We combined two existing datasets of vegetation aboveground biomass (AGB) (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2011, 9899; Nature Climate Change, 2, 2012, 182) into a pan-tropical AGB map at 1-km resolution using an independent reference dataset of field observations and locally calibrated high-resolution biomass maps, harmonized and upscaled to 14 477 1-km AGB estimates. Our data fusion approach uses bias removal and weighted linear averaging that incorporates and spatializes the biomass patterns indicated by the reference data. The method was applied independently in areas (strata) with homogeneous error patterns of the input (Saatchi and Baccini) maps, which were estimated from the reference data and additional covariates. Based on the fused map, we estimated AGB stock for the tropics (23.4 N-23.4 S) of 375 Pg dry mass, 9-18% lower than the Saatchi and Baccini estimates. The fused map also showed differing spatial patterns of AGB over large areas, with higher AGB density in the dense forest areas in the Congo basin, Eastern Amazon and South-East Asia, and lower values in Central America and in most dry vegetation areas of Africa than either of the input maps. The validation exercise, based on 2118 estimates from the reference dataset not used in the fusion process, showed that the fused map had a RMSE 15-21% lower than that of the input maps and, most importantly, nearly unbiased estimates (mean bias 5 Mg dry mass ha(-1) vs. 21 and 28 Mg ha(-1) for the input maps). The fusion method can be applied at any scale including the policy-relevant national level, where it can provide improved biomass estimates by integrating existing regional biomass maps as input maps and additional, country-specific reference datasets.

There is growing awareness that ‘nature-based solutions' (NbS) can help to protect us from climate change impacts while slowing further warming, supporting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services. However, the potential of NbS to provide the intended benefits has not been rigorously assessed. There are concerns over their reliability and cost-effectiveness compared to engineered alternatives, and their resilience to climate change. Trade-offs can arise if climate mitigation policy encourages NbS with low biodiversity value, such as afforestation with non-native monocultures. This can result in maladaptation, especially in a rapidly changing world where biodiversity-based resilience and multi-functional landscapes are key. Here, we highlight the rise of NbS in climate policy—focusing on their potential for climate change adaptation as well as mitigation—and discuss barriers to their evidence-based implementation. We outline the major financial and governance challenges to implementing NbS at scale, highlighting avenues for further research. As climate policy turns increasingly towards greenhouse gas removal approaches such as afforestation, we stress the urgent need for natural and social scientists to engage with policy makers. They must ensure that NbS can achieve their potential to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crisis while also contributing to sustainable development. This will require systemic change in the way we conduct research and run our institutions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.

No abstract

The net primary productivity, carbon (C) stocks and turnover rates (i.e. C dynamics) of tropical forests are an important aspect of the global C cycle. These variables have been investigated in lowland tropical forests, but they have rarely been studied in tropical montane forests (TMFs). This study examines spatial patterns of above‐ and belowground C dynamics along a transect ranging from lowland Amazonia to the high Andes in SE Peru. Fine root biomass values increased from 1.50 Mg C ha−1 at 194 m to 4.95 ± 0.62 Mg C ha−1 at 3020 m, reaching a maximum of 6.83 ± 1.13 Mg C ha−1 at the 2020 m elevation site. Aboveground biomass values decreased from 123.50 Mg C ha−1 at 194 m to 47.03 Mg C ha−1 at 3020 m. Mean annual belowground productivity was highest in the most fertile lowland plots (7.40 ± 1.00 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) and ranged between 3.43 ± 0.73 and 1.48 ± 0.40 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 in the premontane and montane plots. Mean annual aboveground productivity was estimated to vary between 9.50 ± 1.08 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 (210 m) and 2.59 ± 0.40 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 (2020 m), with consistently lower values observed in the cloud immersion zone of the montane forest. Fine root C residence time increased from 0.31 years in lowland Amazonia to 3.78 ± 0.81 years at 3020 m and stem C residence time remained constant along the elevational transect, with a mean of 54 ± 4 years. The ratio of fine root biomass to stem biomass increased significantly with increasing elevation, whereas the allocation of net primary productivity above‐ and belowground remained approximately constant at all elevations. Although net primary productivity declined in the TMF, the partitioning of productivity between the ecosystem subcomponents remained the same in lowland, premontane and montane forests.

Nature‐based solutions (NbS)—solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature—have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade‐offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.