Supplementary Information (Online only): Identification of areas in Brazil that optimize conservation of forest carbon, jaguars, and biodiversity
De Barros, Alan E.; Macdonald, Ewan A.; Matsumoto, Marcelo H.; Paula, Rogério C.; Nijhawan, Sahil; Malhi,Y.; Macdonald, David W.
*Correspondence: E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Appendix S1.Table S1: Datasets used in GIS analysis.
Appendix S2. Table S2: REDD related strategies in Brazil.
Appendix S3.Supplementary results and parameters and values adopted in the Promethee method
Fig. S3: Occurrence (within municipalities) of JCU and biodiversity categories in relation to forest carbon storage and annual deforestation rate.
Table S3a: Fundamental criteria used to compare all scenarios with distinct levels of carbon and deforestation
Appendix S4. Table S4: List of municipalities highlighted as “REDDspots”.
Appendix S5. Fig S5: “REDDspots” and (JCUs & corridors, Protected areas and Indigenous lands).
Appendix S6. Comparisons of carbon stored (in forest remnants 2008) within Brazilian municipalities for two different datasets: Ruesch & Gibbs (2008) and Saatchi et al (2011).
Table S6: Differences and correlation between Ruesch and Gibbs (2008) and Saatchi et al (2011) carbon datasets.
Fig. S6: Scatter plots comparing two datasets of carbon: Ruesch and Gibbs (2008) and Saatchi et al (2011) datasets
Fig. S7: Scatter plots for REDDspots and correlation plots for biomes comparing Ruesch and Gibbs (2008) and Saatchi et al (2011) carbon datasets.
Appendix S7. Support references
Appendix S1.Datasets used:
Table S1: Datasets used in the GIS analysis. In some cases the datasets that we used in our analysis were themselves compiled from a number of pre-existing datasets; to make this clear we have listed the dataset that we used in regular font, but also added the original datasets below in italics.
Priority areas for jaguar conservation. Updated data from CENAP/ ICMbio and Panthera Foundation. 20 JCUs inside the Brazilian territory (4 of urgent action priority, 9 of interest for research and conservation, 5 of interest for conservation and 2 of research interest).
Paula et al. (2010), Nijhawan et al. 2010, Nijhawan (2012), Sanderson et al. (2002), Desbiez &Paula 2012
Jaguar network corridors, CENAP/ ICMbio and Panthera Foundation. 18 corridors considering barriers, 13 corridors without consider barriers.
* Corridor polygons merged and adapted from original.
Nijhawan et al. 2010, Rabinowitz & Zeller (2010)
We identified municipalities where REDD projects occur because many projects did not have available GIS layers.
Cifor (2010), SFB/MMA (2009), Idesam (2010) and others, see STable 2.
Appendix S2.Table S2: REDD related strategies in Brazil.
Table S2: This table summarises all of the REDD related initiatives that we used in our analysis. These data refer to all activities in Brazil that relate to Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. (Data referent to January 2011).
* AD =Avoided Deforestation, ADG = Avoided degradation, RS = restoration, AGF = Agroforestry. (Modified from Cifor 2010).
Status of projects (in January 2011): “in progress” refers to projects that have already been implemented. “in preparation” corresponds to projects in an advanced stage of planning, “support program” corresponds to projects giving parallel support to REDD projects, and “early stage of planning” corresponds to areas that host planned, future REDD projects.
Any information regarding the locations of private projects not given online or in reports was obtained through direct contact with the projects (email, phone).
Most of initiatives were mentioned in the Cifor (May and Millikan, 2010), IDESAM (Cenamo, M. C., et al. 2009) and SFB ( SFB - MMA 2009) publications. We also cite other references below (All accessed by January 2011).