a conclusion for deforestation

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

• 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 .)

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

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.

Related Topics

• DEFORESTATION
• ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
• RAINFORESTS

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.

This is the world’s most expensive cow

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

• Environment
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• 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

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Effects of deforestation on humans and the environment

Forests help make the planet livable for us all, but human activity is destroying them at an alarming rate. Deforestation represents a growing threat to all life on Earth, driving dangerous carbon emissions and exacerbating the climate crisis.

F orests provide a home to millions of diverse flora and fauna around the world. But the benefits of forests extend far beyond the wildlife who live there. They play a vital role in the world’s carbon cycle by balancing greenhouse gas emissions, making the air in our atmosphere breathable, and protecting against climate change. As companies cut down more and more of our forests to make room for agriculture and industry, the whole planet suffers the consequences. Deforestation threatens our environment, impacts human lives, and kills millions of animals every year.

Deforestation destroys ecosystems that are vital to wildlife and humans alike. Lush green forests offer a home to some of the world’s most iconic wild animals, from the jaguar to the panda, along with countless diverse species of vegetation. But the importance of forests doesn’t stop there. Like the ocean, forests absorb excess atmospheric carbon dioxide, serving as a much-needed buffer against irreversible climate change . In short, forests help sustain life around the world—far beyond where their tree lines end.

However, if humans continue to destroy forests at the current rate, forests may reach their breaking point. We cut down more than 15 billion trees each year. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that humans—or, more specifically, the corporations and industries they manage—converted 420 million hectares of forested land for other uses since 1990. That’s over 1 billion acres of forest cleared to make way for strip mines, cattle grazing, and industrial sprawl. And, out of all the industries that drive global deforestation, animal agriculture is one of the biggest culprits .

The meat industry routinely destroys forests to make way for cattle grazing and livestock feed. Since 1970, cattle ranching drove the vast majority of the deforestation in the Amazon . In other words, animal-centric diets are one of the main reasons we are losing our rainforests. “The biggest transformational change is needed in the way in which we produce and consume food,” warns the FAO, which calls agricultural expansion “ the main driver of deforestation .”

What is deforestation?

Deforestation is the mass removal of trees over a wide area. The term most often refers to the clearing of trees by humans, but natural processes such as flooding or fire can take down trees, too. Most frequently, deforestation occurs to clear land for other purposes, like farming, or to collect timber from the fallen trees.

Regardless of what drives deforestation, the end result is always the same: the destruction of an ecosystem that once played a vital role in protecting our planet.

The connection between factory farming pollution and deforestation

Every year, the factory farming industry raises and kills billions of animals for human consumption. Sadly, this process doesn’t just harm animals—it harms our planet, too.

Factory farms force thousands of animals to live together in extreme confinement. These facilities generate so much waste that they poison the surrounding air, water, and land , causing widespread health problems in nearby communities. And the negative impacts of factory farm pollution extend far beyond just the surrounding area. Animal waste emits greenhouse gases that accelerate climate change and pose an existential threat to communities around the world.

Forests defend against the threat of climate change by serving as a “ carbon sink .” The trees absorb carbon dioxide, removing excess greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and turning it into the oxygen we breathe. The “ greenhouse effect ” occurs when too many greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere, trapping heat from the sun and raising global atmospheric temperatures. Scientists attribute most human-driven climate change to the greenhouse effect. When humans cut down forests, more greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture remain in the atmosphere, further contributing to the climate crisis.

Humans can survive without factory farms , but we can’t survive without healthy, breathable air. If deforestation and factory farming continues unabated, our planet, and our species, are headed for disaster.

What are the causes of deforestation?

In general, human activity is the driving force behind deforestation. Several industries clear and develop forested land for their own purposes, including agriculture, paper, mining, and logging.

Animal agriculture

To feed the global demand for meat, meat producers convert ecologically important forest habitats into land for grazing livestock and growing animal feed like soy and corn. The FAO reports that large-scale commercial agriculture was responsible for 40% of tropical deforestation from 2000–2010, with animal agriculture largely to blame. Tropical rainforests are the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the world, providing home to species of vibrant orchids , tiny amphibians , and majestic great apes . Their destruction threatens thousands of these unique plant and animal species with permanent extinction.

“The quest for more land to graze cattle and grow livestock feed has been a driving force behind the destruction of tropical forests, particularly in Latin America,” the agency said. And the damage doesn’t stop at the destruction of forest: “In a few short years, overgrazing, compaction and nutrient loss turn cleared forest lands into eroded wastelands.”

Livestock ranching

Out of all forms of agriculture, cattle ranching claims the most forested land. Meat producers have cleared over 45 million hectares (or 111 million acres) of lush forests to create room for their cattle to graze. That’s something like 84 million football fields.

Cattle ranching has already wiped out millions of acres of the Amazon rainforest in South America , the world’s largest tropical forest. Whistleblowers called out JBS, the world’s largest meat producer, for illegally clearing protected lands in the Amazon rainforest into land for cattle grazing. The Brazilian company pledged to remove deforestation from its supply chain by the year 2035, but these promises may be too little, too late. Environmentalists argue that the corporate pledge is “ grossly insufficient ,” with deforestation accelerating rapidly and the threat of irreversible climate change growing closer every day.

Growing animal feed

Soybean production accounts for vast amounts of deforestation. While food companies process some of these soybeans into tofu, soy sauce, and other products for human consumption, a majority of soy production—around 75%—goes toward feeding farmed animals.

As soy production took over previously forested land, Brazil’s Cerrado savannah lost half of its forest to agriculture. Investigations into meat industry supply chains reveal the link between deforestation in Cerrado to factory farms the world over. Industrial farms in the UK import soy grown in this region to feed their chickens, which in turn supply meat from factory-farmed chickens to food companies like McDonald’s and Tesco.

Thanks to a new tool from Mighty Earth, it's now possible to see exactly which companies are responsible for the bulk of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. The Soy & Cattle Deforestation Tracker ranks soy producers and meatpackers according to the amount of land they're responsible for clearing. The world's largest meat company, JBS, tops out the list at 100,711 hectares—74,701 of which, according to Mighty Earth, have likely been cleared illegally.

Unfortunately, as international outcry over deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has drawn many zero-deforestation commitments from companies, these businesses simply began looking elsewhere. While destruction of the Amazon has slowed, deforestation fires have been springing up in the Cerrado and Pantanal wetlands. The Cerrado is now disappearing four times faster than the Amazon. As the raging fires in the Cerrado reached record highs this summer, it's essential that these companies be held accountable for their destructive actions.

If you look at the ingredients of many common household products and processed foods, you’re likely to find palm oil on the list. In fact, according to the World Wildlife Fund , it’s in close to 50% of the packaged products that you’d find at the grocery store, from frozen meals to cosmetics. Derived from the fruit of the palm tree, companies add colorless, odorless palm oil to their products in order to lengthen their products’ shelf life.

Although companies use palm oil because of its relatively low cost, the growth and harvest of palm oil comes at a high price for the world’s tropical rainforests and the animals who call them home. Palm oil plantations cover 27 million hectares of the Earth’s surface . These plantations destroy lush forests and replace them with “green deserts”: areas with no biodiversity whatsoever. This takes away the habitats of several endangered species, such as the orangutan, the pygmy elephant, and the Sumatran rhino, pushing them even closer to extinction.

While there are some efforts to harvest palm oil more sustainably, causing less harm to endangered species and their habitats, we can make the biggest difference by avoiding products with palm oil entirely. The Rainforest Action Network offers several resources for avoiding products and businesses that contribute to palm oil-driven deforestation.

Forest fires

Wildfires occur naturally in untouched forested land. While seemingly destructive, natural blazes actually promote the health of the ecosystem by clearing out dead organic matter and making room for new growth. However, when humans start forest fires, forest ecosystems can suffer from irreversible damage.

While some human-caused forest fires are accidental, farmers and other land developers sometimes intentionally start fires as a way to clear forested land. In a practice known as ‘slash and burn’ agriculture, farmers slash down acres of forest and burn the remnants in hopes of reviving the health of the soil. However, these uncontrolled fires can do more harm than good. Fires can eliminate entire populations of plant and animal species in an area, throwing off ecological balance and decreasing biodiversity. Research has shown that the biodiversity loss resulting from slash-and-burn agriculture can actually have the opposite effect on soil health, resulting in decreased crop yields and profits.

Agriculture-driven fires have taken a large toll on Brazil’s Amazon rainforest. A record number of fires turned the once vibrant, lush forests of the Amazon to ash in 2019. Investigators found that fires were three times more likely in beef-producing zones in the Amazon, pointing to the clearing of land for cattle ranching as one of the main culprits of forest fires.

Forest fires in the Amazon devastate animals and humans alike. Breathing the smoke from these fires is already harmful, but Indigineous communities suffered even further during this year’s fire season. The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacts the Indigenous peoples, as their immune systems may be less equipped to fight off the virus. In Brazil, the combined threats of COVID-19 and air pollution from wildfires has led to increased hospitalization rates for their populations.

Illegal logging

Around the world, logging companies harvest timber and wood from fallen trees. In some regions, national or international laws protect forested areas from logging operations. However, companies continue to illegally harvest and sell timber from these protected areas.

Economists value the illegal logging industry at almost $150 billion, and 15–30% of all timber comes from illegal operations . In a shocking 2016 investigation, US trade representatives found that 90% of the timber imported to the US from Peru came from illegal logging operations. Timber trafficking continues to harm forests, as countries fail to enforce the laws meant to protect the Amazon and other forested lands.

Mining refers to the extraction of minerals and other natural materials from the earth. The mining industry is notorious for subjecting workers to extremely dangerous conditions, while also harming forests and the environment.

Just as ‘slash and burn’ methods clear forests for agricultural use, the mining industry slashes and burns forests to clear land for its operations. While mining causes deforestation at a much smaller scale than agriculture , it generates high amounts of air and water pollution that contaminate surrounding environments.

Paper is one of the most obvious culprits of deforestation—after all, paper is made from trees. In 2019, the US paper industry produced 78 million tons of paper and cardboard. Making one ton of paper requires 24 trees.

The problem with paper doesn’t end at the production process, however. A staggering 17.2 million tons of paper and cardboard ended up in landfills in 2018. As paper and other trash break down in landfills, they release methane—a harmful greenhouse gas that further contributes to climate change.

While it doesn’t totally mitigate the problem , recycling your paper and buying recycled paper certainly helps reduce the impact of paper on deforestation.

Urbanization

As people move from rural areas to urban areas, cities grow and populations increase in a phenomenon known as “urbanization.” When people live in cities, their incomes and consumption habits tend to rise, putting even more pressure on forests .

In order to build structures for a growing population, urban developers turn to the logging and mining industries for wood and metals—encouraging these industries to cut down more forests for their operations. And, when people move from villages to cities, they consume more animal products and processed foods. Large-scale industrial farmers convert surrounding forests for farmland in order to meet the new demand. Overall, the rapid, increased consumption and development associated with urban growth can spell disaster for forested ecosystems.

Desertification of land

Desertification occurs when land with fertile soil becomes an infertile desert. Desertification can happen in response to natural phenomena, such as drought, but human activity can also play a role in accelerating the process. This happens when farmers over-cultivate land—excessively farming one tract of land to the point where the soil degrades completely.

Trees maintain nutrient-rich topsoil by protecting it from wind, rain, or other harsh weather. Therefore, the removal of trees through deforestation drives desertification. And, in a vicious cycle, desertification actually contributes to deforestation. When land is no longer fertile for natural vegetation, industries further encroach onto once-fertile areas and exploit them.

What are the effects of deforestation?

Forests don’t just provide home to millions of wild animal and plant species—their ability to capture greenhouse gas emissions makes the earth livable for us all. When humans harm forests for short-term economic gains, we harm our species’ chances for survival in the long-term.

Effects of deforestation on humans

People who live near forests suffer the most immediate impacts of deforestation. These marginalized and vulnerable communities depend on forests for their livelihoods, as forested land provides resources like fertile soil for food and clean, fresh water for drinking.

When humans destroy their forest habitats, animals and insects seek shelter in the populous villages surrounding forests. Animal migration into human territory leads to an unprecedented amount of contact between humans and wildlife that’s not only unnatural but dangerous. This is because animals can spread pathogens to humans. These pathogens cause illnesses known as zoonotic diseases . "Zoonotic Diseases: Disease Transmitted from Animals to Humans"). A 2021 report from the Harvard School of Public Health cautioned that, in order to prevent the spread of zoonotic disease, we must change our agricultural practices and protect our forests.

Sadly, zoonotic diseases are already more prevalent in areas experiencing deforestation. Mosquitos spread malaria to humans, and mosquito populations flourish when biodiversity drops. A 2020 study found that “deforestation is associated with increased malaria prevalence, suggesting that in some cases forest conservation might belong in a portfolio of anti-malarial interventions.” A 2019 case study in Indonesian villages further solidified the connection between malaria and deforestation: researchers found that a 1% loss in forest cover increased the incidence of malaria by 10%.

Malaria is not the only zoonotic disease that arises from deforestation. A 2017 study linked outbreaks of ebola in Central and West Africa to the recent loss of forests, citing “more frequent contact between infected wild animals and humans” as a probable cause.

Though its origins are still unclear, scientists have hypothesized that the virus that causes COVID-19 , SARS-CoV2, jumped from animals to humans. Our immune systems can’t handle these new, emerging pathogens, leading to the rampant spread of infectious disease that can grow into a global pandemic. The FAO warns that “habitat loss due to forest area change and the expansions of human populations to forest areas” increases the risk of wildlife spreading disease to humans. If we want to avoid future pandemics caused by the spread of zoonotic disease, we must protect habitats from deforestation.

Food insecurity

Forests provide surrounding communities with clean drinking water, food, and jobs. Indigenous peoples harvest food and medicine directly from plant species in the forest, or cultivate crops in the fertile soil. When companies cut down forests, these communities lose resources to cultivate the food they need to survive, pushing them into food insecurity . Hundreds of millions of people rely on tropical forests for food, and the highest concentrations of food insecure populations live in regions with tropical forests.

Deforestation perpetuates another vicious cycle when it comes to food insecurity. Industrial agriculture companies convert forests into land for cattle grazing, palm oil, and soy production in order to feed growing populations of city-dwellers. This process destroys the biodiversity and fertility of the land, making it unsustainable for feeding populations in the long-term. As the FAO stated in a recent report, “forest degradation can be a threat to food security but also a product of efforts to obtain it—the costs of degradation need to be weighed against the value obtained.” In order to produce more food, the industrial agriculture industry is clearing forests—which, in turn, further exacerbates world hunger.

Local people and their livelihoods

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that nearly 25% of the global population relies on forests for their livelihoods , including many of the world’s poorest communities. The world’s Indigenous populations suffer some of the worst impacts of forest destruction, with deforestation displacing entire Indigenous communities.

In the Amazon regions of Brazil, deforestation is forcing thousands of Indigenous people off their own land. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro stripped protections for these communities entirely, allowing big industries to encroach even further on forested land. Bolsonaro also removed power from agencies meant to safeguard their rights, pushing Indigenous Brazilians to come together and fight the threat of deforestation on their own.

Effects of deforestation on the environment

Deforestation’s environmental impact extends far beyond the edges of the woods. When we remove forests, we lose out on the vital protection they provide against climate change, soil erosion, and natural disasters like flooding.

Soil erosion

The roots of trees stabilize soil and keep it in place. Removing trees loosens the soil and leaves it exposed to damaging rains and wind. Removing trees on a mass scale through deforestation significantly speeds up soil erosion.

Researchers examined the impacts of deforestation on loess , a soil layer of dust and silt that’s rich in minerals. They found that a combination of agriculture, cattle ranching, and demand for wood drove deforestation on the loess in northeastern Iran, increasing the loss of soil and nutrients.

Developing countries pay an especially harsh price for soil erosion, especially when they lose topsoil, the nutrient-rich layer of soil that is essential for growing crops. The Island of Java in Indonesia lost 770 metric tons of topsoil per year in the late 1980s as a direct result of deforestation. Farmers in the region lost out on an estimated 1.5 million tons of rice, which had the potential to fulfill the nutritional needs of almost 15 million people. These farmers, and the local populations they work to feed, experienced firsthand how detrimental deforestation can be to human life.

Climate change

Trees balance the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) levels as the gas cycles through the atmosphere and into the oceans, soil, and other living organisms.

Cutting down trees releases their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. And, when we don’t replant the fallen trees, we lose out on their continued removal of excess carbon from the atmosphere. This leads to the excess carbon emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect and accelerate climate change.

Removing trees on a mass scale through deforestation takes away one of the most important buffers we have against climate change. If we put an end to deforestation, our annual greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 10%. This action could prove crucial in the fight against climate change, with climate scientists estimating we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% in the next decade to mitigate the crisis at hand.

Trees help to control flooding . Their roots hold soil firm in heavy rains, and the trees themselves absorb some of the rainwater. Their absence can cause disastrous floods.

In 2004, floods killed hundreds of people in Haiti. Reports from the aftermath of the disaster revealed that the removal of 98% of the Island nation’s forests caused the flooding—deeming the floods a “m an-made ecological disaster .” On the other side of the world, deforestation for illegal harvesting also intensified floods in Kashmir, claiming the lives of 18 people in 2015. Researchers are clear that “(w)hen the trees are removed from the environment, the rainy season can have devastating effects.”

Effects of deforestation on biodiversity

Forests are home to thousands of unique flora and fauna that can’t be found in any other ecosystem. Because they house such a diverse variety of life, the destruction of forests can have a devastating impact on the earth’s biodiversity.

Habitat loss

The earth has lost an estimated 80 million hectares of forest since 1990, as industries clear forested land for farming, grazing, mining, drilling, and urbanization. This number doesn’t just represent fallen trees—it represents the decimation of millions of animals’ habitats.

In fact, habitat loss is among the greatest dangers to plant and animal species worldwide, and agriculture is “ the major cause .” When animals lose their habitats, they lose the shelter they need for continued survival. Researchers have observed the decline of entire species’ populations in response to deforestation-driven habitat loss.

Wildlife extinction

Rainforests are home to an estimated 50% of life on land. The FAO reports that forests offer habitat to 80% of the world’s amphibious species, 75% of bird species, and 68% of mammal species.

The habitat loss associated with deforestation doesn’t kill animals directly—instead, their populations die out slowly as “their breeding rates fall and competition for food becomes even more intense.” The habitat destruction caused by deforestation drives 135 plant, animal, and insect species to extinction every day. That’s 50,000 species per year, lost forever.

Acidic oceans

Ocean acidification occurs when the ocean absorbs CO2, lowering the water’s pH level and making it more acidic. Deforestation, along with other human activities such as industrial agriculture and the burning of fossil fuels, accelerates this problem.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration , the ocean absorbs around 30% of all atmospheric CO2. As levels of atmospheric CO2 rise, so do levels in the ocean, resulting in further ocean acidification.

Just like the oceans, forests act as a carbon sink, with trees absorbing and storing atmospheric carbon. Deforestation forces our oceans to take on more of the strain of excess greenhouse gases.

Ocean acidification harms ocean biodiversity and ecosystems. When water becomes more acidic, it can actually dissolve the shells and skeletons of organisms like oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. The negative effects of this reverberate through the entire ecosystem, as bigger fish rely on these calcified organisms for food. If deforestation and other human activities continue to drive ocean acidification, the chemistry of the entire ocean may be altered forever.

What animals are affected by deforestation?

Deforestation pushes entire species from their homes, driving them to the brink of extinction. One of the most heartbreaking examples of this is the plight of the orangutan. Orangutans only live on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, where palm oil production has leveled entire forests. Orangutans suffered a population decline of 25% in a single decade, largely due to deforestation of their homes.

In fact, deforestation impacts all great apes. Between human-caused threats like hunting and deforestation, species like chimpanzees and gorillas also face a “ very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, probably within our own lifetime .”

Sadly, so many more iconic and beloved species are suffering the effects of deforestation. The world’s largest eagle species, the harpy eagle, relies on forest cover to locate their prey. Without forests, several harpy eagles have died of starvation . Research also links deforestation to the loss of pandas , monarch butterflies , and jaguars .

How can we stop deforestation?

Researchers warn that, if deforestation continues at current levels, the planet will face an extinction crisis that will “ jeopardize the health and wellbeing of future generations .” In order to avoid irreversible damage from habitat loss and climate change, we need to both halt the loss of forests and promote their restoration. Taking these meaningful steps to restore our forests could contribute to more than one-third of the emissions cuts we need to take to limit global warming to 2 degrees celsius by 2030—the climate change mitigation objective set by the Paris Agreement .

Alongside halting deforestation and starting forest restoration initiatives , government leaders must act to protect remaining forests’ ecosystems, the species that live within them, and the communities that depend on them for survival. Scientists recommend protecting and maintaining at least 50% of land and oceans as intact natural ecosystems to “save the diversity and abundance of life on Earth.”

One of the key actions governments can take to protect and maintain forest ecosystems is restoring land rights to Indigenous peoples, which prevents private interests from clearing the land. A study found that, in Brazil, deforestation rates decreased by two-thirds in areas where Indigenous people fully owned their lands.

While some private companies have committed to ending deforestation in their supply chains, deforestation continues to accelerate. Evidence has shown that we cannot put our trust in private companies to stop plundering Earth’s forests for their own financial gain. We need governments to step up and enforce crucial forest protection and restoration initiatives if we want to put a stop to deforestation.

What has been done so far?

Local, rural communities are already acting to protect the forested land that they depend on for their survival, and governments are enacting more policies to protect forests. As a result, we are making some progress to reduce the harmful effects of deforestation worldwide.

In 2020, seven countries reported decreased deforestation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Some countries accomplished this by strengthening the enforcement of logging regulations and requiring proof that timber imports were harvested legally. We could also see more governments introduce meaningful forest conservation policies, as 50 countries pledged to protect 30% of the planet by the year 2030 at this year’s One Planet Summit .

While these steps are encouraging, we need to do more, especially when it comes to industrial agriculture and farming interests. The FAO suggests that governments, for example, should create “buffer zones” around protected areas, where no cattle ranching is allowed . And, as individuals, we all have the power to change our broken food system and promote an end to deforestation.

The global demand for meat drives deforestation, especially in the Amazon region. When we eat less meat, or cut meat consumption entirely, the meat industry has less incentive to destroy forests to meet the global demand for its products. In fact, the United Nations climate change report “describes plant-based diets as a major opportunity for mitigating and adapting to climate change,” and it recommends more policies aimed at reducing meat consumption.

What you can do

Widespread deforestation doesn’t just harm forests and the animals that live in them: it harms our entire planet. Thankfully, you can help limit the damage. When you shift your diet away from meat and dairy, you take away financial support from the industrial animal agriculture operations that clear forested land for their own interests—a crucial step towards protecting these habitats. Take action today by starting your plant-based journey .

More like this

Factory Farming and the Environment: Impacts on the Planet

The environmental costs of factory farming—such as global warming, pollution, and diminished biodiversity—are too great for these facilities to continue dominating our food system.

What Is Intensive Agriculture & Why Is It Bad?

Over the last century, the once pastoral farmlands of America have undergone a tremendous transformation, and not for the better.

Forestry Research: A Mandate for Change (1990)

Chapter: 4. conclusions and recommendations.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Conclusions and Recommendations The preceding chapters report some of the diverse activities and needs of forestry research. We have described research on wood as a raw ma- terial and in basic biology, ecology, sociology, and economics and policy. Although forestry research is at least as complex as agricultural research, to which it is closely related, forestry research cannot be subsumed under what has been traditionally viewed as agricultural research, but must be viewed as having values for society that are broader than and distinct from those of traditional agriculture (National Task Force on Basic Research in Forestry and Renewable Natural Resources, 1983~. In this chapter, we pro- vide several broad conclusions and attendant recommendations concerning the nature of forestry research, human resources, ways of maximizing the benefits from forestry research, and support for forestry research. THE NATURE OF FORESTRY RESEARCH More Scientists Should Do Forestry Research Conclusion. For forestry research to be of sufficient quality and quan- tity to solve critical societal problems, it must embrace more areas of sci- ence. These include not only such expected areas as biology, hydrology, and engineering, but also economics and sociology. Conclusion. Forestry research is overly fragmented by disciplines that interact insufficiently. Interaction must not only increase among traditional 50

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51 forestry disciplines within colleges of forestry, but also among disciplines within colleges of agriculture and colleges of arts and sciences. This need for increased disciplinary interaction coupled with increases in the cost of research facilities, the specialization of scientists, and the diversity of sponsors and clients argues for aggregation and integration of forestry research. Conclusion. With numerous advisory committees representing orga- nizational research interests, leadership in forestry research has been frag- mented. Government agencies and other organizations responsible for research activities can obtain policy advice from a wide variety of sources, such as internal advisory committees at various levels within a department's hierarchy. Research organizations can also draw upon other groups, such as the National Research Council, for advice. Because of the broad range of research organizations and clientele of forestry research, none of the existing forestry advisory committees has adequately met the needs of the forestry research community in general. Recommendations: · Provide a vastly expanded funding mechanism, such as competitive grants, to support scientists now doing forestry research and to attract additional ones. · Strengthen and broaden the teaching of forestry to attract a broader array of students, especially at the graduate level, and to interest other on- campus research groups. . Establish a National Forestry Research Council (NFEtC) to pro- vide a forum for deliberations on forestry research and policy issues. The NFRC should be convened under the auspices of an organization or or- ganizations that can facilitate discussion and action. Financial support for the council's activities should come from member organizations and other interested sponsors. The NFRC should consist of representatives from major organizations such as government agencies, industry, conservation organizations, private foundations, and academia- with strong interests in forests and related renewable natural resources and in agriculture. The NFRC would commission studies, conduct analyses, and provide advice to policymakers on issues pertaining to those interests. · Encourage conservation groups and other nongovernmental orga- nizations to more actively support basic forestry teaching and research through the activities of the proposed NFEtC. Concision. Coordination and integration with other research scien- tists should be increased. The proposed NFEtC could provide leadership and a forum for coordination and integration. In addition, integration can

52 FORESTRY RESEARCH be achieved by creating centers of emphasis on research in the five areas of research discussed in this report (biology of forest organisms; ecosystem function and management; human-forest interactions; wood as a raw mate- rial; and international trade, competition, and cooperation). The creation of a center of emphasis does not necessarily require the construction of a new research facility. It does require, however, a cooperative mechanism for research that allows scientists to interact in a manner that enhances their productivity. In addition, Forest Service scientists could be routinely placed within university academic units, such as departments of botany and zoology, as well as within schools of forestry. A successful model for this type of integration is that commonly used by the USDA Agricultural Research Service. Recommendation: . Create centers of scientific emphasis involving major participants in forestry research for each of the five research areas discussed in this report. More than one center could be established for each of the five research areas, depending on the particular interests and strengths of the proposed center's participants. Result. Benefits derived from a broader definition of forest research and the inclusion of nontraditional research pursuits will include increased relevance to society as a whole, higher intellectual achievement resulting from broader spheres of influence, enhanced attractiveness of the profession to talented scientists, and increased political support for research programs. The consequences of failing to incorporate these pursuits and personnel into the forest research establishment will be great: They will include not only the decreased quality of forestry science and technology, but also further erosion of public confidence in the relevance of forestry to society. Adopt a New Approach to Forestry Research Conclusion. 1b help overcome a deficiency in knowledge, a new re- search paradigm will need to be adopted an environmental paradigm. Past approaches to forestry research employing the conservation and preserva- tion paradigms have proven inadequate. Conclusion. Many issues such as biological diversity, cumulative ef- fects of pollutants, and land use or land management must be addressed at very large spatial scales and over long periods of time. Research at the scale of landscapes and regions will involve changes in the way forestry re

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53 search is performed, including new mapping technology, collaboration with managers and user groups, creative experimental approaches, and evalua- tion procedures that differ dramatically from those of traditional forestry research. Conclusion. Most of the research needs highlighted in this report are as relevant to tropical as they are to temperate forestry. Research related to deforestation and loss of biological diversity are especially relevant to the tropics, but forestry research should derive principles that apply across bioclimatic zones. Recommendations: o Establish research-management collaborations at large spatial scales with an environmental perspective. This will require multidisciplinary activities on large tracts of land. · Establish long-term forestry research (LTFEt) grants to provide a peer-reviewed, competitive funding mechanism for long-term research support (longer than one forest rotation). Result. Scientists and managers will collaborate to develop, install, test, and revise practices on large blocks of land, each block unique in its set of environmental and social conditions. HUMAN RESOURCES Conclusion. A critical need exists for the forestry research and policy community to open its ranks to participation by scientists who are often not now considered forest scientists. Contemporary issues, such as sustainable development, the role of forests in global carbon balance and global warm- ing, acid rain, and the preservation of biological diversity, illustrate the need for scientific expertise inadequately represented by traditional forest science. Conclusion. 16 meet future demands for research and education, a large number of well-educated scientists, technicians, extension specialists, and educators are needed. To help meet the future need for talented scientists, significantly more women and members of minority groups must be recruited into forestry research. Conclusion. Forestry education should be restructured to place more emphasis on fundamental research tools.

54 Recommendations: . FORESTRY RESEARCH Enhance the quality of forestry research by opening it to the broader scientific community and encourage increased participation by scientists currently within the community. · Establish a program to provide doctoral fellowships on a competi- tive basis for all areas of forest and environmental sciences. The program should be designed to attract the highest caliber of students possible and to provide numbers of scientists with appropriate skills to meet impending needs. This program should be supported at a rate of $5 million per year, which will support a total of 200 doctoral fellows per year for 5 years (40 new fellowships awarded each year). . Develop a cadre of forest and related scientists that reflect the national and global population composition and that are equipped to solve domestic, international, and global problems. A recruitment program for women and members of minority groups should be directed toward high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels and should provide internships and fellowships (as part of the doctoral fellowship program). Result. With the addition of scientists from broader cultural and scientific backgrounds, forestry research will become more relevant to the needs of society, more interactive with other scientific disciplines, and more productive in developing the needed base of information for making better decisions on natural resource policies. MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS FROM INCREASED FORESTRY RESEARCH Conclusion. The demand for scientifically based information and ex- pert opinion on environmental issues and human-forest interactions will continue to increase. Forest scientists are responsible for keeping the pub- lic informed about the status of forests and global environmental issues. Forest scientists need (1) to improve their communication of research re- sults to the public and natural resource professionals and (2) to increase their assistance and involvement in the formulation of policy. Recommendations: . Incorporate an outreach component into research projects to com- municate results to a broader range of clients. · Establish a professional reward system to acknowledge the validity of efforts of scientists involved in outreach. · Scientists should assume a leadership role in communicating their knowledge to those involved in poligy-making.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 Conclusion. A strengthened program in forestry research requires a greatly strengthened and reorganized companion extension outreach effort. The broadening of program directions into areas as diverse as urban forestry and molecular biology will require additional support and a larger and more diverse cadre of extension specialists capable of communicating ideas as well as techniques. Extension forestry is an important mechanism for technolog r transfer and education, particularly to nonindustrial forest landowners, natural resource professionals, policymakers, city planners, and the public. The present extension forestry infrastructure is inadequate to serve current or future needs. For example, the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA), passed in 1978, has been funded at only about 20 percent of its authorization level. Recommendations: · Double the base level of funding and number of full-time equiv- alents (Fobs) devoted to forestry extension in cooperation with state and local partners. Increase RREA funding to the appropriation authorization level of $15 million dollars annually. · Integrate extension specialists with their research counterparts at colleges and universities in those instances where interaction between ex- tension specialists and research scientists is inadequate. Result. With adequate knowledge and technology transfer mecha- nisms, the results of forestry research can inform and instruct a broader clientele, including natural resource professionals, youth, policymakers, urban dwellers, conservation organizations, and the public. SUPPORT FOR FORESTRY RESEARCH lathe recommendations contained in this section are based on the com- mittee's own study and knowledge of the U.S. forestry research system, on interviews with additional scientists, and on documents the commit- tee received from forestry-associated research organizations. The funding increases recommended in this report reflect the committee's experience in and concern about the current status and future prospects of forestry research in the United States. Equipment and Facilities Conclusion. The committee believes that the physical facilities and research equipment at many forestry research stations and forestry colleges

56 FORESTRY RESEARCH are inadequate. Other reports assessing the status of equipment in biology (NIH, 1985) and agriculture (Biggs et al., 1989) have drawn similar conclu- sions. Laboratories lack essential resources to carry out state-of-the-art re- search in the forest sciences. For example, facilities and equipment needed include electron and video-enhanced microscopes, computers, geographic information systems, greenhouses, and plant-growth facilities. Funding has been inadequate to keep pace with changing technology; therefore research and teaching are not up to date. Recommendation: · Conduct a national assessment of the current status of equipment and facilities needed to carry out the research described in this report. Funding Conclusion. Recommendations for increases in funding for forestry research come at a time of overall fiscal constraint for the nation. Govern- ment officials must both reduce the national debt and set priorities among competing federal expenditures to enact programs that maintain the wel- fare, infrastructure, security, and continued economic growth of the United States. As a part of that endeavor, they must also address public concerns for maintaining global competitiveness and environmental resources. The goal of reducing expenditures while allocating funds for essential programs thus requires fiscal prudence. The committee recognizes that current federal budgetary constraints make new funds for research support exceedingly difficult to obtain. Mean- ingful increases in research support for forestry and forestry-related re- search will likely be realized only as a result of changes in funding priorities within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior. As outlined in this report, the need to make these changes in funding priorities is urgent if future forests and related renew- able natural resources are to be protected from misuse and environmental degradation and if productivity is to be enhanced. Conclusion. The largest centrally administered forestry research bud- get is that of the USDA Forest Service. Therefore, if forestry research is to be reshaped and augmented as described above, changes in this budget are imperative. Additional changes in other forest research funding mech- anisms, such as McIntire-Stennis and USDA competitive grants, are also imperative. Funds available through such programs as McIntire-Stennis should be used in creative new ways and to a greater extent to attract relevant scientists from outside forestry schools and colleges. Competitive

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 grants should allow for research flexibility to fund both short-term (2 to 5 years) and long-term (7 to 10 years, or longer than one forest rotation) research programs. Conclusion. Both the Forest Service and the Cooperative State Re- search Service of the USDA need to compensate for losses in research support caused by budget cuts and inflation and should play leading roles in establishing centers of emphasis. Industry, state, and private sources of support should also contribute to this effort. Recommendations: · Increase USDA competitive grants for the five major research areas discussed in this report with a provision for LTF~ grants. 1b cover the five areas (the biology of forest organisms; ecosystem function and management; human-forest interactions; wood as a raw material; and international trade, competition, and cooperation), approximately $100 million annually will be necessary. A logical basis for this type of competitive financial support is through the current research funding initiative proposed by the NRC's Board on Agriculture (NRC, 1989c). The Board on Agriculture report defines agriculture to include forestry and related areas. As proposed, this initiative identifies natural resources and the environment as one of six program areas that need increased funding. Four other identified program areas (plant systems; animal systems; engineering, products, and processes; and trade, marketing, and policy) are directly related to the forestry research described in this report. The total amount requested in the Board on Agriculture research initiative for USDA competitive grants is $500 million annually. Traditionally, however, forestry research has not been granted proper status in the USDA competitive grants programs. Therefore, for forestry and forestry-related research to be adequately supported by the results of the Board on Agriculture research initiative, changes in funding philosophy must take place within the USDA. · Increase the USDA Forest Service research budget by 10 percent each year for the next five years. These new funds should be allocated among the five research program areas discussed in the report. With these five successive annual increments, the Forest Service research budget will expand from its 1988 level of $135 million lo $218 million after five years. · Increase McIntire-Stennis funds over the next five years to the full authorization level of 50 percent of the Forest Service budget. These new funds should also be allocated among the same five research program areas discussed in the present report. With these five successive annual increments, McIntire-Stennis funding will expand from its 1988 level of $17.5 million to $109 million after five years.

58 FORESTRY RESEARCH Result. These three recommendations for increased federal support for forestry research will provide for orderly growth from the present $187 million annually to a total after five years of $427 million annually. After five years, this will mean that annual investments in forestry research will have reached about 20 percent of the total of about $2.5 billion for all agricultural research, after addition of the $500 million competitive grants program recommended in the Board on Agriculture funding initiative (NRC, 1989c). If these modifications in the forestry research funding are made, forest scientists will be able to provide better advice to the American public on the management of our nation's forests; industry will have a far greater data base from which to improve wood production practices and new forest products; and society in general will benefit from improved global environmental management. SUMMARY Forestry research must change radically if it is to help meet national and global needs. It must become broader in its clients, participants, and the problems it examines, and at the same time it must conduct more in-depth research and become more rigorous in utilizing all of science and technology. The number of scientists and amount of resources devoted to forestry research are declining, even as needs increase. To meet the challenge of rapid change, new approaches and new resources of the kind described in this report are required. The educational and fiscal systems that support forestry research must be restructured and revitalized; integrated research facilities must be created where public and private resources can be concentrated on basic questions, new technologies, and effective outreach and extension activities. These changes will be expensive, difficult, and painful for many. They will be painful in that research resources will need lo be redirected and certain research facilities may need to be closed. The consequence of failing to make the changes, however, would be even more painful: a national and global society increasingly unable to presence and manage forest resources for its own benefit and for the benefit of future generations. We emphasize here that both the misuse and the wise use of forests are consequences of human activity. In the absence of policy alternatives provided by a large increment of knowledge resulting from forestry research, the misuse exemplified by deforestation, destroyed productive potential, and lost biological diversity will prevail. Knowledge gained from an improved system of forestry research will enable society to choose wise use and thus to secure the environmental, economic, and spiritual benefits of forests.

Forests are valuable in our daily lives, crucial to our nation's ecomony, and integral to the long-term health of the environment. Yet, forestry research has been critically underfunded, and the data generated under current research programs is not enough to meet the diverse needs of our society.

Forestry Research provides a research agenda that should yield the information we need to develop responsible policies for forest use and management. In this consensus of forestry experts, the volume explores:

• The diverse and competing concerns of the timber industry, recreational interests, and wildlife and environmental organizations.
• The gap between our need for information and the current output of the forestry research program.
• Areas of research requiring attention: biology of forest organisms, ecosystem function and management, human-forest interactions, wood as raw material, and international trade and competition.

Forestry Research is an important book of special interest to federal and state policymakers involved in forestry issues, research managers, researchers, faculty, and students in the field.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Deforestation and Forest Loss

Explore long-term changes in deforestation and deforestation rates across the world today., which countries are gaining, and which are losing forests.

Before we look specifically at trends in deforestation across the world, it's useful to understand the net change in forest cover. The net change in forest cover measures any gains in forest cover — either through natural forest expansion or afforestation through tree planting — minus deforestation.

This map shows the net change in forest cover across the world. Countries with a positive change (shown in green) are gaining forests faster than they're losing them. Countries with a negative change (shown in red) are losing more than they're able to restore.

A note on UN FAO forestry data

Data on net forest change, afforestation, and deforestation is sourced from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's Forest Resources Assessment . Since year-to-year changes in forest cover can be volatile, the UN FAO provides this annual data averaged over five-year periods.

How much deforestation occurs each year?

Net forest loss is not the same as deforestation — it measures deforestation plus any gains in forest over a given period.

Between 2010 and 2020, the net loss in forests globally was 4.7 million hectares per year. 1 However, deforestation rates were much higher.

The UN FAO estimates that 10 million hectares of forest are cut down each year.

This interactive map shows deforestation rates across the world.

Read more about historical deforestation here:

The world has lost one-third of its forest, but an end of deforestation is possible

Over the last 10,000 years the world has lost one-third of its forests. An area twice the size of the United States. Half occurred in the last century.

Global deforestation peaked in the 1980s. Can we bring it to an end?

Since the end of the last ice age — 10,000 years ago — the world has lost one-third of its forests. 2 Two billion hectares of forest — an area twice the size of the United States — has been cleared to grow crops, raise livestock, and for use as fuelwood.

Previously, we looked at this change in global forests over the long run. What this showed was that although humans have been deforesting the planet for millennia, the rate of forest loss accelerated rapidly in the last few centuries. Half of the global forest loss occurred between 8,000 BCE and 1900; the other half was lost in the last century alone.

To understand this more recent loss of forest, let’s zoom in on the last 300 years. The world lost 1.5 billion hectares of forest over that period. That’s an area 1.5 times the size of the United States.

In the chart, we see the decadal losses and gains in global forest cover. On the horizontal axis, we have time, spanning from 1700 to 2020; on the vertical axis, we have the decadal change in forest cover. The taller the bar, the larger the change in forest area. This is measured in hectares; one hectare is equivalent to 10,000 m².

Forest loss measures the net change in forest cover: the loss in forests due to deforestation plus any increase in forest through afforestation or natural expansion. 3

Unfortunately, there is no single source that provides consistent and transparent data on deforestation rates over this period of time. Methodologies change over time, and estimates — especially in earlier periods — are highly uncertain. This means I’ve had to use two separate datasets to show this change over time. As we’ll see, they produce different estimates of deforestation for an overlapping decade — the 1980s — which suggests that these are not directly comparable. I do not recommend combining them into a single series, but the overall trends are still applicable and tell us an important story about deforestation over the last three centuries.

The first series of data comes from Williams (2006), who estimates deforestation rates from 1700 to 1995. 4 Due to poor data resolution, these are often given as average rates over longer periods — for example, annual average rates are given over the period from 1700 to 1849 and 1920 to 1949. That’s why these rates look strangely consistent over a long period of time.

The second series comes from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It produces a new assessment of global forests every five years. 5

The rate and location of forest loss changed a lot. From 1700 to 1850, 19 million hectares were being cleared every decade. That’s around half the size of Germany.

Most temperate forests across Europe and North America were being lost at this time. Population growth meant that today’s rich countries needed more and more resources such as land for agriculture, wood for energy, and construction. 6

Moving into the 20th century, there was a stepwise change in demand for agricultural land and energy from wood. Deforestation rates accelerated. This increase was mostly driven by tropical deforestation in countries across Asia and Latin America.

Global forest loss appears to have reached its peak in the 1980s. The two sources do not agree on the magnitude of this loss: Williams (2006) estimates a loss of 150 million hectares — an area half the size of India — during that decade.

Interestingly, the UN FAO 1990 report also estimated that deforestation in tropical ‘developing’ countries was 154 million hectares. However, it was estimated that the regrowth of forests offset some of these losses, leading to a net loss of 102 million hectares. 7

The latest UN Forest Resources Assessment estimates that the net loss in forests has declined in the last three decades, from 78 million hectares in the 1990s to 47 million hectares in the 2010s.

This data maps an expected pathway based on what we know from how human-forest interactions evolve.

As we explore in more detail later on , countries tend to follow a predictable development in forest cover, a U-shaped curve. 8 They lose forests as populations grow and demand for agricultural land and fuel increases, but eventually, they reach the so-called ‘forest transition point’ where they begin to regrow more forests than they lose.

That is what has happened in temperate regions: they have gone through a period of high deforestation rates before slowing and reversing this trend.

However, many countries — particularly in the tropics and sub-tropics — are still moving through this transition. Deforestation rates are still very high.

Deforestation rates are still high across the tropics

Large areas of forest are still being lost in the tropics today. This is particularly tragic because these are regions with the highest levels of biodiversity.

Let’s look at estimates of deforestation from the latest UN Forest report. This shows us raw deforestation rates without any adjustment for the regrowth or plantation of forests, which is arguably not as good for ecosystems or carbon storage.

This is shown in the chart below.

We can see that the UN does estimate that deforestation rates have fallen since the 1990s. However, there was very little progress from the 1990s to the 2000s and an estimated 26% drop in rates in the 2010s. In 2022, the FAO published a separate assessment based on remote sensing methods; it did not report data for the 1990s, but it also estimated a 29% reduction in deforestation rates from the early 2000s to the 2010s.

This is progress, but it needs to happen much faster. The world is still losing large amounts of primary forests every year. To put these numbers in context, during the 1990s and first decade of the 2000s, an area almost the size of India was deforested. 9 Even with the ‘improved’ rates in the 2010s, this still amounted to an area around twice the size of Spain. 10

The regrowth of forests is a positive development. In the chart below, we see how this affects the net change in global forests. Forest recovery and plantation ‘offsets’ a lot of deforestation such that the net losses are around half the rates of deforestation alone.

But we should be cautious here: it’s often not the case that the ‘positives’ of regrowing on planting one hectare of forest offset the ‘losses’ of one hectare of deforestation. Cutting down one hectare of rich tropical rainforest cannot be completely offset by the creation of on hectare of plantation forest in a temperate country.

Forest expansion is positive but does not negate the need to end deforestation.

The history of deforestation is a tragic one, in which we have lost not only wild and beautiful landscapes but also the wildlife within them. But, the fact that forest transitions are possible should give us confidence that a positive future is possible. Many countries have not only ended deforestation but have actually achieved substantial reforestation. It will be possible for our generation to achieve the same on a global scale and bring the 10,000-year history of forest loss to an end.

If we want to end deforestation, we need to understand where and why it’s happening, where countries are within their transition, and what can be done to accelerate their progress through it. We need to pass the transition point as soon as possible while minimizing the amount of forest we lose along the way.

In this article , I look at what drives deforestation, which helps us understand what we need to do to solve it.

Forest definitions and comparisons to other datasets

There is no universal definition of what a ‘forest’ is. That means there are a range of estimates of forest area and how this has changed over time.

In this article, in the recent period, I have used data from the UN’s Global Forest Resources Assessment (2020). The UN carries out these global forest stocktakes every five years. These forest figures are widely used in research, policy, and international targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals .

The UN FAO has a very specific definition of a forest. It’s “land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 0.5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ.”

In other words, it has criteria for the area that must be covered (0.5 hectares), the minimum height of trees (0.5 meters), and a density of at least 10%.

Compare this to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which uses forest estimates to calculate land use carbon emissions, and its REDD+ Programme, where low-to-middle-income countries can receive finance for verified projects that prevent or reduce deforestation. It defines a forest as having a density of more than 10%, a minimum tree height of 2-5 meters, and a smaller area of at least 0.05 hectares.

It’s not just forest definitions that vary between sources. What is measured (and not measured) differs, too. Global Forest Watch is an interactive online dashboard that tracks ‘tree loss’ and ‘forest loss’ across the world. It measures this in real time and can provide better estimates of year-to-year variations in rates of tree loss.

However, the UN FAO and Global Forest Watch do not measure the same thing.

The UN FAO measures deforestation based on how land is used. It measures the permanent conversion of forested land to another use, such as pasture, croplands, or urbanization. Temporary changes in forest cover, such as losses through wildfire or small-scale shifting agriculture, are not included in deforestation figures because it is assumed that they will regrow. If the use of land has not changed, it is not considered deforestation.

Global Forest Watch (GFW) measures temporary changes in forests. It can detect changes in land cover but does not differentiate the underlying land use. All deforestation would be considered tree loss, but a lot of tree loss would not be considered as deforestation.

As GFW defines ‘forest loss’, “Loss” indicates the removal or mortality of tree cover and can be due to a variety of factors, including mechanical harvesting, fire, disease, or storm damage. As such, “loss” does not equate to deforestation.”

Therefore, we cannot directly compare these sources. This article from Global Forest Watch gives a good overview of the differences between the UN FAO's and GFW's methods.

Since GFW uses satellite imagery, its methods continually improve. This makes its ability to detect changes in forest cover even stronger. But it also means that comparisons over time are more difficult. It currently warns against comparing pre-2015 and post-2015 data since there was a significant methodological change at that time. Note that this is also a problem in UN FAO reports, as I’ll soon explain.

What data from GFW makes clear is that forest loss across the tropics is still very high, and in the last few years, little progress has been made. Since UN FAO reports are only published in 5-year intervals, they miss these shorter-term fluctuations in forest loss. The GFW’s shorter-interval stocktakes of how countries are doing will become increasingly valuable.

One final point to note is that UN FAO estimates have also changed over time, with improved methods and better access to data.

I looked at how net forest losses in the 1990s were reported across five UN reports: 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020.

Estimated losses changed in each successive report:

• 2000 report : Net losses of 92 million hectares
• 2005 report : 89 million hectares
• 2010 report : 83 million hectares
• 2015 report : 72 million hectares
• 2020 report : 78 million hectares

This should not affect the overall trends reported in the latest report: the UN FAO should — as far as is possible — apply the same methodology to its 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s estimates. However, it does mean we should be cautious about comparing absolute magnitudes across different reports.

This is one challenge in presenting 1980 figures in the main visualization in this article. Later reports have not updated 1980 figures, so we have to rely on estimates from earlier reports. We don’t know whether 1980s losses would also be lower with the UN FAO’s most recent adjustments. If so, this would mean the reductions in net forest loss from the 1980s to 1990s were lower than is shown from available data.

Forest transitions: why do we lose then regain forests?

Globally, we deforest around ten million hectares of forest every year. 11 That’s an area the size of Portugal every year. Around half of this deforestation is offset by regrowing forests, so overall, we lose around five million hectares each year.

Nearly all — 95% — of this deforestation occurs in the tropics . But not all of it is to produce products for local markets. 14% of deforestation is driven by consumers in the world’s richest countries — we import beef, vegetable oils, cocoa, coffee, and paper that has been produced on deforested land. 12

The scale of deforestation today might give us little hope for protecting our diverse forests. But by studying how forests have changed over time, there’s good reason to think that a way forward is possible.

Many countries have lost and then regained forests over millennia.

Time and time again, we see examples of countries that have lost massive amounts of forests before reaching a turning point where deforestation not only slows but forests return. In the chart, we see historical reconstructions of country-level data on the share of land covered by forest (over decades, centuries, or even millennia, depending on the country). I have reconstructed long-term data using various studies, which I’ve documented here .

Many countries have much less forest today than they did in the past. Nearly half (47%) of France was forested 1000 years ago; today that’s just under one-third (31.4%). The same is true of the United States; back in 1630, 46% of the area of today’s USA was covered by forest. Today, that’s just 34%.

One thousand years ago, 20% of Scotland’s land was covered by forest. By the mid-18th century, only 4% of the country was forested. But then the trend turned, and it moved from deforestation to reforestation. For the last two centuries, forests have been growing and are almost back to where they were 1000 years ago. 13

Forest Transitions: the U-shaped curve of forest change

What’s surprising is how consistent the pattern of change is across so many countries; as we’ve seen, they all seem to follow a ‘U-shaped curve.’ They first lose lots of forest but reach a turning point and begin to regain it again.

We can illustrate this through the so-called ‘Forest Transition Model.’ 14 This is shown in the chart. It breaks the change in forests into four stages, explained by two variables: the amount of forest cover a region has and the annual change in cover (how quickly it is losing or gaining forest). 15

Stage 1 – The Pre-Transition phase is defined as having high levels of forest cover and no or only very slow losses over time. Countries may lose some forest each year, but this is at a very slow rate. Mather refers to an annual loss of less than 0.25% as a small loss.

Stage 2 – The Early Transition phase is when countries start to lose forests very rapidly. Forest cover falls quickly, and the annual loss of forest is high.

Stage 3 – The Late Transition phase is when deforestation rates start to slow down again. At this stage, countries are still losing forest each year, but at a lower rate than before. At the end of this stage, countries are approaching the ‘transition point.’

Stage 4 – The Post-Transition phase is when countries have passed the ‘transition point’ and are now gaining forest again. At the beginning of this phase, the forest area is at its lowest point. But forest cover increases through reforestation. The annual change is now positive.

Why do countries lose and then regain forests?

Many countries have followed this classic U-shaped pattern. What explains this?

There are two reasons that we cut down forests:

• Forest resources: we want the resources that they provide — the wood for fuel, building materials, or paper;
• Land: We want to use the land they occupy for something else, such as farmland to grow crops, pasture to raise livestock or land to build roads and cities.

Our demand for both of these initially increases as populations grow and poor people get richer . We need more fuelwood to cook, more houses to live in, and, importantly, more food to eat.

But, as countries continue to get richer, this demand slows. The rate of population growth tends to slow down. Instead of using wood for fuel, we switch to fossil fuels , or hopefully, more renewables and nuclear energy . Our crop yields improve, so we need less land for agriculture.

This demand for resources and land is not always driven by domestic markets. As I mentioned earlier, 14% of deforestation today is driven by consumers in rich countries.

The Forest Transition, therefore, tends to follow a ‘development’ pathway. 16 As a country achieves economic growth, it moves through each of the four stages. This explains the historical trends we see in countries across the world today. Rich countries — such as the USA, France, and the United Kingdom — have had a long history of deforestation but have now passed the transition point. Most deforestation today occurs in low-to-middle-income countries.

Where are countries in the transition today?

If we look at where countries are in their transition today, we can understand where we expect to lose and gain forest in the coming decades. Most of our future deforestation is going to come from countries in the pre-or early-transition phase.

Several studies have assessed the stage of countries across the world. 17 The most recent analysis to date was published by Florence Pendrill and colleagues (2019), which looked at each country’s stage in the transition, the drivers of deforestation, and the role of international trade. 18 To do this, they used the standard metrics discussed in our theory of forest transitions earlier: the share of land that is forested and the annual change in forest cover.

In the map, we see their assessment of each country’s stage in the transition. Most of today’s richest countries — all of Europe, North America, Japan, and South Korea — have passed the turning point and are now regaining forests. This is also true for major economies such as China and India. The fact that these countries have recently regained forests is also visible in the long-term forest trends above.

Across tropical and sub-tropical countries, we have a mix: many upper-middle-income countries are now in the late transition phase. Brazil, for example, went through a period of very rapid deforestation in the 1980s and 90s (its ‘early transition’ phase), but its losses have slowed, meaning it is now in the late transition. Countries such as Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are in the early transition phase and are losing forests quickly. Some of the world’s poorest countries are still in the pre-transition phase. In the coming decades, we might expect to see the most rapid loss of forests unless these countries take action to prevent it and the world supports them in their goal.

Not all forest loss is equal: what is the difference between deforestation and forest degradation?

Fifteen billion trees are cut down every year. 19 The Global Forest Watch project — using satellite imagery — estimates that global tree loss in 2019 was 24 million hectares. That’s an area the size of the United Kingdom.

These are big numbers and important ones to track: forest loss creates a number of negative impacts, ranging from carbon emissions to species extinctions and biodiversity loss. But distilling changes to this single metric — tree or forest loss — comes with its own issues.

The problem is that it treats all forest loss as equal. It assumes the impact of clearing primary rainforest in the Amazon to produce soybeans is the same as logging plantation forests in the UK. The latter will experience short-term environmental impacts but will ultimately regrow. When we cut down primary rainforest, we transform this ecosystem forever.

When we treat these impacts equally, we make it difficult to prioritize our efforts in the fight against deforestation. Decision makers could give as much of our attention to European logging as to the destruction of the Amazon. As we will see later, this would be a distraction from our primary concern: ending tropical deforestation. The other issue that arises is that ‘tree loss’ or ‘forest loss’ data collected by satellite imagery often doesn’t match the official statistics reported by governments in their land use inventories. This is because the latter only captures deforestation — the replacement of forest with another land use (such as cropland). It doesn’t capture trees that are cut down in planted forests; the land is still forested; it’s now just regrowing forests.

In the article, we will look at the reasons we lose forests, how these can be differentiated in a useful way, and what this means for understanding our priorities in tackling forest loss.

Understanding and seeing the drivers of forest loss

‘Forest loss’ or ‘tree loss’ captures two fundamental impacts on forest cover: deforestation and forest degradation .

Deforestation is the complete removal of trees for the conversion of forest to another land use such as agriculture, mining, or towns and cities. It results in a permanent conversion of forest into an alternative land use. The trees are not expected to regrow . Forest degradation measures a thinning of the canopy — a reduction in the density of trees in the area — but without a change in land use. The changes to the forest are often temporary, and it’s expected that they will regrow.

From this understanding, we can define five reasons why we lose forests:

• Commodity-driven deforestation is the long-term, permanent conversion of forests to other land uses such as agriculture (including oil palm and cattle ranching), mining, or energy infrastructure.
• Urbanization is the long-term, permanent conversion of forests to towns, cities, and urban infrastructure such as roads.
• Shifting agriculture is the small- to medium-scale conversion of forest for farming, which is later abandoned so that forests regrow. This is common in local subsistence farming systems where populations will clear forest, use it to grow crops, and then move on to another plot of land.
• Forestry production is the logging of managed, planted forests for products such as timber, paper, and pulp. These forests are logged periodically and allowed to regrow.
• Wildfires destroy forests temporarily. When the land is not converted to a new use, forests can regrow in the following years.

Thanks to satellite imagery, we can get a birds-eye view of what these drivers look like from above. In the figure, we see visual examples from the study of forest loss classification by Philip Curtis et al. (2018), published in Science . 20

Commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization are deforestation : the forested land is completely cleared and converted into another land use — a farm, mining site, or city. The change is permanent. There is little forest left. Forestry production and wildfires usually result in forest degradation — the forest experiences short-term disturbance but, if left alone, is likely to regrow. The change is temporary. This is nearly always true of planted forests in temperate regions — there, planted forests are long-established and do not replace primary existing forests. In the tropics, some forestry production can be classified as deforestation when primary rainforests are cut down to make room for managed tree plantations. 18

'Shifting agriculture’ is usually classified as degradation because the land is often abandoned, and the forests regrow naturally. But it can bridge between deforestation and degradation depending on the timeframe and permanence of these agricultural practices.

One-quarter of forest loss comes from tropical deforestation

We’ve seen the five key drivers of forest loss. Let’s put some numbers on them.

In their analysis of global forest loss, Philip Curtis and colleagues used satellite images to assess where and why the world lost forests between 2001 and 2015. The breakdown of forest loss globally and by region is shown in the chart. 20

Just over one-quarter of global forest loss is driven by deforestation. The remaining 73% came from the three drivers of forest degradation: logging of forestry products from plantations (26%), shifting, local agriculture (24%), and wildfires (23%).

We see massive differences in how important each driver is across the world. 95% of the world’s deforestation occurs in the tropics [we look at this breakdown again later]. In Latin America and Southeast Asia, in particular, commodity-driven deforestation — mainly the clearance of forests to grow crops such as palm oil and soy and pasture for beef production — accounts for almost two-thirds of forest loss.

In contrast, most forest degradation — two-thirds of it — occurs in temperate countries. Centuries ago, it was mainly temperate regions that were driving global deforestation [we take a look at this longer history of deforestation in a related article ] . They cut down their forests and replaced them with agricultural land long ago. But this is no longer the case: forest loss across North America and Europe is now the result of harvesting forestry products from tree plantations or tree loss in wildfires.

Africa is also different here. Forests are mainly cut and burned to make space for local subsistence agriculture or fuelwood for energy. This ‘shifting agriculture’ category can be difficult to allocate between deforestation and degradation: it often requires close monitoring over time to understand how permanent these agricultural practices are.

Africa is also an outlier as a result of how many people still rely on wood as their primary energy source. Noriko Hosonuma et al. (2010) looked at the primary drivers of deforestation and degradation across tropical and subtropical countries specifically. 21  The breakdown of forest degradation drivers is shown in the following chart. Note that in this study, the category of subsistence agriculture was classified as a deforestation driver, so it is not included. In Latin America and Asia, the dominant driver of degradation was logging for products such as timber, paper, and pulp — this accounted for more than 70%. Across Africa, fuelwood and charcoal played a much larger role — it accounted for more than half (52%).

This highlights an important point: around one in five people in sub-Saharan Africa have access to clean fuels for cooking, meaning they still rely on wood and charcoal. With increasing development, urbanization, and access to other energy resources, Africa will shift from local subsistence activities into commercial commodity production — both in agricultural products and timber extraction. This follows the classic ‘forest transition’ model with development, which we look at in more detail in a related article .

Tropical deforestation should be our primary concern

The world loses almost six million hectares of forest each year to deforestation. That’s like losing an area the size of Portugal every two years. 95% of this occurs in the tropics. The breakdown of deforestation by region is shown in the chart. 59% occurs in Latin America, with a further 28% from Southeast Asia. In a related article , we look in much more detail at which agricultural products and which countries are driving this.

As we saw previously, this deforestation accounts for around one-quarter of global forest loss. 27% of forest loss results from ‘commodity-driven deforestation’ — cutting down forests to grow crops such as soy, palm oil, and cocoa, raising livestock on pasture, and mining operations. Urbanization, the other driver of deforestation, accounts for just 0.6%. It’s the foods and products we buy, not where we live, that have the biggest impact on global land use.

It might seem odd to argue that we should focus our efforts on tackling this quarter of forest loss (rather than the other 73%). But there is good reason to make this our primary concern.

Philipp Curtis and colleagues make this point clear. On their Global Forest Watch platform, they were already presenting maps of forest loss across the world. However, they wanted to contribute to a more informed discussion about where to focus forest conservation efforts by understanding why forests were being lost. To quote them, they wanted to prevent “a common misperception that any tree cover loss shown on the map represents deforestation.” And to “identify where deforestation is occurring; perhaps as important, show where forest loss is not deforestation.”

Why should we care most about tropical deforestation? There is a geographical argument (why the tropics?) and an argument for why deforestation is worse than degradation.

Tropical forests are home to some of the richest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Over half of the world’s species reside in tropical forests. 22 Endemic species are those which only naturally occur in a single country. Whether we look at the distribution of endemic mammal species , bird species , or amphibian species , the map is the same: tropical and subtropical countries are packed with unique wildlife. Habitat loss is the leading driver of global biodiversity loss. 23 When we cut down rainforests, we are destroying the habitats of many unique species and reshaping these ecosystems permanently. Tropical forests are also large carbon sinks and can store a lot of carbon per unit area. 24

Deforestation also results in larger losses of biodiversity and carbon relative to degradation. Degradation drivers, including logging and especially wildfires, can definitely have major impacts on forest health: animal populations decline, trees can die, and CO 2 is emitted. However, the magnitude of these impacts is often less than the complete conversion of forests. They are smaller and more temporary. When deforestation happens, almost all of the carbon stored in the trees and vegetation — called the ‘aboveground carbon loss’ —  is lost. Estimates vary, but on average, only 10-20% of carbon is lost during logging and 10-30% from fires. 25 In a study of logging practices in the Amazon and Congo, forests retained 76% of their carbon stocks shortly after logging. 26 Logged forests recover their carbon over time, as long as the land is not converted to other uses (which is what happens in the case of deforestation).

Deforestation tends to occur in forests that have been around for centuries if not millennia. Cutting them down disrupts or destroys established, species-rich ecosystems. The biodiversity of managed tree plantations, which are periodically cut, regrown, cut again, and then regrown, is not the same.

That is why we should be focusing on tropical deforestation. Since agriculture is responsible for 60 to 80% of it, what we eat, where it’s sourced from, and how it is produced are our strongest levers to bring deforestation to an end.

Carbon emissions from deforestation: are they driven by domestic demand or international trade?

95% of global deforestation occurs in the tropics. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for almost half. After long periods of forest clearance in the past, most of today’s richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.

This might put the responsibility for ending deforestation solely on tropical countries. But, supply chains are international. What if this deforestation is being driven by consumers elsewhere?

Many consumers are concerned that their food choices are linked to deforestation in some of these hotspots. Since three-quarters of tropical deforestation is driven by agriculture, that’s a valid concern. It feeds into the popular idea that ‘eating local’ is one of the best ways to reduce your carbon footprint. In a previous article , I showed that the types of food you eat matter much more for your carbon footprint than where it comes from — this is because transport usually makes up a small percentage of your food’s emissions, even if it comes from the other side of the world. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, reducing meat and dairy intake — particularly beef and lamb — has the largest impact.

But understanding the role of deforestation in the products we buy is important. If we can identify the producing and importing countries and the specific products responsible, we can direct our efforts towards interventions that will really make a difference.

Read more about the imported deforestation here:

Do rich countries import deforestation from overseas?

Rich countries import foods produced on deforested land in the tropics. How much deforestation do they import?

One-third of CO 2 emissions from deforestation are embedded in international trade

In a study published in Global Environmental Change , Florence Pendrill and colleagues investigated where tropical deforestation was occurring and what products were driving this. Using global trade models, they traced where these products were going in international supply chains. 27

They found that tropical deforestation — given as the annual average between 2010 and 2014 — was responsible for 2.6 billion tonnes of CO 2 per year. That was 6.5% of global CO 2 emissions. 28

International trade was responsible for around one-third (29%) of these emissions. This is probably less than many people would expect. Most emissions — 71% — came from foods consumed in the country where they were produced. It’s domestic demand, not international trade, that is the main driver of deforestation.

In the chart, we see how emissions from tropical deforestation are distributed through international supply chains. On the left-hand side, we have the countries (grouped by region) where deforestation occurs, and on the right, we have the countries and regions where these products are consumed. The paths between these end boxes indicate where emissions are being traded — the wider the bar, the more emissions are embedded in these products.

Latin America exports around 23% of its emissions; that means more than three-quarters are generated for products that are consumed within domestic markets. The Asia-Pacific region — predominantly Indonesia and Malaysia — exports a higher share: 44%. As we will see later, this is dominated by palm oil exports to Europe, China, India, North America, and the Middle East. Deforestation in Africa is mainly driven by local populations and markets; only 9% of its emissions are exported.

Since international demand is driving one-third of deforestation emissions, we have some opportunity to reduce emissions through global consumers and supply chains. However, most emissions are driven by domestic markets, which means that policies in major producer countries will be key to tackling this problem.

How much deforestation emissions is each country responsible for?

Let’s now focus on the consumers of products driving deforestation. After we adjust for imports and exports, how much CO 2 from deforestation is each country responsible for?

Rather than looking at total figures by country (if you’re interested, we have mapped them here ), we have calculated the per capita footprint. This gives us an indication of the impact of the average person’s diet. Note that this only measures the emissions from tropical deforestation — it doesn’t include any other emissions from agricultural production, such as methane from livestock or rice or the use of fertilizers.

In the chart, we see deforestation emissions per person, measured in tonnes of CO 2 per year. For example, the average German generated half a tonne (510 kilograms) of CO 2 per person from domestic and imported foods.

At the top of the list, we see Brazil and Indonesia, which are some of the major producer countries. The fact that the per capita emissions after trade are very high means that a lot of their food products are consumed by people in Brazil and Indonesia. The diet of the average Brazilian creates 2.7 tonnes of CO 2 from deforestation alone. That’s more than the country’s CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels , which are around 2.2 tonnes per person.

But we also see that some countries which import a lot of food have high emissions. Luxembourg has the largest footprint at nearly three tonnes per person. Imported emissions are also high for Taiwan, Belgium, and the Netherlands at around one tonne.

The average across the EU was 0.3 tonnes of CO 2 per person. To put this in perspective, that would be around one-sixth of the total carbon footprint of the average EU diet. 29

Beef, soybeans, and palm oil are the key drivers of deforestation

We know where deforestation emissions are occurring and where this demand is coming from. But we also need to know what products are driving this. This helps consumers understand what products they should be concerned about and allows us to target specific supply chains.

As we covered in a previous article , 60% of tropical deforestation is driven by beef, soybean, and palm oil production. We should look not only at where these foods are produced but also at where the consumer demand is coming from.

In the chart here, we see the breakdown of deforestation emissions by product for each consumer country. The default is shown for Brazil, but you can explore the data for a range of countries using the “Change country” button.

We see very clearly that the large Brazilian footprint is driven by its domestic demand for beef. In China, the biggest driver is demand for ‘oilseeds’ — which is the combination of soy imported from Latin America and palm oil imported from Indonesia and Malaysia.

Across the US and Europe, the breakdown of products is more varied. But, overall, oilseeds and beef tend to top the list for most countries.

Bringing all of these elements together, we can focus on a few points that should help us prioritize our efforts to end deforestation. Firstly, international trade does play a role in deforestation — it’s responsible for almost one-third of emissions. By combining our earlier Sankey diagram and breakdown of emissions by-product, we can see that we can tackle a large share of these emissions through only a few key trade flows. Most traded emissions are embedded in soy and palm oil exports to China and India, as well as beef, soy, and palm oil exports to Europe. The story of both soy and palm oil is complex — and it’s not obvious that eliminating these products will fix the problem. Therefore, we look at them both individually in more detail to better understand what we can do about it.

However, international markets alone cannot fix this problem. Most tropical deforestation is driven by the demand for products in domestic markets. Brazil’s emissions are high because Brazilians eat a lot of beef. Africa’s emissions are high because people are clearing forests to produce more food. This means interventions at the national level will be key: this can include a range of solutions, including policies such as Brazil’s soy moratorium, the REDD+ Programme to compensate for the opportunity costs of preserving these forests, and improvements in agricultural productivity so countries can continue to produce more food on less land.

FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8753en

Estimates vary, but most date the end of the last ice age to around 11,700 years ago.

Kump, L. R., Kasting, J. F., & Crane, R. G. (2004). The Earth System (Vol. 432). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Year-to-year data on forest change comes with several issues: either data at this resolution is not available, or year-to-year changes can be highly variable. For this reason, data sources — including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization — tend to aggregate annual losses as the average over five-year or decadal periods.

Williams, M. (2003). Deforesting the earth: from prehistory to global crisis. University of Chicago Press.

The data for 1990 to 2020 is from the latest assessment: the UN’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.

FAO (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en .

Mather, A. S., Fairbairn, J., & Needle, C. L. (1999). The course and drivers of the forest transition: the case of France. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(1), 65-90.

Mather, A. S., & Needle, C. L. (2000). The relationships of population and forest trends. Geographical Journal, 166(1), 2-13.

It estimated that the net change in forests without plantations was 121 million hectares. With plantations included — as is standard for the UN’s forest assessments — this was 102 million hectares.

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.

The area of India is around 330 million hectares. The combined losses in the 1990s and 2000s were 309 million hectares. Just 6% less than the size of India.

The area of Spain is around 51 million hectares. Double this area is around 102 million hectares — a little under 110 million hectares.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Forest Resources Assessment estimates global deforestation, averaged over the five-year period from 2015 to 2020, was 10 million hectares per year.

If we sum countries’ imported deforestation by World Bank income group , we find that high-income countries were responsible for 14% of imported deforestation; upper-middle-income for 52%; lower-middle income for 23%; and low income for 11%.

Mather, A. S. (2004). Forest transition theory and the reforesting of Scotland . Scottish Geographical Journal, 120(1-2), 83-98.

England is similar: in the late 11th century, 15% of the country was forested, and over the following centuries, two-thirds were cut down. By the 19th century, the forest area had been reduced to a third of what it once was. But it was then that England reached its transition point, and since then, forests have doubled in size.

National Inventory of Woodland and Trees, England (2001). Forestry Commission. Available here .

This was first coined by Alexander Mather in the 1990s. Mather, A. S. (1990). Global forest resources . Belhaven Press.

This diagram is adapted from the work of Hosonuma et al. (2012).

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.

Rudel, T. K. (1998). Is there a forest transition? Deforestation, reforestation, and development . Rural Sociology , 63 (4), 533-552.

Rudel, T. K., Coomes, O. T., Moran, E., Achard, F., Angelsen, A., Xu, J., & Lambin, E. (2005). Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change . Global Environmental Change , 15 (1), 23-31.

Cuaresma, J. C., Danylo, O., Fritz, S., McCallum, I., Obersteiner, M., See, L., & Walsh, B. (2017). Economic development and forest cover: evidence from satellite data . Scientific Reports , 7 , 40678.

Noriko Hosonuma et al. (2012) looked at this distribution for low-to-middle-income subtropical countries and also studied the many drivers of forest loss.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.

Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., & Kastner, T. (2019). Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition . Environmental Research Letters , 14 (5), 055003.

Crowther, T. W., Glick, H. B., Covey, K. R., Bettigole, C., Maynard, D. S., Thomas, S. M., ... & Tuanmu, M. N. (2015). Mapping tree density at a global scale . Nature , 525 (7568), 201-205.

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss . Science , 361 (6407), 1108-1111.

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.

Hosonuma et al. (2012) gathered this data from a range of sources, including country submissions as part of their REDD+ readiness activities, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) country profiles, UNFCCC national communications, and scientific studies.

Scheffers, B. R., Joppa, L. N., Pimm, S. L., & Laurance, W. F. (2012). What we know and don’t know about Earth's missing biodiversity . Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 27(9), 501-510.

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. (2016). Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets, and bulldozers . Nature, 536(7615), 143.

Lewis, S. L. (2006). Tropical forests and the changing earth system . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 361(1465), 195-210.

Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Stehman, S. V., Smith-Rodriguez, K., Okpa, C., & Aguilar, R. (2017). Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal Amazon, 2000–2013 . Science Advances , 3 (4), e1601047.

Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P., & Galbraith, D. (2015). Increasing human dominance of tropical forests . Science , 349 (6250), 827-832.

To do this, they quantified where deforestation was occurring due to the expansion of croplands, pasture, and tree plantations (for logging) and what commodities were produced on this converted land. Then, using a physical trade model across 191 countries and around 400 food and forestry products, they could trace them through to where they are physically consumed, either as food or in industrial processes.

Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., Kastner, T., Moran, D., Schmidt, S., & Wood, R. (2019). Agricultural and forestry trade drives a large share of tropical deforestation emissions . Global Environmental Change , 56 , 1-10.

In 2012 — the mid-year of this period — global emissions from fossil fuels, industry, and land use change was 40.2 billion tonnes. Deforestation was therefore responsible for [2.6 / 40.2 * 100 = 6.5%].

The carbon footprint of diets across the EU varies from country to country, and estimates vary depending on how much land use change is factored into these figures. Notarnicola et al. (2017) estimate that the average EU diet, excluding deforestation, is responsible for 0.5 tonnes of CO 2 per person. If we add 0.3 tonnes to this figure, deforestation would account for around one-sixth [0.3 / (1.5+0.3) * 100 = 17%].

Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P. A., Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2017). Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe . Journal of Cleaner Production , 140 , 753-765.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

How to tackle the global deforestation crisis

Imagine if France, Germany, and Spain were completely blanketed in forests — and then all those trees were quickly chopped down. That’s nearly the amount of deforestation that occurred globally between 2001 and 2020, with profound consequences.

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, producing between 6 and 17 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2009 study. Meanwhile, because trees also absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere, they help keep the Earth cooler. And climate change aside, forests protect biodiversity.

“Climate change and biodiversity make this a global problem, not a local problem,” says MIT economist Ben Olken. “Deciding to cut down trees or not has huge implications for the world.”

But deforestation is often financially profitable, so it continues at a rapid rate. Researchers can now measure this trend closely: In the last quarter-century, satellite-based technology has led to a paradigm change in charting deforestation. New deforestation datasets, based on the Landsat satellites, for instance, track forest change since 2000 with resolution at 30 meters, while many other products now offer frequent imaging at close resolution.

“Part of this revolution in measurement is accuracy, and the other part is coverage,” says Clare Balboni, an assistant professor of economics at the London School of Economics (LSE). “On-site observation is very expensive and logistically challenging, and you’re talking about case studies. These satellite-based data sets just open up opportunities to see deforestation at scale, systematically, across the globe.”

Balboni and Olken have now helped write a new paper providing a road map for thinking about this crisis. The open-access article, “ The Economics of Tropical Deforestation ,” appears this month in the Annual Review of Economics . The co-authors are Balboni, a former MIT faculty member; Aaron Berman, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Economics; Robin Burgess, an LSE professor; and Olken, MIT’s Jane Berkowitz Carlton and Dennis William Carlton Professor of Microeconomics. Balboni and Olken have also conducted primary research in this area, along with Burgess.

So, how can the world tackle deforestation? It starts with understanding the problem.

Replacing forests with farms

Several decades ago, some thinkers, including the famous MIT economist Paul Samuelson in the 1970s, built models to study forests as a renewable resource; Samuelson calculated the “maximum sustained yield” at which a forest could be cleared while being regrown. These frameworks were designed to think about tree farms or the U.S. national forest system, where a fraction of trees would be cut each year, and then new trees would be grown over time to take their place.

But deforestation today, particularly in tropical areas, often looks very different, and forest regeneration is not common.

Indeed, as Balboni and Olken emphasize, deforestation is now rampant partly because the profits from chopping down trees come not just from timber, but from replacing forests with agriculture. In Brazil, deforestation has increased along with agricultural prices; in Indonesia, clearing trees accelerated as the global price of palm oil went up, leading companies to replace forests with palm tree orchards.

All this tree-clearing creates a familiar situation: The globally shared costs of climate change from deforestation are “externalities,” as economists say, imposed on everyone else by the people removing forest land. It is akin to a company that pollutes into a river, affecting the water quality of residents.

“Economics has changed the way it thinks about this over the last 50 years, and two things are central,” Olken says. “The relevance of global externalities is very important, and the conceptualization of alternate land uses is very important.” This also means traditional forest-management guidance about regrowth is not enough. With the economic dynamics in mind, which policies might work, and why?

The search for solutions

As Balboni and Olken note, economists often recommend “Pigouvian” taxes (named after the British economist Arthur Pigou) in these cases, levied against people imposing externalities on others. And yet, it can be hard to identify who is doing the deforesting.

Instead of taxing people for clearing forests, governments can pay people to keep forests intact. The UN uses Payments for Environmental Services (PES) as part of its REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) program. However, it is similarly tough to identify the optimal landowners to subsidize, and these payments may not match the quick cash-in of deforestation. A 2017 study in Uganda showed PES reduced deforestation somewhat; a 2022 study in Indonesia found no reduction; another 2022 study, in Brazil, showed again that some forest protection resulted.

“There’s mixed evidence from many of these [studies],” Balboni says. These policies, she notes, must reach people who would otherwise clear forests, and a key question is, “How can we assess their success compared to what would have happened anyway?”

Some places have tried cash transfer programs for larger populations. In Indonesia, a 2020 study found such subsidies reduced deforestation near villages by 30 percent. But in Mexico, a similar program meant more people could afford milk and meat, again creating demand for more agriculture and thus leading to more forest-clearing.

At this point, it might seem that laws simply banning deforestation in key areas would work best — indeed, about 16 percent of the world’s land overall is protected in some way. Yet the dynamics of protection are tricky. Even with protected areas in place, there is still “leakage” of deforestation into other regions. 

Still more approaches exist, including “nonstate agreements,” such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium in Brazil, in which grain traders pledged not to buy soy from deforested lands, and reduced deforestation without “leakage.”

Also, intriguingly, a 2008 policy change in the Brazilian Amazon made agricultural credit harder to obtain by requiring recipients to comply with environmental and land registration rules. The result? Deforestation dropped by up to 60 percent over nearly a decade. 

Politics and pulp

Overall, Balboni and Olken observe, beyond “externalities,” two major challenges exist. One, it is often unclear who holds property rights in forests. In these circumstances, deforestation seems to increase. Two, deforestation is subject to political battles.

For instance, as economist Bard Harstad of Stanford University has observed, environmental lobbying is asymmetric. Balboni and Olken write: “The conservationist lobby must pay the government in perpetuity … while the deforestation-oriented lobby need pay only once to deforest in the present.” And political instability leads to more deforestation because “the current administration places lower value on future conservation payments.”

Even so, national political measures can work. In the Amazon from 2001 to 2005, Brazilian deforestation rates were three to four times higher than on similar land across the border, but that imbalance vanished once the country passed conservation measures in 2006. However, deforestation ramped up again after a 2014 change in government. Looking at particular monitoring approaches, a study of Brazil’s satellite-based Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation (DETER), launched in 2004, suggests that a 50 percent annual increase in its use in municipalities created a 25 percent reduction in deforestation from 2006 to 2016.

How precisely politics matters may depend on the context. In a 2021 paper, Balboni and Olken (with three colleagues) found that deforestation actually decreased around elections in Indonesia. Conversely, in Brazil, one study found that deforestation rates were 8 to 10 percent higher where mayors were running for re-election between 2002 and 2012, suggesting incumbents had deforestation industry support.

“The research there is aiming to understand what the political economy drivers are,” Olken says, “with the idea that if you understand those things, reform in those countries is more likely.”

Looking ahead, Balboni and Olken also suggest that new research estimating the value of intact forest land intact could influence public debates. And while many scholars have studied deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, fewer have examined the Democratic Republic of Congo, another deforestation leader, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Deforestation is an ongoing crisis. But thanks to satellites and many recent studies, experts know vastly more about the problem than they did a decade or two ago, and with an economics toolkit, can evaluate the incentives and dynamics at play.

“To the extent that there’s ambuiguity across different contexts with different findings, part of the point of our review piece is to draw out common themes — the important considerations in determining which policy levers can [work] in different circumstances,” Balboni says. “That’s a fast-evolving area. We don’t have all the answers, but part of the process is bringing together growing evidence about [everything] that affects how successful those choices can be.”

• Email 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 *
• Comments 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.

Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem Essay

Introduction, the short-term effects of deforestation, long-term effects of deforestation, how human activities have caused deforestation, prevention and mitigation strategies for deforestation.

The increases in the population of humankind have put a strain on natural resources. This analogy provides reasons why human activities are the leading cause of deforestation. 1 Among the human factors for deforestation are global warming, climate change, acid rain, natural storms, and forest fires. Virgin land has been lost significantly in the United States alone. An additional 5 million acres of forest land have been destroyed annually between 2001 and 2015, and the statistics do not seem to end. 2 25% of pharmaceuticals and half of cancer treatment drugs introduced since 1940 are manufactured from rainforest ingredients. 3 Therefore, losing this precious resource is a matter of grave concern. Deforestation has serious long-term and short-term effects on the ecosystem and human health, which is the main focus of this paper’s discussion. In addition, the debate forwards potential mitigation strategies.

Deforestation has immediate effects on plants and animals, alias flora and fauna. Forests are a habitat for several animals and plants, including nesting birds, nestlings, and eggs of various animals. Loss of habitat for such living organisms leads to the death of many of them. The few that survive are forced to relocate to other environments. The laws of survival of the fittest create territory wars with species of different kinds, including natural selection for population control. One of the immediate effects of deforestation is its severe effects on flora and fauna that the rainforest provides refuge in.

Rainforests and the majority of forest plantations occupy vast land on the leeward side of the mountainous regions. Geographically, this side of the mountain receives generous amounts of rainfall for the survival of plantations. Such steep slopes on which forest vegetation grows are prone to erosion, landslides, and avalanches. Trees have roots that hold the soil together to prevent corrosion. Also, they provide a catchment area for snow, particularly during the winter seasons, to prevent landslides and avalanches. Destruction of forest reserves by human primary and secondary activities reduces these benefits and exposes man to danger and soil destruction.

Deforestation exposes soil to heat and rain which quickly damages the top soil viable for agricultural production. There is a substantial rapid degradation of the quality and fertility of such lands. Also, the exposure of the tops soil due to deforestation leads to erosion and avalanches, as has been highlighted. Removing the top fertile soil through flooding and sedimentation is detrimental to the fisheries of the coastal region and food production. Soil quality deterioration, flooding, and exposure of soil are all qualities are short-term effects of deforestation that reduce sustainable food production for humanity.

One of the long-term effects of deforestation is global warming. Trees, being plants, absorb carbon dioxide for food production during photosynthesis. At the same time, respiration occurs through the process of oxygen emission by plants. The growth of forests provides an environment in which photosynthesis exceeds respiration to end that surplus carbon is stored in tree trunks in sequestration. This carbon is released into the atmosphere when trees are cut down for whatever purpose to produce global warming and its detrimental effects.

Climate change and imbalance are the subsequent tragedy of deforestation to humanity. Forest cover is responsible for absorbing greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, while releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. The release of oxygen in the atmosphere explains the humid atmospheric climate in the rainforests and other forest covers. 4 Additionally, the shade the trees provide for the soil is responsible for soil moisture. Cutting down trees and losing trees in general leads to severe imbalances in the climatic conditions, which tend to be drier.

Deforestation is a significant influence in the formation of acidic rain. Acid rain has emanated from the reaction between sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. However, there is overwhelming evidence from scientific research that reveals that burning fossil fuel and biomass produce chemicals for forming formic acid. Such compounds called terpenoids are exposed to oxygenating agents to produce formic acid responsible for acid rain formation. Acid rain from deforestation introduces risks to the natural ecosystem and habitat for several organisms. Ocean species face more significant risks in addition to what industrial pollution adds to the acid rain from deforestation. It is then safe to conclude that deforestation causes acid rain, considerably influencing biodiversity’s instability.

Deforestation leads to a decrease in the general quality of life of human beings. Many people draw their survival from the existence of forests and their benefits. Agricultural production is a function of rainfall which increases with the preservation of forests. Other people rely on hunting and gathering, which is also a benefit reserved for the existence of the woods. Herbalists create drugs and pharmaceutical interventions from the proceeds of the forest. Other necessities used by humanity, including natural oils, fruits, nuts, resins, latex, and cork, are resident in tropical and rain forests. In addition, many lives have been disrupted by deforestation, for instance, the migration of people in Brazil. Intuitively, deforestation significantly affects man’s quality of life in the long term.

When the human population increases, there is a need to create a habitat land for them. This concept is defined as urbanization, a process through which cities grow. Urbanization statistics provide by 2030, over 60% of the world population, which accounts for over five billion people, will be living in urban areas. 5 The percentage of people living in the urban areas as of 1955 was merely 15.6%. Therefore, notable that with these calculations, there is an influx of the growth of cities by 15.6% in just 65 years alone. 6 Part of the land that provides room for urbanization has crept from the forest reserves. 7 Conclusively, urbanization as part of the human settlement program is one of the leading causes of deforestation.

Food production for sustenance demands vast agricultural land for livestock and plant farming. One of the leading causes of deforestation is the conversion of forest lands into agricultural lands. Research shows a net loss of 5.5 million acres of forest land in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay alone, with 3 million of the same land traced to agricultural needs. 8 These areas recorded such losses in a period ranging from the year 2000 to 2015. The ever-increasing world population is more needful of food in the trending years, which explains that if nothing is done, there is a risk that even more forest land will be converted into agricultural usage. It is with this profound evidence that another leading cause of deforestation is agricultural production for food sustenance.

Livestock rearing and ranching is another typical driver for deforestation globally. Latin America leads in extensive cattle grazing, which has severed a significant chunk of the forest cover. Research done in 2006 reported that from 2000 to 2010, people would convert 24 million acres of land for grazing and livestock rearing. 9 The demand for Amazon beef and products from the soybean industries in Latin America and worldwide is responsible for the deforestation for livestock rearing.

The industrial revolution has seen several manufacturing and processing companies spring up. For a long time, there hasn’t been a universal remedy for waste control and management in the global scope, particularly for developing nations. Improper waste disposal introduces agents of acid rain into the atmosphere. Trees growing in highly elevated regions become significantly disadvantaged because they sit under acidic clouds. Acidic rain releases aluminum into the soil, making it difficult for trees growing in such areas to take up water and nutrients such as magnesium and calcium. Trees are then exposed to damaging agents like cold weather, diseases, and infections, resulting in deforestation.

Climatic influences majorly cause wildfires in tropical forests. However, there are shreds of evidence that anthropogenic ignition sources cause part of the wild forest fires. 10 One such anthropogenic ignition source is the habitual logging and charcoal burning in as much as in most countries, which is unlawful, illegal, and incriminating. Selective logging is also responsible for shifting climatic patterns that expose forest lands to thermal conditions vulnerable to wildfires. While it is the climatic influences that produce most deforestation through the fire, it is human influences that are responsible for the climatic changes. In addition, human activities such as selective logging and charcoal burning are responsible for losing vast forest reserves.

There are several mitigation and prevention strategies for deforestation. Since deforestation is one of the hindrances to the achievements of the millennium development goals because of the effects of global warming and climate change it causes, this is one of the most widely researched topics. Mitigation measures for deforestation include eco-forestry, afforestation, and reforestation. Other includes; law enforcement, green-energy use, recycling, and several strategies that have been documented as potential solutions. However, this discussion forwards an argument favoring international body governance, commercial afforestation, evidence-based policy formation, and law enforcement.

One of the mitigation strategies is the utility of international organizations as drivers of change. For instance, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international body whose function is to ensure forest lands’ preservation against depletion. One of the projects they currently handle is called the Clean Development Mechanism. In this project, they strive to foster the need for member countries to create avenues for afforestation and reforestation. Engaging such international bodies provide management oversight for national and local drivers of change. These international bodies should ensure that each member country has sub-unions responsible for environmental conservation and that they provide supervision.

Researchers provide that the use of wood and timber may not decline in the coming ages. This looming problem is why there has been a constant demand for deforestation. Finding a solution that can sustainably allow for the usage of timber and the preservation of forests is plausible to mitigate deforestation. One such strategy is commercial afforestation which is planting trees for money. In research that Foster and his team did, they argue that irrespective of whether trees are harvested, there is potential to mitigate 1.64 Pg CO 2 e by 2120. 11 They provide definitive evidence that commercial afforestation alone can provide greenhouse gas mitigation. This intervention is also beneficial in giving a carbon-free future.

The law and its enforcement agencies factor significantly in ending deforestation. A case study of law enforcement and policy formulation in Brazil has proven to yield results. However, the success of Brazil in significantly reducing deforestation was strategic and evidence-based. Conducting research on the causes of deforestation in a region provides policy recommendations for strategic management practices, including which laws to implement aggressively. Countries like Indonesia have met a limited extent of success because their law enforcement is not based on a strategic policy informed by research. Forest law enforcement based on evidence from policy information is pertinent to reducing levels of deforestation in any country.

Deforestation is a primary global concern because of its effects on global warming and climate change. Other detrimental effects of concern include biodiversity change, the risk to the overall living standards of human beings, and the risk to agricultural production, among several other long and short-term effects. Most of the causes of deforestation are caused by human activities, irrespective of whether they are primary or secondary causes. Chief causes of deforestation include acid rain, urbanization, agricultural production, livestock rearing, and wildfires. 12 It is possible to prevent deforestation, and mitigation of such activities is realizable. Measures of relief and prevention include evidence-based policy law enforcement, international bodies’ intervention, and commercial afforestation. Other measures include eco-forestry, afforestation, reforestation, recycling, and green-energy use.

Dearden, Philip, and Bruce Mitchell. Environmental Change & Challenge: A Canadian Perspective . 6th ed. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Fang, C., Liu, H., & Wang, S. (2021). The coupling curve between urbanization and the eco-environment: China’s urban agglomeration as a case study . Ecological Indicators , 130 , 108107. Web.

• Forster, E. J., Healey, J. R., Dymond, C., & Styles, D. (2021). Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonization pathways. Nature communications , 12 (1), 1-12. Web.

Franco-Solís, Alberto, and Claudia V. Montanía. “ Dynamics of deforestation worldwide: A structural decomposition analysis of agricultural land use in South America .” Land Use Policy 109 (2021): 105619. Web.

Gu, C. (2019). Urbanization: Processes and driving forces . Science China Earth Sciences , 62 (9), 1351-1360. Web.

Hickmann, Thomas, Oscar Widerberg, Markus Lederer, and Philipp Pattberg. “ The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking .” International Review of Administrative Sciences 87, no. 1 (2021): 21-38. Web.

Mollinari, Manoela Schiavon Machado. “ Fire in the Amazon forest amidst selective logging and climatic variation .” Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 2020. Web.

Ortiz, Diana I., Marta Piche-Ovares, Luis M. Romero-Vega, Joseph Wagman, and Adriana Troyo. “ The Impact of Deforestation, Urbanization, and Changing Land Use Patterns on the Ecology of Mosquito and Tick-Borne Diseases in Central America .” MDPI. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2021. Web.

Raven, Peter H., and David L. Wagner. “ Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity .” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 2 (2021): e2002548117. Web.

Sarmin, N. S., Hasmadi, I. M., Pakhriazad, H. Z., & Khairil, W. A. (2016). The DPSIR framework for causes analysis of mangrove deforestation in Johor, Malaysia. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management , 6 , 214-218.Tacconi, Luca, Rafael J. Rodrigues, and Ahmad Maryudi. “ Law enforcement and deforestation: Lessons for Indonesia from Brazil .” Forest policy and economics 108 (2019): 101943. Web.

Shah, Shipra, and Jahangeer A. Bhat. “ Ethnomedicinal knowledge of indigenous communities and pharmaceutical potential of rainforest ecosystems in Fiji Islands .” Journal of integrative medicine 17, no. 4 (2019): 244-249. Web.

Thornton, P., & Herrero, M. (2010). The Inter-Linkages between Rapid Growth in Livestock Production, Climate Change, and the Impacts on Water Resources, Land Use, and Deforestation . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5178, Web.

• Sarmin, N. S., Hasmadi, I. M., Pakhriazad, H. Z., & Khairil, W. A. (2016). The DPSIR framework for causes analysis of mangrove deforestation in Johor, Malaysia. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management , 6 , 214-218.Tacconi, Luca, Rafael J. Rodrigues, and Ahmad Maryudi. “Law enforcement and deforestation: Lessons for Indonesia from Brazil.” Forest policy and economics 108 (2019): 101943. Web.
• Raven, Peter H., and David L. Wagner. “Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 2 (2021): e2002548117. Web.
• Shah, Shipra, and Jahangeer A. Bhat. “Ethnomedicinal knowledge of indigenous communities and pharmaceutical potential of rainforest ecosystems in Fiji Islands.” Journal of integrative medicine 17, no. 4 (2019): 244-249. Web.
• Dearden, Philip, and Bruce Mitchell. Environmental Change & Challenge: A Canadian Perspective . 6th ed. Oxford University Press, 2016
• Fang, C., Liu, H., & Wang, S. (2021). The coupling curve between urbanization and the eco-environment: China’s urban agglomeration as a case study. Ecological Indicators , 130 , 108107. Web.
• Gu, C. (2019). Urbanization: Processes and driving forces. Science China Earth Sciences , 62 (9), 1351-1360. Web.
• Ortiz, Diana I., Marta Piche-Ovares, Luis M. Romero-Vega, Joseph Wagman, and Adriana Troyo. “The Impact of Deforestation, Urbanization, and Changing Land Use Patterns on the Ecology of Mosquito and Tick-Borne Diseases in Central America.” MDPI. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Web.
• Franco-Solís, Alberto, and Claudia V. Montanía. “Dynamics of deforestation worldwide: A structural decomposition analysis of agricultural land use in South America.” Land Use Policy 109 (2021): 105619. Web.
• Thornton, P., & Herrero, M. (2010). The Inter-Linkages between Rapid Growth in Livestock Production, Climate Change, and the Impacts on Water Resources, Land Use, and Deforestation. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5178, Web.
• Mollinari, Manoela Schiavon Machado. “Fire in the Amazon forest amidst selective logging and climatic variation.” Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 2020. Web.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 30). Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-as-a-human-made-environmental-problem/

"Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem." IvyPanda , 30 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-as-a-human-made-environmental-problem/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem'. 30 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem." March 30, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-as-a-human-made-environmental-problem/.

1. IvyPanda . "Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem." March 30, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-as-a-human-made-environmental-problem/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Deforestation as a Human-Made Environmental Problem." March 30, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/deforestation-as-a-human-made-environmental-problem/.

• The National Response Framework and COVID-19
• Urban Form Determinants of Rome
• Sri Lankan Civil War as 20th-Century's Inhumanity
• Negative Consequences of Burning Oil on the Planet
• Oil Drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge
• Exxon Pipeline Spill in Arkansas in 2013
• Carbon Footprint and Sustainable Living
• The Environmental Impacts of Exploratory Drilling

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. Therefore they do not even think about it once. So, the government is trying countermeasures to avert the harm to the environment .

The main purpose of deforestation is to increase the land area. Also, this land area is to set up new industries. And, this all is because of the increase in population. As the population increases the demand for products also increase. So rich businessmen set up these industries to increase profit.

Harmful Effects of Deforestation

There are many harmful effects of deforestation. Some of them are below: Soil erosion: Soil erosion is the elimination of the upper layer of the soil. It takes place when there is removing of trees that bind the soil. As a result wind and water carries away the top layer of the soil.

Moreover, disasters like landslides take place because of this. Furthermore, soil erosion is responsible for various floods. As trees are not present to stop the waters from heavy rainfall’s gush directly to the plains. This results in damaging of colonies where people are living.

Global Warming: Global warming is the main cause of the change in our environment. These seasons are now getting delayed. Moreover, there is an imbalance in their ratios. The temperatures are reaching its extreme points. This year it was 50 degrees in the plains, which is most of all. Furthermore, the glaciers in the Himalayan ranges are melting.

As a result, floods are affecting the hilly regions of our country and the people living there. Moreover, the ratio of water suitable for drinking is also decreasing.

Impact on the water cycle: Since through transpiration, trees release soil water into the environment. Thus cutting of them is decreasing the rate of water in the atmosphere. So clouds are not getting formed. As a result, the agricultural grounds are not receiving proper rainfall. Therefore it is indirectly affecting humans only.

A great threat to wildlife: Deforestation is affecting wildlife as well. Many animals like Dodo, Sabre-toothed Cat, Tasmanian Tiger are already extinct. Furthermore, some animals are on the verge of extinction. That’s because they have lost habitat or their place of living. This is one of the major issues for wildlife protectors.

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

How to Avert Deforestation?

Deforestation can be averted by various countermeasures. First of all, we should afforestation which is growing of trees in the forest. This would help to resolve the loss of the trees cut down. Moreover, the use of plant-based products should increase.

This would force different industries to grow more trees. As a result, the environment will also get benefit from it. Furthermore, people should grow small plants in their houses. That will help the environment to regain its ability. At last, the government should take strict actions against people. Especially those who are illegally cutting down trees.

FAQs on Essay on Deforestation

Q1. Why is deforestation harmful to our environment?

A1. Deforestation is harmful to our environment because it is creating different problems. These problems are soil erosion, global warming. Moreover, it is also causing different disasters like floods and landslides.

Q2. How are animals affected by deforestation?

A2. Deforestation affects animals as they have lost their habitat. Moreover, herbivores animals get their food from plants and trees. As a result, they are not getting proper food to eat, which in turn is resulting in their extinction

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Human Impact — Deforestation

Essays on Deforestation

Deforestation is a critical environmental issue that has far-reaching effects on the planet. Choosing the right essay topic on deforestation is essential to ensure that your paper is both engaging and informative. The right topic can also help you to stand out from the crowd and make a real impact with your essay. In this article, we will discuss the importance of choosing the right deforestation essay topic and provide you with a list of recommended topics to consider.

Deforestation is the clearing of trees and forests to make way for other land uses, such as agriculture, urbanization, or logging. This process has significant environmental impacts, including loss of habitat for wildlife, disruption of the water cycle, and contribution to climate change. Deforestation is a critical issue that requires attention and action, making it an ideal topic for essays and research papers.

When choosing a deforestation essay topic, it's essential to consider your interests, the audience, and the depth of research available on the topic. Selecting a topic that you are passionate about will make the writing process more enjoyable and will likely result in a more compelling essay. Additionally, consider your audience and choose a topic that will resonate with them. Finally, ensure that there is enough research available on the topic to support your arguments and provide a well-rounded perspective.

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.

Environmental Impact

• The impact of deforestation on biodiversity
• Deforestation and its effects on the water cycle
• How deforestation contributes to climate change
• The role of deforestation in soil erosion

Human Impact

• The social and economic impacts of deforestation on local communities
• Deforestation and its effects on indigenous peoples
• The role of deforestation in exacerbating natural disasters
• Deforestation and its impact on human health

Policy and Conservation

• The effectiveness of international efforts to combat deforestation
• The role of government policies in deforestation prevention
• The impact of deforestation on global conservation efforts
• Strategies for sustainable forest management

Corporate Responsibility

• The role of corporations in driving deforestation
• Corporate responsibility in combating deforestation
• The impact of consumer demand on deforestation
• Corporate partnerships for reforestation and conservation

Deforestation and Indigenous Knowledge

• The role of indigenous knowledge in forest conservation
• Traditional practices for sustainable forestry
• The impact of deforestation on indigenous cultures
• Indigenous perspectives on deforestation and conservation

These topics provide a starting point for your deforestation essay and can be further refined based on your interests and the requirements of your assignment. By choosing a compelling and well-researched topic, you can make a meaningful contribution to the discussion on deforestation and inspire others to take action.

Effects of Cutting Down Trees Essay

About deforestation: pros and cons, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Pros and Cons of Deforestation

The reasons and negative impact of deforestation, deforestation, its effects, and strategies to deal with, the problem of deforestation in the environment, 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

Research Paper on The Effects of Deforestation on Orangutans

Deforestation as real problem for humankind in the 21st century, research of the positive effects of deforestation, deforestation and the ways to overcome it, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Research of The Reasons Deforestation Should Be Brought to an End

The issue of deforestration: consequences and prevention, the worldwide problem of deforestation and its effects, measures to protect forests from global deforestation, drought: types, impacts and preventive measures, the cause and effect of deforestation in the amazon and southeast asia, comprehensive analysis of the current global environmental crisis, environmental issues faced by germany, the impact of human activity on climate change, environmental issues caused by industries, effects of heavy rainfall on the landslide probability.

Deforestation or forest clearance is the removal of a forest or stand of trees from land that is then converted to non-forest use. Deforestation can involve conversion of forest land to farms, ranches, or urban use.

The overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture. Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of deforestation; commercial agriculture is responsible for 32%; logging is responsible for 14%, and fuel wood removals make up 5%.

Deforestation causes extinction, changes to climatic conditions, desertification, and displacement of populations, as observed by current conditions and in the past through the fossil record.Deforestation also reduces biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing negative feedback cycles contributing to global warming. Deforested regions typically incur significant other environmental effects such as adverse soil erosion and degradation into wasteland.

We lose around 10 million hectares of forest every single year. Beef is responsible for 41% of global deforestation. Brazil and Indonesia account for almost half of tropical deforestation. Soy plays a big role in deforestation. No company in the world achieved its net zero deforestation commitment.

Relevant topics

• Fast Fashion
• Water Pollution
• Ocean Pollution
• Air Pollution
• Climate Change
• Global Warming
• Natural Disasters

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!

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

Biodiversity Loss Increases the Risk of Disease Outbreaks, Analysis Suggests

Researchers found that human-caused environmental changes are driving the severity and prevalence of disease, putting people, animals and plants at risk

Christian Thorsberg

Daily Correspondent

Human-driven changes to the planet are bringing widespread and sometimes surprising effects—including shifting the Earth’s rotation , hiding meteorites in Antarctic ice and, potentially, supporting locust swarms .

Now, a large-scale analysis of nearly 1,000 scientific studies has shown just how closely human activity is tied to public health. Published last week in the journal Nature ,   the findings suggest anthropogenic environmental changes are making the risk of infectious disease outbreaks all the more likely.

The biodiversity crisis—which has left some one million plant and animal species at risk of extinction —is a leading driver of disease spread, the researchers found.

“It could mean that by modifying the environment, we increase the risks of future pandemics,” Jason Rohr , a co-author of the study and a biologist at the University of Notre Dame, tells the Washington Post ’s Scott Dance.

The analysis centered on earlier studies that investigated at least one of five “global change drivers” affecting wildlife and landscapes on Earth: biodiversity change, climate change, habitat change or loss, chemical pollution and the introduction of non-native species to new areas. Based on the previous studies’ findings, they collected nearly 3,000 data points related to how each of these factors might impact the severity or prevalence of infectious disease outbreaks.

Researchers aimed to avoid a human-centric approach to their analysis, considering also how plants and animals would be at risk from pathogens. Their conclusions showed that four of the examined factors—climate change, chemical pollution, the introduction of non-native species to new areas and biodiversity loss—all increased the likelihood of spreading disease, with the latter having the most significant impact.

Disease and mortality were nearly nine times higher in areas of the world where human activity has decreased biodiversity, compared to the levels expected by Earth’s natural variation in biodiversity, per the Washington Post .

Scientists hypothesize this finding could be explained by the “dilution effect”: the idea that pathogens and parasites evolve to thrive in the most common species, so the loss of rarer creatures makes infection more likely.

“That means that the species that remain are the competent ones, the ones that are really good at transmitting disease,” Rohr tells the New York Times ’   Emily Anthes.

For example, white-footed mice, the main carriers of Lyme disease, have become one of the most dominant species in their habitat as other, rarer animals have disappeared—a change that might have played a role, among other factors, in driving rising rates of Lyme disease in the United States.

One global change factor, however, actually decreased the likelihood of disease outbreaks: habitat loss and change. But here, context is key. Most habitat loss is linked to creating a single type of environment—urban ecosystems—which generally have good sanitation systems and less wildlife, reducing opportunities for disease spillover.

“In urban areas with lots of concrete, there is a much smaller number of species that can thrive in that environment,” Rohr tells the Guardian ’s Phoebe Weston. “From a human disease perspective, there is often greater sanitation and health infrastructure than in rural environments.”

Deforestation, another type of habitat loss, has been shown to increase the likelihood of disease. The incidence of malaria and Ebola , for example, worsens in such instances.

The new work adds to past research on how human activity can prompt the spread of disease. For instance, climate change-induced permafrost melt may release pathogens from the Arctic , a concern that’s been well-documented in recent years. And both habitat loss and climate change may force some animals to move closer together—and closer to humans — increasing the potential for transmitting disease .

Additionally, the research signals the need for public health officials to remain vigilant as the effects of human-caused climate change play out, experts say.

“It’s a big step forward in the science,” Colin Carlson , a global change biologist at Georgetown University who was not an author of the new analysis, tells the New York Times. “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.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Christian Thorsberg | READ MORE

Christian Thorsberg is an environmental writer and photographer from Chicago. His work, which often centers on freshwater issues, climate change and subsistence, has appeared in Circle of Blue , Sierra  magazine, Discover  magazine and Alaska Sporting Journal .

• About Project
• Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Deforestation

List of essay on deforestation in english, essay on deforestation – essay 1 (150 words), essay on deforestation – essay 2 (250 words), essay on deforestation – essay 3 (300 words), essay on deforestation: causes and drawbacks – essay 4 (400 words), essay on deforestation: with causes and solution – essay 5 (500 words), essay on deforestation: introduction, impact, control and conclusion – essay 6 (650 words), essay on deforestation: causes and effects – essay 7 (750 words), essay on deforestation: with solution – essay 8 (1000 words).

Introduction:

Deforestation is the process of clearing trees and forest for other uses. Deforestation usually occurs due to city expansion. As habitats increase in cities, there is a need to create more space the for homes, organizations, and factories. This, however, has a damning effect on our environment.

Effect of Deforestation on the Environment:

Deforestation means fewer trees and more land. This has a serious adverse effect on our environment. On one hand, deforestation makes some animals homeless. Animals that survive in the forest might go extinct with less forest. On the other hand, deforestation is also the biggest cause of climate change around the world.

Preventing Deforestation:

Reducing or preventing deforestation is easier said than done. This is because trees are cut down because there is a pressing need to do so. Thus, to prevent deforestation we must try to reduce that need by making smarter choices in paper usage, city planning, migration, etc.

Conclusion:

The essence of plant life in the forest is unquestionable. To ensure a greener environment we must all join the efforts in reducing deforestation.

Deforestation is definitely one of the most troubling of all problems which has plagued our environment. It is important more than ever to take care of the green cover or else it can jeopardize the existence of life on Earth. It is owing to the presence of green trees that we get the oxygen needed to breathe in.

However, because of excessive exploitation by humans, it has been seen that the trees are being cut down mercilessly. This act of cleaning the green cover is known as deforestation.

Educate people:

The best way to handle the problem of deforestation is by making sure that we educate the masses regarding the importance of green cover. When people understand as to how deforestation is leading to grave consequences, they will get the incentive to plant trees rather than uproot them.

Protect the Environment:

As we have continued to exploit the environment in a way that it is hard to get things back to normal, it is now important to immediately start protecting the environment. A lot of natural calamities are occurring these days because the ecosystem balance has been disturbed. Deforestation alone is responsible for a major amount of problems.

So, you need to understand as to how you can come up with ways to excite people about planting more trees and doing their bit for the sake of the environment. Think of your children and grand children. If we continue with our aggressive deforestation campaigns, they are not likely to have a healthy environment for survival. Is that what we really want?

Deforestation can be defined as the removal of trees and clearing of forests for the personal and commercial benefits of human beings. Deforestation has emerged as one of the biggest man-made disasters recently. Every year, more and more trees and vegetation are being erased just to fulfill the various needs of the human race.

Deforestation happens for many reasons. The growing population is one of them. Rising human population needs more area for residential purpose. For this, forests are either burned down or cut to make space for constructing homes and apartments.

Deforestation is also done for commercial purposes. This includes setting up of factories, industries, and towers, etc. The enormous requirements of feeding the human race also create a burden on the land. As a result, clearing land for agricultural purposes leads to deforestation.

Deforestation impacts our earth in several ways. Trees are natural air purifiers. They absorb the carbon dioxide from the air and release oxygen into the atmosphere. Deforestation results in uncontrolled air pollution. When there are fewer trees, there is lesser absorption of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

Deforestation also disturbs the water cycle. Forests absorb the groundwater and release the water vapors to form clouds, which in turn cause rains. Roots of trees hold the soil intact and prevent floods. But when there are no trees, different kinds of natural calamities are bound to happen.

With deforestation, chances of floods, drought, global warming, and disturbed weather cycle all come into the play. Not only that, the disappearance of forests means the extinction of wild animals and plants, which are highly important parts of our ecosystem.

In order to curb these disasters, we must plant more trees. Restoration of existing vegetation is equally essential. Population control is another indirect method to save trees and forest areas.

Deforestation is the process of cutting down of trees and forests completely or partially for different reasons like manufacturing different products with various parts of the tree as raw material, to build structures and other buildings, etc. Deforestation in recent days has become the curse of our world that resulted in the destruction of nature and the environment.

Cause and Drawbacks:

Deforestation is mainly done for making better living assets for humans and this one side thought is the biggest drawback of this issue. Instead of doing only the cutting part humans should practice forestation along with deforestation. Whenever a tree or a forest is cut, another one should be planted at the same place or on other lands to promote the forestation.

Deforestation is the main cause for many natural deficiencies and the destruction of many animal, plant and bird species. If the practice of cutting down trees continues, then eventually even the world may get destructed along with the extinction of the human race.

It’s not like trees shouldn’t be used for any kind of production and urbanization or industrialization shouldn’t be done for the development, but the main factor is to compensate for every minus done. Through this, there will be a balancing between the reduction and plantation which will help, to an extent, in the rectification of problems faced by the world due to deforestation.

Deforestation has also affected the atmospheric air combination. The carbon content in the atmosphere has considerably increased over years due to many human activities like uncontrolled fuel combustion.

Forest has played a massive function of inhaling the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and exhaling oxygen during the daytime while they prepare food for themselves. This process is the reason for maintaining a balanced oxygen and carbon level in the atmosphere and that makes the life of us humans to breathe free.

Population growth is undeniably the major factor behind the increased deforestation level. The increased demand for more assets for better living has increased the need for deforestation as well. In such cases forestation should also be made as a follow-up process.

Controlling the overuse of assets can also help in reducing the deforestation rate. If humans start to use products that use a tree as raw material reasonably then it will help in avoiding deforestation as well. Deforestation not only is a life-threatening scenario for many animals and birds, but also the whole human species.

Deforestation refers to the elimination of plants and trees from a region. Deforestation also includes the clearing of jungles and plants from the region due to the numerous commercial motives.

Different Causes of Deforestation:

The below are the different causes of deforestation:

1. Overgrazing:

Overgrazing in jungles finishes recently renewed development. It makes the soil additional compact and invulnerable. The fertility of the soil also reduces owing to the devastation of organic substance. Overgrazing also results in the desertification and the soil erosion. Deforestation results in decreasing the overall soil’s productivity.

2. Shifting Cultivation:

Numerous agriculturalists destroy the jungle for farming and commercial motives and once productiveness of soil is shattered owing to recurrent harvesting, a fresh forest region is devastated. Hence, farmers must be recommended to utilize a similar area for agriculture and use some upgraded farming techniques and stop the deforestation.

3. Fuel Wood:

The maximum amount of forest is destroyed for the fuel wood. Around 86% of the fuel wood is utilized in rural regions in comparison to the 14% in urban parts and hence lead to more deforestation.

4. Forest Fires:

Recurrent fires in the forest regions are one of the major reasons of deforestation. Few incidents of fires are minor whereas the maximum of them are huge.

The industries related to the plywood and timber is mostly accountable for the deforestation. In fact, the huge demand for wooden things has resulted in the quick reduction of the forest.

6. Industry Establishment:

At times the industrial unit is constructed after deforestation. It means for a small achievement of few people, all other people have to bear a permanent loss. In this procedure, wild animals, valuable plant, and unusual birds get devastated. In fact, it adversely affects the quality of the environment.

7. Violation of Forest:

One more reason of deforestation is a violation by tribal on the land of forest for cultivation and other motives. Even though such type of land has a virtuous support for agriculture creation but still it creates environmental threats.

8. Forest Diseases:

Numerous diseases are instigated by rusts, parasitic fungi, nematodes and viruses that result in demise and deterioration of jungle. Fresh saplings are devastated owing to the occurrence of nematodes. Numerous diseases like blister rust, heart rot, and phloem necrosis, oak will, and Dutch elm, etc. destroy the jungle in large quantities.

9. Landslide:

The landslide lead to the deforestation in the mountains is a question of worry. It happened largely in the regions where growing actions are proceeding for the previous few years. The building of highways and railways mainly in hilly lands as well as the structure of large irrigation plans have resulted in enough deforestation and speeded the natural procedure of denudation.

Worldwide Solution for the Deforestation:

The jungle is an essential natural reserve for any nation and deforestation slow down a nation’s growth. To encounter the necessities of the growing population, simple resources might be attained only with the help of afforestation. It is actually the arrangement of implanting plants for food and food growth. Moreover, the nurseries have a significant part in increasing the coverage of the forest area.

Deforestation is the cutting down of trees. It is basically changing the use of land to a different purpose other than the planting of trees.

There are many reasons which have led to large levels of deforestation all over the world. One of the major causes is ever growing population of the world. With the growth in population, the need for more land to live has been rising. This has further led to cutting down of trees. Also, with modernisation, there has been a substantial increase in the requirement of land for setting up of industries. This has again contributed to deforestation.

Mining is another activity of humans which has led to large-scale deforestation in many areas. The need to build road and rail network in order to increase connectivity to the mines has led to cutting down of trees. This has altered the climatic conditions in these areas.

Deforestation has had a huge impact on the environment. Lack of trees has led to less release of water vapour in the air. This has, in turn, led to the alteration of rainfall patterns in different regions. India is a country which is dependent on monsoon rains for agriculture. Frequent droughts and floods caused due to deforestation have affected the lives of many in different parts of the country.

Moreover, trees absorb the carbon-dioxide from the air and help to purify it. Without trees around us, the presence of harmful gases in the air has been rising. This has also led to global warming which is again a major environmental concern. Also, the ever-rising pollution level, especially in many cities in India is due to vast deforestation only.

Additionally, trees bind the soil around them and prevent soil erosion. Deforestation has led to the soil being washed away with winds and rain, making the land unfit for agriculture. Also, trees and forests are the homes to different species of wildlife. With shrinking forests, several of the wildlife has become extinct as they were not able to cope with the changing conditions. Also, there have been increased man and wildlife conflicts in recent times as the animals are forced to venture in the cities in search of food. All these are severe effects of deforestation and need urgent attention by all.

The Perfect Example:

New Delhi is the capital of India. There was once a time when Delhi was a beautiful city. But with modernisation, increase in population, deforestation and mining in the nearby Aravalli hills, Delhi has been reduced to a gas chamber. Such is the impact the Delhi has become one of the most polluted cities in the world. What better example can be there to understand what deforestation has led us to?

There are many ways in which we can reduce deforestation. We must protect our forests. Moreover, we must mark adequate land for our farming needs. There are some laws already in place which prohibit people from unnecessary felling of trees. What needs to be done is the proper execution of the rules so that everyone abides by it. Also, stricter punishments need to be in place for violators so as to deter other people from disobeying the laws. Alternatively, people need to ensure that for every tree felled, equal numbers of trees are planted so that the balance of nature can be maintained. Summarily, it has to be a collective duty of all and just the governments alone, if we really need to reduce deforestation.

It is true that we all need space to live. With the ever-growing population and urbanisation, there has been more than ever need to cut trees and make space. However, we must realise that it is not possible for us to live without having trees around us. Trees bring so many benefits such as giving us oxygen, utilising the harmful carbon dioxide and so many products we need in our daily lives. Without trees around us, there would be no life on the earth. We should all do the needful to protect trees and reduce deforestation.

Deforestation is also known as clearing or clearance of trees. It can be said to mean removal of strands of trees or forests and the conversion of such area of land to a use that is totally non-forest in nature. Some deforestation examples are the converting of areas of forest to urban, ranches or farms use. The area of land that undergoes the most deforestation is the tropical rainforests. It is important to note that forests cover more than 31 percent in total land area of the surface of the earth.

There are a lot of different reasons why deforestation occurs: some tree are being cut down for building or as fuel (timber or coal), while areas of land are to be used as plantation and also as pasture to feed livestock. When trees are removed with properly replacing them, there can as a result be aridity, loss of biodiversity and even habitat damage. We have also had cases of deforestation used in times of war to starve the enemy.

Causes of Deforestation:

It has been discovered that the major and primary deforestation cause is agriculture. Studies have shown that about 48 percent of all deforestation is as a result of subsistence farming and 32 percent of deforestation is as a result of commercial agriculture. Also, it was discovered that logging accounts for about 14% of the total deforestation and 5% is from the removal for fuel wood.

There has been no form of agreement from experts on if industrial form of logging is a very important contributing factor to deforestation globally. Some experts have argued that the clearing of forests is something poor people do more as a result of them not having other alternatives. Other experts are of the belief that the poor seldom clear forests because they do not have the resources needed to do that. A study has also revealed that increase in population as a result of fertility rates that are very high are not a major driver of deforestation and they only influenced less than 8% of the cases of deforestation.

The Environmental Effects of Deforestation:

Deforestation has a lot of negative effects on our planet and environment.

A few of the areas where it negatively affects our environment are discussed below:

i. Atmospheric Effect:

Global warming has deforestation as one of its major contributing factors and deforestation is also a key cause of greenhouse effect. About 20% of all the emission of greenhouse gases is as a result of tropical deforestation. The land in an area that is deforested heats up quicker and it gets to a temperature that is higher than normal, causing a change in solar energy absorption, flow of water vapours and even wind flows and all of these affects the local climate of the area and also the global climate.

Also, the burning of plants in the forest in order to carry out clearing of land, incineration cause a huge amount of carbon dioxide release which is a major and important contributor to the global warming.

ii. Hydrological Effect:

Various researches have shown that deforestation greatly affects water cycle. Groundwater is extracted by trees through the help of their roots; the water extracted is then released into the surrounding atmosphere. If we remove a part of the forest, there will not be transpiration of water like it should be and this result in the climate being a lot drier. The water content of the soil is heavily reduced by deforestation and also atmospheric moisture as well as groundwater. There is a reduced level of water intake that the trees can extract as a result of the dry soil. Soil cohesion is also reduced by deforestation and this can result in landslides, flooding and erosion.

iii. Effect on Soil:

As a direct result of the plant litter on the surface, there is a minimal and reduced erosion rate in forests largely undisturbed. Deforestation increases the erosion rate as a result of the subsequent decrease in the quantity of cover of litter available. The litter cover actually serves as a protection for the soil from all varieties of surface runoff. When mechanized equipments and machineries are used in forestry operations, there can be a resulting erosion increase as a result of the development of roads in the forests.

iv. Effect on Biodiversity:

There is a biodiversity decline due to deforestation. Deforestation can lead to the death and extinction of a lot of species of animals and plants. The habitat of various animals are taken away as a result of deforestation.

The total coverage of forests on the earth’s landmass is 30 percent and the fact the people are destroying them is worrying. Research reveals that majority of the tropical forests on earth are being destroyed. We are almost at half the forest landmass in destruction. How would earth look life without forests? It will be a total disaster if deforestation is encouraged. Deforestation is a human act in which forests are permanently destroyed in order to create settlement area and use the trees for industries like paper manufacture, wood and construction. A lot of forests have been destroyed and the impact has been felt through climate change and extinction of animals due to destruction of the ecosystem. The impacts of deforestation are adverse and there is need to prevent and control it before it can get any worse.

Deforestation is mainly a human activity affected by many factors. Overpopulation contributed to deforestation because there is need to create a settlement area for the increasing number of people on earth and the need for urbanization for economic reasons. Recently, population has greatly risen in the world and people require shelter as a basic need. Forests are destroyed in order for people to find land to build a shelter and then trees are further cut to build those houses. Overpopulation is a major threat to the forest landmass and if not controlled, people will continue to occupy the forests until there is no more forest coverage on earth.

Another factor influencing deforestation is industrialization. Industries that use trees to manufacture their product e.g. paper and wood industries have caused major destruction of forests. The problem with industries is the large-scale need for trees which causes extensive deforestation. The use of timber in industries is a treat to forests all over the world. In as much as we need furniture, paper and homes, it is not worth the massive destruction of our forests.

Fires are also a cause of deforestation. During episodes of drought, fire spreads widely and burns down trees. The fire incidences could result from human activities like smoking or charcoal burning in the forests. Drought due to adverse weather changes in global warming is a natural disaster that claim the lives of people and living things.

Agricultural activities such as farming and livestock keeping also cause deforestation because of the land demand in those activities. Deforestation for farming purpose involves clearing all the vegetation on the required land and using it for and then burring the vegetation hence the name ‘slash and burn agriculture’. The ranches required for cattle keeping among other livestock require a large area that is clear from trees.

Impacts of Deforestation:

Deforestation has a great impact on the ecosystem in different ways. Climate change is influenced by deforestation because trees influence weather directly. Trees usually act to protect against strong winds and erosion but in its absence, natural disasters like floods and storms could be experienced. Also, tree are important in replenishing the air in the atmosphere. Trees have the ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen. Without trees, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be increased. Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it causes global warming.

Global warming is a serious environmental issue that causes adverse climatic changes and affects life on earth. Extreme weather conditions like storms, drought and floods. These weather conditions are not conducive for humans and other living things on earth. Natural disasters as a result of global warming are very destructive both to animate and inanimate objects in the environment.

Loss of species due to deforestation has negatively affected biodiversity. Biodiversity is a highly valued aspect of life on earth and its interruption is a loss. There is a loss of habitat for species to exist in as a result of deforestation and therefore species face extinction. Extinction of some rare species is a threat we are currently facing. Animals that live and depend on forest vegetation for food will also suffer and eventually die of hunger. Survival has been forced on animals of the jungle due to deforestation and that is why human wildlife conflict is being experienced.

The water cycle on earth is negatively affected by deforestation. The existence of water vapor in the atmosphere is maintained by trees. Absence of trees cause a reduced vapor retention in the atmosphere which result in adverse climate changes. Trees and other forest vegetation are important in preventing water pollution because they prevent the contaminated runoff into water sources like rivers, lakes and oceans. Without trees, pollution of water is more frequent and therefore the water will be unsafe for consumption by human and animals.

Solutions to Deforestation:

Based on the serious impact of deforestation, it is only safe if solutions are sought to end this problem. The ultimate solution is definitely restoration of the forest landmass on earth. The restoration can be done by encouraging the planting of trees, a process called reforestation. Although reforestation will not completely solve the impacts of deforestation, it will restore a habitat for the wild animals and slowly restore the ecosystem. Major impacts like concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere require another approach. Human activities that contribute to carbon dioxide gas emission to the atmosphere have to be reduced through strict policies for industries and finding alternative energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases.

Another solution is public awareness. People have to be made aware that deforestation has negative effects so that they can reduce the act. Through awareness, people can also be taught on ways of reducing the population e.g., family planning. On World Environment Day, people are encouraged to participate in activities like tree planting in order to conserve environment and that is how the awareness takes place.

In conclusion, deforestation is a human activity that is destructive and should be discouraged. Environmental conservation is our responsibility because we have only one earth to live in.

Deforestation , Environment , Forests

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

Like this post? Don’t forget to share it!

Here are a few recommended articles for you to read next:

• Essay on Noise Pollution
• Essay on Environmental Pollution
• Essay on Biodiversity
• Essay on Acid Rain

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

• Donald Trump
• Warren Buffett
• Email Address
• Free Stock Photos
• Keyword Research Tools
• URL Shortener Tools
• WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

• How To Win Friends
• Rich Dad Poor Dad
• The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
• The Luck Factor
• The Millionaire Fastlane
• The ONE Thing
• Think and Grow Rich
• 100 Million Dollar Business
• Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

• Mobile Addiction
• Social Media Addiction
• Computer Addiction
• Drug Addiction
• Internet Addiction
• TV Addiction
• Healthy Habits
• Morning Rituals
• Wake up Early
• Cholesterol
• Reducing Cholesterol
• Fat Loss Diet Plan
• Reducing Hair Fall
• Sleep Apnea
• Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

• Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

• Subconscious Mind
• Vision Board
• Visualization

Law of Vibration

• Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

• Bob Proctor
• Robert Kiyosaki
• Vivek Bindra
• Inner Peace

Productivity

• Not To-do List
• Project Management Software
• Negative Energies

Relationship

• Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

• Body Language
• Complainers
• Emotional Intelligence
• Personality

Social Media

• Project Management
• Anik Singal
• Baba Ramdev
• Dwayne Johnson
• Jackie Chan
• Leonardo DiCaprio
• Narendra Modi
• Nikola Tesla
• Sachin Tendulkar
• Sandeep Maheshwari
• Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

• Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

Investigating the impact of tropical deforestation on Indian monsoon hydro-climate: a novel study using a regional climate model

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 18 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Abhishek Lodh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4951-0226 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Stuti Haldar 4 , 5  

This study uses a state-of-the-art regional climate model (RCM) to examine how tropical deforestation affects the meteorology of the Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM). Incorporating insights from existing research on deforestation by climate scientists, alongside evidence of environmental deterioration in semi-arid, hilly and tropical regions of Southeast Asia, this research seeks to elucidate the critical influence of anthropogenic reasons of climate change on the hydroclimate of ISM. Employing “tropical deforestation” design experiments with the ICTP-RegCMv4.4.5.10 RCM the study evaluates the effects on meteorological parameters including precipitation, circulation patterns and surface parameters. This experimental design entails substituting vegetation type in the land use map of RegCMv4.4.5.10 model, such as deciduous and evergreen trees in Southeast Asia with “short grass” to mimic tropical deforestation. Findings reveal that deforestation induces abnormal anti-cyclonic circulation over eastern India curtails moisture advection, diminishing latent heat flux and moisture transport, leads to a decrease in precipitation compared to control experiment scenario. Alterations in albedo and vegetation roughness length attributable to deforestation impact temperature, humidity, precipitation, consequently exacerbating drought and heatwave occurrences. Additionally, the study also explores deforestation-induced feedback on ISM precipitation variability. The study concludes that deforestation substantially alters land-surface characteristics, water and energy cycle, and atmospheric circulation, thereby influencing regional climate dynamics. These findings offer foundational insights into comprehending land-use and land-cover changes and their implications for climate change adaptation strategies.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Anthropogenic activities such as tropical deforestation are eroding carbon sinks and driving the release of greenhouse gasses (GHG) to the atmosphere (Watson et al. 1997 ; Stocker et al. 2013 ). These emissions alter the regional and global climate patterns and can impact the ability to predict and react to important weather events. Indian summer monsoon (ISM) is the seasonal migration of winds from equatorial region towards the Indian monsoon zone with changes in the atmospheric circulation features in lower and upper atmosphere. In the twenty-first century climate change scenario, the ISM activity over the Indian subcontinent is known to be linked to both atmospheric GHG content and the alterations of vegetative cover associated with intensive forest management. The ability to predict the conditions of monsoon events is important because in addition to climate impacts, it also has significant socio-economic implications. Studies using remote sensing across the tropics have revealed that during the 1990s and the 2000s, net deforestation increased by 62 percent (Kim et al. 2015 ). Due to its connection to major weather patterns, deforestation poses acute threats to human health, ecological systems and other socio-economic sectors (Revi et al. 2022 ). Thus, it is crucial to understand the impact of increasing deforestation rates on monsoon variability to estimate, adapt and mitigate its wide-ranging socio-economic ramifications. This is especially true in resource-constrained underdeveloped and developing economies such as in India. Agriculture is a key sector susceptible to the repercussions of tropical deforestation and other land degradation activities. Recently, leaders from across the globe met at the 27th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, resulting in the commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2030. India in particular risks falling short of its commitments to combat climate change if urgent action is not taken. Deforestation extends beyond a simple, local ecological concern by exerting controls on large-scale monsoon patterns that are detrimental to human health and agricultural supply chains (Yasuoka and Levins 2007 ; Lawrence and Vendecar 2015 ). These manifestations of climate variability either due to natural or man-made reasons, presents substantial financial implications, as they mandate considerable expenditure for adaptation and policy adjustments regarding resource utilization, diverting public investments away from key sectors such as education, health and other basic services (Chambwera et al. 2014 ; Farid et al. 2016 ; Srinivasan et al. 2023 ). Thus, the forested areas of the Indian subcontinent hold economically important natural resources such as coal and iron-ore. Extraction of these essential minerals not only leads to deforestation, but also reduces the capacity of the region to act as carbon sinks. Therefore, the magnitude of tropical deforestation has significant environmental and sociological implications (Strandberg et al. 2023 ). Notably, deforestation leads to desertification which further compounds environmental challenges by reducing the recovery capacity of formerly forested land area. Desertification refers to the deterioration of land in regions with arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid climates, driven either by natural climate change and/or human action (Lodh 2021 ). For example, deforestation can result from urban expansion and industrial growth such as agricultural land conversion. In the tropics, both desertification and deforestation have been responsible for shifts in local and regional weather and climate (e.g. in the Thar desert, India and deforestation in north-east India). As per the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), deforestation entails changing forest areas to other types of land uses such as farming lands, urbanized zones, barren lands, or any other usage that leads to a significant decrease in tree canopy, dropping below a 10% threshold (Lodh 2021 ). Hence, halting deforestation is crucial for efforts to limit global warming to less than 1.5° Celsius and reduce the rate of biodiversity loss and protect jobs and livelihoods. Forests can act as both source and sinks of carbon dioxide. Forests worldwide release approximately 8.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually as a result of deforestation and other land-related disruptions, whereas they intake about 16 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year (Harris et al. 2021 ).

Studying the land surface mechanisms in the dry and semi-dry areas of north-west India, reveals their impact on mesoscale atmospheric circulations at a regional scale (Bollasina and Nigam 2011 ; Lodh 2020 ; 2021 ). This can occur through the transfer of heat, moisture and momentum between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere (BaidyaRoy and Avissar 2002 ). Previous studies using general circulation models have indicated that global climate change resulting from land-use and land-cover changes, particularly deforestation and land degradation, has severe consequences on weather and climate (Henderson-Sellers et. al. 1993 ; Xue and Shukla 1993 ; Polcher and Laval 1994a , b ; Gupta et al. 2005 ; Hasler et al. 2009 ). The land surface and its vegetation interact directly with the atmosphere to exchange heat and moisture. Consequently, they play a pivotal role in moderating responses within the climate system (Polcher and Laval 1994b ; Pielke et al. 1998 ). Significant reduction in precipitation over Indian land region (~ 18%) has been reported due to impacts of deforestation across monsoon impacted regions, due to shift in Inter-Tropical convergence zone (Devaraju et al. 2015 ). Similar studies project that, rapid deforestation over India would result in a decrease in rainfall over north India by 2 mm/day (Gupta et al. 2005 ). Polcher and Laval 1994b modeled the impacts of deforestation to be statistically significant and independent of ENSO effects. Bathiany et al. ( 2010 ) reported that complete deforestation of the tropics would exert a global warming of 0.4 degree Celsius. Spracklen and Garcia-Carreras ( 2015 ) asserted that by the 2050s deforestation will reduce regional rainfall over the Amazon basin by 12% (21%) in the wet (dry) season. Under global climate warming, there are increasing uncertainties on the projections of compounded extreme weather events, leading to low confidence of how their impacts will feedback into future climate change. Thus, improved sensitivity and accuracy of numerical models tuned to currently observed land use change (like tropical deforestation scenarios) are important for better predicting the impacts of future global change.

Pioneering climate modeling work on deforestation induced shifts in land-surface albedo (Charney 1975 ; Charney et al. 1975 , 1977 ; Dickinson et al. 1983 ) forms the motivation for the tropical deforestation design simulations conducted in this study. Although there have been prior attempts to understand the biogeophysical aspects of tropical deforestation, the central aim of this research is to investigate tropical deforestation within the scope of the Biosphere–Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) vegetation module coupled with RegCMv4.4.5.10 model, over southeast Asia. This is achieved by conducting climate model experiments involving changes in vegetation i.e. a proxy for land use land cover (LULC) change design experiments. The objective is to derive findings that not only support, but also enhance the insights obtained from earlier research endeavors (Xue and Shukla 1993 ; Polcher and Laval 1994a , b ; Werth and Avissar 2002 , 2005a , b ; Gupta et al. 2005 ; Bollasina and Nigam 2011 ; Devaraju et al. 2015 ; Spracklen and Garcia-Carreras 2015 ) while delving into the question of whether the degradation of land and the deforestation of tropical regions exert significant influences on the meteorological patterns of the Indian monsoon.

The idea is to identify potential alterations in regional precipitation and circulation trends within the Indian monsoon system by means of carefully devised sensitivity experiments. These experiments seek to elucidate the underlying mechanisms that govern the interplay between land surface and vegetation, with a specific focus on the impacts of land degradation and tropical deforestation. Hence, to investigate feedback due to anthropogenically changing biogeophysical scenarios to the atmospheric circulations over the Indian subcontinent, the study conducted in this paper is important for identifying and bridging the gap in extant literature. In the wake of the recent COP 27 summit in Egypt, there is global consensus recognizing the urgent need for effective adaptation and mitigation strategies against climate change. Hence, the study conducted in this paper aligns with this broader discourse by estimating the risks of climate variability on land and ecosystems and their ripple effects in economic and social systems. In countries such as India, where there’s a limited capacity for adaptation and mitigation, the consequences of climate variability are particularly evident (Rasul and Sharma 2016 ). Tropical monsoons are vital for irrigation in these countries, and any disruption can threaten the agriculture that millions depend on for their livelihoods and food security (Marambe et al. 2015 ). Unfavorable changes in the monsoon patterns, thus, bear heavily on the poor and the vulnerable communities in the rural areas which further triggers forced migration (Clement et al.  2021 ). Moreover, deforestation disrupts local and regional climate patterns that results in unpredictable temperature variability, humidity fluctuations, and heat stress that potentially leads to fatalities (Kovats and Hajat 2008 ). In economic terms, the crowding out of investments from critical sectors like education, health care, infrastructure, and energy are some of the indirect risks associated with the financial burden of climate change adaptation and mitigation (Chambwera et al. 2014 ). Whereas, at the macro level, reduced agricultural productivity directly translates to falling export revenues and increased reliance on food imports, further constricting the state’s fiscal capacity.

Thus, understanding the intricate relationships between deforestation, monsoon variability, and their socioeconomic implications is crucial for devising effective adaptation strategies. This calls for an evidence-based policy making and governance that prioritizes sustainable land use planning, afforestation, and reforestation efforts to curtail the climate induced risks (Pörtner et al. 2022 ). The findings of this paper are relevant not only for India but also other Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) with populations substantially dependent on land and ecosystem services for their livelihoods. The framework of this study is underpinned by the IPCC AR6’s emphasis on socially just and equitable climate resilient development pathways (New et al. 2022 ). Therefore, the study aims to serve as a catalyst for informed, impactful policymaking, thereby fostering a sustainable future.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 brief model description and region of study.

The model used in this study is RegCM (version 4.4.5.10) which is one of the first limited area community model from ICTP (Dickinson et al. 1989 ). Operating on an Arakawa B-grid, RegCM is a hydrostatic, compressible model that utilizes a sigma-p vertical coordinate system. In this model, thermodynamic and wind variables are staggered horizontally, employing a time-splitting explicit integration approach. The model dynamics are resolved using horizontal momentum, continuity and thermodynamic equations. The calibrated version 4.4.5.10 of the ICTP regional climate model (RCM), RegCMv4.4.5.10, has the capability to simulate a range of atmospheric and land surface processes, including radiation, precipitation, soil moisture and vegetation dynamics, at high spatial and temporal resolutions. The RegCMv4.4.5.10 was installed in “parallel” mode at the central high-performance computing facility of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The model domain is over South Asia, spanning 17°E—123°E and 16°S—40°N, with a horizontal resolution of 60 km and 18 vertical levels in the atmosphere (using sigma coordinate) as shown in Fig.  1 a. Different RCM studies have meritoriously used the ICTP-RegCM model for its research purpose (Giorgi et al. 2012 , 2015 ; Dash et al. 2015 ; Lodh 2017 ; 2021 ; Camara et al. 2022 ).

a Control landuse map in the baseline experiment ( b ) modified land use map for the deforestation experiment using BATS coupled RegCMv4.4.510 model (*the legend colors represent the land cover/ vegetation classes in the BATS land surface model)

2.2 Details of the control experiment

The RegCMv4.4.5.10 model is a regional climate model that accurately simulates atmospheric, cloud microphysics, land surface, planetary boundary layer and radiation processes. In this study, the BATS coupled RegCMv4.4.5.10 model (Dickinson et al. 1993 ; Elguindi et al. 2014 ) is invoked for numerical simulations (for both Control and tropical deforestation design experiments). The BATS1E vegetation scheme incorporates twenty vegetation types, soil textures ranging from fine (clay) to intermediate (loam), to coarse (sand) and different soil colors (light to dark) for the soil albedo calculations (Dickinson et al. 1986 ). The BATS scheme comprises of a vegetation layer, a layer for snow, a surface soil layer with a thickness of 10 cm, a root zone layer spanning 1–2 m and a third layer of deep soil measuring 3 m in thickness. The latent heat (LHF) and sensible heat (SHF) formulations are calculated from the bulk aerodynamic formulations. For the control run, the Emanuel convection scheme over land and the Grell convection scheme over the ocean, is combined with the Arakawa Schubert 1974 closure, along with the University of Washington planetary boundary layer (PBL) and Holtslag scheme, for the two sets of control experiments. They are abbreviated as RCM-CONTROL-UW and RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag, respectively. In RCMs, PBL parameterization is employed to depict the impacts of subgrid-scale turbulence that cannot be explicitly resolved due to the model grid’s limited resolution. Parametrizing the boundary layer in climate models is essential for replicating processes within the boundary layer, such as vertical mixing and other turbulence-related phenomena. The UW turbulence closure scheme (Bretherton et al. 2004 ) is a 1.5-order local, down-gradient diffusion parametrization scheme possessing the capability to compute vertical fluxes within and outside of the PBL. The UW scheme also integrates directly the emission and deposition flux terms as part of the calculation of turbulent tracer tendency. The Holtslag PBL scheme (Holtslag et al. 1990 ; Holtslag and Boville 1993 ) adopts a non-local diffusion concept, considering counter-gradient fluxes arising from large-scale eddies in an unstable mixed atmosphere. For more detailed information, please refer to Elguindi et al. ( 2014 ). The details and results of the second control simulation, RCM-CONTROL-HOLTSLAG (Emanuel over land and Grell over ocean with Arakawa Schubert 1974 closure and Holtslag PBL scheme) are described in detail in Lodh ( 2021 ). The lateral boundary condition scheme employed is relaxation, exponential technique. The Subgrid Explicit Moisture Scheme (SUBEX) resolves the non-convective clouds and precipitation by linking the average grid cell humidity to the cloud fraction and cloud water (Elguindi et al. 2014 ; Sundqvist et al. 1989 ). The auto-conversion rate over land and ocean is 0.250E-03. The details of the control experiments (RCM-CONTROL-UW and RCM-CONTROL-HOLTSLAG) are provided in Table  1 .

2.3 LULC map

The contemporary state of land cover mapped data over India as represented by the Global Land Cover Characterization (GLCC) datasets, used in the control simulations are shown in Fig.  1 a. Figure  1 b shows the LULC change map as used in the deforestation design experiment. “Tropical deforestation” is mimicked in the RCM by replacing vegetation classes along the principal axis of Asian monsoon i.e. over the tropical rain-belt regions over Myanmar, Indonesia, Sumatra, Thailand and Cambodia (Indo-Chinese peninsula, and Maritime subcontinent) by short grass. Terrestrial variables like elevation, sea surface temperature, and three-dimensional isobaric meteorological data are horizontally interpolated from a latitude–longitude mesh to a high-resolution (166 × 108 × 18) domain on either a Rotated Mercator (ROTMER) projection.

2.4 Details of the deforestation design experiment

In the context of the deforestation design experiment, specific regions within north-east India, Eastern Ghats, Western Ghats, Indo-Gangetic plains, peninsular India and areas along the principal axis of the monsoon (encompassing Myanmar, Indonesia, Sumatra, Thailand, and Cambodia) are designated for alteration in LULC to mimic tropical deforestation in the model. These regions, originally in the LULC map is classified as having “forest” vegetation, irrigated crops and mixed farming are replaced with “short grass” in the RCM. This modification is applied to the original ASCII test land use map utilized for the RCM’s control simulation. The primary objective here is to isolate and analyze the climate change signal arising from tropical deforestation. The conversion process involves changing the land cover to “short grass” in all regions along the path of the monsoon’s principal axis where tropical deforestation is implemented. This shift to “short grass cover” aligns with findings from various studies (Scharn et al. 2021 ) indicating an increase in the prevalence of evergreen shrubs. This phenomenon is driven by soil moisture conditions, which are in turn influenced by precipitation patterns.

Similar to the control experiments, the convection scheme is Emanuel over land and the Grell scheme over the ocean, combined with the Arakawa Schubert 1974 closure. For the tropical deforestation design experiments titled RegCMv4.4.5.10—DEFORESTATION, both the University of Washington and Holtslag PBL schemes are utilized. They are abbreviated as RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag, respectively. Since the sensitivity to LULC change is dependent on the choice of parametrization and RCM used, hence we use two different PBL schemes. In these experiments, the original ASCII text land use map from the control simulation is modified to incorporate the land use change for the tropical deforestation design experiments. Important BATS vegetation parameters relevant to the tropical deforestation design experiments, such as roughness length, vegetation albedo, maximum fractional vegetation cover, and leaf area index, for the land use type “short grass” are provided in Table  2 . In the Holtslag PBL scheme, the value of critical Richardson number for land and ocean is 0.25. In the UW PBL scheme, standard T-Q V -Q C advection is employed with 15 as the efficiency value of enhancement of entrainment by cloud evaporation. These adjustments are consistent across both RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag experiments. Its significant to highlight that the implications from the tropical deforestation simulations, especially the insights from the second design experiment (RCM-DEF-UW), represent novel contributions of the ICTP-RegCM model, that haven’t been addressed in prior research, as communicated in Lodh ( 2021 ). The simulation length and initial condition for both the sets of control (RCM-CONTROL-UW, RCM-CONTROL-HOLTSLAG) and design (RCM-DEF-UW, RCM-DEF-HOLTSLAG) experiments is 00 UTC of 1st October 1999 to 00 UTC of 1st January 2011, where a spin-up time of 1 year and 3 months is neglected to mitigate errors due to initial values. While performing the design experiments (using the RegCMv4.4.5.10 simulations) the combination of physical parameterization schemes employed are the same as in control simulations (for details, refer to Table  1 ). The experiments are run continuously around the year from 00 UTC of 1st October 1999 to 00 UTC of 1st January 2011 using six hourly NCEP/NCAR-2 reanalysis data as boundary forcing (Kanamitsu et al. 2002 ) and Reynolds weekly SST (Reynolds et al. 2002 ). In both the control and deforestation design experiments, the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model employs a 30-s time step. The time step for the BATS land surface model is 600 s. Every 30 min, the radiation model is invoked, and emission computations are carried out every 18 h. This aligns with the model configuration described in Lodh ( 2021 ) where impact of extended desertification was studied.

This research study offers new perspectives on the impacts of tropical deforestation, leveraging the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model in conjunction with two PBL schemes. To assess the significance of the changes in precipitation (and other meteorological variables) resulting from the deforestation of tropical rainforests, the Wilcoxon’s nonparametric signed rank test is performed. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test computes the sum of ranks for positive and negative differences after ranking the differences between matched observations in absolute values. The lesser of these two sums is subsequently taken into consideration to establish the test statistic. The null hypothesis assumes that the median of the differences is zero, indicating no systematic shift between the paired samples. If the calculated test statistic falls within a critical region, determined by the chosen significance level, the null hypothesis is rejected, suggesting a significant difference between the paired samples (Lodh 2021 ). Hence, the objective, of the design experiment is to enumerate the effects of “tropical deforestation” on the ISM precipitation, circulation, surface fluxes, and other meteorological variables.

3 Results and discussion

The rainfall climatology for the JJAS (June, July, August, September) season across India, based on 10 years of data (2001–2010) sourced from IMD, TRMM observations, and the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model, are depicted in Figures S1 and S2 (from here on, figures labeled with ‘S’ can be found in the supplementary material). Figure S1 displays the spatial distribution of rainfall during the JJAS period, with the highest rainfall concentrations in the Western Ghats and north-east India. In contrast, the least rainfall is seen over north-west India. The RCM-CONTROL-UW model proficiently reproduced actual rainfall distribution across all studied regions, except northeastern India and the southern peninsula, where the rainfall level is higher than the IMD climatology.

The accuracy and verification of rainfall, temperature, and soil moisture measurements produced by the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model was previously established in Lodh ( 2021 ). Figure S2 also depicts that the rainfall bias with respect to TRMM observations falls within the range of − 1 to − 2 mm/day over the monsoon core region of India (MCRI), which is located in central India. Concurrently, the JJAS mean surface temperature bias (Figure S3 ) over MCRI ranges from + 0.5 to 2 °C (Lodh 2021 ). The sensitivity of the atmospheric circulation and precipitation in the lower and middle troposphere over the Indian monsoon domain region to the tropical deforestation has been examined through anomalies of wind at 850 hPa and 500 hPa, moisture transport (MT) fluxes, precipitation, 500-hPa vertical velocity, surface fluxes, near surface air temperature, soil wetness, albedo etc. for monsoon JJAS season.

The control experiments are classified into two distinct types: RCM-CONTROL-UW and RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag. Analogously, the design experiments have their respective categorizations as RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag for each simulation set. Here and in the subsequent section describing tropical deforestation results, anomaly is defined as the difference fields (design-control) between the corresponding fields. In the three panel figure the top panel is “Control” experiment run, middle panel is “design” experiment run and bottom panel is “anomaly (design-control)” with positive anomaly in “blue” and negative anomaly in “red” shades.

3.1 Effect of tropical deforestation on mean ISM meteorology

The tropical deforestation design experiment is to test the role and importance of vegetation along principal axis of monsoon travel (Krishnamurti and Bhalme 1976 ). Figure  2 shows the JJAS (2001–2010) mean precipitation (mm/day) and anomaly (design-control) for deforestation (a) RCM-DEF-UW (b) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively. Seasonal mean JJAS precipitation is decreasing by approximately − 2 mm/day (i.e. ~ 30% less w.r.t control run, p  < 0.01), over north-east India, western Himalayan region of north India, Chennai and its nearby locations of peninsular India and Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar regions of the South-east Asia dur to tropical deforestation. It is important to mention here that both the RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag design experiments are for capturing the impact of tropical deforestation within the scope of the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model. All the parameterization schemes to run the RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag model are the same except, UW PBL scheme is used to represent boundary layer processes in first design experiment whereas Holtslag PBL scheme is used in the second design experiment.

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite precipitation (mm/day) and anomaly (design-control) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively. ( The regions where there is decrease in precipitation is significant at 99% confidence level) [*(top) CONTROL exp, (middle) DESIGN exp; and (bottom) anomaly (design-control)]

Figure S4 and S5 shows the probability distribution functions of annual precipitation (mm/day) over central India from the Control (RCM-CONTROL-UW) and deforestation (RCM-DEF-UW) design experiments. The mean precipitation over central India and north-west India is decreasing by − 6.2 mm/day and − 3.4 mm/day, respectively over the period 2001–2010 due to deforestation. Also, the precipitation variability is decreasing due to tropical deforestation implemented in the RCM. Figures  3 , 4 show the anomalous wind at 850 hPa and 500 hPa level during JJAS season and it can be concluded that magnitude of wind has decreased over South-east Asia, Bay of Bengal (BOB) and central India region with a tendency to form anomalous anticyclonic circulation at 850 hPa extending up to 500 hPa, in both the RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag simulations. The subsidence during JJAS season has increased over east India, Bangladesh and the maritime subcontinent wherever deforestation is implemented in the model, as seen in Fig.  5 . The anomalous positive values of 500-hPa vertical velocity, represents subsidence. From Fig.  6 , it is observed that MT at 850 hPa, has decreased over South-east Asia, BOB, Eastern Ghats, Bengal and western Himalayan region of north India. It is important to note here that due to tropical deforestation, the direction of the anomalous flow in MT is opposite to the direction of mean JJAS monsoon flow. The decline in monsoon precipitation over India due to tropical deforestation can be linked to reduction in MT at 850 hPa, vertically integrated moi  sture transport flux upto 300 hPa (Figure S6 ) over north India, Bay of Bengal (BOB) and its neighboring land region over south-east Asia (approx. by − 15 kg/m/sec). Due to deforestation the meridional component of vertically integrated moisture transport flux is reduced over South-east Asia, BOB and north India, whereas the zonal component of the vertically integrated moisture transport flux is reduced along the principal axis of monsoon, including the BOB region (Figure S6 ). Accompanying this reduction in MT, due to deforestation there is an increase in the height of the lifting condensation level (Figure not shown) over India by 15%, in the deforestation experiment compared to the control. Thus, tropical deforestation inhibits formation of clouds over the Indian sub-continent. Figure  7 explicitly showcases a divergence in the water vapor flux spanning the entire column up to 300 hPa, covering India and the maritime subcontinental region (with a significance level of p  < 0.01). This divergence further contributes to the observed decrease in JJAS precipitation. It is worth noting that in this context, negative values linked with the convergence of vertically integrated water vapor flux indicate convergence, while positive values denote the divergence of water vapor flux. Therefore, tropical deforestation induces a displacement in water vapor over the primary monsoon axis. This leads to a shift in both the amount of precipitable water (Figure S7 ) and the moisture flux on a regional scale over the region under the principal axis of Asian monsoon.

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of wind (m/sec) and change in direction at 850 hPa for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite wind (m/sec) anomaly (design-control) and change in direction at 500 hPa for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS 850-hPa wind (msec −1 ) and 500-hPa vertical velocity (hPa/sec; shaded, positive values representing subsidence) anomaly (design-control) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of moisture transport at 850 hPa (kg/m/sec) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of convergence of vertically integrated water vapor flux (mm/day) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The Monsoon Hadley Index has shown a noticeable decline of approximately − 1.2% per decade from 2001 to 2010, in tropical deforestation experiment in comparison to the control experiment (Fig.  8 ). This is evident for both RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag design experiments. Consequently, the deforestation along the primary axis of monsoon destabilizes the wind patterns of the Indian monsoon up to 500 hPa. Other metrics such as near surface air temperature, SHF, soil wetness, LHF and evaporative fraction for the Control (RCM-CONTROL-UW) and deforestation (RCM-DEF-UW) design experiments are represented in Figs.  9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 . As a consequence of deforestation there is increase in near surface (2 m) air temperature over Indo-Gangetic plains, north, east and north-east India and some regions in south-east Asia, as depicted in Fig.  9 . Over the maritime sub-continent, near surface air temperature increases only in the RCM-DEF-UW design experiment. The SHF has increased by + 40 Wm −2 ( p  < 0.01) over the whole of the tropical rain-belt of south and south-east Asia, i.e., from India to Thailand and Cambodia (Fig.  10 ). There is increase in Bowen’s ratio over north-west India due to tropical deforestation (Figure S8 ). This temperature shift can be attributed to the escalation in SHF, which is prominently observed across the tropical rain-belt, extending from India through to the regions of Thailand and Cambodia in Southeast Asia, as shown in Figs.  9 , 10 (Boysen et al. 2020 ). There is decrease in surface soil moisture and LHF over south-east Asia, Eastern Ghats, Western Ghats, peninsular India, Indo-Gangetic plain and north India, is highlighted in Figs.  11 , 12 . Due to deforestation the evaporative fraction (Fig.  13 ) and recycling ratio (Figure not shown) has also decreased over the Indian subcontinent and nearby areas. Tropical deforestation leads to a decline in precipitation recycling due to reduction in soil moisture and evapotranspiration, especially over the primary monsoon regions of India and Southeast Asia during the summer monsoon months (JJAS). Thus, the region of changes in the near surface parameters in the RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, is synonymous with the regions where tropical deforestation is done in the model. Thus, an impact of tropical deforestation on near surface temperature over Indian sub-continent is clearly derived from this study.

Sensitivity of Monsoon Hadley (MH) index as calculated for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) ( p  < 0.01) of near surface air temperature at 2 m ( ° C) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of sensible heat flux (Wm −2 ) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design—control) ( p  < 0.01) of soil wetness (mm) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of latent heat flux (Wm −2 ) ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of evaporative fraction for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

In the deforested zones, there’s a noticeable increase in upward longwave energy flux, ranging between + 20 to + 40 Wm −2 , as depicted in Fig.  14 . The albedo also increases by 0.05 units (Fig.  15 ), which is also reported in similar studies (Mabuchi et al. 2005 , Mabuchi 2011 ; Strandberg et al. 2023 ) on vegetation change. Conversely, there’s a reduction in net radiation at the surface by approximately − 5 to − 40 Wm −2 . Net radiation, in this context, is the sum of net upward longwave energy flux and net downward shortwave energy flux, which is calculated as (SWin − SWout + LWin − LWout), as illustrated in Fig.  16 . The pattern of albedo alteration corresponds with the changes in net radiation, though with an inversion in polarity. Moreover, it has been observed that the regions subjected to deforestation within the model see an increase in surface upward longwave-radiation flux (as corroborated by Sud et al. 1988 , 1996 ; Eltahir 1996 ; Zheng and Eltahir 1997 ; Durieux et al. 2003 ; Sen et al. 2004 ; Li et al. 2016 ). Generally, an increase in OLR indicates cooling of the atmosphere or the atmosphere becoming drier or less conducive to cloud formation resulting in decrease in precipitation. Its important to note the sign convention used in this study: the direction of surface downward shortwave energy flux moving from the atmosphere to the land surface is taken as positive. On the other hand, the direction of surface upward longwave energy flux transferring from the land surface to the atmosphere is considered negative. This is attributed to lower surface roughness, as surface warming and anomalous increase in sensible heating. Hence, decreased evapotranspiration, increase in net upward longwave flux, Bowen’s ratio, SHF lead to a warmer, higher and drier planetary boundary layer ( p  < 0.01; Figure S9 . Thus, due to tropical deforestation over a dry surface the rate of ascent of the boundary-layer top and deepening of the convective boundary layer tends to be faster, with negative feedback of rainfall with soil moisture. Bhowmick and Parker 2018 also predicts the same using theoretical framework just that the negative or positive feedback depends upon the atmospheric profile, Bowen’s ratio (inversion) and convective instability parameter of the region. It is important to mention here that both the simulations, RCM-DEF-UW and RCM-DEF-Holtslag are unanimous in the deriving the conclusions from the deforestation experiments.

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly (design-control) of net upward longwave energy flux (Wm −2 ) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly of albedo (design-control) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The JJAS (2001–2010) composite mean and anomaly ( p  < 0.01) of net radiation (W/m −2 ) anomaly (design-control) (positive is downward) for deforestation ( a ) RCM-DEF-UW ( b ) RCM-DEF-Holtslag, design experiments, respectively

The ISM precipitation appears to decrease due to tropical deforestation. One significant reason is the albedo increase, which exceeds a critical point of 0.03 (Dirmeyer and Shukla 1994 ). This deforestation leads to a notable decrease (increase) in net radiation and LHF (SHF). Such variations disrupt the radiative equilibrium over the Indian region, which, in turn, disrupts the ISM circulation, resulting in reduced ISM rainfall. This observation aligns with the conclusions drawn by studies by other researchers although their focus was on different global locations (Charney 1975 ; Charney et al. 1975 , 1977 ; Ripley 1976 ; Shukla and Mintz 1982 ; Zeng and Neelin 1999 ; Zickfeld et al. 2005 ).

3.2 Statistical analysis of tropical deforestation design experiment

This section covers the statistical analysis of tropical deforestation using the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model in conjunction with the BATS vegetation module. The influence of the deforestation design experiment is examined through the substitution of forested areas with the “short grass” type of vegetation, characterizing deteriorated pastures, within the context of the “Control” vegetation map. The tropical deforestation design experiment entails methodical adjustment of the albedo, roughness length, and hydrological characteristics of the surface. This is achieved by modifying the model’s namelist file, utilizing a “fudge” parameter set to “true,” and introducing the updated land-use map that accounts for tropical deforestation. The experimentation spans a duration of 11 years, wherein the analysis primarily focuses on the decade following a spin-up phase of 1 year and 3 months. Throughout the experimental phase, actual sea surface temperature (SST) data is incorporated, including significant El Nino and La Nina events. In order to assess the significance of the outcomes, the Wilcoxon rank sum statistical test (Lodh 2021 ; Lorenz et al. 2016 ) is applied to the anomalies of the 10 JJAS (June to September) months for both the control and deforested design experiment runs (as depicted in Figure S10 ). The anomalies for the JJAS months are calculated by taking the difference between the JJAS monthly figures from the control run and those from the experimental design run. We assume that these monthly anomalies are statistically independent, based on the justification that the auto-correlation time frames within the samples don’t exceed one month. The observations in this segment echo the earlier results from Sect.  3.1 . It is evident that variations in precipitation, SHF, LHF, and the convergence of the integrated water vapor flux are not only consistent with the previous findings but also statistically noteworthy with a significance level of p  < 0.01.

3.3 Effect on variability of mean precipitation and surface fluxes

This section addresses the land–atmosphere feedback arising from tropical deforestation through fluctuations (measured as standard deviation) of the ISM rainfall, latent and sensible heat transfers (Ferranti et al. 1999 ). For this purpose, data is collected from each grid point, spanning both the control study and the design experiments that simulate tropical deforestation. Figures  17 (a–f) map out the standard deviations pertaining to precipitation, LHF and SHF, as observed in both control and deforestation scenarios. A consistent pattern of precipitation variability is evident from Fig.  17 a and b for both setups. Intriguingly, in months of May and June, in the control simulations there’s a pronounced fluctuation in rainfall (i.e. variability in rainfall) especially over regions like the Western Ghats, north-east India and Himalayan foothills extending upto north-west India. In the experiments simulating tropical deforestation, there’s a noticeable decrease in rainfall variability (both strength and spread) over northwest India during May and July. This suggests that tropical deforestation adversely impacts the variability of the Indian monsoon, particularly its movement towards the northwest. Also, the consistency of surface energy fluxes, notably LHF, is diminished over areas like the Indo-Gangetic plains and central India due to such deforestation. The SHF variability also experiences a drop, especially in the monsoon trough area that stretches from central India towards the north and north-west. As a result, reductions in surface fluxes, integral to the energy budget, simultaneously influence terrestrial parameters (Yuan et al. 2021 ). These parameters include soil moisture, evapotranspiration processes, types of vegetation, and overall ecosystem dynamics. Consequently, this plays a significant role in shaping the precipitation variability, as indicated by studies from Pielke et al. 1998 and Ferranti et al. 1999 . Terrestrial coupling index of 2 m-temperature and atmospheric coupling index of PBL (Lodh 2020 ) is also calculated for the two control experiments (RCM-CONTROL-UW and RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag) for the time period May to September 2001–2010 (Figures S11 and S12 ). Over central India and north-west India, the value of terrestrial coupling index of 2 m-temperature and SHF ranges between 30–45 W m −2 in the RCM-CONTROL-UW and RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag simulations. However, the strength and domain of extent of coupling is larger in the RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag simulations. This is because the standard deviation (or variability) in SHF is more in the RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag simulations than RCM-CONTROL-UW. The atmospheric coupling index of SHF and PBL across central and CI and north-west Indian sub-continent with values ranging between 150 and 250 m (200 and > 250 m) in the RCM-CONTROL-UW (RCM-CONTROL-Holtslag) simulations (Figures not shown). Furthermore, the deforestation design experiments reveal heightened shifts in land–atmosphere interactions over northwestern India in terms of coupling between 2 m-temperature to SHF to PBL, abating (strengthening) the latent (sensible) heat feedbacks of land–atmosphere and convective activities in the region.

Standard deviation of monthly rainfall in ( a ) baseline/control experiment ( b ) deforestation design RCM-DEF-UW experiment, c and d same as in ( a and b ) but for latent heat flux (LHF), e and f same as in ( a and b ) but for sensible heat flux (SHF)

3.4 Effect on dominant modes of variability of precipitation, soil moisture and surface fluxes

This section explores into the impact of feedback, triggered by tropical deforestation, on the primary three modes of variability observed in precipitation, soil moisture, LHF and SHF. The variance percentage linked to each empirical orthogonal function (EOF) is marked at the top right of each corresponding graph, as seen in Figures S13 ,  S14 ,  S15 , S16 . The figures from the control, RCM-CONTROL-UW and tropical deforestation, RCM-DEF-UW design experiment is reported here. In the design experiment simulating tropical deforestation (see Figure S13 ), the spatial layout of EOF1 for precipitation largely mirrors its counterpart in the control, accounting for roughly the same variance (~ 67.8%). EOF1’s peak variability can be pinpointed over areas like the Western Ghats and north-east India, which are regions of substantial rainfall during the JJAS season over India. Turning to the control setup, as depicted in Figure S13 (a and b), the spatial layout for EOF2 highlights positive rainfall anomalies over regions like Western Ghats and north-east India, while negative anomalies are evident over the foothills of Himalaya. This distribution signifies the typical positioning of the tropical convergence zone in line with both the active and break cycles of the monsoon. Active monsoon phases align with positive time coefficients of EOF2 precipitation, whereas negative values point to subdued monsoon phases, as detailed by Ferranti et al. 1999 . For the tropical deforestation design experiment, the spatial outline of EOF2 prominently features peaks where the control experiment’s EOF2 has troughs. This suggests that alterations in land use due to tropical deforestation reshape the second dominant mode of precipitation variability. Similarly, the spatial representation of EOF2 for soil moisture (Figure S14 ) within the tropical deforestation design experiment underscores the repercussions of deforestation-driven changes in land use and cover on the variability of soil moisture, starting from the second mode. The positive time coefficients for both EOF2 and EOF3 in soil moisture, which account for variability percentages of roughly 6% and 4.5% respectively, distinctly demonstrate the influence of tropical deforestation on soil hydration in areas that lie along the monsoon’s main trajectory. A consistent pattern emerges when evaluating the impact of deforestation on the second and third dominant variability modes for LHF (with roughly 7% variability) is depicted in Figure S15 . Whereas from Figure S16 , the second mode of variability in SHF (with roughly 9% variability), depicts the impact of deforestation on SHF, implying impact of LULC change on land surface fluxes.

4 Conclusion

Numerical simulations assessing changes in LULC (tropical deforestation) were conducted utilizing the ICTP RCM version RegCMv4.4.5.10. The RegCMv4.4.5.10 simulations effectively determine the model’s capability to replicate the climate conditions in India. Also, the technique to implement “tropical deforestation” in the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model was able to isolate the mechanisms that drive the development of meteorological events in event of tropical deforestation. This study quantitatively demonstrates the impact of tropical deforestation on the alteration of rainfall, temperature, and atmospheric circulation over Indian subcontinent and its nearby regions (regions lying over the principal axis of Asian monsoon). These anomalies impact the local hydro-climate, leading to drought-like conditions, further decreasing the intensity and duration of monsoon rain, forming an irreversible hysteresis loop. This confirms the existence of teleconnection effects due to tropical deforestation. To investigate the influence of tropical deforestation design experiments, two distinct simulation sets were executed:

Control simulation using the USGS natural land use map as its foundation.

A design simulation that employs a modified land use map, specifically tailored to replicate the effects of deforestation.

The results of the tropical deforestation design experiments were assessed for versatility by employing two unique combinations of PBL parameterization schemes: the Holtslag PBL and the University of Washington Turbulence closure PBL. Both of these were integrated with the RCM. For convection processes, the Emanuel convection scheme was applied over land, while the Grell scheme was used over the ocean, incorporating the Arakawa Schubert 1974 closure. The key findings of these experiments are outlined as follows:

Due to tropical deforestation, the JJAS precipitation over India, Indo-Chinese peninsula and the maritime sub-continent, along the principal axis of the Asian monsoon, experience a statistically significant decrease. The observed reduction is ascribed to the emergence of an anomalous anti-cyclonic circulation over eastern India, a consequence of tropical deforestation. This results in diminished convective heating, leading to a notable drop in precipitation when contrasted with the control experiment. Moreover, the anomalous anti-cyclonic flow that forms over the northern sector of the Bay of Bengal due to tropical deforestation curtails moisture advection and the vertically integrated moisture flux upto 300hPa, effectively diverting moisture away from adjacent areas, inhibiting the travel of atmospheric rivers. On land, the wind’s intensity diminishes, and its direction reverses due to a decrease in surface roughness. The findings from this current research using the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model corroborates these observations, highlighting both local impacts and a decrease in the ISM rainfall. Furthermore, the recycling ratio decreases, resulting in a negative soil moisture feedback due to deforestation (Leite-Filho et al. 2021 ). As mentioned earlier in the tropical deforestation experiment, the decrease in surface pressure combined with decreasing wind magnitude leads to a calm but dry northwesterly wind over the Indian (land) region. This prevents moisture-laden southerly winds from moving towards land. The experiments focused on deforestation underscore that an increase in vegetation albedo and a decline in surface roughness (refer to Table  2 ) lead to reduced solar radiation absorption on the surface. This results in a cooling effect, especially pronounced over northwestern India. This cooling narrows the temperature differential between land and sea, consequently impacting the north–south pressure gradient and the Indian monsoon’s Hadley index. This shift means the easterly winds originating from the Bay of Bengal don’t reach the mainland, which subsequently results in diminished precipitation inland. Hence, the elevation in albedo, attributed to the loss of vegetation, negatively and significantly impacts the evolution of the monsoon (ISM). Deforestation further influences the variability and the primary three Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOFs) linked to the oscillation of the ISM. This influence manifests through alterations in surface energy fluxes, soil moisture content, evapotranspiration, and, consequently, rainfall across the Indian region (See Fig.  18 ). Its pivotal to recognize, however, that the effects of deforestation on precipitation patterns possess inherent uncertainties too.

The experiments focusing on deforestation highlight that increases in albedo, owing to diminished plant cover, contributes to a decrease in JJAS soil moisture, evapotranspiration, and rainfall. This increase in albedo results in more radiation being reflected. Within the framework of the tropical deforestation design experiments, there is a noted average decline in precipitation by approximately − 2 mm/day. Concurrently, albedo surpassed the pivotal threshold value of 0.03. Albedo is an important factor, acting as a thermostat in regulating the climate's response to tropical deforestation. As deforestation affects tropical regions, there’s a marked elevation in albedo, leading to the cooling of the surface. This cooling prompts a greater atmospheric subsidence, essential for sustaining long-wave radiation emission into the atmosphere. The decline in rainfall over a broader geographical area, beyond the region where deforestation occurs (i.e., teleconnection effects), is influenced by the higher albedo of deforested surfaces and the reduced evapotranspiration of crops and pastures compared to natural vegetation. Both from this study and previous literature it is found out that LHF, a significant factor in maintaining the recycling ratio, is considerably reduced by 25% due to deforestation. Any alteration in the lower boundary condition in a regional climate model (RCM) when paired with a decrease in vegetation (such as deforestation or desertification) is further amplified by a reduction in rainfall, perpetuating heat wave and drought-like conditions.

Precipitation plays a crucial role in the terrestrial and atmospheric water cycle, and repercussions of human-induced climatic shifts (anthropogenic climate change) such as tropical deforestation, on rainfall patterns hold profound consequences for farming practices, especially in the prime grain-producing regions of India. The increase in tropical deforestation over the hot spot regions of land–atmosphere like South-east Asia leads to alterations in precipitation over India through various mechanisms like alterations in soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET), and energy fluxes over India. This transformation is facilitated by multiple pathways, including shifts in soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET), and energy flux dynamics within India. A noticeable consequence is the diminished MT across the Bay of Bengal (BOB). Tropical deforestation leads to a decline in the total water content available in the atmosphere (precipitable water), the proportion of rainfall that returns to the atmosphere through evaporation (recycling ratio), and the efficiency with which rainfall is produced from available moisture (precipitation efficiency). In tandem, there’s an increase in surface reflectivity (albedo) and a decrease in the net radiation received at the surface. This ultimately hampers the upward movement and convergence of water vapor, diminishing the propensity for low-level cloud formation. A secondary consequence is the weakening of low-level winds, promoting the development of an anti-cyclonic circulation pattern. In general, the results from the deforestation experiment reports that large-scale deforestation reduces net radiation at surface and the total heat flux by ~ 20Wm −2 .

The alterations in LHF and MT combined with changes in the Monsoon Hadley index, have profound consequences on the water and energy cycles of the region. This results in a net reduction in summer monsoon (JJAS) rainfall over India. Furthermore, the increase in sensible heat flux (SHF), temperatures near the surface, and the increase in outgoing longwave radiation accentuate these shifts. Numerical analyses conducted using a regional climate model (RCM) reveal that tropical deforestation can amplify the effects of surface reflectivity (albedo) and evapotranspiration, leading to noticeable shifts in-ground and air temperature during the Indian monsoon by + 1 to + 1.5 °C. Consequently, higher land surface temperatures and increased SHF, coupled with a reduction in soil moisture and LHF, yield arid conditions. Such conditions can jeopardize the sustainability of the residual forested regions as well as agricultural activities in previously deforested areas (Dickinson and Henderson-Sellers 1988 ). Furthermore, tropical deforestation sets in motion a feedback loop: it fosters the propagation of drought conditions and, when combined with elevated temperatures and heightened water stress, further exacerbates the mortality rates of trees. This cycle of deterioration ultimately perpetuates the adverse effects of deforestation.

On a short-term (biophysical) timescale deforestation type LULC change influences both the weather and climate by altering the land-surface energy fluxes. While the conclusions drawn from proxy tropical deforestation design experiments using RCM (RegCMv4.4.5.10) are open for further exploration, possibly using a non-hydrostatic version of the ICTP-RegCM coupled with an earth system model, the research conducted in this study provides simulations of the impact of various deforestation scenarios on the Indian monsoon hydro-climate. These insights can be used to inform policy and management decisions related to land use, conservation, and climate change adaptation in the region.

The findings of the study add significant value to the existing knowledge on the impact of anthropogenic activities, particularly deforestation on climate change and monsoon variability. It specifically highlights how the deforestation induced feedback influences the interannual variability of ISM precipitation and surface fluxes. It has profound implications for diverse socioeconomic sectors from agriculture to human health in India and other LMICs where adaptation and mitigation capacities are constrained due to inequity, high rates of informality, high debt service ratios, and high costs of capital among others. The paper’s experimental design describes how deforestation contributes to alterations in albedo, roughness length, wind patterns, water evaporation and surface hydrological properties. It also details how these changes can impact regional climate patterns, leading to unpredictable temperature variability and humidity fluctuations. Such climate disruptions also bear financial implications for countries like India already dealing with many economic and infrastructure challenges.

From an agro-economic perspective, the evidence provided by the study underscores the direct ramifications of variable monsoon patterns on food security and agricultural sustainability. For instance, the standard deviation of rainfall as seen in Fig.  17 (a and b) shows relatively small variability over north-western India during the months of May to July in the scenario of deforestation potentially disrupting agricultural productivity (also monsoon precipitation decreases). This threatens the livelihoods of a large proportion of the population reliant on agriculture, potentially leading to forced migration and other socio-economic disruptions. From a policy perspective, these findings highlight the urgent need for effective adaptation and mitigation strategies as recognized in the recent COP 27 summit. Sustainable land-use planning, afforestation, and reforestation efforts should be a priority to alleviate the impacts of deforestation on monsoon patterns and related socioeconomic consequences. In this regards, land–atmosphere interactions using Dirmeyer’s indices for various landuse—land cover change like afforestation, desertification, irrigation intensification is also planned as a future work.

The study also underscores the differential impacts of these environmental changes on various social groups. The vulnerable and marginalized resource-dependent communities, particularly those with limited access to information are at high risk from climate change. It aligns with the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, that emphasizes on socially just and equitable climate resilient development pathways, indicating a need for more inclusive, meaningful, and comprehensive communication and action strategies. The study thus provides a holistic perspective of tropical deforestation on climate of India, connecting climate research and need for climate adaptation.

Flowchart of the consequences of tropical deforestation experiment

Data availability

The datasets generated from RegCMv4.4.5.10 model run and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

BaidyaRoy S, Avissar R (2002) Impact of land use/land cover change on regional hydrometeorology in Amazonia. J Geophys Res 107(D20):8037. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000266

Article   Google Scholar  

Bathiany S, Claussen M, Brovkin V, Raddatz T, Gayler V (2010) Combined biogeophysical and biogeochemical effects of large-scale forest cover changes in the MPI earth system model. Biogeosciences 7:1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1383-2010

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bhowmick M, Parker DJ (2018) Analytical solution to a thermodynamic model for the sensitivity of afternoon deep convective initiation to the surface Bowen ratio. Q J R Meteorol Soc 144:2216–2229. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3340

Bollasina M, Nigam S (2011) Modeling of regional hydroclimate change over the indian subcontinent: impact of the expanding thar desert. J Clim 24:3089–3106. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3851.1

Boysen LR, Brovkin V, Pongratz J, Lawrence DM, Lawrence P, Vuichard N, Peylin P, Liddicoat S, Hajima T, Zhang Y, Rocher M, Delire C, Séférian R, Arora VK, Nieradzik L, Anthoni P, Thiery W, Laguë MM, Lawrence D, Lo MH (2020) Global climate response to idealized deforestation in CMIP6 models. Biogeosciences 17:5615–5638. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020

Bretherton CS, McCaa JR, Grenier H (2004) A new parameterization for shallow cumulus convection and its application to marine subtropical cloud-topped boundary layers. Part I: description and 1D results. Mon Wea Rev 132:864–882. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132%3c0864:ANPFSC%3e2.0.CO;2

Camara M, Diba I, Diedhiou A (2022) Effects of land cover changes on compound extremes over west Africa using the regional climate model regCM4. Atmosphere 13:421. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13030421

Chambwera M, Heal G, Dubeux C, Hallegatte S, Leclerc L, Markandya A, McCarl BA, Mechler R, Neumann JE (2014) Economics of adaptation. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 945–977

Google Scholar  

Charney JG (1975) Dynamics of deserts and drought in the Sahel. Q J R Meteorol Soc 101:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710142802

Charney J, Stone PH, Quirk WJ (1975) Drought in the sahara: a biogeophysical feedback mechanism. Science 187:434–435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.187.4175.434

Charney J, Quirk WJ, Chow S-H, Kornfield J (1977) A comparative study of the effects of albedo change on drought in semi-arid regions. J Atmos Sci 34:1366–1385. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034%3c1366:ACSOTE%3e2.0.CO;2

Clement V, Rigaud KK, de Sherbinin A, Jones B, Adamo S, Schewe J, Sadiq N, Shabahat E (2021) Groundswell part 2: acting on internal climate migration. World Bank, Washington, DC

Dash SK, Pattnayak KC, Panda SK, Vaddi D, Mamgain A (2015) Impact of domain size on the simulation of Indian summer monsoon in RegCM4 using mixed convection scheme and driven by HadGEM2. Clim Dyn 44:961–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2420-1

Devaraju N, Bala G, Modak A (2015) Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: remote versus local effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423439112

Dickinson RE (1983) Land surface processes and climate surface albedos and energy-balance. Adv Geophys 25:305–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2687(08)60176-4

Dickinson RE, Henderson-Sellers A (1988) Modeling tropical deforestation—a study of GCM land surface parametrizations. Q J R Meteor Soc 114:439–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49711448009

Dickinson RE, Errico RM, Giorgi F, Bates GT (1989) A regional climate model for the western United States. Clim Change 15:383–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00240465

Dickinson RE, Henderson-Sellers A, Kennedy PJ, Wilson MF (1986) Biosphere-atmosphere transfer scheme (BATS) for the NCAR COMMUNITY climate model (No. NCAR/TN-275-+STR). University corporation for atmospheric research. https://doi.org/10.5065/D6668B58

Dickinson RE, Henderson-Sellers A, Kennedy PJ (1993) Biosphere-atmosphere transfer scheme (BATS) Version 1e as coupled to the NCAR community climate model (No. NCAR/TN-387+STR). University corporation for atmospheric research. https://doi.org/10.5065/D67W6959

Dirmeyer PA, Shukla J (1994) Albedo as a modulator of climate response to tropical deforestation. J Geophys Res 99(D10):20863–20877. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD01311

Durieux L, Machado LAT, Laurent H (2003) The impact of deforestation on cloud cover over the Amazon arc of deforestation. Remote Sens Environ 86(1):132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00095-6

Elguindi N, Bi X, Giorgi F, Nagarajan B, Pal J, Solmon F, Rauscher S, Zakey A, O’Brien T, Nogherotto R, Giuliani G (2014) Regional climate model RegCM4.4 user manual

Eltahir EAB (1996) The role of vegetation in sustaining large-scale atmospheric circulations in the tropics. J Geophys Res 101(D2):4255–4268. https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD03632

Farid M, Keen M, Papaioannou M, Parry I, Pattillo C, Ter-Martirosyan A, IMF Staff (2016) After Paris: fiscal, macroeconomic and financial implications of global climate change. International monetary fund. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1601.pdf

Ferranti L, Slingo JM, Palmer TN, Hoskins BJ (1999) The effect of land-surface feedbacks on the monsoon circulation. Q J R Meteorol Soc 125:1527–1550. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555704

Giorgi F, Coppola E, Solmon F, Mariotti L, Sylla MB, Bi X, Elguindi N, Diro GT, Nair V, Giuliani G, Turuncoglu UU, Cozzini S, Güttler I, O’Brien TA, Tawfik AB, Shalaby A, Zakey AS, Steiner AL, Stordal F, Sloan LC, Brankovic C (2012) RegCM4: model description and preliminary tests over multiple CORDEX domains. Clim Res 52:7–29. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01018

Giorgi F, Elguindi N, Cozzini S, Solmon F, Giuliani G (2015) Regional climatic model RegCM user’s guide version 4.4. Technical report. ICTP, Trieste, Italy

Gupta A, Thapliyal PK, Pal PK, Joshi PC (2005) Impact of deforestation on Indian monsoon: A GCM sensitivity study. J Indian Geophys Union 9(2):97–104

Harris NL, Gibbs DA, Baccini A, Birdsey RA, de Bruin S, Farina M, Fatoyinbo L, Hansen MC, Herold M, Houghton RA, Potapov PV, Requena SD, Roman-Cuesta RM, Saatchi SS, Slay CM, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A (2021) Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat Clim Change 11:234–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6

Hasler N, Werth D, Avissar R (2009) Effects of tropical deforestation on global hydroclimate: a multimodel ensemble analysis. J Clim 22:1124–1141. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2157.1

Henderson-Sellers A, Dickinson RE, Durbidge TB, Kennedy PJ, McGuffie K, Pitman AJ (1993) Tropical deforestation—modeling local-scale to regional-scale climate change. J Geophys Res Atmos 98:7289–7315. https://doi.org/10.1029/92JD02830

Holtslag AAM, Boville BA (1993) Local versus nonlocal boundary-layer diffusion in a global climate model. J Climate 6:1825–1842. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006%3c1825:LVNBLD%3e2.0.CO;2

Holtslag AAM, De Bruijn EIF, Pan H (1990) A high-resolution air mass transformation model for short-range weather forecasting. Mon Weather Rev 118:1561–1575. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1990)118%3c1561:AHRAMT%3e2.0.CO;2

Kanamitsu M, Ebisuzaki W, Woollen J, Yang S, Hnilo JJ, Fiorino M, Potter GL (2002) NCEP–DOE AMIP-II reanalysis (R-2). Bull Am Meteor Soc 83(11):1631–1644. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-83-11-1631

Kim D-H, Sexton JO, Townshend JR (2015) Accelerated deforestation in the humid tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s. Geophys Res Lett 42:3495–3501. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062777

Kovats RS, Hajat S (2008) Heat stress and public health: a critical review. Annu Rev Public Health 29:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090843

Krishnamurti TN, Bhalme HN (1976) Oscillations of a monsoon system. Part I observational aspects. J Atmos Sci 33:1937–1954. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033%3c1937:OOAMSP%3e2.0.CO;2

Lawrence D, Vandecar K (2015) Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nature Clim Change 5:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2430

Leite-Filho AT, Soares-Filho BS, Davis JL, Abrahão GM, Börner J (2021) Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian amazon. Nat Commun 12:2591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7

Li Y, Zhao M, Mildrexler DJ, Motesharrei S, Mu Q, Kalnay E, Zhao F, Li S, Wang K (2016) Potential and actual impacts of deforestation and afforestation on land surface temperature. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:14372–14386. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024969

Lodh A (2017) Simulated impact of desertification and deforestation on Indian monsoon rainfall and surface fluxes. J Ecosyst Ecogr 7:226. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7625.1000226

Lodh A (2020) Reassessment of land–atmosphere interactions over India during summer monsoon using state-of-the-art regional climate models. Theor Appl Climatol 142:1649–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-020-03395-x

Lodh A (2021) Simulating the impact of extended desertification on Indian hydro climate using ICTP-RegCM4.4.5.10 model. J Hydrol 598:126405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126405

Lorenz R, Pitman AJ, Sisson SA (2016) Does Amazonian deforestation cause global effects; can we be sure? J Geophys Res Atmos 121:5567–5584. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024357

Mabuchi K (2011) A numerical investigation of changes in energy and carbon cycle balances under vegetation transition due to deforestation in the Asian tropical region. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 89(1):47–65. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2011-104

Mabuchi K, Sato Y, Kida H (2005) Climatic impact of vegetation change in the Asian tropical region. Part I: case of the northern hemisphere summer. J Clim 18:410–428. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-3273.1

Marambe B, Punyawardena R, Silva P, Premalal S, Rathnabharathie V, Kekulandala B, Nidumolu U, Howden M (2015) Climate climate risk and food security in Sri Lanka: the need for strengthening adaptation strategies. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of climate change adaptation. Springer, Berlin, pp 1759–1789

Chapter   Google Scholar  

New M, Reckien D, Viner D, Adler C, Cheong S-M, Conde C, Constable A, Coughlan de Perez E, Lammel A, Mechler R, Orlove B, Solecki W (2022) Decision-Making Options for Managing Risk. In: Climate Change (2022) Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp 2539–2654. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.026

Pielke R, Avissar R, Raupach M, Dolman A, Zeng X, Denning A (1998) Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems: influence on weather and climate. Glob Change Biol 4:461–475. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.t01-1-00176.x

Polcher J, Laval K (1994a) The impact of African and Amazonian deforestation on tropical climate. J Hydrol 155(3):389–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)90179-1

Polcher J, Laval K (1994b) A statistical study of the regional impact of deforestation on climate in the LMD GCM. Clim Dyn 10(4–5):205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208988

Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Adams H, Adelekan I, Adler C, Adrian R, Aldunce P, Ali E, Bednar-Friedl B, Begum RA, Bezner Kerr R, Biesbroek R, Birkmann J, Bowen K, Caretta MA, Carnicer J, Castellanos E, Cheong TS, Chow W, Cissé G, Clayton S, Constable A, Cooley SR, Costello MJ, Craig M, Cramer W, Dawson R, Dodman D, Efitre J, Garschagen M, Gilmore EA, Glavovic BC, Gutzler D, Haasnoot M, Harper S, Hasegawa T, Hayward B, Hicke JA, Hirabayashi Y, Huang C, Kalaba K, Kiessling W, Kitoh A, Lasco R, Lawrence J, Lemos MF, Lempert R, Lennard C, Ley D, Lissner T, Liu Q, Liwenga E, Lluch-Cota S, Löschke S, Lucatello S, Luo Y, Mackey B, Mintenbeck K, Mirzabaev A, Möller V, Moncassim Vale M, Morecroft MD, Mortsch L, Mukherji A, Mustonen T, Mycoo M, Nalau J, New M, Okem A, Ometto JP, O'Neill B, Pandey R, Parmesan C, Pelling M, Pinho PF, Pinnegar J, Poloczanska ES, Prakash A, Preston B, Racault M-F, Reckien D, Revi A, Rose SK, Schipper ELF, Schmidt DN, Schoeman D, Shaw R, Simpson NP, Singh C, Solecki W, Stringer L, Totin E, Trisos CH, Trisurat Y, van Aalst M, Viner D, Wairiu M, Warren R, Wester P, Wrathall D, Zaiton Ibrahim Z (2022) Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, pp 37–118

Rasul G, Sharma B (2016) The nexus approach to water–energy–food security: an option for adaptation to climate change. Climate Policy 16(6):682–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865

Revi A, Roberts D, Klaus I, Bazaz A, Krishnaswamy J, Singh C, Eichel A, Kodira PP, Seth S, Adelekan I, Babiker M, Bertoldi P, Cartwright A, Chow W, Colenbrander S, Creutzig F, Dawson R, De Coninck H, De Kleijne K, Dhakal S, Gallardo L, Garschagen M, Haasnoot M, Haldar, S, Hamdi R, Hashizume M, Islam AKMS, Jiang K, Kılkış S, Klimont Z, Lemos MF, Ley D, Lwasa S, McPhearson T, Niamir L, Otto F, Pathak M, Pelling M, Pinto I, Pörtner H-O, Pereira JP, Raghavan K, Roy J, Sara LM, Seto KC, Simpson NP, Solecki W, Some S, Sörensson AA, Steg L, Szopa S, Thomas A, Trisos C, Ürge-Vorsatz D (2022) The Summary for Urban Policymakers of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. Indian Institute for Human Settlements. https://doi.org/10.24943/SUPSV511.2022

Reynolds RW, Rayner NA, Smith TM, Stokes DC, Wang W (2002) An improved in-situ and satellite SST analysis for climate. J Clim 15:1609–1625. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3c1609:AIISAS%3e2.0.CO;2

Ripley EA (1976) Drought in the sahara: insufficient biogeophysical feedback? Science 191(4222):100–103. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.191.4222.100.a

Scharn R, Little CJ, Bacon CD, Alatalo JM, Antonelli A, Björkman MP, Molau U, Nilsson RH, Björk RG (2021) Decreased soil moisture due to warming drives phylogenetic diversity and community transitions in the tundra. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfe8a

Sen OL, Wang Y, Wang B (2004) Impact of Indochina deforestation on the East Asian summer monsoon. J Clim 17:1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3c1366:IOIDOT%3e2.0.CO;2

Shukla J, Mintz Y (1982) Influence of land-surface evapotranspiration on the earth’s climate. Science 215(4539):1498–1501. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.215.4539.1498

Spracklen DV, Garcia-Carreras L (2015) The impact of Amazonian deforestation on Amazon basin rainfall. Geophys Res Lett 42:9546–9552. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066063

Srinivasan M, Ghoge K, Haldar S, Bazaz A, Revi A (2023) Climate finance in India 2023. Indian Institute for Human Settlements. https://doi.org/10.24943/CFI11.2023

Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (2013) 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. Cambridge University Press.

Strandberg G, Chen J, Fyfe R, Kjellström E, Lindström J, Poska A, Zhang Q, Gaillard M-J (2023) Did the bronze age deforestation of Europe affect its climate? A regional climate model study using pollen-based land cover reconstructions. Clim past 19:1507–1530. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-1507-2023

Sud YC, Shukla J, Mintz Y (1988) Influence of land surface roughness on atmospheric circulation and precipitation: a sensitivity study with a general circulation model. J Appl Meteorol 27(9):1036–1054

Sud YC, Lau WK-M, Walker GK, Kim J-H, Liston GE, Sellers PJ (1996) Biogeophysical consequences of a tropical deforestation scenario: a GCM simulation study. J Clim 9(12):3225–3247. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009%3c3225:BCOATD%3e2.0.CO;2

Sundqvist H, Berge E, Kristjánsson JE (1989) Condensation and cloud parameterization studies with a mesoscale numerical weather prediction model. Mon Weather Rev 117:1641–1657. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117%3c1641:CACPSW%3e2.0.CO;2

Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (1997) The regional impacts of climate change: an assessment of vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, UK, p 517

Werth D, Avissar R (2002) The local and global effects of amazon deforestation. J Geophys Res 107(D20):8087

Werth D, Avissar R (2005a) The local and global effects of African deforestation. Geophys Res Lett 32:L12704. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022969

Werth D, Avissar R (2005b) The local and global effects of Southeast Asian deforestation. Geophys Res Lett 32:L20702. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022970

Xue Y, Shukla J (1993) The Influence of land surface properties on sahel climate Part I: Desertification. J Clim 6(12):2232–2245

Yasuoka J, Levins R (2007) Impact of deforestation and agricultural development on anopheline ecology and malaria epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg 76:450–460

Yuan K, Zhu Q, Zheng S, Zhao L, Chen M, Riley WJ, Cai X, Ma H, Li F, Wu H, Chen L (2021) Deforestation reshapes land-surface energy-flux partitioning. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd8f9

Zeng N, Neelin JD (1999) A land-atmosphere interaction theory for the tropical deforestation problem. J Clim 12:857–872. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3c0857:ALAITF%3e2.0.CO;2

Zheng X, Eltahir EAB (1997) The response to deforestation and desertification in a model of West African monsoons. Geophys Res Lett 24(2):155–158. https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL03925

Zickfeld K, Knopf B, Petoukhov V, Schellnhuber HJ (2005) Is the Indian summer monsoon stable against global change? Geophys Res Lett 32:L15707. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022771

Download references

Acknowledgements

International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy is acknowledged for making the RegCMv4.4.5.10 model codes available for this study. The RegCMv4.4.5.10 executables were built on central HPC computing facilities available at Computer Services Centre and Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, IIT Delhi. National Center for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research acknowledged for providing high-resolution meteorological datasets for setting the initial and boundary conditions to run the model. NCAR and UCAR are acknowledged for NCL and NETCDF4, analysis and software packages, respectively. The Grid Analysis and Display System (GrADS) version 2.0 software, NCAR Command Language (Version 6.2.0), Ultra scale Visualization Climate Data Analysis Tools (UVCDAT) package built with Python 2.7.4 and SciPy package ( http://www.scipy.org/ ), are used for scientific computation and plotting. Wealth of online resource available at scholar.google.com was also helpful. The first author is grateful towards MHRD, Govt. of India, Institute student fellowship supporting his Ph.D. research work. The authors also acknowledge Lund University, Sweden for providing research support. With deepest respect the first author offers gratitude towards faculty members at CAS, IIT Delhi: Prof. H. C. Upadhyaya, Prof. A. D. Rao and Prof. Somnath B. Roy for providing time to time advice. Finally, Johan Eckdahl (Ph.D.) and Gautam Sharma (Ph.D.) are thanked for helping in the final editing of the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by Lund University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, Lund, 223 62, Sweden

Abhishek Lodh

Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Folkborgsvägen 17, Norrköping, 601 76, Sweden

Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore, 560080, India

Stuti Haldar

Department of Design Sciences and CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research, Lund University, Sölvegatan 16, Lund, 223 62, Sweden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The author Dr. Abhishek Lodh conceptualized and designed the study, developed the methodology, installed and run the regional climate model, curated the data, developed the verification and other scripts along with software, visualized the results, wrote the first draft of the paper, reviewed and edited the final document. The second author, Dr. Stuti Haldar, reviewed and edited the manuscript in current context of regional climate change and provided insights into the socioeconomic implications of the study. Both the authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript’s findings.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Lodh .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 2468 KB)

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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lodh, A., Haldar, S. Investigating the impact of tropical deforestation on Indian monsoon hydro-climate: a novel study using a regional climate model. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06615-z

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 18 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06615-z

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

• Regional climate modelling
• RegCMv4.4.5.10
• Tropical deforestation
• Albedo change
• Holtslag-PBL
• Precipitation response
• Climate mitigation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

DEFORESTATION

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Thus, deforestation is an important issue to be discussed. It has adverse effects on each living beings' life. Deforestation has become a huge concern in today's life as there has been a rise in the decline of forests. Trees are cut down in order to manufacture paper products as well as for livestock farming and so on.

In order to feed the ever increasing population of the Earth, trees and forests are converted to farm lands. This has become a threat to the world and it has been seen that rates of decline in the forests are increasing at a rapid rate. This has led the planet to warm up and leading to high temperatures. This cycle would continue for the following years to come unless necessary steps are taken to prevent deforestation. Deforestation has caused fewer trees to grow. It has also gone a long way in eliminating valuable ecosystems in the planet.

If major steps towards afforestation are not taken, then even the great adaptability of human beings may not be enough to cope up with the harsh climate of the future. Deforestation does have solutions. It's just that the people must step forward. The safe keeping of our precious planet lies with each and every member of its human population. We are the ones accountable for our actions even though it is ourselves we are accountable too.

24 comments:

If its not going to be a business, America won't do it! Seriously, why can't this country focus its money on actually setting the stage set for the future of the people? We will be nothing without nature. -Oscar Valencia Tree Service Queens

You are right with your opinion

Exactly correct

It's nice

Very impressive and I can see always correct answer

Very informative post. Thanks for taking the time to share your view with us. Regards, seo melbourne

Tysm sweets

Great conclusion 👍

the website is good as it focuses on the habitual thing. Moreover, it has helped me a lot in my projects. Thanks a lot to its inventor and the whole group at large. love this website a lot....... - Anushka

Supper decision

Very helpful and catchy information

Nice information ty for helping

Everything had a good side and bad side.. Through deforestation we are getting comfortable things as well as other things but for that deforestation we are inviting our bad future.. If you wanna get something big and best then you have to sacrifice your lovely things

Noooooooooo nooooooooooooo neverrrrrrr neverrrrrrr

NOoooooooooooooooooOoooo

This guy copied from another website i think.

CASINOS ONLINE: How To Download Slingo Games Online At this time, Slingo Online is not part of the popular 안양 출장샵 Casino category, 서귀포 출장안마 where 광주 출장안마 you can download or download 당진 출장샵 Slingo games for free online at a reduced 과천 출장마사지 cost and without

Tül Perde Modelleri sms onay turkcell mobil ödeme bozdurma nft nasıl alınır ankara evden eve nakliyat trafik sigortası dedektör web sitesi kurma aşk kitapları

tuzla daikin klima servisi kartal vestel klima servisi ümraniye vestel klima servisi ümraniye bosch klima servisi kartal arçelik klima servisi ümraniye arçelik klima servisi beykoz samsung klima servisi üsküdar samsung klima servisi ataşehir arçelik klima servisi

Aweome Post. Thanks to share the Valuable Information. Now If You want 군산출장샵 to know about Who is Viewing your Instagram account then visit here to know about

• Share full article

Advertisement

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.

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..

Scientists say they have found an “alphabet” in the songs of sperm whales , raising the possibility that the animals are communicating in a complex language.

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 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 .

Advocacy, conservation, and spiritual connection; 3 ways Sadhguru connects with nature

I n the fast-paced modern world, where the clamor of technology often drowns out the whispers of nature, there is a voice advocating for the interconnectedness between humanity and the natural world. That voice belongs to Sadhguru, a spiritual leader, yogi, and visionary.

At the heart of Sadhguru's teachings is a deep reverence for nature. He believes that the wellbeing of humanity is linked to the health of the environment, and that by nurturing our connection to the natural world, we can unlock greater levels of inner peace and fulfillment. Sadhguru often speaks of nature not merely as a resource to be exploited, but as a source of wisdom and spiritual nourishment.

One of Sadhguru's key messages is the importance of conservation. He emphasises the urgent need to protect and preserve the Earth's delicate ecosystems, which are under threat from human activities such as deforestation, pollution, and climate change. Sadhguru warns that if we continue on our current path of destruction, we risk irreversibly harming the planet and compromising the wellbeing of future generations.

To address these pressing environmental challenges, Sadhguru has launched several initiatives aimed at promoting sustainability and conservation. One such initiative is Project GreenHands, a massive tree-planting campaign that has mobilised millions of volunteers to plant over 35 million trees across India. Through Project GreenHands, Sadhguru seeks to not only combat deforestation but also to raise awareness about the importance of reforestation in mitigating climate change and restoring ecological balance.

Another significant movement spearheaded by Sadhguru is the Save Soil Campaign. Recognising the role that soil plays in sustaining life on Earth, Sadhguru has been advocating for the conservation and regeneration of soil health. Through awareness campaigns, educational programs, and on-the-ground initiatives, Sadhguru aims to highlight the importance of soil conservation and promote sustainable agricultural practices that preserve and enhance soil fertility.

In addition to his efforts in reforestation and soil conservation, Sadhguru is also a vocal advocate for sustainable agriculture practices. He emphasises the importance of regenerative farming techniques that work in harmony with nature rather than against it. Sadhguru believes that by adopting more sustainable approaches to agriculture, we can ensure food security for future generations while also protecting the environment and promoting biodiversity.

Beyond his advocacy for conservation, Sadhguru also encourages people to develop a deeper spiritual connection to nature. He believes that by immersing ourselves in the natural world and observing its rhythms and cycles, we can tap into a sense of inner peace and oneness with the universe. For Sadhguru, nature is not just a physical entity but a manifestation of the divine, and by communing with nature, we can experience a deeper sense of spirituality and interconnectedness.

One of the ways in which Sadhguru invites people to connect with nature is through his teachings on yoga and meditation. He often leads outdoor meditation sessions in natural settings, encouraging participants to quiet their minds and open their hearts to the beauty and majesty of the world around them. Through practices such as yoga and meditation, Sadhguru believes that we can cultivate a deeper sense of reverence for nature and develop a more harmonious relationship with the Earth.

In conclusion, Sadhguru's teachings on nature offer a powerful antidote to the disconnect that so many of us feel from the natural world. Through his advocacy for conservation, his promotion of sustainable practices, and his emphasis on spiritual connection, Sadhguru invites us to rekindle our relationship with nature and recognise the profound wisdom and beauty that surrounds us. In doing so, we not only honour the Earth but also nurture our own souls, finding solace, inspiration, and purpose in the embrace of the natural world.

READ ALSO: Sadhguru’s timeless quotes on Motherhood that are so heartwarming

READ ALSO: The healing power of forgiveness: Spiritual practices for letting go and moving forward

For more news like this visit TOI . Get all the Latest News , City News , India News , Business News , and Sports News . For Entertainment News , TV News , and Lifestyle Tips visit Etimes

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘savages’ review: a heartfelt and galvanizing animated film calls for environmental protection.

The latest from 'My Life as a Zucchini' director Claude Barras is about a group of Indigenous people trying to protect their land from rampant deforestation.

By Lovia Gyarkye

Lovia Gyarkye

Arts & Culture Critic

• Share this article on Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter
• Share this article on Flipboard
• Share this article on Email
• Show additional share options
• Share this article on Linkedin
• Share this article on Pinit
• Share this article on Reddit
• Share this article on Tumblr
• Share this article on Whatsapp
• Share this article on Print
• Share this article on Comment

Films about the ecological stakes of contemporary life often center the results of unfettered human consumption. By showing the abuses suffered by the environment, they function as both an urgent warning and a desperate plea. Claude Barras takes a different route in Savages (Sauvages) , his incisive and edifying animated feature about an 11-year-old girl trying to protect her land and people from encroaching deforestation. 

Related Stories

'blue sun palace' review: an intimate, affecting and dogma-free portrait of chinese immigrants in working-class new york, 'eephus' review: an existential baseball comedy that's less about the game than a dying pastime.

The stop-motion animated film luxuriates in scenes of the natural world, from the vivid colors of the jungle (mellow greens, bright blues and understated browns) to the symphony of nocturnal animals (howling owls, shrill cicadas and crying crickets). Working with Charles de Ville on sound design, Barras deepens our understanding of Borneo, a large island in Southeast Asia, with the tropical forests’ soundtrack. It’s here, within the pitched calls of birds, croaks of frogs and rustling foliage, that we witness the first of many threats to environmental order. 

After seeing his colleagues at the palm oil plantation kill a mother orangutan in cold blood, Kéria (Babette De Coster) and her father (Benoît Poelvoorde) save the baby primate from suffering the same fate. They take the young orangutan home, where Kéria assumes a maternal role and quickly bonds with the animal. She names the ape Oshi, after a sound he makes while sneezing.

The main action in Savages kicks off when Kéria, Selaï and Oshi reunite in the forest and journey back to Selaï’s home. Whereas some films geared at younger audiences might render the forest a charming expanse, Barras keeps it real: His portrayal of the jungle underscores the beauty and magic of the natural world without lying about its more dangerous and less attractive sides. He intercuts this motley crew’s expedition with scenes of the ecosystem — poisonous snakes preying on their next meal and panthers slinking through dense vegetation. 

As Kéria, Selaï and Oshi traverse the unpredictable terrain — textured with tree trunks, territorial animals and fissures in the land — the cousins share stories about each other. Selaï is Penan, a nomadic people indigenous to Borneo, and his mother sent him to live with his uncle so he can learn to read and write at school. With Kéria, he shares legends and lessons of the land passed on by his grandfather. Kéria is also Penan, but her relationship to the tribe fractured after her mother’s death when she was young. The adolescent has few memories of her time in the forest or her connection to the land. 

This anti-colonial approach reframes our existence on this planet as a debt to the future instead of an inheritance from the past. When Kéria, Selaï and Oshi reunite with the rest of the Penan people, they become engrossed in the fight to protect the land from the palm oil company. Savages offers a resolute and unyielding position about what it will take to save the environment from greed. It’s inspiring to see Kéria take part in direct actions against the industrial loggers who invoke imperial power to intimidate her family and friends.

In English, the word “sauvage” translates to primitive, wild, savage. The employees of the palm oil plantation often use the term to insult Kéria and her family, who reject the company’s attempts to buy them off. As Barras’ film comes to its galvanizing conclusion, it forces audiences to shift their perspective. The real brutes are not those trying to defend the land, but the people seeking to destroy it.

Full credits

Thr newsletters.

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Filming in hungary comes with a 20-year-old tax rebate – and thermal baths, ‘the garfield movie’ review: chris pratt voices the tubby tabby in a toon that fails both kids and their parents, justin baldoni explains decision to age up characters in ‘it ends with us,’ credits blake lively for getting taylor swift song in trailer, cannes: body-horror flick ‘the substance’ wows fest, getting nine-minute standing ovation, ‘the substance’ review: an excellent demi moore helps sustain coralie fargeat’s stylish but redundant body horror, a24 acquires u.s. rights for ruben östlund’s ‘the entertainment system is down’.

Can timber construction overcome its growing pains?

• Medium Text

• Replacing products like concrete and steel with mass timber could reduce global CO2 emissions by 14-31%
• Ability to construct off site, strength and flexibility among benefits of using mass timber
• Barriers to adoption include concerns about fire safety, sustainability of wood, availability and cost
• But proponents say mass timber behaves predictably in fires, and certifications ensure sustainability
• Countries are implementing policies to incentivise timber use, such as mandatory targets and subsidies

Catherine Early is a freelance journalist specialising in the environment and sustainability. She writes for Business Green, China Dialogue and the ENDS Report, among others. She was a finalist in the Guardian’s International Development Journalism competition.

Private equity group Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners said on Monday it would start work on a new iron ore mine and "green iron" processing facility in the state of Queensland which could cost as much as A$3.5 billion ($2.4 billion).

Sustainability Chevron

Top Japanese companies agreed to pay increases of an average 5.58% at annual labour talks that wrapped up in March, the Keidanren business lobby's preliminary data showed on Monday.