Reduction of deforestation by agroforestry in high carbon stock forests of Southeast Asia

Reduction of deforestation by agroforestry in high carbon stock forests of Southeast Asia

Main

Agroforestry, the integration of trees and shrubs into agricultural landscapes, can deliver multiple ecological and socio-economic co-benefits, including enhanced biodiversity, improved soil health, increased agricultural productivity and carbon sequestration1. Given these benefits, agroforestry is now seen as a promising natural climate solution for global climate mitigation2, with increasing efforts to implement agroforestry at landscape scale3. The positive effects of agroforestry have been well studied at local scales, especially carbon and ecological dynamics. However, to fully integrate agroforestry into climate policy will require sufficient understanding of how agroforestry affects land-use systems and thus carbon balances at landscape scale2.

So far, it is unclear whether agroforestry is climate-positive at landscape scale. Various mechanisms have been suggested on how agroforestry could increase or reduce deforestation at that scale, but their cumulative effect is rarely tested. For the local community, agroforestry can provide alternative livelihoods and directly substitute for forest products such as firewood4. This increase in land-use efficiency can reduce incentives to clear forests for agricultural expansion, as per the Borlaug hypothesis5. Apart from economic processes, agroforestry practices that involve tree planting could also transform attitudes by invoking more environmental awareness and discouraging forest clearing6. However, contrary hypotheses have also been suggested: that profitable agroforestry could create further incentives and capacities for forest conversion, whereas increased incomes and the need for transporting products to markets could result in infrastructure expansion and further development7.

These socio-economic mechanisms influencing agroforestry’s impact on deforestation operate within a diverse range of agroforestry systems and practices. In Southeast Asia, agroforestry is present in landscapes ranging from hill slopes in mountainous areas, fire-climax grasslands, peat lands, mangroves and rice paddies and terraces. Major typologies include traditional home gardens, evolution from natural forest or swidden/fallow rotations by promoting desirable tree species among agricultural mosaics, the addition of trees to open-field agricultural systems and the addition of agricultural crops to forestry systems. Agricultural crops commonly integrated with agroforestry include rice, cassava, coffee, cacao, fruits such as pineapple and vegetables; agroforestry tree species range from fast-growing timber (for example, Acacia, Eucalyptus and bamboo), fruit and medicinal trees (for example, coconut, durian and tamarind) and tree crops (for example, small-holder rubber and oil palm)8. Agroforestry systems also frequently supply non-timber forest products such as rattan, mushrooms and herbs such as ginseng. Market demand for these products and market access9, competition with alternative land uses and government incentives and policies10 are known factors driving agroforestry adoption. Also, many of Southeast Asia’s ecosystems contain Indigenous communities, who may maintain or adapt traditional agroforestry practices11.

In addition to this rich and nuanced local context, agroforestry in Southeast Asia has the highest per-hectare aboveground biomass carbon stock of 60–65 tC ha−1 of all agroforestry lands worldwide12 and thus has an importance for climate mitigation beyond its scale. There are 80.5 Mha of agroforestry across Southeast Asia13, comprising 18% of its total land area. Moreover, Southeast Asia contains large tropical forest extents with high carbon stocks and global hotspots for biodiversity and endemism, which are under threat from rapid development14.

In this study, we examined the impact of agroforestry on average annual deforestation rates15 across Southeast Asia between 2015 and 2023. The treatment was defined as the presence of agroforestry within 1-km pixels where more than 5% of the area was covered by agroforestry for the reference year 201513. Using propensity score matching on biophysical, socio-economic and land-cover covariates (Supplementary Table 2), we aligned treated and control groups to ensure comparable characteristics aside from the intervention, effectively simulating the conditions of a randomized controlled trial. Finally, post-hoc analyses in the form of random forest and multiple linear regressions were conducted to explore underlying factors influencing the observed outcomes.

We first performed pixel-level matching at 1-km resolution for each subnational region across Southeast Asia. The presence of agroforestry reduced deforestation compared to the counterfactual in 22 out of 38 subnational regions in Southeast Asia, which had statistically significant results (P < 0.05) (Fig. 1a) by 1.08% points (median; interquartile range (IQR): 0.65–2.01%); this was 318,524 ha yr−1 of avoided deforestation corresponding to 73.6 ± 14.9 MtCO2e yr−1 (hereafter mean ± s.e.m.) of avoided emissions. In the remaining 16 subnational regions, agroforestry increased deforestation by 0.64% points (median; IQR: 0.31–0.99%), which was 68,206 ha yr−1 or 14.8 ± 4.3 MtCO2e yr−1. Across the 38 subnational regions with significant results, agroforestry resulted in a net reduction in deforestation of 250,319 ha yr−1 or 58.8 ± 15.5 MtCO2e yr−1.

Fig. 1: Effects of agroforestry on deforestation in Southeast Asia countries between 2015 and 2023 and relevant ecosystem datasets.
Reduction of deforestation by agroforestry in high carbon stock forests of Southeast Asia

a, Treatment effect of agroforestry on deforestation estimated by matching within subnational regions (outlined in grey); a negative treatment effect indicates that agroforestry reduces deforestation, and a positive treatment effect indicates that agroforestry increases deforestation. Southeast Asian countries are outlined in black. Only statistically significant results (P < 0.05) are shown. b, Average annual deforestation rates15 between 2015 and 2023 for subnational regions. c, Agroforestry area13 as a percentage of each 1-km pixel. d, HCS forest area16 with >75 tC ha−1 aboveground as a percentage of each 1-km pixel.

Full size image

Among areas in Southeast Asia with substantial extents of forests with high carbon stock (HCS) aboveground16 (Fig. 1d), notable areas where agroforestry reduced deforestation across many subnational regions include all of Laos and parts of northern Vietnam, northern and eastern Myanmar, Sumatra, Borneo and peninsular Malaysia, which are already deforestation hotspots14 (Fig. 1b). However, there are some particular subnational regions where agroforestry increased deforestation, such as eastern Cambodia, which is a deforestation hotspot and contains some HCS forests. Some areas where agroforestry reduced deforestation also contained substantial mangrove and peat land extents with high belowground carbon stocks17,18—these include many subnational regions in peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo.

Most agroforestry in Southeast Asia occurs in mosaic landscapes, where agroforestry is not the majority land-cover type; for 1-km pixels where agroforestry was present the median agroforestry area was 33.9% (IQR: 15.4–62.8%) and the median forest area was 15.5% (IQR: 0.0–63.4%). As such, the positive results in our study show that agroforestry frequently co-exists with forest fragments in these mosaic landscapes and helps to protect them. Forest fragments have outsized ecological importance, providing habitat heterogeneity to support greater biodiversity and stepping stones, refugia and corridors for species dispersal and re-colonization, thus improving the ecosystem resilience of the landscape19.

To explore underlying factors influencing the observed treatment effects on subnational regions with significant results, we performed post-hoc analyses in the form of random forest variable importance and multiple linear regressions (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 5). However, these models performed poorly in explaining variance in the treatment effects with R2 ranging from −0.34 to −0.18, resulting from low sample size (n = 38) and reflecting varied local responses to drivers that cannot be well-generalized across Southeast Asia.

Prior studies on agroforestry have highlighted the complex interplay of socio-economic and ecological factors at local scales, such as personal demographic and socio-economic factors affecting agroforestry practitioners’ motivation to expand production20, land tenure21, government policies and donor support10, local market demand for timber and non-timber forest products9 and the role of community governance among local forest user groups22, can influence agroforestry. Whereas we have not directly examined these local factors in our study, it is notable that despite these complex local contexts, we found clear causal evidence that agroforestry leads to a net reduction in deforestation overall across Southeast Asia. Our findings on notable areas where agroforestry reduced or increased deforestation and areas with mixed results may provide useful context for local case studies.

These findings provide important support and additional nuance to guide climate and land-use policies in Southeast Asia. Leakage accounting is an essential component of natural climate solution projects; our findings suggest that agroforestry generally provides a form of beneficial leakage by reducing deforestation. For instance, Indonesia has rapidly expanded land designated as ‘social forestry areas’ from 1.8 Mha in 2018 to 5 Mha in 20223, which includes community-managed agroforestry among other allowed uses; if well-implemented and managed, this may make an important contribution, through both in situ carbon sequestration and avoided deforestation to Indonesia achieving net zero in its forestry and other land-use sector. Further research and practice on factors needed to ensure the success of agroforestry and reducing deforestation, such as securing land tenure and collaborating with Indigenous and local communities, will be crucial for Southeast Asia to achieve its climate goals.

Methods

Overview

We used propensity score matching, a robust causal inference methodology, to attribute changes in deforestation rates (treatment effect) to the presence of agroforestry. To identify factors influencing these treatment effects, we performed random forest and multiple linear regressions as post-hoc analyses. The study focused on ten Southeast Asian countries (shown in black outlines in Fig. 1), with some divided into subnational regions (Supplementary Table 1). Spatial datasets were processed in Google Earth Engine v1.5 and QGIS 3.34.2 using Mollweide equal-area projection, whereas causal inference and statistical modelling were performed in R version 4.3.1, using the packages ‘MatchIt’ v4.5.5, ‘marginaleffects’ v0.18.0 and ‘ranger’ v0.16.0.

Data

Agroforestry data were extracted for year 2015 at 100-m resolution from the Global Forest Management dataset13, which defines agroforestry as ‘individual trees on cropland or pasture or mixed crops (including trees)’. Forest data were derived from the Hansen Global Forest Change v1.11 dataset15 at 30 m, with forests defined by >30% tree cover and then refined to reflect only natural and planted forests by excluding agroforestry and plantations13. From these refined forest data, the average annual deforestation rate between the years 2015 and 2023 for natural and planted forests was calculated within 1-km pixels, which served as the dependent variable for propensity score matching. Covariates included biophysical, socio-economic and land-cover variables known to influence deforestation or agroforestry in Southeast Asia (Supplementary Table 2).

Causal inference and post-hoc analyses

Propensity score matching was used to estimate the impact of agroforestry on deforestation rates. Pixels of 1-km resolution with agroforestry (>5%) and without were matched 1:1 to their nearest neighbour without replacement based on propensity scores; matching was performed within each subnational region across Southeast Asia to capture unaccounted-for confounding. The matching process aimed to balance covariates between treatment and control groups by achieving a standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.25 indicating sufficiently low bias and thus a valid counterfactual. Successful matching occurred in 81 out of 90 subnational regions, with most covariates showing SMD < 0.25 (Supplementary Table 3), confirming effective balancing. Marginal effects were estimated using g-computation to derive the average treatment effect23. A sensitivity analysis tested pixel sizes from 1 km to 12 km, with consistent treatment effects and statistical significance observed up to 6 km, demonstrating the robustness of the 1-km resolution (Supplementary Table 4 and Supplementary Fig. 1).

To investigate underlying factors influencing treatment effects, we performed post-hoc analyses in the form of random forest and multiple linear regressions. For these post-hoc analyses, the following covariates with Pearson’s r > 0.8 against other covariates were removed to prevent multicollinearity: elevation, long-term mean annual temperature, subsoil pH, subsoil organic carbon and travel time to nearest port. The dependent variable was the average treatment effect from propensity score matching for 38 regions (P < 0.05) with the same covariates as independent variables. The random forest model trained on 300 trees had an out-of-bag R2 of −0.18, with variable importance computed via permutation24 (Supplementary Fig. 2). The multiple linear regression yielded an adjusted R2 of −0.34, with no significant covariates (P < 0.05) (Supplementary Table 5).

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Related Articles

Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future

Biodiversity offsetting is a mechanism for addressing the impacts of development projects on biodiversity, but the practice remains controversial and its effectiveness generally poor. In the context of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the emergence of new approaches for mitigating damage, we need to learn from the past. In this Review, we explore biodiversity offsetting, its effectiveness and its future prospects, especially in relation to ‘nature positive’ goals. Offsets often fall short of their stated goal: to achieve at least no net loss of affected biodiversity. However, such failures are prominent because offsets have more explicit quantitative objectives than most other conservation approaches, whose effectiveness is also variable. These clear objectives provide the potential for the transparency that alternative approaches to addressing negative human impacts on biodiversity lack. Unfortunately, promising alternatives are scarce, so offsetting and offset-like mechanisms remain a necessary component of strategies to halt and reverse nature loss. However, improving their performance is essential. No quick and easy solution exists; instead, upholding best practice principles and rigorous implementation — including in the face of challenges from opposing narratives and interest groups — remains key.

Pathogens and planetary change

Emerging infectious diseases, biodiversity loss, and anthropogenic environmental change are interconnected crises with massive social and ecological costs. In this Review, we discuss how pathogens and parasites are responding to global change, and the implications for pandemic prevention and biodiversity conservation. Ecological and evolutionary principles help to explain why both pandemics and wildlife die-offs are becoming more common; why land-use change and biodiversity loss are often followed by an increase in zoonotic and vector-borne diseases; and why some species, such as bats, host so many emerging pathogens. To prevent the next pandemic, scientists should focus on monitoring and limiting the spread of a handful of high-risk viruses, especially at key interfaces such as farms and live-animal markets. But to address the much broader set of infectious disease risks associated with the Anthropocene, decision-makers will need to develop comprehensive strategies that include pathogen surveillance across species and ecosystems; conservation-based interventions to reduce human–animal contact and protect wildlife health; health system strengthening; and global improvements in epidemic preparedness and response. Scientists can contribute to these efforts by filling global gaps in disease data, and by expanding the evidence base for disease–driver relationships and ecological interventions.

Coastal wetland resilience through local, regional and global conservation

Coastal wetlands, including tidal marshes, mangrove forests and tidal flats, support the livelihoods of millions of people. Understanding the resilience of coastal wetlands to the increasing number and intensity of anthropogenic threats (such as habitat conversion, pollution, fishing and climate change) can inform what conservation actions will be effective. In this Review, we synthesize anthropogenic threats to coastal wetlands and their resilience through the lens of scale. Over decades and centuries, anthropogenic threats have unfolded across local, regional and global scales, reducing both the extent and quality of coastal wetlands. The resilience of existing coastal wetlands is driven by their quality, which is modulated by both physical conditions (such as sediment supply) and ecological conditions (such as species interactions operating from local through to global scales). Protection and restoration efforts, however, are often localized and focus on the extent of coastal wetlands. The future of coastal wetlands will depend on an improved understanding of their resilience, and on society’s actions to enhance both their extent and quality across different scales.

The mechanism effects of root exudate on microbial community of rhizosphere soil of tree, shrub, and grass in forest ecosystem under N deposition

Forests are composed of various plant species, and rhizosphere soil microbes are driven by root exudates. However, the interplay between root exudates, microbial communities in the rhizosphere soil of canopy trees, understory shrubs, grasses, and their responses to nitrogen (N) deposition remains unclear. Pinus tabulaeformis, Rosa xanthina, and Carex lancifolia were used to investigate root exudates, rhizosphere soil microbial communities, and their responses to N application in forest ecosystem. Root exudate abundances of P. tabulaeformis were significantly higher than that of R. xanthina and C. lancifolia, with carbohydrates dominating P. tabulaeformis and R. xanthina root exudates, fatty acids prevailing in C. lancifolia root exudates. Following N application, root exudate abundances of P. tabulaeformis and R. xanthina initially increased before decreasing, whereas those of C. lancifolia decreased. Microbial number of rhizosphere soil of C. lancifolia was higher than that of P. tabulaeformis and R. xanthina, but there was insignificant variation of rhizosphere soil microbial diversity among plant species. N application exerted promotional and inhibitory impacts on bacterial and fungal numbers, respectively, while bacterial and fungal diversities were increased by N application. Overall, N application had negative effects on root exudates of P. tabulaeformis, inhibiting rhizosphere soil microbial populations. N application suppressed rhizosphere soil microbial populations by increasing root exudates of R. xanthina. Conversely, N application elevated nutrient content in the rhizosphere soil of C. lancifolia, reducing root exudates and minimally promoting microbial populations. This study highlights the importance of understory vegetation in shaping soil microbial communities within forests under N deposition.

The current state, opportunities and challenges for upscaling private investment in biodiversity in Europe

European countries have committed to ambitious upscaling of privately funded nature conservation. We review the status and drivers of biodiversity finance in Europe. By implementing semistructured interviews with 25 biodiversity finance key informants and three focus groups across Europe, we explore opportunities and challenges for upscaling private investment in nature. Opportunities arise from macroeconomic and regulatory changes, along with various technological and financial innovations and growing professional experience. However, persistent barriers to upscaling include the ongoing lack of highly profitable investment opportunities and the multitude of risks facing investors, including political, ecological and reputational risks influencing supply and demand of investment opportunities. Public policy plays the foundational role in creating and hindering these mechanisms. Public policy can create nature markets and investment opportunities, meanwhile agricultural subsidies and poor coordination between public funding sources undermine the supply of return-seeking investment opportunities. Investors demand derisking investments from uncertainties; in part caused by political uncertainty. These markets require profound state intervention to enable upscaling whilst achieving positive ecological outcomes; private investment will probably not upscale without major public policy change and public investment.

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *