“…2 ). It corresponds to Site 1 in Román-Dañobeytia et al 18 and is on an open sandy area under an enriched biochar treatment including biochar and fertilizer (“ Supplementary Information ”) 18 . Figure 2 Case study location.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biochar is produced and added to the site at the time of seedlings transplant at a rate of one kg (dry mass) per seedling 18 . The biochar is produced using Brazil nut husks, residues of the local Brazil nut production 27 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The seedlings are grown in reusable plastic nursery tubes in an in-house growing medium (“ Supplementary Information ”). CINCIA’s seedling transplant rate is 1111 seedlings ha −1 18 . The nursery grows seedlings in batches and requires 20.5 kWh electricity per month (“ Supplementary Information ”).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At transplanting, each seedling is planted along with 1 kg biochar followed by a surface application of an additional 100 g granulated N–P 2 O 5 –K 2 O 20–20–20 18 . All field work is done manually and requires eight people per hectare for around 3 days (Jhon Farfan, pers.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we use life cycle assessment (LCA) to empirically derive the carbon footprint of setting up and maintaining a reforestation plot for one year in a tropical forest (“ Methods ”). We include a focus on biochar, a recently adopted soil amendment of widespread interest, used in the plot studied 18 . In parallel, we combine above and below ground biomass models with a soil carbon model, RothC 19 , to provide an evolving carbon capture profile tailored for the tropical plot under study.…”
The number of reforestation projects worldwide is increasing. In many cases funding is obtained through the claimed carbon capture of the trees, presented as immediate and durable, whereas reforested plots need time and maintenance to realise their carbon capture potential. Further, claims usually overlook the environmental costs of natural or anthropogenic disturbances during the forest’s lifetime, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the reforestation are not allowed for. This study uses life cycle assessment to quantify the carbon footprint of setting up a reforestation plot in the Peruvian Amazon. In parallel, we combine a soil carbon model with an above- and below-ground plant carbon model to predict the increase in carbon stocks after planting. We compare our results with the carbon capture claims made by a reforestation platform. Our results show major errors in carbon accounting in reforestation projects if they (1) ignore the time needed for trees to reach their carbon capture potential; (2) ignore the GHG emissions involved in setting up a plot; (3) report the carbon capture potential per tree planted, thereby ignoring limitations at the forest ecosystem level; or (4) under-estimate tree losses due to inevitable human and climatic disturbances. Further, we show that applications of biochar during reforestation can partially compensate for project emissions.
“…2 ). It corresponds to Site 1 in Román-Dañobeytia et al 18 and is on an open sandy area under an enriched biochar treatment including biochar and fertilizer (“ Supplementary Information ”) 18 . Figure 2 Case study location.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biochar is produced and added to the site at the time of seedlings transplant at a rate of one kg (dry mass) per seedling 18 . The biochar is produced using Brazil nut husks, residues of the local Brazil nut production 27 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The seedlings are grown in reusable plastic nursery tubes in an in-house growing medium (“ Supplementary Information ”). CINCIA’s seedling transplant rate is 1111 seedlings ha −1 18 . The nursery grows seedlings in batches and requires 20.5 kWh electricity per month (“ Supplementary Information ”).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At transplanting, each seedling is planted along with 1 kg biochar followed by a surface application of an additional 100 g granulated N–P 2 O 5 –K 2 O 20–20–20 18 . All field work is done manually and requires eight people per hectare for around 3 days (Jhon Farfan, pers.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we use life cycle assessment (LCA) to empirically derive the carbon footprint of setting up and maintaining a reforestation plot for one year in a tropical forest (“ Methods ”). We include a focus on biochar, a recently adopted soil amendment of widespread interest, used in the plot studied 18 . In parallel, we combine above and below ground biomass models with a soil carbon model, RothC 19 , to provide an evolving carbon capture profile tailored for the tropical plot under study.…”
The number of reforestation projects worldwide is increasing. In many cases funding is obtained through the claimed carbon capture of the trees, presented as immediate and durable, whereas reforested plots need time and maintenance to realise their carbon capture potential. Further, claims usually overlook the environmental costs of natural or anthropogenic disturbances during the forest’s lifetime, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the reforestation are not allowed for. This study uses life cycle assessment to quantify the carbon footprint of setting up a reforestation plot in the Peruvian Amazon. In parallel, we combine a soil carbon model with an above- and below-ground plant carbon model to predict the increase in carbon stocks after planting. We compare our results with the carbon capture claims made by a reforestation platform. Our results show major errors in carbon accounting in reforestation projects if they (1) ignore the time needed for trees to reach their carbon capture potential; (2) ignore the GHG emissions involved in setting up a plot; (3) report the carbon capture potential per tree planted, thereby ignoring limitations at the forest ecosystem level; or (4) under-estimate tree losses due to inevitable human and climatic disturbances. Further, we show that applications of biochar during reforestation can partially compensate for project emissions.
The Amazon is an important reservoir of biodiversity and carbon but it is under pressure by multiple threats such as artisanal and small‐scale gold mining (ASGM). In Peru ASGM has degraded 90,000 ha of old‐growth forest since the eighties, leaving vast areas as wastelands. As most ASGM in the region is illegal, efforts to recover degraded areas have been scant. Here we assessed the potential of Stylosanthes guianensis to recover soil health as a first step in the restoration of gold mine spoils in a Native community and a mining concession in Madre de Dios, Peru. We evaluated plant growth and analyzed changes in physical, chemical, and biological soil parameters. After 470 days from sowing, the average plant height was 46.7 cm with a survival rate >50% and yields of 23.9 t ha−1 and 450 kg ha−1 of dry biomass and nitrogen, respectively. Multiple soil parameters increased significantly, including cationic exchange capacity (3.3 to 4.0 cmol [+] kg−1), soil organic matter (0.03% to 0.39%), soil respiration (0.02 to 0.06 mg CO2 g−1 d−1) and biomass (0.03 to 0.15 mg C g−1). Soil macrofauna increased from 2 to 11 taxonomic groups, including ants, considered as soil engineers. Furthermore, S. guianensis increased soil carbon sequestration of impacted areas from 0.004 t C ha−1 by more than 1650%, up to 0.07 t C ha−1. These promising findings clearly illustrate S. guianensis potential to kick‐start natural succession of Amazonian forests after degradation by ASGM and hence help to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
Artisanal and Small‐Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) carried out by individual miners or small enterprises with limited capital, significantly contribute to land degradation and loss of biodiversity‐rich forests in the Amazon. Due to limited information on the edaphic conditions crucial for restoring these degraded areas, a soil evaluation method was employed in representative locations of the Peruvian Amazon, including two native communities and one protected natural area. The categorization of ASGM‐degraded areas into cultural landscape units was confirmed and validated. Sentinel‐2 and UAV remote sensing revealed over 122,000 ha of deforestation since the 1980s. Surface and soil profile assessments identified extreme new soil conditions with low chemical and physical fertility, characterized by coarse texture and rock fragments, which hinder revegetation, especially during prolonged dry seasons. These degraded soils were classified as Entisols and Technosols according to Soil Taxonomy and the World Reference Base. Over time, natural regeneration and plantations improved soil formation, aligning with recognized soil classification systems. Under current management practices, restoration planning should prioritize selected shrub and tree species, and consider soil amendments to initiate soil recovery. This approach aligns with self‐sustaining successional stages and contributes to the objectives of Land Degradation Neutrality, Appropriate Mitigation and Adaptation Actions, and Sustainable Development Goals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
