1959–1977 (2005)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. Bioscience 52, 891–904 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Potapov, P. et al. Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecol. Soc. 13, 51 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. FAO. Global Ecological Zoning for the Global Forest Resources Assessment, 2000 (FAO, 2001)

  38. Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Estimating historical changes in global land cover: croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027 (1999)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. DiMiceli, C. M . et al. Annual global automated MODIS vegetation continuous fields (MOD44B) at 250 m spatial resolution for data years beginning day 65, 2000–2010, collection 5, percent tree cover (Univ. Maryland, 2011)

  41. Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B. & Baccini, A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G04021 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fang, J. et al. Overestimated biomass carbon pools of the Northern mid- and high latitude forests. Clim. Change 74, 355–368 (2006)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Zika, M. & Erb, K. H. The global loss of net primary production resulting from human-induced soil degradation in drylands. Ecol. Econ. 69, 310–318 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Santoro, M. et al. Forest growing stock volume of the Northern Hemisphere: spatially explicit estimates for 2010 derived from Envisat ASAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 168, 316–334 (2015)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679–706 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lieth, H. in Primary Productivity of the Biosphere 237–263 (Springer, 1975)

  47. Zhao, M., Heinsch, F. A., Nemani, R. R. & Running, S. W. Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 164–176 (2005)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ruesch, A . & Gibbs, H. K. New IPCC Tier-1 global biomass carbon map for the year 2000. (2008)

  49. Tüxen, R. Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. Angewandte Pflanzensoziologie 13, 5–42 (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  50. ESA & UCLouvain. Globcover. (2010)

  51. Egglestone, H. S ., Buendia, L ., Miwa, K. & Ngara, T. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IGES, 2006)

  52. Amthor, J. S. et al. Boreal forest CO2 exchange and evapotranspiration predicted by nine ecosystem process models: intermodel comparisons and relationships to field measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 33623–33648 (2001)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jarvis, P. G., Saugier, B. & Schulze, E.-D . in Terrestrial Global Productivity (eds. Roy, J., Saugier, B. & Mooney, H. A. ) 211–244 (Academic, 2001)

  54. Ajtay, G. L., Ketner, P. & Duvigneaud, P. in The Global Carbon Cycle, SCOPE Report 13 129–182 (John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

  55. Cannell, M. G. R. World Forest Biomass and Primary Production Data (Academic, 1982)

  56. West, P. C. et al. Trading carbon for food: global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19645–19648 (2010)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hurteau, M. D., Koch, G. W. & Hungate, B. A. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 493–498 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Houghton, R. A., Hackler, J. L. & Lawrence, K. T. Changes in terrestrial carbon storage in the United States. 2: The role of fire and fire management. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 9, 145–170 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Saatchi, S. et al. Seeing the forest beyond the trees. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 606–610 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pongratz, J., Reick, C. H., Raddatz, T. & Claussen, M. Effects of anthropogenic land cover change on the carbon cycle of the last millennium. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB4001 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. DeFries, R. S., Field, C. B., Fung, I., Collatz, G. J. & Bounoua, L. Combining satellite data and biogeochemical models to estimate global effects of human-induced land cover change on carbon emissions and primary productivity. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 803–815 (1999)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Strassmann, K. M., Joos, F. & Fischer, G. Simulating effects of land use changes on carbon fluxes: past contributions to atmospheric CO2 increases and future commitments due to losses of terrestrial sink capacity. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 60, 583–603 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Olofsson, J. & Hickler, T. Effects of human land-use on the global carbon cycle during the last 6,000 years. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 17, 605–615 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stocker, B. D., Feissli, F., Strassmann, K. M., Spahni, R. & Joos, F. Past and future carbon fluxes from land use change, shifting cultivation and wood harvest. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 66, 23188 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Carcaillet, C. et al. Holocene biomass burning and global dynamics of the carbon cycle. Chemosphere 49, 845–863 (2002)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kleinen, T., Brovkin, V. & Schuldt, R. J. A dynamic model of wetland extent and peat accumulation: results for the Holocene. Biogeosciences 9, 235–248 (2012)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  67. Yu, Z. Holocene carbon flux histories of the world’s peatlands: global carbon-cycle implications. Holocene 21, 761–774 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  68. Sabine, C. L. et al. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 . Science 305, 367–371 (2004)

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bazilevich, N. I., Rodin, L. Y. & Rozov, N. N. Geographical aspects of biological productivity. Sov. Geogr. 12, 293–317 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Olson, J. S., Watts, J. A. & Allison, L. J. Carbon in Live Vegetation of Major World Ecosystems (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983)

  71. Shevliakova, E. et al. Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: importance of the secondary vegetation sink. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB2022 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Phillips, O. L. & Jackson, R. B. The structure, distribution, and biomass of the world’s forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44, 593–622 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Prentice, I. C., Harrison, S. P. & Bartlein, P. J. Global vegetation and terrestrial carbon cycle changes after the last ice age. New Phytol. 189, 988–998 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hurtt, G. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim. Change 109, 117–161 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. Whittaker, R. H. & Likens, G. E. Primary production: the biosphere and man. Hum. Ecol. 1, 357–369 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Post, W. M., King, A. W. & Wullschleger, S. D. Historical variations in terrestrial biospheric carbon storage. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 11, 99–109 (1997)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  77. Esser, G. Sensitivity of global carbon pools and fluxes to human and potential climatic impacts. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 39, 245–260 (1987)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  78. Potter, C. S. Terrestrial biomass and the effects of deforestation on the global carbon cycle results from a model of primary production using satellite observations. Bioscience 49, 769–778 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hall, D. O. & Scurlock, J. M. O. in Photosynthesis and Production in a Changing Environment. A field and Laboratory Manual (eds Hall, D. O. et al.) Appendix 2, 464 (Springer, 1993)

  80. Amthor, J. S . et al. Terrestrial Ecosystem Responses to Global Change: A Research Strategy. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1998)

  81. IPCC Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (eds Watson, R. T. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000)

Download references


Funding from the European Research Council (ERC-2010-stg-263522 ‘LUISE’), the European Commission (H2020-EO-2014-640176 ‘BACI’), the German Research Foundation’s Emmy Noether Program (PO 1751/1-1), GlobBiomass project of the European Space Agency (4000113100/14/I-NB), the NOVA grant UID/AMB/04085/2013, the Amsterdam Academic Alliance (AAA) and the Vetenskapsrådet grant 621-2014-4266 of the Swedish Research Council are acknowledged. We thank A. Baccini, A. S. Ruesch, S. Saatchi and P. C. West for making their data layers publicly available. K.H.-E. is grateful for the support by K. Kowalski. This research contributes to the Global Land Programme (

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



K.-H.E., T.K., C.P. and S.L. designed the study and performed the research, A.L.S.B., N.C., T.F., S.G., H.H., C.L., M.N., M.T. and J. P. contributed and analysed data and results, and all authors contributed substantially to the analysis, interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl-Heinz Erb.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information Nature thanks A. Friend, R. Houghton 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 figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Estimates of the potential and actual biomass stocks from the literature and this study.

a, Potential biomass stocks. b, Actual biomass stocks. Datasets from the following studies were used: (1)69, (2)3, (3)70, (4)54, (5)20, (6)71, (7)72, (8)73, (9)56, (10)74, (11)75, (12)76, (13)77, (14)78, (15)79, (16)48, (17)80, (18)81 (19)72. The darker shaded columns are those used in this study (for details see text).

Source data

Extended Data Figure 2 Conceptual and methodological design of the study.

a, The relation of prehistoric (α), potential (β) and actual (γ) biomass stocks. Potential vegetation refers to the vegetation that would prevail in the absence of land use but with current environmental conditions. As both actual and potential vegetation refer to the same environmental conditions, their difference must not be interpreted as a stock change between two points in time. As a consequence, the comparison of potential and actual biomass stocks does not refer to the cumulative net balance of all fluxes from and to the biomass compartment (for example, induced by land-use and environmental changes). Rather, it isolates and quantifies the effect of land use on biomass stocks. The effect of land use consists of two components, that is, cumulative land-use emissions and land-use-induced reductions in carbon sequestration that would result from environmental changes. For more information and discussion, see Supplementary Information. b, Conceptual attribution of the difference between potential and actual biomass stocks to land conversion and land management. Error bars reflect the divergence among datasets for the respective vegetation types and indicate the determination of verification volumes.

Extended Data Figure 3 Actual biomass stock maps used in the study.

a, FRA-based map. bd, Maps based on refs 16 (b), 6 and 8 (c), and 7 and 8 (d). e, Remote-sensing-derived minimum. f, Remote-sensing-derived maximum. g, Map from ref. 48. The same mask for unproductive areas has been applied to all maps. For details and sources of maps in af, see Methods.

Extended Data Figure 4 Potential biomass stock maps used in the study.

a, IPCC-based, FRA-adjusted map. b, IPCC-based map adjusted using data from ref. 16. c, Cell-based minima of classic data. d, Cell-based maxima of classic data. e, Remote-sensing-derived map. f, Map from ref. 56. The same mask for unproductive areas has been applied to all maps. For details and sources for maps in ae, see Methods.

Extended Data Figure 5 Land-use-induced difference in potential and actual biomass stocks, uncertainty of input data and vegetation units used in the study.

a, Impact of land-cover conversion. b, Impact of land management. a, b, Maps are based on the FRA-based actual biomass-stock map and the corresponding, IPCC-based FRA-adjusted potential carbon-stock map. c, Standard deviation of potential biomass-stock maps (n = 6). d, Standard deviation of actual biomass-stock maps (n = 7). e, Intersect of all three37,38,39 biome maps used in the ecozone approaches and for the construction of the remote-sensing-based potential biomass-stock map. f, FAO ecozones37 used for the aggregation of results. The ‘tropical core’ consists of humid rainforests. The tropical zones contain moist deciduous forests, dry forests, tropical shrubs, savannahs and hot deserts.

Extended Data Table 1 Biomass stocks per type of land use
Extended Data Table 2 Compilation of published estimates of emissions associated with anthropogenic land-cover change and land management until present (industrial and pre-industrial)
Extended Data Table 3 Comparison of the difference between potential and actual biomass stocks to components of the global carbon balance, including land-use change (LUC) emissions and net terrestrial biosphere sink
Extended Data Table 4 Hypothetical absorption potentials of carbon stock restorations and indicative years until saturation at a current emission level of 9 PgC yr−1

Supplementary information

Life Sciences Reporting Summary (PDF 72 kb)

Supplementary Information

This file contains supporting text “Contextualizing the difference of potential and actual carbon stocks with global carbon balance accounts”, supporting tables 1-3 and additional literature. (PDF 755 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erb, KH., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


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