Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).
Sarira, T. V., Zeng, Y., Neugarten, R., Chaplin-Kramer, R. & Koh, L. P. Co-benefits of forest carbon projects in Southeast Asia. Nat. Sustain. 5, 393–396 (2022).
Phelps, J., Webb, E. L. & Adams, W. M. Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 497–503 (2012).
Donofrio, S.-M., Patrick–Daley, C.-C. & Ciro–Lin, K. The Art of Integrity: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2022 Q3 (Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022).
Hyde, M. et al. Refining carbon credits to contribute to large carnivore conservation: the jaguar as a case study. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12880 (2022).
International Union for Conservation of Nature. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions: A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling up of NbS 1st edn (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2020).
Soto-Navarro, C. et al. Mapping co-benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190128 (2020).
Key, I. B. et al. Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: characterising the evidence base. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 905767 (2022).
Lou, J., Hultman, N., Patwardhan, A. & Qiu, Y. L. Integrating sustainability into climate finance by quantifying the co-benefits and market impact of carbon projects. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 1–11 (2022).
Gonzalez, A. & Londoño, M. C. Monitor biodiversity for action. Science 378, 1147–1147 (2022).
Oliver, R. Y. et al. Camera trapping expands the view into global biodiversity and its change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 378, 20220232 (2023).
Pimm, S. L. et al. Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 685–696 (2015).
Deiner, K. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5872–5895 (2017).
Kelly, R. P. et al. Harnessing DNA to improve environmental management. Science 344, 1455–1456 (2014).
Jaureguiberry, P. et al. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Sci. Adv. 8, eabm9982 (2022).
Stanturf, J. A., Palik, B. J. & Dumroese, R. K. Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. For. Ecol. Manag. 331, 292–323 (2014).
Carbon Direct. State of the voluntary carbon market. https://www.carbon-direct.com/research-and-reports/state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-market (2023).
Ebeling, J. & Yasué, M. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 1917–1924 (2008).
Pan, C. et al. Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects. J. For. Res. 33, 1109–1122 (2022).
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. Core carbon principles, assessment framework and assessment procedure. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/4433491/ccp-foreword-final-28mar23/5230721/ (2023).
Merger, E., Dutschke, M. & Verchot, L. Options for REDD+ voluntary certification to ensure net GHG benefits, poverty alleviation, sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. Forests 2, 550–577 (2011).
Richards, M. & Panfil, S. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1—Core Guidance for Project Proponents (Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora International, and Rainforest Alliance, 2011).
Waldon, J., Miller, B. W. & Miller, C. M. A model biodiversity monitoring protocol for REDD projects. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 4, 254–260 (2011).
Kelly, R. P. et al. Toward a national eDNA strategy for the United States. Environ. DNA 6, e432 (2024).
UNESCO. Environmental DNA expeditions in UNESCO world heritage marine sites. https://www.unesco.org/en/edna-expeditions (2024).
Bálint, M. et al. Accuracy, limitations and cost efficiency of eDNA‐based community survey in tropical frogs. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 1415–1426 (2018).
Mena, J. L. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding as a useful tool for evaluating terrestrial mammal diversity in tropical forests. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02335 (2021).
Beng, K. C. & Corlett, R. T. Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 2089–2121 (2020).
Valentin, R. E. et al. Moving eDNA surveys onto land: strategies for active eDNA aggregation to detect invasive forest insects. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 746–755 (2020).
van der Heyde, M., Bunce, M. & Nevill, P. Key factors to consider in the use of environmental DNA metabarcoding to monitor terrestrial ecological restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 848, 157617 (2022).
Lynggaard, C. et al. DNA-based arthropod diversity assessment in Amazonian iron mine lands show ecological succession towards undisturbed reference sites. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 590976 (2020).
Van Der Heyde, M. et al. Changes in soil microbial communities in post mine ecological restoration: Implications for monitoring using high throughput DNA sequencing. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 142262 (2020).
Van Der Heyde, M. et al. Scat DNA provides important data for effective monitoring of mammal and bird biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 3585–3602 (2021).
Van Der Heyde, M. et al. Evaluating restoration trajectories using DNA metabarcoding of ground‐dwelling and airborne invertebrates and associated plant communities. Mol. Ecol. 31, 2172–2188 (2022).
International Union for Conservation of Nature. eBioAtlas: Using the Power of eDNA to Fill Global Biodiversity Knowledge Gaps and Deliver Impact in Conservation (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2023).
Abarenkov, K. et al. Publishing DNA-derived data through biodiversity data platforms, version 1.3.0, 7 June 2023 (Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 2023).
Lynggaard, C. et al. Airborne environmental DNA for terrestrial vertebrate community monitoring. Curr. Biol. 32, 701–707 (2022).
Kyle, K. E. et al. Combining surface and soil environmental DNA with artificial cover objects to improve terrestrial reptile survey detection. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13939 (2022).
Allen, M. C. et al. Sampling environmental DNA from trees and soil to detect cryptic arboreal mammals. Sci. Rep. 13, 180 (2023).
Leempoel, K., Hebert, T. & Hadly, E. A. A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20192353 (2020).
Newton, J. P., Bateman, P. W., Heydenrych, M. J., Mousavi-Derazmahalleh, M. & Nevill, P. Home is where the hollow is: revealing vertebrate tree hollow user biodiversity with eDNA metabarcoding. Environ. DNA 4, 1078–1091 (2022).
Allen, M. C. et al. Using surface environmental DNA to assess arthropod biodiversity within a forested ecosystem. Environ. DNA 5, 1652–1666 (2023).
Marquina, D., Esparza‐Salas, R., Roslin, T. & Ronquist, F. Establishing arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: surprising inconsistencies between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 1516–1530 (2019).
Banerjee, P. et al. Environmental DNA analysis as an emerging non-destructive method for plant biodiversity monitoring: a review. AoB Plants 14, plac031 (2022).
Johnson, M. D. et al. Environmental DNA as an emerging tool in botanical research. Am. J. Bot. 110, e16120 (2023).
Watson, C. D. et al. Global meta-analysis shows progress towards recovery of soil microbiota following revegetation. Biol. Conserv. 272, 109592 (2022).
Eaton, W. D., Shokralla, S., McGee, K. M. & Hajibabaei, M. Using metagenomics to show the efficacy of forest restoration in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Genome 60, 825–836 (2017).
Dyson, K. et al. Coupling remote sensing and eDNA to monitor environmental impact: A pilot to quantify the environmental benefits of sustainable agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 19, e0289437 (2024).
Pitman, N. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 3 – Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox (Forest Trends, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International, 2011).
Tedersoo, L. et al. Towards a co-crediting system for carbon and biodiversity. Plants People Planet 6, 18–28 (2024).
Forbes, R. J., Watson, S. J., O’Connor, E., Wescott, W. & Steinbauer, M. J. Diversity and abundance of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera in multiple-species reforestation plantings to offset emissions of carbon dioxide. Aust. For. 82, 89–106 (2019).
Nakakaawa, C., Aune, J. & Vedeld, P. Changes in carbon stocks and tree diversity in agro-ecosystems in south western Uganda: what role for carbon sequestration payments? New For. 40, 19–44 (2010).
Mekuria, W. et al. Restoring aboveground carbon and biodiversity: a case study from the Nile basin, Ethiopia. For. Sci. Technol. 11, 86–96 (2015).
Bartels, S. F. & Macdonald, S. E. Dynamics and recovery of forest understory biodiversity over 17 years following varying levels of retention harvesting. J. Appl. Ecol. 60, 725–736 (2023).
Haq, S. M. et al. Biodiversity and carbon stocks of the understory vegetation as indicators for forest health in the Zabarwan Mountain Range, Indian Western Himalaya. Ecol. Indic. 159, 111685 (2024).
Karimi, B. et al. Microbial diversity and ecological networks as indicators of environmental quality. Environ. Chem. Lett. 15, 265–281 (2017).
Borges, F. L. G., da Rosa Oliveira, M., de Almeida, T. C., Majer, J. D. & Garcia, L. C. Terrestrial invertebrates as bioindicators in restoration ecology: a global bibliometric survey. Ecol. Indic. 125, 107458 (2021).
Deiner, K., Fronhofer, E. A., Mächler, E., Walser, J.-C. & Altermatt, F. Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information. Nat. Commun. 7, 12544 (2016).
Macher, T., Schütz, R., Hörren, T., Beermann, A. J. & Leese, F. It’s raining species: rainwash eDNA metabarcoding as a minimally invasive method to assess tree canopy invertebrate diversity. Environ. DNA 5, 3–11 (2023).
Lynggaard, C. et al. Vertebrate environmental DNA from leaf swabs. Curr. Biol. 33, R853–R854 (2023).
Massey, A. L. et al. Invertebrates for vertebrate biodiversity monitoring: comparisons using three insect taxa as iDNA samplers. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 22, 962–977 (2022).
Coutant, O. et al. Amazonian mammal monitoring using aquatic environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 1875–1888 (2021).
Lyet, A. et al. eDNA sampled from stream networks correlates with camera trap detection rates of terrestrial mammals. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–14 (2021).
Valentin, R. E., Kyle, K. E., Allen, M. C., Welbourne, D. J. & Lockwood, J. L. The state, transport, and fate of aboveground terrestrial arthropod eDNA. Environ. DNA 3, 1081–1092 (2021).
Corlett, R. T. & Primack, R. B. Tropical rainforest conservation: a global perspective. Trop. For. Community Ecol. 442, 457 (2008).
Jackman, J. M. et al. eDNA in a bottleneck: obstacles to fish metabarcoding studies in megadiverse freshwater systems. Environ. DNA 3, 837–849 (2021).
van der Reis, A. L., Beckley, L. E., Olivar, M. P. & Jeffs, A. G. Nanopore short-read sequencing: a quick, cost-effective and accurate method for DNA metabarcoding. Environ. DNA 5, 282–296 (2023).
Kéry, M. & Royle, J. A. Applied Hierarchical Modeling in Ecology: Analysis of Distribution, Abundance and Species Richness in R and BUGS: Volume 1: Prelude and Static Models (Academic Press, 2016).
Bush, A. et al. Replicate DNA metabarcoding can discriminate seasonal and spatial abundance shifts in river macroinvertebrate assemblages. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 23, 1275–1287 (2023).
Nichols, J. D. et al. Multi-scale occupancy estimation and modelling using multiple detection methods. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1321–1329 (2008).
West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877 (2023).
Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 88, 105906 (2021).