Protecting forests helps birds and humans in many ways

What if saving a forest helped both birds and humans? What if the same landscape that shields towns from floods also offered refuge to songbirds? For decades, conservationists and policy makers have argued that nature’s benefits reach far beyond wildlife.

But measuring where and how those benefits align has remained elusive. Now, a new study provides some answers.

Scientists from Cornell University and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) explored where areas valued by humans for things like clean water, flood control, and carbon storage also help conserve bird populations.

Their work is rooted in data – over 1.5 billion bird observations from eBird and high-resolution mapping of eleven ecosystem services. It’s an approach that seeks win-wins, or even win-win-wins: for biodiversity, climate, and people.

Helping birds, people, and climate

“We all know that nature provides us with many benefits – biodiversity, climate regulation, recreation, and many others – but until now, we haven’t been able to demonstrate where those benefits coincide in space,” noted Dr. Rachel Neugarten, formerly of Cornell and now at WCS.

“Given the limited resources for conservation, this information is critical for helping decision-makers protect our natural heritage. The paper shows that win-win-wins for biodiversity, climate, and people are possible but not guaranteed.”

Where birds and human needs overlap

To find these overlaps, the researchers examined maps that captured where ten ecosystem services – such as food provisioning, flood control, and recreation – are most concentrated.

The team also used separate maps for carbon storage, a priority in climate mitigation. These ecosystem service (ES) and carbon priority areas covered 37% and 44% of the U.S. land area, respectively.

Next, they overlaid these areas with population estimates for 479 bird species. These estimates came from eBird’s Status and Trends project, which uses a sophisticated modeling system to handle observer bias and detectability differences.

The experts assessed how much of each species’ population lived within these ES or carbon priority zones. The results were surprising and hopeful. More than half of all species – 257 of 479 – had populations better represented in ES priority areas than random chance would predict.

Carbon storage areas fared slightly worse, with 204 species seeing better-than-random coverage. However, the benefits weren’t evenly spread across species or habitats.

Forests benefit birds and ecosystems

Forest-dwelling species saw the most gains from ES and carbon conservation priorities. Of the 202 forest species analyzed, 151 were well represented in ES zones and 159 in carbon-rich zones. This is likely because forests provide many overlapping services: timber, flood control, water purification, and carbon sequestration.

Species like the Cerulean Warbler thrived in these protected forests. Ninety percent of this species’ U.S. population lives in ES priority areas. Even more – 93% – overlaps with carbon storage zones.

Other forest birds, such as the Prairie Warbler, Hooded Warbler, and Eastern Whip-poor-will, also saw high representation. These findings support the idea that forests are ecosystem service powerhouses. Protecting them meets multiple goals at once.

Some of the country’s richest landscapes for both birds and ecosystem benefits include the Appalachian Mountains, the southeastern U.S., New England, the Ozarks, and the Cascade and Sierra ranges.

In these regions, forest protection is not just a biodiversity issue – it’s a climate and public health matter too.

Birds at the margins

However, not all habitats shared in the success. Birds living in wetlands and aridlands were poorly represented within ES and carbon zones.

Only 34% of wetland species and 42% of aridland species were well represented in ES priority areas. The numbers were worse for carbon zones: 23% for wetland birds and a mere 10% for those in aridlands.

Tipping Point species – those that have lost more than 50% of their populations in the past 50 years – also faced mixed outcomes. Of the 57 such species examined, fewer than half were well supported by either ES or carbon zones. This suggests that many vulnerable birds occupy habitats outside human-prioritized landscapes.

Some species, like the Yellow-billed Loon and Bendire’s Thrasher, had less than 10% of their populations within conservation priority zones. Others, like the King Eider, had virtually no overlap with carbon-focused areas.

These gaps show the limits of relying solely on ecosystem services as a guide for biodiversity protection.

Forest birds benefit from carbon zones

Carbon priority areas – identified for their role in holding vulnerable carbon stocks – overlapped best with forest species.

For example, the Black-backed Woodpecker, Red-faced Warbler, and Mountain Quail had over 90% of their populations in carbon-rich zones. These findings support policies that link biodiversity protection with climate action.

But the overlap breaks down outside forests. Aridland and wetland species showed little representation in carbon zones. This mismatch suggests that climate-focused conservation, if not paired with broader ecological goals, may overlook entire communities of at-risk birds.

“This study is especially timely, given recent reports of continued, if not worsening, population declines in North American birds,” said Amanda Rodewald, co-author and faculty director at the Cornell Lab.

“Now more than ever, we must find ways to conserve birds as part of broader efforts to protect the environment – in this case, safeguarding the ecosystem services that support human health and well-being.”

Smart maps can guide better plans

The study’s most important takeaway is this: co-benefits exist, but they cannot be assumed. High-quality spatial data allows for smarter, more inclusive planning.

The areas where bird conservation aligns with ecosystem services can be prioritized first. But other areas – particularly wetlands, deserts, and grasslands – need additional, targeted protection.

The researchers urge caution in generalizing the co-benefit narrative. “While win-win situations do exist, we should be careful not to generalize about biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits,” noted Neugarten.

“With limited resources and competing demands for land, we need data-driven approaches to achieve multiple conservation goals simultaneously.”

Future work should refine ecosystem service models with local data, include cultural values of nature, and consider the needs of vulnerable human communities. Only then can conservation support both people and the full richness of life on Earth.

Looking beyond forests to save birds

This study, supported by the National Science Foundation and Cornell’s environmental institutes, provides more than insight. It offers a framework. By mapping where people’s needs and wildlife conservation meet, decision-makers can act with greater precision.

Forests shine as clear examples of mutual benefit. But wetlands, deserts, and many bird species still wait for their moment in the spotlight.

Protecting these regions will require more than ambition. It will demand targeted action, guided by science and shaped by shared values.

The study is published in the journal Ecosystem Services.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–