Indonesia contributes significantly to deforestation in Southeast Asia. However, much uncertainty remains over the relative contributions of various forest-exploiting sectors to forest losses in the country. Here, we compare the magnitudes of forest and carbon loss, and forest and carbon stocks remaining within oil palm plantation, logging, fiber plantation (pulp and paper), and coal mining concessions in Indonesia. Forest loss in all industrial concessions, including logging concessions, relate to the conversion of forest to nonforest land cover. We found that the four industries accounted for ß44.7% (ß6.6

The expansion of large-scale oil palm plantations in Indonesia has taken a heavy toll on forests, biodiversity, and carbon stocks but little is known about the environmental impacts from the smallholder sector. Here, we compare the magnitude of forest and carbon loss attributable to smallholdings, private enterprises, and state-owned oil palm plantations in Sumatra. During 2000-2010, oil palm development accounted for the loss of 4,744 ha of mangrove, 383,518 ha of peat swamp forest, 289, 406 ha of lowland forest, and 1,000 ha of lower montane forest. Much of this deforestation was driven by private enterprises (88.3%) followed by smallholdings (10.7%) and state-owned plantations (0.9%). Oil palm-driven deforestation in Sumatra resulted in 756-1,043 Mt of total gross carbon dioxide emissions, of which ∼90% and ∼9% can be attributed to private enterprises and smallholdings, respectively. While private enterprises are responsible for the bulk of environmental impacts, the smallholder oil palm sector exhibits higher annual rates of expansion (11%) compared to private enterprises (5%). Both sectors will need careful monitoring and engagement to develop successful strategies for mitigating future environmental impacts of oil palm expansion.

No abstract

Riparian buffers, the interface between terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, have the potential to protect water bodies from land‐based pollution, and also for enhancing the delivery of a range of ecosystem services. The UK currently has no defined optimal width or maximum extent of riparian buffers for specific ecosystem services. Here, we present the first study, which attempts to (a) compare and critique different riparian buffer delineation methods and (b) investigate how ecological processes, for example, pollutant removal, nutrient cycling, and water temperature regulation, are affected spatially by proximity to the river and also within a riparian buffer zone. Our results have led to the development of new concepts for riparian delineation based on ecosystem service‐specific scenarios. Results from our study suggest that choice of delineation method will influence not only the total area of potential riparian buffers but also the proportion of land cover types included, which in turn will determine their main ecosystem provision. Thus, for some ecological processes (e.g., pollutant removal), a fixed‐distance approach will preserve and protect its ecosystem function, whereas for processes such as denitrification, a variable‐width buffer will reflect better riparian spatial variability maximizing its ecological value. In summary, riparian delineation within UK habitats should be specific to the particular ecosystem service(s) of interest (e.g., uptake of nutrients and shading), and the effectiveness of the buffer should be ground‐truthed to ensure the greatest level of protection.

No abstract