Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 207, March 2017, Pages 9-16
Biological Conservation

Trade-offs in carbon storage and biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Substantial overlaps of carbon and biodiversity priorities exist for the region.

  • Prioritising for biodiversity results in a win-win solution for carbon.

  • Prioritising only for carbon could result in loss for biodiversity.

Abstract

Carbon offset funds provide substantial opportunities for protection and restoration of native ecosystems, with corresponding gains for biodiversity and reductions in atmospheric carbon. However, biodiversity could be disadvantaged if not properly accounted for, particularly under climate change, where high carbon gains do not coincide spatially with biodiversity priorities. While globally there is congruence for species richness and carbon stocks, adequate conservation needs to incorporate more refined measures of biodiversity – and consideration of the impact of future climate change. We investigated the spatial trade-off for carbon and biodiversity priorities in north-eastern Australia based on current and projected climate, using the Zonation prioritisation software. By iteratively weighting carbon against biodiversity we found that prioritising land based on biodiversity value (for 697 vertebrates) included priority areas for potential carbon sequestration (Maximum Potential Biomass). However, if prioritisation was based on carbon sequestration potential alone, substantial areas important for biodiversity would be lost. Policy frameworks need to be strengthened to remove barriers from landholder participation in carbon storage projects that have biodiversity benefits, and to require that both carbon and biodiversity gains are additional. Properly accounting for biodiversity in land-based carbon sequestration and storage prioritisation in this region is likely to generate substantial benefits for both biodiversity and carbon.

Introduction

Offsetting carbon emissions by protecting and restoring native ecosystems are major strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change (e.g., Paris Agreement, 2015) and have resulted in the avoided loss of tropical rainforests and other ecosystems (Magnago et al., 2015). However, carbon and biodiversity priorities do not necessarily align in space (Anderson et al., 2009, Strassburg et al., 2010, Venter et al., 2009) or time (Martin et al., 2013). This is particularly the case for regions rich in narrow-ranged endemic species: neighbouring regions of high carbon value could contain substantially different species assemblages, and thus not have interchangeable conservation value. Furthermore, climate change is likely to alter future priorities for both biodiversity and carbon and this change should be considered to maximise long-term conservation value. For this reason, biodiversity metrics should be carefully selected and examined.

Loss of native ecosystems continues at a rapid rate (Forrest et al., 2015), and is the largest driver of species extinctions globally (Dirzo and Raven, 2003). Furthermore, deforestation is the second largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Gullison et al., 2007). Therefore, retention of forests and native ecosystems is crucial to reducing carbon emissions and protecting biodiversity, both immediately (by protecting current habitat) and in the future (by mitigating climate change)(Houghton et al., 2015). Mechanisms such as the United Nations' Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD +) (Harvey et al., 2010) and various domestic carbon markets have potential to stem deforestation rates and to protect or increase carbon stores (Polglase et al., 2013). These mechanisms also have the potential to facilitate large-scale restoration (Houghton et al., 2015), with potential carbon and biodiversity benefits (Alexander et al., 2011, Martin et al., 2013). However, site-based studies are required to verify global analyses of spatial priorities for carbon and biodiversity to ensure actual gains for both, particularly where endemism is high (Anderson et al., 2009, Magnago et al., 2015).

The substantial body of work investigating carbon and biodiversity priorities indicates a recognition of the risk to systems from climate change – a risk that would persist even with substantial increase of land-based carbon storage (Gullison et al., 2007, Metz et al., 2007). Despite this recognition, most studies do not account for biodiversity priorities under future climate change. Instead, studies have focussed solely on the current distribution of biodiversity. Ongoing biodiversity conservation will require protection or restoration of areas that will remain or become suitable under projected climate change, whether or not they are current priorities for biodiversity conservation. Therefore, evaluation of biodiversity and carbon storage trade-offs should include species' current and future requirements (Kujala et al., 2013), or risk suboptimal conservation outcomes. Future planning is also important for evaluating carbon stores – not only where there are high carbon stores currently, but where there is high potential for sequestration. Restoration of cleared and degraded ecosystems is a key biodiversity conservation action that also brings substantial opportunities to sequester carbon and attract carbon offset funds. Restoration is particularly beneficial where species are likely to need to move into areas that are currently unvegetated to stay within their suitable climate space. For this, estimates are required of the potential carbon sequestration and storage (from here on: “carbon storage”) value of a site should native vegetation be restored, together with the estimates of potential biodiversity value.

Substantial advances have been made in accounting for future climate change in conservation planning, from advancing conceptual thinking, to practical solutions (Jones et al., 2016, Mawdsley et al., 2009, Schmitz et al., 2015). In particular, many studies have highlighted the priority areas for protection and restoration to facilitate species tracking their climatic niche and provide new habitat (Jones et al., 2016, Williams et al., 2005). What is missing is planning for multiple benefits (in this case biodiversity and carbon storage) and multiple time steps (priorities under current and future climate). Considering multiple benefits not only allows for action for climate mitigation but also creates opportunities to attract revenue from carbon offset markets to a severely under-resourced conservation sector.

This study investigated the potential trade-offs between prioritising for carbon sequestration and storage, and prioritising for biodiversity in the face of climate change. For this we used north-eastern Australia which is rich in endemic vertebrates, particularly in the tropical rainforests. This region has experienced widespread clearing historically, particularly in the south; the north is largely intact but vulnerable to clearing, mostly for pastoralism (Evans, 2016, Preece, et al., 2016). This region also has high carbon storage potential (Polglase et al., 2013). Identifying key areas for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage will guide the prioritisation of restoration and protection of areas with high biodiversity value and carbon storage potential. We built in future considerations for both biodiversity and potential carbon sequestration into our prioritisation, accounting for the current distribution of species' climate space and changes under a severe climate change scenario. We used the systematic conservation planning tool Zonation (Moilanen et al., 2014) to identify current spatial conservation priorities as well as for two future time periods (2055, 2085). We evaluated the change in spatial priorities when considering multiple benefits by iteratively increasing the weighting of carbon relative to biodiversity. From this, the optimal solution across all priorities was identified. Our results identify spatial conservation priority areas that are robust for multiple benefits and under multiple time steps.

Section snippets

Study area

Australia has 56 Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions, grouped into 8 clusters, which are defined by catchments and bioregions (http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/about/modelling-choices-and-methodology/regionalisation-schemes/). Australia's model of regional NRM planning facilitates landscape-scale programs to achieve landscape resilience, including biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change (Dale et al., 2013). However, external resources

Results

There was a significant relationship between carbon and all species richness (Fig. 2, p < 0.001, adjusted R2 = 0.53). The relationship, though significant, was weaker for mammals (adjusted R2 = 0.40, p < 0.001), amphibians (adjusted R2 = 0.20, p < 0.001), and reptiles (adjusted R2 = 0.10, p < 0.001) alone, but similar for birds (adjusted R2 = 0.56, p < 0.001; Appendix B).

There was substantial spatial overlap of high ranking cells for each of the solutions (Fig. 3), indicating that areas of high value for

Discussion

There was remarkable congruence in the prioritisations weighted for either carbon or biodiversity in this region. However, substantial decreases in the protection of narrow-ranged endemics could occur if these were not explicitly considered. This study emphasises the need to go beyond just maximising carbon gains, or only investigating species richness, which could result in missing important species.

This region is fortunate in that there is only a marginal trade-off with carbon when

Acknowledgements

Erin Graham ran the species distribution models. Allan Dale, Oscar Venter, Penny van Oosterzee and Vanessa Adams provided useful feedback, and Atte Moilanen and Heini Kujala provided advice on Zonation. This project was funded by the Australian Government through the Regional NRM planning for climate change program.

References (66)

  • Australian Government

    Our North, Our Future: White Paper on Developing Northern Australia

  • C.C. Authority
  • P.J. Burke

    Undermined by adverse selection: Australia's Direct Action abatement subsidies

    Econ. Pap.

    (2016)
  • A. Dale

    Trading ecosystem services across the north

  • A. Dale et al.

    Carbon, biodiversity and regional natural resource planning: towards high impact next generation plans

  • Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

    Maximum Potential Biomass (Maxbio)

    (2004)
  • E. Di Minin et al.

    A Quick Introduction to Zonation

    (2014)
  • R. Dirzo et al.

    Global state of biodiversity and loss

    Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

    (2003)
  • DSEWPaC

    The Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database 2010

    (2010)
  • DSITI

    Land Cover Change in Queensland 2014–15: a Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) Report

    (2016)
  • M.C. Evans

    Deforestation in Australia: drivers, trends and policy responses

    Pac. Conserv. Biol.

    (2016)
  • J.L. Forrest et al.

    Tropical deforestation and carbon emissions from protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD)

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2015)
  • S.M. Galatowitsch

    Carbon offsets as ecological restorations

    Restor. Ecol.

    (2009)
  • I. Grant et al.

    Meteorological and Remotely Sensed Datasets for Hydrological Modelling: a Contribution to the Australian Water Availability Project

    (2008)
  • R.E. Gullison et al.

    Tropical forests and climate policy

    Science

    (2007)
  • C. Hamilton et al.

    The Climate Change Authority's Special Review on Australia's Climate Goals and Policies: Towards a Climate Policy Toolkig. Minority Report

    (2016)
  • C.A. Harvey et al.

    Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2010)
  • S. Hatfield-Dodds et al.

    Australia is ‘free to choose’ economic growth and falling environmental pressures

    Nature

    (2015)
  • R.A. Houghton et al.

    A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2

    Nat. Clim. Chang.

    (2015)
  • R.B. Jackson et al.

    Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration

    Science

    (2005)
  • K. Jayanthi et al.

    Carbon emission risks and management accounting: Australian evidence

    Accounting Research Journal

    (2016)
  • D.A. Jones et al.

    Climate Data for the Australian Water Availability Project: Final Milestone Report

    (2007)
  • J. Kanowski et al.

    Carbon stocks in above-ground biomass of monoculture plantations, mixed species plantations and environmental restoration plantings in north-east Australia

    Ecol. Manag. Restor.

    (2010)
  • Cited by (44)

    • Contribution of High Nature Value farming systems to sustainable livestock production: A case from Finland

      2022, Science of the Total Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Future implementation of local biodiversity estimations or management regimes is necessary to improve accuracy in the metrics to assess environmental impacts (Jeanneret et al., 2014). Importantly, environmental assessments focusing mainly on GHG emissions with no consideration of other beneficial aspects (i.e., biodiversity) provide a misleading picture and lead to narrowly focused management recommendations that may result in further biodiversity loss (Reside et al., 2017). Land management practices are crucial to maintain biodiversity independently of land use type or area type (regardless of protected status) (Hannah et al., 2005).

    • Can a national afforestation plan achieve simultaneous goals of biodiversity and carbon enhancement? Exploring optimal decision making using multi-spatial modeling

      2022, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      If forests with high carbon stocks do not spatially coincide with biodiversity priorities, this can cause a conflict between which goal is achieved (Reside et al., 2017). Although a number of studies have been conducted to identify the relationship between biodiversity and carbon stocks, their correlation remains controversial (Evans et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2015; Reside et al., 2017; Ferreira et al., 2018; Girardello et al., 2019; Grass et al., 2020; Blattert et al., 2020). In addition, previous research has focused on existing forests to identify and compare regions with high biodiversity or carbon stocks (Murray et al., 2015; Reside et al., 2017; Lecina-Diaz et al., 2018; Soto-Navarro et al., 2020).

    • Effects of agricultural lands on the distribution pattern of genus diversity for neotropical terrestrial vertebrates

      2021, Ecological Indicators
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, agricultural lands should be used as environmental variables for DMs. There were many studies (e.g., Di Minin et al., 2013; Reside et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2018; Cámara-Leret et al., 2019; Bigard et al., 2020) that used DM coupled with conservation planning software to delineate protected areas for biodiversity around the world. Agricultural lands (i.e., croplands and pasture areas) should be considered key factors for connecting areas for natural habitats.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text