A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures

Abstract

Habitat loss and degradation, driven largely by agricultural expansion and intensification, present the greatest immediate threat to biodiversity. Tropical forests harbour among the highest levels of terrestrial species diversity and are likely to experience rapid land-use change in the coming decades. Synthetic analyses of observed responses of species are useful for quantifying how land use affects biodiversity and for predicting outcomes under land-use scenarios. Previous applications of this approach have typically focused on individual taxonomic groups, analysing the average response of the whole community to changes in land use. Here, we incorporate quantitative remotely sensed data about habitats in, to our knowledge, the first worldwide synthetic analysis of how individual species in four major taxonomic groups—invertebrates, ‘herptiles’ (reptiles and amphibians), mammals and birds—respond to multiple human pressures in tropical and sub-tropical forests. We show significant independent impacts of land use, human vegetation offtake, forest cover and human population density on both occurrence and abundance of species, highlighting the value of analysing multiple explanatory variables simultaneously. Responses differ among the four groups considered, and—within birds and mammals—between habitat specialists and habitat generalists and between narrow-ranged and wide-ranged species.

The use of response measures in meta-analyses of land-use impacts on ecological communities: a review and the way forward

“…There is a general agreement in the scientific community that multiple taxonomic groups should be studied to obtain reliable estimates of the effects of a given human intervention on biodiversity (Barlow et al 2007;Brown and Williams 2016). In our evaluation, a few of the studies consistently used high-informative measures while encompassing several taxonomic groups and covering a large geographical scale (e.g., Gibson et al 2011;Fedrowitz et al 2014;Curran et al 2014;Newbold et al 2014), showing that with some effort, high-informative measures can be used even in wide-scope studies.…”

“…Grouping species according to their habitat requirements, ecological functions or foraging guilds may reveal important changes in community structure that may be hidden in total species richness or β diversity measures. Even a simple division into forest/non-forest species (Philpott et al 2008;De Beenhouwer et al 2013;Fedrowitz et al 2014;Burivalova et al 2014) or specialist/generalist species (Gibson et al 2011;Newbold et al 2014;Thompson et al 2016) may provide critical information on sensitive species groups and thereby contribute to improved ecosystem management or conservation planning.…”

Editorial: Tropical Forest Ecosystem Responses to Increasing Nutrient Availability

“…While deforestation and conversion to agricultural land are the most visible threats to tropical forests worldwide, these systems are also increasingly exposed to atmospheric nutrient deposition and climate change (Lewis et al, 2009(Lewis et al, , 2015Malhi et al, 2014;Newbold et al, 2014). Even the most remote tropical forest areas are expected to receive rising amounts of air-borne nutrients, which will have unknown consequences for the biogeochemical cycles, structure and functioning of these systems, no matter if they are within protected areas or not (e.g., Wilcke et al, 2013;Fernández-Martínez et al, 2014).…”

1. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition

“…Even the many contributions that woodlands make to agricultural production outside of forests have been largely overlooked. Paradigms for forest and tree management have also evolved considerably in the last fifty years, away from a state-controlled, production-centric approach to more collaborative systems which prioritise the needs of local people, and also value the roles of forests in providing critical ecosystem services, especially habitats for biodiversity (including agrobiodiversity), pollination, soil protection, water and climate regulation (Mace, 2014). Decentralised management systems now better reflect local demands, especially for woodfuel, fodder and small timber (Larson et al, 2010).…”