Large animals affect carbon, but climate benefits remain hard to measure
The story at a glance
A review published in Current Biology examined evidence on restoring large animals, including elephants and whales. It cautions against presenting wildlife restoration as a reliable climate strategy while its carbon effects remain difficult to quantify.12
Research on forest elephants describes possible benefits for forest carbon, but the broader evidence points to effects that depend on species, ecosystem and local conditions.134
The story in brief
What you need to know
- The Current Biology review, published on 19 October 2026, considers how restoring large animals might affect carbon. Its authors caution that the evidence does not yet support treating restoration as a readily quantifiable climate strategy.12
- Wild animals can influence carbon storage and greenhouse-gas flows in different ways. They may store or move carbon, while respiration and digestion release it; the balance varies among animals and ecosystems.124
- A 2023 study of African rainforests proposed that forest elephants can affect aboveground carbon by browsing on lower-wood-density trees and dispersing seeds of higher-wood-density trees. Its authors estimated that elephant loss could eventually reduce aboveground carbon stocks by 6% to 9% through impaired regeneration of elephant-dispersed trees.3
- A 2026 scientific consensus paper says wildlife influences carbon storage and greenhouse-gas flows, but the direction and scale of those effects vary with species, ecosystem and conditions. An earlier commentary warns against overstating animals’ role as climate solutions.45
- The research supports conserving wildlife for biodiversity and ecological reasons, but does not establish a general, dependable carbon benefit that can be used as a substitute for reducing emissions.156
Conservation context
Why this matters
Climate claims can shape conservation priorities and funding. Describing wildlife’s ecological role accurately, without promising carbon benefits that have not been measured, matters both for conservation and for credible climate mitigation.156
The developing story
What happens next
Further research needs to test how animal populations and local conditions affect net carbon outcomes, and how long any changes last. Better evidence would help establish whether particular wildlife-related benefits can be measured robustly enough for climate policy or finance.16
Established evidence
What we know
- The featured review examined evidence on large animals including elephants and whales, and cautioned against overselling restoration as a climate strategy.12
- Animals can affect carbon through several processes, including storing and moving carbon, as well as releasing it through respiration and digestion.124
- The forest-elephant study proposed several pathways by which elephants influence forest structure and carbon stocks, and estimated a potential long-term carbon loss if elephants disappear.3
- A scientific consensus paper recognises wildlife’s influence on carbon processes while noting that the effects vary across species and ecosystems.4
Open questions
What we don't know
- How species, population density and local ecosystem conditions combine to determine the net carbon effect of restoring a particular animal.12
- What monitoring periods are needed to distinguish durable carbon storage from short-term change or carbon release.16
- Whether wildlife-related climate benefits can be measured robustly enough for policy or carbon finance without distorting conservation priorities or diverting attention from emissions reductions.156
Source coverage
