Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon

Lewis, Simon L.; Wheeler, Charlotte; Mitchard, Edward T. A.; Koch, Alexander

doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01026-8

Cited by 686 publications

(468 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

444

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At a global level, the overall potential for these options is large (Bastin et al, ; Griscom et al, ), reaching about 10 Gt CO 2 eq/year (Table ). The greatest potential for these options is in tropical and subtropical climates (Houghton & Nassikas, ; Lewis, Wheeler, Mitchard, & Koch, ). The climate change mitigation benefits of afforestation and reforestation are reduced at high latitudes owing to surface albedo feedback.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?

Smith

Calvin

Nkem

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

232

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing‐up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At a global level, the overall potential for these options is large (Bastin et al, 2019;Griscom et al, 2017), reaching about 10 Gt CO 2 eq/year ( Table 5). The greatest potential for these options is in tropical and subtropical climates (Houghton & Nassikas, 2018;Lewis, Wheeler, Mitchard, & Koch, 2019).…”

Section: Enhanced Urban Food Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?

Smith

Calvin

Nkem

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

232

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Lewis et al. ). To succeed, however, we must overcome several barriers hindering the establishment of tree species, initially by improving species selection to better identify those most adequate to each scenario of forest restoration (Butterfield , Werden et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that one billion more hectares of forest would be needed to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C by 2050 (IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] 2018). Promoting trees where they can naturally live could account for 90% of this additional area under current climate, so efforts of forest restoration, including the facilitation of natural regeneration, are among our most effective tools available to mitigate climate change (Chazdon et al 2016, Bastin et al 2019, Lewis et al 2019. To succeed, however, we must overcome several barriers hindering the establishment of tree species, initially by improving species selection to better identify those most adequate to each scenario of forest restoration (Butterfield 1995, Werden et al 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing intraspecific trait variability during seedling establishment to improve restoration of tropical dry forests

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest restoration is an effective tool to mitigate climate change, but its implementation in highly diverse and threatened tropical dry forests (TDFs) is particularly challenging due to the hostile environment. Intraspecific trait variability (ITV) in response to these constraints may be very informative for predicting the potential for species acclimation and therefore for improving trait‐based species screenings that best match each particular scenario of forest restoration. We analyzed ITV during seedling establishment of three widely distributed and ecologically contrasting TDF species in a greenhouse multifactorial experiment crossing levels of resource availability (nutrients and water) and herbivory to assess the capacity of ITV to discern strategies of seedling establishment and to predict species’ growth rates and acclimation potential. The three species studied had contrasting responses to the experimental treatments, suggesting different strategies of seedling establishment. The species with the most plastic pattern of growth performed the best, especially due to its ability to modulate the trade‐off of root‐to‐shoot allocation of biomass depending on nutrient availability. Almost 50% of the variation in the root mass ratio was within species, half of which was a direct response of the treatments, indicating a strong acclimation potential. Individual‐level trait measurements, however, were poor predictors of seedling growth rates. ITV, particularly the ability to adapt the pattern of biomass allocation, can be critical during seedling establishment. We propose incorporating information about ITV and the ability of species to modulate their phenotypic expression to cope with environmental variability into programs of forest restoration. Easily implemented and standardized greenhouse experiments are an inexpensive way to obtain high‐quality data on the plasticity of forest species, which can be very valuable for predicting the potential of species acclimation and thus improving the selection of species that better match each particular scenario of restoration.

show abstract

“…These forests annually sequester around 2.0 Pg (10 15 g) of carbon (C) from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and store over 400 Pg C in vegetation and soil pools, thereby strongly regulating atmospheric CO 2 concentrations and global climate (Pan et al 2011). With the majority of tropical forests having been lost or degraded by anthropogenic activity (Watson et al 2018), reforestation has emerged as a leading strategy for conserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change (Griscom et al 2017, Lewis et al 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greater stability of carbon capture in species-rich natural forests compared to species-poor plantations

Osuri

Gopal

Raman

et al. 2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree plantations and forest restoration are leading strategies for enhancing terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration and mitigating climate change. While it is well established that species-rich natural forests offer superior C sequestering benefits relative to short-rotation commercial monoculture plantations, differences in rates of C capture and storage between longer-lived plantations (commercial or non-commercial) and natural forests remain unclear. Using a natural experiment in the Western Ghats of India, where late-20th century conservation laws prohibited timber extraction from monodominant plantations and natural forests within nature reserves, we assessed forests and plantations for aboveground C storage and the magnitude and temporal stability of rates of photosynthetic C capture (gross primary production). Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that species-rich forests show greater temporal stability of C capture, and are more resistant to drought, than monodominant plantations. Carbon stocks in monodominant teak (Tectona grandis) and Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) plantations were 30%-50% lower than in natural evergreen forests, but differed little from moist-deciduous forests. Plantations had 4%-9% higher average C capture rates (estimated using the Enhanced Vegetation Index-EVI) than natural forests during wet seasons, but up to 29% lower C capture during dry seasons across the 2000-18 period. In both seasons, the rate of C capture by plantations was less stable across years, and decreased more during drought years (i.e. lower resistance to drought), compared to forests. Thus, even as certain monodominant plantations could match natural forests for C capture and storage potential, plantations are unlikely to match the stability-and hence reliability-of C capture exhibited by forests, particularly in the face of increasing droughts and other climatic perturbations. Promoting natural forest regeneration and/or multispecies native tree plantations instead of plantation monocultures could therefore benefit climate change mitigation efforts, while offering valuable co-benefits for biodiversity conservation and other ecosystem services.

show abstract

Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon

Cited by 686 publications

References 6 publications

Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?

Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?

Assessing intraspecific trait variability during seedling establishment to improve restoration of tropical dry forests

Greater stability of carbon capture in species-rich natural forests compared to species-poor plantations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About