Tools
Tools
Ewers, Robert M., Orme, C. David L., Pearse, William D., Zulkifli, Nursyamin, Yvon-Durocher, Genevieve, Yusah, Kalsum M., Yoh, Natalie, Yeo, Darren C. J., Wong, Anna, Williamson, Joseph, Wilkinson, Clare L., Wiederkehr, Fabienne, Webber, Bruce L., Wearn, Oliver R., Wai, Leona, Vollans, Maisie, Twining, Joshua P., Turner, Edgar C., Tobias, Joseph A., Thorley, Jack, Telford, Elizabeth M., Teh, Yit Arn, Tan, Heok Hui, Swinfield, Tom, Svátek, Martin, Struebig, Matthew, Stork, Nigel, Sleutel, Jani, Slade, Eleanor M., Sharp, Adam, Shabrani, Adi, Sethi, Sarab S., Seaman, Dave J. I., Sawang, Anati, Roxby, Gabrielle Briana, Rowcliffe, J. Marcus, Rossiter, Stephen J., Riutta, Terhi, Rahman, Homathevi, Qie, Lan, Psomas, Elizabeth, Prairie, Aaron, Poznansky, Frederica, Pillay, Rajeev, Picinali, Lorenzo, Pianzin, Annabel, Pfeifer, Marion, Parrett, Jonathan M., Noble, Ciar D. 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-2789, Nilus, Reuben, Mustaffa, Nazirah, Mullin, Katherine E., Mitchell, Simon, Mckinlay, Amelia R., Maunsell, Sarah, Matula, Radim, Massam, Michael, Martin, Stephanie, Malhi, Yadvinder, Majalap, Noreen, Maclean, Catherine S., Mackintosh, Emma, Luke, Sarah H., Lewis, Owen T., Layfield, Harry J., Lane-Shaw, Isolde, Kueh, Boon Hee, Kratina, Pavel, Konopik, Oliver, Kitching, Roger, Kinneen, Lois, Kemp, Victoria A., Jotan, Palasiah, Jones, Nick, Jebrail, Evyen W., Hroneš, Michal, Heon, Sui Peng, Hemprich-Bennett, David R., Haysom, Jessica K., Harianja, Martina F., Hardwick, Jane, Gregory, Nichar, Gray, Ryan, Gray, Ross E. J., Granville, Natasha, Gill, Richard J., Fraser, Adam, Foster, William A., Folkard-Tapp, Hollie, Fletcher, Robert J., Fikri, Arman Hadi, Fayle, Tom M., Faruk, Aisyah, Eggleton, Paul, Edwards, David P., Drinkwater, Rosie, Dow, Rory A., Döbert, Timm F., Didham, Raphael K., Dickinson, Katharine J. M., Deere, Nicolas J., de Lorm, Tijmen, Dawood, Mahadimenakbar M., Davison, Charles W., Davies, Zoe G., Davies, Richard ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0145-0818, Dančák, Martin, Cusack, Jeremy J., Clare, Elizabeth L., Chung, Arthur, Chey, Vun Khen, Chapman, Philip M., Cator, Lauren, Carpenter, Daniel, Carbone, Chris, Calloway, Kerry, Bush, Emma R., Burslem, David F. R. P., Brown, Keiron D., Brooks, Stephen J., Brasington, Ella, Brant, Hayley, Boyle, Michael J. W., Both, Sabine, Blackman, Joshua, Bishop, Tom R., Bicknell, Jake E., Bernard, Henry, Basrur, Saloni, Barclay, Maxwell V. L., Barclay, Holly, Atton, Georgina, Ancrenaz, Marc, Aldridge, David, Daniel, Olivia Z., Reynolds, Glen and Banks-Leite, Cristina
(2024)
Thresholds for adding degraded tropical forest to the conservation estate.
Nature, 631 (8022).
pp. 808-813.
ISSN 0028-0836
Preview |
PDF (s41586-024-07657-w)
- Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (3MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Logged and disturbed forests are often viewed as degraded and depauperate environments compared with primary forest. However, they are dynamic ecosystems1 that provide refugia for large amounts of biodiversity2,3, so we cannot afford to underestimate their conservation value4. Here we present empirically defined thresholds for categorizing the conservation value of logged forests, using one of the most comprehensive assessments of taxon responses to habitat degradation in any tropical forest environment. We analysed the impact of logging intensity on the individual occurrence patterns of 1,681 taxa belonging to 86 taxonomic orders and 126 functional groups in Sabah, Malaysia. Our results demonstrate the existence of two conservation-relevant thresholds. First, lightly logged forests (<29% biomass removal) retain high conservation value and a largely intact functional composition, and are therefore likely to recover their pre-logging values if allowed to undergo natural regeneration. Second, the most extreme impacts occur in heavily degraded forests with more than two-thirds (>68%) of their biomass removed, and these are likely to require more expensive measures to recover their biodiversity value. Overall, our data confirm that primary forests are irreplaceable5, but they also reinforce the message that logged forests retain considerable conservation value that should not be overlooked.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Science > School of Biological Sciences Faculty of Science > School of Environmental Sciences |
| UEA Research Groups: | Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Organisms and the Environment Faculty of Science > Research Centres > Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | LivePure Connector |
| Date Deposited: | 31 Jul 2024 18:29 |
| Last Modified: | 12 Aug 2024 00:34 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/96084 |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41586-024-07657-w |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |