Science Advances

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 (61–126)

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

Download PDF