Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-662rr Total loading time: 0.684 Render date: 2022-05-29T07:36:17.535Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Does the long-term success of REDD+ also depend on biodiversity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2014

Amy Hinsley*
Affiliation:
Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK
Abigail Entwistle
Affiliation:
Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK
Dorothea V. Pio
Affiliation:
Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK
*
(Corresponding author) E-mail ah371@kent.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Originally proposed in 2005 as a way to use financial incentives to tackle global climate change, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) has evolved to include conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, in what is now known as REDD+. Biodiversity protection is still viewed principally as a co-benefit of the REDD+ process, with conservation of forest tree cover and carbon stocks providing the main measure of success. However, focusing solely on tree cover and carbon stocks does not always protect other species, which may be threatened by other factors, most notably hunting. We present evidence from the literature that loss of biodiversity can affect forest composition, tree survival and forest resilience and may in some cases ultimately lead to a reduction in carbon storage. We argue that REDD+ projects should specifically mitigate for threats to biodiversity if they are to maximize carbon storage potential in the long term.

Type
Forum
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna & Flora International 2014 

Introduction

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) is an increasing part of the international community's efforts to tackle global climate change, and also a key mechanism to create an incentive for forest protection (Clements, Reference Clements2010). The inclusion of issues around conservation, sustainable development and forest restoration alongside carbon storage, led to its rebranding as REDD+ (Parker et al., Reference Parker, Mitchell, Trivedi, Mardas and Sosis2009; Venter & Koh, Reference Venter and Koh2012).

REDD+ addresses an important cause of carbon emissions: the world's forests hold an estimated 289 gigatonnes of carbon but 13 million ha per year (0.325% of total) is lost or degraded (FAO, 2010). The loss and degradation of tropical forests in particular is happening rapidly and is responsible for an estimated 12% of anthropogenic carbon emissions (van der Werf et al., Reference van der Werf, Morton, DeFries, Olivier, Kasibhatla and Jackson2009). Even existing protected areas, which contain 18.5% of humid tropical forest carbon, are not immune to forest loss: an estimated 1.75 million ha of forest in protected areas were lost between 2000 and 2005 (Scharlemann et al., Reference Scharlemann, Kapos, Campbell, Lysenko, Burgess and Hansen2010). Currently REDD+ primarily uses bilateral and multilateral agreements as well as the global voluntary carbon market, valued at USD 379 million in 2013, to ensure that the incentive for forest protection is greater than that for destruction (Parker et al., Reference Parker, Mitchell, Trivedi, Mardas and Sosis2009; Peters-Stanley et al., Reference Peters-Stanley, Gonzalez and Yin2013). Successful REDD+ development and implementation requires a set of important prerequisites to be in place, such as clear and secure tenure rights to land, forests and carbon, strong local and national level forest governance, free, prior and informed consent of communities, and the political will to forego some of the opportunity costs from short-term and purely extractive land-uses in the knowledge that not all ecosystem services provided by healthy, functioning carbon-rich forests are financially quantifiable (Angelsen et al., Reference Angelsen, Brockhaus, Sunderlin and Verchot2012). In addition, a sufficiently strong demand for the purchase of emission reductions in national and international markets is essential if project developers, investors, forest country governments and communities are to continue contributing resources, time and effort into developing REDD+ activities (GCP, IPAM, FFI, UNEP FI & UNORCID, 2014).

REDD+ and biodiversity conservation

REDD+ protects forests primarily for their carbon value (UNFCCC, 2008 p.3) using internationally accepted definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘deforestation’ that are based on percentage tree cover (Schoene et al., Reference Schoene, Killmann, von Lüpke and LoycheWilkie2007; Sasaki & Putz, Reference Sasaki and Putz2009; van der Werf, Reference van der Werf, Morton, DeFries, Olivier, Kasibhatla and Jackson2009). Maintaining tree cover in carbon-rich forests will have strong positive effects on biodiversity by preventing habitat loss. There is a congruence of areas rich in carbon and biodiversity on a global scale (Strassburg et al., Reference Strassburg, Kelly, Balmford, Davies, Gibbs and Lovett2010; Cavanaugh et al., Reference Cavanaugh, Gosnell, Davis, Ahumada, Boundja and Clark2014), and funds from REDD+ can also flow to existing forest reserves and protected areas where lack of finance restricts forest protection (Burgess et al., Reference Burgess, Bahane, Clairs, Danielsen, Dalsgaard and Funder2010; Scharlemann et al., Reference Scharlemann, Kapos, Campbell, Lysenko, Burgess and Hansen2010). However, the overlap between carbon and biodiversity may not always be apparent at finer scales (Paoli et al., Reference Paoli, Wells, Meijaard, Struebig, Marshall and Obidzinski2010) and in cases where it is not, REDD+ implementation may have more modest benefits for biodiversity conservation.

Without including conservation as a core objective there is no guarantee that biodiversity within a seemingly intact forest will persist (Schoene et al., Reference Schoene, Killmann, von Lüpke and LoycheWilkie2007). Phelps et al. (Reference Phelps, Webb and Adams2012) suggest that stronger evidence for the links between biodiversity and carbon storage is needed before it can be considered by the international community. Here we explore the available evidence to determine whether by overlooking the integral role of biodiversity in maintaining healthy forest ecosystems, we could be compromising long-term carbon storage.

Biodiversity loss and its implications

Tropical forests are complex ecosystems, underpinned by small-scale processes and species interactions that, if altered, can often have much wider effects on the diversity and functioning of the forest as a whole. Individual or groups of species may play important roles in pollination, seed dispersal or nutrient cycling and their loss can result in decreased tree recruitment (Forget & Jansen, Reference Forget and Jansen2007; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Sork, Leong and Smith2007; Brodie et al., Reference Brodie, Helmy, Brockelman and Maron2009; Holbrook & Loiselle, Reference Holbrook and Loiselle2009) and changing forest species composition (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007). Managing forests solely for carbon storage does not automatically take into account the complex interactions and interdependence of plant and animal organisms living within them (Bunker et al., Reference Bunker, DeClerck, Bradford, Colwell, Perfecto and Phillips2005).

REDD+ protects a forest from clear felling and fragmentation and should prevent destructive forest fires (but see Aragão & Shimabukuro, Reference Aragão and Shimabukuro2011; Barlow et al., Reference Barlow, Patty, Gardnera, Ferreira, Aragão and Carmenta2012). However, it is possible for high value trees of one species to be selectively removed or for other threats that do not affect tree cover in the short term to be overlooked. The concept of the empty forest (Redford, Reference Redford1992) is now well recognized; preventing the removal of trees is not always enough to protect other species within a forest. For example, forest patches set aside from clear felling, with no protection, lose more faunal species than strictly protected areas nearby (Canale et al., Reference Canale, Peres, Guidorizzi, Gatto and Kierulff2012).

How hunting affects forest carbon stocks

After habitat loss the greatest threat to mammals and birds in tropical forests is hunting (Wilkie et al., Reference Wilkie, Bennett, Peres and Cunningham2011). Hunting pressure for both commercial and subsistence use are increasing in many areas as a result of increasing human populations, greater demand for wild meat, and new technologies improving the global reach of wildlife trade networks (Harrison, Reference Harrison2011; Wilkie et al., Reference Wilkie, Bennett, Peres and Cunningham2011).

There is evidence of a link between defaunation as a result of hunting and short-term changes in forest diversity and species composition (e.g. Nñnez-Iturri & Howe, Reference Nuñez-Iturri and Howe2007; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007; Vanthomme et al., Reference Vanthomme, Bellé and Forget2010; Kurten, Reference Kurten2013), which has been cited as a possible cause for decreased carbon storage (Brodie & Gibbs, Reference Brodie and Gibbs2009; Jansen et al., Reference Jansen, Muller-Landau and Wright2010). In particular, the loss of seed dispersers is thought to be an important cause of long-term changes in forest composition (Forget & Jansen, Reference Forget and Jansen2007; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Sork, Leong and Smith2007; Brodie et al., Reference Brodie, Helmy, Brockelman and Maron2009; Holbrook & Loiselle, Reference Holbrook and Loiselle2009).

Hunting for meat often selectively targets larger-bodied species (Redford, Reference Redford1992; Peres & Palacios, Reference Peres and Palacios2007; Wilkie et al., Reference Wilkie, Bennett, Peres and Cunningham2011; Vidal et al., Reference Vidal, Pires and Guimarães2013), and subsistence hunting has been shown to target important tree seed dispersers including primates, birds, ungulates, scatter-hoarding rodents and frugivorous fish (Forget & Jansen, Reference Forget and Jansen2007; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Sork, Leong and Smith2007; Terborgh et al., Reference Terborgh, Nuñez-Iturri, Pitman, Valverde, Alvarez and Swamy2008; Holbrook & Loiselle, Reference Holbrook and Loiselle2009; Anderson et al., Reference Anderson, Nuttle, Rojas, Pendergast and Flecker2011).

The effects of hunting on different tree species and forests will vary depending on the relative importance of hunted vertebrates as dispersers. An estimated 50–70% of tropical forest trees are dispersed by vertebrates (Howe & Smallwood, Reference Howe and Smallwood1982), with recent studies from individual forests estimating this to be 70–90% (Maisels et al., Reference Maisels, Keming, Kemei and Toh2001; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007; Brodie et al., Reference Brodie, Helmy, Brockelman and Maron2009; Poulsen et al., Reference Poulsen, Clark and Palmer2013). Some tree species may have important or even obligate relationships with vertebrate seed dispersers or pollinators (e.g. elephants as obligate seed dispersers of African forest trees, Campos-Arceiz & Blake, Reference Campos-Arceiz and Blake2011; and tapirs as the most efficient dispersers for the tree Maximiliana maripa in Brazil, Fragoso et al., Reference Fragoso, Silvius and Correa2003), and populations of such trees may be affected if hunting removes these species from their ecosystems.

Most seed disperser relationships are, however, non-obligate (Campos-Arceiz & Blake, Reference Campos-Arceiz and Blake2011). When vertebrates are removed by hunting, other vertebrates may functionally replace them (Elmqvist et al., Reference Elmqvist, Folke, Nyström, Peterson, Bengtsson, Walker and Norberg2003; Muller-Landau, Reference Muller-Landau2007). Other forest studies show limited functional replacement when large species are lost (Vanthomme et al., Reference Vanthomme, Bellé and Forget2010) and smaller-bodied seed dispersers may show reduced efficiency (Peres & Palacios, Reference Peres and Palacios2007; Holbrook & Loiselle, Reference Holbrook and Loiselle2009); they may only carry seeds over much shorter distances, are not capable of dispersing larger seeds or may only disperse seeds of a small number of tree species (Peres & Palacios, Reference Peres and Palacios2007; Holbrook & Loiselle, Reference Holbrook and Loiselle2009; Campos-Arceiz et al., Reference Campos-Arceiz, Traeholt, Jaffar, Santamaria and Corlett2012).

Hunting-induced species declines are likely to lead to a decrease in the recruitment of large trees as larger-bodied dispersers are lost, although this impact may in theory be offset by a decline in large seed predators (Muller-Landau, Reference Muller-Landau2007; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007). A decline in the dispersal of large tree seeds has been linked to a shift within a forest towards the dominance of wind-dispersed plants such as lianas, which are unlikely to be affected by hunting pressure (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007). Whether a result of hunting or a combination of factors, there is evidence of increasing dominance of lianas in tropical forests (reviewed by Schnitzer & Bongers, Reference Schnitzer and Bongers2011).

In western Amazonia liana dominance increased by up to 4.6% per year during 1980–2000, accompanied by an increase in total basal area and density of lianas (Philips et al., Reference Phillips, Vásquez Martínez, Arroyo, Baker, Killeen and Lewis2002). Lianas grow quickly and are able to outcompete slower growing trees for light, water and soil nutrients (Philips et al., Reference Phillips, Vásquez Martínez, Arroyo, Baker, Killeen and Lewis2002; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007), but their thin stems and low wood density mean that they sequester and store relatively little carbon compared to the trees they replace (van der Heijden & Philips, Reference van der Heijden and Phillips2009). In addition, lianas may infest certain species preferentially, causing a shift in species composition to faster growing trees, which often store less carbon in the long term (van der Heijden & Philips, Reference van der Heijden and Phillips2009). This may result in a seemingly healthy forest having a greatly reduced capacity for carbon storage: one model predicts a decrease of up to 34% in the carbon storage capacity of a tropical forest in Panama (total carbon stock) following extinctions and subsequent liana infestation (Bunker et al., Reference Bunker, DeClerck, Bradford, Colwell, Perfecto and Phillips2005). Higher liana density has also been linked to an increase in tree seed predation, as lianas provide a means of access for rodents and other small mammals from the forest floor to the canopy (Kilgore et al., Reference Kilgore, Lambert and Adler2010).

Other potential threats to carbon stocks

Invasions by exotic plants and animals could potentially affect carbon stocks but the evidence available for tropical ecosystems is still insufficient to be conclusive (Peltzer et al., Reference Peltzer, Allen, Lovett, Whitehead and Wardle2010). Studies focusing on temperate forests have found that invasive species can reduce carbon storage and sequestration by increasing decomposition rates or removing native trees, dispersers or pollinators through direct predation (Roubik, Reference Roubik1978; Peltzer et al., Reference Peltzer, Allen, Lovett, Whitehead and Wardle2010). Similarly, die-back of trees in temperate ecosystems because of introduced pathogens is well documented (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Mackey, McNulty and Mosseler2009). The few studies that exist for tropical ecosystems suggest significant variability in outcomes, even on a local scale. For example, invasive trees in Hawaii were found to reduce the above ground biomass of lowland rainforests but increase it in a nearby highland forest (Asner et al., Reference Asner, Hughes, Varga, Knapp and Kennedy-Bowdoin2009).

Biodiversity should provide a certain level of ‘biological insurance’ that strengthens the stability and resilience of a tropical forest, with diversity within functional groups being especially important (Bunker et al., Reference Bunker, DeClerck, Bradford, Colwell, Perfecto and Phillips2005; Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Mackey, McNulty and Mosseler2009; Miles et al., Reference Miles, Dunning, Doswald and Osti2010). Thus a loss of biodiversity may increase the risks to forests from other threats such as climate change (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Mackey, McNulty and Mosseler2009).

Under projected climate change scenarios, tropical forests may experience more frequent disturbances, such as fires, disease outbreaks and invasions of non-native species. If a REDD+ project is to continue to be effective in the long term, the forest it protects must survive these disturbances without extensive tree mortality or long-term degradation (Miles et al., Reference Miles, Dunning, Doswald and Osti2010). Although there is still a lack of direct evidence for this in tropical forests, Miles et al. (Reference Miles, Dunning, Doswald and Osti2010) note that, as research in other ecosystems has overwhelmingly demonstrated a positive correlation between biodiversity and resilience, a precautionary approach should be adopted, extending this likely relationship to tropical forests.

Discussion

The interrelationships between biodiversity and carbon sequestration and storage in tropical forests are summarized in Fig. 1. Recent evidence suggests that REDD+ will lead to the protection of areas of high biodiversity on a global scale (Cavanaugh et al., Reference Cavanaugh, Gosnell, Davis, Ahumada, Boundja and Clark2014). However, on a local scale we argue that the maintenance of biodiversity in these sites should not always be assumed over the long term. Successful REDD+ implementation is mostly based on proven emission reductions from avoided deforestation and degradation monitored through percentage tree cover and carbon stocks but several threats can reduce biodiversity without changing tree cover or carbon stocks in the short term, with hunting being the most widespread and best understood (Wilkie et al., Reference Wilkie, Bennett, Peres and Cunningham2011). Invasive species, selective logging and overexploitation of particular species may also occur, although the effects on tropical forest composition and biodiversity are under-researched, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Fig. 1 The interrelationships between biodiversity and carbon sequestration and storage in tropical forests.

Hunting is an important problem in this context as it tends to target large-bodied species, especially those that disperse tree seeds (e.g. Forget & Jansen, Reference Forget and Jansen2007; Holbrook & Loiselle, Reference Holbrook and Loiselle2009), and ultimately results in an over-representation of wind-dispersed plants such as lianas (Wright et al., Reference Wright, Hernandez and Condit2007). Combined, the loss of large trees and the increase in lianas could lead to a decrease in carbon sequestration and storage in the long term (Bunker et al., Reference Bunker, DeClerck, Bradford, Colwell, Perfecto and Phillips2005; van der Heijden & Philips, Reference van der Heijden and Phillips2009).

Further to these direct effects, biodiversity declines may further affect the efforts of REDD+ projects by making a forest less able to withstand damage or degradation caused by climate change (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Mackey, McNulty and Mosseler2009). This could effectively lead to a feedback loop in which biodiversity decline leads to further species losses, resulting in forest becoming degraded more quickly. As both the exact impacts of climate change and the resilience that biodiversity may provide are unknown in many tropical forests, a precautionary approach should be required (Miles et al., Reference Miles, Dunning, Doswald and Osti2010).

We acknowledge that the relative importance of biodiversity conservation within REDD+ project development is increasing and welcome the recent efforts made by international standards that do not focus on biodiversity to streamline certification procedures with others that do (VCS & CCB, 2013). We also note recent shifts of other international standards towards more explicit reference to biodiversity and the inclusion of biodiversity measures in project monitoring targets (Plan Vivo Foundation, 2013).

As the most widespread threat, hunting needs to be monitored and efforts to reduce unsustainable hunting should be a priority, especially where it targets important functional groups such as seed dispersers or pollinators. It has been argued that overly complicated and expensive biodiversity monitoring protocols may reduce the uptake of REDD+ (Phelps et al., Reference Phelps, Webb and Adams2012). The financial implications of including biodiversity measures in REDD+ monitoring targets are not our primary focus here and, although biodiversity monitoring does represent an additional cost, this is generally a fraction of that involved in overall project development. Ensuring that a small number of locally appropriate indicator species (preferably including large-bodied seed dispersers) are selected and taking advantage of cost-effective tools appropriate for use by local community members are two ways of keeping these costs low. The financial implications, and more importantly the sustainability, of participatory biodiversity monitoring always compare favourably with conventional monitoring by professional ecologists. Ultimately, if biodiversity loss results in REDD+ projects reducing their impact in the long term, basic biodiversity monitoring may be too important to ignore.

Acknowledgements

We thank Josh Kempinski, Zoë Cullen and Matthew Linkie from Fauna & Flora International for input to this article, and support from Esther Bertram, Georgina Magin and the Global Trees Campaign.

Biographical sketches

Amy Hinsley uses interdisciplinary methods to study the international wildlife trade. Before joining the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology she was a member of the Science team at Fauna & Flora International. Abigail Entwistle has a background in bat ecology and has worked in international conservation for nearly 20 years. Her research interests include the use of flagship species and approaches to determining conservation impact. Dorothea Pio is involved in the development and implementation of several REDD+ projects in Indonesia. Before joining Fauna & Flora International she worked for UNESCO supporting protected area management in Sumatra. She has a background in tropical forest ecology and conservation and has studied how extinctions induced by climate change may impact the tree of life in Southern Africa.

References

Anderson, J.T., Nuttle, T., Rojas, J.S.S., Pendergast, T.H. & Flecker, A.S. (2011) Extremely long-distance seed dispersal by an overfished Amazonian frugivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 33293335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D. & Verchot, L. (2012) Analysing REDD+ Challenges and Choices. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Aragão, L.E. & Shimabukuro, Y.E. (2011) The incidence of fire in Amazonian forests with implications for REDD. Science, 328, 12751278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asner, G., Hughes, F., Varga, T., Knapp, D. & Kennedy-Bowdoin, T. (2009) Environmental and biotic controls over aboveground biomass throughout a tropical rain forest. Ecosystems, 12, 261278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, J., Patty, L., Gardnera, T., Ferreira, J., Aragão, L., Carmenta, R. et al. (2012) The critical importance of considering fire in REDD+ programs. Biological Conservation, 154, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, J.F. & Gibbs, H.K. (2009) Bushmeat hunting as climate threat. Science, 326, 364365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, J.F., Helmy, O.E., Brockelman, W.Y. & Maron, J.L. (2009) Bushmeat poaching reduces the seed dispersal and population growth rate of a mammal-dispersed tree. Ecological Applications, 19, 854863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bunker, D.E., DeClerck, F., Bradford, J.C., Colwell, R.K., Perfecto, I., Phillips, O.L. et al. (2005) Species loss and aboveground carbon storage in a tropical forest. Science, 310, 10291031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, N.D., Bahane, B., Clairs, T., Danielsen, F., Dalsgaard, S., Funder, M. et al. (2010) Getting ready for REDD+ in Tanzania: a case study of progress and challenges. Oryx, 44, 339351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos-Arceiz, A. & Blake, S. (2011) Megagardeners of the forest–the role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecologica, 37, 542553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos-Arceiz, A., Traeholt, C., Jaffar, R., Santamaria, L. & Corlett, R.T. (2012) Asian tapirs are no elephants when it comes to seed dispersal. Biotropica, 44, 220227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, G.R., Peres, C.A., Guidorizzi, C.E., Gatto, C.A.F. & Kierulff, M.C.M. (2012) Pervasive defaunation of forest remnants in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e41671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanaugh, K.C., Gosnell, J.S., Davis, S.L., Ahumada, J., Boundja, P., Clark, D.B. et al. (2014) Carbon storage in tropical forests correlates with taxonomic diversity and functional dominance on a global scale. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23 563573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, T. (2010) Reduced expectations: the political and institutional challenges of REDD+. Oryx, 44, 309310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmqvist, T.M., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B. & Norberg, J. (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 488494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Forget, P.M. & Jansen, P.A. (2007) Hunting increases dispersal limitation in the tree Carapa procera, a non-timber forest product. Conservation Biology, 21, 106113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fragoso, J.M.V., Silvius, K.M. & Correa, J.A. (2003) Long-distance seed dispersal by tapirs increases seed survival and aggregates tropical trees. Ecology, 84, 19982006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GCP, IPAM, FFI, UNEP FI & UNORCID (2014) Stimulating Interim Demand for REDD+ Emissions Reductions: The Need for a Strategic Intervention from 2015 to 2020. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK, the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, Brasilia, Brazil; Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK; UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland; UN Office for REDD+ Coordination in Indonesia, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.D. (2011) Emptying the forest: hunting and the extirpation of wildlife from tropical nature reserves. BioScience, 919, 919924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, K.M. & Loiselle, B.A. (2009) Dispersal in a Neotropical tree, Virola flexuosa (Myristicaceae): does hunting of large vertebrates limit seed removal? Ecology, 90, 14491455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, H.F. & Smallwood, J. (1982) Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 201228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, P.A., Muller-Landau, H.C. & Wright, S.J. (2010) Bushmeat hunting and climate: an indirect link. Science, 327, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgore, A., Lambert, T.D. & Adler, G.H. (2010) Lianas influence fruit and seed use by rodents in a tropical forest. Tropical Ecology, 52, 265271.Google Scholar
Kurten, E.L. (2013) Cascading effects of contemporaneous defaunation on tropical forest communities. Biological Conservation, 163, 2232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisels, F., Keming, E., Kemei, M. & Toh, C. (2001) The extirpation of large mammals and implications for montane forest conservation: the case of the Kilum-ljim Forest, North-west Province, Cameroon. Oryx, 35, 322331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, L., Dunning, E., Doswald, N. & Osti, M. (2010) A Safer Bet for REDD+: Review of the Evidence on the Relationship between Biodiversity and the Resilience of Forest Carbon Stocks. UN–REDD Programme and UN Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=3272&Itemid=53 [accessed 22 July 2014].Google Scholar
Muller-Landau, H.C. (2007) Predicting the long-term effects of hunting on plant species composition and diversity in tropical forests. Biotropica, 39, 372384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuñez-Iturri, G. & Howe, H.F. (2007) Bushmeat and the fate of trees with seeds dispersed by large primates in a lowland rain forest in western Amazonia. Biotropica, 39, 348354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paoli, G.D., Wells, P.L., Meijaard, E., Struebig, M. J., Marshall, A.J., Obidzinski, K. et al. (2010) Biodiversity conservation in the REDD. Carbon Balance Management, 5, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M., Mardas, N. & Sosis, K. (2009) The Little REDD+ Book: An Updated Guide to Governmental and Non-governmental Proposals for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK. Http://www.globalcanopy.org/materials/little-redd-book [accessed September 2012].Google Scholar
Peltzer, D.A., Allen, R.B., Lovett, G.M., Whitehead, D. & Wardle, D.A. (2010) Effects of biological invasions on forest carbon sequestration. Global Change Biology, 16, 732746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, C.A. & Palacios, E. (2007) Basin-wide effects of game harvest on vertebrate population densities in Amazonian forests: implications for animal-mediated seed dispersal. Biotropica, 39, 304315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters-Stanley, M., Gonzalez, G. & Yin, D. (2013) Covering New Ground: State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2013. Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC, USA. Http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/SOFCM-full-report.pdf [accessed 9 July 2014].Google Scholar
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L. & Adams, W. (2012) Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2, 497503.Google Scholar
Phillips, O.L., Vásquez Martínez, R., Arroyo, L., Baker, T.R., Killeen, T., Lewis, S.L. et al. (2002) Increasing dominance of large lianas in Amazonian forests. Nature, 418, 770774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plan Vivo Foundation (2013) The Plan Vivo Standard for Community Payments for Ecosystem Services Programmes, Version: 2013. Plan Vivo Foundation, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Poulsen, J.R., Clark, C.J. & Palmer, T.M. (2013) Ecological erosion of an Afrotropical forest and potential consequences for tree recruitment and forest biomass. Biological Conservation, 163, 122130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redford, K. (1992) The empty forest. Bioscience, 42, 412422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roubik, D.W. (1978) Competitive interactions between Neotropical pollinators and Africanized honeybees. Science, 201, 10301032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, N. & Putz, F.E. (2009) Critical need for new definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘forest degradation’ in global climate change agreements. Conservation Letters, 2, 226232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharlemann, J.P., Kapos, V., Campbell, A., Lysenko, I., Burgess, N.D., Hansen, M.C. et al. (2010) Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx, 44, 352357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnitzer, S.A. & Bongers, F. (2011) Increasing liana abundance and biomass in tropical forests: emerging patterns and putative mechanisms. Ecology Letters, 14, 397406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoene, D., Killmann, W., von Lüpke, H. & LoycheWilkie, M. (2007) Definitional Issues Related to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Strassburg, B.B.N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., Davies, R.G., Gibbs, H.K., Lovett, A. et al. (2010) Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 3, 98105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terborgh, J., Nuñez-Iturri, G., Pitman, N.C., Valverde, F.H.C., Alvarez, P., Swamy, V. et al. (2008) Tree recruitment in an empty forest. Ecology, 89, 17571768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S. & Mosseler, A. (2009) Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change. A Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems. Technical Series no. 43. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention On Climate Change) (2008) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Thirteenth Session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Thirteenth Session. March 2008. Http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3 [accessed September 2012].Google Scholar
van der Heijden, G.M.F. & Phillips, O.L. (2009) Liana infestation impacts tree growth in a lowland tropical moist forest. Biogeosciences Discuss, 6, 31333158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Werf, G.R., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Olivier, J.G., Kasibhatla, P.S., Jackson, R.B. et al. (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience, 2, 737738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanthomme, H., Bellé, B. & Forget, P.M. (2010) Bushmeat hunting alters recruitment of large-seeded plant species in Central Africa. Biotropica, 42, 67679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VCS & CCB (Verified Carbon Standard & The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance) (2013) Project Description Template, VCS Version 3, CCB Standards Second Edition. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Venter, O. & Koh, L.P. (2012) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+): game changer or just another quick fix? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 137150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vidal, M.M., Pires, M.M. & Guimarães, P.R. Jr (2013) Large vertebrates as the missing components of seed-dispersal networks. Biological Conservation, 163, 4244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, B.C., Sork, V.L., Leong, M.T. & Smith, T.B. (2007) Hunting of mammals reduces seed removal and dispersal of the Afrotropical tree Antrocaryon klaineanum (Anacardiaceae). Biotropica, 39, 340347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, D.S., Bennett, E.L., Peres, C.A. & Cunningham, A.A. (2011) The empty forest revisited. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223, 120128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S., Hernandez, A. & Condit, R. (2007) The bushmeat harvest alters seedling banks by favoring lianas, large seeds, and seeds dispersed by bats, birds, and wind. Biotropica, 39, 363371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 The interrelationships between biodiversity and carbon sequestration and storage in tropical forests.

You have Access
15
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Does the long-term success of REDD+ also depend on biodiversity?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Does the long-term success of REDD+ also depend on biodiversity?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Does the long-term success of REDD+ also depend on biodiversity?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *