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.

Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests

Abstract

As one of Earth’s most carbon-dense regions, tropical forests are central to climate change mitigation efforts. Their unparalleled species richness also makes them vital for safeguarding biodiversity. However, because research has not been conducted at management-relevant scales and has often not accounted for forest disturbance, the biodiversity implications of carbon conservation strategies remain poorly understood. We investigated tropical carbon–biodiversity relationships and trade-offs along a forest-disturbance gradient, using detailed and extensive carbon and biodiversity datasets. Biodiversity was positively associated with carbon in secondary and highly disturbed primary forests. Positive carbon–biodiversity relationships dissipated at around 100 MgC ha–1, meaning that in less disturbed forests more carbon did not equal more biodiversity. Simulated carbon conservation schemes therefore failed to protect many species in the most species-rich forests. These biodiversity shortfalls were sensitive to opportunity costs and could be decreased for small carbon penalties. To ensure that the most ecologically valuable forests are protected, biodiversity needs to be incorporated into carbon conservation planning.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Carbon–biodiversity relationships in human-modified tropical forests.
Fig. 2: Biodiversity shortfalls from a carbon-maximization strategy.
Fig. 3: Carbon–biodiversity trade-offs.
Fig. 4: Biodiversity shortfalls when incorporating conservation opportunity costs.

References

  1. 1.

    Stern, N. H. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

  2. 2.

    Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014).

  3. 3.

    Climate Research Roadmap Workshop: Summary Report (US Department of Energy Office of Science, 2010).

  4. 4.

    Dirzo, R. & Raven, P. H. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 137–167 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gullison, T. A. et al. Tropical forests and climate policy. Science 316, 985–986 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Sodhi, N. S. & Peres, C. A. A multi-region assessment of tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2293–2300 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Colwell, R. K. et al. Global warming, elevation range shifts, and lowland biotic attrition in the wet tropics. Science 322, 258–261 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Poorter, L. et al. Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 1314–1328 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Norman, M. & Nakhooda, S. The State of REDD+ Finance Working Paper 378 (Centre for Global Development, 2014).

  11. 11.

    McCarthy, D. P. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. Science 338, 946–949 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Seymour, F. & Busch, J. Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change (Center for Global Development, Washington DC, 2016).

  13. 13.

    Asner, G. P. et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168, 1147–1160 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gardner, T. A. et al. A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol. Conserv. 154, 61–71 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

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

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 3, 98–105 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cavanaugh, K. C. et al. Carbon storage in tropical forests correlates with taxonomic diversity and functional dominance on a global scale. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 563–573 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Beaudrot, L. et al. Limited carbon and biodiversity co-benefits for tropical forest mammals and birds. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1098–1111 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P. & Galbraith, D. Increasing human dominance of tropical forests. Science 349, 827–832 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Barlow, J. et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Watson, J. E. M. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Panfil, S. N. & Harvey, C. A. REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: a review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conserv. Lett. 9, 143–150 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Grainger, A. et al. Biodiversity and REDD at Copenhagen. Curr. Biol. 19, R974–R976 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Magnago, L. F. S. et al. Would protecting tropical forest fragments provide carbon and biodiversity cobenefits under REDD+? Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3455–3468 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Chisholm, R. A. et al. Scale-dependent relationships between tree species richness and ecosystem function in forests. J. Ecol. 101, 1214–1224 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sobral, M. et al. Mammal diversity influences the carbon cycle through trophic interactions in the Amazon. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1670–1676 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dunn, R. R. Managing the tropical landscape: a comparison of the effects of logging and forest conversion to agriculture on ants, birds, and lepidoptera. For. Ecol. Manag. 191, 215–224 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Letcher, S. G. & Chazdon, R. L. Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness, and species composition in a forest chronosequence in Northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica 41, 608–617 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Chazdon, R. L. et al. Rates of change in tree communities of secondary Neotropical forests following major disturbances. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 362, 273–289 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Barlow, J., Mestre, L. A. M., Gardner, T. A. & Peres, C. A. The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds. Biol. Conserv. 136, 212–231 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. 21st century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9, 536 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Venter, O., Hovani, L., Bode, M. & Possingham, H. Acting optimally for biodiversity in a world obsessed with REDD+. Conserv. Lett. 6, 410–417 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Gardner, T. A. et al. A social and ecological assessment of tropical land uses at multiple scales: the Sustainable Amazon Network. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 368, 20120166 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Berenguer, E. et al. A large-scale field assessment of carbon stocks in human-modified tropical forests. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3713–3726 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ferraz, S. F. B., Vettorazzi, C. B. & Theobald, D. M. Using indicators of deforestation and land-use dynamics to support conservation strategies: a case study of central Rondônia, Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 257, 1589–1595 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G. & Mace, G. M. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 1947–1952 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Harley, R. & Kuin, W. E. Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Cons. Biol. 17, 1559–1570 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Data Zone (BirdLife International, 2017); http://datazone.birdlife.org/home

  43. 43.

    King, D. A. et al. The role of wood density and stem support costs in the growth and mortality of tropical trees. J. Ecol. 94, 679–680 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Phillips, O. L. et al. Drought sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Baker, T. R. et al. Variation in wood density determines spatial patterns in Amazonian forest biomass. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 545–562 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Zanne A. E. et al. Dryad Data from: Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. (Dryad Digital Repository, 2009); https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.234

  47. 47.

    Lunn, D. J., Best, N. & Whittaker, J. C. Generic reversible jump MCMC using graphical models. Stat. Comput. 19, 395–408 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Thomson, J. R. et al. Bayesian change point analysis of abundance trends for pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco Estuary. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1431–1448 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Brooks, S. P. & Gelman, A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 7, 434–455 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Church, R. L., Stoms, D. M. & Davis, F. W. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biol. Conserv. 76, 105–112 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. F. Braga, R. C. de Oliveira Jr, J. M. Silveira, F. Z. Vaz-de-Mello and R. C. S. Veiga for support with data collection, and R. A. Begotti, T. M. Cardoso, S. S. Nunes, J. V. Siqueira, C. M. Souza Jr and A. Venturieri for assistance processing the remotely sensed data. This work was supported by grants from Brazil (EMBRAPA SEG:02.08.06.005.00; CNPq 574008/2008-0, 458022/2013-6, 400640/2012-0 and PELD 441659/2016-0; CAPES scholarships; FAPESP 2012/51872-5; and The Nature Conservancy Brasil), the UK (Darwin Initiative 17-023; NE/F01614X/1; NE/G000816/1; NE/F015356/2; NE/l018123/1; NE/K016431/1; NE/N01250X/1, NE/N01250X/1; and H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015 (Project 691053-ODYSSEA)) and Formas 2013-1571, and Australian Research Council grant DP120100797. J.F. and R.P. acknowledge CNPq productivity scholarships (process numbers, respectively: 307788/2017-2 and 308205/2014-6). Institutional support was provided by the Herbário IAN in Belém and LBA in Santarém. This is paper number 66 in the Sustainable Amazon Network series.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

T.A.G., J.B. and J.F. designed the research, with input from E.B., A.C.L., S.F.B.F., J.L., V.H.F.O., R.R.C.S., I.C.G.V., L.E.O.C.A. and R.P. E.B., A.C.L., V.H.F.O., R.R.C.S., J.F., N.G.M. and J.L. collected the field data or analysed biological samples. S.F.B.F. and T.A.G. processed the remote sensing data. G.D.L. and J.R.T. analysed the data, with input from J.F., J.B., R.M.N., A.C.L. and T.A.G. G.D.L., J.F., J.B., T.A.G., A.C.L., R.M.N. and J.R.T. wrote the manuscript, with input from all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Joice Ferreira or Gareth D. Lennox.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–6, Supplementary Tables 1 & 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferreira, J., Lennox, G.D., Gardner, T.A. et al. Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests. Nature Clim Change 8, 744–749 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0225-7

Download citation

Further reading

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