Careful management of deforested Amazonian land cannot replace, but must complement, efforts to preserve the rainforest. Sustainable agricultural practices that promote diverse uses can help minimise climate and environmental impacts.Peer reviewe

Aragao, Luiz E. O. C.

Baker, Jessica C. A.

Balbino, Luiz Carlos

de Moura, Yhasmin Mendes

dos Reis, Julio Cesar

Maeda, Eduardo Eiji

Nobre, Antonio Donato

Nunes, Matheus Henrique

Silva Junior, Celso H. L.

English

MAEDA, E. E.

ARAGÃO, L. E. O. C.

BAKER, J. C. A.

BALBINO, L. C.

MOURA, Y. M. de

NOBRE, A. D.

NUNES, M. H.

SILVA JUNIOR, C. H. L.

REIS, J. C. dos

Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa

COMMENTLand use still matters afterdeforestationEduardo Eiji Maeda 1,2✉, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão3, Jessica C. A. Baker4,Luiz Carlos Balbino5, Yhasmin Mendes de Moura1,6, Antônio Donato Nobre3,Matheus Henrique Nunes1, Celso H. L. Silva Junior 7,8,9 & Júlio César dos Reis5Careful management of deforested Amazonian land cannot replace, but mustcomplement, efforts to preserve the rainforest. Sustainable agricultural practicesthat promote diverse uses can help minimise climate and environmentalimpacts.Different land uses in deforested regions of Amazonia can have very different impacts on theclimate and environment. Although different sectors of society are engaged in efforts to curbAmazonian deforestation, the consequences of land use in deforested areas have not receivedenough attention. After deforestation, the remaining forest fragments continue to be affected byecosystem disturbances in the surrounding areas. These disturbances have profound effects notonly on the biodiversity and functioning of remaining forests but also on agribusiness. We arguethat we need a land-use revolution toward the management of deforested lands that takes anenvironmental, social and economic perspective.Rapidly changing land useThe uses of deforested areas in the Amazon region are under constant change. After the 1970s, acombination of technological advances, including plant breeding and soil acidity correction (i.e.,liming), led to the expansion of soybean plantations into Brazil’s Savannas—the Cerrado—andthe Southern Amazon frontier. Together, these advances marked a turning point for agriculturalproduction in the Southern Amazon. Higher productivity and increasing profits created fertileground for corporate farming and led to a rapid expansion of extensive monocultures1. From2000 to 2019, the area of soybean cultivation in the Amazon region increased more than 10-fold(Fig. 1), from 0.4 to 4.6 Mha2.Not all deforestation is the sameEnvironmental changes within remaining forest fragments often mirror changes in theirsurroundings3. The climatic impacts that arise from forest loss depend on the size of deforestedpatches, on land use, and on the land management in those areas. Small-scale deforestation ofpatches below 10 km2 in size leads to more shallow clouds as there is more convective energy inthe system, and promotes higher volumes of rainfall4. However, as deforested areas increase insize, convective lifting mechanisms lose force, which reduces the appearance of shallow clouds,and thereby evapotranspiration and rainfall5. This shift is already taking place in many areas ofAmazon6.https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x OPEN1 Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland. 2 Finnish Meteorological Institute, FMI,Helsinki, Finland. 3 National Institute for Space Research, INPE, São José dos Campos, Brazil. 4 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,Leeds, UK. 5 Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, EMBRAPA Cerrados, Planaltina, DF, Brazil. 6 Arcmor Ventures LLP, London, UK. 7 Institute ofEnvironment and Sustainability, University of California Los Angeles - UCLA, Los Angeles, USA. 8 Jet Propulsion Laboratory - JPL, California Institute ofTechnology, Pasadena, USA. 9 Programa de Pós-graduação em Biodiversidade e Conservação, Universidade Federal do Maranhão - UFMA, São Luís, Brazil.✉email: eduardo.maeda@helsinki.fiCOMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenv 11234567890():,;Pastures in previously forested land have a distinct climaticimpact, compared to croplands: conversion to commodity crop-lands can cause surface temperature increases up to three timeshigher than conversion to pastures over small rural settlements(Fig. 2)6. The difference is particularly evident in large-scalecommodity farms. The harvesting and seeding of commoditycrops lead to abrupt changes in the land surface properties, due tothe reduction of vegetation cover7. This pattern is further mag-nified in some parts of the Southern Amazon where the longgrowing season allows multiple crop production cycles. Intensivemanagement of the land reduces plant transpiration and causesshifts in the surface energy balance. If we are to minimizedeforestation-related climate risks, it is a critical first step toestablish climate-friendly land use strategies for the deforestedareas.Solutions through diversificationAlternative agricultural systems that can better sustain flora andfauna diversity and maintain ecosystem functioning, have beenstudied for decades. For instance, syntropic farming, a branch ofagroecology that aims to use plant and animal life to improvenatural conditions, and thereby enhance biodiversity, emerges asan innovative approach to sustainable farming. Syntropic farmingpromotes a diverse vertical stratification of plants through acombination of forest and agricultural plants that ultimatelymaximizes the conservation of energy in the system8. Criticsargue that these approaches lack scalability and may reduceeconomical outcomes. Nevertheless, successful cases have beenreported at larger scales, such as for farms of more than 1000 ha9.Other alternatives to traditional crop farming, such as Inte-grated Crop–Livestock–Forestry systems, may hold a betterchance at larger scales. These agricultural systems aim to improveproduction through the integration of various types of agriculturalproduction, such as crops, livestock and forestry, in the same area,using intercropping, or rotations, to obtain synergies amongagroecosystem components10. Integrated systems have beenincreasingly studied due to the potential of offsetting carbonemissions associated with beef production11. IntegratedCrop–Livestock–Forestry can also increase canopy cover, the mainfactor that supports non-radiative cooling by evapotranspiration.Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry systems cannot be expec-ted to fully replace monoculture farming. In particular, soybeanplants grown under integrated systems had lower yields becauseof reduced solar incidence12. However, land-use diversificationdoes not need to follow a single prescription for all cases. Theconcept of using integrated systems needs to be expanded toconsider not only the combination of plants in the same space butalso in distinct but interconnected spaces13. In such a setting ofregional agroforestry, commercially viable perennial species, suchas cacao trees (Theobroma cacao) and rubber trees (Hevea bra-siliensis) could be planted in between monocultures. Such aplanting strategy could reduce the size of homogeneous defor-ested patches and promoting regional cooling (Fig. 3). The landuse revolution we propose should aim to improve productivitywithout an expansion of deforested areas.2000 2020Pastures Croplands(a) (b)Fig. 1 Cropland expansion from the year 2000 to 2020 in Southern Amazonia. a Land use in 2000. b Land use in 2020. Source: Mapbiomas19.Land surface temperature (°C)<= 35  40  45  50  55Pastures Croplands(a) (b)Fig. 2 Land surface temperature over areas with different land use during September 2017. a Land use classification according to the Mapbiomasproject19. b Landsat 8 Collection 2 level-2 surface temperature image.COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x2 COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenvFinally, where possible the ecosystem functions of unused landsshould be restored. Deforested areas are poorly used, as evidencedby the vast extent of abandoned lands14. Secondary forests arecurrently regrowing on approximately 20% of previously defor-ested areas in Brazil15.Pathways for changeBrazil is an agricultural superpower. Farmers are skilled andadaptable. The agricultural sector is usually open to technologicalinnovations that can reduce environmental impacts and boostproductivity. Examples of this flexibility include the widespreadadoption of biological nitrogen fixation in soybean plantationsaround the 1990s, which significantly reduced the use of fertilizer,and the introduction of no-till agriculture during the same period,which contributed to reducing soil erosion (although the use ofherbicides increased as a result).Effective strategies to mitigate the climatic impacts of defor-estation will have to be constructed in cooperation with theagricultural sector, and not against it. Finger-pointing is unlikelyto yield progress, instead, it may lead to polarized and unfruitfuldebates. The political path is also a complicated and volatile one.Recent history has demonstrated that land change dynamics inthe Amazon can rapidly shift depending on who is in power16.Sustained changes will depend on modifications throughoutthe supply chain, including consumer preferences. Producers areoften quick to sense changes in the market and consumers’behavior. If producers wish to offer products to environmentallyconscientious buyers, they will have to implement techniques thatprotect ecosystem functioning.More importantly, however, it is imperative to educate farmersabout the fact that the viability of agricultural production in theAmazon is at great risk if current trends continue. The expansionof croplands and the establishment of large continuous deforestedareas can substantially reduce rainfall6,17, the cornerstone of thehigh yields observed in the Southern Amazon. Rising tempera-tures and aridity have already pushed approximately 30% of therainfed production in the Southern Amazon beyond optimumclimatic limits. It is expected that by 2030, over 50% of agri-cultural land will fall outside of these limits18.Halting deforestation has the potential to prevent agriculturallosses associated with rainfall reduction by up to US$ 1 billionannually17. We argue that careful management of land that isalready deforested can also provide substantial benefits to theenvironmental and climatic health of the Amazon region. Wefirmly expect the agricultural sector to benefit from a new greenrevolution in the long run, with a production system inspired bynatural ecological processes, where food production is harmo-niously integrated into the local ecosystem.Received: 22 November 2022; Accepted: 27 January 2023;References1. Zalles, V. et al. Rapid expansion of human impact on natural land in SouthAmerica since 1985. Sci. Adv. 7, eabg1620 (2021).2. Song, X.-P. et al. Massive soybean expansion in South America since 2000 andimplications for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 4, 784–792 (2021).3. Laurance, W. F. et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protectedareas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).4. Chagnon, F. J. F. Contemporary climate change in the Amazon. Geophys. Res.Lett. 32, L13703 (2005).5. Khanna, J., Medvigy, D., Fueglistaler, S. & Walko, R. Regional dry-seasonclimate changes due to three decades of Amazonian deforestation. Nat. Clim.Change 7, 200–204 (2017).6. Maeda, E. E. et al. Large-scale commodity agriculture exacerbates the climaticimpacts of Amazonian deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118,e2023787118 (2021).7. Oliveira, G. et al. Effects of land‐cover changes on the partitioning of surfaceenergy and water fluxes in Amazonia using high‐resolution satellite imagery.Ecohydrology 12, e2126 (2019).8. Andrade, D., Pasini, F. & Scarano, F. R. Syntropy and innovation inagriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 45, 20–24 (2020).9. Cacho, M. et al. Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematiccases. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 637–665 (2018).10. Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P. C. de F. & Dedieu, B. Integratedcrop–livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agriculturalproduction and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8(2014).11. dos Reis, J. C. et al. Integrated crop-livestock systems: a sustainable land-usealternative for food production in the Brazilian Cerrado and Amazon. J. Clean.Prod. 283, 124580 (2021).12. Sgarbossa, J. et al. Bean–soybean succession under full sun and in agroforestrysystems: impacts on radiation use efficiency, growth and yield. J. Agron. CropSci. 207, 362–377 (2021).13. Homma, A. Em favor de uma nova agricultura na Amazônia. Terc. Margem 1,19–34 (2015).14. Heinrich, V. H. A. et al. Large carbon sink potential of secondary forests in theBrazilian Amazon to mitigate climate change. Nat. Commun. 12, 1785 (2021).15. Nunes, S., Oliveira, L., Siqueira, J., Morton, D. C. & Souza, C. M. Unmaskingsecondary vegetation dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett.15, 034057 (2020).16. Escobar, H. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is still rising sharply.Science 369, 613–613 (2020).17. Leite-filho, A. T., Soares-filho, B. S., Abrahão, G. M., Börner, J. & Davis, J. L.Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural. Nat. Commun. 1–7 (2021)https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7.18. Rattis, L. et al. Climatic limit for agriculture in Brazil. Nat. Clim. Change 11,1098–1104 (2021).19. Souza, C. M. et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land coverchanges in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat Archive and Earth Engine. RemoteSens. 12, 2735 (2020).Author contributionsE.E.M.: Proposed the manuscript, conceptualized the first draft, and created figures.Y.M.M. and J.C.R.: contributed to manuscript writing, creating figures, and revision.L.E.O.C.A., J.C.A.B., L.C.B., A.D.N., M.H.N., and C.H.L.S.J. contributed to manuscriptwriting and revision.Fig. 3 Environment and economic aspects of conventional agriculturalsystems and Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry. The conventionalsystem a is characterized by large areas of monoculture production withintensive management of the land, whereas the integrated system b offersmore diversity.COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x COMMENTCOMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenv 3Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing interests.Additional informationCorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Eduardo Eiji Maeda.Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprintsPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriatecredit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commonslicense, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in thisarticle are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise ina credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commonslicense and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds thepermitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Toview a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.© The Author(s) 2023COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x4 COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenv

Land use still matters after deforestation.

Careful management of deforested Amazonian land cannot replace, but must complement, efforts to preserve the rainforest. Sustainable agricultural practices that promote diverse uses can help minimise climate and environmental impacts.Non peer reviewe

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

https://helda.helsinki.fiLand use still matters after deforestationMaeda, Eduardo Eiji2023-02-10Maeda , E E , Aragao , L E O C , Baker , J C A , Balbino , L C , de Moura , Y M , Nobre , A D, Nunes , M H , Silva Junior , C H L & dos Reis , J C 2023 , ' Land use still matters afterdeforestation ' , Communications earth & environment , vol. 4 , no. 1 . https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-xhttp://hdl.handle.net/10138/356259https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-xcc_bypublishedVersionDownloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.This is an electronic reprint of the original article.This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.Please cite the original version.COMMENTLand use still matters afterdeforestationEduardo Eiji Maeda 1,2✉, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão3, Jessica C. A. Baker4,Luiz Carlos Balbino5, Yhasmin Mendes de Moura1,6, Antônio Donato Nobre3,Matheus Henrique Nunes1, Celso H. L. Silva Junior 7,8,9 & Júlio César dos Reis5Careful management of deforested Amazonian land cannot replace, but mustcomplement, efforts to preserve the rainforest. Sustainable agricultural practicesthat promote diverse uses can help minimise climate and environmentalimpacts.Different land uses in deforested regions of Amazonia can have very different impacts on theclimate and environment. Although different sectors of society are engaged in efforts to curbAmazonian deforestation, the consequences of land use in deforested areas have not receivedenough attention. After deforestation, the remaining forest fragments continue to be affected byecosystem disturbances in the surrounding areas. These disturbances have profound effects notonly on the biodiversity and functioning of remaining forests but also on agribusiness. We arguethat we need a land-use revolution toward the management of deforested lands that takes anenvironmental, social and economic perspective.Rapidly changing land useThe uses of deforested areas in the Amazon region are under constant change. After the 1970s, acombination of technological advances, including plant breeding and soil acidity correction (i.e.,liming), led to the expansion of soybean plantations into Brazil’s Savannas—the Cerrado—andthe Southern Amazon frontier. Together, these advances marked a turning point for agriculturalproduction in the Southern Amazon. Higher productivity and increasing profits created fertileground for corporate farming and led to a rapid expansion of extensive monocultures1. From2000 to 2019, the area of soybean cultivation in the Amazon region increased more than 10-fold(Fig. 1), from 0.4 to 4.6 Mha2.Not all deforestation is the sameEnvironmental changes within remaining forest fragments often mirror changes in theirsurroundings3. The climatic impacts that arise from forest loss depend on the size of deforestedpatches, on land use, and on the land management in those areas. Small-scale deforestation ofpatches below 10 km2 in size leads to more shallow clouds as there is more convective energy inthe system, and promotes higher volumes of rainfall4. However, as deforested areas increase insize, convective lifting mechanisms lose force, which reduces the appearance of shallow clouds,and thereby evapotranspiration and rainfall5. This shift is already taking place in many areas ofAmazon6.https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x OPEN1 Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland. 2 Finnish Meteorological Institute, FMI,Helsinki, Finland. 3 National Institute for Space Research, INPE, São José dos Campos, Brazil. 4 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,Leeds, UK. 5 Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, EMBRAPA Cerrados, Planaltina, DF, Brazil. 6 Arcmor Ventures LLP, London, UK. 7 Institute ofEnvironment and Sustainability, University of California Los Angeles - UCLA, Los Angeles, USA. 8 Jet Propulsion Laboratory - JPL, California Institute ofTechnology, Pasadena, USA. 9 Programa de Pós-graduação em Biodiversidade e Conservação, Universidade Federal do Maranhão - UFMA, São Luís, Brazil.✉email: eduardo.maeda@helsinki.fiCOMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenv 11234567890():,;Pastures in previously forested land have a distinct climaticimpact, compared to croplands: conversion to commodity crop-lands can cause surface temperature increases up to three timeshigher than conversion to pastures over small rural settlements(Fig. 2)6. The difference is particularly evident in large-scalecommodity farms. The harvesting and seeding of commoditycrops lead to abrupt changes in the land surface properties, due tothe reduction of vegetation cover7. This pattern is further mag-nified in some parts of the Southern Amazon where the longgrowing season allows multiple crop production cycles. Intensivemanagement of the land reduces plant transpiration and causesshifts in the surface energy balance. If we are to minimizedeforestation-related climate risks, it is a critical first step toestablish climate-friendly land use strategies for the deforestedareas.Solutions through diversificationAlternative agricultural systems that can better sustain flora andfauna diversity and maintain ecosystem functioning, have beenstudied for decades. For instance, syntropic farming, a branch ofagroecology that aims to use plant and animal life to improvenatural conditions, and thereby enhance biodiversity, emerges asan innovative approach to sustainable farming. Syntropic farmingpromotes a diverse vertical stratification of plants through acombination of forest and agricultural plants that ultimatelymaximizes the conservation of energy in the system8. Criticsargue that these approaches lack scalability and may reduceeconomical outcomes. Nevertheless, successful cases have beenreported at larger scales, such as for farms of more than 1000 ha9.Other alternatives to traditional crop farming, such as Inte-grated Crop–Livestock–Forestry systems, may hold a betterchance at larger scales. These agricultural systems aim to improveproduction through the integration of various types of agriculturalproduction, such as crops, livestock and forestry, in the same area,using intercropping, or rotations, to obtain synergies amongagroecosystem components10. Integrated systems have beenincreasingly studied due to the potential of offsetting carbonemissions associated with beef production11. IntegratedCrop–Livestock–Forestry can also increase canopy cover, the mainfactor that supports non-radiative cooling by evapotranspiration.Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry systems cannot be expec-ted to fully replace monoculture farming. In particular, soybeanplants grown under integrated systems had lower yields becauseof reduced solar incidence12. However, land-use diversificationdoes not need to follow a single prescription for all cases. Theconcept of using integrated systems needs to be expanded toconsider not only the combination of plants in the same space butalso in distinct but interconnected spaces13. In such a setting ofregional agroforestry, commercially viable perennial species, suchas cacao trees (Theobroma cacao) and rubber trees (Hevea bra-siliensis) could be planted in between monocultures. Such aplanting strategy could reduce the size of homogeneous defor-ested patches and promoting regional cooling (Fig. 3). The landuse revolution we propose should aim to improve productivitywithout an expansion of deforested areas.2000 2020Pastures Croplands(a) (b)Fig. 1 Cropland expansion from the year 2000 to 2020 in Southern Amazonia. a Land use in 2000. b Land use in 2020. Source: Mapbiomas19.Land surface temperature (°C)<= 35  40  45  50  55Pastures Croplands(a) (b)Fig. 2 Land surface temperature over areas with different land use during September 2017. a Land use classification according to the Mapbiomasproject19. b Landsat 8 Collection 2 level-2 surface temperature image.COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x2 COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenvFinally, where possible the ecosystem functions of unused landsshould be restored. Deforested areas are poorly used, as evidencedby the vast extent of abandoned lands14. Secondary forests arecurrently regrowing on approximately 20% of previously defor-ested areas in Brazil15.Pathways for changeBrazil is an agricultural superpower. Farmers are skilled andadaptable. The agricultural sector is usually open to technologicalinnovations that can reduce environmental impacts and boostproductivity. Examples of this flexibility include the widespreadadoption of biological nitrogen fixation in soybean plantationsaround the 1990s, which significantly reduced the use of fertilizer,and the introduction of no-till agriculture during the same period,which contributed to reducing soil erosion (although the use ofherbicides increased as a result).Effective strategies to mitigate the climatic impacts of defor-estation will have to be constructed in cooperation with theagricultural sector, and not against it. Finger-pointing is unlikelyto yield progress, instead, it may lead to polarized and unfruitfuldebates. The political path is also a complicated and volatile one.Recent history has demonstrated that land change dynamics inthe Amazon can rapidly shift depending on who is in power16.Sustained changes will depend on modifications throughoutthe supply chain, including consumer preferences. Producers areoften quick to sense changes in the market and consumers’behavior. If producers wish to offer products to environmentallyconscientious buyers, they will have to implement techniques thatprotect ecosystem functioning.More importantly, however, it is imperative to educate farmersabout the fact that the viability of agricultural production in theAmazon is at great risk if current trends continue. The expansionof croplands and the establishment of large continuous deforestedareas can substantially reduce rainfall6,17, the cornerstone of thehigh yields observed in the Southern Amazon. Rising tempera-tures and aridity have already pushed approximately 30% of therainfed production in the Southern Amazon beyond optimumclimatic limits. It is expected that by 2030, over 50% of agri-cultural land will fall outside of these limits18.Halting deforestation has the potential to prevent agriculturallosses associated with rainfall reduction by up to US$ 1 billionannually17. We argue that careful management of land that isalready deforested can also provide substantial benefits to theenvironmental and climatic health of the Amazon region. Wefirmly expect the agricultural sector to benefit from a new greenrevolution in the long run, with a production system inspired bynatural ecological processes, where food production is harmo-niously integrated into the local ecosystem.Received: 22 November 2022; Accepted: 27 January 2023;References1. Zalles, V. et al. Rapid expansion of human impact on natural land in SouthAmerica since 1985. Sci. Adv. 7, eabg1620 (2021).2. Song, X.-P. et al. Massive soybean expansion in South America since 2000 andimplications for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 4, 784–792 (2021).3. Laurance, W. F. et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protectedareas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).4. Chagnon, F. J. F. Contemporary climate change in the Amazon. Geophys. Res.Lett. 32, L13703 (2005).5. Khanna, J., Medvigy, D., Fueglistaler, S. & Walko, R. Regional dry-seasonclimate changes due to three decades of Amazonian deforestation. Nat. Clim.Change 7, 200–204 (2017).6. Maeda, E. E. et al. Large-scale commodity agriculture exacerbates the climaticimpacts of Amazonian deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118,e2023787118 (2021).7. Oliveira, G. et al. Effects of land‐cover changes on the partitioning of surfaceenergy and water fluxes in Amazonia using high‐resolution satellite imagery.Ecohydrology 12, e2126 (2019).8. Andrade, D., Pasini, F. & Scarano, F. R. Syntropy and innovation inagriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 45, 20–24 (2020).9. Cacho, M. et al. Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematiccases. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 637–665 (2018).10. Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P. C. de F. & Dedieu, B. Integratedcrop–livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agriculturalproduction and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8(2014).11. dos Reis, J. C. et al. Integrated crop-livestock systems: a sustainable land-usealternative for food production in the Brazilian Cerrado and Amazon. J. Clean.Prod. 283, 124580 (2021).12. Sgarbossa, J. et al. Bean–soybean succession under full sun and in agroforestrysystems: impacts on radiation use efficiency, growth and yield. J. Agron. CropSci. 207, 362–377 (2021).13. Homma, A. Em favor de uma nova agricultura na Amazônia. Terc. Margem 1,19–34 (2015).14. Heinrich, V. H. A. et al. Large carbon sink potential of secondary forests in theBrazilian Amazon to mitigate climate change. Nat. Commun. 12, 1785 (2021).15. Nunes, S., Oliveira, L., Siqueira, J., Morton, D. C. & Souza, C. M. Unmaskingsecondary vegetation dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett.15, 034057 (2020).16. Escobar, H. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is still rising sharply.Science 369, 613–613 (2020).17. Leite-filho, A. T., Soares-filho, B. S., Abrahão, G. M., Börner, J. & Davis, J. L.Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural. Nat. Commun. 1–7 (2021)https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7.18. Rattis, L. et al. Climatic limit for agriculture in Brazil. Nat. Clim. Change 11,1098–1104 (2021).19. Souza, C. M. et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land coverchanges in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat Archive and Earth Engine. RemoteSens. 12, 2735 (2020).Author contributionsE.E.M.: Proposed the manuscript, conceptualized the first draft, and created figures.Y.M.M. and J.C.R.: contributed to manuscript writing, creating figures, and revision.L.E.O.C.A., J.C.A.B., L.C.B., A.D.N., M.H.N., and C.H.L.S.J. contributed to manuscriptwriting and revision.Fig. 3 Environment and economic aspects of conventional agriculturalsystems and Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forestry. The conventionalsystem a is characterized by large areas of monoculture production withintensive management of the land, whereas the integrated system b offersmore diversity.COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x COMMENTCOMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenv 3Competing interestsThe authors declare no competing interests.Additional informationCorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Eduardo Eiji Maeda.Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprintsPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriatecredit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commonslicense, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in thisarticle are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise ina credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commonslicense and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds thepermitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Toview a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.© The Author(s) 2023COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x4 COMMUNICATIONS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT |            (2023) 4:29 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00692-x | www.nature.com/commsenv

Land use still matters after deforestation

http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/1152205/1/Julio-Reis-Land-use-still-matters-after-deforestation.pdf

Land use still matters after deforestation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto