Search

As the number of observations submitted to the citizen science platform iNaturalist continues to grow, it is increasingly important that these observations can be identified to the finest taxonomic level, maximizing their value for biodiversity research. Here, we explore the benefits of acting as an identifier on iNaturalist.

This session will explore the benefits and potential risks of implementing nature-based solutions. It will cover land and marine-based approaches, and will examine some key case-studies, including peatlands and REDD+.

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

The peatlands research was funded by Natural Environment Research Council Open CASE award (ref. no. 1087746) to S.L.L. and G.C.D.; NERC Radiocarbon Facility NRCF010001 (alloc. no. 1688.0313 and 1797.0414) to I.T.L., S.L.L. and G.C.D.), Phillip Leverhulme Prize (to S.L.L.) and the Wildlife Conservation Society-Congo (to G.C.D). The recent publication of the first spatially explicit map of peatlands in the Cuvette Centrale, central Congo Basin, reveals it to be the most extensive tropical peatland complex, at ca. 145,500 km2. With an estimated 30.6 Petagrams of carbon stored in these peatlands, there are now questions about whether these carbon stocks are under threat and, if so, what can be done to protect them. Here we analyse the potential threats to Congo Basin peat carbon stocks and identify knowledge gaps in relation to these threats, and to how the peatland systems might respond. Climate change emerges as a particularly pressing concern, given its potential to destabilize carbon stocks across the whole area. Socio-economic developments are increasing across central Africa and, whilst much of the peatland area is on paper protected by some form of conservation designation, the potential exists for hydrocarbon exploration, logging, plantations, and other forms of disturbance to significantly damage the peatland ecosystems. The low level of human intervention at present suggests that the opportunity still exists to protect the peatlands in a largely intact state, possibly drawing on climate mitigation funding, which can be used not only to protect the peat carbon pool but also to improve the livelihoods of people living in and around these peatlands. Publisher PDF

Integrated high-resolution maps of carbon stocks and biodiversity that identify areas of potential co-benefits for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation can help facilitate the implementation of global climate and biodiversity commitments at local levels. However, the multi-dimensional nature of biodiversity presents a major challenge for understanding, mapping and communicating where and how biodiversity benefits coincide with climate benefits. A new integrated approach to biodiversity is therefore needed. Here, we (a) present a new high-resolution map of global above- and below-ground carbon stored in biomass and soil, (b) quantify biodiversity values using two complementary indices (BIp and BIr) representing proactive and reactive approaches to conservation, and (c) examine patterns of carbon–biodiversity overlap by identifying 'hotspots' (20% highest values for both aspects). Our indices integrate local diversity and ecosystem intactness, as well as regional ecosystem intactness across the broader area supporting a similar natural assemblage of species to the location of interest. The western Amazon Basin, Central Africa and Southeast Asia capture the last strongholds of highest local biodiversity and ecosystem intactness worldwide, while the last refuges for unique biological communities whose habitats have been greatly reduced are mostly found in the tropical Andes and central Sundaland. There is 38 and 5% overlap in carbon and biodiversity hotspots, for proactive and reactive conservation, respectively. Alarmingly, only around 12 and 21% of these proactive and reactive hotspot areas, respectively, are formally protected. This highlights that a coupled approach is urgently needed to help achieve both climate and biodiversity global targets. This would involve (1) restoring and conserving unprotected, degraded ecosystems, particularly in the Neotropics and Indomalaya, and (2) retaining the remaining strongholds of intactness.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth2. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2—30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically. Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Iribarrem, Alvaro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Beyer, Hawthorne L.. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Queensland; Australia Fil: Cordeiro, Carlos Leandro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Crouzeilles, Renato. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Jakovac, Catarina C.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Braga Junqueira, André. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Lacerda, Eduardo. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal Fluminense; Brasil Fil: Latawiec, Agnieszka E.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Balmford, Andrew. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos Fil: Brooks, Thomas M.. University Of The Philippines Los Banos; Filipinas. Institute For Marine And Antarctic Studies; Australia. International Union For Conservation Of Nature And Natural Resources; Suiza Fil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos Fil: Chazdon, Robin L.. University Of The Sunshine Coast; Australia. University of Connecticut; Estados Unidos Fil: Erb, Karl-Heinz. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria Fil: Brancalion, Pedro. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Buchanan, Graeme. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Reino Unido Fil: Cooper, David. Secretariat Of The Convention On Biological Diversity; Canadá Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos Fil: Kapos, Valerie. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido Fil: Leclère, David. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austria Fil: Miles, Lera. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido Fil: Obersteiner, Michael. Oxford Social Sciences Division; Reino Unido. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austria Fil: Plutzar, Christoph. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria. Universidad de Viena; Austria Fil: de M. Scaramuzza, Carlos Alberto. International Institute For Sustainability; Brasil Fil: Scarano, Fabio R.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austria

Summary paragraphTo meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, and multiple targets be pursued concurrently1. To support governments and political conventions, spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature’s contribution to people (NCP). Here we present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

We present the results of a process to attempt to identify 100 questions that, if answered, would make a substantial difference to terrestrial and marine landscape restoration in Europe. Representatives from a wide range of European governmental and non-governmental conservation organisations, universities, independent ecologists and land managers compiled 677 questions relating to all aspects of European landscape restoration for nature and people. The questions were shortlisted by an email vote, followed by a two-day workshop, to produce the final list of 100 questions. Many of the final questions evolved through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into eight sections: conservation of biodiversity; connectivity, migration and translocations; delivering and evaluating restoration; natural processes; ecosystem services; social and cultural aspects of restoration; policy and governance; and economics. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and policy-makers and assist funders and programme managers in allocating funds and planning projects, resulting in improved understanding and implementation of landscape-scale ecological restoration in Europe. This exercise was funded by Arcadia (as is WJS), a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, through the Endangered Landscapes Programme.

Tropical forests are global centres of biodiversity and carbon storage. Many tropical countries aspire to protect forest to fulfil biodiversity and climate mitigation policy targets, but the conservation strategies needed to achieve these two functions depend critically on the tropical forest tree diversity-carbon storage relationship. Assessing this relationship is challenging due to the scarcity of inventories where carbon stocks in aboveground biomass and species identifications have been simultaneously and robustly quantified. Here, we compile a unique pan-Tropical dataset of 360 plots located in structurally intact old-growth closed-canopy forest, surveyed using standardised methods, allowing a multi-scale evaluation of diversity-carbon relationships in tropical forests. Diversity-carbon relationships among all plots at 1 ha scale across the tropics are absent, and within continents are either weak (Asia) or absent (Amazonia, Africa). A weak positive relationship is detectable within 1 ha plots, indicating that diversity effects in tropical forests may be scale dependent. The absence of clear diversity-carbon relationships at scales relevant to conservation planning means that carbon-centred conservation strategies will inevitably miss many high diversity ecosystems. As tropical forests can have any combination of tree diversity and carbon stocks both require explicit consideration when optimising policies to manage tropical carbon and biodiversity., 0, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Deforestation is a main driver of climate change and biodiversity loss. An incentive mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is being negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Here we use the best available global data sets on terrestrial biodiversity and carbon storage to map and investigate potential synergies between carbon and biodiversity-oriented conservation. A strong association (rS= 0.82) between carbon stocks and species richness suggests that such synergies would be high, but unevenly distributed. Many areas of high value for biodiversity could be protected by carbon-based conservation, while others could benefit from complementary funding arising from their carbon content. Some high-biodiversity regions, however, would not benefit from carbon-focused conservation, and could become under increased pressure if REDD is implemented. Our results suggest that additional gains for biodiversity conservation are possible, without compromising the effectiveness for climate change mitigation, if REDD takes biodiversity distribution into account.

The proposed mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) offers significant potential for conserving forests to reduce negative impacts of climate change. Tanzania is one of nine pilot countries for the United Nations REDD Programme, receives significant funding from the Norwegian, Finnish and German governments and is a participant in the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. In combination, these interventions aim to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, provide an income to rural communities and conserve biodiversity. The establishment of the UN-REDD Programme in Tanzania illustrates real-world challenges in a developing country. These include currently inadequate baseline forestry data sets (needed to calculate reference emission levels), inadequate government capacity and insufficient experience of implementing REDD+-type measures at operational levels. Additionally, for REDD+ to succeed, current users of forest resources must adopt new practices, including the equitable sharing of benefits that accrue from REDD+ implementation. These challenges are being addressed by combined donor support to implement a national forest inventory, remote sensing of forest cover, enhanced capacity for measuring, reporting and verification, and pilot projects to test REDD+ implementation linked to the existing Participatory Forest Management Programme. Our conclusion is that even in a country with considerable donor support, progressive forest policies, laws and regulations, an extensive network of managed forests and increasingly developed locally-based forest management approaches, implementing REDD+ presents many challenges. These are being met by coordinated, genuine partnerships between government, non-government and community-based agencies.

This study presents a global analysis of forest cover and forest protection. An updated Global Forest Map (using MODIS2005) provided a current assessment of forest cover within 20 natural forest types. This map was overlaid onto WWF realms and ecoregions to gain additional biogeographic information on forest distribution. Using the 2008 World Database on Protected Areas, percentage forest cover protection was calculated globally, within forest types, realms and ecoregions, and within selected areas of global conservation importance. At the 10% tree cover threshold, global forest cover was 39 million km 2 . Of this, 7.7% fell within protected areas under IUCN management categories I–IV. With the inclusion of IUCN categories V and VI, the level of global forest protection increased to 13.5%. Percentage forest protection (IUCN I–IV) varied greatly between realms from 5.5% (Palearctic) to 13.4% (Australasia), and for forest types from 3.2% (temperate freshwater swamp forest) to 28% (temperate broadleaf evergreen forest). Median protection of forest cover in 670 ecoregions (forest above a specified threshold) was 5.9% (IUCN I–IV); at IUCN I–VI, 46% of the ecoregions had less than 10% forest protection. Considering their biodiversity importance, forest protection within global priority areas was insufficient, e.g., median protection of 8.4% in biodiversity hotspots (IUCN I–IV). Results have policy relevance in terms of the target of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), reconfirmed in 2008, to effectively conserve “ at least 10% of each of the world’s forest types ”. Regular updates of these analyses would allow progress towards achieving that target to be monitored.

The GLOBIO3 model has been developed to assess human-induced changes in biodiversity, in the past, present, and future at regional and global scales. The model is built on simple cause-effect relationships between environmental drivers and biodiversity impacts, based on state-of-the-art knowledge. The mean abundance of original species relative to their abundance in undisturbed ecosystems (MSA) is used as the indicator for biodiversity. Changes in drivers are derived from the IMAGE 2.4 model. Drivers considered are land-cover change, land-use intensity, fragmentation, climate change, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, and infrastructure development. GLOBIO3 addresses (i) the impacts of environmental drivers on MSA and their relative importance; (ii) expected trends under various future scenarios; and (iii) the likely effects of various policy response options. GLOBIO3 has been used successfully in several integrated regional and global assessments. Three different global-scale policy options have been evaluated on their potential to reduce MSA loss. These options are: climate-change mitigation through expanded use of bio-energy, an increase in plantation forestry, and an increase in protected areas. We conclude that MSA loss is likely to continue during the coming decades. Plantation forestry may help to reduce the rate of loss, whereas climate-change mitigation through the extensive use of bioenergy crops will, in fact, increase this rate of loss. The protection of 20% of all large ecosystems leads to a small reduction in the rate of loss, provided that protection is effective and that currently degraded protected areas are restored.

The current proposals on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries being discussed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could have significant implications for biodiversity conservation and for forest-dependent livelihoods. In the post-2012 period, developing countries could receive financial benefits in return for decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Protected areas can act as a case study for REDD: lessons can be learnt from their success or otherwise in reducing deforestation and supporting local livelihoods. Depending upon the exact mechanisms decided between and within countries, protected areas could have a role to play in reducing national-scale deforestation, through strengthening existing forest protected areas and/or declaring new areas. Overall, protected areas are effective at limiting deforestation, but there are exceptions. Their track record in supporting liveli...

Climate change is expected to alter the distribution of habitats and thus the distribution of species connected with these habitats in the terrestrial Barents Sea region. It was hypothesised that wild species connected with the tundra and open-land biome may be particularly at risk as forest area expands. Fourteen species of birds were identified as useful indicators for the biodiversity dependent upon this biome. By bringing together species distribution information with the LPJ-GUESS vegetation model, and with estimates of future wild and domestic reindeer density, potential impacts on these species between the present time and 2080 were assessed. Over this period there was a net loss of open land within the current breeding range of most bird species. Grazing reindeer were modelled as increasing the amount of open land retained for nine of the tundra bird species.

Although trees have high economic, cultural and ecological value, increasing numbers of species are potentially at risk of extinction because of forest loss and degradation as a result of human activities, including overharvesting, fire and grazing. Emerging threats include climate change and its interaction with the spread of pests and diseases. The impact of such threats on the conservation status of trees is poorly understood. Here we highlight the need to conduct a comprehensive conservation assessment of the world's tree species, building on previous assessments undertaken for the IUCN Red List. We suggest that recent developments in plant systematics, online databases, remote sensing data and associated analytical tools offer an unprecedented opportunity to conduct such an assessment. We provide an overview of how a Global Tree Assessment could be achieved in practice, through participative, open-access approaches to data sharing and evaluation.

Aim To analyse the conservation status of tropical dry forests at the global scale, by combining a newly developed global distribution map with spatial data describing different threats, and to identify the relative exposure of different forest areas to such threats. Location Global assessment. Methods We present a new global distribution map of tropical dry forest derived from the recently developed MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields (VCF) product, which depicts percentage tree cover at a resolution of 500 m, combined with previously defined maps of biomes. This distribution map was overlaid with spatial data to estimate the exposure of tropical dry forests to a number of different threats: climate change, habitat fragmentation, fire, human population density and conversion to cropland. The extent of tropical dry forest currently protected was estimated by overlaying the forest map with a global data set of the distribution of protected areas. Results It is estimated that 1,048,700 km 2 of tropical dry forest remains, distributed throughout the three tropical regions. More than half of the forest area (54.2%) is located within South America, the remaining area being almost equally divided between North and Central America, Africa and Eurasia, with a relatively small proportion (3.8%) occurring within Australasia and Southeast Asia. Overall, c. 97% of the remaining area of tropical dry forest is at risk from one or more of the threats considered, with highest percentages recorded for Eurasia. The relative exposure to different threats differed between regions: while climate change is relatively significant in the Americas, habitat fragmentation and fire affect a higher proportion of African forests, whereas agricultural conversion and human population density are most influential in Eurasia. Evidence suggests that c. 300,000 km 2 of tropical dry forest now coincide with some form of protected area, with 71.8% of this total being located within South America. Main conclusions Virtually all of the tropical dry forests that remain are currently exposed to a variety of different threats, largely resulting from human activity. Taking their high biodiversity value into consideration, this indicates that tropical dry forests should be accorded high conservation priority. The results presented here could be used to identify which forest areas should be accorded highest priority for conservation action. In particular, the expansion of the global protected area network, particularly in Mesoamerica, should be given urgent consideration.

Aim To model long-term trends in plant species distributions in response to predicted changes in global climate. Location Amazonia. Methods The impacts of expected global climate change on the potential and realized distributions of a representative sample of 69 individual Angiosperm species in Amazonia were simulated from 1990 to 2095. The climate trend followed the HADCM2GSa1 scenario, which assumes an annual 1% increase of atmospheric CO 2 content with effects mitigated by sulphate forcing. Potential distributions of species in one-degree grid cells were modelled using a suitability index and rectilinear envelope based on bioclimate variables. Realized distributions were additionally limited by spatial contiguity with, and proximity to, known record sites. A size-structured population model was simulated for each cell in the realized distributions to allow for lags in response to climate change, but dispersal was not included. Results In the resulting simulations, 43% of all species became non-viable by 2095 because their potential distributions had changed drastically, but there was little change in the realized distributions of most species, owing to delays in population responses. Widely distributed species with high tolerance to environmental variation exhibited the least response to climate change, and species with narrow ranges and short generation times the greatest. Climate changed most in north-east Amazonia while the best remaining conditions for lowland moist forest species were in western Amazonia. Main conclusions To maintain the greatest resilience of Amazonian biodiversity to climate change as modelled by HADCM2GSa1, highest priority should be given to strengthening and extending protected areas in western Amazonia that encompass lowland and montane forests.

Climate change over the past approximately 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15-37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be 'committed to extinction'. When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction ( approximately 18%) than mid-range ( approximately 24%) and maximum-change ( approximately 35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.

There has been a concerted effort by the international scientific community to understand the multiple causes and patterns of land-cover change to support sustainable land management. Here, we examined biophysical suitability, and a novel integrated index of “Economic Pressure on Land” (EPL) to explain land cover in the year 2000, and estimated the likelihood of future land-cover change through 2050, including protected area effectiveness. Biophysical suitability and EPL explained almost half of the global pattern of land cover (R 2 = 0.45), increasing to almost two-thirds in areas where a long-term equilibrium is likely to have been reached (e.g. R 2 = 0.64 in Europe). We identify a high likelihood of future land-cover change in vast areas with relatively lower current and past deforestation (e.g. the Congo Basin). Further, we simulated emissions arising from a “business as usual” and two reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) scenarios by incorporating data on biomass carbon. As our model incorporates all biome types, it highlights a crucial aspect of the ongoing REDD + debate: if restricted to forests, “cross-biome leakage” would severely reduce REDD + effectiveness for climate change mitigation. If forests were protected from deforestation yet without measures to tackle the drivers of land-cover change, REDD + would only reduce 30 % of total emissions from land-cover change. Fifty-five percent of emissions reductions from forests would be compensated by increased emissions in other biomes. These results suggest that, although REDD + remains a very promising mitigation tool, implementation of complementary measures to reduce land demand is necessary to prevent this leakage.

Forest loss and degradation in the tropics contribute 6–17% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Protected areas cover 217.2 million ha (19.6%) of the world’s humid tropical forests and contain c. 70.3 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) in biomass and soil to 1 m depth. Between 2000 and 2005, we estimate that 1.75 million ha of forest were lost from protected areas in humid tropical forests, causing the emission of 0.25–0.33 Pg C. Protected areas lost about half as much carbon as the same area of unprotected forest. We estimate that the reduction of these carbon emissions from ongoing deforestation in protected sites in humid tropical forests could be valued at USD 6,200–7,400 million depending on the land use after clearance. This is > 1.5 times the estimated spending on protected area management in these regions. Improving management of protected areas to retain forest cover better may be an important, although certainly not sufficient, component of an overall strategy for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

Recent climate talks in Bali have made progress toward action on deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, within the anticipated post-Kyoto emissions reduction agreements. As a result of such action, many forests will be better protected, but some land-use change will be displaced to other locations. The demonstration phase launched at Bali offers an opportunity to examine potential outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Research will be needed into selection of priority areas for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation to deliver multiple benefits, on-the-ground methods to best ensure these benefits, and minimization of displaced land-use change into nontarget countries and ecosystems, including through revised conservation investments.

International audience; Aim Many attempts to predict the potential range of species rely on environmental niche (or 'bioclimate envelope') modelling, yet the effects of using different niche-based methodologies require further investigation. Here we investigate the impact that the choice of model can have on predictions, identify key reasons why model output may differ and discuss the implications that model uncertainty has for policy-guiding applications. Location The Western Cape of South Africa. Methods We applied nine of the most widely used modelling techniques to model potential distributions under current and predicted future climate for four species (including two subspecies) of Proteaceae. Each model was built using an identical set of five input variables and distribution data for 3996 sampled sites. We compare model predictions by testing agreement between observed and simulated distributions for the present day (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and kappa statistics) and by assessing consistency in predictions of range size changes under future climate (using cluster analysis). Results Our analyses show significant differences between predictions from different models, with predicted changes in range size by 2030 differing in both magnitude and direction (e.g. from 92% loss to 322% gain). We explain differences with reference to two characteristics of the modelling techniques: data input requirements (presence/absence vs. presence-only approaches) and assumptions made by each algorithm when extrapolating beyond the range of data used to build the model. The effects of these factors should be carefully considered when using this modelling approach to predict species ranges. Main Conclusions We highlight an important source of uncertainty in assessments of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and emphasize that model predictions should be interpreted in policy-guiding applications along with a full appreciation of uncertainty.

Thomas et al. reply — We reconsider our estimates of climate-related extinction1 in the light of three questions raised by Thuiller .2, Buckley and Roughgarden 3 and Harte .4. We are able to confirm our original conclusion that climate change represents a major threat to terrestrial species1.