\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Preserving 40\% forest cover is a valuable and well-supported
conservation guideline: reply to Banks-Leite et al.}



\author[1]{Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez}%
\author[2]{Lenore Fahrig}%
\author[3]{James Watling}%
\author[4]{Justin Nowakowski}%
\author[5]{Marcelo Tabarelli}%
\author[6]{Lutz Tischendorf}%
\author[5]{Felipe Melo}%
\author[7]{Bráulio Santos}%
\author[6]{Maira Benchimol}%
\author[8]{Jose Carlos Morante-Filho}%
\author[9]{Ferry Slik}%
\author[10]{Ima Vieira}%
\author[11]{Teja Tscharntke}%
\affil[1]{Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México}%
\affil[2]{Carleton University}%
\affil[3]{John Carroll University}%
\affil[4]{Smithsonian Institution}%
\affil[5]{Universidade Federal de Pernambuco}%
\affil[6]{Affiliation not available}%
\affil[7]{Universidade Federal da Paraíba}%
\affil[8]{Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz}%
\affil[9]{Chinese Academy of Sciences}%
\affil[10]{Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi}%
\affil[11]{University of Goettingen}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 25, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Banks-Leite et al. (2021) claim that our suggestion of preserving [?]40\%
forest cover lacks evidence and can be problematic. We find these claims
unfounded, and discuss why conservation planning urgently requires
valuable, well-supported, and feasible general guidelines like the 40\%
criterion. Using region-specific thresholds worldwide is unfeasible and
potentially harmful.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Preserving 40\% forest cover is a valuable and well-supported
conservation guideline: reply to Banks-Leite \emph{et al}.}

V\selectlanguage{ngerman}íctor Arroyo-Rodríguez\textsuperscript{1,2}*, Lenore
Fahrig\textsuperscript{3}, James I. Watling\textsuperscript{4}, Justin
Nowakowski\textsuperscript{5}, Marcelo Tabarelli\textsuperscript{6},
Lutz Tischendorf\textsuperscript{7}, Felipe P. L.
Melo\textsuperscript{6}, Bráulio A. Santos\textsuperscript{8}, Maíra
Benchimol\textsuperscript{9}, Jose Carlos
Morante-Filho\textsuperscript{9}, J. W. Ferry Slik\textsuperscript{10},
Ima C. G. Vieira\textsuperscript{11}, and Teja
Tscharntke\textsuperscript{12}

\textsuperscript{1}Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y
Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190,
Michoacán, Mexico

\textsuperscript{2}Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, Mérida 97357, Yucatán, Mexico

\textsuperscript{3}Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory,
Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa K1S 4B6, Canada

\textsuperscript{4}John Carroll University, University Heights, OH
44118, USA

\textsuperscript{5}Working Land and Seascapes, Conservation Commons,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA

\textsuperscript{6}Departamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de
Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco 50670-901, Brazil

\textsuperscript{7}ELUTIS Modelling and Consulting Inc., Ottawa, ON K2A
1X4, Canada

\textsuperscript{8}Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Universidade
Federal da Paraiba, Campus I, João Pessoa, Paraiba 58051-900, Brazil

\textsuperscript{9}Laboratório de Ecologia Aplicada à Conservação,
Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Santa
Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia 45662-900, Brazil.

\textsuperscript{10}Environmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science,
Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei Darussalam

\textsuperscript{11}Coordenação de Botânica, Museu Paraense Emilio
Goeldi, CP 399, Belém, Pará 66040-170, Brazil

\textsuperscript{12}Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use
(CBL), University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany

\textbf{E-mails} : VAR (victorarroyo\_rodriguez@hotmail.com), LF
(lenorefahrig@cunet.carleton.ca), JIW (jwatling@jcu.edu), JN
(nowakowskia@si.edu), MT (mtrelli@ufpe.br), LT
(lutz.tischendorf@gmx.net), FPLM (fplmelo@gmail.com), BAS
(braulio@dse.ufpb.br), MB (mairabs02@gmail.com), JCMF
(zemorante@gmail.com), JWFS (ferryslik@hotmail.com), ICGV
(ima@museu-goeldi.br), TT (ttschar@gwdg.de)

\textbf{*Corresponding author} : Current address: Escuela Nacional de
Estudios Superiores, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tablaje
Catastral no. 6998, Carretera Mérida-Tetiz Km. 4.5, Municipio de Ucú,
C.P. 97357, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico. Phone: +52 (443) 2240894. **ORCID:
0000-0002-0858-0324. ***E-mail: victorarroyo\_rodriguez@hotmail.com

\textbf{Authorship:} All authors proposed key points for the response.
VAR synthesized them and wrote the first draft, with subsequent changes
by all co-authors.

\textbf{Article type} : Technical Comment

\textbf{Word count} : (Abstract: 50) (Main text: 799)

\textbf{Number of references} : 13

\textbf{Keywords:} extinction threshold, general principles, habitat
amount, landscape structure, planetary emergency, habitat restoration.

\textbf{Data accessibility statement} : No new data were used.

\textbf{Novelty statement} : Preserving at least 40\% of landscape
forest cover is a valuable and useful general principle for biodiversity
conservation with enough empirical support. Advocating for using
regional-specific thresholds is unuseful and unfeasible given the
current planetary emergency.

\textbf{Abstract}

Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . (2021) claim that our suggestion of
preserving \selectlanguage{english}[?]40\% forest cover lacks evidence and can be problematic. We
find these claims unfounded, and discuss why conservation planning
urgently requires valuable, well-supported, and feasible general
guidelines like the 40\% criterion. Using region-specific thresholds
worldwide is unfeasible and potentially harmful.

\textbf{Main text}

INTRODUCTION

Conservation planning usually combines general principles with
site-specific rules (Groom \emph{et al} . 2005). In our review
(Arroyo-Rodriguez \emph{et al} . 2020), we combined
empirically-supported general principles to describe
biodiversity-friendly scenarios in human-dominated landscapes. One such
principle is based on extinction thresholds: as most species require
10--30\% forest cover in a landscape for population persistence (Andren
1994; Swift \& Hannon 2010), we suggest that a \emph{conservative}
general guideline would be to maintain \selectlanguage{english}[?]40\% forest cover in landscapes
to ensure persistence of\emph{most} forest species (``40\% criterion''
hereafter).

Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . argued that the 40\% criterion lacks evidence
and is problematic, and advocated for using regionally-defined
thresholds to guide conservation and restoration. As discussed below, we
found their criticisms unfounded, and the idea of basing conservation
actions on unique, regionally-defined thresholds impractical and
potentially harmful.

VALUE OF THE 40\% CRITERION

We are in a state of planetary emergency, with forests increasingly lost
and degraded by human activities. Therefore, identifying general
conservation guidelines such as the 40\% criterion has never been so
urgent and valuable. Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . argue that applying a
``\emph{fixed} '' threshold to ``\emph{any given landscape} '' is
``\emph{unhelpful and potentially dangerous} '' because extinction
thresholds vary among species and regions. These claims are misleading,
as we specify in our paper that the 40\% criterion is not fixed, and
should be adapted to some contexts, such as in tropical regions with low
matrix quality (p. 1410 and Fig. 1b in Arroyo-Rodriguez \emph{et al} .
2020). However, the 40\% criterion is adequate for \emph{most} species
in \emph{most} landscapes.

Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . also raised concerns regarding the lack of
social and economic considerations in our guidelines. However, the
stated aim of our review was to illustrate an optimal human-modified
landscape \emph{for biodiversity conservation} . We agree that
alternative scenarios may optimize other outcomes. Ideally, a
multicriteria planning process would evaluate tradeoffs among different
scenarios (e.g. Neugarten \emph{et al} . 2016; Vollmer \emph{et al} .
2016), and we see great potential for future research to inform such
planning.

SUPPORT FOR THE 40\% CRITERION

We disagree that the 40\% criterion lacks evidence. We cited two global
reviews of dozens of studies indicating that most species have
extinction thresholds at 30\% habitat amount (Andren 1994; Swift \&
Hannon 2010). By suggesting 40\% (and not 30\%), we attempt to be more
conservative, and compensate for variation and uncertainties associated
with the estimation of habitat thresholds (Rompre \emph{et al} . 2010).
Interestingly, two of the studies we `\emph{ignored} ' also support a
40\% criterion: Macchi \emph{et al} . (2019) demonstrate that most
(71\%) forest birds in the Chaco region have extinction thresholds at
\textgreater{}38\% woody cover, and Melo \emph{et al} . (2018) found
that extinction thresholds average 34\% for birds at tropical latitudes.
Although Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . (2014) found that 30\% forest cover
would safeguard Brazilian Atlantic forest vertebrates, other studies in
the same biome document higher thresholds for woody plants (40\%,
Rigueira \emph{et al} . 2013) and forest-specialist birds (46\%,
Morante-Filho \emph{et al} . 2015). Therefore, a 40\% general target is
more consistent with the evidence than the 30\% preferred by
Banks-Leite\emph{et al} .

FEASIBILITY OF THE 40\% CRITERION

Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . suggest that economic constraints in regions
requiring massive restoration efforts make the 40\% criterion
unfeasible. We disagree. In 50\% of Earth's forested biomes we have
already reached the criterion or have sufficient unaltered forest to
meet the criterion, and 27\% more biomes have sufficient forest cover to
reach the 40\% target with restoration (Dinerstein \emph{et al} . 2017).
In the 23\% of biomes in which forest cover is \textless{} 20\%
(Dinerstein \emph{et al} . 2017), we agree that a lower threshold is
likely a more feasible target.

Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . also argue that the 40\% criterion creates
confusion among policy makers and undermines public trust in science.
This speculation is baseless, as the scientific discussion about
extinction thresholds is not under public dispute. We rather suggest the
opposite: scientists, as members of society, have a responsibility to
inform policy makers and the general public on appropriate use of
science in addressing societal issues and concerns (Lees \emph{et al} .
2020).

ON THE USE OF REGIONALLY-DEFINED THRESHOLDS

Banks-Leite \emph{et al} . advocate for regionally-defined thresholds,
because we have the ``\emph{technical capacity} '' to determine optimal
regional forest cover scenarios. We found this suggestion unfeasible and
potentially harmful for conservation, as it would require information on
extinction thresholds of a wide variety of taxonomic groups, each of
which will likely have a different threshold. As this information is
absent in most regions, we simply do not have the time and resources to
identify taxon- and region-specific extinction thresholds across the
globe. We agree that, when available, regionally-defined thresholds
might be more appealing to decision-makers, but if we insist on using
region-specific thresholds everywhere, then deforestation and lack of
restoration will continue, and species will go extinct while we spend
decades collecting data.

\textbf{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

BAS thanks the financial support from CNPq (grant number 312178/2019-0).

\textbf{REFERENCES}

Andren, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals
in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a
review.\emph{Oikos} , 71, 355--366.

Arroyo-Rodriguez, V., Fahrig, L., Tabarelli, M., Watling, J.I.,
Tischendorf, L., Benchimol, M., \emph{et al} . (2020). Designing optimal
human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity
conservation.\emph{Ecol. Lett.} , 23, 1404--1420

Banks-Leite, C., Pardini, R., Tambosi, L.R., Pearse, W.D., Bueno, A. a,
Bruscagin, R.T., \emph{et al} . (2014). Using ecological thresholds to
evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity
hotspot.\emph{Science} , 345, 1041--1045.

Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N.D.,
Wikramanayake, E. \emph{et al} . (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to
protecting half the terrestrial realm. \emph{Bioscience} , 67, 534--545.

Groom, M. J., Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R. 2005. Principles of
Conservation Biology (3\textsuperscript{rd} edition). Sinauer
Associates, Inc.

Lees, A.C., Attwood, S., Barlow, J. \& Phalan, B. (2020). Biodiversity
scientists must fight the creeping rise of extinction denial. \emph{Nat.
Ecol. Evol.} , 4, 1440--1443.

Macchi, L., Baumann, M., Bluhm, H., Baker, M., Levers, C., Grau,
H.R.,\emph{et al} . (2019). Thresholds in forest bird communities along
woody vegetation gradients in the South American Dry Chaco. \emph{J.
Appl. Ecol.} , 56, 629--639

Melo, I., Ochoa-Quintero, J.M., Roque, F. de O. \& Dalsgaard, B. (2018).
A review of threshold responses of birds to landscape changes across the
world. \emph{J. F. Ornithol.} , 89, 303--314.

Morante-Filho, J.C., Faria, D., Mariano-Neto, E., \& Rhodes, J. (2015).
Birds in anthropogenic landscapes: the responses of ecological groups to
forest loss in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. \emph{PLoS One} , 10,
e0128923.

Neugarten, R.A., Honzak, M., Carret, P., Koenig, K., Andriamaro, L.,
Cano, C.A., \emph{et al} . (2016). Rapid assessment of ecosystem service
co-benefits of biodiversity priority areas in Madagascar. \emph{PloS
ONE} , 11, e0168575.

Rigueira, D.M.G., da Rocha, P.L.B., \& Mariano-Neto, E. (2013). Forest
cover, extinction thresholds and time lags in woody plants (Myrtaceae)
in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: resources for
conservation.\emph{Biodiv. Conserv.} , 22, 3141--3163.

Rompre, G., Boucher, Y., Belanger, L., Cote, S., \& Robinson, W.D.
(2010). Conserving biodiversity in managed forest landscapes: the use of
critical thresholds for habitat. \emph{Forest. Chronicle} , 86,
589--596.

Swift, T.L. \& Hannon, S.J. (2010). Critical thresholds associated with
habitat loss: A review of the concepts, evidence, and
applications.\emph{Biol. Rev.} , 85, 35--53.

Vollmer, D., Pribadic, D.O., Remondi, F., Rustiadi, E., Gret-Regamey, A.
(2016). Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing river
basins: A spatial multi-criteria analaytic approach. \emph{Sust. Cities
Soc.} , 20, 237--252.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

