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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism


Climate change and biodiversity loss can be addressed simultaneously by well-planned conservation policies, but this requires information on the alignment of co-benefits under different management actions1,2,3. One option is to allow forests to naturally regenerate on marginal agricultural land: a key question is whether this approach will deliver environmental co-benefits in an economically viable manner4,5,6,7. Here we report on a survey of carbon stocks, biodiversity and economic values from one of the world’s most endemic-rich and threatened ecosystems: the western Andes of Colombia. We show that naturally regenerating secondary forests accumulate significant carbon stocks within 30 years, and support biodiverse communities including many species at risk of extinction. Cattle farming, the principal land use in the region, provides minimal economic returns to local communities, making forest regeneration a viable option despite weak global carbon markets. Efforts to promote natural forest regeneration in the tropical Andes could therefore provide globally significant carbon and biodiversity co-benefits at minimal cost.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Figure 1: Carbon accumulation and the cost of forest regeneration on cattle pasture in the Colombian Andes.
Figure 2: Biodiversity in cattle pastures and secondary forests of the Colombian Andes relative to primary forest.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Venter, O. et al. Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 326, 1368–1368 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Miles, L. & Kapos, V. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Global land-use implications. Science 320, 1454–1455 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Busch, J., Godoy, F., Turner, W. R. & Harvey, C. A. Biodiversity co-benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation under alternative reference levels and levels of finance. Conserv. Lett. 4, 101–115 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Phelps, J., Friess, D. A. & Webb, E. J. Win-win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs. Biol. Conserv. 154, 53–60 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards, D. P., Fisher, B. & Boyd, E. Protecting degraded rainforests: Enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD+. Conserv. Lett. 3, 313–316 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alexander, S. et al. Opportunities and challenges for ecological restoration within REDD+. Restor. Ecol. 19, 683–689 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Phelps, J., Webb, E. L. & Adams, W. M. Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nature Clim. Change 2, 497–503 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Larsen, F. W., LondoñoMurcia, M. C. & Turner, W. R. Global priorities for conservation of threatened species, carbon storage, and freshwater services: Scope for synergy? Conserv. Lett. 4, 355–363 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Siikamäki, J. & Newbold, S. C. Potential biodiversity benefits from international programs to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation. Ambio 41, 78–89 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamoreux, J. F. et al. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440, 212–214 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Orme, C. D. L. et al. Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436, 1016–1019 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks, T. M. et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 909–923 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Armenteras, D., Gast, F. & Villareal, H. Andean forest fragmentation and the representativeness of protected natural areas in the eastern Andes. Biol. Conserv. 113, 245–256 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sánchez-Cuervo, A. M., Aide, T. M., Clark, M. L. & Etter, A. Land cover change in Colombia: Surprising forest recovery trends between 2001 and 2010. PLoS ONE 7, e43943 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Olschewski, R. & Benitez, P. C. Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics. Ecol. Econom. 55, 380–394 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peters-Stanley, M., Gonzalez, G. & Yin, D. Covering New Ground: The State of Forest Carbon Markets 2013 (Ecosystem Marketplace and Forest Trends, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pulliam, R. & Danielson, B. J. Sources sinks and habitat selection: A landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am. Nat. 137, 50–66 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chazdon, R. L. Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320, 1458–1460 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Turner, I. M. & Corlett, R. The conservation value of small isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 330–333 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Raboin, M. L. & Posner, J. L. Pine or pasture? Estimated costs and benefits of land use change in the Peruvian Andes. Mountain Res. Dev. 32, 158–168 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fisher, B. et al. Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania. Nature Clim. Change 1, 161–163 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwarze, R., Niles, J. O. & Olander, J. Understanding and managing leakage in forest-based greenhouse-gas-mitigation projects. Phil. Trans. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 360, 1685–1703 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, K. et al. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. World Devel. 40, 402–413 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanowski, P. J., McDermott, C. L. & Cashore, B. W. Implementing REDD+: Lessons from analysis of forest governance. Envir. Sci. Policy 14, 111–117 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barr, C. M. & Sayer, J. A. The political economy of reforestation and forest restoration in Asia–Pacific: Critical issues for REDD+. Biol. Conserv. 154, 9–19 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sierra, C. A. et al. Total carbon stocks in a tropical forest landscape of the Porce region Colombia. For. Ecol. Manage. 243, 299–309 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chao, A. R. L., Chazdon, R. K., Colwell, R. & Shen, T-J. A new statistical approach for assessing compositional similarity based on incidence and abundance data. Ecol. Lett. 8, 148–159 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Anderson, M. J. & Willis, T. J. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: A useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84, 511–524 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dorazio, R. M., Royle, J. A., Soderstrom, B. & Glimskar, A. Estimating species richness and accumulation by modeling species occurrence and detectability. Ecology 87, 842–854 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank F. Forero, J. S. Cardenas, A. Gonzalez and other staff at the Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt for field support, and Fundación Colibri, Fundación ProAves and L. Tapasco for access permissions. We thank Y. Tapasco, O. Cortes, F. Prada, G. Suarez and many local guides for fieldwork. Funding was provided to T. Haugaasen and D. Edwards by the Research Council of Norway, grant number 208836. Specimens were deposited at the Instituto Alexander von Humboldt Collections, Colombia (Permit Number 1579). This is publication #2 of the Biodiversity, Agriculture and Conservation in Colombia (BACC) project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



D.P.E., T.H. and J.J.G. conceived the study. D.P.E., J.J.G., F.A.E., P.W., C.W. and C.A.M.U. collected data. J.J.G. analysed the data and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed substantially to revisions.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to James J. Gilroy or David P. Edwards.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilroy, J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F. et al. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nature Clim Change 4, 503–507 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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