Trade-offs in carbon storage and biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species. (March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reside, April Elizabeth; VanDerWal, Jeremy; Moran, Catherine
• Is Part Of: Biological conservation. Volume 207(2017)
• Page Start: 9
• Page End: 16
• Publication Date: 2017-03
• Subjects: Systematic conservation planning -- Biodiversity prioritisation -- Cobenefits -- Zonation -- Carbon -- Trade-offs; Conservation of natural resources -- Periodicals; Nature conservation -- Periodicals; Ecology -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Environmental Pollution -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.9516
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0006-3207

Abstract

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. 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.