The loss of native vegetation is a global, critical, yet unevenly addressed environmental problem with profound implications for biodiversity, ecosystem function, climate regulation, and human well-being. Although tropical rainforests have long been a conservation focus, many structurally open biomes, such as savannas, grasslands, and shrublands (i.e., open ecosystems), are also declining because of increasing anthropogenic impacts. However, degradation of open ecosystems is frequently overlooked in scientific, policy, and public discourse. We argue that the use of deforestation as a blanket term for vegetation loss reinforces a forest-centric perspective in conservation, resulting in policy and protection biases. This linguistic framing shapes conservation priorities, restoration strategies, management interventions, and funding decisions. It can also prompt inappropriate actions, such as afforesting naturally open ecosystems. Terminology per se does not drive vegetation loss; rather, terminology influences perceptions of the biophysical, institutional, and economic drivers of vegetation loss. We propose adopting devegetation as a more ecologically inclusive term to describe vegetation loss across all terrestrial biomes. This terminology shift can help reframe conservation discourse, promote more balanced policy making, and ensure that open ecosystems receive adequate and appropriate attention. Use of this more accurate and representative term could enhance communication with policy makers and strengthen global strategies to mitigate devegetation. Native vegetation loss is primarily driven by anthropogenic activities tied to large-scale agriculture, urbanization, forestry, and infrastructure development (Curtis et al., 2018). At finer scales, vegetation loss is also affected by livelihood-based activities, including harvesting of wood fuel, construction materials, and nontimber products (e.g., fruits, tubers, gums) and charcoal production (Angelsen et al., 2014), but these activities have far more limited impacts on net vegetation loss than large-scale land-use change (Hosonuma et al., 2012). Currently, 95% of vegetation loss occurs in tropical regions (Ritchie, 2021), which harbor much of the planet's biodiversity in iconic rainforests and in savannas, grasslands, and shrublands (Olson Stahl et al., 2023), causing aggregated time series to record forest contraction as apparent gains in open vegetation (Hansen et al., 2013; Song et al., 2018). Much of the apparent signal for open ecosystems is driven by grassland class (Figure 2a). Although recent European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative Land Cover refinements improved separation of grasslands from croplands, confidently distinguishing native grasslands from degraded, disturbed, or regenerating herbaceous remains technically challenging at a global scale (ESA CCI, 2017; Herold et al., 2008). The observed post-2010 rebound in open natural areas thus plausibly stems from this artifact (Figure 2b). Finally, open ecosystems exhibit greater seasonal and spectral variability (Slingsby et al., 2020), making actual losses harder to detect and yielding conservative lower-bound estimates. These limitations indicate that the apparent stability of open ecosystems is a monitoring artifact and that their losses can be more extensive than global statistics imply. Country-level patterns (Appendix S2), nonetheless, reveal widespread declines in forests and open natural areas, even after excluding countries with minimal baselines. The contrast between tropical biomes in South America exemplifies this disparity in attention between forests and open ecosystems. Across nearly 500 years, but most intensively in recent centuries, the Atlantic Forest declined to 12.4% of its original extent (FSOSMA Slingsby et al., 2020). Current understanding of open ecosystems is as extensive as that for forests (Bond, 2019). It is known where they are globally distributed (Figure 1b), how they function, what makes them ecologically unique, and why they are increasingly endangered. However, this extensive knowledge is not applied consistently in policy, restoration practice, or public discourse. Entrenched perceptions of forests as the default natural state of land cover often mean that open ecosystems are treated as degraded lands in need of afforestation (Dasgupta, 2021). It is conceptually inaccurate to describe the loss of vegetation in open ecosystems (i.e., grasslands, shrublands, savannas) as deforestation because these ecosystems are not forests. Linguistic framing affects how people perceive, prioritize, and act on environmental issues (Lakoff, 2010; Tversky Pezzullo Poulsen et al., 2023). Like defaunation, devegetation frames ecosystem degradation more holistically and helps drive ecosystem-specific interventions and metrics. Devegetation also ensures greater alignment with global frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and UN Sustainable Development Goals. In many instances, vegetation loss is followed by recovery. This process warrants extending devegetation terminology to coverage gains. As a counterpart, revegetation should denote the recovery of native plant cover and structure in devegetated landscapes, emphasizing biome-appropriate gains instead of afforestation of naturally open systems. Importantly, revegetation is urgently needed in regions that have been extensively devegetated, such as the Brazilian Cerrado, but the ultimate goal must be recovery of biodiversity and landscape connectivity. The loss of connectivity has been even more critical than the loss of vegetation per se in the Cerrado (Grande et al., 2020). Our objective is not to demonstrate causality. If anything, we highlight terminology as one of several mechanisms shaping conservation priorities. Despite our evidence being consistent with the view that terminology influences conservation agendas, it is not a formal causal test. We acknowledge that successful open-ecosystem conservation initiatives exist (e.g., long-term savanna management in South Africa Biggs & Rogers, 2003), just as some forest conservation initiatives have failed (e.g., continued forest loss in the Congo basin Tyukavina et al., 2018). The point is that open ecosystems are most effectively conserved when they are explicitly recognized and managed as such. We, therefore, advocate for terminology that reflects ecological reality, giving open ecosystems long-overdue attention and helping prevent inappropriate interventions in such systems. Our proposition by no means diminishes the urgency of conserving forests, where losses remain severe. Addressing global devegetation requires balanced conservation measures that actively protect forests and open ecosystems, recognizing their complementarity and irreplaceability in sustaining global biodiversity. Shifting to devegetation goes beyond a linguistic choice because it implies a conceptual reframing of how environmental loss is understood and addressed. Recognizing devegetation as a distinct and widespread phenomenon should thus encourage more equitable and ecologically grounded conservation strategies. We invite scientists, conservationists, the public, and policy makers to embrace this terminology shift, which can help ensure that open ecosystems are no longer ignored or the victims of unwarranted afforestation. L.M.S.A. developed the original idea and concept for the paper. L.M.S.A. and R.B.C. further envisioned and structured the manuscript. L.M.S.A. and R.B.C. outlined the analytical approach. R.B.C. identified the data sources, conducted the analyses, and prepared the figures. R.D. provided input on framing the paper. L.M.S.A., R.B.M., and R.D. supervised the work. All authors contributed to writing and revising the manuscript. We dedicate this work to the memory of William J. Bond, whose pioneering contributions to the ecology of open ecosystems transformed how we understand and value global vegetation and whose ideas inspired this contribution. We appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and Ellen Main for editorial guidance, which strengthened this piece and improved its readability. We also thank the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for providing research grants to R.B.M. (process 311116/2022-1) and L.M.S.A. (309893/2023-2). All data used to generate the figures in this article were retrieved from the publicly available Land Cover—Data dataset of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization through FAOSTAT (2023) (https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/LC). Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
Carvalho et al. (Fri,) studied this question.