LETTER
doi:10.1038/nature11318
Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest
protected areas
A list of the authors and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper.
The rapid disruption of tropical forests probably imperils global bio-
diversity more than any other contemporary phenomenon1–3. With
deforestation advancing quickly, protected areas are increasingly
becoming final refuges for threatened species and natural ecosystem
processes. However, many protected areas in the tropics are them-
selves vulnerable to human encroachment and other environmental
stresses4–9. As pressures mount, it is vital to know whether existing
reserves can sustain their biodiversity. A critical constraint in
addressing this question has been that data describing a broad array
of biodiversity groups have been unavailable for a sufficiently large
and representative sample of reserves. Here we present a uniquely
comprehensive data set on changes over the past 20 to 30 years in 31
functional groups of species and 21 potential drivers of environ-
mental change, for 60 protected areas stratified across the world’s
major tropical regions. Our analysis reveals great variation in
reserve ‘health’: about half of all reserves have been effective or
performed passably, but the rest are experiencing an erosion of
biodiversity that is often alarmingly widespread taxonomically
and functionally. Habitat disruption, hunting and forest-product
exploitation were the strongest predictors of declining reserve
health. Crucially, environmental changes immediately outside
reserves seemed nearly as important as those inside in determining
their ecological fate, with changes inside reserves stronglymirroring
those occurring around them. These findings suggest that tropical
protected areas are often intimately linked ecologically to their
surrounding habitats, and that a failure to stem broad-scale loss
and degradation of such habitats could sharply increase the
likelihood of serious biodiversity declines.
Tropical forests are the biologically richest ecosystems on Earth1–3.
Growing concerns about the impacts of anthropogenic pressures on
tropical biodiversity and natural ecosystem services have led to
increases in the number and extent of protected areas across the
tropics10. However, much remains unknown about the likelihood of
biodiversity persisting in such protected areas. Remote-sensing tech-
nologies offer a bird’s-eye view of tropical forests and provide many
important insights6,11–13, but are largely unable to discern crucial on-
the-ground changes in forest biodiversity and ecological functioning14.
To appraise both the ecological integrity and threats for tropical
protected areas on a global scale, we conducted a systematic and
uniquely comprehensive assessment of long-term changes within 60
protected areas stratified across the world’s major tropical forest
regions (Supplementary Fig. 1). To our knowledge, no other existing
data set includes such awide range of biodiversity and threat indicators
for such a large and representative network of tropical reserves. Our
study was motivated by three broad issues: whether tropical reserves
will function as ‘arks’ for biodiversity and natural ecosystem processes;
whether observed changes are mainly concordant or idiosyncratic
among different protected areas; and what the principal predictors
of reserve success or failure are, in terms of their intrinsic character-
istics and drivers of change.
To conduct our study we amassed expert knowledge from 262
detailed interviews, focusing on veteran field biologists and environ-
mental scientists who averaged nearly 2 decades of experience
(mean6 s.d., 19.16 9.6 years) at each protected area. Each interviewed
researcher completed a detailed 10-page questionnaire, augmented by a
telephone or face-to-face interview (see Supplementary Information).
The questionnaires focused on longer-term (approximately 20–
30-year) changes in the abundance of 31 animal and plant guilds
(trophically or functionally similar groups of organisms), which col-
lectively have diverse and fundamental roles in forest ecosystems
(Table 1). We also recorded data on 21 potential drivers of environ-
mental change both inside each reserve and within a 3-km-wide buffer
zone immediately surrounding it (Table 1).
Our sample of protected areas spans 36 nations and represents a
geographically stratified and broadly representative selection of sites
across the African, American and Asia-Pacific tropics (Supplementary
Fig. 1). The reserves ranged from 160ha to 3.6million ha in size, but
most (85%) exceeded 10,000 ha in area (median 5 99,350 ha; lower
decile5 7,000 ha; upper decile5 750,000ha). The protected areas fall
under various International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) reserve classifications. Using data from the World Database
on Protected Areas (http://www.wdpa.org), we found no significant
difference (P5 0.13) in the relative frequency of high-protection
(IUCN Categories I–IV), multiple-use (Categories V–VI) and
Table 1 | The 31 animal and plant guilds, and the 21 environmental
drivers assessed both inside and immediately outside each protected
area.
Guilds Potential environmental drivers
Broadly forest-dependent guilds
Apex predators Changes in natural-forest cover
Large non-predatory species Selective logging
Primates Fires
Opportunistic omnivorous mammals Hunting
Rodents Harvests of non-timber forest products
Bats Illegal mining
Understory insectivorous birds Roads
Raptorial birds Automobile traffic
Larger frugivorous birds Exotic plantations
Larger game birds Human population density
Lizards and larger reptiles Livestock grazing
Venomous snakes Air pollution
Non-venomous snakes Water pollution
Terrestrial amphibians Stream sedimentation
Stream-dwelling amphibians Soil erosion
Freshwater fish River & stream flows
Dung beetles Ambient temperature
Army or driver ants Annual rainfall
Aquatic invertebrates Drought severity or intensity
Large-seeded old-growth trees Flooding
Epiphytes Windstorms
Other functional groups
Ecological specialists
Species requiring tree cavities
Migratory species
Disturbance-favouring guilds
Lianas and vines
Pioneer and generalist trees
Exotic animal species
Exotic plant species
Disease-vectoring invertebrates
Light-loving butterflies
Human diseases
0 0 M O N T H 2 0 1 2 | V O L 0 0 0 | N A T U R E | 1
unclassified reserves between our sample of 60 reserves and all 16,038
reserves found in the same tropical nations (Supplemen-
tary Fig. 2). We also found no significant difference (P5 0.08) in the
geographical isolation of our reserves (travel time to the nearest city
with greater than 50,000 residents) relative to a random sample of 60
protected areas stratified across the same 36 nations (Supplementary
Fig. 3).
We critically assessed the validity of our interview data by compar-
ing them to 59 independent time-series data sets in which change in a
single guild or environmental driver was assessed for one of our
protected areas. Collectively, our meta-analysis included some data
on 15 of the guilds, 13 of the drivers and 27 of the protected areas in
our study (Supplementary Table 1). Most (86.4%) of the independent
data sets supported our interview results, and in no case did an
independent test report a trend opposite in sign to our interview-based
findings.
Our analyses suggest that the most sensitive guilds in tropical pro-
tected areas include apex predators, large non-predatory vertebrates,
bats, stream-dwelling amphibians, terrestrial amphibians, lizards and
larger reptiles, non-venomous snakes, freshwater fish, large-seeded
old-growth trees, epiphytes and ecological specialists (all P, 0.0056,
with effect sizes ranging from20.36 to21.05; Supplementary Table 2).
Several other groups were somewhat less vulnerable, including
primates, understory insectivorous birds, large frugivorous birds,
raptorial birds, venomous snakes, species that require tree cavities,
and migratory species (all P, 0.05, with effect sizes from 20.27 to
20.53). In addition, five groups increased markedly in abundance in
the reserves, including pioneer and generalist trees, lianas and vines,
invasive animals, invasive plants and human diseases (all P, 0.0056,
with effect sizes from 0.44 to 1.17).
To integrate these disparate data, we generated a ‘reserve-health
index’ that focused on 10 of the best-studied guilds (data for each
available at$ 80% of reserves), all of which seem to be sensitive to
environmental changes in protected areas. Six of these are generally
‘disturbance avoiders’ (apex predators, large non-predatory vertebrates,
primates, understory insectivorous birds, large frugivorous birds
and large-seeded old-growth trees) and the remainder seem to be
‘disturbance-favouring’ groups (pioneer and generalist trees, lianas
and vines, exotic animals and exotic plants). For each protected area,
we averaged the mean values for each group, using negative values to
indicate increases in abundance of the disturbance-favouring guilds.
The reserve-health index varied greatly among the different pro-
tected areas (Fig. 1). About four-fifths of the reserves had negative
values, indicating some decline in reserve health. For 50% of all
reserves this decline was relatively serious (mean score,20.25), with
the affected organisms being remarkable for their high functional and
taxonomic diversity (Fig. 2). These included plants with varying
growth forms and life-history strategies, and fauna that differed widely
in body size, trophic level, foraging strategies, area needs, habitat use
and other attributes. The remaining reserves generally exhibited
much more positive outcomes for biodiversity (Fig. 2), although a
few disturbance-favouring guilds, such as exotic plants and pioneer
and generalist trees, often increased even within these areas.
An important predictor of reserve health was improving reserve
management. According to our experts, reserves in which actual,
on-the-ground protection efforts (see Supplementary Information)
had increased over the past 20 to 30 years generally fared better than
those in which protection had declined; a relationship that was con-
sistent across all three of the world’s major tropical regions (Fig. 3).
Indeed, on-the-ground protection has increased in more than half of
the reserves over the past 20 to 30 years, and this is assisting efforts to
limit threats such as deforestation, logging, fires and hunting within
these reserves (Supplementary Table 3), relative to areas immediately
outside (Supplementary Table 4).
However, our findings show that protecting biodiversity involves
more than just safeguarding the reserves themselves. In many
instances, the landscapes and habitats surrounding reserves are under
imminent threat5,6,15 (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). For
example, 85% of our reserves suffered declines in surrounding forest
cover in the last 20 to 30 years, whereas only 2% gained surrounding
forest. As shown by general linear models (Supplementary Table 5),
such changes can seriously affect reserve biodiversity. Among the
‘Suffering’
reserves
‘Succeeding’
reserves
–0.1 –0.5 0 0.5 1.0
Worsening Improving 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
N
um
be
r o
f r
es
er
ve
s
Figure 1 | Distribution of the ‘reserve-health index’ for 60 protected areas
spanning the world’s major tropical forest regions. This relative index averages
changes in 10 well-studied guilds of animals and plants, including disturbance-
avoiding and disturbance-favouring groups, over the past 20 to 30 years.
Freshwater fish
Cavity-requiring spp.
Understory insectivorous birds
Larger frugivorous birds
Human diseases
Larger game birds
Raptorial birds
Lianas and vines
Large-seeded old-growth trees
Exotic animals
Apex predators
Pioneer and generalist trees
Primates
Large non-predatory spp.
Exotic plants
Suffering reserves
Worsening (%) 
Succeeding reserves
 Improving (%)
–80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80
Worsening (%)  Improving (%)
Figure 2 | Percentages of reserves that are worsening versus improving for key
disturbance-sensitive guilds, contrasted between ‘suffering’ and ‘succeeding’
reserves (which are distinguished by having lower (,20.25) versus higher
($20.25) values for the reserve-health index, respectively). For disturbance-
favouring organisms such as exotic plants and plants, pioneer and generalist
trees, lianas and vines, and human diseases, the reserve is considered to be
worsening if the group increased in abundance. For any particular guild,
reserves with missing or zero values (no trend) are not included.
RESEARCH LETTER
2 | N A T U R E | V O L 0 0 0 | 0 0 M O N T H 2 0 1 2
potential drivers of declining reserve health, three of the most import-
ant predictors involved ecological changes outside reserves (declining
forest cover, increasing logging and increasing fires outside reserves;
Supplementary Fig. 6). The remainder involved changes within
reserves (particularly declining forest cover and increasing hunting,
as well as increasing logging and harvests of non-timber forest pro-
ducts; Supplementary Table 5).
Thus, changes both inside and outside reserves determine their
ecological viability, with forest disruption (deforestation, logging and
fires), and overexploitation of wildlife and forest resources (hunting
and harvests of non-timber forest products) having the greatest direct
negative impacts. Other environmental changes, such as air and water
pollution, increases in human population densities and climatic
change (changes in total rainfall, ambient temperature, droughts and
windstorms) generally hadweaker ormore indirect effects over the last
20 to 30 years (Supplementary Table 5).
Environmental degradation occurring around a protected area
could affect biodiversity in many ways, such as by increasing reserve
isolation, area and edge effects15–19. However, we discovered that its
effects are also more insidious: they strongly predispose the reserve
itself to similar kinds of degradation. Nearly all (19 of 21) of the
environmental drivers had positive slopes when comparing their
direction and magnitude inside versus outside reserves (Fig. 5).
Among these, 13 were significant even with stringent Bonferroni cor-
rections (P , 0.0071) and 17 would have been significant if tested
individually (P, 0.05). As expected, the associations were strongest
for climate parameters but were also strong for variables describing air
and water pollution, stream sedimentation, hunting, mining, harvests
of non-timber forest products and fires. To a lesser extent, trends in
forest cover, humanpopulations, roadexpansionandautomobile traffic
inside reserves also mirror those occurring outside reserves (Fig. 5).
Our findings signal that the fates of tropical protected areas will be
determined by environmental changes both within and around the
reserves, and that pressures inside reserves often closely reflect those
occurring around them. For many reasons, larger reserves should be
more resilient to such changes15–22, although we found that removing
the effects of reserve area statistically did not consistently weaken the
correlations between changes inside versus outside protected areas
(Supplementary Table 6).
Our study reveals marked variability in the health of tropical pro-
tected areas. It indicates that the best strategy for maintaining biodi-
versity within tropical reserves is to protect them against their major
proximate threats, particularly habitat disruption and overharvesting.
However, it is not enough to confine such efforts to reserve interiors
while ignoring their surrounding landscapes, which are often being
rapidly deforested, degraded and overhunted5,6,13,15 (Fig. 5). A failure to
limit interrelated internal and external threats could predispose
reserves to ecological decay, including a taxonomically and functionally
Inside 
reserve
Outside 
reserve
Population growth
Forest cover
Logging
Fires
Soil erosion
Stream sedimentation
Water pollution
Road expansion
Automobile traffic
Population growth
Forest cover
Logging
Fires
Soil erosion
Stream sedimentation
Water pollution
Road expansion
Automobile traffic
–100 –50 0 50 100
Worsening (%) Improving (%)
Inside reserves
Outside reserves
Figure 4 | Comparison of ecological changes inside versus outside protected areas, for selected environmental drivers. The image is an example of the strong
distinction in disturbance inside versus outside a reserve. The bars show the percentages of reserves with improving versus worsening conditions.
–1
–0.8
–0.6
–0.4
–0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
R
es
er
ve
 h
ea
lth
Worsening
Change in reserve protection
–1 –0.5 0 0.5 1
     Improving
Figure 3 | Effects of improving on-the-ground protection on a relative index of
reserve health. This positive relationship held across all three tropical
continents (a general linear model showed that the protection term was the
most effective predictor of reserve health (Akaike’s information criterion
weight, 0.595; deviance explained, 11.4%), with the addition of ‘continent’
providing only a small improvement in model fit (Akaike’s information
criterion weight, 0.317; deviance explained, 16.3%).
LETTER RESEARCH
0 0 M O N T H 2 0 1 2 | V O L 0 0 0 | N A T U R E | 3
sweeping array of changes in species communities (Fig. 2) and an
erosion of fundamental ecosystem processes16,18,23.
Protected areas are a cornerstone of efforts to conserve tropical
biodiversity3,4,13,21. It is not our intent to diminish their crucial role
but to highlight growing challenges that could threaten their success.
The vital ecological functions ofwildlife habitats surrounding protected
areas create an imperative, wherever possible, to establish sizeable
buffer zones around reserves, maintain substantial reserve connectivity
to other forest areas and promote lower-impact land uses near reserves
by engaging and benefiting local communities4,15,24–27. A focus onman-
aging both external and internal threats should also increase the resi-
lience of biodiversity in reserves to potentially serious climatic
change28–30 in the future.
METHODS SUMMARY
Our interview protocol, rationale, questionnaire and data analyses are detailed in
the Supplementary Information. We selected protected areas broadly to span the
African, American and Asia-Pacific tropics (Supplementary Fig. 1), focusing on
sites with mostly tropical or subtropical forest that had at least 10 refereed pub-
lications and 4–5 researchers with long-term experience who could be identified
and successfully interviewed.
We devised a robust and relatively simple statistical approach to assess temporal
changes in the abundance of each guild and in each potential environmental driver
across our reserve network (see Supplementary Information). In brief, this involved
asking each expert whether each variable had markedly increased, remained stable
ormarkedly declined for each reserve. These responses were scored as 1, 0 and 21,
respectively. For each response, the expert was also asked to rank their degree of
confidence in their knowledge. After discarding responses with lower confidence,
scores from the individual experts at each site were pooled to generate amean value
(ranging from 21.0 to 1.0) to estimate the long-term trend for each variable.
The means for each variable across all 60 sites were then pooled into a single
data distribution. We used bootstrapping (resampling with replacement; 100,000
iterations) to generate confidence intervals for the overall mean of the data dis-
tribution. If the confidence intervals did not overlap zero, then we interpreted the
trend as being non-random. Because we tested many different guilds, we used a
stringent Bonferroni correction (P# 0.0056) to reduce the likelihood of Type I
statistical errors, although we also identified guilds that showed evidence of trends
(P# 0.05) if tested individually. For comparison, we estimated effect sizes (boot-
strapped mean divided by s.d., with negative values indicating declines) for
changes in guild abundances and for potential drivers inside and outside reserves
(Supplementary Tables 2–4).
Received 24 February; accepted 14 June 2012.
Published online 25 July 2012.
1. Pimm, S. L. & Raven, P. R. Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature 403,
843–845 (2000).
2. Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sodhi, N. S. & Brook, B. W. Tropical turmoil—a biodiversity
tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ 7, 79–87 (2009).
3. Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical
biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).
4. Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R., Rice, R. & da Fonseca, G. Effectiveness of parks in
protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125–128 (2001).
5. Curran, L. M. et al. Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo.
Science 303, 1000–1003 (2004).
6. DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C. & Hansen, M. C. Increasing isolation of
protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years.Ecol. Appl.15,19–26
(2005).
7. Lovejoy, T. E. Protected areas: A prism for a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21,
329–333 (2006).
8. Possingham, H. P., Wilson, K. A., Andelman, S. J. & Vynne, C. H. in Principles of
Conservation Biology (edsGroom,M. J., Meffe, G. K. &Carroll, C. R.) (Sinauer, 2006).
9. Joppa, L. N., Loarie, S. & Pimm, S. L. On the protection of ‘‘protected areas’’. Proc.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6673–6678 (2008).
10. Jenkins, C. N. & Joppa, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system.
Biol. Conserv. 142, 2166–2174 (2009).
11. Asner, G. P. et al.Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science310, 480–482
(2005).
12. Wright, S. J., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G., Portillo-Quintero, C. & Davies, D. Poverty and
corruption compromise tropical forest reserves. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1259–1266
(2007).
13. Adeney, J. M., Christensen, N. & Pimm, S. L. Reserves protect against deforestation
fires in the Amazon. PLoS ONE 4, e5014 (2009).
14. Peres, C. A., Barlow, J. & Laurance, W. F. Detecting anthropogenic disturbance in
tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 227–229 (2006).
15. Hansen, A. J. & DeFries, R. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to
surrounding lands. Ecol. Appl. 17, 974–988 (2007).
16. Laurance, W. F. et al. Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science
278, 1117–1118 (1997).
17. Woodroffe, R.&Ginsberg, J.R. Edgeeffectsand theextinctionofpopulations inside
protected areas. Science 280, 2126–2128 (1998).
18. Terborgh, J. et al. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science
294, 1923–1926 (2001).
19. Laurance, W. F. et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year
investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144, 56–67 (2011).
20. Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L. & Oyugi, J. O. Time lag between deforestation and bird
extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1140–1150 (1999).
21. Peres, C. A. Why we need megareserves in Amazonia. Conserv. Biol. 19, 728–733
(2005).
22. Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A.&Boitani, L. Size-dependent resistanceofprotectedareas
to land-use change. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 1297–1304 (2008).
23. Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306
(2011).
24. Wells, M. P. & McShane, T. O. Integrating protected area management with local
needs and aspirations. Ambio 33, 513–519 (2004).
25. Scherl, L.M.et al. CanProtectedAreasContribute toPovertyReduction?Opportunities
and Limitations (IUCN, 2004).
26. Chan, K. M. A. & Daily, G. C. The payoff of conservation investments in tropical
countryside. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 19342–19347 (2008).
27. Porter-Bolland, L. et al. Community-managed forests and protected areas: an
assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol.
Manage. 256, 6–17 (2012).
28. Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148
(2004).
29. Sekercioglu, C. H., Schneider, S. H., Fay, J. P. & Loarie, S. R. Climate change,
elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 140–150 (2008).
30. Shoo, L. P. et al. Targeted protection and restoration to conserve tropical
biodiversity in a warming world. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 186–193 (2011).
Supplementary Information is linked to the online version of the paper at
www.nature.com/nature.
Acknowledgements The study was supported by James Cook University, the
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, an Australian Laureate Fellowship (to W.F.L.)
and NSF grant RCN-0741956. We thank A. Bruner, R. A. Butler, G. R. Clements,
R. Condit, C. N. Cook, S. Goosem, J. Geldmann, L. Joppa, S. L. Pimm and O. Venter for
comments.
Author Contributions W.F.L. conceived the study and coordinated its design, analysis
and manuscript preparation. D.C.U., J.R. and M.K. conducted the interviews; C.J.A.B.
assistedwithdata analysis andsomewriting; andS.P.S., S.G.L.,M.C. andW.L. organized
data or collected metadata. The remaining authors provided detailed interviews on
protected areas and offered feedback on the manuscript.
Author Information Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Readers are welcome to comment on the online version of this article at
www.nature.com/nature. Correspondence and requests for materials should be
addressed to W.F.L. (bill.laurance@jcu.edu.au).
William F. Laurance1,2, D. Carolina Useche2, Julio Rendeiro2, Margareta Kalka2, Corey
J. A. Bradshaw3, Sean P. Sloan1, Susan G. Laurance1, Mason Campbell1, Kate
Livestock grazing
Exotic-tree plantations
Selective logging
Soil erosion
Road expansion
Population growth
Forest cover
Automobile traffic
Fires
NTFP harvests
Illegal mining
River flows
Hunting
Stream sedimentation
Water pollution
Air pollution
Droughts
Flooding
Windstorm disturbance
Rainfall
Temperature
Nonsignificant
P < 0.05
P < 0.0071
Correlation coefficient (r)
–0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Figure 5 | Pearson correlations comparing the direction and strength of 21
environmental drivers inside versus outside tropical protected areas. NTFP,
non-timber forest products.
RESEARCH LETTER
4 | N A T U R E | V O L 0 0 0 | 0 0 M O N T H 2 0 1 2
Abernethy4, Patricia Alvarez5, Victor Arroyo-Rodriguez6, Peter Ashton7, Julieta
Benı´tez-Malvido6, Allard Blom8, Kadiri S. Bobo9, Charles H. Cannon10, Min Cao10,
Richard Carroll8, Colin Chapman11, Rosamond Coates12, Marina Cords13, Finn
Danielsen14, Bart De Dijn15, Eric Dinerstein8, Maureen A. Donnelly16, David Edwards1,
Felicity Edwards1, Nina Farwig17, Peter Fashing18, Pierre-Michel Forget19, Mercedes
Foster20, George Gale21, David Harris22, Rhett Harrison10, John Hart23, Sarah
Karpanty24, W. John Kress25, Jagdish Krishnaswamy26, Willis Logsdon1, Jon Lovett27,
William Magnusson28, Fiona Maisels4,29, Andrew R. Marshall30, Deedra McClearn31,
DivyaMudappa32, Martin R. Nielsen33, Richard Pearson34, Nigel Pitman5, Jan van der
Ploeg35, Andrew Plumptre36, John Poulsen37, Mauricio Quesada6, Hugo Rainey29,
Douglas Robinson38, Christiane Roetgers1, Francesco Rovero39, Frederick Scatena40,
Christian Schulze41, Douglas Sheil42, Thomas Struhsaker5, John Terborgh5, Duncan
Thomas38, Robert Timm43, J. Nicolas Urbina-Cardona44, Karthikeyan Vasudevan45, S.
Joseph Wright2, Juan Carlos Arias-G.46, Luzmila Arroyo47, Mark Ashton48, Philippe
Auzel11, Dennis Babaasa49, Fred Babweteera50, Patrick Baker51, Olaf Banki52, Margot
Bass53, Inogwabini Bila-Isia54, Stephen Blake29, Warren Brockelman55, Nicholas
Brokaw56, Carsten A. Bru¨hl57, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin58, Jung-Tai Chao59, Jerome
Chave60, Ravi Chellam61, Connie J. Clark5, Jose´ Clavijo62, Robert Congdon34, Richard
Corlett63, H. S. Dattaraja64, Chittaranjan Dave65, Glyn Davies66, Beatriz de Mello
Beisiegel67, Rosa de Nazare´ Paes da Silva68, Anthony Di Fiore69, Arvin Diesmos70,
Rodolfo Dirzo71, Diane Doran-Sheehy72, Mitchell Eaton73, Louise Emmons25,
Alejandro Estrada12, Corneille Ewango74, Linda Fedigan75, François Feer19, Barbara
Fruth76, Jacalyn Giacalone Willis77, Uromi Goodale78, Steven Goodman79, Juan C.
Guix80, Paul Guthiga81, WilliamHaber82, Keith Hamer83, Ilka Herbinger84, Jane Hill30,
Zhongliang Huang85, I Fang Sun86, Kalan Ickes87, Akira Itoh88, Nata´lia Ivanauskas89,
Betsy Jackes34, John Janovec90, Daniel Janzen40, Mo Jiangming91, Chen Jin10, Trevor
Jones92, Hermes Justiniano93, Elisabeth Kalko94{, Aventino Kasangaki95, Timothy
Killeen96, Hen-biau King97, Erik Klop98, Cheryl Knott99, Inza Kone´100, Enoka
Kudavidanage63, Jose´ Lahoz da Silva Ribeiro101, John Lattke102, Richard Laval103,
Robert Lawton104, Miguel Leal105, Mark Leighton106, Miguel Lentino107, Cristiane
Leonel108, Jeremy Lindsell109, Lee Ling-Ling110, K. Eduard Linsenmair111, Elizabeth
Losos112, Ariel Lugo113, JeremiahLwanga114, AndrewL.Mack115,MarluciaMartins116,
W. Scott McGraw117, Roan McNab118, Luciano Montag119, Jo Myers Thompson120,
Jacob Nabe-Nielsen121, Michiko Nakagawa122, Sanjay Nepal123, Marilyn Norconk124,
Vojtech Novotny125, Sean O’Donnell126, Muse Opiang127, Paul Ouboter128, Kenneth
Parker129, N. Parthasarathy130, Ka´tia Pisciotta131, Dewi Prawiradilaga132, Catherine
Pringle133, Subaraj Rajathurai134, Ulrich Reichard135, Gay Reinartz136, Katherine
Renton137, Glen Reynolds138, Vernon Reynolds139, Erin Riley140, Mark-Oliver
Ro¨del141, Jessica Rothman142, Philip Round143, Shoko Sakai144, Tania Sanaiotti28,
Tommaso Savini21, Gertrud Schaab145, John Seidensticker146, Alhaji Siaka147, Miles
R. Silman148, Thomas B. Smith149, Samuel Soares de Almeida150{, Navjot Sodhi63{,
Craig Stanford151, Kristine Stewart152, Emma Stokes29, Kathryn E. Stoner153, Raman
Sukumar154, Martin Surbeck76, Mathias Tobler90, Teja Tscharntke155, Andrea
Turkalo156, Govindaswamy Umapathy157, Merlijn vanWeerd35, Jorge Vega Rivera137,
Meena Venkataraman158, Linda Venn159, Carlos Verea160, Carolina Volkmer de
Castilho161, Matthias Waltert155, BenjaminWang149, David Watts48, WilliamWeber29,
PaigeWest13, DavidWhitacre162, KenWhitney163, DavidWilkie29, StephenWilliams34,
Debra D. Wright115, Patricia Wright164, Lu Xiankai91, Pralad Yonzon165{ & Franky
Zamzani166
1Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science (TESS) and School of
Marine and Tropical Biology, JamesCook University, Cairns, Queensland 4878, Australia.
2Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Anco´n, Panama. 3School of Earth and
EnvironmentalSciences,University ofAdelaide, Adelaide, SouthAustralia 5005,Australia.
4Stirling University, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK. 5Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
27705, USA. 6Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico (UNAM), Morelia, Mexico.
7Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AB, UK. 8World Wildlife Fund (WWF),
Washington DC 20037, USA. 9University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.
10Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Yunnan 666303, People’s Republic of
China. 11McGill University, Montreal H3A 2T7, Canada. 12Estacio´n de Biologia Tropical
Los Tuxtlas, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Veracruz 95701, Mexico.
13Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA. 14Nordic Foundation for
Development and Ecology, DK-1159 Copenhagen, Denmark. 15Bart De Dijn
Environmental Consultancy, Paramaribo, Suriname. 16Florida International University,
Miami, Florida 33199, USA. 17Philipps-Universita¨t Marburg, Marburg 35043, Germany.
18California State University, Fullerton, California 92834, USA. 19Museum Natural
d’Histoire Naturelle, 91800 Brunoy, France. 20US Geological Survey, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington DC 20013, USA. 21King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi, Bangkok 10150, Thailand. 22Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland EH3
5LR, UK. 23Tshuapa-Lomami-Lualaba Project, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
24Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA. 25National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20013, USA. 26Ashoka Trust for
Research inEcologyand theEnvironment (ATREE),Bangalore560064, India. 27University
ofTwente, Enschede,Netherlands. 28InstitutoNacional dePesquisasdaAmazoˆnia (INPA),
Manaus, Amazonas 69011-970, Brazil. 29Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York
10460, USA. 30University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. 31La Selva Biological
Station, San Pedro, Costa Rica. 32Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore 570 002,
India. 33University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 34James Cook University,
Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. 35Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
36Wildlife Conservation Society, Kampala, Uganda. 37Woods Hole Research Center,
Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540, USA. 38Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
97331, USA. 39Museo delle Scienze, 38122 Trento, Italy. 40University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. 41University of Vienna, 1030 Vienna, Austria.
42Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Kabale, Uganda. 43University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas 66045, USA. 44Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota´, Colombia. 45Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, India. 46Unidad de Parques Nacionales Naturales de
Colombia, Bogota´, Colombia. 47Museo de Historia Natural Noel Kempff, Santa Cruz,
Bolivia. 48Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA. 49Institute of Tropical
Forest Conservation, Kabale, Uganda. 50Budongo Conservation Field Station, Masindi,
Uganda. 51Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia. 52Utrecht University,
Utrecht, Netherlands. 53Finding Species, Takoma Park, Maryland 20912, USA.
54University of Kent, Kent CT2 7NZ, UK. 55Mahidol University Salaya, Nakhon Pathom
73170, Thailand. 56University of Puerto Rico, San Juan 00936, Puerto Rico. 57University
Koblenz-Landau, D-76829 Landau, Germany. 58Department of National Parks,
Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. 59Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, Tapei
10066, Taiwan. 60Universite´ Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France. 61Wildlife Conservation
Society, Bangalore 560070, India. 62Universidad Central de Venezuela, Aragua,
Venezuela. 63National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543. 64Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560012, India. 65World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), New Delhi
110003, India. 66World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Surrey GU7 1XR, UK. 67Instituto
Chico Mendes de Conservaça˜o de Biodiversidade, Atibaia, Sa˜o Paulo 12952-011, Brazil.
68O Conselho Regional de Engenhara, Arquitetura e Agronomia do Para´, Bele´m, Para´,
Brazil. 69University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. 70National Museum of the
Philippines, Manila, Phillipines. 71Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
72State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA.
73University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA. 74Wildlife Conservation Society,
Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. 75University of Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4,
Canada. 76Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
77Montclair StateUniversity,Montclair,NewJersey07043,USA. 78University ofCalifornia,
San Diego, California 92093, USA. 79Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois
60605, USA. 80Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. 81Kenya Institute for
Public Policy Research and Analysis, Nairobi, Kenya. 82Missouri Botanical Garden, St.
Louis, Missouri 63166, USA. 83University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 84Wild
Chimpanzee Foundation, Abidjan 23, Cote d’Ivoire. 85Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve,
Zhaoqing, People’s Republic of China. 86Tunghai University, Taichung 407, Taiwan.
87Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634, USA. 88Osaka City University,
Osaka 558-8585, Japan. 89Instituto Florestal, Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo 02377-000, Brazil.
90Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas 76107, USA. 91South China
Botanical Garden, Guangzhou 510650, People’s Republic of China. 92Anglia Ruskin
University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK. 93Fundacio´n para la Conservacio´n del Bosque
Chiquitano, Bolivia. 94University of Ulm, 89069 Ulm, Germany. 95Mbarara University of
Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda. 96Conservation International, Arlington,
Virginia22202, USA. 97Society of Subtropical Ecology, Taipei, Taiwan. 98Royal Haskoning,
Water and Ecology Group, Groningen, Netherlands. 99Boston University, Boston,
Massachusetts 02215, USA. 100Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques en Coˆte
d’Ivoire, Abidjan, Coˆte d’Ivoire. 101Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, Parana´,
Brazil. 102Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela. 103The Bat Jungle,
Monteverde, Costa Rica. 104University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama 35899, USA.
105Boıˆte Postale 7847, Libreville, Gabon. 10695 Warren Road, Framingham,
Massachusetts 01702, USA. 107Coleccio´n Ornitolo´gica Phelps, Caracas, Venezuela.
108Parque Estadual Horto Florestal, Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo 02377-000, Brazil. 109Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy SG19 2DL, UK. 110National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan. 111University of Wu¨rzburg, Biocenter, D97074 Wuerzburg, Germany.
112Organization for Tropical Studies, Durham, North Carolina 27705, USA. 113USDA
International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rı´o Piedras, Puerto Rico 00926. 114Makerere
University, Kampala,Uganda. 115GreenCapacity Inc.,NewFlorence, Pennsylvania 15944,
USA. 116Museu Paraense Emı´lio Goeldi, Bele´m, Para´ 66040-170, Brazil. 117Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. 118Wildlife Conservation Society, Flores,
Guatemala. 119Universidad Federal do Para´, Bele´m, Para´ 66040-170, Brazil. 120Lukuru
Wildlife Research Foundation, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. 121Aarhus
University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark. 122Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. 123University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. 124Kent State University, Kent, Ohio
44242,USA. 125Institute of Entomology, CeskeBudejovice, CzechRepublic. 126University
ofWashington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. 127PNG Institute of Biological Research,
Goroka, Papua New Guinea. 128University of Suriname, Paramaribo, Suriname.
129113-3885 Richet Rd, Prince George, British Columbia V2K 2J2, Canada.
130PondicherryUniversity, Puducherry605-014, India. 131Fundaça˜o Florestal, Sa˜o Paulo,
Sa˜o Paulo 02377-000, Brazil. 132Research Centre for Biology, Cibinong 16911,
Indonesia. 133University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA. 134Strix Wildlife
Consultancy, Singapore. 135Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901, USA.
136Zoological Society of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, USA. 137Estacio´n de
Biologia Chamela, Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico, Jalisco 48980, Mexico.
138Danum Valley Field Centre, Sabah, Malaysia. 139Oxford University, Oxford BN26 5UX,
UK. 140San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182, USA. 141Museum fu¨r
Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany. 142City University of New York, New York 10065, USA.
143MahidolUniversity, Bangkok10400,Thailand. 144Research Institute forHumanity and
Nature, Kyoto, Japan. 145Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Karlsruhe, Germany.
146National Zoological Park, Washington DC 20013, USA. 147Gola Forest Programme,
Kenema, Sierra Leone. 148Wake Forest University,Winston-Salem,North Carolina 27106,
USA. 149University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA. 150Av. Maalha˜es
Barata 376, Bele´m, Para´ 66040-170, Brazil. 151University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California 90089, USA. 152Institute of Applied Ethnobotany, Pompano Beach,
Florida 33069, USA. 153Texas A & M University, Kingsville, Texas 78363, USA. 154Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. 155Georg-August-Universita¨t, Go¨ttingen, Germany.
156Wildlife Conservation Society, Bangui, Central African Republic. 157Centre for Cellular
and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India. 158701, Vesta B, Lodha Paradise, Thane, India.
159Paluma Environmental Education Centre, Paluma, Queensland 4816, Australia.
160Universidad Central de Venezuela, Maracay, Venezuela. 161Embrapa Roraima, Boa
Vista, Roraima, Brazil. 162Treasure Valley Math and Science Center, Boise, Idaho 83714,
USA. 163Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA. 164Stony Brook University, Stony
Brook, New York 11794, USA. 165Resources Himalaya Foundation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
166Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia.
{Deceased.
LETTER RESEARCH
0 0 M O N T H 2 0 1 2 | V O L 0 0 0 | N A T U R E | 5