33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quantifying the impacts of defaunation on natural forest regeneration in a global meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intact forests provide diverse and irreplaceable ecosystem services that are critical to human well-being, such as carbon storage to mitigate climate change. However, the ecosystem functions that underpin these services are highly dependent on the woody vegetation-animal interactions occurring within forests. While vertebrate defaunation is of growing policy concern, the effects of vertebrate loss on natural forest regeneration have yet to be quantified globally. Here we conduct a meta-analysis to assess the direction and magnitude of defaunation impacts on forests. We demonstrate that real-world defaunation caused by hunting and habitat fragmentation leads to reduced forest regeneration, although manipulation experiments provide contrasting findings. The extirpation of primates and birds cause the greatest declines in forest regeneration, emphasising their key role in maintaining carbon stores, and the need for national and international climate change and conservation strategies to protect forests from defaunation fronts as well as deforestation fronts.

          Abstract

          The defaunation of vertebrates may disrupt forest functioning through the loss of plant-animal interactions, but impacts on forests remain unquantified. Here the authors show that seed dispersal is a key interaction and defaunation of primates and birds negatively impacts forest regeneration.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity.

          Human-driven land-use changes increasingly threaten biodiversity, particularly in tropical forests where both species diversity and human pressures on natural environments are high. The rapid conversion of tropical forests for agriculture, timber production and other uses has generated vast, human-dominated landscapes with potentially dire consequences for tropical biodiversity. Today, few truly undisturbed tropical forests exist, whereas those degraded by repeated logging and fires, as well as secondary and plantation forests, are rapidly expanding. Here we provide a global assessment of the impact of disturbance and land conversion on biodiversity in tropical forests using a meta-analysis of 138 studies. We analysed 2,220 pairwise comparisons of biodiversity values in primary forests (with little or no human disturbance) and disturbed forests. We found that biodiversity values were substantially lower in degraded forests, but that this varied considerably by geographic region, taxonomic group, ecological metric and disturbance type. Even after partly accounting for confounding colonization and succession effects due to the composition of surrounding habitats, isolation and time since disturbance, we find that most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on tropical biodiversity. Our results clearly indicate that when it comes to maintaining tropical biodiversity, there is no substitute for primary forests.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The plant traits that drive ecosystems: Evidence from three continents

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Global Carbon Budget 2016

              Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry ( E FF ) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change ( E LUC ), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth ( G ATM ) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO 2 sink ( S OCEAN ) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in S OCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO 2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO 2 sink ( S LAND ) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1 σ , reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006–2015), E FF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , E LUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , G ATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr −1 , S OCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 . For year 2015 alone, the growth in E FF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr −1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, E LUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , G ATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr −1 , S OCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 . G ATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller S LAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in E FF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of E FF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO 2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink ( S LAND ) in response to El Niño conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of E FF and assumed constant E LUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO 2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO 2 ) for 1870–2016, about 75 % from E FF and 25 % from E LUC . This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ( doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016 ).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                C.Gardner-399@kent.ac.uk
                Journal
                Nat Commun
                Nat Commun
                Nature Communications
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2041-1723
                14 October 2019
                14 October 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 4590
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2232 2818, GRID grid.9759.2, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, , University of Kent, ; Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.422795.f, WWF UK, The Living Planet Centre, ; Brewery Road, Woking, GU21 4LL UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2750-3690
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6831-627X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-4379
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2058-8502
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0767-1467
                Article
                12539
                10.1038/s41467-019-12539-1
                6791894
                31611554
                cc4634b1-6226-4f48-ac71-761f165c8fb0
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 April 2018
                : 11 September 2019
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Uncategorized
                ecosystem services,forest ecology,biodiversity
                Uncategorized
                ecosystem services, forest ecology, biodiversity

                Comments

                Comment on this article