ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

As the terrestrial human footprint continues to expand, the amount of native forest that is free from significant damaging human activities is in precipitous decline. There is emerging evidence that the remaining intact forest supports an exceptional confluence of globally significant environmental values relative to degraded forests, including imperilled biodiversity, carbon sequestration and storage, water provision, indigenous culture and the maintenance of human health. Here we argue that maintaining and, where possible, restoring the integrity of dwindling intact forests is an urgent priority for current global efforts to halt the ongoing biodiversity crisis, slow rapid climate change and achieve sustainability goals. Retaining the integrity of intact forest ecosystems should be a central component of proactive global and national environmental strategies, alongside current efforts aimed at halting deforestation and promoting reforestation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2Wildlife Conservation Society,
Global Conservation Program, Bronx, New York, NY, USA. 3Natural Resources & Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia,
Prince George, British Columbia, Canada. 4Canadian Forest Service, Sault Ste, Marie, Ontario, Canada. 5Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. 6The Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment and Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College
London, London, UK. 7University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 8Division of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA.
9Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science (TESS) and College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland,
Australia. 10Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA, USA. 11Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden. 12Forest Trends Association,
Washington DC, USA. 13Global Programme on Nature for Development, United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, USA. 14Fenner School of
Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 15These authors contributed equally: James
E. M. Watson and Tom Evans. *e-mail:
Although Earth has lost at least 35% of its pre-agricultural for-
est cover over the past three centuries1, forests are still widely
distributed, covering a total of 40 million km2 (~25%) of
Earth’s terrestrial surface2. Of the remaining forests, as much as 82%
is now degraded to some extent as a result of direct human actions
such as industrial logging, urbanization, agriculture and infrastruc-
ture3,4. This figure is probably an underestimate of the true level
of anthropogenic impact as it does not incorporate other, more
cryptic forms of degradation, such as over-hunting5. As the human
footprint continues to expand4, remaining forest free of significant
anthropogenic degradation is in rapid decline (Fig. 1).
Over the past decade, there has been increasing international
concern around the loss of forest and the impact this has on climate
change, the loss of biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem ser-
vices1. The 2015 Paris Agreement, together with earlier agreements
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), acknowledges the importance of forests for
limiting a future temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-
industrial levels6. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development
Goals (adopted in 2016) have the ambitious aim of fully halting
deforestation by 20207. However, while these targets are clearly war-
ranted, they fall short of specifically prioritizing the crucial quali-
ties of a forest that contribute most to achieving each convention’s
specific goals1. For example, indicators tracking progress towards
the 2015 New York Declaration on Forests — among the most sig-
nificant global forest conservation targets to date — focus on forest
extent and make almost no acknowledgement of forest condition8.
In this Perspective, we argue that to achieve the goals of global
international environmental accords it is insufficient to treat all for-
ests as equal regardless of their condition. Instead, forest that is free
of significant anthropogenic degradation (which we term ‘intact
forest’) should be identified and accorded special consideration in
policymaking, planning and implementation. Anthropogenic deg-
radation here includes all human actions that are known to cause
physical changes in a forest that lead to declines in ecological func-
tion9,10. Well-studied examples include forest fragmentation, stand-
level damage due to logging, over-harvesting of particular species
(such as over-hunting) and changes in fire or flooding regimes.
We first summarize published evidence that intact forests sup-
port an exceptional confluence of globally significant environmen-
tal values relative to forests that have experienced those damaging
human actions. We show that intact forests are indispensable not
only for addressing rapid anthropogenic climate change, but also for
confronting the planet’s biodiversity crisis, providing critical ecosys-
tem services and supporting the maintenance of human health. We
then show that the relative value of intact forests is likely to become
magnified as already-degraded forests experience further intensi-
fied pressures (including anthropogenic climate change). While it is
beyond the scope of this paper to set thresholds for acceptable for-
est fragment size and configuration, logging intensity or any other
measure of damage, we provide evidence that human activity that
exceeds the natural range of variation in a forested system reduces
key ecological functions, and the greater the level of alteration, the
greater the reduction in function. Here we outline the significant,
The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems
James E. M. Watson 1,2,15*, Tom Evans2,15, Oscar Venter3, Brooke Williams1,2, Ayesha Tulloch 1,2,
Claire Stewart1, Ian Thompson4, Justina C. Ray5, Kris Murray6, Alvaro Salazar1, Clive McAlpine1,
Peter Potapov7, Joe Walston2, John G Robinson2, Michael Painter2, David Wilkie2,
Christopher Filardi8, William F. Laurance9, Richard A. Houghton 10, Sean Maxwell1,
Hedley Grantham1,2, Cristián Samper2, Stephanie Wang2, Lars Laestadius11, Rebecca K. Runting1,
Gustavo A. Silva-Chávez12, Jamison Ervin13 and David Lindenmayer 14
As the terrestrial human footprint continues to expand, the amount of native forest that is free from significant damaging
human activities is in precipitous decline. There is emerging evidence that the remaining intact forest supports an exceptional
confluence of globally significant environmental values relative to degraded forests, including imperilled biodiversity, carbon
sequestration and storage, water provision, indigenous culture and the maintenance of human health. Here we argue that main-
taining and, where possible, restoring the integrity of dwindling intact forests is an urgent priority for current global efforts to
halt the ongoing biodiversity crisis, slow rapid climate change and achieve sustainability goals. Retaining the integrity of intact
forest ecosystems should be a central component of proactive global and national environmental strategies, alongside current
efforts aimed at halting deforestation and promoting reforestation.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
PersPective Nature ecology & evolutioN
and probably intensifying, threats to intact forests and argue that
action is required to halt and reverse their loss. Such action requires
explicit consideration on global, national and sub-national scales,
and we conclude by identifying specific policy mechanisms where
intact forests should be addressed.
Our call for an increased emphasis on intact forests does not
imply that other forms of forest are unimportant. Given the scale
of the environmental challenges facing humanity, there is also an
undoubted need to cease deforestation and degradation at forest
frontiers11, and to promote large-scale reforestation12. We believe
that coherent environmental policy should give due weight to
intact forests, clearance frontiers and restoration opportunities,
because all three have crucial and complementary roles to play.
The primary reasons why we focus on intact forests are twofold.
First, they are overlooked in international policy. Second, intact
forest protection can typically secure very high environmental
values with often relatively low implementation and opportunity
costs13, which serves to reinforce the need for their direct inclusion
in global environmental accords.
Evidence for the exceptional values of intact forest
There has been rapid growth in our understanding of the link between
anthropogenic pressures on forest and impacts on ecosystem ser-
vice values across a range of forest types (Box 1). Anthropogenic
pressures, especially at industrial intensities and large spatial scales,
have been shown to alter forest characteristics, including physical
structure, species composition, diversity, abundance and functional
organization compared with their natural state, and as a result, to
reduce a wide range of environmental values1417. These pressures
also interact with natural disturbance regimes such as fire and pests
to perturb forests beyond their capacity to regenerate18. The follow-
ing sections show how the loss of forest intactness leads to declines
or changes in these key environmental values: global and regional
scale climate regulation; local climate and watershed regulation;
biodiversity conservation; indigenous cultures; and human health.
Climate mitigation. Climate change is causing pervasive and
potentially irreversible impacts on ecosystems and people19. Of the
anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1870, 26%
is due to emissions from deforestation and forest degradation20. It
is now accepted that actions that avoid emissions from the land
sector, especially forests, and maximize removals of greenhouse
gases are critical if the goals of the UNFCCC Paris Agreement are
to be achieved12,21.
Degradation typically causes fewer emissions per hectare than
deforestation, but is much more widespread3,4,9. In the tropics,
where most net forest emissions occur, degradation may account
for 10–40% of total emissions of aboveground carbon22. Industrial-
scale logging (that is, large-scale market-orientated logging using
heavy machinery, with offtakes that exceed natural rates of tree
mortality) directly reduces carbon stocks through a combination of
tree removal, collateral damage to non-target trees, decomposition
of logging waste and wood fibre products23, and the depletion of
soil and peatland carbon stocks24,25. Industrial logging creates for-
ested systems dominated by regenerating stands of younger, smaller
trees, and although some regrowth does occur during each logging
cycle, the cyclical peaks in biomass typically do not return to pre-
logging levels, and the time-averaged carbon stocks can be expected
to decline progressively over subsequent cutting cycles in many
cases26. Reported carbon losses through industrial logging vary
widely across forest types and due to the different types of logging
undertaken (Fig. 2).
As forest patches are fragmented by agriculture and infrastruc-
ture, the area exposed to edge effects increases disproportionately;
already 70% of the world’s forests lie within 1 km of a forest edge
and this proportion is rising27. Globally, locations up to 500 m
from a forest edge average 25% less biomass carbon than locations
Degree of human footprintGlobal forest cover
High NoneLowForest Intact forest
Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests
Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas and shrublands
Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests
Tropical and subtropical coniferous forests
Temperate grasslands, savannas and shrublands
Temperate coniferous forests
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests
Montane grasslands and shrublands
Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrub
Flooded grasslands and savannas
Boreal forests/taiga
0 10 15 200 1015
Million km
Million km
Fig. 1 | The global extent of intact forest. ac, There are many ways to map intact forest: the first example is mapped as defined by Intact Forest
Landscape methodology3 (a), the second example by the global Human Footprint methodology138 (b) and, for both measures, by biome (c). The definition
of overall forest estate was based on ref. 136, with forests defined as > 75% tree coverage.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature ecology & evolutioN
remote from forest edges, and even locations up to 5 km from an
edge can have > 10% less biomass carbon28. These edge effects are
mediated by a wide range of ecological changes, including increased
windthrow and evaporation, and increased access for people, fire
and invasive species27. Another form of degradation is loss of fauna
through over-hunting, which can significantly disturb vegetation
composition and the long-term carbon storage potential of tropical
forests by depriving key, high-carbon tree species of their seed dis-
persal agents, and through other ecological disruptions29,30 (see Box
2). Such effects can extend over vast areas (for example, at least 36%
of the Amazon31) because over-hunting is pervasive where human
access is facilitated by new infrastructure, and can also occur even
in very remote areas32,33.
Degradation reduces the capacity of forests to function as major
net carbon sinks, actively sequestering carbon into soils and living
biomass34,35. The global residual terrestrial sink, much of which is
considered to take place in intact forests, removes an extraordinary
25% (2.4 Pg C yr1) of anthropogenic emissions from all sources,
and hence greatly slows the pace of climate change36,37. This aspect
of global carbon dynamics is often under-emphasized in climate
policy because it is seen as part of the background of natural fluxes.
However, the large-scale degradation of intact forests would result
in a major anthropogenic reduction in this critical ecosystem ser-
vice38. The intact forest sink is distinct from the sink resulting from
reforestation and forest recovery following cessation of degradation.
Both are large and both are likely to be indispensable in efforts to
meet global climate targets36,39.
Regulating local climate regimes and providing watershed ser-
vices. There is increasing evidence that forests are a key factor
in the regulation of local and regional climate regimes through
the exchange of radiation, moisture and wind energy between the
Box 1 | Evidence of the exceptional values intact forest ecosystems have when compared with degraded ecosystems
Climate change mitigation
More above- and belowground carbon stored. Intact forests
store more carbon than logged, degraded or planted forests
in ecologically comparable locations. Industrial logging and
conversion of forest to cropland causes heavy erosion and
contributes to the loss of belowground carbon21,22,144 (see Fig. 2 and
Supplementary Table 1).
More faunal complexity, which helps carbon storage and
sequestration. Defaunation can signicantly erode the long-term
carbon storage potential of forests by depriving key, high-carbon
tree species of seed-dispersal agents, and through other ecological
disruptions such as reduced vegetation diversity and composition
or increased herbivory by non-hunted species (see Box 2)29,31.
Major carbon sequestration. Intact forests continue to function
as major net carbon sinks, actively sequestering carbon into soils
and living biomass12,34,37.
Regulating local and regional weather regimes
Eects on weather. Local and regional weather patterns are
partly a function of the amount of intact forest cover and its
Generation of rain and reduced risk of drought. When intact forests
are cleared or degraded, there is a reduction in cloud cover and rainfall.
Degradation and loss of intact forest can increase the number of dry
and hot days, decrease daily rainfall intensity and wet day rainfall, and
increase drought duration during El Niño years41,168,169.
Ensuring hydrological services are maintained
Eects on water runo availability. Intact forests have a positive
eect on the redistribution of runo, stabilize water table levels and
retain soil moisture by altering soil permeability. ese processes
interact with physiography to regulate the ow distribution of
energy and materials across the land surface and help stabilize
slopes, prevent water and wind erosion, and regulate the transport
of nutrients and sediments48,50.
Buer human settlements against negative eects of extreme
climatic events. Non-degraded forests diminish the impact of
heavy rain events by decreasing runo and reducing the negative
consequences of climate extremes50,170.
Conserving biodiversity
Consistently higher numbers of forest-dependent species. More
forest-dependent species are found in intact ecosystems than
degraded ones. In some regions, the loss of large tracts of forest has
meant wide-ranging forest-dependent species have either retreated
to the last remaining intact forest systems or gone extinct14,68,171.
More eectively sustain important large-scale ecological
processes. Key functions supported by intact forests include
natural disturbance regimes that sustain habitat resources,
constitute selective forces to which species are adapted, or
otherwise inuence community composition17,172,173.
Intact forests have higher functional diversity. Degrading
activities such as selective logging lead to trait shis in communities
that can aect ecosystem functioning, in addition to taxonomic
diversity5,33,173 (see also Box 2).
Higher intra-species genetic diversity. e larger populations of
forest-dependent species that inhabit intact forests provide greater
options for local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity, which will
facilitate species’ potential for evolutionary and plastic responses
to the rapidly changing environmental conditions69,126,128.
Higher ability for species to undertake dispersal or retreat to
refugia. e connectivity provided by large, contiguous areas
spanning environmental gradients, such as latitude, altitude,
rainfall or temperature, maximize the potential for key processes
such as gene ow and genetic adaptation to play out, while also
allowing species to track shiing climates131,152.
Refuge for forest species from increased re frequencies in
degraded landscapes under changing climates. Intact forests
act as re refuges in landscapes where non-intact forests burn too
frequently to support persistence of plant and animal communities
dependent on long time intervals between burning100,124.
Increased likelihood of providing key pollination and dispersal
processes. Direct logging and secondary eects of degradation
such as loss of vertebrate seed dispersers or pollinators leads
to reduced ecosystem functions, such as seed dispersal and
pollination services, for example, reduced fruit set due to reduced
pollinations in fragmented forests31,174.
Indigenous cultures
Increased basis for the material and spiritual aspects of
traditional indigenous cultures to function. Long-established
cultural norms intricately linked to the ecology of intact areas and
vulnerable to damaging change80,91,92.
Human health benets
Reduced health impacts of wildres. Fires attributed to forest
degradation activities such as burning for land clearing result in
premature deaths due to generation of haze. Lower burning rates
in intact forests mean that health eects of wildres are lower than
in degraded landscapes with larger, more frequent res99.
Reduced infectious disease risks. e emergence of novel
diseases from forests and the increase of endemic disease impacts
in forested landscapes are thought to be related to encroachment
and degradation arising from increasing human presence in these
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
PersPective Nature ecology & evolutioN
land and atmosphere. Local and regional weather patterns are
therefore a function of not just the amount of forest cover but also
its state and condition40.
Intact tropical forests are critical for rain generation because
air that passes over these forests produces at least twice as much
rain as air that passes over degraded or non-forest areas41. When
intact forests are degraded, there is a resulting reduction in con-
vective cloud cover and rainfall42. The influence of intact forests
on precipitation, temperature and surface hydrology is particu-
larly relevant in reducing the risks of drought imposed by cli-
mate extremes42. In Australia, the degradation and loss of intact
forest can increase the number of dry and hot days, decrease
daily rainfall intensity, and increase drought duration during El
Niño years43. The last pattern also has been shown in Amazonia,
where deforestation and forest degradation produce warmer and
drier conditions that favour more frequent and intense droughts
than in the past44. Importantly, the local climate benefits of
tropical and sub-tropical forests occur primarily during the dry
season and in regions with low rainfall, and during heat
waves where the temperature is buffered by the cooling effects
of evapotranspiration45.
Intact forests also have a direct influence on water availability
through the redistribution of runoff, water table levels and soil
moisture by altering soil permeability46. These processes interact
with physiography to regulate the flow distribution of energy and
materials across the land surface and help stabilize slopes, prevent
water and wind erosion, and regulate the transport of nutrients
and sediments46. Several studies have shown that when forests are
degraded, the soil infiltration rates and water infiltration capacity
are decreased because of changes in soil structure and aggregation
by organic matter and plant litter production47. For example, intact
mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forested ecosystems of south-
ern Australia have been shown to produce > 12 Ml ha1 yr1 more
water than equivalent forested ecosystems that have been degraded
through logging48. In many cases, intact forests also buffer the nega-
tive effects of heavy rainfall events by reducing peak discharge and
regulating runoff, and by diminishing the negative consequences of
climate extremes49,50.
Conservation of biodiversity. The global biodiversity crisis is
heavily driven by anthropogenic threats to forests51, as forested
ecosystems support the majority of global terrestrial biodiversity52.
Biodiversity has intrinsic value and there is also increasing evidence
that diverse, intact species assemblages underpin ecosystem func-
tions such as tree productivity, nutrient cycling, seed dispersal,
pollination, water uptake and pest resistance that are critical for
human well-being53.
Intact forests have particular value for the conservation of bio-
diversity54. Beyond outright forest clearance (which is the great-
est threat facing biodiversity51), forest degradation from logging is
the most pervasive threat facing species inhabiting intact forests3.
Many species are sensitive to logging, and studies across many taxo-
nomic groups have shown impacts increasing with the intensity of
logging and with the number of times a forest has been logged17,55.
Fragmentation of intact forest blocks (and associated edge effects)
is also a severe threat to forest-dependent species, especially those
requiring large areas to maintain viable populations (for example,
wide-ranging predators and tree species that occur naturally at very
low densities)27,56. In temperate, boreal and tropical forest regions,
the loss of large contiguous tracts of forest has meant wide-ranging
forest-dependent species have either retreated to the last remaining
intact forest systems or are extinct5760. Furthermore, there is evi-
dence that — even for some forest species that may persist for a time
in degraded fragments — intact forests are necessary to ensure their
persistence over the long term18,61,62.
Defaunation resulting from commercial and subsistence hunting
is a critical threat for large-bodied forest vertebrates, especially in
the tropics5,63. Many large carnivores and ungulates that play impor-
tant roles as ecosystem engineers (for example, Sumatran serow
(Capricornis sumatraensis), gaur (Bos gaurus) and forest elephant
(Loxodonta cyclotis)) are now found only as remnant populations
in the remaining intact tropical forests33,64. The synergistic interac-
tion of stand damage, fragmentation and hunting is an increasingly
significant challenge for biodiversity conservation65,66 as it is well
known that forest fragmentation increases access for hunters67, and
logging damage has more severe impacts when combined with frag-
mentation17. Forest biodiversity is best conserved by minimizing the
6. Papua New Guinea. A
decline of 31% was measured
in a medium-crowned
rainforest within four years of
1. Canada. A decline of
12% was modelled over
250 years within a
boreal forest
15. United States.
A decline of 50% was
modelled over 57 years
in a temperate
coniferous forest
1. Canada. A decline of
10–51% was modelled
over 250 years within
coastal forest ecosystems
in British Columbia
1. Canada. A decline of
7–25% was modelled
over 250 years within
forest ecosystems in the
interior of British Columbia
7. Australia. A 55%
decline was measured in a
montane ash forest
repeatedly logged since
before the 1930s
. Australia. A 50%
decline over 100 years
was modelled in a
Tasmanian wet eucalypt
11. Brazil. A decline of
24% was measured in
Paragominas. Time
since last disturbance
was two years
13. Brazil. A decline of
35–57% was measured in
Santarem. Time since last
disturbance unknown
14. French Guiana.
A decline of more than
50% was measured in
a lowland tropical rainforest
immediately post-logging
12. Brazil. A decline of
37% was measured within
various areas of the
Amazon. Disturbance
ages varied
2. Malaysia. A decline
of 53% was measured
at a maximum of 19
years since disturbance
in a dipterocarp forest
4. Indonesia. A decline
of 15% was measured
after various years of
disturbance in a lowland
tropical forest
5. Papua New Guinea. A
decline of 24–37% was
measured over various
lowland tropical forest
within a year after logging
3. Philippines. A decline of
50% was measured in a
dipterocarp forest. Measurements
were taken in a using a
chronosequence of 1–21 years
9. Republic of Congo.
A decline of 3% was
measured after one
year since logging
within a rainforest
10. Gabon. A decline
of 6% was measured
after logging within a
dense humid evergreen
Fig. 2 | Forest degradation and carbon loss. Examples of published case studies that have examined the effects of forest degradation on carbon loss23,117,1 76191.
Supplementary Table 1 provides in-depth summaries of each of the 15 case studies.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature ecology & evolutioN
encroachment of productive activities that promote forest loss and
fragmentation because the initial intrusion leads to rapid degrada-
tion of intact forests, via not only the direct effects of habitat loss,
but also the coinciding effects of wildfires, overhunting, selective
logging and biological invasions, alongside other stressors65,68. For
example, a recent global analysis of nearly 20,000 vertebrate spe-
cies showed that even minimal initial deforestation within an intact
landscape had severe consequences for vertebrate biodiversity in a
given region, emphasizing the special value of intact forests in mini-
mizing extinction risk68. Moreover, those forest ecosystems that are
more affected by humans support less genetic diversity than those
systems that are still intact, which has potentially significant ramifi-
cations for evolutionary change69.
Indigenous peoples. At least 250 million people70 live in forests, and
for many of them, their cultural identities are deeply rooted in the
plant and animal species found there71. Archaeological and ethno-
graphical evidence indicate that forests have been inhabited by peo-
ple for millennia: in Latin America, records go back 13,000 years72;
in Asia, some 40,000 years73; and in Central Africa, more than
250,000 years74. Forest-dwelling indigenous peoples have tended to
do so at very low population densities distributed in dispersed set-
tlements75. Today, tropical forest societies that depend almost exclu-
sively on the direct use of natural resources to meet their basic needs
seldom exceed population densities of 1–2 people km2 (ref. 76), and
tend to change location from time to time to ensure that their taking
of food and other products will not permanently deplete an area of
key resources. Through their selection and management of useful
plants and animals, these communities have significant and long-
lasting impacts on the structure and composition of the forests in
which they live77,78.
Industrial-scale degradation of intact forest erodes the mate-
rial basis for the livelihoods of indigenous forest peoples, depleting
wildlife and other resources79. It also renders traditional resource
management strategies ineffective, and undermines the value of tra-
ditional knowledge and authority80. Fragmentation and degradation
of the forest makes a traditional life style no longer tenable, push-
ing indigenous peoples off their land81, and driving people to adopt
Box 2 | The eect of defaunation on carbon storage and sequestration in intact forests
Even where forests have not been cleared, many are not func-
tioning as they once were166. Species such as the Asian and South
American tapirs (Tapirus spp.), forest elephant (L. cyclotis) and the
great apes have disappeared across much of their ranges. Habitat
degradation and fragmentation are major causes of this defauna-
tion, as many large-bodied species depend on great expanses of
high-quality forest to sustain viable populations5,192. Increased hu-
man accessibility to forests is another, with unsustainable hunting
now aecting greater areas of tropical forest than the combined
extent of deforestation, selective logging and wildres193. Wildlife
species are not equally aected by hunting, with stronger impacts
of hunting pressure on larger-bodied primates and ungulates
compared with smaller-bodied vertebrates such as birds and ro-
Defaunation signicantly erodes key ecosystem services and
functions through direct and indirect cascading eects on species
diversity and trophic webs195197. ere is evidence for negative
eects on pollination, seed dispersal, pest control, nutrient cycling,
decomposition, water quality and soil erosion192,198. Studies
across the African and Atlantic tropical forests indicate that the
disappearance of large frugivores and subsequent loss of seed
dispersal reduces recruitment and natural regeneration of large-
seeded hardwood plant species, which are key contributors to
carbon storage199201. By simulating the local extinction of trees that
depend on large frugivores in 31 Atlantic forest communities, one
study29 found that defaunation has the potential to signicantly
erode carbon storage even when only a small proportion of large-
seeded trees are extirpated. is is because of strong functional
relationships between seed diameter, wood density and tree height,
which are traits related to carbon storage202. Similar results have
been shown for the Amazon31 and other parts of the tropics203.
ere is also likely to be another link between defaunation and
lowered carbon storage in tropical forests; lower herbivory rates
in defaunated forests allow fast-growing herbivore-sensitive plants
to outcompete slower-growing animal-dispersed trees that have
better defence mechanisms against hunted frugivores31,204,205. In
defaunated forests, carbon storage is potentially reduced when
these fast-growing carbon-poor plants replace an equal basal area
of carbon-rich animal-dispersed trees206 — a process that may be
irreversible once the seed stock is lost.
Degree of defaunation
Schematic representation of the transition (from left to right) of a non-hunted, faunally intact tropical forest to an overhunted, defaunated forest.
Shown is the degree to which large arboreal or terrestrial forest frugivores such as elephants and apes decline in abundance and, with these declines,
the associated replacement of large-fruited high-biomass trees by smaller-fruited and wind-dispersed trees that have lower biomass and carbon
storage. Credit: Blake Alexander Simmons.
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
PersPective Nature ecology & evolutioN
production systems that are incompatible with the maintenance
of intact forests8285. As traditional forest peoples become increas-
ingly sedentary and connected to urban markets, gender roles,
diets and cultural values also change8688. These changes in the life
styles of indigenous and traditional peoples create greater depen-
dence on urban markets for provisioning, which can lead to effects
that erode their cultural identities89. Indeed, for many indigenous
forest peoples their cultural sense of self is inextricably linked to
intact forests80.
Forcible alienation from their territories has even more severe
impacts, with the forest homes of many indigenous and traditional
peoples being taken from them, often by force, by more powerful
state, corporate and private actors, whose interests often involve for-
est conversion for cattle pasture, agricultural fields, oil-palm planta-
tions90 and mining concessions9193. This can have serious impacts
on the health of these peoples as they are often exposed to new
disease vectors and hostile settlers and ranchers. As many indig-
enous and traditional peoples are motivated to conserve their for-
ests (because they are the foundation of their economic and cultural
well-being), there is now mounting evidence (which we discuss
below) that strengthening the land tenure of indigenous peoples is a
powerful way to protect intact forests94,95.
Human health. Forested ecosystems are major sources of many
medicinal compounds that supply millions of people with medi-
cines worldwide96,97. Degradation and outright forest loss com-
promise the supply of these benefits as medically relevant species
decline or are lost98. Degradation can also cause substantial nega-
tive health impacts. For example, during the 2015 human-caused
forest fires in Indonesia, the haze generated after 261,000 ha of
degraded forest and peatland was burned caused more than 100,000
premature deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore99.
Fragmented forests experience more numerous and intense edge-
related wildfires in comparison with intact forests100, which severely
exacerbates the extent of health impacts of both intentional and
unintentional burning.
Forest degradation may also lead to infectious disease impacts.
Against a backdrop of declining overall burden of infectious dis-
eases on a global scale101, an increasing rate of novel disease emer-
gence and an increase in the incidence of some endemic diseases in
forested landscapes have been, at least in part, attributed to increas-
ing human presence in, and degradation of, these habitats102,103. For
example, deforestation and resultant environmental changes are
considered key drivers of zoonotic malaria in Malaysian Borneo104.
Although wildlife and arthropod vector species within forests are
natural sources of potential human infections105, increasing human
presence and anthropogenic land-use changes often promote oppor-
tunities for disease transmission, as human-reservoir/vector contact
rates increase or as impacts on host or vector distributions or com-
munity composition perturb natural disease dynamics106. Numerous
infectious diseases associated with forests, including Ebola virus103,
dengue fever107, Zika virus108, several hantaviruses109, yellow fever110
and malaria111, are undergoing changes in risk to humans due to
deforestation, forest degradation and human encroachment.
The increasing significance of intact forests
The differences in important environmental and social values of
intact forests relative to degraded forests are likely to become mag-
nified in the future due to two negative processes in degraded areas:
progressive anthropogenic damage and reduced resilience to envi-
ronmental change.
Vulnerability of degraded forests to further degradation. Once
initiated, forest degradation often intensifies over time112. This is
mediated by: (1) increased levels of human accessibility; (2) suc-
cessive cycles of logging of often progressively lower value trees113;
(3) increased hunting pressure5; (4) forest clearance and fragmenta-
tion due to colonization by farmers and loggers facilitated by new
roads114; and (5) the entry of new extractive development projects
such as mining55. For example, in the Brazilian Amazon, 16% of
logged areas are cleared for agriculture in the first year following
logging, with further losses of more than 5% per year for the next
four years115. This cycle is exacerbated if conversion becomes more
politically acceptable once a forest has been labelled ‘degraded’116.
Once identified as ‘lower value’ for conservation, degraded forests
can mistakenly be considered to have ‘no value’ by some stakehold-
ers, despite extensive evidence to the contrary17,117.
Degraded forests also have increased risk of, and susceptibility
to, natural disturbances such as fire, as forests are drier along their
edges118. There is clear evidence that forests that are logged are at
high risk of burning at uncharacteristically high severity119, with
an elevated fire proneness lasting for decades120. Degraded forests
are also at higher risk from invasion by exotic invasive species18
when compared with non-degraded forests. With fire frequency in
many forest areas predicted to increase under climate change sce-
narios121123, intact forests might become refuges from fire in many
landscapes where degraded forests burn too frequently to support
the persistence of plant and animal communities dependent on old
forests. This cascade of damage, referred to as a ‘landscape trap124,
is becoming more common and many forests are now subject to
repeated disturbances that lock them in early successional states.
Loss of resilience following forest degradation. In addition to
present direct anthropogenic threats, forested ecosystems also have
to adapt to large-scale environmental changes, including changes
in climate19, which interact with the myriad of current threats that
they already face125. Intact forest ecosystems have greater capability
to overcome these regional and global stressors than degraded ones,
as they have inherent properties that enable them to maximize their
adaptive capacity126. For example, intact forested ecosystems often
house important populations of forest-dependent species and high
intraspecific genetic diversity, which both provide options for the
local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity127 that facilitates species
ability to survive changing environmental conditions128. Large, con-
nected and functionally intact forest ecosystems also enable species
to undertake adaptive responses such as dispersal or retreating to
refugia129, which will be critical as the climate changes and species
react130. Moreover, the connectivity provided by large, contiguous
areas spanning multiple environmental gradients, such as altitude,
latitude, rainfall or temperature, will maximize the potential for
key processes such as gene flow and genetic adaptation to play out
naturally, while also allowing species to track shifting climates in
space131,132. Intact forests have been shown to be more resilient in
response to short-term climatic anomalies (for example, droughts
and wildfires during drought) than degraded forests133.
Intact forest ecosystems sustain large-scale ecological processes,
such as natural disturbance regimes, which maintain disturbance-
adapted species that influence native community composition18,127.
For example, the biodiversity of boreal and temperate forests
includes evolutionary lineages that are uniquely adapted to survive
major seasonal temperature changes and landscape-level distur-
bances over time, such as large fires and insect infestations134.
The future of intact forests
The capacity to map human pressures on the environment on
global scales is rapidly improving135 and published results so far
show that not only has loss of global forest cover accelerated since
the 1990s8,136,137 but also that there are higher levels of degradation
within the shrinking forest estate. The recently updated global
Human Footprint138, a composite index of eight human pressures
that is believed to be a good proxy for overall intactness, found that
in 2009, 18% of forests had no detectable human pressure, a 35%
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature ecology & evolutioN
decline since 1993 (Fig. 1b). According to a related but distinct met-
ric, Intact Forest Landscapes covered 24% of the world’s forests in
2013, a decline of 7.2% since 20003. Recent mapping of roadless for-
est139 and hinterland forest140 shows similar declines using alterna-
tive data sources.
These assessments underestimate the total loss of intactness as
they do not fully take into account other forms of forest degrada-
tion, including invasive species, some forms of logging, over-hunt-
ing, and altered fire and flood regimes, nor do they address the
impacts of climate change. For example, vast areas of Central Africa
that are mapped as ‘intact’ by both satellite imagery and the Human
Footprint have lost their forest elephant (L. cyclotis) populations in
the past 20 years due to poaching. This causes dramatic long-term
ecological changes, given the role of this species as an ‘ecosystem
engineer’ though seed dispersal, trampling and herbivory33.
These figures suggest that even if existing global targets to halt
deforestation are achieved, much of what is saved will be no lon-
ger intact. Outright deforestation is currently concentrated in the
tropics and sub-tropics136, but the loss of intactness is a pervasive
global forest phenomenon3. It seems likely that this rapid decline
in forest intactness will accelerate in line with the underlying driv-
ers of change (including human economic demands, which are
growing rapidly as a result of rising population and even more
quickly rising per-capita consumption141). One stark forecast is
that 25 million km of new roads will be built globally by 2050142,
threatening many intact areas.
Focal mechanisms for action on intact forests. It is clear that many
intact forests are under severe and rising pressure, and there is an
urgent need for greater conservation efforts3. Below, we offer some
potential avenues for enhanced action, while acknowledging that
the scale of the challenge is very significant, and will achieve long-
term success only if nations turn away from ‘business as usual’ activ-
ities that extract natural resources without appropriately valuing the
cost of lost natural capital. An essential first step towards greater
success is achieving widespread recognition that rapid loss of for-
est intactness represents a major threat to sustainable development
and human well-being. Policymakers need to understand the chal-
lenge that the loss of forest intactness represents for achieving stra-
tegic goals outlined in key multilateral environmental agreements,
including the Convention of Biological Diversity, the UNFCCC and
the UN Sustainable Development Goals139,143, and this recognition
needs to be translated into meaningful changes on the ground.
A fundamental constraint to progress is the fact that interna-
tional definitions of forests have not differentiated among types of
forest and, in most policy settings, they treat all forests, regardless
of their condition, as equivalent1,144. As such, international policy
processes seldom acknowledge the special qualities and benefits
that flow from intact ecosystems as compared with those that are
degraded. The consequence is that few policy processes (or partici-
pating nations) clearly articulate conservation goals for intactness,
forest quality or integrity143. There is an emerging, critical role for
the science community to develop policy-relevant metrics of for-
est intactness that account for the different forms and levels of for-
est degradation, and assess how they impact on different globally
important social and environmental values. The lack of recognition
of the varying qualities and condition among forest types has impli-
cations for targeting by international funding programmes such as
the Global Environment Facility, Green Climate Fund and Critical
Ecosystems Partnership Fund, which are distributing billions of
dollars annually to help developing countries achieve the goals of
multilateral environmental agreements. All three of these mecha-
nisms could adjust their criteria for funding so as to explicitly rec-
ognize the value of investments that protect intact forests.
A number of emerging policy opportunities for the global com-
munity to recognize the special values that intact forests preserve,
when compared with degraded ones, are within the UNFCCC.
Because the scientific community has not worked out a practi-
cable definition for emissions from land use, land use-change and
forestry (LULUCF) that would separate direct human-induced
effects from indirect human-induced and natural effects, parties
to the UNFCCC in reporting on LULUCF in their greenhouse gas
inventories may choose to apply the managed land proxy145. Under
the managed land proxy, land where human practices have been
applied is considered ‘managed’ and included in reporting under
the UNFCCC. However, by definition, many intact forest land-
scapes are located on ‘unmanaged lands’ and therefore their contri-
bution to meeting mitigation goals is not quantified or understood.
Increased attention to unmanaged lands, and to transitions between
the managed and unmanaged lands categories, through key venues
such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special
Reports and the Global Stocktake and Facilitative Dialogue will not
just improve understanding of the climate mitigation role of intact
forests but also support nations in articulating interventions, targets
and funding needs for protecting these forests in formulating and
implementing their nationally determined contributions.
Further policy enhancements could be identified in existing
frameworks and programmes for financing for tropical intact for-
est conservation, such as the UNFCCC REDD+ process (reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement
of forest carbon stocks in developing countries), the Green Climate
Fund and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. To date, these pro-
cesses have been focused on rewarding countries and jurisdictions
with performance-based payments for reducing near-term threats
of deforestation and (to a much lesser extent) degradation, based
on a historical emissions baseline. Given this goal of achieving
near-term climate mitigation results (that is, typically within five
to ten years), programme rules often directly limit the eligibility or
amount of support for conservation of intact forests that have, by
definition, low historical emissions from deforestation and degra-
dation, and that may be under threat over one or more decades.
For example, so-called ‘high forest, low deforestation’ nations have
relied on projections that implicitly or explicitly assume higher rates
of emissions in the future. A more straightforward approach would
focus on existing stocks and reservoirs of forest carbon, which could
be elaborated within the ‘+ ’ in REDD+ (the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest car-
bon stocks in developing countries). Such an approach may require
new incentives that differ from and are complementary to existing
results-based payment approaches; instead, they would reward the
long-term maintenance of existing carbon stocks and the other ‘+
activities, and bypass rules stipulating that this financing must
target areas with high historical (‘baseline’) levels of emissions146.
Additional climate-related policy approaches are also clearly needed
for temperate and boreal intact forests, especially those in devel-
oped countries that would not expect to receive finance support
under the Paris Agreement and related UNFCCC mechanisms.
There are current efforts underway to generate new 2030 global
biodiversity targets, and operationalizing a clear, mandated target on
preserving ecosystem intactness is critical to this143. The first steps
are underway, with the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature recently adopting a new key biodiversity area criterion
(criterion C) covering those sites that contribute significantly to
the global persistence of biodiversity because they are exceptional
examples of ecological integrity and naturalness147. If the key biodi-
versity area standard becomes formally recognized within the 2030
strategic plan for biodiversity, this would be a very positive step in
proactively conserving intact forests.
Change in policy at the global level should be reflected in the
design and implementation of effective national and sub-national
policies, and forest management plans that recognize the value of
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
PersPective Nature ecology & evolutioN
intact forests to the host nation and specify policies for their pro-
tection and restoration. National and sub-national policies can be
supported by longer-term planning that is incentivized by climate
funding streams (for example, conditional targets in nationally
determined contributions, the Green Climate Fund) that recog-
nize the mitigation contribution of intact forest landscapes. These
policies will vary based on the specific context of different nations,
but there is a clear need to focus on halting degrading activities,
including limiting road expansion142, reducing negative impacts of
hunting through legal controls coupled with sustainable resource
use strategies5, preventing large-scale developments such as mining,
forestry and agriculture in intact forests51, and investing in restora-
tion activities. One obvious intervention that nations can prioritize
is the creation of large protected areas, including transboundary
areas. When well designed, financed and enforced, protected areas
have been shown to be effective in slowing the impacts of industrial
logging3, land clearance148 and over-hunting33,148.
A range of other designations exists beyond protected areas
that can prevent the loss of intactness or promote its restoration.
There is evidence that the designation of ‘roadless areas’ in the
USA, for example, has led to an effective expansion in the degree
of ecoregional representation under protection and increases in the
number of areas big enough to provide refugia for species needing
large tracts relatively undisturbed by people149. There is a need for
mechanisms relating to the private sector that prioritize the protec-
tion and restoration of intact forest, including specific investment
and performance standards for lenders and investors (for example,
the World Bank, International Finance Corporation and regional
development banks) and increasing the effectiveness of existing for-
est and extractive industry certification standards. Recent initiatives
to make supply chains deforestation-free need to be strengthened,
and to include measures to protect intact forests. While there are
some signs of success (for example, the Brazil Soy Moratorium150),
implementation is lagging well behind pledges and it is too early to
demonstrate lasting impacts151.
One emerging strategy that can be effective in slowing the
degradation of intact forests is enabling indigenous communi-
ties to establish title and management over their traditional lands.
Although comprehensive global analyses are lacking, some regional
data reveal the remarkable contribution of stewardship by forest
peoples to sustaining high-integrity forest systems, often in the
face of substantial pressures to liquidate forest timber or mineral
resources. For instance, the creation and management of indig-
enous territories has reduced (although, as with protected areas, not
halted) deforestation across the Amazon Basin152154. It is believed
over half of the Amazon Basin’s 7 million km2 are under some form
of protection, and nearly 1.8 million km2 are indigenous lands155. In
the boreal north of Canada, First Nations peoples have been able to
sign formal agreements with the government and the private sector
to ensure that national economic development policies and prac-
tices respect their rights and commit to conserving their lands and
waters. For example, the Final Recommended Peel Regional Land
Use Plan, co-developed by the government of Yukon and four First
Nation governments, has an explicit goal of “managing develop-
ment at a pace and scale that maintains ecological integrity”, and has
placed 81% of the 67,000 km2 area under protection156. These exam-
ples are drawn mostly from regions where indigenous peoples live
at very low densities and have made cultural choices not to exploit
the territories they own for timber or minerals; where population
densities are higher, or where communities make different cultural
choices, levels of forest degradation associated with subsistence and
income-generating activities will also tend to be proportionately
higher, as with non-indigenous communities.
Funding for protection and restoration of intact forests could also
be used to establish payments for ecosystem services. The approach
has many challenges, but there are some encouraging examples
where these types of activities are being undertaken. For example,
in Brazil, the Amazon Regional Protected Areas programme, partly
funded by international performance-based payments under a pro-
totype REDD+ framework, supports the creation and management
of protected areas and sustainable natural resource use157. This is
being accomplished in collaboration with local peoples with the
overarching aim to maintain forest carbon stocks and protect large-
scale ecological processes158.
There is also a need for increased efforts to restore the intact-
ness of degraded systems. This should not be seen as a substitute for
conserving fully intact systems in their current state, as forest deg-
radation can often only be partially reversed over reasonable tim-
escales112, and it is generally more cost-effective to conserve at-risk
intact forests than to protect or restore fragmented and degraded
ones. If the goal of restoration is to achieve sustainably managed
production forests, this may serve to alleviate pressure on intact for-
ests, while also providing some biodiversity and ecosystem service
benefits159. Further intensifying production systems in previously
degraded land may allow even more intact forests to be spared.
Such a ‘land sparing’ approach has been shown to achieve biodi-
versity benefits in agricultural landscapes relative to ‘land sharing’
(integrating biodiversity and production objectives on the same
land)160, and emerging evidence suggests the same is true in timber
production landscapes161. In both cases, it is imperative that strong
regulation and governance systems are in place to ensure intact
forests are actually spared in practice; otherwise, the higher eco-
nomic returns that come from intensifying production may create
incentives for further forest degradation162. Nonetheless, in already-
degraded systems, partial restoration will clearly bring significant
environmental benefits in many cases112. Important efforts are being
undertaken worldwide, for example through UN-REDD and the
Bonn Challenge, ranging from enabling natural regeneration, active
replanting of native forests, removal of invasive exotic species163, fire
management164, reconnecting landscapes through the establishment
of corridors165, and ‘rewilding’ initiatives to re-establish top preda-
tors and large-scale ecosystem processes in regenerating forests166.
There are still significant tracts of forest that are free from the dam-
aging impacts of large-scale human activities. These intact forests
typically provide more environmental and social values than forests
that have been degraded by human activities. Despite these values,
it is possible to envisage, within the current century, a world with
few or no significant remaining intact forests. Humanity may be left
with only degraded, damaged forests, in need of costly and some-
times unfeasible restoration, open to a cascade of further threats
and lacking the resilience needed to weather the stresses of climate
change. The practical tools required to address this challenge are
generally well understood and include well-located and managed
protected areas, indigenous territories that exemplify sound stew-
ardship, regulatory controls and responsible behaviour by logging,
mining, and agricultural companies and consumers, and targeted
restoration. Currently these tools are insufficiently applied, and
inadequately supported by governance, policy and financial arrange-
ments designed to incentivize conservation. Losing the remaining
intact forests would exacerbate climate change effects through huge
carbon emissions and the decline of a crucial, under-appreciated
carbon sink. It would also result in the extinction of many species,
harm communities worldwide by disrupting regional weather and
hydrology, and devastate the cultures of many indigenous commu-
nities. Increased awareness of the scale and urgency of this problem
is a necessary pre-condition for more effective conservation efforts
across a wide range of spatial scales.
Received: 14 July 2017; Accepted: 30 January 2018;
Published: xx xx xxxx
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature ecology & evolutioN
1. Mackey, B. et al. Policy options for the world’s primary forests in
multilateral environmental agreements. Conserv. Lett. 8, 139–147 (2015).
2. MacDicken, K. et al. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the
World’s Forests Changing? 2nd edn (FAO, Rome, 2016).
3. Potapov, P. et al. e last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact
forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600821 (2017).
4. Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human
footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7,
12558 (2016).
5. Redford, K. H. e empty forest. Bioscience 42, 412–422 (1992).
6. Adoption of the Paris Agreement: Proposal by the President Dra Decision
-/CP.21 (UNFCCC, Geneva, 2015).
7. Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the
Secretary-General (UN Economic and Social Council, 2016).
8. Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests Achieving Collective Forest
Goals: Updates on Goals 1-10 (Climate Focus, 2016).
9. ompson, I. D. et al. An operational framework for dening and
monitoring forest degradation. Ecol. Soc. 18, 20 (2013).
10. Ghazoul, J. & Chazdon, R. Degradation and recovery in changing forest
landscapes: a multiscale conceptual framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
42, 161–188 (2017).
11. Zarin, D. J. et al. Can carbon emissions from tropical deforestation drop by
50% in 5 years?. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1336–1347 (2016).
12. Houghton, R. A., Byers, B. & Nassikas, A. A. A role for tropical forests in
stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1022–1023 (2015).
13. Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A. & Kapos, V. Global variation
in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benets, and unmet
conservation needs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 1046–1050 (2003).
14. Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical
biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).
15. Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P. & Galbraith, D. Increasing human dominance
of tropical forests. Science 349, 827–832 (2015).
16. De Leo, G. & Levin, S. e multifaceted aspects of ecosystem integrity.
Conserv. Ecol. 1, 3 (1997).
17. Edwards, D. P., Tobias, J. A., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E. & Laurance, W. F.
Maintaining ecosystem function and services in logged tropical forests.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 511–520 (2014).
18. Lindenmayer, D., orn, S. & Banks, S. Please do not disturb ecosystems
further. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0031 (2017).
19. Scheers, B. R. et al. e broad footprint of climate change from genes to
biomes to people. Science 354, aaf7671 (2016).
20. Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8,
605–649 (2016).
21. Sanderson, B. M., O’Neill, B. C. & Tebaldi, C. What would it take to achieve
the Paris temperature targets? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7133–7142 (2016).
22. Houghton, R. A. Carbon emissions and the drivers of deforestation and
forest degradation in the tropics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4,
597–603 (2012).
23. Keith, H. et al. Managing temperate forests for carbon storage: impacts of
logging versus forest protection on carbon stocks. Ecosphere 5, 1–34 (2014).
24. Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O. & Banks, C. J. Global and regional importance of
the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 798–818 (2011).
25. Turetsky, M. R. et al. Global vulnerability of peatlands to re and carbon
loss. Nat. Geosci. 8, 11–14 (2015).
26. Zimmerman, B. L. & Kormos, C. F. Prospects for sustainable logging in
tropical forests. Bioscience 62, 479–487 (2012).
27. Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s
ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 (2015).
28. Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest
edges. Nat. Commun. 6, 10158 (2015).
29. Bello, C. et al. Defaunation aects carbon storage in tropical forests. Sci.
Adv. 1, e1501105 (2015).
30. Sobral, M. et al. Mammal diversity inuences the carbon cycle through
trophic interactions in the Amazon. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1670–1676 (2017).
31. Peres, C. A., Emilio, T., Schietti, J., Desmoulière, S. J. M. & Levi, T.
Dispersal limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted
Amazonian forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 892–897 (2016).
32. Robinson, J. G. & Bennett, E. L (eds) Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical
Forests (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2000).
33. Maisels, F. et al. Devastating decline of forest elephants in Central Africa.
PLoS ONE 8, e59469 (2013).
34. Lewis, S. L. et al. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical
forests. Nature 457, 1003–1006 (2009).
35. Luyssaert, S. et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455,
213–215 (2008).
36. Houghton, R. A. e emissions of carbon from deforestation and
degradation in the tropics: past trends and future potential. Carbon Manag.
4, 539–546 (2013).
37. Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests.
Science 333, 988–993 (2011).
38. Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
114, 11645–11650 (2017).
39. Bongers, F., Chazdon, R., Poorter, L. & Peña-Claros, M. e potential of
secondary forests. Science 348, 642–643 (2015).
40. Pielke, R. A., Mahmood, R. & McAlpine, C. Land’s complex role in climate
change. Phys. Today 69, 40–46 (2016).
41. Sheil, D. & Murdiyarso, D. How forests attract rain: an examination of a
new hypothesis. Bioscience 59, 341–347 (2009).
42. Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the
climate benets of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).
43. Deo, R. C. et al. Impact of historical land cover change on daily indices of
climate extremes including droughts in eastern Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett.
36, L08705 (2009).
44. Medvigy, D., Walko, R. L., Otte, M. J. & Avissar, R. Simulated changes in
northwest US climate in response to Amazon deforestation. J. Clim. 26,
9115–9136 (2013).
45. Ahlström, A. et al. e dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend
and variability of the land CO2 sink. Science 348, 895–899 (2015).
46. D’Odorico, P. et al. Ecohydrology of terrestrial ecosystems. Bioscience 60,
898–907 (2010).
47. Ludwig, D., Brock, W. & Carpenter, S. Uncertainty in discount models and
environmental accounting. Ecol. Soc. 10, 13 (2005).
48. Vertessy, R. A., Watson, F. G. R. & Sharon, K. O. Factors determining
relations between stand age and catchment water balance in mountain ash
forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 143, 13–26 (2001).
49. Alila, Y., Kuras, P. K., Schnorbus, M. & Hudson, R. Forests and oods: a
new paradigm sheds light on age-old controversies. Water Resour. Res. 45,
W08416 (2009).
50. Brookhuis, B. J. & Hein, L. G. e value of the ood control service of
tropical forests: a case study for Trinidad. For. Policy Econ. 62,
118–124 (2016).
51. Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity:
the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).
52. Pimm, S. L. et al. e biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction,
distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).
53. Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature
486, 59–67 (2012).
54. Morales-Hidalgo, D., Oswalt, S. N. & Somanathan, E. Status and trends in
global primary forest, protected areas, and areas designated for conservation
of biodiversity from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For.
Ecol. Manag. 352, 68–77 (2015).
55. Venier, L. A. et al. Eects of natural resource development on the terrestrial
biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environ. Rev. 22, 457–490 (2014).
56. Laurance, W. F. et al. e fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year
investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144, 56–67 (2011).
57. Peres, C. A. Why we need megareserves in Amazonia. Conserv. Biol. 19,
728–733 (2005).
58. Lortkipanidze, B. Brown bear distribution and status in the South Caucasus.
Ursus 21, 97–103 (2010).
59. Festa-Bianchet, M., Ray, J. C., Boutin, S., Côté, S. D. & Gunn, A.
Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain
future. Can. J. Zool. 89, 419–434 (2011).
60. Broadbent, E. N. et al. Forest fragmentation and edge eects from
deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol. Conserv.
141, 1745–1757 (2008).
61. Hermy, M. & Verheyen, K. Legacies of the past in the present-day forest
biodiversity: a review of past land-use eects on forest plant species
composition and diversity. Ecol. Res. 22, 361–371 (2007).
62. Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. How to make a common species rare: a case
against conservation complacency. Biol. Conserv. 144,
1663–1672 (2011).
63. Ripple, W. J. et al. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1,
e1400103 (2015).
64. Gray, T. N. E., Prum, S., Pin, C. & Phan, C. Distance sampling reveals
Cambodia’s Eastern Plains Landscape supports the largest global population
of the endangered banteng Bos javanicus. Oryx 46, 563–566 (2012).
65. Barlow, J. et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double
biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147 (2016).
66. Edwards, D. P. e rainforest’s ‘do not disturb’ signs. Nature 535,
44–46 (2016).
67. Peres, C. A. Synergistic eects of subsistence hunting and habitat
fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 15,
1490–1505 (2001).
68. Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity
in intact landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444 (2017).
69. Miraldo, A. et al. An Anthropocene map of genetic diversity. Science 353,
1532–1535 (2016).
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
PersPective Nature ecology & evolutioN
70. Byron, N. & Arnold, M. What futures for the people of the tropical forests?
World D ev. 27, 789–805 (1999).
71. Lévi-Strauss, C. e Savage Mind (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966).
72. Johnson, C. N., Bradshaw, C. J. A., Cooper, A., Gillespie, R. & Brook,
B. W. Rapid megafaunal extinction following human arrival throughout the
New World. Quat. Int. 308, 273–277 (2013).
73. Hutterer, K. L. in People of the Tropical Rain Forest (eds Denslow, J. S. &
Padoch, C.) 63–72 (Univ. California Press, Washington DC, 1988).
74. Mercader, J. Forest people: the role of African rainforests in human
evolution and dispersal. Evol. Anthropol. 11, 117–124 (2002).
75. Robinson, J. G. & Bennett, E. L. (eds) in Hunting for Sustainability in
Tropical Forests 13–30 (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2000).
76. Bennett, E. L. & Robinson, J. G. Hunting of Wildlife in Tropical Forests:
Implications for Biodiversity and Forest Peoples Biodiversity Studies Impact
Series Paper No. 76 (World Bank, Washington DC, 2000).
77. Levis, C. et al. Persistent eects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on
Amazonian forest composition. Science 355, 925–931 (2017).
78. Schmidt, M. J. & Heckenberger, M. J. in Amazonian Dark Earths:
Wim Sombroek's Vision (eds Woods, W. I. et al.) 163–191
(Springer, Dordrecht, 2009).
79. Foley, J. A. et al. Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of
ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5,
25–32 (2007).
80. Rozzi, R. Biocultural ethics: recovering the vital links between the
inhabitants, their habits, and habitats. Environ. Ethics 34, 27–50 (2012).
81. Southgate, D., Wasserstrom, R. & Reider, S. Oil development, deforestation,
and indigenous populations in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Lat. Am. Stud.
Assoc. 11, 1–38 (2009).
82. Bedoya Garland, E. in e Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in
Latin America (eds Painter, M. & Durham, W. H.) 217–248 (Univ. Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, 1995).
83. Demmer, M. J. & Overman, J. P. M. Indigenous People Conserving the Rain
Forest? e Eect of Wealth and Markets on the Economic Behaviour of
Tawahka Amerindians in Honduras (Tropenbos Foundation, 2001).
84. Godoy, R. et al. Household determinants of deforestation by Amerindians
in Honduras. World Dev. 25, 977–987 (1997).
85. Reyes-García, V. et al. Indigenous land reconguration and fragmented
institutions: a historical political ecology of Tsimane’lands (Bolivian
Amazon). J. Rural Stud. 34, 282–291 (2014).
86. Sirén, A. Changing Interactions Between Humans and Nature in Sarayaku,
Ecuadorian Amazon. PhD thesis, Swedish Univ. Agricultural Sciences (2004).
87. Sirén, A. H. Population growth and land use intensication in a
subsistence-based indigenous community in the Amazon. Hum. Ecol. 35,
669–680 (2007).
88. Luz, A. C. et al. How does cultural change aect indigenous peoples’
hunting activity? An empirical study among the Tsimane’in the Bolivian
Amazon. Conserv. Soc. 13, 382–394 (2015).
89. Gross, D. R. et al. Ecology and acculturation among native peoples of
central Brazil. Science 206, 1043–1050 (1979).
90. Sheil, D. et al. e Impacts and Opportunities of Oil Palm in Southeast Asia:
What do We Know and What do We Need to Know? (Center for
International Forestry Research, Bogor, 2009).
91. Finer, M., Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., Keane, B. & Ross, C. Oil and gas
projects in the western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and
indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 3, e2932 (2008).
92. Olivero, J. et al. Distribution and numbers of pygmies in Central African
forests. PLoS ONE 11, e0144499 (2016).
93. Parlee, B. L. Avoiding the resource curse: indigenous communities and
Canada’s oil sands. World Dev. 74, 425–436 (2015).
94. Barraclough, S. & Ghimire, K. Forests and Livelihoods: e Social Dynamics
of Deforestation in Developing Countries (Springer, London, 1995).
95. Oliveira, P. J. C. et al. Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon.
Science 317, 1233–1236 (2007).
96. Colfer, C. J. P. Human Health and Forests: A Global Overview of Issues,
Practice and Policy (Routledge, London, 2012).
97. Karjalainen, E., Sarjala, T. & Raitio, H. Promoting human health through
forests: overview and major challenges. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15,
1–8 (2010).
98. Shanley, P. & Luz, L. e impacts of forest degradation on medicinal plant
use and implications for health care in eastern Amazonia. Bioscience 53,
573–584 (2003).
99. Koplitz, S. N. et al. Public health impacts of the severe haze in equatorial
Asia in September–October 2015: demonstration of a new framework for
informing re management strategies to reduce downwind smoke exposure.
Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 94023 (2016).
100. Laurance, W. F. Forest–climate interactions in fragmented tropical
landscapes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359, 345–352 (2004).
101. Murray, C. J. L. et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases
and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2197–2223 (2012).
102. Jones, K. E. et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451,
990–993 (2008).
103. Myers, S. S. & Patz, J. A. Emerging threats to human health from global
environmental change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 223–252 (2009).
104. Fornace, K. M. et al. Association between landscape factors and spatial
patterns of Plasmodium knowlesi infections in Sabah, Malaysia. Emerg.
Infect. Dis. 22, 201–208 (2016).
105. Dunn, R. R. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality
that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42, 555–557 (2010).
106. Murray, K. A. & Daszak, P. Human ecology in pathogenic landscapes: two
hypotheses on how land use change drives viral emergence. Curr. Opin.
Virol. 3, 79–83 (2013).
107. Vasilakis, N., Cardosa, J., Hanley, K. A., Holmes, E. C. & Weaver, S. C.
Fever from the forest: prospects for the continued emergence of sylvatic
dengue virus and its impact on public health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9,
532–541 (2011).
108. Ali, S. et al. Environmental and social change drive the explosive emergence
of Zika virus in the Americas. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11, e0005135 (2017).
109. Jonsson, C. B., Figueiredo, L. T. M. & Vapalahti, O. A global perspective on
hantavirus ecology, epidemiology, and disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 23,
412–441 (2010).
110. Norris, D. E. Mosquito-borne diseases as a consequence of land use change.
Ecohealth 1, 19–24 (2004).
111. Hahn, M. B., Gangnon, R. E., Barcellos, C., Asner, G. P. & Patz, J. A.
Inuence of deforestation, logging, and re on malaria in the Brazilian
Amazon. PLoS ONE 9, e85725 (2014).
112. Chazdon, R. L. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem
services on degraded lands. Science 320, 1458–1460 (2008).
113. Putz, F. E. & Redford, K. H. e importance of dening ‘forest’: tropical
forest degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shis, and further
transitions. Biotropica 42, 10–20 (2010).
114. Laurance, W. F., Goosem, M. & Laurance, S. G. W. Impacts of roads and
linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 659–669 (2009).
115. Asner, G. P. et al. Condition and fate of logged forests in the Brazilian
Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12947–12950 (2006).
116. Giam, X., Clements, G. R., Aziz, S. A., Chong, K. Y. & Miettinen, J.
Rethinking the ‘back to wilderness’ concept for Sundaland’s forests.
Biol. Conserv. 144, 3149–3152 (2011).
117. Berry, N. J. et al. e high value of logged tropical forests: lessons from
northern Borneo. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 985–997 (2010).
118. Barlow, J. & Peres, C. A. Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade
in an Amazonian forest. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 1787–1794 (2008).
119. ompson, J. R., Spies, T. A. & Ganio, L. M. Reburn severity in managed
and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildre. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
104, 10743–10748 (2007).
120. Taylor, C., McCarthy, M. A. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Nonlinear eects of
stand age on re severity. Conserv. Lett. 7, 355–370 (2014).
121. Stephens, S. L. et al. Managing forests and re in changing climates. Science
342, 41–42 (2013).
122. Wang, X. et al. Increasing frequency of extreme re weather in Canada with
climate change. Clim. Change 130, 573–586 (2015).
123. Bowman, D. Ecohydrology: when will the jungle burn? Nat. Clim. Change
7, 390–391 (2017).
124. Lindenmayer, D. B., Hobbs, R. J., Likens, G. E., Krebs, C. J. & Banks, S. C.
Newly discovered landscape traps produce regime shis in wet forests.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15887–15891 (2011).
125. Côté, I. M., Darling, E. S. & Brown, C. J. Interactions among ecosystem
stressors and their importance in conservation. Proc. R. Soc. B 283,
20152592 (2016).
126. ompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S. & Mosseler, A. Forest Resilience,
Biodiversity, and Climate Change Technical Series No. 43 (Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 2009).
127. Mackey, B. G., Watson, J. E. M., Hope, G. & Gilmore, S. Climate change,
biodiversity conservation, and the role of protected areas: an Australian
perspective. Biodiversity 9, 11–18 (2008).
128. Alberto, F. J. et al. Potential for evolutionary responses to climate
change – evidence from tree populations. Glob. Change Biol. 19,
1645–1661 (2013).
129. Watson, J. E. M., Iwamura, T. & Butt, N. Mapping vulnerability and
conservation adaptation strategies under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change
3, 989–994 (2013).
130. Shoo, L. P., Storlie, C., VanDerWal, J., Little, J. & Williams, S. E. Targeted
protection and restoration to conserve tropical biodiversity in a warming
world. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 186–193 (2011).
131. Sgro, C. M., Lowe, A. J. & Homann, A. A. Building evolutionary
resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol. Appl. 4,
326–337 (2011).
132. Hole, D. G. et al. Projected impacts of climate change on a continent-wide
protected area network. Ecol. Lett. 12, 420–431 (2009).
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Nature ecology & evolutioN
133. Saleska, S. R., Didan, K., Huete, A. R. & Da Rocha, H. R. Amazon forests
green-up during 2005 drought. Science 318, 612 (2007).
134. Piao, S. et al. Footprint of temperature changes in the temperate and boreal
forest carbon balance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07404 (2009).
135. Rose, R. A. et al. Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation.
Conserv. Biol. 29, 350–359 (2015).
136. Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest
cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
137. Kim, D.-H., Sexton, J. O. & Townshend, J. R. Accelerated deforestation in
the humid tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42,
3495–3501 (2015).
138. Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and
2009. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).
139. Ibisch, P. L. et al. A global map of roadless areas and their conservation
status. Science 354, 1423–1427 (2016).
140. Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Krylov, A. M. & Goetz, S. J.
Pan-tropical hinterland forests: mapping minimally disturbed forests.
Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 151–163 (2016).
141. Steen, W. et al. e Anthropocene: from global change to planetary
stewardship. AMBIO 40, 739–761 (2011).
142. Laurance, W. F. et al. A global strategy for road building. Nature 513,
229–232 (2014).
143. Watson, J. E. M. et al. Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine
global environment targets. Curr. Biol. 26, 2929–2934 (2016).
144. Chazdon, R. L. et al. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and
denitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. AMBIO 45,
538–550 (2016).
145. Penman, J. et al. (eds) IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
Kanagawa, 2003).
146. Venter, O. & Koh, L. P. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation (REDD+ ): game changer or just another quick x? Ann. NY
Acad. Sci. 1249, 137–150 (2012).
147. A Global Standard for the Identication of Key Biodiversity Areas: Version 1.0
(IUCN, Gland, 2016).
148. Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. e performance
and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).
149. DeVelice, R. L. & Martin, J. R. Assessing the extent to which roadless areas
complement the conservation of biological diversity. Ecol. Appl. 11,
1008–1018 (2001).
150. Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science 347, 377–378 (2015).
151. Azhar, B., Saadun, N., Prideaux, M. & Lindenmayer, D. B. e global palm
oil sector must change to save biodiversity and improve food security in the
tropics. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 457–466 (2017).
152. Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W. & Leader-Williams, N.
Conservation performance of dierent conservation governance regimes in
the Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 7, 11318 (2017).
153. Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M. & Soares-Filho, B. S. Governance
regime and location inuence avoided deforestation success of
protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110,
4956–4961 (2013).
154. Santika, T. et al. Community forest management in Indonesia: avoided
deforestation in the context of anthropogenic and climate complexities.
Glob. Environ. Change 46, 60–71 (2017).
155. Hardner, J., Gullison, R. E. & O’Neill, E. Staying the course: how a
long-term strategic donor initiative to conserve the Amazon has yielded
outcomes of global signicance. Found. Rev. 9, 14 (2017).
156. Final Recommended Peel Watershed Regional Land Use Plan (Peel Watershed
Planning Commission, Whitehorse, 2011).
157. Soares-Filho, B. et al. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in
climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107,
10821–10826 (2010).
158. Amazon Region Protected Areas Programme (World Wildlife Fund, 2016).
159. Paquette, A. & Messier, C. e role of plantations in managing the world’s
forests in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 27–34 (2010).
160. Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R. Reconciling food
production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing
compared. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).
161. Edwards, D. P. et al. Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: reconciling
timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Glob. Change Biol. 20,
183–191 (2014).
162. Phelps, J., Carrasco, L. R., Webb, E. L., Koh, L. P. & Pascual, U. Agricultural
intensication escalates future conservation costs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
110, 7601–7606 (2013).
163. D’Antonio, C. & Meyerson, L. A. Exotic plant species as problems
and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor. Ecol. 10,
703–713 (2002).
164. Brown, R. T., Agee, J. K. & Franklin, J. F. Forest restoration and re:
principles in the context of place. Conserv. Biol. 18, 903–912 (2004).
165. Jantz, P., Goetz, S. & Laporte, N. Carbon stock corridors to mitigate climate
change and promote biodiversity in the tropics. Nat. Clim. Change 4,
138–142 (2014).
166. Galetti, M., Pires, A. S., Brancalion, P. H. S. & Fernandez, F. A. S. Reversing
defaunation by trophic rewilding in empty forests. Biotropica 49,
5–8 (2017).
167. Pielke, R. A. et al. Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial
ecosystems: inuence on weather and climate. Glob. Change Biol. 4,
461–475 (1998).
168. Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R. & Taylor, C. M. Observations of
increased tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature 489,
282–285 (2012).
169. Alkama, R. & Cescatti, A. Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in
global forest cover. Science 351, 600–604 (2016).
170. Bathurst, J. C. et al. Forest impact on oods due to extreme rainfall
and snowmelt in four Latin American environments. 1: Field data analysis.
J. Hydrol. 400, 281–291 (2011).
171. Barlow, J. et al. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary,
secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104,
18555–18560 (2007).
172. Bergeron, Y., Gauthier, S., Kaa, V., Lefort, P. & Lesieur, D. Natural re
frequency for the eastern Canadian boreal forest: consequences for
sustainable forestry. Can. J. For. Res. 31, 384–391 (2001).
173. Feeley, K. J. & Terborgh, J. W. e eects of herbivore density on
soil nutrients and tree growth in tropical forest fragments. Ecology 86,
116–124 (2005).
174. Rosin, C. & Poulsen, J. R. Hunting-induced defaunation drives increased
seed predation and decreased seedling establishment of commercially
important tree species in an Afrotropical forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 382,
206–213 (2016).
175. Gottdenker, N. L., Streicker, D. G., Faust, C. L. & Carroll, C. R.
Anthropogenic land use change and infectious diseases: a review of the
evidence. Ecohealth 11, 619–632 (2014).
176. Kurz, W. A., Beukema, S. J. & Apps, M. J. Carbon budget implications of
the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest
landscapes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2, 405–421 (1998).
177. Lasco, R. D. et al. Carbon stocks assessment of a selectively logged
dipterocarp forest and wood processing mill in the Philippines. J. Trop. For.
Sci. 18, 212–221 (2006).
178. Pearson, T. R. H., Brown, S. & Casarim, F. M. Carbon emissions
from tropical forest degradation caused by logging. Environ. Res. Lett. 9,
34017 (2014).
179. Brown, S., Casarim, F. M., Grimland, S. K. & Pearson, T. Carbon Impacts
from Selective Logging of Forests in Berau, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Final Report to the Nature Conservancy (Winrock International,
Arlington, 2011).
180. Bryan, J., Shearman, P., Ash, J. & Kirkpatrick, J. B. Impact of logging on
aboveground biomass stocks in lowland rain forest, Papua New Guinea.
Ecol. Appl. 20, 2096–2103 (2010).
181. Fox, J. C. et al. Assessment of aboveground carbon in primary and
selectively harvested tropical forest in Papua New Guinea. Biotropica 42,
410–419 (2010).
182. Putz, F. E. et al. Sustaining conservation values in selectively logged
tropical forests: the attained and the attainable. Conserv. Lett. 5,
296–303 (2012).
183. Dean, C. & Wardell-Johnson, G. Old-growth forests, carbon and climate
change: functions and management for tall open-forests in two hotspots of
temperate Australia. Plant Biosyst. 144, 180–193 (2010).
184. Dean, C., Wardell-Johnson, G. W. & Kirkpatrick, J. B. Are there any
circumstances in which logging primary wet-eucalypt forest will not add to
the global carbon burden? Agric. For. Meteorol. 161, 156–169 (2012).
185. Brown, S. et al. Impact of Selective Logging on the Carbon Stocks of Tropical
Forests: Republic of Congo as a Case Study (Winrock International,
Arlington, 2005).
186. Medjibe, V. D. P. Carbon Dynamics in Central African Forests Managed for
Timber. PhD thesis, Univ. Florida (2012).
187. Vidal, E., West, T. A. & Putz, F. E. Recovery of biomass and merchantable
timber volumes twenty years aer conventional and reduced-impact logging
in Amazonian Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 376, 1–8 (2016).
188. Asner, G. P. et al. Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 310,
480–482 (2005).
189. Berenguer, E. et al. A large-scale eld assessment of carbon stocks in
human-modied tropical forests. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3713–3726 (2014).
190. Blanc, L. et al. Dynamics of aboveground carbon stocks in a selectively
logged tropical forest. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1397–1404 (2009).
191. Janisch, J. E. & Harmon, M. E. Successional changes in live and dead wood
carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiol. 22,
77–89 (2002).
192. Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
PersPective Nature ecology & evolutioN
193. Milner-Gulland, E. J. & Bennett, E. L. Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 18, 351–357 (2003).
194. Peres, C. A. & Lake, I. R. Extent of nontimber resource extraction in
tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon
Basin. Conserv. Biol. 17, 521–535 (2003).
195. Camargo-Sanabria, A. A., Mendoza, E., Guevara, R., Martínez-Ramos, M. &
Dirzo, R. Experimental defaunation of terrestrial mammalian herbivores
alters tropical rainforest understorey diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B 282,
20142580 (2015).
196. Galetti, M. et al. Functional extinction of birds drives rapid evolutionary
changes in seed size. Science 340, 1086–1090 (2013).
197. Nuñez-Iturri, G. & Howe, H. F. Bushmeat and the fate of trees with seeds
dispersed by large primates in a lowland rain forest in western Amazonia.
Biotropica 39, 348–354 (2007).
198. Abernethy, K. A., Coad, L., Taylor, G., Lee, M. E. & Maisels, F. Extent and
ecological consequences of hunting in Central African rainforests in the
twenty-rst century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120303 (2013).
199. Blake, S., Deem, S. L., Mossimbo, E., Maisels, F. & Walsh, P. Forest
elephants: tree planters of the Congo. Biotropica 41, 459–468 (2009).
200. Harrison, R. D. et al. Consequences of defaunation for a tropical tree
community. Ecol. Lett. 16, 687–694 (2013).
201. Brodie, J. F. & Gibbs, H. K. Bushmeat hunting as climate threat. Science
326, 364–365 (2009).
202. Wright, I. J. et al. Relationships among ecologically important dimensions
of plant trait variation in seven neotropical forests. Ann. Bot. 99,
1003–1015 (2006).
203. Osuri, A. M. et al. Contrasting eects of defaunation on aboveground
carbon storage across the global tropics. Nat. Commun. 7,
11351 (2016).
204. Jansen, P. A., Muller-Landau, H. C. & Wright, S. J. Bushmeat hunting and
climate: an indirect link. Science 327, 30 (2010).
205. Poulsen, J. R., Clark, C. J. & Palmer, T. M. Ecological erosion of an
Afrotropical forest and potential consequences for tree recruitment and
forest biomass. Biol. Conserv. 163, 122–130 (2013).
206. van der Heijden, G. M., Powers, J. S. & Schnitzer, S. A. Lianas reduce
carbon accumulation and storage in tropical forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 112, 13267–13271 (2015).
We thank the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for funding this research,
and C. Holtz, A. Rosenthal, B. Mackey, D. DellaSalla, C. Kormos, J. Funk, J. Feidler,
S. Lewis, B. Mercer, S. Rumsey, P. Dargusch and E. Sanderson for conversations around
different ideas that have been presented within this manuscript. A special thank you to
B. Simmons for creating the figure in Box 2.
Author contributions
J.E.M.W. and T.E. conceived the study. The remaining authors provided ideas and
critical feedback.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available for this paper at
Reprints and permissions information is available at
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.M.W.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
... Some of these non-climatic effects are positive, such as enhancing biodiversity (e.g. Chazdon, 2008;Watson et al., 2018;Di Sacco et al., 2021;Seddon et al., 2021), reducing erosion, forming windbreaks and animal shelter, providing aesthetic benefits, or producing economic products (e.g. Leakey, 2014;Monckton and Mendham, 2022). ...
... Planting trees near buildings can help to cool homes through shading and evapotranspiration, and forests can help sustain water quality (van Dijk and Keenan, 2007). Forests can enhance the control of soil-erosion and sustain biodiversity, with natural forests being more effective than managed plantations (Watson et al., 2018;Hua et al., 2022). Landscapes of natural vegetation also deliver positive health and social benefits through recreation and opportunities for spiritual enrichment (Bach Pagès et al., 2020). ...
... grasslands, shrublands) must be included, principally those with less impact and greater singular composition particularities. Retaining the integrity of intact or less modified ecosystems should be an essential component of proactive global and regional conservation ecosystem strategies (Watson et al., 2018). ...
... The new forest growth in arid areas may have a greater impact on the water cycle compared to humid areas . However, in these studies, the regional forests were often treated as a unified entity, with limited individual exploration of the dynamics of primary forests, afforestation, and natural forest expansion (Song et al., 2022;Wang et al., 2017;Watson et al., 2018). Exploring their forest dynamics separately can lead to a better analysis of regional forest carbon sinks and ecosystem services Snäll et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
The implementation of long-term ecological restoration projects and policies over the past two decades has played a crucial role in advancing the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 15. However, the resulting dynamics of new forests remain unclear. In this study, we initially examined the distribution and sources of new forests and subsequently investigated the gross primary productivity (GPP) variations within these forested regions. We discovered that new forests are mainly converted from previously cultivated land, which is primarily due to the Grain for Green Project. The new forests are mainly distributed in mid-low altitude areas and gentle slope regions, indicating that accessible areas are prone to damage but also easy to recover. Over approximately two decades of ecological restoration projects, the GPP of new forests has significantly increased trends and the growth rates of new forests vary significantly in different climatic zones. Moreover, the GPP and growth rates of new forests displayed spatial heterogeneity. Specifically, the GPP in the new forests was highest in the eastern region, followed by the central south region, while the northwest region had the lowest GPP. Meanwhile, the southwest region shows the highest GPP growth rate among new forests, while the northwest region has the slowest growth rate. Furthermore, the average GPP of new forests is lower than stable forests, but new forests in China grow faster (3.735 vs. 2.587), highlighting their substantial carbon potential. These findings indicate that it's crucial to account for variations in stand and forest change rates when modeling forest carbon sequestration potential.
... Second, it seems that migration is less risky than previously thought, despite widespread declines of migrants in North America, Europe, and East Asia (Studds et al. 2017, Rosenberg et al. 2019, Burns et al. 2021, whereas year-round residency, most likely driven tropical forest species, is indeed more important globally and in the tropical regions in particular. Therefore, although we should not resign on the protection of migrants, the effort towards tropical forest conservation should be accelerated (see also Watson et al. 2018). Third, results from extratropical regions, Nearctic and Palearctic, indicate that longer generation time and (partly) body size increase the extinction risk more than the other traits including ecological specialization. ...
Full-text available
The current ecological crisis has risen extinction rates to similar levels of ancient mass extinctions. However, it seems to not be acting uniformly across all species but affecting species differentially. This suggests that species’ susceptibility to the extinction process is mediated by specific traits. Since understanding this response mechanism at large scales will benefit conservation effort around the world, we used the IUCN global threat status and population trends of 8281 extant bird species as proxies of the extinction risk to identify the species-specific traits affecting their susceptibility to extinction within the biogeographic regions and at the global scale. Using linear mixed effect models and multinomial models, we related the global threat status and the population trends with the following traits: migratory strategy, habitat and diet specialization, body size, and generation length. According to our results and independently of the proxy used, more vulnerable species are sedentary and have larger body size, longer generation time, and higher degree of habitat specialization. These relationships apply globally and show little variation across biogeographic regions. We suggest that such concordant patterns might be caused either by a widespread occurrence of the same threats such as habitat modification or by a uniform capacity of some traits to reflect the impact of different local threats. Regardless of the cause of this pattern, our study identified the traits that affect species’ response capability to the current ecological crisis. Conservation effort should focus on the species with trait values indicating the limited response capacity to overcome this crisis.
... Retaining and, where possible, restoring ecosystems and the essential services they provide have become central components to international agreements and frameworks that support and set policy agendas, including the UNFCCC, CBD, SDGs, and Convention to Combat Desertification in recent years (108,109). It is now well established that the less an ecosystem is degraded by industrial activities, the more it can support globally significant environmental values, including endangered biodiversity, and critical ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and storage, water provisioning, and the maintenance of human health (110,111). For example, the climate mitigation potential of nondegraded ecosystems is formally recognized in Article 5 of the IPCC's Paris Agreement (103) and the biodiversity significance of these ecosystems are captured in the first target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (112). ...
Full-text available
As anthropogenic transformation of Earth's ecology accelerates, and its impacts on the sustainability of humanity and the rest of nature become more obvious, geographers and other researchers are leveraging an abundance of spatial data to map how industrialization is transforming the biosphere. This review examines the methodologies used to create such maps and how they have enhanced our understanding of how societies can abate biodiversity loss, mitigate climate change, and achieve global sustainability goals. Although there have been great advances over the past two decades in mapping industrial transformations of ecology across the planet, the field is still in its infancy. We outline future research directions to better understand anthropogenic transformation of the biosphere and the utility of integrating global maps of socioeconomic, ecological, biodiversity, and climate data to explore and inform potential pathways of human-driven social-ecological change.
... Inclusive conservation frameworks and methodologies have been developed to better understand and appropriately respond to different types of knowledge and visions for the future of protected areas (Cebrián-Piqueras et al. 2020;Tallis and Lubchenco 2014;van Riper et al. 2020a;Watson et al. 2018). We define protected area management as the planning, conservation, and sustainable use of natural, cultural, or recreational resources (Manning et al. 2022). ...
Full-text available
The success of protected areas in addressing global environmental change depends on the development of management strate- gies that are inclusive of broad values held by local community members. Here, we report on results from a longitudinal and quasi-experimental study that engaged community members in deliberation around their visions for the future of protected areas in Interior Alaska. Following a regional household survey, we purposively assembled three groups of residents accord- ing to the relative strength of their broad value orientations. Each group was engaged in online discussions over a month-long period time and a thematic analysis of the resulting transcripts was performed to understand: (1) the perceived benefits and threats facing protected areas, and (2) reflections on how public land management agencies should improve decision-making to better incorporate the perspectives of residents. Results showed that the landscape provided a multitude of benefits, such as natural beauty, opportunities for living an Alaskan lifestyle, and sense of community. Conversely, climate variability, ambivalence toward tourism, and large-scale development were the primary perceived threats. Residents also shared recom- mendations for how to build meaningful public engagement processes rooted in a philosophy of ‘inclusive conservation’ that solves sustainability science problems by balancing the consequences of different visions for nature-based solutions. Text- based patterns of deliberation showed that broad values affected the topics of discussion and social learning that occurred in small but meaningful ways. We suggest that people with similar values can hold distinct visions for the future, and that shared spaces for deliberation are important for enabling collective action. We also contend that protected area management decision-making should be transformed through the adoption of a value-based framework whereby guiding principles and relational learning are actively weighed in the process of developing more sustainable solutions for society’s most pressing natural resource management problems.
Full-text available
Environmental regulations have become vital in addressing the Earth's pressing sustainability challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. This overview explores their historical evolution, global significance, and impact on society, highlighting their crucial role in mitigating climate change. As a collective commitment to a sustainable future, these regulations aim to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental preservation, ensuring the well-being of current and future generations.
The fully updated second edition of this innovative textbook provides a system analysis approach to sustainability for advanced undergraduate and graduate students. To an extent unparalleled in other textbooks, the latest scientific data and insights are integrated into a broad and deep transdisciplinary framework. Readers are encouraged to explore and engage with sustainability issues through the lenses of a cultural and methodological pluralism which promotes dialogue and alliances in the search for a (more) sustainable future. Ideal for students and their teachers in sustainable development, environmental science and policy, ecology, conservation, natural resources and geopolitics, the book will also appeal to interested citizens, activists, and policymakers, exposing them to the variety of perspectives on sustainability issues. Review questions and exercises provide the opportunity for consolidation and reflection. Online resources include appendices with more advanced mathematical material, model answers, and a wealth of recommended additional sources.
Global goals and targets were recently set for biodiversity conservation in the coming decade. As action plans are now being developed, it is timely and important to carefully consider where and when various strategies for conservation —such as restoration and preservation —will be most effective. For example, there is widespread support for expanding protected areas (e.g. protecting 30% of lands and waters by 2030) and restoration (e.g. having restoration completed or underway on at least 30% of degraded lands and waters), but also concerns regarding missed opportunities, and even additional degradation of nature, resulting from the ineffective implementation of these strategies. Here, we emphasize the importance of prioritizing the preservation of relatively intact and pristine areas when identifying protected areas, and of avoiding the common misconception that, if intact nature is degraded or lost, it can simply be restored. Even the best restorations, after many decades of investments and efforts, are only a shadow of the natural systems they are meant to recreate. Synthesis and applications . Now that the Global Biodiversity Framework has just been set, there is a critical need to recognize their fundamental differences between the types of places that are priorities for preservation, restoration or both to make collective actions for achieving the targets and goals for nature and people.
Full-text available
Introduction An unprecedented amount of Earth Observations and in-situ data has become available in recent decades, opening up the possibility of developing scalable and practical solutions to assess and monitor ecosystems across the globe. Essential Biodiversity Variables are an example of the integration between Earth Observations and in-situ data for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, with applicability to assess and monitor ecosystem structure, function, and composition. However, studies have yet to explore how such metrics can be organized in an effective workflow to create a composite Ecosystem Integrity Index and differentiate between local plots at the global scale. Methods Using available Essential Biodiversity Variables, we present and test a framework to assess and monitor forest ecosystem integrity at the global scale. We first defined the theoretical framework used to develop the workflow. We then measured ecosystem integrity across 333 forest plots of 5 km ² . We classified the plots across the globe using two main categories of ecosystem integrity (Top and Down) defined using different Essential Biodiversity Variables. Results and discussion We found that ecosystem integrity was significantly higher in forest plots located in more intact areas than in forest plots with higher disturbance. On average, intact forests had an Ecosystem Integrity Index score of 5.88 (CI: 5.53–6.23), whereas higher disturbance lowered the average to 4.97 (CI: 4.67–5.26). Knowing the state and changes in forest ecosystem integrity may help to deliver funding to priority areas that would benefit from mitigation strategies targeting climate change and biodiversity loss. This study may further provide decision- and policymakers with relevant information about the effectiveness of forest management and policies concerning forests. Our proposed method provides a flexible and scalable solution that facilitates the integration of essential biodiversity variables to monitor forest ecosystems.
Full-text available
Significance Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.
Full-text available
Biodiversity affects many ecosystem functions and services, including carbon cycling and retention. While it is known that the efficiency of carbon capture and biomass production by ecological communities increases with species diversity, the role of vertebrate animals in the carbon cycle remains undocumented. Here, we use an extensive dataset collected in a high-diversity Amazonian system to parse out the relationship between animal and plant species richness, feeding interactions, tree biomass and carbon concentrations in soil. Mammal and tree species richness is positively related to tree biomass and carbon concentration in soil-and the relationship is mediated by organic remains produced by vertebrate feeding events. Our research advances knowledge of the links between biodiversity and carbon cycling and storage, supporting the view that whole community complexity-including vertebrate richness and trophic interactions-drives ecosystem function in tropical systems. Securing animal and plant diversity while protecting landscape integrity will contribute to soil nutrient content and carbon retention in the biosphere.A high-diversity Amazonian system reveals the influence of mammalian diversity on the carbon cycle, mediated through vertebrate feeding events.
Full-text available
State-controlled protected areas (PAs) have dominated conservation strategies globally, yet their performance relative to other governance regimes is rarely assessed comprehensively. Furthermore, performance indicators of forest PAs are typically restricted to deforestation, although the extent of forest degradation is greater. We address these shortfalls through an empirical impact evaluation of state PAs, Indigenous Territories (ITs), and civil society and private Conservation Concessions (CCs) on deforestation and degradation throughout the Peruvian Amazon. We integrated remote-sensing data with environmental and socio-economic datasets, and used propensity-score matching to assess: (i) how deforestation and degradation varied across governance regimes between 2006–2011; (ii) their proximate drivers; and (iii) whether state PAs, CCs and ITs avoided deforestation and degradation compared with logging and mining concessions, and the unprotected landscape. CCs, state PAs, and ITs all avoided deforestation and degradation compared to analogous areas in the unprotected landscape. CCs and ITs were on average more effective in this respect than state PAs, showing that local governance can be equally or more effective than centralized state regimes. However, there were no consistent differences between conservation governance regimes when matched to logging and mining concessions. Future impact assessments would therefore benefit from further disentangling governance regimes across unprotected land.
Full-text available
Community forest management has been identified as a win-win option for reducing deforestation while improving the welfare of rural communities in developing countries. Despite considerable investment in community forestry globally, systematic evaluations of the impact of these policies at appropriate scales are lacking. We assessed the extent to which deforestation has been avoided as a result of the Indonesian government's community forestry scheme, Hutan Desa (Village Forest). We used annual data on deforestation rates between 2012 and 2016 from two rapidly developing islands: Sumatra and Kalimantan. The total area of Hutan Desa increased from 750 km2 in 2012 to 2500 km2 in 2016. We applied a spatial matching approach to account for biophysical variables affecting deforestation and Hutan Desa selection criteria. Performance was assessed relative to a counterfactual likelihood of deforestation in the absence of Hutan Desa tenure. We found that Hutan Desa management has successfully achieved avoided deforestation overall, but performance has been increasingly variable through time. Hutan Desa performance was influenced by anthropogenic and climatic factors, as well as land use history. Hutan Desa allocated on watershed protection forest or limited production forest typically led to a less avoided deforestation regardless of location. Conversely, Hutan Desa granted on permanent or convertible production forest had variable performance across different years and locations. The amount of rainfall during the dry season in any given year was an important climatic factor influencing performance. Extremely dry conditions during drought years pose additional challenges to Hutan Desa management, particularly on peatland, due to increased vulnerability to fire outbreaks. This study demonstrates how the performance of Hutan Desa in avoiding deforestation is fundamentally affected by biophysical and anthropogenic circumstances over time and space. Our study improves understanding on where and when the policy is most effective with respect to deforestation, and helps identify opportunities to improve policy implementation. This provides an important first step towards evaluating the overall effectiveness of this policy in achieving both social and environmental goals.
Full-text available
Conceptual confusion revolves around how to define, assess, and overcome land, ecosystem, and landscape degradation. Common elements link degradation and recovery processes, offering ways to advance local, regional, and global initiatives to reduce degradation and promote the recovery of ecosystems and landscapes in forest biomes. Biophysical attributes of degradation and recovery can be measured, but the relevance of selected attributes across scales is subject to values that determine preferred states. Degradation defined in the context of a resilience-based approach is a state where the capacity for regeneration is greatly reduced or lost, recovery is arrested, core interactions and feedbacks are broken, and human intervention is required to initiate a trajectory of recovery. Another approach combines degradation and recovery processes through the concept of recovery debt, the cumulative lost benefits incurred, relative to a target state during phases of degradation and recovery. Degradation and recovery can also be described in terms of societal willingness to invest in improved management or restoration. Interventions can facilitate recovery to new stable or persistent states that provide multiple social and ecological benefits at land, ecosystem, and landscape scales. Multiple trajectories of recovery, as well as historic and ongoing chronic environmental change, might, however, mean that recovery to an original reference state is not possible. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources Volume 42 is October 17, 2017. Please see for revised estimates.
Full-text available
Global biodiversity loss is a critical environmental crisis, yet the lack of spatial data on biodiversity threats has hindered conservation strategies. Theory predicts that abrupt biodiversity declines are most likely to occur when habitat availability is reduced to very low levels in the landscape (10-30%). Alternatively, recent evidence indicates that biodiversity is best conserved by minimizing human intrusion into intact and relatively unfragmented landscapes. Here we use recently available forest loss data to test deforestation effects on International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List categories of extinction risk for 19,432 vertebrate species worldwide. As expected, deforestation substantially increased the odds of a species being listed as threatened, undergoing recent upgrading to a higher threat category and exhibiting declining populations. More importantly, we show that these risks were disproportionately high in relatively intact landscapes; even minimal deforestation has had severe consequences for vertebrate biodiversity. We found little support for the alternative hypothesis that forest loss is most detrimental in already fragmented landscapes. Spatial analysis revealed high-risk hot spots in Borneo, the central Amazon and the Congo Basin. In these regions, our model predicts that 121-219 species will become threatened under current rates of forest loss over the next 30 years. Given that only 17.9% of these high-risk areas are formally protected and only 8.9% have strict protection, new large-scale conservation efforts to protect intact forests are necessary to slow deforestation rates and to avert a new wave of global extinctions.
State-controlled protected areas (PAs) have dominated conservation strategies globally, yet their performance relative to other governance regimes is rarely assessed comprehensively. Furthermore, performance indicators of forest PAs are typically restricted to deforestation, although the extent of forest degradation is greater. We address these shortfalls through an empirical impact evaluation of state PAs, Indigenous Territories (ITs), and civil society and private Conservation Concessions (CCs) on deforestation and degradation throughout the Peruvian Amazon. We integrated remote-sensing data with environmental and socio-economic datasets, and used propensity-score matching to assess: (i) how deforestation and degradation varied across governance regimes between 2006–2011; (ii) their proximate drivers; and (iii) whether state PAs, CCs and ITs avoided deforestation and degradation compared with logging and mining concessions, and the unprotected landscape. CCs, state PAs, and ITs all avoided deforestation and degradation compared to analogous areas in the unprotected landscape. CCs and ITs were on average more effective in this respect than state PAs, showing that local governance can be equally or more effective than centralized state regimes. However, there were no consistent differences between conservation governance regimes when matched to logging and mining concessions. Future impact assessments would therefore benefit from further disentangling governance regimes across unprotected land.
Most palm oil currently available in global markets is sourced from certified large-scale plantations. Comparatively little is sourced from (typically uncertified) smallholders. We argue that sourcing sustainable palm oil should not be determined by commercial certification alone and that the certification process should be revisited. There are so-far unrecognized benefits of sourcing palm oil from smallholders that should be considered if genuine biodiversity conservation is to be a foundation of 'environmentally sustainable' palm oil production. Despite a lack of certification, smallholder production is often more biodiversity-friendly than certified production from large-scale plantations. Sourcing palm oil from smallholders also alleviates poverty among rural farmers, promoting better conservation outcomes. Yet, certification schemes - the current measure of 'sustainability' - are financially accessible only for large-scale plantations that operate as profit-driven monocultures. Industrial palm oil is expanding rapidly in regions with weak environmental laws and enforcement. This warrants the development of an alternative certification scheme for smallholders. Greater attention should be directed to deforestation-free palm oil production in smallholdings, where production is less likely to cause large scale biodiversity loss. These small-scale farmlands in which palm oil is mixed with other crops should be considered by retailers and consumers who are interested in promoting sustainable palm oil production. Simultaneously, plantation companies should be required to make their existing production landscapes more compatible with enhanced biodiversity conservation.