The degradation of trees at the edges of tropical forests is more widespread than previously thought, according to new research.
The study, published in Nature, explains that trees near deforested or degraded areas of the forest are more vulnerable to drought, as well as to human activity such as logging. These “edge effects” are measurable up to 1.5km into the forest, the authors find.
This is an “amazing result”, a study author tells Carbon Brief, because previous studies detected these effects only within the first 120 metres of the forest edge. The new figure indicates that 18% of the remaining tropical moist forests are impacted by edge effects – an area more than 200% larger than previously estimated.
Experts not involved in the study tell Carbon Brief that quantifying tropical forest degradation is “frustratingly elusive”. And while some praise the methods used in the paper, others advise caution when interpreting the conclusions.
Two Brazilian scientists also tell Carbon Brief that the study overlooks important work from institutions in the global south who are also working on this problem. They advise that scientists from local groups should be invited to contribute to research in this area.
Forest height
Tropical forests account for around 45% of forest cover globally. These forests are well-known for their high biodiversity and the crucial ecosystem services that they provide. They also hold around one-quarter of all land-based carbon.
The new study assesses how deforestation and degradation affect “moist tropical forests” – tropical forests in the equatorial belt with a fairly consistent annual temperature and high levels of rainfall. Tropical dry forests and deciduous forests are not included in the analysis.
Research shows that around 17% of tropical moist forests disappeared over 1990-2021, largely due to human activity such as logging and fires. Of the 1,071m hectares that remained globally in 2019, around 10% were degraded, the new study says. This means that they suffered human-induced “disturbances” that led to a partial loss of their tree cover or function.
Furthermore, trees at the edges of tropical forests have higher mortality rates than trees in the centre, because they are more exposed to disturbances such as fire and drought. When intact forest landscapes become fragmented – for example, due to logging, fire, drought or the construction of roads into the forest – these “edge effects” can lead to further forest degradation.
The authors use data collected by the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) instrument on the International Space Station to assess the forest structure – such as canopy height and aboveground biomass – over the past four years.
To measure canopy height, the authors calculate the “RH98” value – the height of the top of the canopy or the nearest tallest vegetation in the area. This is an important measure of forest health and maturity. Aboveground biomass measures the aboveground woody biomass per unit area and is also a good measure of forest health.
They combine this with data from the Tropical Moist Forest dataset, which uses Landsat satellite imagery to show how tropical moist forests have changed over 1990-2022.
The plot below shows the canopy height for different types of moist tropical forests. The rows show intact forests at least 3km from a forest edge (top row), degraded forests (second row), the edges of forests (third row) and forest regrowth (bottom row), as shown in the maps below.
Darker blues indicate taller forest canopies. The map shows where the forests are located, and the bar charts on the right hand side show the overall distribution of different tree heights.
The tallest intact moist tropical forests are found in south-east Asia, where the average canopy height is 34m, the study finds. West and central Africa and Central and South America have average forest heights of 29m. This is because intact tropical forests in Asia, which are typically dominated by “hardwood wind-dispersed species”, are typically taller, the authors say.
The map also shows that degraded forests, forest edges and areas of forest growth have a greater proportion of shorter trees on average.
The forest edge
The study investigates two different types of forest edge effects, exploring how areas of deforested and degraded land impact nearby trees.
Dr Lilian Blanc is an author on the study and researcher at the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development. He tells Carbon Brief that the effect of nearby degraded land “was not considered in previous studies”.
The graphs below show how areas of deforested land affect tree canopy height. The charts at the top show the average distribution of canopy heights of undisturbed forests in the Americas, Africa and Asia. The line colours indicate the distance of those trees from the forest edge, with yellow indicating a short distance and blue indicating a large distance.
The bottom map shows how far into the forest edge effects are present, by measuring the distance from the forest edge at which the height of the forest reaches 95% of the height of the intact, undisturbed forest.
The authors find the greatest edge effects from deforestation along the “forestation fronts of the Amazon”, in Borneo and Sumatra coasts marked by high fragmentation levels, and on the borders of the Congo basin.
They also record a decrease in canopy height up to 350, 400 and 1,500 metres from the deforested edge in the Americas, Africa and Asia, respectively.
The authors find that within 120 metres of trees that have been degraded due to logging and burning, the average canopy height in undisturbed forests is 15% and 22% lower, respectively.
The authors also investigate how quickly the forest can recover from logging and fires, concluding that while there is “fast regrowth of pioneer and understory species”, there is “no significant recovery in canopy height in the 30 years following the creation of a forest edge”.
Forest degradation can also increase the likelihood of deforestation, the authors say. They warn that forest height and distance to the edge of the forest are “strong predictors of deforestation”, as forest fragmentation makes the interior of the forest more accessible to loggers.
It adds that there has been selective logging 500 metres from the forest edge in Africa and the Americas, and even deeper in Asia.
Agriculture and road expansion trigger a 20-30% reduction in canopy height and biomass at the forest edge, with “persistent effects” measurable up to 1.5km inside the forest, the authors find. Blanc tells Carbon Brief that this is “an amazing result” as previous studies only looked for edge effects up to 120 metres from the forest edge.
The authors also calculated the edge effect using total above ground woody biomass, instead of canopy height. Using this metric, the authors conclude that the total area of forest with this edge effect is 18% of total global forest area in 2022 – an area more than 200% larger than previously estimated.
Prof Simon Lewis – a professor of global change science at University College London’s department of geography – tells Carbon Brief that this is a “striking new result”.
It implies that “the negative impacts on remaining forest from the creation of forest edges are much more extensive than has been commonly documented”. It also means that “forest protection of large blocks of forest is going to be more important than we previously thought”, he says.
Overall, the study is “an important step forward in monitoring forest disturbance, which is a very tough problem”, Lewis says. However, he adds that “care is needed” when looking at some of the observational data, saying that he “trust[s] the broad patterns of biomass loss following logging, edge creation and fires, but not the specific biomass loss values from these disturbances”.
Dr Peter Potapov – a researcher in the department of geographical sciences at the University of Maryland, whose work was cited extensively in the new study – says “the conclusion that edge effects are degrading 18% of the remaining humid tropical forest is an overstatement”.
He says that forest degradation depends on other factors, such as land-use regulations, and argues that “the assumption that all forests 1.5km away from the edges are degraded may undermine ongoing conservation efforts.
Expert response
These comments reflect the mixed response that the new study has received.
Prof Matthew Hansen – a remote sensing scientist at the University of Maryland’s department of geography – tells Carbon Brief that forest degradation is “a frustratingly elusive dynamic to quantify”. However, he praises the study for being “very clear and ambitious”.
Potapov, who has published research with Hansen, tells Carbon Brief that the results broadly confirm existing findings, but warns that there are some “major limitations” with the study.
For example, he says the method does not include a “matching technique” to separate the effect of human management on tree height from the natural factors such as elevation, soil quality and floods. He also warns that the observations “failed to correctly map anthropogenic disturbances in humid tropical forests”, adding:
“The authors greatly underestimate selective logging in Gabon, while the natural non-fire disturbances like river meandering and windfalls in South America were probably treated as human-caused degradation.”
Dr Flávia de Souza Mendes, a programme manager in forest and land use at satellite imagery firm Planet Labs, says the study is “well written”. However, she laments that “there are several local groups from the global south that have been studying this topic and are not part of this study”. She suggests that scientists carrying out similar studies should “invite more local researchers to take part”.
She also tells Carbon Brief that this paper “did not take into account studies carried out by local researchers on the relationship between degradation and deforestation”.
For example, she highlights a report by Brazilian researchers which finds that, in some regions of the Amazon, 86% of degraded areas were not subsequently cleared in the following decades. This is not in line with the findings of the new study, where degradation “has a crucial role in predicting future deforestation”, she says.
Prof Celso Silva-Junior – a research scientist in amazon ecology and remote sensing at Brazil’s Universidade Federal do Maranhão – tells Carbon Brief that the study “reproduces the findings of our research group, which has been investigating large-scale forest edge effects, using remote sensing technologies, since 2016”.
He says that the paper’s findings concerning biomass loss beyond 120 metres from the forest edge are “critical”. However, he emphasises the importance of the “local knowledge of tropical scientists” who are “deeply involved in the establishment of the conceptual framework for treating this relevant problem”.
The post Tropical forest degradation due to ‘edge effects’ is 200% higher than thought appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Tropical forest degradation due to ‘edge effects’ is 200% higher than thought
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
U.S. DOE Reveals $1B Funding to Boost Critical Minerals Supply Chain
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban