Determination of Deforestation Rates of the World's Humid Tropical Forests

Achard, Frédéric; Eva, Hugh; Stibig, Hans-Jürgen; Mayaux, Philippe; Gallego, Javier; Richards, Timothy; Malingreau, J. P.

doi:10.1126/science.1070656

Cited by 1,637 publications

(1,189 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These data have been temperature corrected to 15°C and include a large diversity of tissue types (Materials and Methods and SI Appendix, Table S2). As we also predict, in entire ecosystems, carbon residence times increase with (B) increasing body size of the primary producers (slope is 0.21 ± 0.02 95% CI; expected slope is <0.25 depending on the network, see prediction 3 in main text), data replotted from Allen et al (10), and (C) the ratio of total biomass to primary production (slope is 0. forests with agricultural fields and grasslands (39)(40)(41)(42), and a warmer climate, which increases metabolic rates, should decrease the residence time of carbon in local ecosystems and in the biosphere as a whole. More generally, our theory is a synthesis of systems and metabolic approaches that shows explicitly and quantitatively how organisms control the carbon cycle at all scales from individuals to ecosystems to the biosphere.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem properties

Schramski

Dell

Grady

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

138

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the effects of individual organisms on material cycles and energy fluxes within ecosystems is central to predicting the impacts of human-caused changes on climate, land use, and biodiversity. Here we present a theory that integrates metabolic (organism-based bottom-up) and systems (ecosystem-based topdown) approaches to characterize how the metabolism of individuals affects the flows and stores of materials and energy in ecosystems. The theory predicts how the average residence time of carbon molecules, total system throughflow (TST), and amount of recycling vary with the body size and temperature of the organisms and with trophic organization. We evaluate the theory by comparing theoretical predictions with outputs of numerical models designed to simulate diverse ecosystem types and with empirical data for real ecosystems. Although residence times within different ecosystems vary by orders of magnitude-from weeks in warm pelagic oceans with minute phytoplankton producers to centuries in cold forests with large tree producers-as predicted, all ecosystems fall along a single line: residence time increases linearly with slope = 1.0 with the ratio of whole-ecosystem biomass to primary productivity (B/P). TST was affected predominantly by primary productivity and recycling by the transfer of energy from microbial decomposers to animal consumers. The theory provides a robust basis for estimating the flux and storage of energy, carbon, and other materials in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems and for quantifying the roles of different kinds of organisms and environments at scales from local ecosystems to the biosphere. metabolic theory | systems ecology | total system throughflow | residence time | cycling I n most ecosystems, energy and materials flow through trophic networks comprised of plant primary producers, animal consumers, and microbial decomposers (Fig. 1). The individual organisms that make up these networks control the storage and flux of energy, carbon, and other materials. Consequently, a theoretical framework that can account for how different kinds of organisms and ecosystems affect fluxes and stores of energy and materials in ecosystems is central to understanding the carbon cycle of the biosphere and to predicting the impacts of humancaused changes in climate, land use, and biodiversity (1-3). Although it has long been recognized that different kinds of organisms play important roles in the processing of energy and materials in ecosystems, existing treatments are incomplete. Most studies have focused on particular trophic levels, such as primary producers or herbivores, specific ecosystem types, such as tropical forest or pelagic marine, or single species, such as top predators or ecosystem engineers (4-14). Still missing is a simple mechanistic theory that can make precise, quantitative predictions based on the mechanistic relationships between traits of the organisms in the different trophic levels and whole-ecosystem properties, such as carbon flux or recycling.Two main t...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem properties

Schramski

Dell

Grady

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

138

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During recent decades, the nations of the northern hemisphere have experienced reforestation while deforestation has continued (though at recently slower rates) in the tropics (Achard et al,2002). This trend threatens the biological integrity of the richest biome on earth and, in some cases, the progress of rural development and the sustainability of food production (Bongaarts, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the research on tropical deforestation explicitly categorizing proximate causes, three essential types of forest conversion emerge: agricultural expansion, timber extraction, and infrastructure development. The first, often facilitated by the latter two, is by far the number one cause of deforestation on the planet (Houghton, 1994;Geist & Lambin, 2001;Achard et al, 2002). This is particularly the case in Latin America, where frontier deforestation increasingly encroaches on biodiversity-rich "protected" areas (Rudel & Roper, 1997;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 While frontier migration and land use are caused by complex interactions among political, economic, ecological, and demographic processes, it is the latter category that is the focus of this paper. Despite regional variation, settler farmers appear to be key drivers of forest conversion along the primary frontier "hot spots" worldwide during recent decades (Houghton, 1994;Myers, 1994;Achard et al, 2002). Conversely, the deforestation effects of larger farmers are not as likely to be caused by proximate demographic processes but rather by changing demand for farm products from distal populations (although large frontier farms result indirectly from population effects, since they are usually formed from consolidating lands cleared by earlier small farm families).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proximate Population Factors and Deforestation in Tropical Agricultural Frontiers

Carr

2003

Population and Environment

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest conversion for agriculture expansion is the most salient signature of human occupation of the earth's land surface. Although population growth and deforestation are significantly associated at the global and regional scales, evidence for population links to deforestation at micro-scales-where people are actually clearing0020forests-is scant. Much of the planet's forest elimination is proceeding along tropical agricultural frontiers. This article examines the evolution of thought on population-environment theories relevant to deforestation in tropical agricultural frontiers. Four primary ways by which population dynamics interact with frontier forest conversion are examined: population density, fertility, and household demographic composition, and in-migration.

show abstract

“…In the humid tropics region natural ecosystems is widely restricted to the hot-spot areas, which have shown considerably alarming rates of change (Achard et al 2002;Costa et al 2007). These changes have resulted in an alteration in biodiversity and ecosystem processes, modification in ecosystem resilience with respect to environmental changes (Chapin et al 2000), and maintenance of the provision of ecosystem services to human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%