Nature

nature geoscience | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience 1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONdoi: 10.1038/ngeo756

Supplementary Table 1. Countries included in analysis. Criteria for which countries to include are: >10% of land area in humid tropical forest biome and >10,000 km2 in forest in 2000. Mountain countries (Bhutan and Nepal) are excluded. Forest area in the year 2000 and deforestation rates are derived from1. Biome land area is determined from 2. Note that forest loss rate is calculated relative to biome area (rather than remaining forest area) to improve comparability among countries.

COUNTRY % LAND AREA IN

BIOME

FOREST AREA IN 2000 (km2 x

1000)

% BIOME REMAINING IN

FOREST IN 2000

MEAN ANNUAL RATE OF FOREST LOSS 2000-05

(% OF BIOME)

Bangladesh 100 17.02 11 0.03

Belize 100 10.86 48 0.37

Bolivia 36 229.92 59 0.12

Brazil 64 2881.66 53 0.42

Cambodia 40 21.00 29 0.52

Cameroon 58 144.99 54 0.02

Central African Republic 14 34.50 40 <0.00

China 17 428.46 27 0.06

Colombia 83 453.16 48 0.06

Congo 75 149.80 57 <0.00

Dem Republic of Congo 51 788.49 67 <0.00

Costa Rica 93 178.24 36 0.14

Cote d’Ivoire 49 31.83 20 0.04

Ecuador 90 94.86 41 0.08

Equatorial Guinea 100 15.02 48 <0.00

Gabon 86 56.36 60 0.01

Ghana 36 122.66 54 0.06

Guinea 13 30.23 37 0.03

Guatemala 75 199.29 23 0.45

Guyana 100 124.85 56 0.02

Honduras 44 20.12 40 0.10

India 37 180.90 16 0.02

Indonesia 98 803.83 44 0.28

Laos 96 110.77 50 0.25

Liberia 100 55.40 54 0.01

Madagascar 54 80.03 25 0.01

Malaysia 100 169.38 48 0.55

Mexico 15 96.68 34 0.08

Myanmar 96 248.12 39 0.20

Nicaragua 60 27.76 36 0.50

Nigeria 15 30.82 23 0.04

Panama 98 23.32 32 0.09

Papua New Guinea 98 241.61 54 0.04

Paraguay 24 27.07 28 0.92

Peru 74 536.85 56 0.02

2 nature geoscience | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION doi: 10.1038/ngeo756

Philippines 100 72.32 25 0.02

Sierra Leone 70 16.79 33 0.17

Suriname 100 95.80 61 0.01

Thailand 62 90.15 28 0.28

Venezuela 59 302.96 56 0.09

Vietnam 80 66.15 26 0.08



Supplementary Table 2. Variables used as correlates with rates of forest loss. Only variables without colinearity (VIF<5) were used. Values in table are standardized coefficient with standard error in parentheses from ordinary least squares regression. Arcsine transformation was performed on the dependent variable. n= 41. See below for explanation of how variables were derived.

VARIABLE SOURCE SATELLITE-DERIVED FOREST LOSS (all variables)

SATELLITE-DERIVED FOREST LOSS (significant variables only)

Intercept .031*** (.003)

.031*** (.003)

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES:

A. Annual urban growth rate 2000-05

3

.019*** (.005)

.016*** (.004)

B. Annual rural growth rate (2000-05) 3

.001 (.005)

C. Total annual growth rate (2000-05) 4

-.011* (.005)

-.010** (.004)

% of population urban (2000) 3

.003 (.005)

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION VARIABLES: Net agricultural trade per capita (US$thousand/person) (2003-04)

Calculated from 4 and 5

.009* (.004)

.008** (.003)

% of agricultural production exported (2001-03) Calculated from 5

.008# (.004)

.007# (.004)

Agricultural exports/total production (2004) (US$thousand/tonne) Calculated from 5

-.004 (.004)

% forest remaining in biome in 2000 Calculated from

1,5

-.002 (.003)

ECONOMIC VARIABLES: GDP per capita (average 2000-05)

6

.005 (.004)

Annual GDP growth (2000-05) 6

-.001 (.004)

R2 .59 .52 Adjusted R2 .46*** .47***

***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, #p<0.10



Derivations of variables for those not directly taken from the respective source were:

Net agricultural trade per capita: calculated from value of agricultural trade (exports minus imports) divided by total population for each country (constant 1995 $US).

Percent of agricultural production exported: calculated from balance sheets for cereals, vegetable oils, meat and sugar. The proportion of quantity exported to total quantity produced was calculated for each group. These values were weighted by the proportion of the food group to total production across all the groups and summed across groups.

Value of agricultural exports per total production: calculated from export value divided by the sum of production in FAO group I (cereals), group II (root and tuber crops, pulses, and oilseeds), and group III (sugar cane and beets, coffee, cocoa beans, tea, and livestock products).

Percent forest remaining in biome: The forest area derived from 1 was normalized to the area of the humid tropical forest biome delineated by 2 for each country.

Dates used for the variables were the best available from the data.



Supplementary Table 3. Tolerance values (1-r2) for all pairs of variables used in the regressions. Tolerance values should be greater than .2 to avoid collinearity.

A B C D E F G H I

A B 0.91

C 0.53 0.81 D 0.91 0.56 0.98

E 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 F 0.92 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.62

G 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.80 0.71 H 0.87 0.72 0.95 0.53 0.99 0.91 0.91

I 0.75 0.96 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 J 0.95 0.94 1.00 0.86 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.94

LABEL VARIABLE A annual urban growth rate B annual rural growth rate C total annual growth rate D percent of population urban E net agricultural trade per capita F % of agricultural production

exported G agricultural exports/total production H GDP per capita I Annual GDP growth J percent forest remaining in biome



Supplementary Table 4. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for variables used in linear regression. VIF should be <5 to avoid multicollinearity. See Supplementary Table 3 for legend to variables.

Variable VIF A 3.57 B 2.75 C 3.01 D 3.32 E 1.99 F 2.30 G 1.81 H 2.65 I 1.79 J 1.35



Supplementary Table 5. Multicollinearity diagnostics for variables used in linear regression. Condition index should be <30 to avoid multicollinearity. See Supplementary Table 3 for legend to variables.

Number Condition Index

Decomposition proportions

A B C D E F G H I J

1 1.00 .01 .01 .01 .02 .00 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01

2 1.29 .00 .01 .11 .01 .09 .06 .06 .00 .00 .01

3 1.51 .05 .01 .06 .03 .01 .00 .04 .03 .03 .02

4 1.74 .00 .03 .05 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02 .18 .25

5 1.80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 2.12 .00 .00 .04 .03 .04 .04 .01 .01 .22 .41 7 2.39 .03 .18 .03 .02 .01 .04 .25 .14 .05 .00 8 2.80 .07 .11 .00 .03 .31 .03 .39 .10 .03 .06 9 3.37 .01 .00 .01 .05 .51 .71 .02 .11 .03 .19 10 4.34 .07 .23 .03 .78 .02 .11 .23 .46 .18 .02 11 4.88 .76 .42 .78 .05 .01 .00 .00 .12 .26 .02



Supplementary Table 6. Countries and tropical humid forest area in year 2000 in each terminal node of regression tree. Nodes are numbered from left to right in figure 2.

Node Number

Number of countries

Countries Humid tropical forest area (km2 x 1000)

Percent of total remaining humid tropical forest area

1 8 China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Mexico, Mynamar, Peru, Vietnam

2105 23

2 2 Indonesia, Laos 915 10 3 18 Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon,

Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guineau, Gabon, Guinea, Honduras, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Panama, Papau New Guineau, Philippines, Venezuela

2298 26

4 2 Cambodia, Sierra Leone 38 <1 5 2 Congo, Suriname 246 3 6 3 Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua 2929 33 7 2 Guyana, Thailand 215 2 8 2 Belize, Costa Rica 29 <1 9 2 Malaysia, Paraguay 196 2



Supplementary Figure 1. Satellite-derived annual forest loss 1 and annual change in forest area reported by FAO 7 for 2000-05. The data sets are not strictly comparable because they cover different spatial extents and vary in definition of forest. Satellite- derived rate refers to gross percent loss of total humid tropical forest biome in the country while country reports are percent change in net forest area. Positive values refer to forest loss and negative values to forest gain. R2 is 0.03 (adjusted R2 is 0.01) with insignificant p-value.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

FAO

ann

ual c

hang

e in

fore

st a

rea

Satellite-derived 2000-05 annual forest lost



References for Supplementary Material

1 Hansen, M.C. et al., Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified using multi-temporal and multi-resolution remotely sensed data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (27), 9439-9444 (2008).

2 Olson, D. et al., Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. BioScience 51 (11), 933-938 (2001).

3 United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision. (2006). 4 United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. (2007). 5 FAO, FAO Statistical Yearbook 2005-2006. (2007). 6 World Bank, 2007 World Development Indicators. (2007). 7 FAO, Global Forest Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147 (2006).

Documents

Nature