Science Advances

Supplementary Materials

This PDF file includes:

  • Supplementary Materials and Methods
  • Supplementary Results
  • fig. S1. Study area in relation to major ecological biomes of Brazil.
  • fig. S2. Distributions of natural vegetation types predicted for our study area.
  • fig. S3. Distributions of soil types for our study area.
  • fig. S4. Optimized landscapes corresponding to each mitigation scenario.
  • fig. S5. Cost savings for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S6. Sources of cost savings for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S7. Area of natural habitat across the mitigation scenarios.
  • fig. S8. Types of natural habitat restored or protected under the PL and LL scenarios.
  • fig. S9. Changes in habitat fragmentation for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S10. Patterns of habitat fragmentation for the different mitigation scenarios.
  • fig. S11. Changes in fragmentation by habitat type for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S12. Changes in the expected number of bird and mammal species for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S13. Changes in the expected number of species by habitat specialization for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S14. Changes in the predicted carbon storage for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S15. Changes in WQI for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S16. Changes in the average predicted nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and total loadings for LL relative to PL mitigation.
  • fig. S17. Changes in average predicted turbidity and total sediment loading for LL mitigation relative to PL mitigation.
  • table S1. Land cover types and definitions for the study area.
  • table S2. Final yield for each scenario.
  • table S3. Summary of the parameters used in the agricultural profit optimization models.
  • table S4. Definitions of the parameters used in the agricultural profit optimization equations.
  • table S5. Amount of habitat restored or protected under each mitigation scenario.
  • table S6. Fragmentation metrics for patches of all natural habitat types grouped together.
  • table S7. Fragmentation metrics for patches by habitat type.
  • table S8. Data sources used to determine relevant species by taxonomic group.
  • table S9. Average (±SD) habitat suitability values for land cover types in our study region.
  • table S10. Average (±SD) parameters by trophic level used in the biodiversity model.
  • table S11. Expected number of species based on the biodiversity model across mitigation scenarios.
  • table S12. Expected number of species by habitat specialization for each mitigation scenario.
  • table S13. Aggregated values for carbon storage per land cover/land use category for our study area.
  • table S14. Additional carbon storage provided by each mitigation scenario.
  • table S15. Minimum and maximum values for nitrogen (TN), phosphorus (TP), and turbidity concentrations in pristine areas in the Cerrado biome.
  • table S16. WQI across mitigation scenarios.
  • References (61126)

    Additional Supplementary Material for this article is available at http://nature.org/TNC-Dow-Brazil.

Download PDF

Files in this Data Supplement: