Climate action and biodiversity: Striking the right balance
In the worldwide push to reduce carbon emissions, land-based mitigation strategies (LBMS) – such as planting forests and growing biofuels – are an increasingly popular solution.
However, a new study cautions that while these efforts can help tackle climate change, they may also threaten wildlife if not implemented with care. Overall, the study finds that restoring forests has the most positive effect on biodiversity, but warns of unintended consequences from other approaches.
Aligning climate goals with biodiversity
A team of researchers, including Dr. Evelyn Beaury of the New York Botanical Garden (NYBG), argues that policymakers must weigh the ecological impacts of land-based mitigation strategies as they strive to meet climate targets.
“As efforts to address climate change accelerate, it is urgent to ensure that in deploying LBMS we do not inadvertently imperil biodiversity,” the researchers wrote.
Beaury is an assistant curator at NYBG’s Center for Conservation and Restoration Ecology. This initiative is dedicated to advancing collaborations with global conservation programs, training future biodiversity leaders, and promoting the sustainable use of plant resources at both local and international levels.
Land-based mitigation strategies
Countries worldwide, from Austria to Zimbabwe, have committed to adopting LBMS over millions of acres to curb carbon outputs and achieve climate objectives. The principal strategies include:
- Reforestation: Reintroducing forests in areas where they once existed.
- Afforestation: Establishing forests on lands such as savannahs and grasslands that have historically been treeless.
- Bioenergy Cropping: Cultivating fast-growing plants like switchgrass to generate renewable energy.
Although these measures have gained momentum, comprehensively predicting their effects on biodiversity has been challenging, since different ecosystems and species respond in complex ways.
Climate mitigation strategies and biodiversity
The study is the first to systematically evaluate how reforestation, afforestation, and bioenergy cropping might affect biodiversity on a global scale.
Led by Dr. Jeffrey Smith, an associate research scholar at Princeton University’s High Meadows Environmental Institute, the research team modeled how over 14,000 animal species could be impacted by these climate mitigation methods – encompassing creatures from tiny mice to large moose.
“Plant-based mitigation strategies do not have the same effect on the climate or on biodiversity everywhere they are deployed. Our research suggests that we cannot assume plant-based solutions always indirectly reduce the biodiversity crisis,” said Dr. Beaury.
Reforestation: A “win-win” for wildlife
The study highlights reforestation as the approach most likely to deliver mutual advantages for both climate and biodiversity. By bringing back forests to places where they naturally existed, habitats improve for many species, and carbon sequestration rises, helping mitigate global warming.
Animals such as spotted salamanders, red-bellied woodpeckers, and even jaguars can benefit from the added forest cover.
“Reforestation is an obvious ‘win-win’ for biodiversity,” said Dr. Beaury. “Restoring lost forest provides habitat as well as reduces the impacts of climate change.”
Risks from afforestation and bioenergy
Although afforestation and bioenergy cropping can curb climate threats, they pose direct hazards for wildlife. Afforestation usually means planting trees in savannahs and grasslands, fundamentally altering habitats that support unique species.
Ostriches, lions, elk, and grouse are among the animals at risk if these natural ecosystems become uniform forests or bioenergy plantations.
While such transformations may counteract warming and climate pressures, the habitat loss they cause can overshadow any biodiversity gains.
The study concludes that immediate declines in habitat overshadow the positive climate effects, making these tactics less favorable for preserving wildlife.
Observed declines in “resilient” species
Even species known to tolerate a range of environmental stresses have suffered under afforestation or intense bioenergy cropping.
The study is one of the first to provide quantitative, global evidence of this impact, confirming ecologists’ long-standing concern that large-scale modifications to ecosystems might do more harm than good in certain contexts.
The way forward: Careful deployment
As national climate strategies intensify, these findings emphasize the importance of carefully matching LBMS to local conditions to avoid harming biodiversity.
Where ecosystems naturally support forests, reforestation stands out as a solution that harmonizes climate gains with ecological health.
Conversely, converting grasslands and savannahs to forest or monoculture plantations demands careful evaluation.
A necessary balancing act
As climate change progresses, governments worldwide are deploying LBMS on an unprecedented scale. The researchers argue that these strategies must address both carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation to be truly sustainable.
Rather than assuming plant-based solutions will inherently benefit wildlife, policymakers should base decisions on detailed ecological assessments, ensuring that the drive to mitigate climate change does not inadvertently intensify the biodiversity crisis.
By integrating local ecological knowledge with climate targets, decision-makers can adopt balanced solutions that foster both a stable climate and thriving ecosystems – a critical step toward a healthier planet for both people and wildlife.
The research team included Dr. Jonathan Levine, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton, and Dr. Susan C. Cook-Patton, senior forest restoration scientist at The Nature Conservancy.
The study is published in the journal Science.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–
