deforestation full essay

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.

February 21, 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

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

School Education /

Essay on Deforestation: 100 Words, 300 Words

Updated on
Apr 1, 2024

Deforestation means the widespread clearing of forests which has become a topic of global concern due to its severe environmental concerns. Deforestation as a topic is discussed and given as assignments to students for their better understanding. In this blog, we will learn the various facets of deforestation, its causes, consequences, and solutions. Also, there are some sample essay on deforestation to help students with their assignments.

Table of Contents

1 What is Deforestation?
2 Causes of Deforestation
3 Consequences of Deforestation
4 Solutions to Deforestation
5 Sample Essay on Deforestation in 100 words
6 Sample Essay on Deforestation in 300 words
7 FAQs

What is Deforestation?

Cutting down of trees on a large scale thus clearing forests which is then converted to land for human use is known as deforestation. The human use of land includes agriculture, making houses, commercial uses, etc. Almost 71.22 million hectare area of the total land of India is covered by forest. In the tropical and subtropical forests, deforestation is much more extreme. These areas are then converted into land for economical uses.

Causes of Deforestation

Logging – Trees are cut down to make furniture, paper, and other products.
Agriculture – Forests are cleared to make space for farming.
Urbanization – Cities expand, leading to the destruction of forests.
Mining – Trees are removed to extract minerals and resources.

Also Read – Essay on Environment: Examples & Tips

Consequences of Deforestation

Loss of Biodiversity – Animals lose their homes, and many become endangered or extinct.
Climate Change – Trees absorb carbon dioxide, so fewer trees mean more pollution and global warming .
Soil Erosion – Without trees, soil washes away, making it hard to grow crops.
Disruption of the Water Cycle -Trees help to control water, and without them, floods and droughts become more common.

Solutions to Deforestation

Planting Trees – People can plant new trees to replace the ones that were cut down.
Using Less Paper – If we use less paper, fewer trees will be cut for making paper.
Protecting Forest s – Governments can make rules to stop cutting down too many trees.
Supporting Sustainable Products – Buying things that don’t harm forests can help.

Sample Essay on Deforestation in 100 words

Deforestation is when trees are cut down and forests disappear. Trees give us clean air to breathe. Imagine if someone took away your home – that’s what happens to animals when forests are destroyed. It is a major environmental problem that has many negative consequences, such as climate change, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity.

When we cut too many trees, it’s bad for nature. Animals lose their homes, and the air becomes dirty. When there are no trees, floods and droughts happen more often. We can help by planting new trees and taking care of the ones we have. Let’s protect the forests and the Earth!

Sample Essay on Deforestation in 300 words

Deforestation is when people cut down a lot of trees from forests. Trees are important because they make the air fresh and give animals a place to live. When we cut down too many trees, it’s not good for the Earth. Animals lose their homes, and the air gets polluted.

There are many causes of deforestation and one of the causes is Agriculture. Forests are cleared to make way for cropland and livestock grazing. Another reason is timber harvesting. Trees are cut down for timber, paper, and other wood products. Mining is also another cause and forests are cleared to access minerals and other resources. Even due to urbanization, trees are cut down to make way for roads, cities, and other developments.

Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests to make way for other land uses, such as agriculture, mining, and urban development. It is a major environmental problem that has many negative consequences. One of them is climate change. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so deforestation contributes to climate change. Another consequence is soil erosion, when trees are removed, the soil is more easily eroded by wind and rain which can lead to flooding and landslides. Loss of biodiversity: Forests are home to a wide variety of plants and animals. Deforestation can lead to the loss of these species.

There are many things that can be done to reduce deforestation. Such as we must plant trees, they can help to offset the effects of deforestation by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Secondly, reduce our consumption of wood products by using less paper, buying furniture made from recycled materials, and avoiding disposable products. Thirdly, by supporting sustainable agricultural practices that do not require the clearing of forests. Lastly, by conserving forests, we can create protected areas and support sustainable forest management practices.

Deforestation is a serious issue that affects the whole planet. But there’s hope! By planting trees, using less paper, and taking care of nature, we can make the Earth a better place for everyone. Remember, even though we are small, our actions can make a big difference.

Rajshree Lahoty

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

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 .

For Hungry Minds

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 .)

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.

Climbing into the secret world of an ancient Bornean rainforest

Forests are reeling from climate change—but the future isn’t lost

They planted a forest at the edge of the desert. From there it got complicated.

Why forests are our best chance for survival in a warming world

This is the world’s most expensive cow

Environment
Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

History & Culture
History Magazine
Gory Details
Mind, Body, Wonder
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

Deforestation Effects and Solutions Essay

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.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 15). Deforestation Effects and Solutions. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/

"Deforestation Effects and Solutions." IvyPanda , 15 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Deforestation Effects and Solutions'. 15 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Deforestation Effects and Solutions." April 15, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

1. IvyPanda . "Deforestation Effects and Solutions." April 15, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Deforestation Effects and Solutions." April 15, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-and-countermeasures/.

Amazonian Deforestation, Its Causes and Trends
SpaceX: Disrupting the Space Industry
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

School Guide
CBSE Notes for Class 8
CBSE Notes for Class 9
CBSE Notes for Class 10
CBSE Notes for Class 11
CBSE Notes for Class 12
NCERT Solutions
English Grammar
Basic Maths Formulas

500+ Words Essay on Deforestation For Students

500+ Words Essay on Natural Disasters For Students
My Aim in Life Essay For Students: 100, 200 & 500 Words Essay
500+ Words Essay on Air Pollution
500+ Words Essay on Importance of Education in English
Essay on My Favourite Book For Students
Essay on Science in English: Check 200, 300 & 500 Words Essay
Essay on My Mother: 10 lines, 100 Words and 200 words essay
Effects of Deforestation (With Latest Data 2024)
Top 10 Countries with the Highest Deforestation Rates
Causes, Effects and Control of Deforestation
Essay on My Favourite Teacher (10 Lines, 100 Words, 200 Words)
Write any two reasons for Land Degradation today
Forests - Definition, Ecosystem, Types, Importance
Essay on Summer Vacation For Students in English: Samples Class 3 to 5
80 Best Earth Day Quotes for Inspiration in 2024
10 Lines of Short Stories With Moral for Kids
Compensatory Afforestation
India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2021
World's Largest Forest

Deep within the lush heart of the Amazon rainforest, the relentless rhythm of chainsaws echoes through the canopy, signaling a destructive force that is rapidly altering the face of our planet. Deforestation, the large-scale clearing of forests, is a global crisis that threatens not only the delicate ecosystems that sustain life but also the very future of our world. In this blog, you will get essay writing tips for Essays on Deforestation.

Table of Content

Causes of Deforestation

Effects of deforestation, precautions and solutions, 500+ words essay on deforestation.

The underlying causes of deforestation are complex and multifaceted, driven by a combination of human activities and economic pressures. One of the primary drivers is agricultural expansion, as vast swaths of forestland are cleared to make way for crops and grazing lands. The demand for commodities such as palm oil, soybeans, and beef has fueled the rapid conversion of forests into monoculture plantations and pastures.

Another significant contributor to deforestation is illegal logging, driven by the insatiable demand for timber and the lucrative profits that can be derived from this illicit trade. Poverty and lack of economic opportunities in rural areas also play a role, as communities turn to unsustainable practices like slash-and-burn agriculture to eke out a living.

Furthermore, the construction of roads, mining operations, and infrastructure development projects often encroach upon forested areas, leading to further destruction and fragmentation of these vital ecosystems.

The consequences of deforestation are far-reaching and devastating, impacting not only the environment but also the well-being of countless species and human communities.

One of the most alarming effects of deforestation is its contribution to climate change. Forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing and storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When these forests are cleared, the stored carbon is released back into the air, exacerbating the greenhouse effect and accelerating global warming.

Deforestation also poses a grave threat to biodiversity. Forests are home to an astounding array of plant and animal species, many of which are found nowhere else on Earth. As their habitats are destroyed, these species face the risk of extinction, irreversibly diminishing the planet’s rich tapestry of life.

The loss of forests has severe implications for indigenous communities and local populations who rely on these ecosystems for their livelihoods, food, and traditional practices. Deforestation disrupts the delicate balance of these communities, often leading to displacement, loss of resources, and cultural erosion.

In addition, deforestation can have far-reaching impacts on water cycles and soil stability. Without the protective canopy of trees, the land becomes more susceptible to erosion, leading to sedimentation and degradation of water sources. This, in turn, can exacerbate the risk of floods and droughts, further compounding the environmental and social challenges.

Addressing the issue of deforestation requires a multifaceted approach that involves stakeholders at all levels, from governments and international organizations to local communities and individuals.

One crucial step is the implementation of stringent laws and regulations to protect forests and promote sustainable land management practices. Governments must prioritize the enforcement of these laws and hold accountable those who engage in illegal logging or unsanctioned deforestation activities.

Furthermore, there is a pressing need to support and incentivize sustainable agriculture and forestry practices. This can include promoting agroforestry systems, which integrate trees and crops on the same land, as well as encouraging the cultivation of crops that do not require extensive land clearing.

Efforts must also be made to empower and engage local communities in conservation efforts. By recognizing the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples, and involving them in decision-making processes, we can foster a sense of ownership and stewardship over these invaluable natural resources.

On a global scale, initiatives such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) aim to provide financial incentives to developing countries that implement policies and measures to protect their forests and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Consumer awareness and responsible consumption play a pivotal role in addressing deforestation. By making informed choices and supporting products and companies that prioritize sustainable practices, we can collectively reduce the demand for goods that contribute to deforestation.

Reforestation and restoration efforts are also critical in mitigating the impacts of deforestation. Organizations and governments must prioritize the planting of new trees and the restoration of degraded landscapes, helping to replenish the invaluable ecosystem services provided by forests.

With each resounding crash of a felled tree, the world’s forests are diminishing at an alarming rate, stripped away by the insatiable appetite of human activities. Deforestation, the large-scale clearing of forested areas, is a grave environmental crisis that demands immediate attention and action.

The primary driver behind deforestation is the expansion of agricultural land, as vast swaths of forests are cleared to make way for crops, grazing pastures, and plantations. The demand for commodities such as palm oil, soybeans, and beef has fueled this destructive process, leading to the rapid conversion of once-thriving ecosystems into monoculture landscapes.

Another significant contributor to deforestation is illegal logging, driven by the lucrative profits that can be derived from this illicit trade. Poverty and lack of economic opportunities in rural areas also compel communities to engage in unsustainable practices like slash-and-burn agriculture, further exacerbating the problem.

The consequences of deforestation are far-reaching and devastating. Forests act as essential carbon sinks, absorbing and storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When these forests are cleared, the stored carbon is released back into the air, exacerbating the greenhouse effect and accelerating global warming, which in turn contributes to more extreme weather patterns and rising sea levels.

Furthermore, deforestation poses a grave threat to biodiversity. Forests are home to an astounding array of plant and animal species, many of which are found nowhere else on Earth. As their habitats are destroyed, these species face the risk of extinction, irreversibly diminishing the planet’s rich tapestry of life.

The loss of forests also has severe implications for indigenous communities and local populations who rely on these ecosystems for their livelihoods, food, and traditional practices. Deforestation disrupts the delicate balance of these communities, often leading to displacement, loss of resources, and cultural erosion.

Addressing the issue of deforestation requires a multifaceted approach that involves stakeholders at all levels. Governments must prioritize the implementation and enforcement of stringent laws and regulations to protect forests and promote sustainable land management practices. Efforts must also be made to support and incentivize sustainable agriculture and forestry practices, such as agroforestry systems that integrate trees and crops on the same land.

Moreover, consumer awareness and responsible consumption play a pivotal role in reducing the demand for goods that contribute to deforestation. By making informed choices and supporting products and companies that prioritize sustainable practices, we can collectively drive positive change.

Ultimately, the preservation of our forests is not just an environmental imperative; it is a moral obligation to safeguard the intricate web of life that sustains our planet. As we confront the realities of deforestation, we must summon a renewed sense of urgency and collective action, recognizing that the fate of our forests, and ultimately our own fate, is inextricably intertwined with the health of our planet.

Also Read: 500+ Words Essay on Air Pollution 800+ Words Essay on My Dream For Students 500+ Words Essay on Mahatma Gandhi in English

Deforestation is a global crisis that demands our immediate attention and collective action. The consequences of our actions today will echo through generations to come, shaping the very future of our planet. It is our responsibility to serve as stewards of these vital ecosystems, ensuring that the majestic forests that grace our world are preserved for the benefit of all life.

By addressing the underlying drivers of deforestation, implementing sustainable land management practices, empowering local communities, and fostering global cooperation, we can begin to reverse the tide of destruction. It is a daunting task, but one that is essential for the survival of countless species, the preservation of invaluable cultural heritage, and the maintenance of the delicate balance that sustains life on Earth.

The time to act is now. Let us embrace the challenge with unwavering determination, recognizing that the fate of our forests, and ultimately our own fate, is inextricably intertwined. Together, we can forge a path towards a greener, more sustainable future, where the majestic canopies of our forests continue to flourish, providing sanctuary, sustenance, and hope for generations to come.

Essay on Deforestation- FAQs

What is deforestation in a paragraph.

Deforestation is the deliberate clearing of wooded areas. Throughout history and into the present, woods have been cleared to create way for agriculture and animal grazing, as well as to obtain wood for fuel, manufacture, and construction.

How do you write an introduction to deforestation?

Deforestation is gradually becoming one of the most serious environmental issues in the world. Humans frequently deforest for land development, roads, and railroads, as well as for economic reasons. Every year, almost eighteen million acres of forest are lost, having severe consequences.

Why deforestation is a problem?

The loss of trees and other vegetation can lead to climate change, desertification, soil erosion, less harvests, flooding, higher greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, and a variety of other issues for Indigenous people. Deforestation happens for a variety of reasons.

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Essay on Deforestation

Students are often asked to write an essay on Deforestation in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Deforestation

What is deforestation.

Deforestation is the removal of trees and forests, often to make space for farms or buildings. This process can harm the environment.

Causes of Deforestation

People cut down trees for many reasons. Some need land for farming or building. Others use wood for fuel, construction, or paper.

Effects of Deforestation

Deforestation can cause problems. Without trees, the soil can erode, leading to floods. It also means fewer habitats for animals and less oxygen production.

Solutions to Deforestation

There are ways to stop deforestation. We can plant more trees, protect existing forests, and use resources wisely.

Also check:

10 Lines on Deforestation
Paragraph on Deforestation
Speech on Deforestation

250 Words Essay on Deforestation

Introduction.

Deforestation, the act of clearing or thinning forests, is a global concern with far-reaching implications. It is primarily driven by human activities such as agriculture, logging, and urbanization, resulting in a significant loss of biodiversity and contributing to climate change.

Impacts of Deforestation

Forests are vital for maintaining global biodiversity. They provide habitat to many species, and their destruction leads to a loss of habitat, threatening various species with extinction. Moreover, forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO2, which helps mitigate climate change. Deforestation disrupts this balance, releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming.

Economic Implications

While deforestation often provides short-term economic benefits, such as timber and land for agriculture, these are outweighed by the long-term costs. Forests provide ecosystem services like water filtration, soil preservation, and carbon sequestration, which are crucial for sustainable development. The loss of these services can lead to economic instability and increased vulnerability to environmental disasters.

Addressing deforestation requires a multi-faceted approach. It involves implementing sustainable forestry practices, promoting the use of alternatives to forest products, and enhancing legal frameworks to protect forests. Additionally, reforestation and afforestation initiatives can help restore degraded forest lands.

In conclusion, deforestation is a pressing issue that requires immediate global attention. It is crucial to balance economic development with environmental sustainability to ensure the survival of our planet’s diverse ecosystems. As stewards of the Earth, we must strive to protect and preserve our forests for future generations.

500 Words Essay on Deforestation

Deforestation, the act of clearing or thinning forests by humans, is a global issue with far-reaching implications. It is primarily driven by the need for agricultural expansion, urbanization, logging, and climate change. The impact of deforestation is not only environmental but also has significant social, economic, and political implications.

Agricultural expansion is a primary cause of deforestation, particularly in developing countries where agriculture forms the backbone of the economy. As the global population increases, so does the demand for food, leading to more forests being cleared to create farmland.

Urbanization, another major cause, is linked to population growth and economic development. As cities expand, forests are often destroyed to make way for new infrastructure. Additionally, logging for timber and fuelwood contributes to deforestation, driven by both local needs and global commerce.

Climate change exacerbates deforestation. As temperatures rise, forests become more susceptible to fires, pests, and diseases, leading to their decline. This, in turn, contributes to further climate change as forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.

The impacts of deforestation are multifaceted. Environmentally, it leads to a loss of biodiversity as forests are home to more than 80% of terrestrial species. The destruction of habitats can lead to species extinction and disrupt ecological balances.

Deforestation also contributes significantly to climate change. Forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing large amounts of CO2. When they are cut down, this carbon is released into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming.

Socio-economically, deforestation can lead to the displacement of indigenous communities who rely on forests for their livelihoods. It can also cause soil erosion and decrease agricultural productivity, impacting food security.

Countermeasures to Deforestation

Tackling deforestation requires a multi-pronged approach. Sustainable forest management practices, such as selective logging and replanting, can help maintain forest cover while meeting timber and fuelwood needs.

Promoting sustainable agriculture can reduce the need for new farmland. This includes practices like agroforestry, which integrates trees into farming systems, and conservation agriculture, which minimizes soil disturbance.

Policy interventions are also crucial. This includes strengthening land rights, particularly for indigenous communities, and enforcing regulations on logging and land use. International cooperation is also necessary to reduce demand for products driving deforestation, like palm oil and soy.

Deforestation is a complex issue with profound implications for our planet and its inhabitants. It is intrinsically linked to other global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and poverty. Addressing it requires concerted efforts across sectors and borders, combining sustainable practices, policy interventions, and international cooperation. The urgency of the issue cannot be overstated, as the health of our forests is ultimately the health of our planet.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Culture
Essay on Criticism
Essay on Cricket

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Essay on Effects of Deforestation for Students and Children

500 words essay on the effects of deforestation.

The world is losing most of its natural resources as and when you read this. There are many factors which are making this happen, however, one major concern is that of deforestation. Human activities are resulting in deforestation at a very rapid rate. Moreover, the effects of this activity are very dangerous. We do not realize the damage we are causing to living beings as well as the vegetation by cutting down trees. It will be clearer if we understand the impact of deforestation and make attempts to prevent it.

Impact of Deforestation

When we cut down even a single tree , the impact it has is huge. Now imagine if we clear out whole forests only altogether, how damaging would that be. We cut down forests to meet the needs of humans. In order to fulfill the agricultural , commercial , industrial , residential and other needs we remove forests . Most of the earth was covered with forests until a hundred years ago, however, now we don’t have much of them left.

Deforestation causes disruption in the ecological balance. Moreover, it also interferes with the lives of wildlife and human beings as well. Firstly, when there won’t be many forests left, the water cycle of the earth will get disturbed. There won’t be enough trees left to absorb the water. Moreover, it will cause floods and droughts too. Similarly, soil erosion will be another effect of deforestation.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Other than that, the climate will experience massive change. Global warming is also happening partly due to deforestation only. The oxygen level in the atmosphere will drop down by a great number and thus naturally carbon dioxide levels will increase. Most importantly, the wildlife is losing their habitats due to deforestation. Forests are their only home and with no place left to go, they either lose their lives or wreak havoc in the cities.

Therefore, we must all come together to stop this from happening and saving our earth as well as our lives. Humans must not be so selfish so as to make other animals homeless to shelter themselves. We must not damage our vegetation to create a beautiful garden for ourselves.

How to Prevent Deforestation?

We can do a lot of things that will contribute to preventing deforestation. To begin with, do not waste paper. The more demand there will be the more supply will happen. This way, trees will keep getting cut to meet these needs.

Similarly, the government must put a ban on deforestation so the big firms can find other alternatives instead of clearing forests for commercial and industrial needs. The laws must be made stringent enough and also implemented properly to prevent it.

Moreover, there must be measures taken to control the increasing population . As there are more mouths to feed and fewer resources, our nature and forests are getting burdened. There is not adequate supply to meet the ever-increasing demands of the population. Thus, the lesser the demand, the better the conditions of the forests as well.

FAQs on Effects of Deforestation

Q.1 What is the impact of deforestation?

A.1 Deforestation has many seriously damaging effects. It disrupts the water cycle and increases the level of carbon dioxide and decreases oxygen levels. Further, it also causes floods, droughts, soil erosion and more.

Q.2 How can we prevent deforestation?

A.2 We can do a joint effort to prevent deforestation. Do not waste paper so there will be lesser cutting of trees. The government must put a ban on deforestation. The government must practice population control so as to not burden forests to meet the ever-increasing needs.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Deforestation Essay for Students in English

Essay on Deforestation

Deforestation is a removal or clearing of trees and forest which is converted into use for human, like for agricultural use, making houses, for commercial purpose and other development. About 31% of earth’s land surface is covered by forest, just over 4 billion hectares area and about 71.22 million hectares area of India’s total land is covered by forest. Deforestation is more extreme in the tropical and subtropical forests. These areas are converted into economical uses. The total area of tropical rain forest on Earth is about 16 million square kilometres but because of deforestation, only 6.2 square kilometres are left. According to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020, the global rate of net forest loss in 2010-2020 was 7 million hectares per year.

Causes of Deforestation

The primary reason for deforestation is agricultural. According to FAQ, agriculture leads to around 80% of deforest. For the survival of the livelihood, the farmer cut trees of the forest and use that land for the purpose of cultivation. Due to the increasing population, the demand of food product is also increasing, because of this large amount of land is needed for the cultivation of crops hence farmers are bounded to cut down the forest to grow crops on that land.

Apart from this, the demand for paper, match-sticks, furniture, etc. are also increasing. Therefore the wood-based industries needs a substantial amount of wood supply to make this product. Paper plays an important role in everyone life. The paper is thrown away every year like to make accounts for approximately 640 million trees. That’s why it is said that we always have to recycle paper. Wood is used as fuel, many people cut trees and burn them for the purpose to make food. Wood is also used as coal. In every house, there is a wooden door, window and many more things. These things create a very large demand for wood which results in the cause of deforestation.

Further, to gain access to these places, the construction of roads is undertaken. Trees are again cut to build roads. The expansion of cities is also responsible for the cutting of trees, this expansion of cities is directly responsible for the growing population, people of these places need houses, roads and other facilities so that they cut trees for their livelihood.

Many industries in petrochemicals release their waste into rivers, which result in soil erosion and make it unfit to grow plants and trees on these places. The oil and coal mining requires a large amount of forest land. The waste that comes out from mining pollutes the environment and affects other species.

Another reason is forest fire. Thousands of trees every year lost by a forest fire. The reason for forest fire is the hot temperature of that place and milder winter. On many places, the fire is caused because of human’s irresponsibilities. Fires, either caused by human or by nature, results in a massive amount of loss of forest covers.

We all know that the population of the world is increasing rapidly, which is also a reason behind deforestation. People cut down trees and on that place they make houses.

Effect of Deforestation

Forest are the lungs of our planet. Trees take carbon dioxide and release oxygen which is responsible for our living. Trees also provide shed to soil because of which soil remain moist. Trees also release water vapours, that’s why climate remains humid but due to the process of deforestation the climate becomes drier and hotter which make ecology difficult that leads to climate change. Also, this factor is mainly responsible for the forest fire.

Animal and plants which form flora and fauna across the world have to suffer due to the deforestation. Various animal species are lost, they loos their habitat and forced to move to a new location. It is very difficult for them to adopt new habitats. The cutting of trees is responsible for soil erosion. The fertile soil is held in place by intricate root structures of many layers of trees. Without trees, erosion often occurs and sweeps the land into nearby rivers. With the cutting of trees the soil is directly exposed to the sun which dries them dry. Deforestation is mainly responsible for floods, loss of biodiversity, food ecosystem, wildlife extinction and habitat loss.

FAQs on Deforestation Essay for Students in English

Question 1:- How Deforestation is Responsible for Land Degradation?

Answer:-Trees provide shed to soil because of which soil remain humid. Also, the fertile soil is held in place by intricate root structures of many layers of trees. When the trees are cut down then the soil becomes loose and also there is no shed for soil which results in soil erosion. So, we concluded that trees prevent soil erosion and thus land degradation.

Question 2:- What are the Causes of Deforestation?

Answer:- There are several reasons for deforestation like agriculture, logging, cattle ranching, for making furniture from wood, constriction of roads and forest fire.

Question 3:- Where is the Largest Rainforest Located in the World?

Answer:- The largest rainforest is the Amazon Basin in South America.

Open supplemental data
Reference Manager
Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

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]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Global Patterns and Drivers of Forest Loss and Degradation Within Protected Areas

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
My Account Login
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

192k Accesses

54 Citations

1440 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.

The carbon dioxide removal gap

Frequent disturbances enhanced the resilience of past human populations

A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease

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 .

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

Plant composition, water resources and built structures influence bird diversity: a case study in a high andean city with homogeneous soundscape.

Patricia Zaedy Curipaco Quinto
Harold Rusbelth Quispe-Melgar
Omar Siguas Robles

Urban Ecosystems (2024)

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)

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.

Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Climate Change
Policy & Economics
Biodiversity
Conservation

Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

ESSENTIAL BRIEFING 3 times weekly
TOP STORY ROUNDUP Once a week
MONTHLY OVERVIEW Once a month
Enter your email *
Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

How Does Deforestation Affect the Environment?

Forests, a vital component of life on Earth, cover approximately 31% of our planet’s land area . However, more than 75% of the Earth’s surface has been modified and degraded by human activities such as deforestation. Destroying forests alters weather patterns, destroys habitats, and negatively affects rural communities, leading to food insecurity and causing irreversible damage to entire ecosystems. So how does deforestation affect the environment and what threats does it pose to living species?

To answer the question of how deforestation affects the environment, it is important to look at why humans need forests in the first place. Deforestation is the purposeful cleaning of forest land for other uses. Among the main reasons for this damaging practice are agricultural expansion and cattle breeding as well as to obtain raw materials such as palm oil, a key ingredient in cosmetics and food products widely used around the world, and timber used for fuel, manufacturing, and infrastructure development. Studies show that 15,3 billion trees are chopped down every year and over the past 12,000 years, nearly 50% of the world’s trees have been purposefully cleared by humans. This practice threatens our environment, from altering the climate and various ecosystems to compromising the existence of millions of humans and animals.

You might also like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

1. Effects on Climate Change

The scientific consensus on deforestation is that it intensifies climate change at a dramatic rate. The Global Forest Watch made it clear: protecting tropical rainforests is essential for achieving the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. Trees are known for their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Healthy forests act as extremely valuable carbon sinks, with the Amazon rainforest being one of the world’s most important ones. However, deforestation is turning these sinks into huge net emitters , something that can have huge implications for slowing the pace of climate change and contributing to a steep rise in global temperatures. The current rate of rainforest-loss generated emissions is nearly 25% higher than those generated in the European Union and just slightly below US levels. Deforestation also increases the risk of uncontrollable wildfires because of humans burning vegetation. This, in turn, contributes to destroying forests, intensifying deforestation even more.

2. Effects on Soil Pollution and the Water Cycle

In addition to their role as carbon sinks, forests are a crucial component of the water cycle and have the all important function of preventing desertification. Cutting down trees can disrupt the cycle by decreasing precipitation and affecting river flow and water volume. In the case of the Amazon rainforest, research shows that at least 80% of its trees would be needed in order to keep the hydrological cycle going. With nearly 17% of the forest lost already, the Amazon is currently at its tipping point . Statistics show that deforestation in the tropics reduces precipitation over the Amazon by around 10% , or 138 millimeter, every year. In the South Asian Monsoon region, the reduction in rainfall is even higher, with around 18% less rain recorded in India in a single year.

Aside from their contribution to the water flow, trees help the land retain water and sustain forest life by supplying the soil with rich nutrients. Deforestation deprives the land of its cover, leaving the soil exposed to wind and rain. This makes soil vulnerable to being washed away, and prone to erosion. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), as much as half of the world’s topsoil has been lost as a consequence of the nearly 4 million square miles of forest that have been lost since the beginning of the 20th century.

3. The Effects on Humans

In answering the question of how does deforestation affect the environment, you may discover that in fact, it also has a direct impact on the human population. With the loss of trees and entire forests, homelands are also being destroyed in the process. Indigenous communities who live in forests and depend on them to sustain their life bear the brunt of impacts from deforestation. As their houses are destroyed and resources compromised, these tribes are forced to migrate elsewhere and find other ways to sustain themselves. The Amazon rainforest is home to over one million Indigenous people , mostly of Indian descent, divided into more than 400 indigenous tribes. They live in settled villages by the rivers, and grow and hunt their food. These “uncontacted” tribes live by the rules of nature but are becoming increasingly vulnerable to deforestation, which has forced many of them to migrate. While some of them move into areas occupied by other tribes, straining the land’s resources, others are forced to relocate to urban settings and completely change their way of living.

4. The Effects on Animals and Plants

Along with Indigenous tribes, animals are some of the biggest victims of deforestation. Forests around the world are home to more than 80% of all terrestrial animal, plant, and insect species . However, the rapid destruction of forests is contributing to a decline in biodiversity never seen before. The main effect of deforestation on animals and plants is the loss of their habitat. Many factors related to cutting down trees contribute to driving species to extinction. Through land erosion, the soil is depleted of its nutrients, a huge source of nourishment for animals and plants. Furthermore, many animal species are heavily reliant on specific plants and their fruits for food sources. When these resources are lost, animals become weaker, more vulnerable to diseases and often succumb to starvation. Another important role of trees is to regulate the temperature of forests and maintain it constant. When deforestation occurs, temperature variates more drastically from day to night and this extreme change can often prove fatal for many animal species.

5. The Effects on Food Security

One last major effect of deforestation is its impact on food security through the loss of biodiversity. While food availability for Indigenous tribes and animals that live in forests is reduced in the process of deforestation, its effects on weather patterns and soil degradation also drastically decrease agricultural productivity. Populations located in the proximity of tropical forests are mostly impacted by the worsening trend. Indeed, millions of people living in these areas depend almost entirely on agriculture and are thus extremely vulnerable to the impact of deforestation on food security, struggling to grow enough food and prevent crops from damage. It has been shown that the deforestation of the Amazon contributes to a decline in pasture productivity of about 39% as well as a drop of soy yields of nearly 25% in over half of the Amazon region and of a staggering 60% in a third of the area.

You might also like: 12 Major Companies Responsible for Deforestation

Can We Halt Deforestation?

Knowing how deforestation affect the environment more than one way and its catastrophic effects on the planet, it is crucial that people around the world take action to mitigate its impact. This can be done on an individual level, for example by reducing meat consumption, going paperless and recycling products as much as possible, opting for natural products that do not contain ingredients such as palm oil and supporting organisations and sustainable companies that are committed to reducing this dangerous practice. On a governmental level, the consequences of deforestation can be mitigated by introducing policies that protect natural forests and regulate mining and logging operations as well as other operations that require the destruction of tree plantations.

Featured image: Global Water for Sustainability

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

About the Author

Martina Igini

10 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals in 2024

10 of the Most Endangered Species in India in 2024

International Day of Forests: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

Hand-picked stories weekly or monthly. We promise, no spam!

Boost this article By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Deforestation — The Issue of Deforestration: Consequences and Prevention

The Issue of Deforestration: Consequences and Prevention

Categories: Deforestation Environmental Issues

About this sample

Words: 668 |

Published: Aug 10, 2018

Words: 668 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Consequences of deforestation, preventing deforestation, deforestation essay: hook examples.

The Vanishing Forests: Our planet’s lush green forests are disappearing at an alarming rate. Join us on a journey to uncover the reasons behind deforestation, its devastating impact on ecosystems, and the urgent need for conservation.
The Amazon Rainforest: Lungs of the Earth: The Amazon rainforest is often referred to as the “lungs of the Earth.” In this essay, we’ll delve into the vital role rainforests play in maintaining the global climate and why their destruction is a global concern.
The Cost of Progress: Deforestation is often driven by economic interests. Explore the trade-offs between economic development and environmental preservation, and the potential consequences for future generations.
Endangered Species: The Silent Victims: Deforestation poses a grave threat to biodiversity. This essay examines the impact on endangered species, their habitats, and the delicate balance of life disrupted by forest loss.
From Trees to Timber: Sustainable Solutions: While deforestation is a pressing issue, there are sustainable alternatives. Join us in exploring responsible forestry practices, reforestation efforts, and ways we can protect our forests for future generations.

Works Cited

BBC News. (n.d.). Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the world’s forests changing?
Greenpeace. (n.d.). Deforestation and climate change.
Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R. S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., … & Romijn, E. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 044009.
Malhi, Y., Roberts, J. T., Betts, R. A., Killeen, T. J., Li, W., & Nobre, C. A. (2008). Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319(5860), 169-172.
Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., … & Brooks, V. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(6188), 1118-1123.
Perz, S. G., Walker, R. T., & Caldas, M. M. (2006). Beyond population and environment: Household demographic life cycles and land use allocation among small farms in the Amazon. Human Ecology, 34(6), 829-849.
Rudel, T. K., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., & Laurance, W. F. (2009). Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1396-1405.
United Nations. (2021). The State of the World’s Forests 2020.
World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Deforestation and forest degradation.

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

4 pages / 1827 words

3 pages / 1143 words

3 pages / 1458 words

2 pages / 1164 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

The Issue of Deforestration: Consequences and Prevention Essay

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 [...]

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 [...]

Deforestation is the process of clearing forests and converting the land to other uses such as agriculture, mining, or urban development. This practice has both positive and negative impacts on the environment, society, and the [...]

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, [...]

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 [...]

Drought is considered by many to be the most complex but least understood of all natural hazards, affecting more people than any other hazard (G.Hagman 1984). However, there remains much confusion within the scientific and [...]

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

Share full article

Supported by

Environmental Changes Are Fueling Human, Animal and Plant Diseases, Study Finds

Biodiversity loss, global warming, pollution and the spread of invasive species are making infectious diseases more dangerous to organisms around the world.

A white-footed mouse perched in a hole in a tree.

By Emily Anthes

Several large-scale, human-driven changes to the planet — including climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the spread of invasive species — are making infectious diseases more dangerous to people, animals and plants, according to a new study.

Scientists have documented these effects before in more targeted studies that have focused on specific diseases and ecosystems. For instance, they have found that a warming climate may be helping malaria expand in Africa and that a decline in wildlife diversity may be boosting Lyme disease cases in North America.

But the new research, a meta-analysis of nearly 1,000 previous studies, suggests that these patterns are relatively consistent around the globe and across the tree of life.

“It’s a big step forward in the science,” said Colin Carlson, a biologist at Georgetown University, who was not an author of the new analysis. “This paper is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that I think has been published that shows how important it is health systems start getting ready to exist in a world with climate change, with biodiversity loss.”

In what is likely to come as a more surprising finding, the researchers also found that urbanization decreased the risk of infectious disease.

The new analysis, which was published in Nature on Wednesday, focused on five “global change drivers” that are altering ecosystems across the planet: biodiversity change, climate change, chemical pollution, the introduction of nonnative species and habitat loss or change.

The researchers compiled data from scientific papers that examined how at least one of these factors affected various infectious-disease outcomes, such as severity or prevalence. The final data set included nearly 3,000 observations on disease risks for humans, animals and plants on every continent except for Antarctica.

The researchers found that, across the board, four of the five trends they studied — biodiversity change, the introduction of new species, climate change and chemical pollution — tended to increase disease risk.

“It means that we’re likely picking up general biological patterns,” said Jason Rohr, an infectious disease ecologist at the University of Notre Dame and senior author of the study. “It suggests that there are similar sorts of mechanisms and processes that are likely occurring in plants, animals and humans.”

The loss of biodiversity played an especially large role in driving up disease risk, the researchers found. Many scientists have posited that biodiversity can protect against disease through a phenomenon known as the dilution effect.

The theory holds that parasites and pathogens, which rely on having abundant hosts in order to survive, will evolve to favor species that are common, rather than those that are rare, Dr. Rohr said. And as biodiversity declines, rare species tend to disappear first. “That means that the species that remain are the competent ones, the ones that are really good at transmitting disease,” he said.

Lyme disease is one oft-cited example. White-footed mice, which are the primary reservoir for the disease, have become more dominant on the landscape, as other rarer mammals have disappeared, Dr. Rohr said. That shift may partly explain why Lyme disease rates have risen in the United States. (The extent to which the dilution effect contributes to Lyme disease risk has been the subject of debate, and other factors, including climate change, are likely to be at play as well.)

Other environmental changes could amplify disease risks in a wide variety of ways. For instance, introduced species can bring new pathogens with them, and chemical pollution can stress organisms’ immune systems. Climate change can alter animal movements and habitats, bringing new species into contact and allowing them to swap pathogens .

Notably, the fifth global environmental change that the researchers studied — habitat loss or change — appeared to reduce disease risk. At first glance, the findings might appear to be at odds with previous studies, which have shown that deforestation can increase the risk of diseases ranging from malaria to Ebola. But the overall trend toward reduced risk was driven by one specific type of habitat change: increasing urbanization.

The reason may be that urban areas often have better sanitation and public health infrastructure than rural ones — or simply because there are fewer plants and animals to serve as disease hosts in urban areas. The lack of plant and animal life is “not a good thing,” Dr. Carlson said. “And it also doesn’t mean that the animals that are in the cities are healthier.”

And the new study does not negate the idea that forest loss can fuel disease; instead, deforestation increases risk in some circumstances and reduces it in others, Dr. Rohr said.

Indeed, although this kind of meta-analysis is valuable for revealing broad patterns, it can obscure some of the nuances and exceptions that are important for managing specific diseases and ecosystems, Dr. Carlson noted.

Moreover, most of the studies included in the analysis examined just a single global change drive. But, in the real world, organisms are contending with many of these stressors simultaneously. “The next step is to better understand the connections among them,” Dr. Rohr said.

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Explore the Animal Kingdom

A selection of quirky, intriguing and surprising discoveries about animal life..

Indigenous rangers in Australia’s Western Desert got a rare close-up with the northern marsupial mole , which is tiny, light-colored and blind, and almost never comes to the surface.

For the first time, scientists observed an orangutan, a primate, in the wild treating a wound with a plant that has medicinal properties.

A new study resets the timing for the emergence of bioluminescence back to millions of years earlier than previously thought.

Scientists are making computer models to better understand how cicadas emerge collectively after more than a decade underground .

New research questions the long-held theory that reintroduction of Yellowstone’s wolves caused a trophic cascade , spawning renewal of vegetation and spurring biodiversity.

To protect Australia’s iconic animals, scientists are experimenting with vaccine implants , probiotics, tree-planting drones and solar-powered tracking tags.

IMAGES

Essay on Effects of Deforestation
Essay on Deforestation For Students
Effects Of Deforestation Essay Example In English For Students
Essay On Deforestation For Students
Essay about Deforestation/Deforestation Essay in English/Essay Writing/Neat English Handwriting
Deforestation Essay

VIDEO

essay on deforestation in english/paragraph on deforestation in english
Deforestation: A Big Disaster, Essay topic IFS Exam 2015, for other competitive exams like CAPF etc
Essay on deforestation in English 2023 deforestation causes and effects what is deforestation
Best essay writing on Deforestation || Essay on Deforestation in English •||•
deforestation#janglat ka katao# جنگلات کا کٹاؤ#pak study class 9th
CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION

COMMENTS

Deforestation
deforestation, the clearing or thinning of forests by humans. Deforestation represents one of the largest issues in global land use.Estimates of deforestation traditionally are based on the area of forest cleared for human use, including removal of the trees for wood products and for croplands and grazing lands. In the practice of clear-cutting, all the trees are removed from the land, which ...
Deforestation
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.
Essay on Deforestation: 8 Selected Essays on Deforestation
Essay on Deforestation! Find long and short essays on 'Deforestation' especially written for school and college students. There was a time when the earth was full of forests. But, as man progressed gradually, the covered area of forests has reduced drastically. This reduction in the number of forests and trees is called deforestation.
Essay on Deforestation for Students and Children
500+ Words Essay on Deforestation. Deforestation is the cutting down of trees in the forest in a large number. Deforestation has always been a threat to our environment. But still many humans are continuing this ill practice. Moreover, Deforestation is causing ecological imbalance. Yet, some selfish people have to fill their pockets.
Essay on Deforestation: 100 Words, 300 Words
Sample Essay on Deforestation in 300 words. Deforestation is when people cut down a lot of trees from forests. Trees are important because they make the air fresh and give animals a place to live. When we cut down too many trees, it's not good for the Earth. Animals lose their homes, and the air gets polluted.
103 Deforestation Essay Topics & Paper Examples
In turn, doing so will demonstrate your coverage of the full issue. Searching for appropriate and credible book and journal titles, as well as research papers and interviews with scientists, will allow you to form a comprehensive overview of a pollution issue. ... A deforestation essay introduction and conclusion should mirror each other. In ...
Why deforestation matters—and what we can do to stop it
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 ...
Deforestation Causes and Effects
Deforestation causes serious effects on the environment. One of the major effects is the loss of natural habitats for thousands of species. Forests are an essential support system for the livelihoods of many plants and wild animals. Climate change is also caused by deforestation (Spilsbury 27). Over the last century, global weather patterns ...
Deforestation Essays
Recommended Deforestation Essay Topics. Deforestation is a critical environmental issue that has significant impacts on biodiversity, climate change, and the livelihoods of communities around the world. If you are looking for essay topics on deforestation, we have compiled a list of 10+ topics structured by categories to help you get started.
Deforestation Effects and Solutions
Deforestation Effects and Solutions Essay. 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.
500+ Words Essay on Deforestation For Students
500+ Words Essay on Deforestation. With each resounding crash of a felled tree, the world's forests are diminishing at an alarming rate, stripped away by the insatiable appetite of human activities. Deforestation, the large-scale clearing of forested areas, is a grave environmental crisis that demands immediate attention and action. ...
Essay on Deforestation for Students and Children
Find a 600-word deforestation essay below. Deforestation is the reflection and a result of man's greed and selfishness. I say with full responsibility in this particular essay on deforestation that any so-called natural calamities are the result of man-made disasters where the starting point would be deforestation.
Essay on Deforestation
Speech on Deforestation; 250 Words Essay on Deforestation Introduction. Deforestation, the act of clearing or thinning forests, is a global concern with far-reaching implications. It is primarily driven by human activities such as agriculture, logging, and urbanization, resulting in a significant loss of biodiversity and contributing to climate ...
Essay on Effects of Deforestation for Students
A.1 Deforestation has many seriously damaging effects. It disrupts the water cycle and increases the level of carbon dioxide and decreases oxygen levels. Further, it also causes floods, droughts, soil erosion and more.
Deforestation Essay for Students in English
The total area of tropical rain forest on Earth is about 16 million square kilometres but because of deforestation, only 6.2 square kilometres are left. According to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020, the global rate of net forest loss in 2010-2020 was 7 million hectares per year. The primary reason for deforestation is agricultural.
The Unseen Effects of Deforestation: Biophysical Effects on Climate
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 ...
What Drives and Stops Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest
Abstract This article updates our previous comprehensive meta-analysis of what drives and stops deforestation (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2017). By including six additional years of research, this article more than doubles the evidence base to 320 spatially explicit econometric studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals from 1996 to 2019. We find that deforestation is consistently ...
Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative
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 ...
How Does Deforestation Affect the Environment?
3. The Effects on Humans. In answering the question of how does deforestation affect the environment, you may discover that in fact, it also has a direct impact on the human population. With the loss of trees and entire forests, homelands are also being destroyed in the process. Indigenous communities who live in forests and depend on them to ...
Deforestation Essay
The word deforestation is used to describe the process of cutting down and burning the trees in forest and woodland and converting the land to other use. It also means that the nature of trees have changed ... From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs. View our ...
The Importance of Deforestation: [Essay Example], 604 words
The loss of biodiversity not only disrupts the delicate balance of ecosystems but also reduces the potential for scientific discovery and the development of new medicines. Furthermore, deforestation contributes to global warming. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, helping to regulate the Earth's climate.
The Issue of Deforestration: Consequences and Prevention: [Essay
Endangered Species: The Silent Victims: Deforestation poses a grave threat to biodiversity. This essay examines the impact on endangered species, their habitats, and the delicate balance of life disrupted by forest loss. From Trees to Timber: Sustainable Solutions: While deforestation is a pressing issue, there are sustainable alternatives ...
(PDF) Deforestation: A Continuous Battle—A Case Study ...
Deforestation is a plague that is not new to the earth, but it has certainly accelerated in the past few decades. A reduction in the number of forest canopies has increased at an alarming rate ...
Environmental Changes Are Fueling Human, Animal and Plant Diseases
By Emily Anthes. May 8, 2024 Updated 11:31 a.m. ET. Several large-scale, human-driven changes to the planet — including climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the spread of invasive ...

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Media Credits

Production Managers

User Permissions

Interactives

Related Resources

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Deforestation: 100 Words, 300 Words

What is Deforestation?

Causes of Deforestation

Consequences of Deforestation

Solutions to Deforestation

Sample Essay on Deforestation in 100 words

Sample Essay on Deforestation in 300 words

Rajshree Lahoty

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

Essex Direct Admission Day

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

Causes of deforestation

For Hungry Minds

Why it matters

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

What can be done

Related Topics

Climbing into the secret world of an ancient Bornean rainforest

Forests are reeling from climate change—but the future isn’t lost

They planted a forest at the edge of the desert. From there it got complicated.

Why forests are our best chance for survival in a warming world

This is the world’s most expensive cow

History & Culture

Deforestation Effects and Solutions Essay

500+ Words Essay on Deforestation For Students

Causes of Deforestation

Essay on Deforestation- FAQs

How do you write an introduction to deforestation?

Why deforestation is a problem?

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Essay on Deforestation

100 Words Essay on Deforestation

Causes of Deforestation

Effects of Deforestation

Solutions to Deforestation

250 Words Essay on Deforestation

Impacts of Deforestation

Economic Implications

500 Words Essay on Deforestation

Countermeasures to Deforestation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Essay on Effects of Deforestation for Students and Children

Impact of Deforestation

How to Prevent Deforestation?

FAQs on Effects of Deforestation

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

Essay on Deforestation

Causes of Deforestation

Effect of Deforestation

FAQs on Deforestation Essay for Students in English

People also looked at

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Effects on Global Temperature From Deforestation by 10° Latitude Band

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

Biophysical Effects of Deforestation on Local Climate: A Broader Context

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

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