Nature benefits when logged tropical forests are left to recover – here’s how

In parts of the tropics like the island of Borneo, the pace of environmental change has been dramatic. Not long ago, the forests that covered most of the island were largely intact. But in recent decades, the scale of logging has intensified, and more areas of harvested forest have been converted to farmland.

In Borneo, this is predominantly for plantations of oil palm trees used to produce palm oil, approximately three-quarters of which are located where pristine forest grew in the 1970s.

The species richness of dung beetles, and the. rate of dung removal, remained high even in logged forest. Charlie Marsh, CC BY-NC-ND

Understanding the environmental knock-on effects of these changes in land use is critical because these ecosystems are home to so much amazing biodiversity. These places also provide us with a whole host of benefits, such as food, clean water, medicine and oxygen.

Our new study, published in the journal Science, provides an exhaustive assessment of the effects of logging and conversion to oil palm plantations, with three key findings.

First, what is measured matters. Different properties of the forest ecosystem respond in different ways making comprehensive assessments essential. Second, conversion to oil palm plantation brings different and additional impacts to logging alone.

Taken together, these two results lead to a third conclusion: it is important to conserve areas of primary old growth with their unique properties as well as areas of logged forests that support higher levels of biodiversity than oil palm plantation.

While primary tropical forests are home to rare, unusual or endangered species, logged forests still feel and sound like forests, while oil palm plantations are, albeit complex, agricultural landscapes.

Because of the incredible complexity and biodiversity of tropical forests, measuring the effects of logging and conversion to oil palm has rarely been comprehensively done. This requires an understanding of impacts across a wide range of species, from microbes in the soil to hornbills up in the canopy. It also involves assessing changes in the forest structure, soil chemistry and the decomposition of leaf litter, for example.

To achieve this, we’ve been working with a diverse research team to investigate more than 80 metrics. We’ve analysed the structure, biodiversity and functioning of the tropical forest ecosystem in three areas of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Our research sites include undisturbed old growth forest, logged forest (moderately or heavily logged) and previous logged forests that had been converted to oil palm plantation.

Researchers Maria Peni and Robecca Siwaring collecting small mammal data in the Bornean forest. Ed Turner, CC BY-NC-ND

Our data collection involved collaborating across different teams to coordinate dozens of researchers spending thousands of hours out in the field, often in incredibly demanding conditions. Our challenge was then to collate different types of complex and variable information into something meaningful. This allowed us to identify broad, general patterns of ecosystem change.

Forests across much of the tropics have gone through a period of intensive logging. In Borneo, this tends to be “selective logging” in which the largest hardwood trees are removed. The forest remains, but it’s altered to a greater or lesser degree depending on the intensity of logging. This logging has tended to be unsustainable, removing trees across extensive areas more quickly than they can regrow.

After two or three rounds of logging, the large, most valuable trees have mostly been taken. These forests are often heavily degraded. In Borneo and much of south-east Asia, selective logging was followed by a period of conversion, whereby large areas of harvested forest were developed into plantations of oil palm.

Oil palm plantations are more productive than alternative vegetable oil crops. But, they are still monocultures of relatively young plants with simple structures, requiring heavy use of chemical fertilisers. As our recent research confirms, this means they function differently to forests and support far less biodiversity.

Borneo and beyond

Understanding the different effects of logging and conversion can help scientists identify priority habitats for conservation or restoration. Some areas initially intended for conversion to oil palm plantation have turned out to be economically marginal (such as less accessible areas further from the coast).

Surveys were carried out for a wide range of groups in the study area, including amphibians such as this toad, which were counted and measured along rivers. Ed Turner, CC BY-NC-ND

They could be better left as forest. It may even be possible to convert some uneconomic plantations back to forest. Striking a sustainable balance between economic development and conservation is complex. But a comprehensive understanding of the pros and cons of different land use choices is an essential part of the process.

That begins with taking as many aspects of forest dynamics as possible into consideration. But such breadth was only possible through extensive international collaborations from researchers spanning a wide range of disciplines, along with long-term research initiatives that allow for many years of data collection.

The challenges are many, but by adopting these ambitious approaches elsewhere, maybe it will be possible to see whether some of the patterns we found in the forests of Borneo are repeated across other ecosystems around the world.

Andrew Hector, Professor of Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Oxford; Charlie Marsh, Research Fellow in Tropical Ecology, National University of Singapore, and Edgar Turner, Professor of Insect Ecology, University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the paper in Science here

Download the paper here

Is messy the new beautiful? Why debates about what nature recovery looks like matter
  • Current aspirations for nature recovery to address biodiversity loss and climate change involve changing what landscapes look like
  • What is considered neat or messy impacts on action and policy changes
  • Nature recovery activities are highly politicised and resisted
  • Publicised movements for messier gardens and environments can help shift public opinion to accepting less orderly environments and not see ‘mess’ as equalling neglect

Researchers at the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery say debates about what nature recovery looks like are vital for tackling biodiversity loss and climate change.

Dr Flurina Wartmann, is a Researcher in Landscape Aesthetics and her study found that ideas about ‘what nature should look like’ may influence decision-making alongside ecological considerations.

Dr Wartmann said: “We need to take aesthetics seriously and engage with aesthetic debates about what a more socially and environmentally just future looks like.”

Dr Wartmann and her colleague Prof Jamie Lorimer, looked at what people considered to be neat or messy, and their attitude towards different styles. They focussed on print and social media, and in particular, visual materials. Their findings show how associated positive and negative environmental aesthetic values shape and constrain nature recovery in Britain.

As part of their study, they looked at the satirical account @ShitLawns on X that ridicules the aesthetics of neatness, and in doing so, re-shapes ideas of what is ‘normal’ and desirable in terms of environmental aesthetics.

Prof Lorimer added: “We also looked at Instagram and analysed content tagged with #messygarden that normalises messier forms of nature through carefully framing and aestheticising gardening practices that construct and celebrate messiness as a form of more responsible, nature-friendly gardening.

“An example of the culmination of aesthetic framing of mess is the prominent Chelsea Flower Show crowning a ‘Rewilded Garden’ as their best show garden. This horticultural show garden both represents the nature recovery aesthetic entering the horticultural mainstream, but also highlights the considerable backlash in traditional and social media that ensued when a broader public was exposed to such ‘messiness’.”

‘A Rewilding Britain Landscape’ won Best Show Garden at the Chelsea Flower Show in 2022. The designers carefully created the garden to resemble a landscape after the reintroduction of beavers. It received both praise and scorn from the public and critics.

Dr Wartmann said: “We analysed what people consider beautiful, and therefore good and desirable, and what is ugly and therefore undesirable for nature recovery. We looked at initiatives such as ‘No Mow May’ that are trying to increase public acceptance of more nature-rich habitats. We found that people posting about #NoMowMay on social media used carefully framed images that highlight mixtures of colourful flowering plants, which also signal the ecological awakening of those who encourage a messier look in their gardens.

“In contrast, such forms of managing nature are met with resistance. Various newspaper articles portrayed the vegetation emerging on road verges after councils stopped weeding as something ugly that must be controlled. Therefore, whether you allow messy nature or you fight it, it becomes a political manifestation and makes nature recovery a battleground for wider political and societal debates.”

Dr Wartmann added: “Our analysis shows that aesthetics play an important role in shaping views of what is ‘natural’, ‘normal’, and ‘good’ and therefore desirable in what a future (recovered) nature looks like.

“We suggest that nature recovery initiatives take aesthetics seriously, by interrogating how idealisations of ‘how nature should look’ may influence decision-making alongside ecological and other considerations.

“Taking aesthetics seriously also opens avenues for engaging with social and environmental justice, where alternative aesthetics can help in imagining more socially and environmentally just futures.”

Read the full paper ‘Messy natures: The political aesthetics of nature recovery‘ by Flurina M. Wartmann and Jamie Lorimer in People and Nature here.

 

NEW PAPER: Resisting the carbonization of animals as climate solutions

Overstating wild animal roles in carbon capture may hinder, rather than facilitate, effective climate-mitigation and conservation efforts, say researchers in an article out today in Nature Climate Change.

The two greatest environmental challenges of our time are global climate change and biodiversity loss, and it is attractive to look for synergies that can address both these challenges. This has generated support for nature-based solutions to climate change which, until recently, have largely focused on vegetation restoration and tree planting. However, there are increasing news stories circulating on how conserving and restoring large animal wildlife, such as elephants and whales, can absorb carbon and bring climate change mitigation benefits. This sounds very attractive: potential carbon could bolster much-needed funding for conservation and rewilding. What’s not to like?

In this opinion piece in Nature Climate Change we inject a voice of caution into this story. The science around wildlife providing climate benefits is generally weak and very context-dependent – in many cases animal wildlife like savanna elephants may reduce carbon stocks. Many widely reported studies are modelling studies which incompletely capture the many ecological processes at play – actual convincing field-based evidence is very rare – yet such studies get a disproportionate amount of media attention. We show there is very selecting media reporting of the minority of studies that suggest climate benefits of animal wildlife. There is a real danger that claimed climate benefits may not exist, leading to backlash and discrediting of otherwise creditable conservation and rewilding schemes when paid-for carbon benefits do not emerge. Many vibrant ecosystems such as savannas and grasslands can have lower carbon stocks than similar ecologically degraded ecosystems. And excessive focus on carbon can encourage bioperverse outcomes, such as reducing animal wildlife abundance where it is seen to negatively impact carbon stocks. There are both practical and moral dangers around excessive “carbonization” of wildlife that we need to be alert to.

Read the piece here

Watch a short explainer here

Businesses need ambitious, evidence-based strategies to align with Nature Positive goals

The private sector is facing increasing pressure to align with global goals to halt and reverse the loss of nature – to move beyond just mitigating any damages caused by their operations and supply chains, towards contributing positively to nature recovery on a societal scale (i.e., ‘Nature Positive’). Transformative change is needed to realise this.

From taking private actions to reduce waste and source sustainable materials to participating in collaborative initiatives, many businesses are already starting to take action to address the biodiversity crisis. However, to deliver global goals for nature – such as the vision and mission of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework – the scale of action must be in line with businesses’ negative impacts and societal needs.

“To halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and planet” – Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) mission

While there are many types of seemingly simple or obvious actions that companies can take for nature (e.g., improving circularity, regenerative agriculture, tree planting), claims of measurable contributions are hindered by uncertainties. These manifest in multiple ways, including measuring negative impacts in complex value chains and measuring positive outcomes associated with mitigation actions. Uncertainties are further exacerbated by leakage – where one organisation’s direct and tangible actions do not lead to overall improvements in the state of nature because of a lack of change at jurisdictional, value-chain, market, or systems scales. These issues create risks of greenwashing; ineffective, insufficient, or inequitable action; and unintended environmental or social consequences.

In two recent papers from the Oxford Nature Positive Hub, Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, and The Biodiversity Consultancy, researchers find ways to address these challenges.

Actions for businesses

In a business-focused paper, researchers outline the need for companies to not only implement private actions at the scale of their individual organisations, but to also participate in social-signaling and collective actions to drive systems change. These types of actions – which require extended accountability beyond the direct sphere of control of any one company – are essential for driving transformative change towards nature recovery on a societal scale. While driving transformative change may sound challenging for any one company, it can be broken down into tangible targets and actions towards an outcome-based goal for nature, structured around three themes:

  1. Reducing new and ongoing negative impacts to halt declines in nature.
  2. Taking positive actions to contribute to nature recovery – which at least counterbalance unavoidable ongoing impacts and begin to address historic negative impacts.
  3. Participating in collective action (e.g., across value chains and landscapes) to tackle structural issues, drive systems change, and promote full recovery on a societal scale.

Dr Hollie Booth said: “After working closely with many multi-national corporations over the last few years I understand that the nature agenda feels a bit scary. Everyone is just getting their head around climate goals and now nature-related disclosures and Nature Positive commitments are here, and they seem even bigger and more complicated. However, taking an integrated and outcome-oriented approach to nature can help businesses to synergistically address climate and biodiversity risks, generate the data and information needed to align with voluntary and regulatory disclosure frameworks (e.g., CSRD), and build long-term supply chain resilience.”

Actions for researchers

In a research-focused paper, they have outlined an ambitious research agenda to help support businesses to create change and ensure strategies are effective and aligned with global biodiversity goals.

Dr Talitha Bromwich said: “Achieving meaningful Nature Positive change is going to require significant transformation to the way our businesses and societies operate. This necessitates a coordinated, research-driven approach to make sure Nature Positive strategies avoid unintended environmental and social impacts and can offer a feasible, effective, and equitable path to halting and reversing global biodiversity loss.”

The key areas of research priority they have identified are:

  • The strategic options for businesses in prioritising actions
  • What Nature Positive business plans look like in practice
  • The best levers to motivate more private sector action
  • How to monitor and check Nature Positive strategies are working

More collaboration is needed between academics, consultants, and sustainability experts to fund and design research projects that attempt to answer these priority research questions.

Dr Tom White said: “There is increasing expectation on businesses to address their impacts and contribute towards global goals of nature recovery. But there are lots of unanswered questions and data gaps around the specific levers that can be pulled, and actions put in place that can deliver effective outcomes for biodiversity. Given the urgency with which change is needed, and the risks of getting it wrong, we believe targeted collaborative research to address these questions is key. Consultancies can play a key role here – being a bridge between academia and the business community who can help translate science into practice.”

Bringing business and research together

The next steps are to start developing these research projects and engaging in collaborative research efforts on the interface of business and biodiversity. One example is the Nature Positive Initiative, a group of organisations committed to preserving the integrity of Nature Positive as a measurable 2030 global goal for nature – providing the tools, guidance, and metrics necessary to allow all to contribute.

Dr Hollie Booth concluded: “Our aim is to show that actions toward transformative change are definable, feasible, and measurable – and that they’re not only optional extras but a core and necessary part of Nature Positive commitments. Businesses have already played leading roles in driving other societal goals, such as ending modern slavery or ensuring a living wage, which shows that progressive companies can and do embrace extended accountability and collective action. It’s time to do the same for nature.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To read more about these papers, published in One Earth, visit: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.06.003 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.07.003

New paper finds forest restoration can boost people, nature and climate simultaneously

Optimizing restoration: A holistic spatial approach to deliver Nature’s Contributions to People with minimal tradeoffs and maximal equity.

Restoring forests is often seen in terms of “trade-offs” – meaning it often focuses on a specific goal such as capturing carbon, nurturing nature or supporting human livelihoods.

The new study, led by a former DPhil student at the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) found that restoration plans aimed at a single goal tend not to deliver the others. However, “integrated” plans would deliver over 80% of the benefits in all three areas at once.

Dr Trisha Gopalakrishna, now working as a Postdoc Researcher at the University of Exeter, began the study while studying as a DPhil under the supervision of Prof Yadvinder Malhi, Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, also a co-author of the paper.

Prof Malhi said: “This study nicely demonstrates how triple-wins can work. Using India as an example, it shows how biodiversity protection, social development and climate mitigation goals can work together, and lead to better overall outcomes than focusing on a single goal on its own.”

The study also found that socioeconomically disadvantaged groups would benefit disproportionately from this approach.

The researchers used a framework called Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP), which emphasises a holistic relationship between restoration and benefits to humanity, including equity.

It applied this to large areas of India, examining the benefits of natural regeneration of native forest in suitable places that aren’t currently forest.

Dr Gopalakrishna said: “Restoration projects sometimes have a narrow focus, which can lead to trade-offs. For example, if you focus on carbon storage, you might plant particular tree species and fence the forests off to protect them.

“If you focus on biodiversity, you might manage forests for particular species, like the emblematic Bengal tiger or Asiatic elephant. If you focus on human livelihoods, you might plant species that provide housing materials and fuelwood for cooking.

“The philosophy you choose would dictate your choices. Unsurprisingly, our study shows that plans with one NCP in mind tend not to deliver the others.

“However, we were surprised and pleased to find that an ‘integrated’ plan can deliver all three remarkably efficiently.”

The researchers used an optimisation algorithm to generate maps of 3.88 million hectares of possible forest restoration area, avoiding areas such as grasslands and agricultural land.

The results showed that integrated forest restoration plans (aimed at multiple goals) deliver on average 83.3% of climate change mitigation NCP, 89.9% of biodiversity value NCP and 93.9% of societal NCP delivered by single-objective plans.

Commenting on why this happens, Dr Gopalakrishna said: “Integrated plans create a multifunctional landscape with connectivity, so people and animals can thrive.”

The findings show that 38-41% of the people impacted by integrated spatial plans belong to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, greater than their overall representation in India’s population.

Dr Gopalakrishna added: “Many countries, like India, have committed to very big goals on climate and the environment.

“The blueprint we have developed provides an approach to design conservation policies, specifically ecosystem restoration activities.

“It would be useful to know if our findings hold true in other countries using different types of ecosystem restoration plans and focused on different benefits.”

The research was funded by the Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development.

Read the full paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Optimising Restoration: holistic spatial planning to deliver Nature’s Contributions to People with minimal trade-offs and maximal equity.

Risks and Opportunities of using LCA-based approaches for Biodiversity Footprinting

This article, written by Thomas White and Talitha Bromwich, is a summary of a preprint available at Open Science Framework

As businesses start on their nature positive journey, a range of tools and approaches are emerging to help assess risks and impacts on biodiversity. Sustainability frameworks like the CSRD and TNFD ask companies to take a whole lifecycle approach to understanding impacts. This recognizes that a holistic approach is needed to account for the substantial impacts across entire life cycles (from raw material inputs and processing to use and end-of-life impacts).

One leading approach increasingly recommended for assessing organizational impacts on nature is Life Cycle Assessments. These tools are very powerful for helping understand impacts across all organizational activities and tracking progress year-on-year, but they make many assumptions and mask substantial uncertainties that represent a risk if they are used inappropriately.

In a recent pre-preprint led by researchers at Oxford University and The Biodiversity Consultancy we outline the risks and opportunities of using LCA tools as part of biodiversity strategy design.

There are substantial uncertainties within the biodiversity footprint estimates provided by LCAs, which are rarely fully understood or communicated in results. These uncertainties include those inherent in the model structure (e.g., what components of biodiversity are included, what threats to biodiversity are being modelled) and uncertainty in data underlying the models (e.g., error in parameters used in the models to convert different pressures to biodiversity impacts). There are also uncertainties caused by different choices made by the LCA practitioner (e.g. deciding what LCA model to use, how to match company data to LCA categories), and uncertainties associated with communicating the biodiversity metrics (often presented as potentially disappeared fraction of species).

There are thus risks associated with the use of LCAs, which could lead to poorly prioritized or inappropriate action to address biodiversity impacts. We provide suggestions for better understanding, reducing and navigating these uncertainties to support robust decision making in addressing biodiversity impacts.

Navigating uncertainties to support robust decision-making

Reducing Uncertainty

  • Reduce uncertainty in data inputs – Businesses can work to improve the quality of data on their activities and sourcing to reduce uncertainty in LCA footprints.
  • Reduce uncertainty in models – Researchers are working to improve LCA models, which will reduce uncertainties in outputs. For example, including new threats to biodiversity in LCA models, developing new metrics that capture different components of biodiversity and taxa.

Documenting & Understanding Uncertainty

  • Document assumptions and limitations – When using LCAs, it is important to document choices and assumptions made, to allow others to better interpret the results and reduce uncertainties in communication.
  • Test sensitivity / Use multiple LCA methods – Utilising multiple LCA methods, and testing the sensitivity of the results is a key approach to helping triangulate effort and identify those high impact activities or pressures that are robust to these methodological changes.
  • Use uncertainty tools within LCA software – Some LCA software now enable users to explore some of these uncertainties and change parameters used in the models. These should be used wherever possible.

Navigating Uncertainty

  • Tools for decisions in high-uncertainty contexts – Tools are available to help make decisions when uncertainties are high and unclear. These include tools such as info-gap theory, which help a user think through “how wrong would this estimate have to be for me to change my decision?”.
  • Get started, and plan to update – Uncertainty shouldn’t be used as an excuse for inaction. Getting started now, with a clear plan to update in future as the methods and tools develop, should be a clear part of engagement with biodiversity.
  • Take a conservative approach – Where uncertainties are high, taking a precautionary approach to impact calculations, which tends towards overestimating rather than underestimating impacts, can sometimes reduce the risks to businesses associated with their use (although see the preprint for further considerations).

Opportunities for using LCA-based approaches in biodiversity strategy design

Understanding the risks posed by these uncertainties, weighing them against the costs of inappropriate action or inaction, and ensuring decisions are robust to these uncertainties, is vital for designing effective biodiversity strategies.

We provide the following recommendations for using LCAs in biodiversity strategy design:

  • LCAs are most powerful for high-level risk screening to prioritise action and highlight areas where focused effort and more granular data is needed, to track progress towards abating impacts year-on-year and identify low risk actions.
  • Once highest impact areas are identified, LCAs should be used alongside other more specific approaches and methods to gain robust impact estimates of biodiversity impact, and to guide location-specific and effective action to protect and restore nature.
  • The absolute values of biodiversity impacts from LCAs should be interpreted and used cautiously. Whilst useful for communicating results and tracking change over time (if methods stay constant), these values mask substantial uncertainties and are not linked to specific taxa, habitats or locations – making them poorly suited for goal and target setting.
  • Until uncertainties can be reduced, it is good practice for organizational targets to be based around a basket of complementary metrics from LCA and non-LCA methods including actions, pressures, and primary data on the state of nature. Pressure targets could for example utilize LCA midpoints – which are more tangible to measure and responsive to company action. If targets tackle biodiversity measurement directly, they should be based on real biodiversity measurements, rather than inferred from LCA.
  • Lastly, LCAs should be used in combination with other clear recommendations from conservation science. E.g., identifying low-risk mitigation actions, investing in proactive conservation measures. These actions are unlikely to have unintended consequences for biodiversity.

This work is currently available as a preprint online. This includes more detail on the points raised above, as well as examples showing how these uncertainties could lead to risks in business strategy design.

 

New publication: The political ecology of cocoa agroforestry and implications for equitable land use in rural Ghana.

The relevance of cocoa agroforestry is widely discussed in debates on sustainability transition in cocoa, especially in the context of ending hunger and poverty among cocoa farmers. Whereas this has led to multiple cocoa agroforestry investments by NGOs, governments, and cocoa and chocolate companies in West and Central Africa, a notable gap exists in the literature on how these interventions respond to the needs of cocoa farmers who are typically framed as the primary target of equity in cocoa sustainability discussions.

This paper, written by Eric Kumeh contributes to bridging this gap by analyzing equity in implementing various cocoa agroforestry projects by different actors in Ghana’s Juabeso-Bia Landscape (JBL)

Read the full paper here

A surprising new climate benefit is found in tree bark

They’re well known for their carbon storing properties but now scientists have discovered that trees have an additional climate benefit, in their bark.

Professor Yadvinder Malhi, Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, is among an international team of colleagues who have found tree bark surfaces play an important role in removing methane gas from the atmosphere.

Writing in the journal Nature they say microbes hidden within tree bark can absorb methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – from the atmosphere. Methane is responsible for around 30 per cent of global warming since pre-industrial times and emissions are currently rising faster than at any point since records began in the 1980s.

The team of researchers has shown for the first time that microbes living in bark or in the wood itself are removing atmospheric methane on a scale equal to or above that of soil. They calculate that this newly discovered process makes trees 10 per cent more beneficial for climate overall than previously thought.

Former Environmental Change Institute (ECI) Postdoc Researcher, Dr Allie Shenkin and Prof Malhi used detailed 3D laser scans of trees to estimate the total surface area of bark, both in particular woods and at the planetary scale. Prof Malhi said the tree shape analysis shows that if all the bark of all the trees of the world were laid flat, the area would be equal to the Earth’s land surface.

Prof Malhi said: “Tree woody surfaces add a third dimension to the way life on Earth interacts with the atmosphere, and this third dimension is teeming with life, and with surprises.”

In the study, the researchers investigated upland tropical, temperate and boreal forest trees. They took measurements spanning tropical forests in the Amazon and Panama; temperate broadleaf trees in Wytham Woods, in Oxfordshire, and boreal coniferous forest in Sweden.

Prof Malhi added: “Once again research carried out at the University of Oxford’s Wytham Woods has shown what an important area of study they are and it’s exciting to see they can still reveal surprises of planetary importance.”

Wytham Woods has been owned and maintained by the University of Oxford since 1942. The woods are often quoted as being one of the most researched pieces of woodland in the world, and their 1000 acres are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The site is exceptionally rich in flora and fauna, with over 500 species of plants, a wealth of woodland habitats, and 800 species of butterflies and moths.

Prof Myles Allen, Climate programme lead at the ECI, and Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics in the Department of Physic provided valuable insights into how best to calculate the climate change implications of this absorption of methane, enabling the additional climate benefit of protecting or restoring trees to be calculated.

Although most methane is removed by processes in the atmosphere, soils are full of microbes that absorb the gas and break it down for use as energy. Soil had been thought of as the only terrestrial sink for methane, but the researchers now show that trees may be as important, perhaps more so.

Lead researcher on the study, Professor Vincent Gauci of the University of Birmingham, said: “The main ways in which we consider the contribution of trees to the environment is through absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, and storing it as carbon. These results, however, show a remarkable new way in which trees provide a vital climate service.

“The Global Methane Pledge, launched in 2021 at the COP26 climate change summit aims to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by the end of the decade. Our results suggest that planting more trees, and reducing deforestation surely have to be important parts of any approach towards this goal.”

The methane absorption was strongest in the tropical forests, probably because microbes thrive in the warm wet conditions found there.  On average the newly discovered methane absorption adds around 10% to the climate benefit that temperate and tropical trees provide.

By studying methane exchange between the atmosphere and the tree bark at multiple heights, they were able to show that while at soil level the trees were likely to emit a small amount of methane, from a couple of metres up the direction of exchange switches and methane from the atmosphere is consumed.

In addition, the team used laser scanning methods to quantify the overall global forest tree bark surface area, with preliminary calculations indicating that the total global contribution of trees is between 24.6-49.9 Tg (millions of tonnes) of methane. This fills a big gap in understanding the global sources and sinks of methane.

This new discovery opens up whole new directions of research. It is not known which bark types or trees species are better hosts for these methane-eating microbes, how quickly new trees build a methane-absorbing function, or whether the as yet unmeasured branches of trees are ever stronger methane absorbers.

Read the full paper in Nature: Global atmospheric methane uptake by upland tree woody surfaces

Watch a video explainer from Prof Malhi, Ecosystems Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery here.

We can no longer ignore nature in our political and economic decision-making

Now is the time to put nature at the centre of decision-making, for the sake of our civilization. In a special edition of the Royal Society’s journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Professor Yadvinder Malhi, Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, considers the importance of nature in making decisions.

In a preface to a special feature in the journal, co-written with Prof Gretchen C. Daily, Director of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, Professor Malhi said:

“The value and importance of the natural world is not sufficiently accounted for in economic or other decision-making processes, and bringing nature into decision-making provides the potential for a systemic solution to this challenge.

“There is powerful evidence and growing recognition that this decline matters – not only because of the intrinsic value of Earth’s biodiversity, but also because the degradation of the web of life threatens human well-being today, social and economic progress, and even the future of our civilisation.”

Professors Malhi and Daily say recent developments and statements have raised awareness of the biodiversity crisis, resulting in high-level calls to “bend the curve” of biodiversity loss within a decade, and to create nature-positive economies and businesses. New policy impetus has come from the adoption of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework, as well as a flurry of new nature-focused legislation at supernational, national, and city levels.

How exactly this can be achieved at scale and across sectors remains a major challenge. However, there has been substantial progress in developing successful demonstrations of integrating nature into decision-making in a variety of sectors and regions.

This special feature examines some of the greatest challenges and most promising solutions for bringing nature into decision-making at scale. Solutions include:

  • Assigning values to nature which are then embedded in key environmental policy instruments: protected areas for nature and payments for ecosystem services.
  • Highlighting the pioneering approach in Costa Rica with a system giving value to standing forests which reversed deforestation.
  • The transnational corporations that are taking nature into account in their decision-making who all share similar critical success factors.
  • The development of national natural capital accounts to increase integration of the values of nature into decision-making.
  • Cities that have enhanced urban nature and reveal what lessons can be learned for replicating and scaling up models of success.
  • Children’s exposure to nature in the school environment showing enhanced benefits for children’s physical and mental health, focus at school, and nurturing of pro-nature attitudes.

The global intertwining between humanity and the biosphere, navigating human actions and societies within a global safe operating space.

Professor Malhi said:

“As a collection, these papers highlight the urgency of bringing nature into decision-making, and also demonstrate the real progress in application of data rich tools that facilitate such decision-making, while at the same time reminding us that there are deeper issuesi  around our relationship with the straining biosphere that need examination and remedying.”

 

Read the feature in full: Bringing nature into decision-making

World’s Most Productive Natural Forests Recently Discovered in West Africa

Whilst most studies on the ecosystem functioning of tropical forests have focussed extensively on Latin America or Asia, researchers in Oxford say comparing findings with studies in Ghana has produced interesting and differing results showing that more studies need to be made in Africa.

Tropical forests cover large areas of equatorial Africa and play a significant role in the global carbon cycle. Scientists from the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, in the Environmental Change Institute (ECI), in close partnership with collaborators at the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG), have been looking at the carbon budget in both the Amazon and West Africa by undertaking detailed field assessments of the carbon budget of multiple forest sites.

The researchers monitored 14 one-hectare plots along an aridity gradient in Ghana. When compared with an equivalent aridity gradient in Amazonia they had previously studied using the same measurement protocol, the studied West African forests generally had higher productivity and more rapid carbon cycling.

Their findings have been published in Nature Communications: Contrasting carbon cycle along tropical forest aridity gradients in West Africa and Amazonia.

Lead author Huanyuan Zhang-Zheng, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre, said: “Tropical forests are so diverse that we are constantly surprised when opening new study sites. I became fascinated with West African forests because of this study, but I am sure there are more fascinating tropical forests yet to discover. When we’re talking about carbon budgets, you can’t just study a stand of forests and imagine that applies to even nearby forests. Carbon budgets vary greatly from wet to dry regions in the tropics.”

Having studied the carbon budget in the Amazon it was interesting to see that West African forests are more productive, have more photosynthesis and absorb more energy. And we don’t quite understand why this is the case. This is an important region and shouldn’t be ignored. Our new findings were able to tell us a different story than our previous studies in the Amazonia, and has stimulated new questions and new research.

The work carried out is part of the Global Ecosystem Monitoring network (GEM), an international effort to measure and understand forest ecosystem functions and traits, and how these will respond to climate change. GEM was created by the ECI in 2005 under the leadership of Prof Yadvinder Malhi. The GEM network describes the productivity, metabolism and carbon cycle of mainly tropical forests and savannas.

Professor Malhi said: “Ecology is a global science, and equal long-term partnerships are essential to produce both better science and fairer science. This work is the product of decades of long-term partnership between Oxford and institutions in both Africa and South America, work that seen many local students trained and graduating and contributed to building local capacity in environmental science”.

The study is also a fruit of successful collaboration with the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana – CSIR, many scientists from which made fundamental contributions to the study and are coauthors of the publication. One of the lead Ghanaian collaborators, Said Akwasi Duah-Gyamfi, Senior Research Scientist, CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of Ghana, said: “It was a wonderful experience to be part of the research team, and most importantly to explore and generate knowledge on topical issues about forests in Africa.”

Read the paper in full: Contrasting carbon cycle along tropical forest aridity gradients in W Africa and Amazonia

Read more about GEM: The Global Ecosystems Monitoring network: Monitoring ecosystem productivity and carbon cycling across the tropics