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

Joice Ferreira (), Gareth D. Lennox (), Toby A. Gardner, James R. Thomson, Erika Berenguer, Alexander C. Lees, Ralph Mac Nally, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Silvio F. B. Ferraz, Julio Louzada, Nárgila G. Moura, Victor H. F. Oliveira, Renata Pardini, Ricardo R. C. Solar, Ima C. G. Vieira and Jos Barlow
Additional contact information
Joice Ferreira: EMBRAPA Amazônia Oriental
Gareth D. Lennox: Lancaster University
Toby A. Gardner: Stockholm Environment Institute
James R. Thomson: University of Canberra
Erika Berenguer: Lancaster University
Alexander C. Lees: Manchester Metropolitan University
Ralph Mac Nally: University of Canberra
Luiz E. O. C. Aragão: National Institute for Space Research
Silvio F. B. Ferraz: Universidade de Sao Paulo
Julio Louzada: Universidade Federal de Lavras
Nárgila G. Moura: MCTI/Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi
Victor H. F. Oliveira: Universidade Federal de Lavras
Renata Pardini: Universidade de Sao Paulo
Ricardo R. C. Solar: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Ima C. G. Vieira: MCTI/Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi
Jos Barlow: Lancaster University

Nature Climate Change, 2018, vol. 8, issue 8, 744-749

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

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0225-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcli:v:8:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1038_s41558-018-0225-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0225-7

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Climate Change is currently edited by Bronwyn Wake

More articles in Nature Climate Change from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().