Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity

Grantham, Hedley S.; Duncan, A. J.; Evans, Thomas D.; Jones, Kendall R.; Beyer, Hawthorne L.; Schuster, Richard; Walston, Joe; Ray, Justina C.; Robinson, John G.; Callow, Mark; Clement, Thomas A; Costa, Hugo; DeGemmis, Alfred; Elsen, Paul R.; Ervin, Jamison; Franco, Peter A.; Goldman, Elizabeth Dow; Goetz, Scott J.; Hansen, Andrew J.; Hofsvang, E.; Jantz, Patrick; Jupiter, Stacy D.; Kang, Aili; Langhammer, Penny F.; Laurance, William F.; Lieberman, Susan; Linkie, M.; Malhi, Yadvinder; Maxwell, Sean; Mendez, Martín; Mittermeier, Russell A.; Murray, Nicholas J.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Radachowsky, Jeremy; Saatchi, Sassan; Samper, Cristián; Silverman, Jacob; Shapiro, Aurélie; Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.; Stevens, Todd O.; Stokes, Emma J.; Taylor, Rick S.; Tear, Tim; Tizard, Robert; Venter, Oscar; Visconti, Piero

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3

Cited by 300 publications

(267 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

257

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ecologically intact ecosystems have long been recognized as an important conservation objective for protection. Wilderness areas were identified as important priorities over 30 years ago (McCloskey and Spalding, 1989;Mittermeier et al, 1998), but more recently there have been attempts to be more explicit about what is being measured when referring to wilderness, with a focus on quantifying intact habitat (Potapov et al, 2008(Potapov et al, , 2017Watson et al, 2016;Kennedy et al, 2019;Grantham et al, 2020) and the values of intact habitat (Watson et al, 2018). Many assessments have focused on mapping anthropogenic influence (Human Footprint: Sanderson et al, 2002a;Venter et al, 2016b;Anthromes: Goldewijk et al, 2017;Global Human Modification: Kennedy et al, 2018;Low Impact Areas: Jacobson et al, 2019;Intact Forest: Potapov et al, 2008 and have generated several maps of anthropogenic impact that independently estimate that 20-40% of the earth's terrestrial surface is under low human influence (Riggio et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Plumptre¹,

Baisero²,

Belote³

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation efforts should target the few remaining areas of the world that represent outstanding examples of ecological integrity and aim to restore ecological integrity to a much broader area of the world with intact habitat and minimal species loss while this is still possible. There have been many assessments of “intactness” in recent years but most of these use measures of anthropogenic impact at a site, rather than faunal intactness or ecological integrity. This paper makes the first assessment of faunal intactness for the global terrestrial land surface and assesses how many ecoregions have sites that could qualify as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs – sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity) based on their outstanding ecological integrity (under KBA Criterion C). Three datasets are combined on species loss at sites to create a new spatially explicit map of numbers of species extirpated. Based on this map it is estimated that no more than 2.9% of the land surface can be considered to be faunally intact. Additionally, using habitat/density distribution data for 15 large mammals we also make an initial assessment of areas where mammal densities are reduced, showing a further decrease in surface area to 2.8% of the land surface that could be considered functionally intact. Only 11% of the functionally intact areas that were identified are included within existing protected areas, and only 4% within existing KBAs triggered by other criteria. Our findings show that the number of ecoregions that could qualify as Criterion C KBAs could potentially increase land area up to 20% if their faunal composition was restored with the reintroduction of 1–5 species. Hence, if all necessary requirements are met in order to reintroduce species and regain faunal integrity, this will increase ecological integrity across much of the area where human impacts are low (human footprint ≤4). Focusing restoration efforts in these areas could significantly increase the area of the planet with full ecological integrity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Plumptre¹,

Baisero²,

Belote³

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Less seasonal regions in the Amazon—which have 3 months or less of the dry season—are dominated by undisturbed dense-closed tropical forests [ 25 ]. These forests maintain a moist microclimate even during the dry season peak, reducing or preventing fire spread even following prolonged dry periods [ 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drought-driven wildfire impacts on structure and dynamics in a wet Central Amazonian forest

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the climate and human-induced forest degradation is increasing in the Amazon, fire impacts on forest dynamics remain understudied in the wetter regions of the basin, which are susceptible to large wildfires only during extreme droughts. To address this gap, we installed burned and unburned plots immediately after a wildfire in the northern Purus-Madeira (Central Amazon) during the 2015 El-Niño. We measured all individuals with diameter of 10 cm or more at breast height and conducted recensuses to track the demographic drivers of biomass change over 3 years. We also assessed how stem-level growth and mortality were influenced by fire intensity (proxied by char height) and tree morphological traits (size and wood density). Overall, the burned forest lost 27.3% of stem density and 12.8% of biomass, concentrated in small and medium trees. Mortality drove these losses in the first 2 years and recruitment decreased in the third year. The fire increased growth in lower wood density and larger sized trees, while char height had transitory strong effects increasing tree mortality. Our findings suggest that fire impacts are weaker in the wetter Amazon. Here, trees of greater sizes and higher wood densities may confer a margin of fire resistance; however, this may not extend to higher intensity fires arising from climate change.

show abstract

“…Despite increasing interest in mainstreaming NbS (Nesshöver et al 2017;Wamsler et al 2017), little is known about the mechanisms and conditions necessary for scaling them up in practice. There is also a lack of knowledge as to how upscaling is understood and the optimal scales for application of NbSboth in terms of providing space for nature and, particularly, for ecological processes that confer resilience and promote biodiversity persistence, as well as in terms of the services provided for people and their equitable distribution (Grantham et al 2020;Nahuelhual et al 2018).…”

Section: Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Spotlight on social equity, finance and scale: Promises and pitfalls of nature-based solutions

Barquet¹,

Leander²,

Green³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activity has modified and deteriorated natural ecosystems in ways that reduce resilience and exacerbate environmental and climate problems. Physical measures to protect, manage and restore these ecosystems that also address societal challenges in sustainable ways and bring biodiversity benefits are sometimes referred to as “nature-based solutions” (NBS). For example, reducing deforestation and restoring forests is a major opportunity for climate mitigation, while protecting or restoring coastal habitats can mitigate damage to coastal areas from natural hazard events, in addition to potentially providing co-benefits related to livelihood, recreation, and biodiversity. There is now an impetus to shift towards greater deployment of nature-based solutions. Not only do they offer an alternative to conventional fossil fuel-based or hard infrastructure solutions but, if implemented correctly, they also hold great promise for achieving multiple goals, benefits and synergies. These include climate mitigation and resilience; nature and biodiversity protection; and economic and social gains. 2020 saw an explosion in publications about NBS, which have contributed to filling many of the knowledge gaps that existed around their effectiveness and factors for their success. These publications have also highlighted the knowledge gaps that remain and have revealed a lack of critical reflection on the social and economic sustainability aspects of NBS. Building on these gaps, we decided to launch this mini-series of four briefs to provoke a more nuanced discussion that highlights not only the potential benefits, but also the potential risks and trade-offs of NBS. The purpose is not to downplay the importance of NBS for biodiversity, ecosystems, and coastal mitigation and adaptation, but to ensure that we establish a dialogue about ways to overcome these challenges while leaving no one behind.

show abstract

Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity

Cited by 300 publications

References 65 publications

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Drought-driven wildfire impacts on structure and dynamics in a wet Central Amazonian forest

Spotlight on social equity, finance and scale: Promises and pitfalls of nature-based solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About