Investigating biodiversity trends in different mitigation scenarios with a national integrated assessment model

References

• Akçakaya HR, Pereira HM, Canziani CG, Mbow A, Mori A, Palomo MG, Soberón J, Thuiller W, Yachi S. 2016. Improving the rigour and usefulness of scenarios and models through ongoing evaluation and refinement. In: Ferrier S, Ninan KN, Leadley P, Alkemade R, Acosta LA, Akçakaya HR, Brotons L, Cheung WWL, Christensen V, Harhash KA, KabuboMariara J, Lundquist C, Obersteiner M, Pereira HM, Peterson G, Pichs-Madruga R, Ravindranath N, Rondinini C, and Wintle BA editors. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Bonn, Germany: IPBES. p. 348.
   Google Scholar
• Angelkorte GB 2019. Modelagem do Setor Agropecuário Dentro de Modelo de Análise Integrada Brasileiro. UFRJ,[s. l.]. http://www.ppe.ufrj.br/images/publicações/mestrado/DISSERTAÇÃO_-_GERD_ANGELKORTE_Versão_FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Aragão LEOC, Anderson LO, Fonseca MG, Rosan TM, Vedovato LB, Wagner FH, Silva CVJ, Silva Junior CHL, Arai E, Aguiar AP, et al. 2018. 21st Century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat Commun. 9(1):536. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arantes A, Couto V, Sano E, Ferreira L. 2018. Livestock intensification potential in Brazil based on agricultural census and satellite data analysis. Pesq Agropec Bras. 53(9):1053–28. doi:10.1590/S0100-204X2018000900009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson J, Brudvig LA, Mallen‐Cooper M, Nakagawa S, Moles AT, Bonser SP, Crowther TTerrestrial ecosystem restoration increases biodiversity and reduces its variability, but not to reference levels: A global meta‐analysisEcol Lett20222022 Jul; 252571725–1737. doi:10.1111/ele.14025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audino LD, Louzada J, Comita L. 2014. Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: is it possible to recover species and functional diversity? Biol Conserv. 169:248–257. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa LG, Alves MAS, Grelle CEV. 2021. Actions against sustainability: Dismantling of the environmental policies in Brazil. Land Use Policy. 104:105384. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow J, Gardner TA, Araujo IS, Ávila-Pires TC, Bonaldo AB, Costa JE, Peres CA, Ferreira LV, Hawes J, Hernandez MIM. 2007. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104(47):18555–18560. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer N, Rose SK, Fujimori S, van Vuuren DP, Weyant J, Wise M, Cui Y, Daioglou V, Gidden MJ, Kato E, et al. 2018. Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison. Clim Change. 163(3):1553–1568. doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekessy SA, Wintle BA, Lindenmayer DB, Mccarthy MA, Colyvan M, Burgman MA, Possingham HP. 2010. The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conserv Lett. 3(3):151–158. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00110.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P, Thruiller W, Courchamp F. 2012. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol Lett. 15(4):365–377. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs R, Simons H, Bakkenes M, Scholes RJ, Eickhout B, van Vuuren D, Alkemade R. 2008. Scenarios of biodiversity loss in southern Africa in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang. 18:296–309. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandon K, Da Fonseca GA, Rylands AB, Da Silva JMC. 2005. Special section: Brazilian Conservation: challenges and opportunities. Conserv Biol. 19(3):595–600. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00710.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2009. Law Nº 12.187, [accessed 2009 December 29]. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/l12187.htm
   Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2010. Decree Nº 6527, [accessed 2010 August 1]. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2008/Decreto/D6527.htm
   Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2022. Nationally Determined Contribution. Jul 2023. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/Updated%20-%20First%20NDC%20-%20%20FINAL%20-%20PDF.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brazil. 2022. Federative Republic of Nationally Determined Contribution. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/Updated%20-%20First%20NDC%20-%20%20FINAL%20-%20PDF.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Butler RA 2016. The top 10 most biodiverse countries. In https://rainforests.mongabay.com/03highest_biodiversity.htmhttps://news.mongabay.com/2016/05/top-10-biodiverse-countries/amp/?print. Access: Dec 2021]. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/03highest_biodiversity.htmhttps://news.mongabay.com/2016/05/top-10-biodiverse-countries/amp/?print
   Google Scholar
• CBD. 2021. Parties to the nagoya protocol. https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/
   Google Scholar
• CBD. 2022. Brazil- main details. https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=br#facts
   Google Scholar
• Chrysafi A. 2022. Quantifying Earth system interactions for sustainable food production via expert elicitation. Nat Sustain. 5(10):830–842. doi:10.1038/s41893-022-00940-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunha B, Garrafa R, Gurgel A 2020. TEA model documentation. Working Paper 520. FGV AGRO Nº 001. Available at: https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace;handle/bitstream/handle/10438/28756/TD/20520/20-/20FGVAGRO.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• Davis M, Faurby S, Svenning JC. 2018. Mammal diversity will take millions of years to recover from the current biodiversity crisis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 115(44):11262–11267. doi:10.1073/pnas.1804906115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• den Elzen M. 2022. Updated nationally determined contributions collectively raise ambition levels but need strengthening further to keep Paris goals within reach. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 27(5). doi:10.1007/s11027-022-10008-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Palma A, Hoskins A, Gonzalez RE, Börger L, Newbold T, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Ferrier S, Purvis A. 2021. Annual changes in the biodiversity intactness index in tropical and subtropical forest biomes, 2001–2012. Sci Rep. 11(1):20249. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98811-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Marco M, Venter O, Possingham HP, Watson JE. 2018. Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk. Nat Commun. 9(1):1–9. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07049-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eitelberg DA, van Vliet J, Doelman JC, Stehfest E, Verburg PH. 2016. Demand for biodiversity protection and carbon storage as drivers of global land change scenarios, Glob. Environ Chang. 40:101e111. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fajardo A, McIntire EJB, Olson ME. 2019. When short stature is an asset in trees. Trends Ecol Evol. 34(3):193–199. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faleiro FAMV, Loyola RD. 2013. Socioeconomic and political trade-offs in biodiversity conservation: a case study of the cerrado biodiversity hotspot, Brazil. Diversity Distrib. 19(8):977–987. doi:10.1111/ddi.12072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrante L, Fearnside PM. 2020. The Amazon: biofuels plan will drive deforestation. Nature. 577(7789):170–170. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00005-8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer G, Nachtergaele FO, van Velthuizen HT, Chiozza F, Franceschini G, Henry M, Muchoney D, Tramberend S 2021. Global Agro-Ecological Zones v4 – Model documentation. Rome, Italy: FAO. p. 286. 78-92-5-134426-2. doi:10.4060/cb4744en.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca CR, Venticinque EM. 2018. Biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: A role for systematic conservation planning. Perspect Ecol Conserv. 16(2):61–67. doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2018.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank S, Gusti M, Havlik P, Lauri P, DiFulvio F, Forsell N, Hasegawa T, Krisztin T, Palazzo A, Valin H. 2021. Land-based climate change mitigation potentials within the agenda for sustainable development. Environ Res Lett. 16(2):024006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abc58a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE. 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature. 478(7369):378–381. doi:10.1038/nature10425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. 2011. Estimating species richness. Biological Diversity: Frontiers In Measurement And Assessment. 12(39–54):35.
   Google Scholar
• Graham CH, Hijmans RJ. 2006. A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 15(6):578–587. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00257.x.
   Google Scholar
• Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, Fargione J, Shoch D, Siikamäki JV, Smith P. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 114(44):11645–11650. doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R. 2009. Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy. 26:S178–S186. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harfoot M, Tittensor DP, Newbold T, McInerny G, Smith MJ, Scharlemann JPW. 2014. Integrated assessment models for ecologists: The present and the future. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 23(2):124–143. doi:10.1111/geb.12100.
   Google Scholar
• Hasegawa T, Fujimori S, Frank S, Humpenöder F, Bertram C, Després J, Drouet L, Emmerling J, Gusti M, Harmsen M, et al. 2021. Land-based implications of early climate actions without global net-negative emissions. Nat Sustain. 4(12):1052–1059. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00772-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heck V, Gerten D, Lucht W, Popp A, 2018. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat Clim Chang. 8(2):151–155. doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Morcillo M, Burgess P, Mirck J, Pantera A, Plieninger T. 2018. Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe. Environ Science & Policy. 80:44–52. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill SLL, Gonzalez R, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Caton E, Espinoza F, Newbold T, Tylianakis J, Scharlemann JPW, De Palma A, Purvis A. 2018. Worldwide impacts of past and projected future land-use change on local species richness and the biodiversity intactness index. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/311787.
   Google Scholar
• Hill S, Harfoot M, Purvis A, Purves D, Collen B, Newbold T, Burgess ND, Mace GM. 2016. Reconciling biodiversity indicators to guide understanding and action. Conserv Lett. 9(6):405–412. doi:10.1111/conl.12291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houghton RA. 2005. Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Moutinho P Schwartzman S, editors Tropical Deforestation and climate change. Belém, Brazil: Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia; pp. 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson LN, Newbold T, Contu S, Hill SLL, Lysenko I, De Palma A, Phillips HRP, Alhusseini TI, Bedford FE, Bennett DJ, et al. 2017. The database of the PREDICTS (projecting responses of ecological diversity in changing terrestrial systems) project. Ecol Evol. 7(1):145–188. doi:10.1002/ece3.2579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson LN, Newbold T, Contu S, Hill SLL, Lysenko I, De Palma A, Phillips HRP, Senior RA, Bennett DJ, Booth H, et al. 2014. The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecol Evol. 4(24):4701–4735. doi:10.1002/ece3.1303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IAMC wiki. 2020. Model documentation - COFFEE-TEA. https://www.iamcdocumentation.eu/index.php/Model_Documentation_-_COFFEE-TEA
   Google Scholar
• IAMC wiki. 2021. Model documentation - BLUES. https://www.iamcdocumentation.eu/index.php/Model_Documentation_-_BLUES
   Google Scholar
• Império MMTS 2020. Atmospheric pollution and global climate change nexus in an integrated assessment model for Brazil. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. http://www.ppe.ufrj.br/images/publica%C3%A7%C3%B5es/doutorado/Tese_MarianaImp%C3%A9rio.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. ICMBio. Accessed 10 Jun 2022 https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/faunabrasileira
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Version 1). Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5657041.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC 2022. Annex III: scenarios and modelling methods. In: Guivarch C, Kriegler E, Portugal-Pereira J, Bosetti V, Edmonds J, Fischedick M, Havlík P, Jaramillo P, Krey V, Lecocq F, Lucena A, Meinshausen M, Mirasgedis S, O’Neill B, Peters GP, Rogelj J, Rose S, Saheb Y, Strbac G, Strømman AH, van Vuuren DP, Zhou N (editors)]. In IPCC, 2022: climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S, Malley Jeditors. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA; doi:10.1017/9781009157926.022.
   Google Scholar
• Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro (JBRJ). Flora e Funga do Brasil. [Accessed 2022 Jun 10]. http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins CN, Alves MAS, Uezu A, Vale MM, Stow A. 2015. Patterns of vertebrate diversity and protection in Brazil. PLoS One. 10(12):e0145064. https://biodiversitymapping.org/. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemppinen KM, Collins PM, Hole DG, Wolf C, Ripple WJ, Gerber LR. 2020. Global reforestation and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol. 34(5):1221–1228. doi:10.1111/cobi.13478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Rosa I, Alkemade R, Leadley P, Hurtt G, Popp A, Pereira HM, Anthoni P, Arneth A, Baisero D. 2018. A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonised land-use and climate scenarios. Geosci Model Dev. 11(11):4537–4562. doi:10.5194/gmd-11-4537-2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köberle A. 2018. Implementation of land use in an energy system model to study the long-term impacts of bioenergy in Brazil and its sensitivity to the choice of agricultural greenhouse gas emission factors. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. http://www.ppe.ufrj.br/index.php/pt/publicacoes/teses-e-dissertacoes/2018/130-implementation-of-land-use-in-an-energy-system-model-to-study-the-long-term-impacts-of-bioenergy-in-brazil-and-its-sensitivity-to-the-choice-of-agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emission-factors
   Google Scholar
• Köberle AC, Daioglou V, Rochedo P, Lucena AFP, Szklo A, Fujimori S, Brunelle T, Kato E, Kitous A, van Vuuren DP, et al. 2022. Can global models provide insights into regional mitigation strategies? A diagnostic model comparison study of bioenergy in Brazil. Clim Change. 170(1–2):2. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03236-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köberle AC, Rochedo PRR, Lucena AFP, Szklo A, Schaeffer R. 2020. Brazil’s emission trajectories in a well-below 2 °C world: the role of disruptive technologies versus land-based mitigation in an already low-emission energy system. Clim Change. 162(4):1823–1842. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02856-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krogh A 2021. State of the tropical rainforest, 2021. Rainforest Foundation Norway. [Accessed 2021 12 22]. https://d5i6is0eze552.cloudfront.net/documents/Publikasjoner/Andre-rapporter/RF_StateOfTheRainforest_2020.pdf?mtime=20210505115205
   Google Scholar
• Laurance WF. 2013. Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests. In: Lowman M, Devy S Ganesh T, editors. Treetops at Risk. New York, NY: Springer New York; pp. 71–79. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7161-5_5.
   Google Scholar
• Leclère D, Obersteiner M, Barrett M, Butchart SH, Chaudhary A, De Palma A, Young L, Di Marco M, Doelman JC, Dürauer M. 2020. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature. 585(7826):551–556. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis SL, Maslin MA. 2015. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature. 519(7542):171–180. doi:10.1038/nature14258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucena AF, Hejazi M, Vasquez-Arroyo E, Turner S, Köberle AC, Daenzer K, van der Zwaan B, Kober T, Cai Y, Beach RH. 2018. Interactions between climate change mitigation and adaptation: The case of hydropower in Brazil. Energy. 164:1161–1177. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz JA, Furniss TJ, Johnson DJ, Davies SJ, Allen D, Alonso A, Zimmerman JK, Andrade A, Baltzer J, Becker KML. 2018. Global importance of large‐diameter trees. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 27(7):849–864. doi:10.1111/geb.12747.
   Google Scholar
• Mace GM, Barrett M, Burgess ND, Cornell SE, Freeman R, Grooten M, Purvis A. 2018. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat Sustain. 1(9):448–451. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahecha MD, Bastos A, Bohn FJ, Eisenhauer N, Feilhauer H, Hartmann H, Wirth C, Kalesse-Los H, Migliavacca M, Otto FEL. 2022. Biodiversity loss and climate extremes—study the feedbacks. Nature. 612(7938):30–32. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04152-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malhi Y, Roberts JT, Betts RA, Killeen TJ, Li W, E Nobre CA. 2008. Climate Change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science. 319(5860):169–172. doi:10.1126/science.1146961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin PA, Green RE, Balmford A. 2019. The biodiversity intactness index may underestimate losses. Nat Ecol Evol. 3(6):862–863. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0895-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell SL, Evans T, Watson JEM, Morel A, Grantham H, Duncan A, Harris N, Potapov P, Runting RK, Venter O, et al. 2019. Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626%. Sci Adv. 5(10):eaax254. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax2546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento – MAPA. 2021. Plano setorial para adaptacao a mudanca do clima e baixa emissao de carbono na agropecuaria com vistas ao desenvolvimento sustentavel (2020-2030) : visao estrategica para um novo ciclo/Secretaria de Inovacao, Desenvolvimento Rural e Irrigacao. Brasilia: MAPA. https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/arquivo-publicacoes-plano-abc/abc-portugues.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mishra A, Humpenöder F, Churkina G, Reyer CPO, Beier F, Bodirsky BL, Schellnhuber HJ, Lotze-Campen H, Popp A. 2022. Land use change and carbon emissions of a transformation to timber cities. Nat Commun. 13(1):4889. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32244-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittermeier RA, Robles Gil P, Mittermeier CG. 1997. Megadiversity. Mexico: CEMEX.
   Google Scholar
• MMA, 2018. https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/servicosambientais/ecossistemas-1/conservacao-1/areas-prioritarias/2a-atualizacao-das-areas-prioritarias-para-conservacao-da-biodiversidade-2018
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Casseres E, Carvalho F, Nogueira T, Fonte C, Império M, Poggio M, Schaeffer R, Portugal-Pereira J, Rochedo PRR, Szklo A. 2021. Production of alternative marine fuels in Brazil: An integrated assessment perspective. Energy. 219:119444. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.119444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newbold T. 2018. Future effects of climate and land-use change on terrestrial vertebrate community diversity under different scenarios. Proc R Soc B. 285(1881):20180792. doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.0792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newbold T, Hudson L, Arnell A, Contu S. 2016. Global map of the Biodiversity Intactness Index, from Newbold et al. (2016) Science [Data set]. Nat Hist Mus Retrieved: 20:00 13 Dec 2021 (GMT). doi:10.5519/0009936.
   Google Scholar
• Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, Contu S, De Palma A, Ferrier S, Purvis A, Hoskins AJ, Lysenko I, Phillips HRP. 2016. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science. 353(6296):288–291. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill S, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, Börger L, Bennett DJ, Choimes A, Collen B, et al. 2015. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 520(7545):45–50. doi:10.1038/nature14324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newbold T, Sanchez-Ortiz K, De Palma A, Hill SL, Purvis A. 2019. Reply to ‘The biodiversity intactness index may underestimate losses’. Nat Ecol Evol. 3(6):864–865. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0896-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohashi H, Hasegawa T, Hirata A, Fujimori S, Takahashi K, Tsuyama I, Nakao K, Kominami Y, Tanaka N, Hijioka Y, et al. 2019. Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilisation despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation. Nat Commun. 10(1):5240. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13241-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oliveira CCN, Angelkorte G, Rochedo PRR, Szklo A. 2020. The role of biomaterials for the energy transition from the lens of a national integrated assessment model. Clim Change. 167(3–4):57. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03201-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver TH, Morecroft MD. 2014. Interactions between climate change and land use change on biodiversity: Attribution problems, risks, and opportunities. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 5(3):317–335. doi:10.1002/wcc.271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira HM, Navarro LM, Martins IS. 2012. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 37(1):25–50. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pievani T. 2014. The sixth mass extinction: Anthropocene and the human impact on biodiversity. Rend Fis Acc Lincei. 25(1):85–93. doi:10.1007/s12210-013-0258-9.
   Google Scholar
• Pörtner HO, Scholes RJ, Agard J, Archer E, Arneth A, Bai X, Barnes D, Burrows M, Chan L, Cheung WL, et al. 2021. IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES and IPCC. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4659158.
   Google Scholar
• Portugal-Pereira J, Köberle AC, Soria R, Lucena AFP, Szklo A, Schaeffer, R. 2016. Overlooked impacts of electricity expansion optimisation modelling: The life cycle side of the story. Energy. 115:1424–1435. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purvis A, Newbold T, De Palma A, Contu S, Hill SLL, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Phillips HRP, Hudson LN, Lysenko I, Borger L, et al. 2018. Modelling and projecting the response of local terrestrial biodiversity worldwide to land use and related pressures: The PREDICTS Project. Adv Ecol Res. 58:201–241. doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2017.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riahi K, Schaeffer R, Arango J, Calvin K, Guivarch C, Hasegawa T, Jiang K, Kriegler E, Matthews R, Peters GP, et al. 2022. Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals. In IPCC, 2022: climate Change 2022: mitigation of Climate Change. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Khourdajie AA, van Diemen R, McCollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S Malley J, editors. Contribution of working group III to the Sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157926.005.
   Google Scholar
• Rochedo PRR, Soares-Filho B, Schaeffer R, Viola E, Szklo A, Lucena AFP, Koberle A, Davis JL, Rajão R, Rathmann R, et al. 2018. The threat of political bargaining to climate mitigation in Brazil. Nature Clim Change. 8(8):695–698. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0213-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouget M, Cowling RM, Vlok JAN, Thompson M, Balmford A. 2006. Getting the biodiversity intactness index right: the importance of habitat degradation data. Glob Chang Biol. 12(11):2032–2036. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01238.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozendaal DM, Bongers F, Aide TM, Alvarez-Dávila E, Ascarrunz N, Balvanera P, Poorter L, Bentos TV, Brancalion PHS, Cabral GAL. 2019. Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. Sci Adv. 5(3):eaau3114. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau3114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runting RK, Griscom BW, Struebig MJ, Satar M, Meijaard E, Burivalova Z, Cheyne SM, Deere NJ, Game ET, et al. 2019. Larger gains from improved management over sparing–sharing for tropical forests. Nat Sustain. 2(1):53–61. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0203-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Ortiz K, Gonzalez R, De Palma A, Newbold T, Hill SLL, Tylianakis J, Borger L, Lysenko I, Purvis A. 2019. Land-use and related pressures have reduced biotic integrity more on islands than on mainlands. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/576546.
   Google Scholar
• Schipper AM, Hilbers JP, Meijer JR, Antão LH, Benítez-López A, de Jonge MJM, Leemans LH, Scheper E, Alkemade R, Doelman JC, et al. 2020. Projecting terrestrial biodiversity intactness with GLOBIO 4. Glob Chang Biol. 26(2):760–771. doi:10.1111/gcb.14848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholes R, Biggs R. 2005. A Biodiversity Intactness Index. Nature. 434(7029):45–49. doi:10.1038/nature03289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seddon N, Turner B, Berry P, Chausson A, Girardin CAJ. 2019. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity Science. Nat Clim Chang. 9(2):84–87. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0405-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEEG - Greenhouse gas emissions and removal estimation system, climate observatory, [accessed Nov 2022]. http://seeg.eco.br
   Google Scholar
• Seymour F, Busch J. 2016. Why forests? Why now?: the science, economics, and politics of tropical forests and climate change. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press. 978-1-933286-85-3.
   Google Scholar
• Smith P, Nkem J, Calvin K, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, Korotkov V, Hoang AL, Lwasa S, McElwee P, et al. 2019. Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Portner H-O, Roberts DC, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Portugal Pereira J, Vyas P, Huntley E, Kissick K, Belkacemi M, and Malley J, editors. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 551–672. doi:10.1017/9781009157988.008.
   Google Scholar
• Soares-Filho B, Rajão R, Merry F, Rodrigues H, Davis J, Lima L, Macedo M, Coe M, Carneiro A, Santiago L, et al. 2016. Brazil’s market for trading forest certificates. PLoS One. 11(4):1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soergel B, Kriegler E, Weindl I, Rauner S, Dirnaichner A, Ruhe C, Hofmann M, Bauer N, Bertram C, Bodirsky BL, et al. 2021. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat Clim Chang. 11(8):656–664. doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stehfest E, Van Vuuren DP, Bouwman L, Kram T, Alkemade R, Bakkenens M, Biemans H, Bouwman A, den Elzen MGJ, Janse J, et al. 2014. Integrated assessment of global environmental change with model description and policy applications IMAGE 3.0. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ISBN: 978-94-91506-71-0 .
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson NL, Das AJ, Condit R, Russo SE, Baker PJ, Beckman NG, Zavala MA, Lines ER, Morris WK, Rüger N. 2014. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature. 507(7490):90–93. doi:10.1038/nature12914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson JR, Villoria N, Byerlee D, Kelley T, Maredia M. 2013. Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 110(21):8363–8368. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208065110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strassburg BB, Iribarrem A, Beyer HL, Cordeiro CL, Crouzeilles R, Jakovac CC, Visconti P, Lacerda E, Latawiec AE, Balmford A. 2020. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature. 586(7831):724–729. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagomori IS, Rochedo PR, Szklo A. 2019. Techno-economic and georeferenced analysis of forestry residues-based Fischer-Tropsch diesel with carbon capture in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy. 123:134–148. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.02.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titeux N, Henle K, Mihoub JB, Regos A, Geijzendorffer IR, Cramer W, Verburg PH, Brotons L. 2016. Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land‐use changes. Glob Chang Biol. 22(7):2505–2515. doi:10.1111/gcb.13272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turubanova S, Potapov P V, Tyukavina A , Hansen M C. 2018. Ongoing primary forest loss in Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett. 13(7):074028. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aacd1c.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2016a. https://unfccc.int/node/180413
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2016b. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs#eq-1 NDCs: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/pages/Party.aspx?party=BRAdata. Brazil First NDC (Archived, Updated submission and Updated submission-letter) in Country page: Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2023. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). [Accessed Jul 2023]. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs#eq-1
   Google Scholar
• van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Gernaat D, Boer HS, Daioglou D, Doelman V, Edelenbosch J, Harmsen O, Zeist M, van den Berg W, et al. 2021. The 2021 SSP scenarios of the IMAGE 3.2 model. doi:10.31223/x5cg92.
   Google Scholar
• Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Watson JE, Laurance WF, Wood P, Fekete BM. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun. 7(1):1–11. doi:10.1038/ncomms12558.
   Google Scholar
• Verburg PH, van Asselen S, van der Zanden EH, Stehfest E. 2013. The representation of landscapes in global scale assessments of environmental change. Landsc Ecol. 28(6):1067–1080. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9745-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vieira ICG, Toledo PD, Silva JD, Higuchi H. 2008. Deforestation and threats to the biodiversity of Amazonia. Braz J Biol. 68(4 suppl):949–956. doi:10.1590/S1519-69842008000500004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson JE, Evans T, Venter O, Williams B, Tulloch A, Stewart C, Lindenmayer D, Ray JC, Murray K, Salazar A. 2018. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol. 2(4):599–610. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, DJ. 2017. A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nat. 553(7688):333–336. doi:10.1038/nature25181.
   Google Scholar
• West TA, Fearnside PM. 2021. Brazil’s conservation reform and the reduction of deforestation in Amazonia. Land Use Policy. 100:105072. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weyant J. 2017. Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change. Stanford, CA: Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University.
   Google Scholar