deforestation research essay

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 06 May 2020

Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis

• Mauro Bologna 1   na1 &
• Gerardo Aquino 2 , 3 , 4   na1  

Scientific Reports volume  10 , Article number:  7631 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

195k Accesses

58 Citations

1431 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Applied mathematics
• Environmental impact
• Population dynamics
• Statistical physics, thermodynamics and nonlinear dynamics

In this paper we afford a quantitative analysis of the sustainability of current world population growth in relation to the parallel deforestation process adopting a statistical point of view. We consider a simplified model based on a stochastic growth process driven by a continuous time random walk, which depicts the technological evolution of human kind, in conjunction with a deterministic generalised logistic model for humans-forest interaction and we evaluate the probability of avoiding the self-destruction of our civilisation. Based on the current resource consumption rates and best estimate of technological rate growth our study shows that we have very low probability, less than 10% in most optimistic estimate, to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse.

Similar content being viewed by others

The qualified prevalence of natural and planted tropical reforestation

Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon

Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods

Introduction.

In the last few decades, the debate on climate change has assumed global importance with consequences on national and global policies. Many factors due to human activity are considered as possible responsible of the observed changes: among these water and air contamination (mostly greenhouse effect) and deforestation are the mostly cited. While the extent of human contribution to the greenhouse effect and temperature changes is still a matter of discussion, the deforestation is an undeniable fact. Indeed before the development of human civilisations, our planet was covered by 60 million square kilometres of forest 1 . As a result of deforestation, less than 40 million square kilometres currently remain 2 . In this paper, we focus on the consequence of indiscriminate deforestation.

Trees’ services to our planet range from carbon storage, oxygen production to soil conservation and water cycle regulation. They support natural and human food systems and provide homes for countless species, including us, through building materials. Trees and forests are our best atmosphere cleaners and, due to the key role they play in the terrestrial ecosystem, it is highly unlikely to imagine the survival of many species, including ours, on Earth without them. In this sense, the debate on climate change will be almost obsolete in case of a global deforestation of the planet. Starting from this almost obvious observation, we investigate the problem of the survival of humanity from a statistical point of view. We model the interaction between forests and humans based on a deterministic logistic-like dynamics, while we assume a stochastic model for the technological development of the human civilisation. The former model has already been applied in similar contexts 3 , 4 while the latter is based on data and model of global energy consumption 5 , 6 used as a proxy for the technological development of a society. This gives solidity to our discussion and we show that, keeping the current rate of deforestation, statistically the probability to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse, is very low. We connect such probability to survive to the capability of humankind to spread and exploit the resources of the full solar system. According to Kardashev scale 7 , 8 , which measures a civilisation’s level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy they are able to use, in order to spread through the solar system we need to be able to harness the energy radiated by the Sun at a rate of ≈4 × 10 26 Watt. Our current energy consumption rate is estimated in ≈10 13 Watt 9 . As showed in the subsections “Statistical Model of technological development” and “Numerical results” of the following section, a successful outcome has a well defined threshold and we conclude that the probability of avoiding a catastrophic collapse is very low, less than 10% in the most optimistic estimate.

Model and Results

Deforestation.

The deforestation of the planet is a fact 2 . Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million Km 2 of forests around the world were cut down 10 which amounts to 2 × 10 5 Km 2 per year. At this rate all the forests would disappear approximatively in 100–200 years. Clearly it is unrealistic to imagine that the human society would start to be affected by the deforestation only when the last tree would be cut down. The progressive degradation of the environment due to deforestation would heavily affect human society and consequently the human collapse would start much earlier.

Curiously enough, the current situation of our planet has a lot in common with the deforestation of Easter Island as described in 3 . We therefore use the model introduced in that reference to roughly describe the humans-forest interaction. Admittedly, we are not aiming here for an exact exhaustive model. It is probably impossible to build such a model. What we propose and illustrate in the following sections, is a simplified model which nonetheless allows us to extrapolate the time scales of the processes involved: i.e. the deterministic process describing human population and resource (forest) consumption and the stochastic process defining the economic and technological growth of societies. Adopting the model in 3 (see also 11 ) we have for the humans-forest dynamics

where N represent the world population and R the Earth surface covered by forest. β is a positive constant related to the carrying capacity of the planet for human population, r is the growth rate for humans (estimated as r  ~ 0.01 years −1 ) 12 , a 0 may be identified as the technological parameter measuring the rate at which humans can extract the resources from the environment, as a consequence of their reached technological level. r ’ is the renewability parameter representing the capability of the resources to regenerate, (estimated as r ’ ~ 0.001 years −1 ) 13 , R c the resources carrying capacity that in our case may be identified with the initial 60 million square kilometres of forest. A closer look at this simplified model and at the analogy with Easter Island on which is based, shows nonetheless, strong similarities with our current situation. Like the old inhabitants of Easter Island we too, at least for few more decades, cannot leave the planet. The consumption of the natural resources, in particular the forests, is in competition with our technological level. Higher technological level leads to growing population and higher forest consumption (larger a 0 ) but also to a more effective use of resources. With higher technological level we can in principle develop technical solutions to avoid/prevent the ecological collapse of our planet or, as last chance, to rebuild a civilisation in the extraterrestrial space (see section on the Fermi paradox). The dynamics of our model for humans-forest interaction in Eqs. ( 1 , 2 ), is typically characterised by a growing human population until a maximum is reached after which a rapid disastrous collapse in population occurs before eventually reaching a low population steady state or total extinction. We will use this maximum as a reference for reaching a disastrous condition. We call this point in time the “no-return point” because if the deforestation rate is not changed before this time the human population will not be able to sustain itself and a disastrous collapse or even extinction will occur. As a first approximation 3 , since the capability of the resources to regenerate, r ′, is an order of magnitude smaller than the growing rate for humans, r , we may neglect the first term in the right hand-side of Eq. ( 2 ). Therefore, working in a regime of the exploitation of the resources governed essentially by the deforestation, from Eq. ( 2 ) we can derive the rate of tree extinction as

The actual population of the Earth is N  ~ 7.5 × 10 9 inhabitants with a maximum carrying capacity estimated 14 of N c  ~ 10 10 inhabitants. The forest carrying capacity may be taken as 1 R c  ~ 6 × 10 7 Km 2 while the actual surface of forest is \(R\lesssim 4\times {10}^{7}\) Km 2 . Assuming that β is constant, we may estimate this parameter evaluating the equality N c ( t ) =  βR ( t ) at the time when the forests were intact. Here N c ( t ) is the instantaneous human carrying capacity given by Eq. ( 1 ). We obtain β  ~  N c / R c  ~ 170.

In alternative we may evaluate β using actual data of the population growth 15 and inserting it in Eq. ( 1 ). In this case we obtain a range \(700\lesssim \beta \lesssim 900\) that gives a slightly favourable scenario for the human kind (see below and Fig.  4 ). We stress anyway that this second scenario depends on many factors not least the fact that the period examined in 15 is relatively short. On the contrary β  ~ 170 is based on the accepted value for the maximum human carrying capacity. With respect to the value of parameter a 0 , adopting the data relative to years 2000–2012 of ref. 10 ,we have

The time evolution of system ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) is plotted in Figs.  1 and 2 . We note that in Fig.  1 the numerical value of the maximum of the function N ( t ) is N M  ~ 10 10 estimated as the carrying capacity for the Earth population 14 . Again we have to stress that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline, that is also way we take the maximum in population and the time at which occurs as the point of reference for the occurrence of an irreversible catastrophic collapse, namely a ‘no-return’ point.

On the left: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 1 ) with the initial condition N 0  = 6 × 10 9 at initial time t  = 2000 A.C. On the right: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 2 ) with the initial condition R 0  = 4 × 10 7 . Here β  = 700 and a 0  = 10 −12 .

On the left: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 1 ) with the initial condition N 0  = 6 × 10 9 at initial time t  = 2000 A.C. On the right: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 2 ) with the initial condition R 0  = 4 × 10 7 . Here β  = 170 and a 0  = 10 −12 .

Statistical model of technological development

According to Kardashev scale 7 , 8 , in order to be able to spread through the solar system, a civilisation must be capable to build a Dyson sphere 16 , i.e. a maximal technological exploitation of most the energy from its local star, which in the case of the Earth with the Sun would correspond to an energy consumption of E D  ≈ 4 × 10 26 Watts, we call this value Dyson limit. Our actual energy consumption is estimated in E c  ≈ 10 13 Watts (Statistical Review of World Energy source) 9 . To describe our technological evolution, we may roughly schematise the development as a dichotomous random process

where T is the level of technological development of human civilisation that we can also identify with the energy consumption. α is a constant parameter describing the technological growth rate (i.e. of T ) and ξ ( t ) a random variable with values 0, 1. We consider therefore, based on data of global energy consumption 5 , 6 an exponential growth with fluctuations mainly reflecting changes in global economy. We therefore consider a modulated exponential growth process where the fluctuations in the growth rate are captured by the variable ξ ( t ). This variable switches between values 0, 1 with waiting times between switches distributed with density ψ ( t ). When ξ ( t ) = 0 the growth stops and resumes when ξ switches to ξ ( t ) = 1. If we consider T more strictly as describing the technological development, ξ ( t ) reflects the fact that investments in research can have interruptions as a consequence of alternation of periods of economic growth and crisis. With the following transformation,

differentiating both sides respect to t and using Eq. ( 5 ), we obtain for the transformed variable W

where \(\bar{\xi }(t)=2[\xi (t)-\langle \xi \rangle ]\) and 〈ξ 〉 is the average of ξ ( t ) so that \(\bar{\xi }(t)\) takes the values ±1.

The above equation has been intensively studied, and a general solution for the probability distribution P ( W , t ) generated by a generic waiting time distribution can be found in literature 17 . Knowing the distribution we may evaluate the first passage time distribution in reaching the necessary level of technology to e.g. live in the extraterrestrial space or develop any other way to sustain population of the planet. This characteristic time has to be compared with the time that it will take to reach the no-return point. Knowing the first passage time distribution 18 we will be able to evaluate the probability to survive for our civilisation.

If the dichotomous process is a Poissonian process with rate γ then the correlation function is an exponential, i.e.

and Eq. ( 7 ) generates for the probability density the well known telegrapher’s equation

We note that the approach that we are following is based on the assumption that at random times, exponentially distributed with rate γ , the dichotomous variable \(\bar{\xi }\) changes its value. With this assumption the solution to Eq. ( 9 ) is

where I n ( z ) are the modified Bessel function of the first kind. Transforming back to the variable T we have

where for sake of compactness we set

In Laplace transform we have

The first passage time distribution, in laplace transform, is evaluated as 19

Inverting the Laplace transform we obtain

which is confirmed (see Fig.  3 ) by numerical simulations. The time average to get the point x for the first time is given by

which interestingly is double the time it would take if a pure exponential growth occurred, depends on the ratio between final and initial value of T and is independent of γ . We also stress that this result depends on parameters directly related to the stage of development of the considered civilisation, namely the starting value T 1 , that we assume to be the energy consumption E c of the fully industrialised stage of the civilisation evolution and the final value T , that we assume to be the Dyson limit E D , and the technological growth rate α . For the latter we may, rather optimistically, choose the value α  = 0.345, following the Moore Law 20 (see next section). Using the data above, relative to our planet’s scenario, we obtain the estimate of 〈 t 〉 ≈ 180 years. From Figs.  1 and 2 we see that the estimate for the no-return time are 130 and 22 years for β  = 700 and β  = 170 respectively, with the latter being the most realistic value. In either case, these estimates based on average values, being less than 180 years, already portend not a favourable outcome for avoiding a catastrophic collapse. Nonetheless, in order to estimate the actual probability for avoiding collapse we cannot rely on average values, but we need to evaluate the single trajectories, and count the ones that manage to reach the Dyson limit before the ‘no-return point’. We implement this numerically as explained in the following.

(Left) Comparison between theoretical prediction of Eq. ( 15 ) (black curve) and numerical simulation of Eq. ( 3 ) (cyan curve) for γ  = 4 (arbitrary units). (Right) Comparison between theoretical prediction of Eq. ( 15 ) (red curve) and numerical simulation of Eq. ( 3 ) (black curve) for γ  = 1/4 (arbitrary units).

(Left panel) Probability p suc of reaching Dyson value before reaching “no-return” point as function of α and a for β  = 170. Parameter a is expressed in Km 2 ys −1 . (Right panel) 2D plot of p suc for a  = 1.5 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 as a function of α . Red line is p suc for β  = 170. Black continuous lines (indistinguishable) are p suc for β  = 300 and 700 respectively (see also Fig.  6 ). Green dashed line indicates the value of α corresponding to Moore’s law.

Numerical results

We run simulations of Eqs. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) simultaneously for different values of of parameters a 0 and α for fixed β and we count the number of trajectories that reach Dyson limit before the population level reaches the “no-return point” after which rapid collapse occurs. More precisely, the evolution of T is stochastic due to the dichotomous random process ξ ( t ), so we generate the T ( t ) trajectories and at the same time we follow the evolution of the population and forest density dictated by the dynamics of Eqs. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) 3 until the latter dynamics reaches the no-return point (maximum in population followed by collapse). When this happens, if the trajectory in T ( t ) has reached the Dyson limit we count it as a success, otherwise as failure. This way we determine the probabilities and relative mean times in Figs.  5 , 6 and 7 . Adopting a weak sustainability point of view our model does not specify the technological mechanism by which the successful trajectories are able to find an alternative to forests and avoid collapse, we leave this undefined and link it exclusively and probabilistically to the attainment of the Dyson limit. It is important to notice that we link the technological growth process described by Eq. ( 5 ) to the economic growth and therefore we consider, for both economic and technological growth, a random sequence of growth and stagnation cycles, with mean periods of about 1 and 4 years in accordance with estimates for the driving world economy, i.e. the United States according to the National Bureau of Economic Research 21 .

Average time τ (in years) to reach Dyson value before hitting “no-return” point (success, left) and without meeting Dyson value (failure, right) as function of α and a for β  = 170. Plateau region (left panel) where τ  ≥ 50 corresponds to diverging τ , i.e. Dyson value not being reached before hitting “no-return” point and therefore failure. Plateau region at τ  = 0 (right panel), corresponds to failure not occurring, i.e. success. Parameter a is expressed in Km 2 ys −1 .

Probability p suc of reaching Dyson value before hitting “no-return” point as function of α and a for β  = 300 (left) and 700 (right). Parameter a is expressed in Km 2 ys −1 .

Probability of reaching Dyson value p suc before reaching “no-return” point as function of β and α for a  = 1.5 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 .

In Eq. ( 1 , 2 ) we redefine the variables as N ′ =  N / R W and R ′ =  R / R W with \({R}_{W}\simeq 150\times {10}^{6}\,K{m}^{2}\) the total continental area, and replace parameter a 0 accordingly with a  =  a 0  ×  R W  = 1.5 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 . We run simulations accordingly starting from values \({R{\prime} }_{0}\) and \({N{\prime} }_{0}\) , based respectively on the current forest surface and human population. We take values of a from 10 −5 to 3 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 and for α from 0.01 ys −1 to 4.4 ys −1 . Results are shown in Figs.  4 and 6 . Figure  4 shows a threshold value for the parameter α , the technological growth rate, above which there is a non-zero probability of success. This threshold value increases with the value of the other parameter a . As shown in Fig.  7 this values depends as well on the value of β and higher values of β correspond to a more favourable scenario where the transition to a non-zero probability of success occurs for smaller α , i.e. for smaller, more accessible values, of technological growth rate. More specifically, left panel of Fig.  4 shows that, for the more realistic value β  = 170, a region of parameter values with non-zero probability of avoiding collapse corresponds to values of α larger than 0.5. Even assuming that the technological growth rate be comparable to the value α  = log(2)/2 = 0.345 ys −1 , given by the Moore Law (corresponding to a doubling in size every two years), therefore, it is unlikely in this regime to avoid reaching the the catastrophic ‘no-return point’. When the realistic value of a  = 1.5 × 10 4 Km 2 ys −1 estimated from Eq. ( 4 ), is adopted, in fact, a probability less than 10% is obtained for avoiding collapse with a Moore growth rate, even when adopting the more optimistic scenario corresponding to β  = 700 (black curve in right panel of Fig.  4 ). While an α larger than 1.5 is needed to have a non-zero probability of avoiding collapse when β  = 170 (red curve, same panel). As far as time scales are concerned, right panel of Fig.  5 shows for β  = 170 that even in the range α  > 0.5, corresponding to a non-zero probability of avoiding collapse, collapse is still possible, and when this occurs, the average time to the ‘no-return point’ ranges from 20 to 40 years. Left panel in same figure, shows for the same parameters, that in order to avoid catastrophe, our society has to reach the Dyson’s limit in the same average amount of time of 20–40 years.

In Fig.  7 we show the dependence of the model on the parameter β for a  = 1.5 × 10 −4 .

We run simulations of Eqs. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) simultaneously for different values of of parameters a 0 and α depending on β as explained in Methods and Results to generate Figs.  5 , 6 and 7 . Equations ( 1 ), ( 2 ) are integrated via standard Euler method. Eq. ( 5 ) is integrated as well via standard Euler method between the random changes of the variable ξ . The stochastic dichotomous process ξ is generated numerically in the following way: using the random number generator from gsl library we generate the times intervals between the changes of the dichotomous variable ξ  = 0, 1, with an exponential distribution(with mean values of 1 and 4 years respectively), we therefore obtain a time series of 0 and 1 for each trajectory. We then integrate Eq. ( 5 ) in time using this time series and we average over N  = 10000 trajectories. The latter procedure is used to carry out simulations in Figs.  3 and 4 as well in order to evaluate the first passage time probabilities. All simulations are implemented in C++.

Fermi paradox

In this section we briefly discuss a few considerations about the so called Fermi paradox that can be drawn from our model. We may in fact relate the Fermi paradox to the problem of resource consumption and self destruction of a civilisation. The origin of Fermi paradox dates back to a casual conversation about extraterrestrial life that Enrico Fermi had with E. Konopinski, E. Teller and H. York in 1950, during which Fermi asked the famous question: “where is everybody?”, since then become eponymous for the paradox. Starting from the closely related Drake equation 22 , 23 , used to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilisations in the Milky Way, the debate around this topic has been particularly intense in the past (for a more comprehensive covering we refer to Hart 24 , Freitas 25 and reference therein). Hart’s conclusion is that there are no other advanced or ‘technological’ civilisations in our galaxy as also supported recently by 26 based on a careful reexamination of Drake’s equation. In other words the terrestrial civilisation should be the only one living in the Milk Way. Such conclusions are still debated, but many of Hart’s arguments are undoubtedly still valid while some of them need to be rediscussed or updated. For example, there is also the possibility that avoiding communication might actually be an ‘intelligent’ choice and a possible explanation of the paradox. On several public occasions, in fact, Professor Stephen Hawking suggested human kind should be very cautious about making contact with extraterrestrial life. More precisely when questioned about planet Gliese 832c’s potential for alien life he once said: “One day, we might receive a signal from a planet like this, but we should be wary of answering back”. Human history has in fact been punctuated by clashes between different civilisations and cultures which should serve as caveat. From the relatively soft replacement between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (Kolodny 27 ) up to the violent confrontation between native Americans and Europeans, the historical examples of clashes and extinctions of cultures and civilisations have been quite numerous. Looking at human history Hawking’s suggestion appears as a wise warning and we cannot role out the possibility that extraterrestrial societies are following similar advice coming from their best minds.

With the help of new technologies capable of observing extrasolar planetary systems, searching and contacting alien life is becoming a concrete possibility (see for example Grimaldi 28 for a study on the chance of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence), therefore a discussion on the probability of this occurring is an important opportunity to assess also our current situation as a civilisation. Among Hart’s arguments, the self-destruction hypothesis especially needs to be rediscussed at a deeper level. Self-destruction following environmental degradation is becoming more and more an alarming possibility. While violent events, such as global war or natural catastrophic events, are of immediate concern to everyone, a relatively slow consumption of the planetary resources may be not perceived as strongly as a mortal danger for the human civilisation. Modern societies are in fact driven by Economy, and, without giving here a well detailed definition of “economical society”, we may agree that such a kind of society privileges the interest of its components with less or no concern for the whole ecosystem that hosts them (for more details see 29 for a review on Ecological Economics and its criticisms to mainstream Economics). Clear examples of the consequences of this type of societies are the international agreements about Climate Change. The Paris climate agreement 30 , 31 is in fact, just the last example of a weak agreement due to its strong subordination to the economic interests of the single individual countries. In contraposition to this type of society we may have to redefine a different model of society, a “cultural society”, that in some way privileges the interest of the ecosystem above the individual interest of its components, but eventually in accordance with the overall communal interest. This consideration suggests a statistical explanation of Fermi paradox: even if intelligent life forms were very common (in agreement with the mediocrity principle in one of its version 32 : “there is nothing special about the solar system and the planet Earth”) only very few civilisations would be able to reach a sufficient technological level so as to spread in their own solar system before collapsing due to resource consumption.

We are aware that several objections can be raised against this argument and we discuss below the one that we believe to be the most important. The main objection is that we do not know anything about extraterrestrial life. Consequently, we do not know the role that a hypothetical intelligence plays in the ecosystem of the planet. For example not necessarily the planet needs trees (or the equivalent of trees) for its ecosystem. Furthermore the intelligent form of life could be itself the analogous of our trees, so avoiding the problem of the “deforestation” (or its analogous). But if we assume that we are not an exception (mediocrity principle) then independently of the structure of the alien ecosystem, the intelligent life form would exploit every kind of resources, from rocks to organic resources (animal/vegetal/etc), evolving towards a critical situation. Even if we are at the beginning of the extrasolar planetology, we have strong indications that Earth-like planets have the volume magnitude of the order of our planet. In other words, the resources that alien civilisations have at their disposal are, as order of magnitude, the same for all of them, including ourselves. Furthermore the mean time to reach the Dyson limit as derived in Eq.  6 depends only on the ratio between final and initial value of T and therefore would be independent of the size of the planet, if we assume as a proxy for T energy consumption (which scales with the size of the planet), producing a rather general result which can be extended to other civilisations. Along this line of thinking, if we are an exception in the Universe we have a high probability to collapse or become extinct, while if we assume the mediocrity principle we are led to conclude that very few civilisations are able to reach a sufficient technological level so as to spread in their own solar system before the consumption of their planet’s resources triggers a catastrophic population collapse. The mediocrity principle has been questioned (see for example Kukla 33 for a critical discussion about it) but on the other hand the idea that the humankind is in some way “special” in the universe has historically been challenged several times. Starting with the idea of the Earth at the centre of the universe (geocentrism), then of the solar system as centre of the universe (Heliocentrism) and finally our galaxy as centre of the universe. All these beliefs have been denied by the facts. Our discussion, being focused on the resource consumption, shows that whether we assume the mediocrity principle or our “uniqueness” as an intelligent species in the universe, the conclusion does not change. Giving a very broad meaning to the concept of cultural civilisation as a civilisation not strongly ruled by economy, we suggest for avoiding collapse 34 that only civilisations capable of such a switch from an economical society to a sort of “cultural” society in a timely manner, may survive. This discussion leads us to the conclusion that, even assuming the mediocrity principle, the answer to “Where is everybody?” could be a lugubrious “(almost) everyone is dead”.

Conclusions

In conclusion our model shows that a catastrophic collapse in human population, due to resource consumption, is the most likely scenario of the dynamical evolution based on current parameters. Adopting a combined deterministic and stochastic model we conclude from a statistical point of view that the probability that our civilisation survives itself is less than 10% in the most optimistic scenario. Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation (see Fig.  5 ). Making the situation even worse, we stress once again that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline. This consideration leads to an even shorter remaining time. Admittedly, in our analysis, we assume parameters such as population growth and deforestation rate in our model as constant. This is a rough approximation which allows us to predict future scenarios based on current conditions. Nonetheless the resulting mean-times for a catastrophic outcome to occur, which are of the order of 2–4 decades (see Fig.  5 ), make this approximation acceptable, as it is hard to imagine, in absence of very strong collective efforts, big changes of these parameters to occur in such time scale. This interval of time seems to be out of our reach and incompatible with the actual rate of the resource consumption on Earth, although some fluctuations around this trend are possible 35 not only due to unforeseen effects of climate change but also to desirable human-driven reforestation. This scenario offers as well a plausible additional explanation to the fact that no signals from other civilisations are detected. In fact according to Eq. ( 16 ) the mean time to reach Dyson sphere depends on the ratio of the technological level T and therefore, assuming energy consumption (which scales with the size of the planet) as a proxy for T , such ratio is approximately independent of the size of the planet. Based on this observation and on the mediocrity principle, one could extend the results shown in this paper, and conclude that a generic civilisation has approximatively two centuries starting from its fully developed industrial age to reach the capability to spread through its own solar system. In fact, giving a very broad meaning to the concept of cultural civilisation as a civilisation not strongly ruled by economy, we suggest that only civilisations capable of a switch from an economical society to a sort of “cultural” society in a timely manner, may survive.

Waring, R. H. & Running, S. W. Forest Ecosystems: Analysis at Multiple Scales (Academic Press, 2007).

The State of the World’s Forests 2018. Forest Pathways to Sustainable Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome (2018).

Bologna, M. & Flores, J. C. A simple mathematical model of society collapse applied to Easter Island. EPL 81 , 48006 (2008).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bologna, M., Chandia, K. J. & Flores, J. C. A non-linear mathematical model for a three species ecosystem: Hippos in Lake Edward. Journal of Theoretical Biology 389 , 83 (2016).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world .

Vaclav, S. Energy transitions: history, requirements, prospects (ABC-CLIO, 2010).

Kardashev, N. Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial civilisations. Soviet Astronomy 8 , 217 (1964).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Kardashev, N. On the Inevitability and the Possible Structures of Supercivilisations, The search for extraterrestrial life: Recent developments; Proceedings of the Symposium p. 497–504 (1985).

Statistical Review of World Energy source (2018).

NASA source https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11393 .

Frank, A., Carroll-Nellenback, J., Alberti, M. & Kleidon, A. The Anthropocene Generalized: Evolution of Exo-Civilizations and Their Planetary Feedback. Astrobiology 18 , 503–517 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Fort, J. & Mendez, V. Time-Delayed Theory of the Neolithic Transition in Europe. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 , 867 (1999).

Molles, M. Ecology: Concepts and Applications (McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1999).

Wilson, E. O. The Future of Life (Knopf, 2002).

Bongaarts, J. Human population growth and the demographic transition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364 , 2985–2990 (2009).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dyson, F. J. Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infra-Red Radiation. Science 131 , 1667–1668 (1960).

Bologna, M., Ascolani, G. & Grigolini, P. Density approach to ballistic anomalous diffusion: An exact analytical treatment. J. Math. Phys. 51 , 043303 (2010).

Hanggi, P. & Talkner, P. First-passage time problems for non-Markovian processes. Phys. Rev. A 32 , 1934 (1985).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Weiss G. H. Aspects and Applications of the Random Walk , (North Holland, 1994).

Moore, G. E. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38 , 114 (1965).

Google Scholar  

Business Cycle Expansion and Contractions, https://web.archive.org/web/20090310081706/ ; http://www.nber.org/cycles.

Drake, F. The radio search for intelligent extraterrestrial life. In Current Aspects of Exobiology 323–345 (Pergamon Press, New York, 1965).

Burchell, M. J. W(h)ither the Drake equation? Intern. J. Astrobiology 5 , 243–250 (2006).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hart, M. H. Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 16 , 128–135 (1975).

Freitas, R. A. There is no Fermi Paradox. Icarus 62 , 518–520 (1985).

Engler, J. O. & von Wehrden, H. Where is everybody?? An empirical appraisal of occurrence, prevalence and sustainability of technological species in the Universe. International Journal of Astrobiology 18 , 495–501 (2019).

Kolodny, O. & Feldman, M. W. A parsimonious neutral model suggests Neanderthal replacement was determined by migration and random species drift. Nature Comm. 8 , 1040 (2017).

Grimaldi, C. Signal coverage approach to the detection probability of hypothetical extraterrestrial emitters in the Milky Way. Sci. Rep. 7 , 46273 (2017).

Daly, H. E. & Farley, J. Ecological Economics, Second Edition: Principles and Applications )Island Press, 2011).

Paris Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf.

Tol, R. S. J. The structure of the climate debate. Energy Policy 104 , 431–438 (2017).

Rood, R. T. & Trefil, S. J. Are we alone? The possibility of extraterrestrial civilisations (Scribner, 1981).

Kukla, A. Extraterrestrials A Philosophical Perspective (Lexington Books, 2010).

Strunz, S., Marselle, M. & Schröter, M. Leaving the “sustainability or collapse” narrative behind. Sustainability Science 14 , 1717–1728 (2019).

Song, X.-P. et al . Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560 , 639–643 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.B. and G.A. acknowledge Phy. C.A. for logistical support.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Mauro Bologna and Gerardo Aquino.

Authors and Affiliations

Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica-Electrónica, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile

Mauro Bologna

The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK

Gerardo Aquino

University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.B. and G.A. equally contributed and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerardo Aquino .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bologna, M., Aquino, G. Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis. Sci Rep 10 , 7631 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63657-6

Download citation

Received : 20 November 2019

Accepted : 02 April 2020

Published : 06 May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63657-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Mathematical model to study the impact of anthropogenic activities on forest biomass and forest-dependent wildlife population.

• Ibrahim M. Fanuel
• Silas Mirau
• Francis Moyo

International Journal of Dynamics and Control (2024)

A Multivariate Geostatistical Framework to Assess the Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Air Pollution and Land Surface Temperature in Bangladesh

• Sk Nafiz Rahaman
• Jake Nelson
• Sharmin Sultana Toa

Earth Systems and Environment (2024)

Future-proofing ecosystem restoration through enhancing adaptive capacity

• Marina Frietsch
• Jacqueline Loos
• Joern Fischer

Communications Biology (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

112 Deforestation Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Deforestation is a pressing issue that has a significant impact on the environment and society as a whole. It refers to the permanent destruction or removal of forests, leading to the loss of biodiversity, climate change, and the displacement of indigenous communities. As a topic, deforestation offers numerous angles and areas of exploration for essay writing. In this article, we present 112 deforestation essay topic ideas and examples that can help you to delve into this critical subject matter.

• The causes of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
• The economic implications of deforestation in developing countries.
• Exploring the relationship between deforestation and climate change.
• The role of multinational corporations in deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on indigenous communities.
• The long-term consequences of deforestation on global food security.
• The importance of reforestation efforts in combatting deforestation.
• Deforestation and its impact on water cycles and availability.
• The role of government policies in driving or mitigating deforestation.
• The effects of deforestation on wildlife and endangered species.
• The ethical considerations of deforestation for agricultural expansion.
• The impact of deforestation on local economies and livelihoods.
• Deforestation and its connection to the spread of infectious diseases.
• The effectiveness of international agreements in addressing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Analyzing deforestation rates in different regions of the world.
• The relationship between deforestation and illegal logging.
• The role of consumer demand in driving deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on soil erosion and degradation.
• The consequences of deforestation on the global timber industry.
• The potential solutions to deforestation through sustainable land management.
• Analyzing the economic benefits of forest conservation compared to deforestation.
• The role of technology in monitoring and preventing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on the availability of medicinal plants.
• The connection between deforestation and natural disasters such as floods and landslides.
• The influence of international aid and funding on deforestation rates.
• The social and cultural impact of deforestation on indigenous knowledge and practices.
• Deforestation and its relationship to the loss of biodiversity.
• The role of education and awareness campaigns in combating deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on water quality and availability.
• The consequences of deforestation on global climate patterns.
• Analyzing the role of deforestation in exacerbating poverty in rural communities.
• The impact of deforestation on ecotourism and sustainable development.
• The role of the media in raising awareness about deforestation.
• The potential for agroforestry as an alternative to deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on wildlife migration and habitats.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional knowledge.
• The role of international organizations in addressing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on local weather patterns and microclimates.
• Analyzing the economic benefits of forest ecosystem services compared to deforestation.
• The consequences of deforestation on river systems and freshwater resources.
• The role of community-based forest management in preventing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on air quality and respiratory health.
• The connection between deforestation and the spread of zoonotic diseases.
• The role of women in forest conservation and preventing deforestation.
• The consequences of deforestation on agricultural productivity and food prices.
• The relationship between deforestation and political instability.
• The impact of deforestation on traditional farming practices and food sovereignty.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of cultural diversity.
• The role of certification schemes in promoting sustainable forestry and combating deforestation.
• The consequences of deforestation on riverine and coastal ecosystems.
• The impact of deforestation on indigenous rights and land tenure.
• Analyzing the role of urbanization in driving deforestation.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of ecosystem resilience.
• The consequences of deforestation on carbon markets and REDD+ initiatives.
• The role of non-governmental organizations in advocating for forest conservation.
• The impact of deforestation on human health and well-being.
• The connection between deforestation and the spread of invasive species.
• The consequences of deforestation on cultural heritage and sacred sites.
• The role of sustainable forestry practices in preventing deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on local and global climate regulation.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional medicine.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of clean drinking water.
• The role of international trade agreements in driving deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on the tourism industry.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of ecosystem services.
• The consequences of deforestation on the global carbon cycle.
• The role of forest restoration in combating deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on cultural identity and social cohesion.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of pollinators.
• The consequences of deforestation on migratory bird populations.
• The role of indigenous knowledge in sustainable forest management and preventing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on the availability of renewable energy sources.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of natural beauty and aesthetics.
• The consequences of deforestation on the spread of wildfires.
• The role of financial incentives in promoting forest conservation and preventing deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on economic inequality.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional ecological knowledge.
• The consequences of deforestation on the nutritional value of food crops.
• The role of international finance institutions in addressing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of sacred forests and groves.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of renewable materials.
• The role of public-private partnerships in preventing deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on human rights and social justice.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of natural pest control.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of timber resources.
• The role of citizen science in monitoring and preventing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on the availability of clean air and oxygen production.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of cultural practices and traditions.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of non-timber forest products.
• The role of sustainable agriculture in preventing deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on global economic stability.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional hunting and gathering grounds.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of clean and renewable water sources.
• The role of green finance in promoting forest conservation and preventing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on the resilience of coastal communities to climate change.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional ecological calendars.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of traditional building materials.
• The role of forest-based industries in promoting sustainable forestry and preventing deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on social inequality and marginalized communities.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional seed varieties.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of wild food resources.
• The role of sustainable tourism in promoting forest conservation and preventing deforestation.
• The impact of deforestation on the vulnerability of communities to natural disasters.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of cultural ceremonies and rituals.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of natural fibers and textiles.
• The role of community-based monitoring in preventing deforestation.
• Analyzing the impact of deforestation on mental health and well-being.
• The connection between deforestation and the loss of traditional storytelling and oral traditions.
• The consequences of deforestation on the availability of traditional medicinal plants.
• The role of international cooperation in addressing deforestation.

These essay topic ideas provide a wide array of perspectives and areas of exploration within the subject of deforestation. Whether you want to focus on the causes, consequences, solutions, or the intersection between deforestation and various other fields, these examples can serve as a starting point for your research and writing. Remember, deforestation is a multifaceted issue, and exploring different aspects of it can contribute to raising awareness and finding sustainable solutions.

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

• About Project
• Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Deforestation

List of essay on deforestation in english, essay on deforestation – essay 1 (150 words), essay on deforestation – essay 2 (250 words), essay on deforestation – essay 3 (300 words), essay on deforestation: causes and drawbacks – essay 4 (400 words), essay on deforestation: with causes and solution – essay 5 (500 words), essay on deforestation: introduction, impact, control and conclusion – essay 6 (650 words), essay on deforestation: causes and effects – essay 7 (750 words), essay on deforestation: with solution – essay 8 (1000 words).

Introduction:

Deforestation is the process of clearing trees and forest for other uses. Deforestation usually occurs due to city expansion. As habitats increase in cities, there is a need to create more space the for homes, organizations, and factories. This, however, has a damning effect on our environment.

Effect of Deforestation on the Environment:

Deforestation means fewer trees and more land. This has a serious adverse effect on our environment. On one hand, deforestation makes some animals homeless. Animals that survive in the forest might go extinct with less forest. On the other hand, deforestation is also the biggest cause of climate change around the world.

Preventing Deforestation:

Reducing or preventing deforestation is easier said than done. This is because trees are cut down because there is a pressing need to do so. Thus, to prevent deforestation we must try to reduce that need by making smarter choices in paper usage, city planning, migration, etc.

Conclusion:

The essence of plant life in the forest is unquestionable. To ensure a greener environment we must all join the efforts in reducing deforestation.

Deforestation is definitely one of the most troubling of all problems which has plagued our environment. It is important more than ever to take care of the green cover or else it can jeopardize the existence of life on Earth. It is owing to the presence of green trees that we get the oxygen needed to breathe in.

However, because of excessive exploitation by humans, it has been seen that the trees are being cut down mercilessly. This act of cleaning the green cover is known as deforestation.

Educate people:

The best way to handle the problem of deforestation is by making sure that we educate the masses regarding the importance of green cover. When people understand as to how deforestation is leading to grave consequences, they will get the incentive to plant trees rather than uproot them.

Protect the Environment:

As we have continued to exploit the environment in a way that it is hard to get things back to normal, it is now important to immediately start protecting the environment. A lot of natural calamities are occurring these days because the ecosystem balance has been disturbed. Deforestation alone is responsible for a major amount of problems.

So, you need to understand as to how you can come up with ways to excite people about planting more trees and doing their bit for the sake of the environment. Think of your children and grand children. If we continue with our aggressive deforestation campaigns, they are not likely to have a healthy environment for survival. Is that what we really want?

Deforestation can be defined as the removal of trees and clearing of forests for the personal and commercial benefits of human beings. Deforestation has emerged as one of the biggest man-made disasters recently. Every year, more and more trees and vegetation are being erased just to fulfill the various needs of the human race.

Deforestation happens for many reasons. The growing population is one of them. Rising human population needs more area for residential purpose. For this, forests are either burned down or cut to make space for constructing homes and apartments.

Deforestation is also done for commercial purposes. This includes setting up of factories, industries, and towers, etc. The enormous requirements of feeding the human race also create a burden on the land. As a result, clearing land for agricultural purposes leads to deforestation.

Deforestation impacts our earth in several ways. Trees are natural air purifiers. They absorb the carbon dioxide from the air and release oxygen into the atmosphere. Deforestation results in uncontrolled air pollution. When there are fewer trees, there is lesser absorption of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

Deforestation also disturbs the water cycle. Forests absorb the groundwater and release the water vapors to form clouds, which in turn cause rains. Roots of trees hold the soil intact and prevent floods. But when there are no trees, different kinds of natural calamities are bound to happen.

With deforestation, chances of floods, drought, global warming, and disturbed weather cycle all come into the play. Not only that, the disappearance of forests means the extinction of wild animals and plants, which are highly important parts of our ecosystem.

In order to curb these disasters, we must plant more trees. Restoration of existing vegetation is equally essential. Population control is another indirect method to save trees and forest areas.

Deforestation is the process of cutting down of trees and forests completely or partially for different reasons like manufacturing different products with various parts of the tree as raw material, to build structures and other buildings, etc. Deforestation in recent days has become the curse of our world that resulted in the destruction of nature and the environment.

Cause and Drawbacks:

Deforestation is mainly done for making better living assets for humans and this one side thought is the biggest drawback of this issue. Instead of doing only the cutting part humans should practice forestation along with deforestation. Whenever a tree or a forest is cut, another one should be planted at the same place or on other lands to promote the forestation.

Deforestation is the main cause for many natural deficiencies and the destruction of many animal, plant and bird species. If the practice of cutting down trees continues, then eventually even the world may get destructed along with the extinction of the human race.

It’s not like trees shouldn’t be used for any kind of production and urbanization or industrialization shouldn’t be done for the development, but the main factor is to compensate for every minus done. Through this, there will be a balancing between the reduction and plantation which will help, to an extent, in the rectification of problems faced by the world due to deforestation.

Deforestation has also affected the atmospheric air combination. The carbon content in the atmosphere has considerably increased over years due to many human activities like uncontrolled fuel combustion.

Forest has played a massive function of inhaling the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and exhaling oxygen during the daytime while they prepare food for themselves. This process is the reason for maintaining a balanced oxygen and carbon level in the atmosphere and that makes the life of us humans to breathe free.

Population growth is undeniably the major factor behind the increased deforestation level. The increased demand for more assets for better living has increased the need for deforestation as well. In such cases forestation should also be made as a follow-up process.

Controlling the overuse of assets can also help in reducing the deforestation rate. If humans start to use products that use a tree as raw material reasonably then it will help in avoiding deforestation as well. Deforestation not only is a life-threatening scenario for many animals and birds, but also the whole human species.

Deforestation refers to the elimination of plants and trees from a region. Deforestation also includes the clearing of jungles and plants from the region due to the numerous commercial motives.

Different Causes of Deforestation:

The below are the different causes of deforestation:

1. Overgrazing:

Overgrazing in jungles finishes recently renewed development. It makes the soil additional compact and invulnerable. The fertility of the soil also reduces owing to the devastation of organic substance. Overgrazing also results in the desertification and the soil erosion. Deforestation results in decreasing the overall soil’s productivity.

2. Shifting Cultivation:

Numerous agriculturalists destroy the jungle for farming and commercial motives and once productiveness of soil is shattered owing to recurrent harvesting, a fresh forest region is devastated. Hence, farmers must be recommended to utilize a similar area for agriculture and use some upgraded farming techniques and stop the deforestation.

3. Fuel Wood:

The maximum amount of forest is destroyed for the fuel wood. Around 86% of the fuel wood is utilized in rural regions in comparison to the 14% in urban parts and hence lead to more deforestation.

4. Forest Fires:

Recurrent fires in the forest regions are one of the major reasons of deforestation. Few incidents of fires are minor whereas the maximum of them are huge.

The industries related to the plywood and timber is mostly accountable for the deforestation. In fact, the huge demand for wooden things has resulted in the quick reduction of the forest.

6. Industry Establishment:

At times the industrial unit is constructed after deforestation. It means for a small achievement of few people, all other people have to bear a permanent loss. In this procedure, wild animals, valuable plant, and unusual birds get devastated. In fact, it adversely affects the quality of the environment.

7. Violation of Forest:

One more reason of deforestation is a violation by tribal on the land of forest for cultivation and other motives. Even though such type of land has a virtuous support for agriculture creation but still it creates environmental threats.

8. Forest Diseases:

Numerous diseases are instigated by rusts, parasitic fungi, nematodes and viruses that result in demise and deterioration of jungle. Fresh saplings are devastated owing to the occurrence of nematodes. Numerous diseases like blister rust, heart rot, and phloem necrosis, oak will, and Dutch elm, etc. destroy the jungle in large quantities.

9. Landslide:

The landslide lead to the deforestation in the mountains is a question of worry. It happened largely in the regions where growing actions are proceeding for the previous few years. The building of highways and railways mainly in hilly lands as well as the structure of large irrigation plans have resulted in enough deforestation and speeded the natural procedure of denudation.

Worldwide Solution for the Deforestation:

The jungle is an essential natural reserve for any nation and deforestation slow down a nation’s growth. To encounter the necessities of the growing population, simple resources might be attained only with the help of afforestation. It is actually the arrangement of implanting plants for food and food growth. Moreover, the nurseries have a significant part in increasing the coverage of the forest area.

Deforestation is the cutting down of trees. It is basically changing the use of land to a different purpose other than the planting of trees.

There are many reasons which have led to large levels of deforestation all over the world. One of the major causes is ever growing population of the world. With the growth in population, the need for more land to live has been rising. This has further led to cutting down of trees. Also, with modernisation, there has been a substantial increase in the requirement of land for setting up of industries. This has again contributed to deforestation.

Mining is another activity of humans which has led to large-scale deforestation in many areas. The need to build road and rail network in order to increase connectivity to the mines has led to cutting down of trees. This has altered the climatic conditions in these areas.

Deforestation has had a huge impact on the environment. Lack of trees has led to less release of water vapour in the air. This has, in turn, led to the alteration of rainfall patterns in different regions. India is a country which is dependent on monsoon rains for agriculture. Frequent droughts and floods caused due to deforestation have affected the lives of many in different parts of the country.

Moreover, trees absorb the carbon-dioxide from the air and help to purify it. Without trees around us, the presence of harmful gases in the air has been rising. This has also led to global warming which is again a major environmental concern. Also, the ever-rising pollution level, especially in many cities in India is due to vast deforestation only.

Additionally, trees bind the soil around them and prevent soil erosion. Deforestation has led to the soil being washed away with winds and rain, making the land unfit for agriculture. Also, trees and forests are the homes to different species of wildlife. With shrinking forests, several of the wildlife has become extinct as they were not able to cope with the changing conditions. Also, there have been increased man and wildlife conflicts in recent times as the animals are forced to venture in the cities in search of food. All these are severe effects of deforestation and need urgent attention by all.

The Perfect Example:

New Delhi is the capital of India. There was once a time when Delhi was a beautiful city. But with modernisation, increase in population, deforestation and mining in the nearby Aravalli hills, Delhi has been reduced to a gas chamber. Such is the impact the Delhi has become one of the most polluted cities in the world. What better example can be there to understand what deforestation has led us to?

There are many ways in which we can reduce deforestation. We must protect our forests. Moreover, we must mark adequate land for our farming needs. There are some laws already in place which prohibit people from unnecessary felling of trees. What needs to be done is the proper execution of the rules so that everyone abides by it. Also, stricter punishments need to be in place for violators so as to deter other people from disobeying the laws. Alternatively, people need to ensure that for every tree felled, equal numbers of trees are planted so that the balance of nature can be maintained. Summarily, it has to be a collective duty of all and just the governments alone, if we really need to reduce deforestation.

It is true that we all need space to live. With the ever-growing population and urbanisation, there has been more than ever need to cut trees and make space. However, we must realise that it is not possible for us to live without having trees around us. Trees bring so many benefits such as giving us oxygen, utilising the harmful carbon dioxide and so many products we need in our daily lives. Without trees around us, there would be no life on the earth. We should all do the needful to protect trees and reduce deforestation.

Deforestation is also known as clearing or clearance of trees. It can be said to mean removal of strands of trees or forests and the conversion of such area of land to a use that is totally non-forest in nature. Some deforestation examples are the converting of areas of forest to urban, ranches or farms use. The area of land that undergoes the most deforestation is the tropical rainforests. It is important to note that forests cover more than 31 percent in total land area of the surface of the earth.

There are a lot of different reasons why deforestation occurs: some tree are being cut down for building or as fuel (timber or coal), while areas of land are to be used as plantation and also as pasture to feed livestock. When trees are removed with properly replacing them, there can as a result be aridity, loss of biodiversity and even habitat damage. We have also had cases of deforestation used in times of war to starve the enemy.

Causes of Deforestation:

It has been discovered that the major and primary deforestation cause is agriculture. Studies have shown that about 48 percent of all deforestation is as a result of subsistence farming and 32 percent of deforestation is as a result of commercial agriculture. Also, it was discovered that logging accounts for about 14% of the total deforestation and 5% is from the removal for fuel wood.

There has been no form of agreement from experts on if industrial form of logging is a very important contributing factor to deforestation globally. Some experts have argued that the clearing of forests is something poor people do more as a result of them not having other alternatives. Other experts are of the belief that the poor seldom clear forests because they do not have the resources needed to do that. A study has also revealed that increase in population as a result of fertility rates that are very high are not a major driver of deforestation and they only influenced less than 8% of the cases of deforestation.

The Environmental Effects of Deforestation:

Deforestation has a lot of negative effects on our planet and environment.

A few of the areas where it negatively affects our environment are discussed below:

i. Atmospheric Effect:

Global warming has deforestation as one of its major contributing factors and deforestation is also a key cause of greenhouse effect. About 20% of all the emission of greenhouse gases is as a result of tropical deforestation. The land in an area that is deforested heats up quicker and it gets to a temperature that is higher than normal, causing a change in solar energy absorption, flow of water vapours and even wind flows and all of these affects the local climate of the area and also the global climate.

Also, the burning of plants in the forest in order to carry out clearing of land, incineration cause a huge amount of carbon dioxide release which is a major and important contributor to the global warming.

ii. Hydrological Effect:

Various researches have shown that deforestation greatly affects water cycle. Groundwater is extracted by trees through the help of their roots; the water extracted is then released into the surrounding atmosphere. If we remove a part of the forest, there will not be transpiration of water like it should be and this result in the climate being a lot drier. The water content of the soil is heavily reduced by deforestation and also atmospheric moisture as well as groundwater. There is a reduced level of water intake that the trees can extract as a result of the dry soil. Soil cohesion is also reduced by deforestation and this can result in landslides, flooding and erosion.

iii. Effect on Soil:

As a direct result of the plant litter on the surface, there is a minimal and reduced erosion rate in forests largely undisturbed. Deforestation increases the erosion rate as a result of the subsequent decrease in the quantity of cover of litter available. The litter cover actually serves as a protection for the soil from all varieties of surface runoff. When mechanized equipments and machineries are used in forestry operations, there can be a resulting erosion increase as a result of the development of roads in the forests.

iv. Effect on Biodiversity:

There is a biodiversity decline due to deforestation. Deforestation can lead to the death and extinction of a lot of species of animals and plants. The habitat of various animals are taken away as a result of deforestation.

The total coverage of forests on the earth’s landmass is 30 percent and the fact the people are destroying them is worrying. Research reveals that majority of the tropical forests on earth are being destroyed. We are almost at half the forest landmass in destruction. How would earth look life without forests? It will be a total disaster if deforestation is encouraged. Deforestation is a human act in which forests are permanently destroyed in order to create settlement area and use the trees for industries like paper manufacture, wood and construction. A lot of forests have been destroyed and the impact has been felt through climate change and extinction of animals due to destruction of the ecosystem. The impacts of deforestation are adverse and there is need to prevent and control it before it can get any worse.

Deforestation is mainly a human activity affected by many factors. Overpopulation contributed to deforestation because there is need to create a settlement area for the increasing number of people on earth and the need for urbanization for economic reasons. Recently, population has greatly risen in the world and people require shelter as a basic need. Forests are destroyed in order for people to find land to build a shelter and then trees are further cut to build those houses. Overpopulation is a major threat to the forest landmass and if not controlled, people will continue to occupy the forests until there is no more forest coverage on earth.

Another factor influencing deforestation is industrialization. Industries that use trees to manufacture their product e.g. paper and wood industries have caused major destruction of forests. The problem with industries is the large-scale need for trees which causes extensive deforestation. The use of timber in industries is a treat to forests all over the world. In as much as we need furniture, paper and homes, it is not worth the massive destruction of our forests.

Fires are also a cause of deforestation. During episodes of drought, fire spreads widely and burns down trees. The fire incidences could result from human activities like smoking or charcoal burning in the forests. Drought due to adverse weather changes in global warming is a natural disaster that claim the lives of people and living things.

Agricultural activities such as farming and livestock keeping also cause deforestation because of the land demand in those activities. Deforestation for farming purpose involves clearing all the vegetation on the required land and using it for and then burring the vegetation hence the name ‘slash and burn agriculture’. The ranches required for cattle keeping among other livestock require a large area that is clear from trees.

Impacts of Deforestation:

Deforestation has a great impact on the ecosystem in different ways. Climate change is influenced by deforestation because trees influence weather directly. Trees usually act to protect against strong winds and erosion but in its absence, natural disasters like floods and storms could be experienced. Also, tree are important in replenishing the air in the atmosphere. Trees have the ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen. Without trees, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be increased. Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it causes global warming.

Global warming is a serious environmental issue that causes adverse climatic changes and affects life on earth. Extreme weather conditions like storms, drought and floods. These weather conditions are not conducive for humans and other living things on earth. Natural disasters as a result of global warming are very destructive both to animate and inanimate objects in the environment.

Loss of species due to deforestation has negatively affected biodiversity. Biodiversity is a highly valued aspect of life on earth and its interruption is a loss. There is a loss of habitat for species to exist in as a result of deforestation and therefore species face extinction. Extinction of some rare species is a threat we are currently facing. Animals that live and depend on forest vegetation for food will also suffer and eventually die of hunger. Survival has been forced on animals of the jungle due to deforestation and that is why human wildlife conflict is being experienced.

The water cycle on earth is negatively affected by deforestation. The existence of water vapor in the atmosphere is maintained by trees. Absence of trees cause a reduced vapor retention in the atmosphere which result in adverse climate changes. Trees and other forest vegetation are important in preventing water pollution because they prevent the contaminated runoff into water sources like rivers, lakes and oceans. Without trees, pollution of water is more frequent and therefore the water will be unsafe for consumption by human and animals.

Solutions to Deforestation:

Based on the serious impact of deforestation, it is only safe if solutions are sought to end this problem. The ultimate solution is definitely restoration of the forest landmass on earth. The restoration can be done by encouraging the planting of trees, a process called reforestation. Although reforestation will not completely solve the impacts of deforestation, it will restore a habitat for the wild animals and slowly restore the ecosystem. Major impacts like concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere require another approach. Human activities that contribute to carbon dioxide gas emission to the atmosphere have to be reduced through strict policies for industries and finding alternative energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases.

Another solution is public awareness. People have to be made aware that deforestation has negative effects so that they can reduce the act. Through awareness, people can also be taught on ways of reducing the population e.g., family planning. On World Environment Day, people are encouraged to participate in activities like tree planting in order to conserve environment and that is how the awareness takes place.

In conclusion, deforestation is a human activity that is destructive and should be discouraged. Environmental conservation is our responsibility because we have only one earth to live in.

Deforestation , Environment , Forests

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

Like this post? Don’t forget to share it!

Here are a few recommended articles for you to read next:

• Essay on Noise Pollution
• Essay on Environmental Pollution
• Essay on Biodiversity
• Essay on Acid Rain

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

• Donald Trump
• Warren Buffett
• Email Address
• Free Stock Photos
• Keyword Research Tools
• URL Shortener Tools
• WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

• How To Win Friends
• Rich Dad Poor Dad
• The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
• The Luck Factor
• The Millionaire Fastlane
• The ONE Thing
• Think and Grow Rich
• 100 Million Dollar Business
• Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

• Mobile Addiction
• Social Media Addiction
• Computer Addiction
• Drug Addiction
• Internet Addiction
• TV Addiction
• Healthy Habits
• Morning Rituals
• Wake up Early
• Cholesterol
• Reducing Cholesterol
• Fat Loss Diet Plan
• Reducing Hair Fall
• Sleep Apnea
• Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

• Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

• Subconscious Mind
• Vision Board
• Visualization

Law of Vibration

• Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

• Bob Proctor
• Robert Kiyosaki
• Vivek Bindra
• Inner Peace

Productivity

• Not To-do List
• Project Management Software
• Negative Energies

Relationship

• Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

• Body Language
• Complainers
• Emotional Intelligence
• Personality

Social Media

• Project Management
• Anik Singal
• Baba Ramdev
• Dwayne Johnson
• Jackie Chan
• Leonardo DiCaprio
• Narendra Modi
• Nikola Tesla
• Sachin Tendulkar
• Sandeep Maheshwari
• Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

• Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The unseen effects of deforestation: biophysical effects on climate.

• 1 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States
• 2 The Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, United States
• 3 The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia

Climate policy has thus far focused solely on carbon stocks and sequestration to evaluate the potential of forests to mitigate global warming. These factors are used to assess the impacts of different drivers of deforestation and forest degradation as well as alternative forest management. However, when forest cover, structure and composition change, shifts in biophysical processes (the water and energy balances) may enhance or diminish the climate effects of carbon released from forest aboveground biomass. The net climate impact of carbon effects and biophysical effects determines outcomes for forest and agricultural species as well as the humans who depend on them. Evaluating the net impact is complicated by the disparate spatio-temporal scales at which they operate. Here we review the biophysical mechanisms by which forests influence climate and synthesize recent work on the biophysical climate forcing of forests across latitudes. We then combine published data on the biophysical effects of deforestation on climate by latitude with a new analysis of the climate impact of the CO 2 in forest aboveground biomass by latitude to quantitatively assess how these processes combine to shape local and global climate. We find that tropical deforestation leads to strong net global warming as a result of both CO 2 and biophysical effects. From the tropics to a point between 30°N and 40°N, biophysical cooling by standing forests is both local and global, adding to the global cooling effect of CO 2 sequestered by forests. In the mid-latitudes up to 50°N, deforestation leads to modest net global warming as warming from released forest carbon outweighs a small opposing biophysical cooling. Beyond 50°N large scale deforestation leads to a net global cooling due to the dominance of biophysical processes (particularly increased albedo) over warming from CO 2 released. Locally at all latitudes, forest biophysical impacts far outweigh CO 2 effects, promoting local climate stability by reducing extreme temperatures in all seasons and times of day. The importance of forests for both global climate change mitigation and local adaptation by human and non-human species is not adequately captured by current carbon-centric metrics, particularly in the context of future climate warming.

Introduction

Failure to stabilize climate is in itself a large threat to biodiversity already at risk from deforestation. Protection, expansion, and improved management of the world’s forests represent some of the most promising natural solutions to the problem of keeping global warming below 1.5–2 degrees ( Griscom et al., 2017 ; Roe et al., 2019 ). Forests sequester large quantities of carbon; of the 450–650 Pg of carbon stored in vegetation ( IPCC, 2013 ), over 360 Pg is in forest vegetation ( Pan et al., 2013 ). Adding the carbon in soils, forests contain over 800 PgC, almost as much as is currently stored in the atmosphere ( Pan et al., 2013 ). In addition, forests are responsible for much of the carbon removal by terrestrial ecosystems which together remove 29% of annual CO 2 emissions (∼11.5 PgC; Friedlingstein et al., 2019 ). Globally, forest loss not only releases a large amount of carbon to the atmosphere, but it also significantly diminishes a major pathway for carbon removal long into the future ( Houghton and Nassikas, 2018 ). Tropical forests, which hold the greatest amount of aboveground biomass and have one of the fastest carbon sequestration rates per unit land area ( Harris et al., 2021 ), face the greatest deforestation pressure ( FAO, 2020 ). Given the long half-life and homogenous nature of atmospheric CO 2 , current forest management decisions will have an enduring impact on global climate through effects on CO 2 alone. However, forests also impact climate directly through controls on three main biophysical mechanisms: albedo, evapotranspiration (ET) and canopy roughness.

The direct biophysical effects of forests moderate local climate conditions. As a result of relatively low albedo, forests absorb a larger fraction of incoming sunlight than brighter surfaces such as bare soil, agricultural fields, or snow. Changes in albedo can impact the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere and thus global temperature. The local climate, however, is not only impacted by albedo changes but also by how forests partition incoming solar radiation between latent and sensible heat. Deep roots and high leaf area make forests very efficient at moving water from the land surface to the atmosphere via ET, producing latent heat. Thus, beneath the forest canopy, the sensible heat flux and associated surface temperature are relatively low, especially during the growing season when ET is high ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010 ; Mildrexler et al., 2011 ; Alkama and Cescatti, 2016 ). This cooling is enhanced by the relatively high roughness of the canopy, which strengthens vertical mixing and draws heat and water vapor away from the surface. Higher in the atmosphere, as water vapor condenses, the latent heat is converted to sensible heat. As a result, warming that began with sunlight striking the canopy is felt higher in the atmosphere rather than in the air near the land surface. These non-radiative processes stabilize local climate by reducing both the diurnal temperature range and seasonal temperature extremes ( Lee et al., 2011 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ; Alkama and Cescatti, 2016 ; Findell et al., 2017 ; Forzieri et al., 2017 ; Hirsch et al., 2018 ; Lejeune et al., 2018 ). Their impact on global climate, however, is less clear.

Despite high spatial variability, forest biophysical impacts do follow predictable latitudinal patterns. In the tropics, higher incoming solar radiation and moisture availability provide more energy to drive ET and convection, which in combination with roughness overcome the warming effect of low albedo, and result in year round cooling by forests. At higher latitudes, where incoming solar radiation is highly seasonal, the impacts of ET and surface roughness are diminished ( Anderson et al., 2011 ; Li et al., 2015 ) and albedo is the dominant biophysical determinant of the climate response. In boreal forests, relatively low albedo and low ET cause strong winter and spring warming. In the summer, higher incoming radiation and somewhat higher ET result in mild cooling by boreal forests ( Alkama and Cescatti, 2016 ). In the mid-latitudes, forest cover results in mild biophysical evaporative cooling in the summer months and mild albedo warming in the winter months ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010 ; Li et al., 2015 ; Schultz et al., 2017 ). The latitude of zero net biophysical effect, the point at which the annual effect of the forest shifts from local cooling to local warming, ranges from 30 to 56°N in the literature ( Figure 1 ). These generalized latitudinal trends can be modified by aridity, elevation, species composition, and other characteristics, which vary across a range of spatial scales ( Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2012 ; Williams et al., 2021 ).

Figure 1. Latitude of net zero biophysical effect of forests on local temperature varies from 30 to 56°N. Above the line, forest cover causes local warming; below the line, forest cover causes local cooling. The thickness of the line indicates the number of studies that show forest cooling up to that threshold. Data sources as indicated.

Various mechanisms can amplify or dampen a forest’s direct effects on the energy and water balance, with climate impacts in the immediate vicinity, in remote locations, or both ( Bonan, 2008 ). Indirect biophysical effects are particularly important in the boreal region where snow-forest albedo interactions are prevalent. Low albedo forests typically mask high albedo snow, resulting in local radiative warming ( Jiao et al., 2017 ). At the larger scale this forest-induced warming is transferred to the oceans and further amplified by interactions with sea ice ( Brovkin et al., 2004 ; Bala et al., 2007 ; Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010 ; Laguë and Swann, 2016 ). In fact, indirect biophysical feedbacks appear to dominate the global temperature response to deforestation in the boreal region ( Devaraju et al., 2018 ). Future climate warming may alter the strength of such feedbacks, depending on the rate at which forests expand northward and the extent and persistence of spring snow cover in a warmer world.

In the tropics, where ET and roughness are the dominant biophysical drivers, forests cool the lower atmosphere, but also provide the water vapor to support cloud formation ( Teuling et al., 2017 ). Clouds whiten the atmosphere over forests and thus increase albedo, at least partially offsetting the inherently low albedo of the forest below ( Heald and Spracklen, 2015 ; Fisher et al., 2017 ). However, the water vapor in clouds also absorbs and re-radiates heat, counteracting some of the cloud albedo-induced cooling ( Swann et al., 2012 ). In the Amazon basin, evidence suggests that deep clouds may occur more frequently over forested areas as a result of greater humidity and consequently greater convective available potential energy ( Wang et al., 2009 ). The impact of tropical deforestation on cloud formation is modified by biomass burning aerosols ( Liu et al., 2020 ) and the net impact on global climate is unclear. Quantifying these indirect biophysical feedback effects is an ongoing challenge for the modeling community particularly in the context of constraining future climate scenarios.

Forest production of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC), which affect both biogeochemical and biophysical processes, further complicate quantification of the net climate impact of forests. BVOC and their oxidation products regulate secondary organic aerosols (SOA), which are highly reflective and result in biophysical cooling. SOA also act as cloud condensation nuclei, enhancing droplet concentrations and thereby increasing cloud albedo, which leads to additional biophysical cooling ( Topping et al., 2013 ). On the other hand, SOA can also cause latent heat release in deep convective cloud systems resulting in strong radiative warming of the atmosphere ( Fan et al., 2012 , 2013 ). Furthermore, through impacts on the oxidative capacity of the atmosphere, BVOC increase the lifetime of methane and lead to the formation of tropospheric ozone in the presence of nitrogen oxides ( Arneth et al., 2011 ; McFiggans et al., 2019 ). The persistence of ozone and methane (both greenhouse gases) results in a biogeochemical warming effect. The net effect of forest BVOC at both local and global scales remains uncertain. Current evidence, from modeling forest loss since 1850, suggests that BVOC result in a small net cooling, if indirect cloud effects are included ( Scott et al., 2018 ). The strongest effect is in the tropics, where BVOC production is highest ( Messina et al., 2016 ).

An improved understanding of the combined effects of forest carbon and biophysical controls on both local and global climate is necessary to guide policy decisions that support global climate mitigation, local adaptation and biodiversity conservation. The relative importance of forest carbon storage and biophysical effects on climate depend in large part on the spatial and temporal scale of interest. Local surface or air temperature may not be sensitive to the incremental impact of atmospheric CO 2 removed by forests growing in a particular landscape or watershed. In contrast, local temperature is sensitive to biophysical changes in albedo, ET and roughness. At regional and global scales, where the cumulative effects of forests on atmospheric CO 2 become apparent in the temperature response, we can usefully compare these impacts. Estimates of the relative impact of biophysical and biogeochemical (e.g., carbon cycle) processes on global or zonal climate have been provided primarily by model simulations of large-scale deforestation or afforestation ( Table 1 ). These studies generally show that CO 2 effects on global temperature are many times greater than the biophysical effects of forest cover or forest loss. In models depicting global or zonal deforestation outside the tropics, however, global warming from CO 2 release offsets only 10–90% of the global biophysical cooling. The global CO 2 effects of total deforestation in the tropics greatly outweigh the global biophysical effects ( Table 1 ). With the exception of Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré (2010) , these studies have estimated the net contribution of biophysical processes, without isolating the individual biophysical components. Here, we provide a new analysis of CO 2 -induced warming from deforestation by 10° latitudinal increments ( Supplementary Information 1 ). We then compare the CO 2 effect with the only published determination of biophysical effects by latitude ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010) to clarify the potential net impact of forest loss in a particular region on local and global climate.

Table 1. Forest effects on global temperature in modeling experiments from biogeochemical (CO 2 ) versus biophysical impacts (albedo, evapotranspiration and roughness as well as changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation, snow and ice, and clouds).

Materials and Methods

In the scientific literature, biophysical impacts have been quantified using a number of different methods. In situ observational data, including weather station and eddy flux measurements, have shaped our understanding of the direct biophysical impacts of forests on the surface energy balance. With the advantage of high temporal resolution, they allow for process level investigation of forest biophysical impacts and attribution of temperature changes to particular biophysical forcings, both radiative (albedo) and non-radiative (ET and roughness) ( Lee et al., 2011 ; Luyssaert et al., 2014 ; Vanden Broucke et al., 2015 ; Bright et al., 2017 ; Liao et al., 2018 ). Remote sensing techniques have recently been used to extrapolate to larger scales, providing a global map of forest cover effects on local climate ( Li et al., 2015 ; Alkama and Cescatti, 2016 ; Bright et al., 2017 ; Duveiller et al., 2018 ; Prevedello et al., 2019 ). However, in contrast to in situ approaches which generally measure near surface air temperature (generally but not always at 2 m), remote sensing studies have investigated the response of land surface temperature (i.e., skin temperature) which is 0.5–3 times more sensitive to forest cover change ( Alkama and Cescatti, 2016 ; Novick and Katul, 2020 ).

Generally, both in situ and remote sensing analyses have adopted a space-for-time approach where differences in surface climate of neighboring forest and non-forest sites are used as proxies for the climate signal from deforestation/afforestation over time. This approach assumes that neighboring sites share a common background climate and that any temperature differences between them can be attributed solely to differences in forest cover. Consequently, large-scale biophysical feedback effects are ignored. New observation-based methodologies have been devised to investigate impacts from ongoing land use change rather than estimating climate sensitivities to idealized forest change ( Alkama and Cescatti, 2016 ; Bright et al., 2017 ; Prevedello et al., 2019 ), however, they too measure only local biophysical impacts.

Numerical modeling of paired climate simulations with contrasting forest cover is necessary to investigate the net climate response to forest cover change, including both local and non-local impacts. Model simulations have focused on idealized scenarios of large-scale deforestation/afforestation which are more likely to trigger large-scale climate feedbacks than more realistic incremental forest cover change. Discrepancies between observed and modeled results may be due in part to the influence of indirect climate feedbacks that are not captured by observations ( Winckler et al., 2017a , 2019a ; Chen and Dirmeyer, 2020 ). Unfortunately, model resolution is currently too coarse to guide local policy decisions. Modeling results are also plagued by a number of uncertainties associated with the partitioning of energy between latent or sensible heat ( de Noblet-Ducoudré et al., 2012 ). The predicted impacts of similar land cover changes are model specific and can vary in sign, magnitude, and geographical distribution ( Devaraju et al., 2015 ; Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2016 ; Laguë and Swann, 2016 ; Stark et al., 2016 ; Quesada et al., 2017 ; Boysen et al., 2020 ) and therefore must be viewed with caution. In this paper, we synthesize all types of observational data from the literature to illustrate the biophysical impacts of forests on local climate. However, given that local impacts have been extensively explored and summarized in the past ( Anderson et al., 2011 ; Perugini et al., 2017 ), and because we wish to include indirect effects and feedbacks, we rely predominantly on modeling studies and our own calculations to elucidate the role of forests at different latitudes in shaping climate.

Effects on Global Temperature From Deforestation by 10° Latitude Band

We combined published data on biophysical effects of deforestation by latitude with our own analysis of CO 2 effects from deforestation by latitude to compare the relative strength of biophysical factors and CO 2 (the dominant biogeochemical factor) affecting global climate. Most modeling experiments available in the literature involve total deforestation at all latitudes, and the ocean feedbacks prove very strong ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010) . Here, we consider land-only effects within a given 10° latitudinal band as this scale of impact is more indicative of the effects of regional or more incremental change on global temperature than the combined land/ocean effects. Finer scale, more realistic forest loss scenarios would not trigger massive cooling through albedo effects on the oceans. Area-scaled, land-only biophysical effects from deforestation provide the most realistic comparison with the effects of carbon stored by forests, and released through deforestation, at a given latitude. The biophysical response was derived from the results of Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré (2010) who simulated total deforestation and decomposed the temperature response, by 10° latitude bands, into the fraction due to albedo, evapotranspiration, roughness and a non-linear response (see Supplementary Table 1 ).

The biogeochemical response was estimated by accounting for the CO 2 effect of deforestation, using existing biomass data and known equilibrium temperature sensitivity to doubled CO 2 . The principal input to our analysis is a 2016 global extension of the 500-m resolution aboveground carbon density (ACD) change (2003–2016) product applied by Walker et al. (2020) to the Amazon basin. It is based on an approach to pantropical ACD change estimation developed by Baccini et al. (2017) . The pantropical product combined field measurements with colocated NASA ICESat GLAS spaceborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data to calibrate a machine-learning algorithm that produced estimates of ACD using MODIS satellite imagery. This approach was modified for application to the extratropics, principally the temperate and boreal zones but also extratropical South America, Africa and Australia, using 47 allometric equations compiled from 27 unique literature sources for relating field-based measurements of aboveground biomass to airborne LiDAR metrics ( Chapman et al., 2020 ). These equations were used to predict ACD within the footprints of GLAS LiDAR acquisitions in each region with the result being a pseudo-inventory of LiDAR-based estimates of ACD spanning the extratropics. This dataset was then combined with the pantropical dataset first generated by Baccini et al. (2012) to produce a global database of millions of spatially explicit ACD predictions. This database was used to calibrate six ecoregional MODIS-based models for the purposes of generating a global 500-m resolution map of ACD for the year 2016. Additional details on these methods can be found in Chapman et al. (2020) .

The total aboveground carbon (GtC) was summed for each 10° latitude band and converted to CO 2 (GtC*44/12 = GtCO 2 , Supplementary Information 1 ). The mass of CO 2 was converted to ppm CO 2 in the atmosphere (2.12 Gt/ppm). The derived CO 2 concentration was reduced by 23% to account for ocean uptake ( Global Carbon Project, 2019 ). We assumed that no uptake occurred on land, as the carbon stock in vegetation was completely removed in our experiment to match what occurred in Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré (2010) . Next, we calculated the global temperature response to the increase in atmospheric CO 2 due to the CO 2 released by completely deforesting each 10° latitudinal band using the equilibrium temperature sensitivity derived from general circulation models. Given the accepted value of 3°C (±1.5°C) for a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 (an increase of 280 ppm) (IPCC, 2013), we determined that temperature sensitivity is equivalent to 0.107°C (±0.054°C) for every 10 ppm increase in atmospheric CO 2 content.

To determine the global temperature response to deforestation of a given band, we calculated the area-weighted values for each biophysical response within each latitude band. The area encompassed by 10° of latitude increases toward the equator. Thus, to determine the contribution of a given band to a global temperature response, scaling by the surface area within the band was essential. We used average temperature responses over the land only to avoid the strong bias associated with ocean feedbacks from global scale implementation of deforestation.

For the global analysis, we also determined the contribution of BVOC to global temperature change for deforestation of each 10° of latitude. Scott et al. (2018) described the warming from deforestation due to BVOC in relation to the amount of cooling due to changes in albedo. For the tropics, the BVOC effect on global temperature was 17% of the albedo effect. For the temperate zone, it was 18% and for the boreal, it was 2% of the albedo effect. We applied these scalars (with an opposite sign) to the albedo figures for each 10° latitude band.

Effects on Regional (Local) Temperature From Deforestation by 10° Latitude Band

To analyze the effect of deforesting 10° of latitude on the temperature within that latitude zone (‘local’ effect), we did not scale by area within the band. Rather we assessed the average temperature change across the band, locally felt, as reported in the original study. The CO 2 effect was calculated as above and then scaled to reflect the sensitivity of a given latitudinal band to a global forcing. Only the CO 2 emitted by the latitudinal band itself was considered when determining the locally felt effects of CO 2 in a given band. Our experimental design involved global deforestation and all emitted CO 2 would have had an effect in a given band, but the point of the analysis was to isolate the temperature change caused by forests in a given latitude. We determined the latitudinal sensitivity to warming in response to added CO 2 from a re-analysis of global 2 m temperature data (CERA-20C) obtained from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/cera-20c . We compared average temperatures from 1901 to 1910 and 2001–2010, by latitude on land only (inadequate land only data for 50–60S and 80–90N; for those, we do not report a locally felt CO 2 effect). Then we divided the temperature change for each latitude band by the change in global temperature over the same period. We scaled the effect of CO 2 emitted by a given 10° latitude band by this sensitivity to represent the influence of non-linear responses such as polar amplification (see Supplementary Information 1 and Supplementary Table 2 ).

Biophysical Effects of Deforestation on Local Climate: A Broader Context

Our analysis is the first to compare regional scale biophysical and CO 2 impacts from regional scale deforestation but the literature is replete with data on local biophysical impacts. The results for local biophysical effects (100s of m to 100s of km) agree with our results at the regional scale (below). Figures 2 , 3 synthesize local biophysically-driven temperature responses to deforestation, as indicated by forest/no-forest comparisons or forest change over time, from the scientific literature. Satellite and flux tower data indicate that surface temperatures in tropical forests are significantly lower than in cleared areas nearby. On an annual basis, local surface cooling of 0.2–2.4°C has been observed (mean 0.96°C, Figure 2 and Supplementary Information 2 ). In the temperate zone, satellite studies of land surface temperature (which is more sensitive than the temperature of the air at 2 m) have shown biophysical cooling from forest cover, or biophysical warming from deforestation (0.02–1.0°C, mean of 0.4°C; see Figure 2 and Supplementary Information 2 ). Both in situ and satellite data generally indicate an average annual cooling of under 1°C from boreal deforestation ( Figure 2 ). Across latitudinal zones, warming from deforestation is generally greater during the day, and during the dry (hot) season ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 2. Local average annual temperature change in response to deforestation (black symbols) or afforestation (green symbols) as determined by comparing neighboring forested and open land (space for time approach) or measuring forest change over time in the tropics, temperate and boreal zones, by (A) in situ or (B) satellite based land surface temperature measurements (0 m, triangles) or air temperature measurements (2 m, circles). See Supplementary Information 2 for data sources.

Figure 3. Local temperature change in response to deforestation by season and time of day in the various climate zones as determined by comparing neighboring forested and open land (space for time approach) or measuring forest change over time. Warm/dry season response, averaged over the entire diurnal cycle, in red shading and cold/wet season response in blue shading. Daytime response, averaged over the entire annual cycle, in yellow shading and nighttime response in gray shading. See Supplementary Information 3 for data sources.

CO 2 -Induced Warming Versus Biophysical Effects on Regional (Local) Temperature From Deforestation by 10° Latitude Band

As expected, the regionally felt effect of regionally (10° band) produced CO 2 is very small compared to any individual biophysical effect or the sum of all non-CO 2 effects ( Figure 4 ). These results indicate that the net impact of all non-CO 2 effects is negligible between 20 and 30N. Beyond 30N the local biophysical response to deforestation is cooling. In the broader literature, this latitude of net zero biophysical effect on local temperature is generally between 30 and 40N ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 4. Effect of complete deforestation on local annual temperature by climate factor, averaged across the land surface within a 10° latitudinal band. Complete deforestation was implemented globally and analyzed by 10° latitudinal bands ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010) . The CO 2 effect was determined from total aboveground biomass in each 10° band after Walker et al. (2020) and scaled by CERA-derived sensitivity by latitude. Inset distinguishes the sum of all local biophysical effects from local CO 2 effects.

Biophysical Effects on Global Temperature From Deforestation by 10° Latitude Band

For most latitudinal bands, the strongest biophysical effect of deforestation is cooling from albedo changes. In the tropics, however, the warming effect of lost roughness is comparable to or greater than the albedo effect ( Figure 5A ). Adding the warming from lost evapotranspiration, the net biophysical effect from tropical deforestation is global warming, as much as 0.1°C contributed each by latitudes 0°–10°S and 0°–10°N. The net biophysical effect of intact tropical forest, therefore, is global cooling; slightly more cooling if BVOCs are also considered (see Figure 5B ). Roughness effects are generally greater than evapotranspiration effects across latitudes providing a strong counterbalance to albedo effects ( Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010 ; Burakowski et al., 2018 ; Winckler et al., 2019b ; Figure 5A ). Albedo almost balances the combined effect of roughness, evapotranspiration, BVOC and non-linear effects between 20 and 30°N resulting in close to zero net biophysical effect on global temperature ( Figure 5B ). From 30–40°N and northward, albedo dominates, and the net biophysical effect of deforestation is cooling.

Figure 5. Effect of complete deforestation on global temperature by 10° band of latitude. (A) Contribution to global temperature change by climate forcing factor. Biophysical factors are from Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010 , area-weighted. BVOC effects are estimated relative to albedo effects based on Scott et al., 2018 . CO 2 effect is based on aboveground live biomass for each 10° latitudinal band following Baccini et al., 2017 and Walker et al., 2020 . (B) Net biophysical and BVOC effect versus CO 2 effect. (C) Cooling or warming effects of deforestation by 10° latitudinal band (BVOC included). “Forests as mountains” map of aboveground biomass carbon in woody vegetation ca. 2016 courtesy of Woodwell Climate Research Center and shaded to indicate where deforestation results in net global warming. See Supplementary Information 1 for details.

CO 2 -Induced Warming Versus Biophysical Effects on Global Temperature From Deforestation by 10° Latitude Band

From 30°S to 30°N, the biophysical effect of deforesting a given 10° latitudinal band is about half as great and in the same direction as the CO 2 effect: global warming. Biophysical warming is around 60% as great as warming from released CO 2 in the outer tropics (20°S–10°S and 10°N–20°N) and about 35% as great in the heart of the tropics (10°S–10°N). Biophysical cooling due to deforestation from 30°N to 40°N offsets about 40% of the warming associated with carbon loss from deforestation; from 40°N to 50°N biophysical effects offset 85% of CO 2 effects ( Figure 5B ). Above 50°N, biophysical global cooling is 3–6 times as great as CO 2 induced global warming. The net impact of deforestation (effects of CO 2 , biophysical processes and BVOC combined) is warming at all latitudes up to 50N ( Figure 5C ). Thus, from 50S to 50N, an area that encompasses approximately 65% of global forests ( FAO, 2020 ), deforestation results in global warming ( Figure 5C ).

All Forests Provide Local Climate Benefits Through Biophysical Effects

Ignoring biophysical effects on local climate means casting aside a powerful inducement to promote global climate goals and advance forest conservation: local self-interest. The biogeochemical effect of forests tends to dominate the biophysical effect at the global scale because physical effects in one region can cancel out effects in another. Nevertheless, biophysical effects are very important, and can be very large, at the local scale (e.g., Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2012 ; Bright et al., 2015 ; Jiao et al., 2017 ; Figures 2 – 4 ). The role of forests in maintaining critical habitat for biodiversity is well known, but new research on extinction confirms the role of forests in maintaining critical climates to support biodiversity. Changes in maximum temperature are driving extinction, not changes in average temperature ( Román-Palacios and Wiens, 2020 ). Deforestation is associated with an increase in the maximum daily temperature throughout the year in the tropics and during the summer in higher latitudes ( Lee et al., 2011 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ). Of course deforestation also increases average daytime temperatures in boreal, mid-latitude and tropical forests ( Figure 3 ). The biophysical effects of forests also moderate local and regional temperature extremes such that extremely hot days are significantly more common following deforestation even in the mid- and high latitudes ( Vogel et al., 2017 ; Stoy, 2018 ). Historical deforestation explains ∼1/3 of the present day increase in the intensity of the hottest days of the year at a given location ( Lejeune et al., 2018 ). It has also increased the frequency and intensity of hot dry summers two to four fold ( Findell et al., 2017 ). Local increases in extreme temperatures due to forest loss are of comparable magnitude to changes caused by 0.5°C of global warming ( Seneviratne et al., 2018 ). Forests provide local cooling during the hottest times of the year anywhere on the planet, improving the resilience of cities, agriculture, and conservation areas. Forests are critical for adapting to a warmer world.

Forests also minimize risks due to drought associated with heat extremes. Deep roots, high water use efficiency, and high surface roughness allow trees to continue transpiring during drought conditions and thus to dissipate heat and convey moisture to the atmosphere. In addition to this direct cooling, forest ET can influence cloud formation ( Stoy, 2018 ), enhancing albedo and potentially promoting rainfall. The production of BVOCs and organic aerosols by forests accelerates with increasing temperatures, enhancing direct or indirect (cloud formation) albedo effects. This negative feedback on temperature has been observed to counter anomalous heat events in the mid-latitudes ( Paasonen et al., 2013 ).

Some Forests Provide Global Climate Benefits Through Biophysical Effects

Disregarding the biophysical effects of specific forests on global climate means under-selling some forest actions and over-selling others. The response to local forest change is not equivalent for similar sized areas in different latitudes. According to Arora and Montenegro (2011) warming reductions per unit reforested area are three times greater in the tropics than in the boreal and northern temperate zone due to a faster carbon sequestration rate magnified by year-round biophysical cooling. Thus, considering biophysical effects significantly enhances both the local and global climate benefits of land-based mitigation projects in the tropics (see Figures 4 , 5 ).

Constraints on Forest Climate Benefits in the Future

Climate change is likely to alter the biophysical effect of forests in a variety of ways. Deforestation in a future (warmer) climate could warm the tropical surface 25% more than deforestation in a present-day climate due to stronger decreases in turbulent heat fluxes ( Winckler et al., 2017b ). In a warmer climate, reduced snow cover in the temperate and boreal regions will lead to a smaller albedo effect and thus less biophysical cooling with high latitude deforestation. In addition to snow cover change, future rainfall regimes will affect the response of climate to changes in forest cover ( Pitman et al., 2011 ) as rainfall limits the supply of moisture available for evaporative cooling. Increases in water use efficiency due to increasing atmospheric CO 2 may reduce evapotranspiration ( Keenan et al., 2013 ), potentially reducing the local cooling effect of forests and altering atmospheric moisture content and dynamics at local to global scales. Future BVOC production may increase due to warming and simultaneously decline due to CO 2 suppression ( Lathière et al., 2010 ; Unger, 2014 ; Hantson et al., 2017 ). The physiological and ecological responses of forests to warming, rising atmospheric CO 2 and changing precipitation contribute to uncertainty in the biophysical effect of future forests on climate.

Forest persistence is essential for maintaining the global benefits of carbon removals from the atmosphere and the local and global benefits of the physical processes described above. Changing disturbance regimes may limit forest growth and regrowth in many parts of the world. Dynamic global vegetation models currently show an increasing terrestrial carbon sink in the future. This sink is thought to be due to the effects of fertilization by rising atmospheric CO 2 and N deposition on plant growth as well as the effects of climate change lengthening the growing season in northern temperate and boreal areas ( Le Quéré et al., 2018 ). Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiments often show increases in biomass accumulation under high CO 2 but results are highly variable due to nutrient limitations and climatic factors ( Feng et al., 2015 ; Paschalis et al., 2017 ; Terrer et al., 2018 ). Climate change effects on the frequency and intensity of pest outbreaks are poorly studied, but are likely to be significant, particularly at the margins of host ranges. Warmer springs and winters are already increasing insect-related tree mortality in boreal forests through increased stress on the tree hosts and direct effects on insect populations ( Volney and Fleming, 2000 ; Price et al., 2013 ).

Climate also affects fire regimes. In the tropics, fire regimes often follow El Niño cycles ( van der Werf et al., 2017 ). As temperatures increase, however, fire and rainfall are decoupled as the flammability of forests increases even in normal rainfall years ( Fernandes et al., 2017 ; Brando et al., 2019 ). Fire frequency is also increasing in some temperate and boreal forests, with a discernable climate change signal ( Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016 ). Modeling exercises indicate that this trend is expected to continue with increasing damage to forests as temperatures rise and fire intensity increases ( De Groot et al., 2013 ).

In addition to changes induced by warming, continued deforestation could severely stress remaining forests by warming and drying local and regional climates ( Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015 ; Costa et al., 2019 ; Gatti et al., 2021 ). In the tropics, a tipping point may occur, potentially resulting in a shift to shorter, more savannah-like vegetation and altering the impact of vast, previously forested areas on global climate ( Nobre et al., 2016 ; Brando et al., 2019 ). Some of these processes are included in climate models and some are not. The gaps leave considerable uncertainty. Nevertheless, a combination of observations, models, and theory gives us a solid understanding of the biophysical effects of forests on climate at local, regional and global scales. We can use that knowledge to plan forest-based climate mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation Potential of Forests: Byond the Carbon/Biophysical Divide

If instead of focusing on the contrast between biophysical and biochemical impacts of forests and forest loss, we focus on the potential of forests to cool the planet through both pathways, another picture emerges. By our conservative estimate, through the combined effects on CO 2 , BVOC, roughness and evapotranspiration, forests up to 50°N provide a net global cooling that is enough to offset warming associated with their low albedo. Given the most realistic pathways of forest change in the future (not complete deforestation of a 10° latitudinal band, or an entire biome), global climate stabilization benefits likely extend beyond 50°N. For the 29% of the global land surface that lies beyond 50°N, forests may warm the planet, but only as inferred from assessing the effects of complete zonal deforestation with all the associated, and powerful, land-ocean feedbacks spawned by largescale forest change in the boreal zone. Forests above 50°N, like forests everywhere, provide essential local climate stabilization benefits by reducing surface temperatures during the warm season as well as periods of extreme heat or drought. Indeed, they also reduce extreme cold.

Creating a fair and effective global arena for market-based solutions to climate change requires attention to all the ways that forests affect climate, including the biophysical effects. Future metrics of forest climate impacts should consider the effects of deforestation beyond CO 2 . Only recently have modelers begun to include BVOC. Doing so means that the albedo of intact forests (or the atmosphere above them) is higher due to the creation of SOA and subsequent cloud formation. Modeled deforestation thus results in less of a change in albedo, reducing the biophysical cooling effect. Similarly, accounting for the ozone and methane effects of BVOC reduces the biogeochemical warming from deforestation ( Scott et al., 2018 ). In addition, especially in the tropics, deforestation reduces the strength of the soil CH 4 sink ( Dutaur and Verchot, 2007 ). While a small change relative to the atmospheric pool of CH 4 (the second most important greenhouse gas), the loss of this sink is equivalent to approximately 13% of the current rate of increase in atmospheric CH 4 ( Saunois et al., 2016 ). We already have the data ( Figure 5 ) to begin conceptualizing measures to coarsely scale CO 2 impacts of forest change by latitude. Finer resolution of latitude, background climate (current and future) and forest type would improve any such new, qualifying metric for the climate mitigation value of forests.

The role of forests in addressing climate change extends beyond the traditional concept of CO 2 mitigation which neglects the local climate regulation services they provide. The biophysical effects of forest cover can contribute significantly to solving local adaptation challenges, such as extreme heat and flooding, at any latitude. The carbon benefits of forests at any latitude contribute meaningfully to global climate mitigation. In the tropics, however, where forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates are highest, the biophysical effects of forests amplify the carbon benefits, thus underscoring the critical importance of protecting, expanding, and improving the management of tropical forests. Perhaps it is time to think more broadly about what constitutes global climate mitigation. If climate mitigation means limiting global warming, then clearly the biophysical effects of deforestation must be considered in addition to its effects on atmospheric CO 2 . We may further consider whether mitigation is too narrow a scope for considering the climate benefits provided by forests. Climate policy often separates mitigation from adaptation, but the benefits of forests clearly extend into both realms.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

DL conceived the presented idea. All authors helped perform the computations, discussed the results, and contributed to the final manuscript.

Financial support from the University of Virginia and the Climate and Land Use Alliance grant #G-1810-55876.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Frances Seymour, Michael Wolosin, Billie L. Turner, Ruth DeFries, and the reviewers for feedback on this manuscript and to the University of Virginia and the Climate and Land Use Alliance grant #G-1810-55876 for financial support.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115/full#supplementary-material

Abatzoglou, J. T., and Williams, A. P. (2016). Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 11770–11775. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1607171113

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alkama, R., and Cescatti, A. (2016). Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science 351, 600–604. doi: 10.1126/science.aac8083

Anderson, R. G., Canadell, J. G., Randerson, J. T., Jackson, R. B., Hungate, B. A., Baldocchi, D. D., et al. (2011). Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 174–182. doi: 10.1890/090179

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Snyder, P. K., Twine, T. E., Cuadra, S. V., Costa, M. H., and DeLucia, E. H. (2012). Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nat. Clim. Change 2:177. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1346

Arneth, A., Schurgers, G., Lathiere, J., Duhl, T., Beerling, D. J., Hewitt, C. N., et al. (2011). Global terrestrial isoprene emission models: sensitivity to variability in climate and vegetation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 8037–8052. doi: 10.1002/2013JD021238

Arora, V. K., and Montenegro, A. (2011). Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nat. Geosci. 4, 514–518. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1182

Baccini, A. G. S. J., Goetz, S. J., Walker, W. S., Laporte, N. T., Sun, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., et al. (2012). Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1354

Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., and Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5962

Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Wickett, M., Phillips, T. J., Lobell, D. B., Delire, C., et al. (2007). Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 6550–6555. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0608998104

Betts, R. A. (2001). Biogeophysical impacts of land use on present-day climate: near-surface temperature change and radiative forcing. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 2, 39–51. doi: 10.1006/asle.2001.0023

Bonan, G. B. (2008). Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449. doi: 10.1126/science.1155121

Boysen, L. R., Brovkin, V., Pongratz, J., Lawrence, D. M., Lawrence, P., Vuichard, N., et al. (2020). Global climate response to idealized deforestation in CMIP6 models. Biogeosciences 17, 5615–5638. doi: 10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020

Boysen, L., Brovkin, V., Arora, V. K., Cadule, P., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Kato, E., et al. (2014). Global and regional effects of land-use change on climate in 21st century simulations with interactive carbon cycle. Earth Syst. Dyn. 5, 309–319. doi: 10.5194/esd-5-309-2014

Brando, P. M., Paolucci, L., Ummenhofer, C. C., Ordway, E. M., Hartmann, H., Cattau, M. E., et al. (2019). Droughts, wildfires, and forest carbon cycling: a pantropical synthesis. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 47, 555–581. doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010235

Bright, R. M., Davin, E., O’Halloran, T., Pongratz, J., Zhao, K., and Cescatti, A. (2017). Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes. Nat. Clim. Change 7:296. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3250

Bright, R. M., Zhao, K., Jackson, R. B., and Cherubini, F. (2015). Quantifying surface albedo and other direct biogeophysical climate forcings of forestry activities. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3246–3266. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12951

Brovkin, V., Sitch, S., Von Bloh, W., Claussen, M., Bauer, E., and Cramer, W. (2004). Role of land cover changes for atmospheric CO 2 increase and climate change during the last 150 years. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1253–1266. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00812.x

Burakowski, E., Tawfik, A., Ouimette, A., Lepine, L., Novick, K., Ollinger, S., et al. (2018). The role of surface roughness, albedo, and Bowen ratio on ecosystem energy balance in the Eastern United States. Agric. For. Meteorol. 249, 367–376. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.11.030

Chapman, M., Walker, W. S., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Farina, M., Griscom, B. W., et al. (2020). Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4357–4365. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15121

Chen, L., and Dirmeyer, P. A. (2020). Reconciling the disagreement between observed and simulated temperature responses to deforestation. Nat. Commun. 11:202. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14017-0

Claussen, M., Brovkin, V., and Ganopolski, A. (2001). Biogeophysical versus biogeochemical feedbacks of large-scale land cover change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1011–1014. doi: 10.1029/2000gl012471

Costa, M. H., Fleck, L. C., Cohn, A. S., Abrahão, G. M., Brando, P. M., Coe, M. T., et al. (2019). Climate risks to Amazon agriculture suggest a rationale to conserve local ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 584–590. doi: 10.1002/fee.2124

Davin, E. L., and de Noblet-Ducoudré, N. (2010). Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim. 23, 97–112. doi: 10.1175/2009jcli3102.1

De Groot, W. J., Flannigan, M. D., and Cantin, A. S. (2013). Climate change impacts on future boreal fire regimes. For. Ecol. Manage. 294, 35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.027

de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Boisier, J. P., Pitman, A., Bonan, G. B., Brovkin, V., Cruz, F., et al. (2012). Determining robust impacts of land-use-induced land cover changes on surface climate over North America and Eurasia: results from the first set of LUCID experiments. J. Clim. 25, 3261–3281. doi: 10.1175/jcli-d-11-00338.1

Devaraju, N., Bala, G., and Modak, A. (2015). Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: remote versus local effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 3257–3262. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423439112

Devaraju, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Quesada, B., and Bala, G. (2018). Quantifying the relative importance of direct and indirect biophysical effects of deforestation on surface temperature and teleconnections. J. Clim. 31, 3811–3829. doi: 10.1175/jcli-d-17-0563.1

Dutaur, L., and Verchot, L. V. (2007). A global inventory of the Soil CH 4 Sink. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB4013.

Google Scholar

Duveiller, G., Hooker, J., and Cescatti, A. (2018). The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance. Nat. Commun. 9:679. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02810-8

Fan, J., Leung, L. R., Rosenfeld, D., Chen, Q., Li, Z., Zhang, J., et al. (2013). Microphysical effects determine macrophysical response for aerosol impacts on deep convective clouds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, E4581–E4590. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316830110

Fan, J., Rosenfeld, D., Ding, Y., Leung, L. R., and Li, Z. (2012). Potential aerosol indirect effects on atmospheric circulation and radiative forcing through deep convection. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39:L09806.

FAO (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report. Rome: FAO.

Feng, Z., Rütting, T., Pleijel, H., Wallin, G., Reich, P. B., Kammann, C. I., et al. (2015). Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO 2. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3152–3168. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12938

Fernandes, K., Verchot, L., Baethgen, W., Gutierrez-Velez, V., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., and Martius, C. (2017). Heightened fire probability in Indonesia in non-drought conditions: the effect of increasing temperatures. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:054002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6884

Findell, K. L., Berg, A., Gentine, P., Krasting, J. P., Lintner, B. R., Malyshev, S., et al. (2017). The impact of anthropogenic land use and land cover change on regional climate extremes. Nat. Commun. 8:989. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01038-w

Fisher, J. B., Melton, F., Middleton, E., Hain, C., Anderson, M., Allen, R., et al. (2017). The future of evapotranspiration: global requirements for ecosystem functioning, carbon and climate feedbacks, agricultural management, and water resources. Water Resour. Res. 53, 2618–2626. doi: 10.1002/2016wr020175

Forzieri, G., Alkama, R., Miralles, D. G., and Cescatti, A. (2017). Satellites reveal contrasting responses of regional climate to the widespread greening of Earth. Science 356, 1180–1184. doi: 10.1126/science.aal1727

Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R., Hauck, J., Peters, G., et al. (2019). Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst.Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838.

Garcia, E. S., Swann, A. L., Villegas, J. C., Breshears, D. D., Law, D. J., Saleska, S. R., et al. (2016). Synergistic ecoclimate teleconnections from forest loss in different regions structure global ecological responses. PLoS One 11:e0165042. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165042

Gatti, L. V., Basso, L. S., Miller, J. B., Gloor, M., Gatti Domingues, L., Cassol, H. L., et al. (2021). Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature 595, 388–393. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6

Global Carbon Project (2019). Supplemental Data of Global Carbon Budget 2019 (Version 1.0). Global Carbon Project. doi: 10.18160/gcp-2019

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 11645–11650.

Hantson, S., Knorr, W., Schurgers, G., Pugh, T. A. M., and Arneth, A. (2017). Global isoprene and monoterpene emissions under changing climate, vegetation, CO 2 and land use. Atmos. Environ. 155, 35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.02.010

Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., De Bruin, S., Farina, M., et al. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 234–240. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6

He, F., Vavrus, S. J., Kutzbach, J. E., Ruddiman, W. F., Kaplan, J. O., and Krumhardt, K. M. (2014). Simulating global and local surface temperature changes due to Holocene anthropogenic land cover change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 623–631. doi: 10.1002/2013gl058085

Heald, C. L., and Spracklen, D. V. (2015). Land use change impacts on air quality and climate. Chem. Rev. 115, 4476–4496. doi: 10.1021/cr500446g

Hirsch, A. L., Guillod, B. P., Seneviratne, S. I., Beyerle, U., Boysen, L. R., Brovkin, V., et al. (2018). Biogeophysical impacts of land-use change on climate extremes in low-emission scenarios: results from HAPPI-Land. Earths Future 6, 396–409. doi: 10.1002/2017EF000744

Houghton, R. A., and Nassikas, A. A. (2018). Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 350–359. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13876

IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , eds T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1535.

Jiao, T., Williams, C. A., Ghimire, B., Masek, J., Gao, F., and Schaaf, C. (2017). Global climate forcing from albedo change caused by large-scale deforestation and reforestation: quantification and attribution of geographic variation. Clim. Change 142, 463–476. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-1962-8

Keenan, T. F., Hollinger, D. Y., Bohrer, G., Dragoni, D., Munger, J. W., Schmid, H. P., et al. (2013). Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499:324. doi: 10.1038/nature12291

Laguë, M. M., and Swann, A. L. (2016). Progressive midlatitude afforestation: impacts on clouds, global energy transport, and precipitation. J. Clim. 29, 5561–5573. doi: 10.1175/jcli-d-15-0748.1

Lathière, J., Hewitt, C. N., and Beerling, D. J. (2010). Sensitivity of isoprene emissions from the terrestrial biosphere to 20th century changes in atmospheric CO 2 concentration, climate, and land use. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24:GB1004.

Lawrence, D., and Vandecar, K. (2015). Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 5:27. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2430

Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., et al. (2018). Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194.

Lee, X., Goulden, M. L., Hollinger, D. Y., Barr, A., Black, T. A., Bohrer, G., et al. (2011). Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher latitudes. Nature 479:384. doi: 10.1038/nature10588

Lejeune, Q., Davin, E. L., Gudmundsson, L., Winckler, J., and Seneviratne, S. I. (2018). Historical deforestation locally increased the intensity of hot days in northern mid-latitudes. Nat. Clim. Change 8:386. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0131-z

Li, Y., Zhao, M., Motesharrei, S., Mu, Q., Kalnay, E., and Li, S. (2015). Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 6:6603. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7603

Liao, W., Rigden, A. J., and Li, D. (2018). Attribution of local temperature response to deforestation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 123, 1572–1587. doi: 10.1029/2018jg004401

Liu, L., Cheng, Y., Wang, S., Wei, C., Pohlker, M. L., Pohlker, C., et al. (2020). Impact of biomass burning aerosols on radiation, clouds, and precipitation over the Amazon during the dry season: relative importance of aerosol–cloud and aerosol–radiation interactions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 13283–13301. doi: 10.5194/acp-20-13283-2020

Luyssaert, S., Jammet, M., Stoy, P. C., Estel, S., Pongratz, J., Ceschia, E., et al. (2014). Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 389–393. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2196

Matthews, H. D., Weaver, A. J., Meissner, K. J., Gillett, N. P., and Eby, M. (2004). Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Clim. Dyn. 22, 461–479. doi: 10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

McFiggans, G., Mentel, T. F., Wildt, J., Pullinen, I., Kang, S., Kleist, E., et al. (2019). Secondary organic aerosol reduced by mixture of atmospheric vapours. Nature 565:587. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0871-y

Messina, P., Lathière, J., Sindelarova, K., Vuichard, N., Granier, C., Ghattas, J., et al. (2016). Global biogenic volatile organic compound emissions in the ORCHIDEE and MEGAN models and sensitivity to key parameters. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 14169–14202. doi: 10.5194/acp-16-14169-2016

Mildrexler, D. J., Zhao, M., and Running, S. W. (2011). A global comparison between station air temperatures and MODIS land surface temperatures reveals the cooling role of forests. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116:G03025.

Nobre, C. A., Sampaio, G., Borma, L. S., Castilla-Rubio, J. C., Silva, J. S., and Cardoso, M. (2016). Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 10759–10768. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605516113

Novick, K. A., and Katul, G. G. (2020). The duality of reforestation impacts on surface and air temperature. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125:e2019JG005543.

Paasonen, P., Asmi, A., Petäjä, T., Kajos, M. K., Äijälä, M., Junninen, H., et al. (2013). Warming-induced increase in aerosol number concentration likely to moderate climate change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 438–442. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1800

Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Phillips, O. L., and Jackson, R. B. (2013). The structure, distribution, and biomass of the world’s forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44, 593–622.

Paschalis, A., Katul, G. G., Fatichi, S., Palmroth, S., and Way, D. (2017). On the variability of the ecosystem response to elevated atmospheric CO2 across spatial and temporal scales at the Duke Forest FACE experiment. Agric. For. Meteorol. 232, 367–383. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.09.003

Perugini, L., Caporaso, L., Marconi, S., Cescatti, A., Quesada, B., de Noblet-Ducoudre, N., et al. (2017). Biophysical effects on temperature and precipitation due to land cover change. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:053002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6b3f

Pitman, A. J., Avila, F. B., Abramowitz, G., Wang, Y. P., Phipps, S. J., and de Noblet-Ducoudré, N. (2011). Importance of background climate in determining impact of land-cover change on regional climate. Nat. Clim. Change 1:472. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1294

Pongratz, J., Reick, C. H., Raddatz, T., and Claussen, M. (2010). Biogeophysical versus biogeochemical climate response to historical anthropogenic land cover change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37:L08702.

Prevedello, J. A., Winck, G. R., Weber, M. M., Nichols, E., and Sinervo, B. (2019). Impacts of forestation and deforestation on local temperature across the globe. PLoS One 14:e0213368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213368

Price, D. T., Alfaro, R. I., Brown, K. J., Flannigan, M. D., Fleming, R. A., Hogg, E. H., et al. (2013). Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev. 21, 322–365. doi: 10.1139/er-2013-0042

Quesada, B., Arneth, A., and de Noblet-Ducoudré, N. (2017). Atmospheric, radiative, and hydrologic effects of future land use and land cover changes: a global and multimodel climate picture. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 5113–5131. doi: 10.1002/2016jd025448

Roe, S., Streck, C., Obersteiner, M., Frank, S., Griscom, B., Drouet, L., et al. (2019). Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828.

Román-Palacios, C., and Wiens, J. J. (2020). Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 4211–4217. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913007117

Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B., Peregon, A., Ciais, P., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2016). The global methane budget 2000–2012. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 697–751. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.263

Schultz, N. M., Lawrence, P. J., and Lee, X. (2017). Global satellite data highlights the diurnal asymmetry of the surface temperature response to deforestation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 122, 903–917. doi: 10.1002/2016jg003653

Scott, C. E., Monks, S. A., Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R., Forster, P. M., Rap, A., et al. (2018). Impact on short-lived climate forcers increases projected warming due to deforestation. Nat. Commun. 9:157. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02412-4

Seneviratne, S. I., Wartenburger, R., Guillod, B. P., Hirsch, A. L., Vogel, M. M., Brovkin, V., et al. (2018). Climate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5 C. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376:20160450. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0450

Stark, S. C., Breshears, D. D., Garcia, E. S., Law, D. J., Minor, D. M., Saleska, S. R., et al. (2016). Toward accounting for ecoclimate teleconnections: intra-and inter-continental consequences of altered energy balance after vegetation change. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 181–194. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0282-5

Stoy, P. C. (2018). Deforestation intensifies hot days. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 366–368. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15279

Swann, A. L., Fung, I. Y., and Chiang, J. C. (2012). Mid-latitude afforestation shifts general circulation and tropical precipitation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 712–716. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116706108

Terrer, C., Vicca, S., Stocker, B. D., Hungate, B. A., Phillips, R. P., Reich, P. B., et al. (2018). Ecosystem responses to elevated CO 2 governed by plant–soil interactions and the cost of nitrogen acquisition. New Phytol. 217, 507–522. doi: 10.1111/nph.14872

Teuling, A. J., Taylor, C. M., Meirink, J. F., Melsen, L. A., Miralles, D. G., Van Heerwaarden, C. C., et al. (2017). Observational evidence for cloud cover enhancement over western European forests. Nat. Commun. 8:14065. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14065

Topping, D., Connolly, P., and McFiggans, G. (2013). Cloud droplet number enhanced by co-condensation of organic vapours. Nat. Geosci. 6:443. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1809

Unger, N. (2014). Human land-use-driven reduction of forest volatiles cools global climate. Nat. Clim. Change 4:907. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2347

van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Van Leeuwen, T. T., Chen, Y., Rogers, B. M., et al. (2017). Global fire emissions estimates during 1997-2016. Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 697–720. doi: 10.5194/essd-9-697-2017

Vanden Broucke, S., Luyssaert, S., Davin, E. L., Janssens, I., and Van Lipzig, N. (2015). New insights in the capability of climate models to simulate the impact of LUC based on temperature decomposition of paired site observations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 120, 5417–5436. doi: 10.1002/2015jd023095

Vogel, M. M., Orth, R., Cheruy, F., Hagemann, S., Lorenz, R., van den Hurk, B. J., et al. (2017). Regional amplification of projected changes in extreme temperatures strongly controlled by soil moisture-temperature feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 1511–1519. doi: 10.1002/2016gl071235

Volney, W. J. A., and Fleming, R. A. (2000). Climate change and impacts of boreal forest insects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 283–294. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8809(00)00232-2

Walker, W. S., Gorelik, S. R., Baccini, A., Aragon-Osejo, J. L., Josse, C., Meyer, C., et al. (2020). The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 3015–3025. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913321117

Wang, J., Chagnon, F. J., Williams, E. R., Betts, A. K., Renno, N. O., Machado, L. A., et al. (2009). Impact of deforestation in the Amazon basin on cloud climatology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 3670–3674. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810156106

Williams, C. A., Gu, H., and Jiao, T. (2021). Climate impacts of US forest loss span net warming to net cooling. Sci. Adv. 7:eaax8859. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax8859

Winckler, J., Lejeune, Q., Reick, C. H., and Pongratz, J. (2019a). Nonlocal effects dominate the global mean surface temperature response to the biogeophysical effects of deforestation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 745–755. doi: 10.1029/2018gl080211

Winckler, J., Reick, C. H., Bright, R. M., and Pongratz, J. (2019b). Importance of surface roughness for the local biogeophysical effects of deforestation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 8605–8618. doi: 10.1029/2018jd030127

Winckler, J., Reick, C. H., and Pongratz, J. (2017a). Robust identification of local biogeophysical effects of land-cover change in a global climate model. J. Clim. 30, 1159–1176. doi: 10.1175/jcli-d-16-0067.1

Winckler, J., Reick, C. H., and Pongratz, J. (2017b). Why does the locally induced temperature response to land cover change differ across scenarios? Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 3833–3840. doi: 10.1002/2017gl072519

Zhang, M., Lee, X., Yu, G., Han, S., Wang, H., Yan, J., et al. (2014). Response of surface air temperature to small-scale land clearing across latitudes. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:034002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034002

Keywords : forest, biophysical effects, temperature, climate policy, deforestation/afforestation

Citation: Lawrence D, Coe M, Walker W, Verchot L and Vandecar K (2022) The Unseen Effects of Deforestation: Biophysical Effects on Climate. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:756115. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115

Received: 10 August 2021; Accepted: 02 March 2022; Published: 24 March 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Lawrence, Coe, Walker, Verchot and Vandecar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Deborah Lawrence, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

How to tackle the global deforestation crisis

Imagine if France, Germany, and Spain were completely blanketed in forests — and then all those trees were quickly chopped down. That’s nearly the amount of deforestation that occurred globally between 2001 and 2020, with profound consequences.

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, producing between 6 and 17 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2009 study. Meanwhile, because trees also absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere, they help keep the Earth cooler. And climate change aside, forests protect biodiversity.

“Climate change and biodiversity make this a global problem, not a local problem,” says MIT economist Ben Olken. “Deciding to cut down trees or not has huge implications for the world.”

But deforestation is often financially profitable, so it continues at a rapid rate. Researchers can now measure this trend closely: In the last quarter-century, satellite-based technology has led to a paradigm change in charting deforestation. New deforestation datasets, based on the Landsat satellites, for instance, track forest change since 2000 with resolution at 30 meters, while many other products now offer frequent imaging at close resolution.

“Part of this revolution in measurement is accuracy, and the other part is coverage,” says Clare Balboni, an assistant professor of economics at the London School of Economics (LSE). “On-site observation is very expensive and logistically challenging, and you’re talking about case studies. These satellite-based data sets just open up opportunities to see deforestation at scale, systematically, across the globe.”

Balboni and Olken have now helped write a new paper providing a road map for thinking about this crisis. The open-access article, “ The Economics of Tropical Deforestation ,” appears this month in the Annual Review of Economics . The co-authors are Balboni, a former MIT faculty member; Aaron Berman, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Economics; Robin Burgess, an LSE professor; and Olken, MIT’s Jane Berkowitz Carlton and Dennis William Carlton Professor of Microeconomics. Balboni and Olken have also conducted primary research in this area, along with Burgess.

So, how can the world tackle deforestation? It starts with understanding the problem.

Replacing forests with farms

Several decades ago, some thinkers, including the famous MIT economist Paul Samuelson in the 1970s, built models to study forests as a renewable resource; Samuelson calculated the “maximum sustained yield” at which a forest could be cleared while being regrown. These frameworks were designed to think about tree farms or the U.S. national forest system, where a fraction of trees would be cut each year, and then new trees would be grown over time to take their place.

But deforestation today, particularly in tropical areas, often looks very different, and forest regeneration is not common.

Indeed, as Balboni and Olken emphasize, deforestation is now rampant partly because the profits from chopping down trees come not just from timber, but from replacing forests with agriculture. In Brazil, deforestation has increased along with agricultural prices; in Indonesia, clearing trees accelerated as the global price of palm oil went up, leading companies to replace forests with palm tree orchards.

All this tree-clearing creates a familiar situation: The globally shared costs of climate change from deforestation are “externalities,” as economists say, imposed on everyone else by the people removing forest land. It is akin to a company that pollutes into a river, affecting the water quality of residents.

“Economics has changed the way it thinks about this over the last 50 years, and two things are central,” Olken says. “The relevance of global externalities is very important, and the conceptualization of alternate land uses is very important.” This also means traditional forest-management guidance about regrowth is not enough. With the economic dynamics in mind, which policies might work, and why?

The search for solutions

As Balboni and Olken note, economists often recommend “Pigouvian” taxes (named after the British economist Arthur Pigou) in these cases, levied against people imposing externalities on others. And yet, it can be hard to identify who is doing the deforesting.

Instead of taxing people for clearing forests, governments can pay people to keep forests intact. The UN uses Payments for Environmental Services (PES) as part of its REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) program. However, it is similarly tough to identify the optimal landowners to subsidize, and these payments may not match the quick cash-in of deforestation. A 2017 study in Uganda showed PES reduced deforestation somewhat; a 2022 study in Indonesia found no reduction; another 2022 study, in Brazil, showed again that some forest protection resulted.

“There’s mixed evidence from many of these [studies],” Balboni says. These policies, she notes, must reach people who would otherwise clear forests, and a key question is, “How can we assess their success compared to what would have happened anyway?”

Some places have tried cash transfer programs for larger populations. In Indonesia, a 2020 study found such subsidies reduced deforestation near villages by 30 percent. But in Mexico, a similar program meant more people could afford milk and meat, again creating demand for more agriculture and thus leading to more forest-clearing.

At this point, it might seem that laws simply banning deforestation in key areas would work best — indeed, about 16 percent of the world’s land overall is protected in some way. Yet the dynamics of protection are tricky. Even with protected areas in place, there is still “leakage” of deforestation into other regions. 

Still more approaches exist, including “nonstate agreements,” such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium in Brazil, in which grain traders pledged not to buy soy from deforested lands, and reduced deforestation without “leakage.”

Also, intriguingly, a 2008 policy change in the Brazilian Amazon made agricultural credit harder to obtain by requiring recipients to comply with environmental and land registration rules. The result? Deforestation dropped by up to 60 percent over nearly a decade. 

Politics and pulp

Overall, Balboni and Olken observe, beyond “externalities,” two major challenges exist. One, it is often unclear who holds property rights in forests. In these circumstances, deforestation seems to increase. Two, deforestation is subject to political battles.

For instance, as economist Bard Harstad of Stanford University has observed, environmental lobbying is asymmetric. Balboni and Olken write: “The conservationist lobby must pay the government in perpetuity … while the deforestation-oriented lobby need pay only once to deforest in the present.” And political instability leads to more deforestation because “the current administration places lower value on future conservation payments.”

Even so, national political measures can work. In the Amazon from 2001 to 2005, Brazilian deforestation rates were three to four times higher than on similar land across the border, but that imbalance vanished once the country passed conservation measures in 2006. However, deforestation ramped up again after a 2014 change in government. Looking at particular monitoring approaches, a study of Brazil’s satellite-based Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation (DETER), launched in 2004, suggests that a 50 percent annual increase in its use in municipalities created a 25 percent reduction in deforestation from 2006 to 2016.

How precisely politics matters may depend on the context. In a 2021 paper, Balboni and Olken (with three colleagues) found that deforestation actually decreased around elections in Indonesia. Conversely, in Brazil, one study found that deforestation rates were 8 to 10 percent higher where mayors were running for re-election between 2002 and 2012, suggesting incumbents had deforestation industry support.

“The research there is aiming to understand what the political economy drivers are,” Olken says, “with the idea that if you understand those things, reform in those countries is more likely.”

Looking ahead, Balboni and Olken also suggest that new research estimating the value of intact forest land intact could influence public debates. And while many scholars have studied deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, fewer have examined the Democratic Republic of Congo, another deforestation leader, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Deforestation is an ongoing crisis. But thanks to satellites and many recent studies, experts know vastly more about the problem than they did a decade or two ago, and with an economics toolkit, can evaluate the incentives and dynamics at play.

“To the extent that there’s ambuiguity across different contexts with different findings, part of the point of our review piece is to draw out common themes — the important considerations in determining which policy levers can [work] in different circumstances,” Balboni says. “That’s a fast-evolving area. We don’t have all the answers, but part of the process is bringing together growing evidence about [everything] that affects how successful those choices can be.”

• ENVIRONMENT

Why deforestation matters—and what we can do to stop it

Large scale destruction of trees—deforestation—affects ecosystems, climate, and even increases risk for zoonotic diseases spreading to humans.

As the world seeks to slow the pace of climate change , preserve wildlife, and support more than eight billion people , trees inevitably hold a major part of the answer. Yet the mass destruction of trees—deforestation—continues, sacrificing the long-term benefits of standing trees for short-term gain of fuel, and materials for manufacturing and construction.

We need trees for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that they absorb the carbon dioxide we exhale and the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that human activities emit. As those gases enter the atmosphere, global warming increases, a trend scientists now prefer to call climate change.

There is also the imminent danger of disease caused by deforestation. An estimated 60 percent of emerging infectious diseases come from animals, and a major cause of viruses’ jump from wildlife to humans is habitat loss, often through deforestation.

But we can still save our forests. Aggressive efforts to rewild and reforest are already showing success. Tropical tree cover alone can provide 23 percent of the climate mitigation needed to meet goals set in the Paris Agreement in 2015, according to one estimate .

Causes of deforestation

Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but they are disappearing at an alarming rate. Since 1990, the world has lost more than 420 million hectares or about a billion acres of forest, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations —mainly in Africa and South America. About 17 percent of the Amazonian rainforest has been destroyed over the past 50 years, and losses recently have been on the rise . The organization Amazon Conservation reports that destruction rose by 21 percent in 2020 , a loss the size of Israel.

Farming, grazing of livestock, mining, and drilling combined account for more than half of all deforestation . Forestry practices, wildfires and, in small part, urbanization account for the rest. In Malaysia and Indonesia, forests are cut down to make way for producing palm oil , which can be found in everything from shampoo to saltine crackers. In the Amazon, cattle ranching and farms—particularly soy plantations—are key culprits .

Logging operations, which provide the world’s wood and paper products, also fell countless trees each year. Loggers, some of them acting illegally , also build roads to access more and more remote forests—which leads to further deforestation. Forests are also cut as a result of growing urban sprawl as land is developed for homes.

Not all deforestation is intentional. Some is caused by a combination of human and natural factors like wildfires and overgrazing, which may prevent the growth of young trees.

Why it matters

There are some 250 million people who live in forest and savannah areas and depend on them for subsistence and income—many of them among the world’s rural poor.

Eighty percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests , and deforestation threatens species including the orangutan , Sumatran tiger , and many species of birds. Removing trees deprives the forest of portions of its canopy, which blocks the sun’s rays during the day and retains heat at night. That disruption leads to more extreme temperature swings that can be harmful to plants and animals.

With wild habitats destroyed and human life ever expanding, the line between animal and human areas blurs, opening the door to zoonotic diseases . In 2014, for example, the Ebola virus killed over 11,000 people in West Africa after fruit bats transmitted the disease to a toddler who was playing near trees where bats were roosting.

( How deforestation is leading to more infectious diseases in humans .)

You May Also Like

What is the ozone layer, and why does it matter?

Will the COP26 global deforestation pledge save forests?

This is the story of the first Earth Day—and why it mattered

Some scientists believe there could be as many as 1.7 million currently “undiscovered” viruses in mammals and birds, of which up to 827,000 could have the ability to infect people, according to a 2018 study .

Deforestation’s effects reach far beyond the people and animals where trees are cut. The South American rainforest, for example, influences regional and perhaps even global water cycles, and it's key to the water supply in Brazilian cities and neighboring countries. The Amazon actually helps furnish water to some of the soy farmers and beef ranchers who are clearing the forest. The loss of clean water and biodiversity from all forests could have many other effects we can’t foresee, touching even your morning cup of coffee .

In terms of climate change, cutting trees both adds carbon dioxide to the air and removes the ability to absorb existing carbon dioxide. If tropical deforestation were a country, according to the World Resources Institute , it would rank third in carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions, behind China and the U.S.

What can be done

The numbers are grim, but many conservationists see reasons for hope . A movement is under way to preserve existing forest ecosystems and restore lost tree cover by first reforesting (replanting trees) and ultimately rewilding (a more comprehensive mission to restore entire ecosystems).

( Which nation could be the first to be rewilded ?)

Organizations and activists are working to fight illegal mining and logging—National Geographic Explorer Topher White, for example, has come up with a way to use recycled cell phones to monitor for chainsaws . In Tanzania, the residents of Kokota have planted more than 2 million trees on their small island over a decade, aiming to repair previous damage. And in Brazil, conservationists are rallying in the face of ominous signals that the government may roll back forest protections.

( Which tree planting projects should you support ?)

Stopping deforestation before it reaches a critical point will play a key role in avoiding the next zoonotic pandemic. A November 2022 study showed that when bats struggle to find suitable habitat, they travel closer to human communities where diseases are more likely to spillover. Inversely, when bats’ native habitats were left intact, they stayed away from humans. This research is the first to show how we can predict and avoid spillovers through monitoring and maintaining wildlife habitats.

For consumers, it makes sense to examine the products and meats you buy, looking for sustainably produced sources when you can. Nonprofit groups such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Rainforest Alliance certify products they consider sustainable, while the World Wildlife Fund has a palm oil scorecard for consumer brands.

Related Topics

• DEFORESTATION
• ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
• RAINFORESTS

‘This is Cofán land’: the fight to save Amazonia from intruders

Climbing into the secret world of an ancient Bornean rainforest

Don't cut them down: Letting dead trees rot can help make new life

The man who died searching for the Lost City of Z

Leopards are the ultimate survivors. Can they endure these growing challenges?

• Interactive Graphic
• Environment

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• The Big Idea
• History Magazine
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Deforestation Effects and Solutions Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Carbon cycle

Counter-measures.

Over the past several centuries, humans have turned the world into a forest of concrete buildings scattered across the globe. Urban areas are constantly expanding, and this translates into the development of vast areas with tall buildings replacing natural vegetation. Human settlements are also a contributing factor in the changes witnessed in the earth’s biosphere. While the earth appears as a shining planet from space, with green patches of vegetation being visible from space, this characteristic may not hold for long. In his quest for survival, man eliminates indigenous forests and natural vegetation from vast land masses to settle.

This has a negative impact to the ecology because it eliminates survival factors for animals and plants that naturally inhabit the lands. Industrious cities in the developed nations like China and Japan occupy large masses of land, leaving limited space for the natural vegetation to thrive. This phenomenon alters the balance of nature for vegetation and animals, and it is the main cause of extinction in living organisms.

The earth’s biosphere is constantly losing its vegetation cover because of human activities, and this has dire impacts on other parts of the earth like the atmosphere. Vegetation cover is responsible for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen to balance the constituents of the atmosphere. Excessive clearing of vegetation on the earth’s service results to an alteration of the equilibrium in gaseous volumes in the atmosphere, and the current levels of greenhouse gases are alarming, especially in the urban areas. Man has single-handedly made the biosphere inhabitable for other living organisms, and this trend will continue as long as man continues to develop settlement areas (Raven, Berg & Hassenzahl, 2011).

Excessive clearing of indigenous vegetation in the vast lands across the world affects the earth’s carbon cycle. Clearing forests, farming land, and grasslands results to an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Trees and other plants making up the earth’s vegetation are responsible for reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the air through photosynthesis. Urban areas experience escalated levels of carbon dioxide, which leads to global warming and climate change.

Disrupting the carbon cycle in the quest for industrialization and modernization is likely to cause negative effects on the survival of vegetation in the future because of the adverse effects of climate change. Some parts of the world are already experiencing the consequences of disrupting the earth’s carbon cycle, which in turn affects the hydro cycle of the planet (Bala et al., 2007).

The global society is aware of the effects of human settlement and deforestation, and the relevant authorities have set some measures to counter the effects on the carbon cycle. Planting forests around urban areas and by the roadsides in urban areas is one of the measures that seem to help in alleviating the issue. NGOs dealing with environmental issues, conduct advocacy campaigns across the globe to prevent developments leading to deforestation. Some of the environmentalists like the late Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner, impacted the African society to plant trees to reclaim the lost forest cover in the continent (Maathai, 2004).

The society also plays a big role in influencing the authorities to plan for sustainable developments with minimal negative effects to the ecosystem. For instance, the UK society contends with the government against the construction of roads passing through natural forests in some of the urban areas.

Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Wickett, M., Phillips, T. J., Lobell, D. B., Delire, C., & Mirin, A. (2007). Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104 (16), 6550-6555. Web.

Maathai, W. (2004). The Green Belt Movement: Sharing the approach and the experience . New York: Lantern Books. Web.

Raven, P. H., Berg, L. R., & Hassenzahl, D. M. (2011). Environment , 8th Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Web.

• Aviation's Environmental Impact and Pollution
• Pollution & Climate Change as Environmental Risks
• Amazonian Deforestation, Its Causes and Trends
• Environmental Problems: Care of the Planet
• Deforestation of the Amazon: Amazon Fires
• Human Behavioral Effects on Environment
• Pollution of the Ganges and Its Main Factors
• Yellowstone National Park Challenges
• Marine Biodiversity Conservation and Impure Public Goods
• Water Consumption on the Household Level
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 15). Deforestation Effects and Solutions. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/

"Deforestation Effects and Solutions." IvyPanda , 15 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Deforestation Effects and Solutions'. 15 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Deforestation Effects and Solutions." June 15, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

1. IvyPanda . "Deforestation Effects and Solutions." June 15, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Deforestation Effects and Solutions." June 15, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Deforestation — Deforestation as Real Problem for Humankind in the 21st Century

Deforestation as Real Problem for Humankind in The 21st Century

• Categories: Deforestation Environmental Issues

About this sample

Words: 1622 |

Published: Jan 28, 2021

Words: 1622 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

• https://dictionary.cambridge.org, [Online].
• https://www.wikipedia.org, [Online].
• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/,[Online].
• T.W. Crowther, H. B. Glick, K. R. Covey, C. Bettigole, D. S. Maynard, S. M. Thomas, J. R. Smith, G. Hintler, M. C. Duguid, G. Amatulli et.al., ' Mapping tree density at a global scale.'Nature, no. 525, p. 201–205, 2015.
• D. Gibbs N. Harris and F. Seymour, 'By the Numbers: The Value of Tropical Forests in the Climate Change Equation' 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/numbers-value-tropical-forests-climate-change-equation.
• L. A. Urry, M. L. Cain, S. A. Wasserman, P. V. Minorsky, J. B. Reece, N. A. Campbell, Campbell Biology 11th Edition, New York: Pearson, 2017.
• http://theconversation.com/the-amazon-is-on-fire-here-are-5-things-you-need-to-know-122326,[Online].
• 'State Of New Jersey. Department of Environmental Protection.,' 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/forest/community/No_Net_Loss.htm.
• https://www.nj.com/opinion/2019/08/we-need-to-speak-for-the-trees-global-deforestation-is-an-environmental-crisis.html, [Online].
• A. L. Morris, J.-F. Guégan, D. Andreou, L. Marsollier, K. Carolan, M. Croller, D. Sanhueza, R. E. Gozlan, 'Deforestation-driven food-web collapse linked to emerging tropical infectious disease, Mycobacterium ulcerans,' Science, no. 12, 2016.
• A. Y. Vittor, W. Pan, R. H. Gilman, J. Tielsch, G. Glass, T. Shields, W. Sánchez-Lozano, V. V. Pinedo, E. Salas-Cobos, S. Flores, J. A. Patz, 'Linking deforestation to malaria in the Amazon: Characterization of the breeding habitat of the principal malaria vector, Anopheles darlingi,' Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., no. 81, pp. 5-12, 2009.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 648 words

3 pages / 1474 words

1 pages / 424 words

1 pages / 488 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Deforestation

Deforestation, the process of clearing forests for agriculture, urban development, and other purposes, has been a hotly debated topic for decades. While some argue that deforestation is essential for economic growth and human [...]

The Women's Rights Movement, spanning over a century, is arguably one of the most significant social revolutions in modern history. It encompasses a broad range of issues, from suffrage and reproductive rights to gender equality [...]

Have you ever pondered the profound importance of forests in our lives, especially when crafting a deforestation argumentative essay? Often, we take the trees in our surroundings for granted as mere background scenery in our [...]

Slope failures, or landslides, typically occur where a slope is over-steep, where fill material is not compacted, or where cuts in natural soils encounter groundwater or zones of weak material. In most excavation and embankment [...]

Wood is one of the longest standing building materials in existence… homes built over 10,000 years ago used timber as a primary source for construction materials it is also used as a dominant form of fuel for heat, additionally [...]

The earth’s forests are being depleted at an alarming rate, with an estimated 18 million acres of forest lost each year. The effects of cutting down trees are far-reaching and have a significant impact on the environment, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Deforestation.

Deforestation is the intentional clearing of forested land.

Biology, Ecology, Conservation

Trees are cut down for timber, waiting to be transported and sold.

Photograph by Esemelwe

Deforestation is the purposeful clearing of forested land. Throughout history and into modern times, forests have been razed to make space for agriculture and animal grazing, and to obtain wood for fuel, manufacturing, and construction.

Deforestation has greatly altered landscapes around the world. About 2,000 years ago, 80 percent of Western Europe was forested; today the figure is 34 percent. In North America, about half of the forests in the eastern part of the continent were cut down from the 1600s to the 1870s for timber and agriculture. China has lost great expanses of its forests over the past 4,000 years and now just over 20 percent of it is forested. Much of Earth’s farmland was once forests.

Today, the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring in tropical rainforests, aided by extensive road construction into regions that were once almost inaccessible. Building or upgrading roads into forests makes them more accessible for exploitation. Slash-and-burn agriculture is a big contributor to deforestation in the tropics. With this agricultural method, farmers burn large swaths of forest, allowing the ash to fertilize the land for crops. The land is only fertile for a few years, however, after which the farmers move on to repeat the process elsewhere. Tropical forests are also cleared to make way for logging, cattle ranching, and oil palm and rubber tree plantations.

Deforestation can result in more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. That is because trees take in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis , and carbon is locked chemically in their wood. When trees are burned, this carbon returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide . With fewer trees around to take in the carbon dioxide , this greenhouse gas accumulates in the atmosphere and accelerates global warming.

Deforestation also threatens the world’s biodiversity . Tropical forests are home to great numbers of animal and plant species. When forests are logged or burned, it can drive many of those species into extinction. Some scientists say we are already in the midst of a mass-extinction episode.

More immediately, the loss of trees from a forest can leave soil more prone to erosion . This causes the remaining plants to become more vulnerable to fire as the forest shifts from being a closed, moist environment to an open, dry one.

While deforestation can be permanent, this is not always the case. In North America, for example, forests in many areas are returning thanks to conservation efforts.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

June 20, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Forest degradation releases 5 times more Amazon carbon than deforestation: Study

Share this article.

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• A study using detailed 3D imagery found that the carbon released by roads, selective logging, fires and natural disturbances in the southern Brazilian Amazon are not fully reflected in the country’s carbon emissions reporting.
• The high-resolution findings are thought to be unprecedented, offering precision insights into major land use changes that ultimately impact climate change.
• Indigenous and protected areas in the Amazon show significantly less degradation, highlighting their effectiveness in preserving carbon storage.
• Authors and experts say the new data could help policymakers rethink rainforest emission targets and plan conservation efforts.

Forest degradation — access roads, selective logging, fires, natural disturbances — is having a far greater impact on reducing carbon storage in the southern Brazilian Amazon than deforestation, according to a new study that has produced some of the most precise findings of changes in carbon stocks in a critically important region of the tropics.

In real terms, forest degradation reduced carbon storage in the study area five times more than deforestation, a finding not currently reflected in Brazil’s carbon emissions accounting.

“When countries report their forest and carbon changes, they mostly rely on deforestation because it’s much easier to see and quantify,” Ovidiu Csillik, lead author who is formerly of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, told Mongabay. “But we’ve found that forest degradation is actually more important in terms of carbon loss.”

Analyzing and comparing data from 2016 and 2018 in Brazil’s so-called Arc of Deforestation and covering 48,280 hectares (119,300 acres), a team of international experts divided the region into 99 transects. They used repeated flyovers of airborne lidar, a remote laser sensor technology that registers objects in three dimensions and obtains detailed data, to produce two vast data sets, according to the study published in the National Academy of Sciences’ journal, PNAS.

The high-resolution findings are thought to be unprecedented, offering precision insights into major land use changes that ultimately impact climate change. Lidar data also enable carbon storage estimates in biomass and soils.

“While the effects of deforestation on carbon loss have been thoroughly researched,” the study notes, “the carbon impact of forest degradation is not well understood and is difficult to quantify accurately at large scale. Degradation is more spatially dispersed than deforestation, expanding the frontiers of forest loss.”

The researchers note that degradation usually leads to deforestation with almost half of tropical forests cleared in subsequent years, according to the study. While degraded land has the potential to be restored over time, deforestation typically heralds a permanent land-use change like farming and ranching.

The findings are significant at multiple levels, according to experts. The Amazon, 64% of which lies in Brazil , is a major carbon storage source and a frontline defense against the increasing rate of global warming. But dramatic rates of deforestation in the past five decades are diminishing the Amazon’s ability to sequester and store carbon. Understanding more precisely what’s driving such changes can lead to new or improved strategies to reduce both forest degradation and deforestation, according to the authors.

It can also lead tropical countries to report forest-based carbon sequestration and emissions more accurately, which is essential for effective climate mitigation strategies and policies.

“The vulnerability of tropical forests to climate change, including more frequent and severe droughts, as well as increased susceptibility to fires, further intensifies the degradation of these forests, resulting in accelerated carbon losses and ecosystem disruptions,” the authors write.

A detailed understanding

Csillik, a remote-sensing expert, said the data used in the study had gone unanalyzed since their completion in 2016 and 2018. Joining the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 2022, he was tasked with comparing two of the largest data sets of intensive airborne lidar over a tropical forest ever compiled.

“Besides quantifying the carbon dynamics, or losses and gains, at a very high resolution with repeated airborne lidar, we also took the study a bit further and presented a detailed understanding of what the drivers are behind these carbon losses,” he said.

In degraded land, for example, natural and human-driven occurrences such as landslides, flooding, wind-related tree toppling, isolated logging and forest fragmentation all stood out clearly in the lidar data as carbon-loss sources that had previously gone largely unnoticed or unaccounted for.

“Forest degradation is often difficult to quantify and monitor because it occurs in subtle ways that are not easily detectable through conventional remote sensing methods and in places where access on the ground may be controlled by landowners conducting illegal or irregular activities,” the study notes.

Marcos Longo, a co-author and climate and ecosystem scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, told Mongabay the study “is an important snapshot of what has happened in the recent past” in Brazil. But he said an even deeper understanding of tropical land changes will require new and longer-term remote-sensing research.

“I think that with the development of technology we now have, like lidar on the International Space Station, we can start building this long-term understanding of forest degradation in tropical ecosystems,” Longo said. NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation, or GEDI, is now onboard the space station.

Prioritizing Indigenous and protected areas

The research also found that Indigenous territories and conservation units were effective in protecting the forest against anthropogenic degradation, echoing past studies . “While combined they occupied 47.5% of the area [studied], they only contained 9.1% of clearing, 2.6% of logging and 9.6% of fires,” the authors note.

Ecology and evolutionary biology professor Scott Saleska said the new study reveals unique data on forest degradation drivers in the southern Brazilian Amazon. In 2000, Saleska, a University of Arizona professor, was involved in some of the first small-scale lidar surveys in the Amazon. While Brazil is part of his study field , he was not involved in the PNAS study.

And while his own focus is on basic research, he said he can imagine practical or policy outcomes stemming from the findings, such as greater enforcement of existing forest-protection regulations.

“The other thing that stands out is the prioritization of conservation and preservation,” Saleska told Mongabay. “This study gives an impressive look at the effectiveness of conservation areas and Indigenous regions for saving forests because those areas are clearly shown to have the least impact. They appear effective at actually preventing logging and fire at an impressive scale.”

Given his interest in the issues and the Brazilian Amazon, Saleska added that the new study “provides a template, a model for taking this kind of research to a larger scale. We have so many more tools at our disposal to measure the CO2 in the atmosphere to figure out which places in the Amazon, over broad regions, are losing carbon or gaining carbon.”

Banner image: Fire in an area newly deforested in Brazil. Fire also contributes to forest degradation throughout the tropics, especially in the study area of the southern Brazilian Amazon. Image © Christian Braga / Greenpeace.

Justin Catanoso is a regular contributor to Mongabay and a professor of journalism at Wake Forest University in North Carolina in the United States. Disclosure: the study’s lead author, Ovidiu Csillik, joined the Wake Forest environmental sciences faculty in July.

Brazil’s Amazon is now a carbon source, unprecedented study reveals

Csillik, O., Keller, M., Longo, M., Ferraz, A., Pinage, E., Gorgens, E., Ometto, J., Silgueiro, V., Brown, D., Duffy, P., Cushman, K., Saatchi, S. (2024) A large net carbon loss attributed to anthropogenic and natural disturbances in the Amazon Arc of Deforestation. PNAS , Vol. 121, No. 33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2310157121

FEEDBACK:   Use this form  to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Community consultations must also include women — not just men (commentary)

50 years of data show that Madagascar’s mangroves are making a comeback

Bangladesh introduces awareness initiatives to curb panic over Russell’s vipers

Biden Administration mistakenly seeks delay of EU’s new deforestation regulation (commentary)

As waterbodies lose oxygen, are we breaching a potential planetary boundary?

Sumatran tiger confirmed killed by snare in Indonesia’s West Sumatra province

Can nations ever get artisanal gold mining right?

Rio’s grassroots agroforestry sustains birds, bees & communities

you're currently offline

Deforestation harms climate less than other types of Amazon degradation, study finds

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Jake Spring; Editing by Will Dunham and Stephen Coates

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Jake Spring reports primarily on forests, climate diplomacy, carbon markets and climate science. Based in Brazil, his investigative reporting on destruction of the Amazon rainforest under ex-President Jair Bolsonaro won 2021 Best Reporting in Latin America from the Overseas Press Club of America (https://opcofamerica.org/Awardarchive/the-robert-spiers-benjamin-award-2021/). His beat reporting on Brazil’s environmental destruction won a Covering Climate Now award and was honored by the Society of Environmental Journalists. He joined Reuters in 2014 in China, where he previously worked as editor-in-chief of China Economic Review. He is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and Brazilian Portuguese.

ASIC sues ASX over 'misleading' blockchain upgrade statements 

The Australian corporate regulator has sued the country's stock market operator alleging it misled the public about the progress of a troubled software upgrade and accusing the company of undermining financial market integrity and investor confidence.

Data, analysis, convening and action.

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Get Involved

Our resources share the knowledge gathered by IUCN’s unique global community of 16,000+ experts. They include databases, tools, standards, guidelines and policy recommendations. We author hundreds of books, assessments, reports, briefs and research papers every year.

IUCN Issues Briefs provide key information on selected issues central to IUCN’s work. They are aimed at policy-makers, journalists or anyone looking for an accessible overview of the often complex issues related to nature conservation and sustainable development.

Conservation tools

IUCN's conservation tools consist of conservation databases, metrics and other knowledge products. These products have helped hundreds of organisations design, monitor and implement just and effective conservation.

IUCN produces publications on a wide range of topics to share our expertise on nature, conservation and sustainable development. Publications include reports, analyses, best practices, standards, periodicals from IUCN Commissions and numerous other types of knowledge from the Union.

Search all resources

• Sunday 28 July 28 2024, 11:00 – 16:30 (TBC)
• Courtyard Marriot (Frangipani Room)