Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation

Hong, Songbai; Yin, Guodong; Piao, Shilong; Dybzinski, Ray; Cong, Nan; Li, Xiangyi; Wang, Kai; Peñuelas, Josep; Zeng, Hui; Chen, Anping

doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0557-y

Cited by 126 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, inappropriate tree planting can do more harm than good, especially afforestation of naturally open habitats, or planting on high carbon soils. For example, although afforestation increases topsoil carbon in carbon‐poor soils, the associated soil disturbance causes significant losses in carbon‐rich soils, especially of the more resilient deep soil carbon which takes many decades to accumulate (Hong et al, 2020). This suggests that the widely used method of estimating soil carbon from a fixed ratio with vegetation biomass overestimates carbon sequestration from afforestation (Hong et al, 2020).…”

Section: Potential Pitfalls Of Nature‐based Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, although afforestation increases topsoil carbon in carbon‐poor soils, the associated soil disturbance causes significant losses in carbon‐rich soils, especially of the more resilient deep soil carbon which takes many decades to accumulate (Hong et al, 2020). This suggests that the widely used method of estimating soil carbon from a fixed ratio with vegetation biomass overestimates carbon sequestration from afforestation (Hong et al, 2020). Afforestation on peaty soils can lead to losses of soil carbon that outweigh that sequestered as the trees grow (Brown, 2020; Brown et al, 2014; Friggens et al, 2020; Sloan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Potential Pitfalls Of Nature‐based Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

Seddon

Smith

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

408

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature‐based solutions (NbS)—solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature—have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade‐offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.

show abstract

Section: Potential Pitfalls Of Nature‐based Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Pitfalls Of Nature‐based Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

Seddon

Smith

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

408

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They may have set unrealistically high targets (Fagan et al, 2020) and may have unforeseen negative consequences. Potential problems include displacement of native biodiversity, particularly due to the destruction of non‐forest ecosystems (Seddon et al, 2019); increases in invasive species (Kull et al, 2019); a reduction in pollinator services (Ricketts et al, 2004); a reduction in croplands and thus food production; disruption of water cycles; a decrease in carbon stored in aboveground biomass (Heilmayr et al, 2020); a reduction in soil organic carbon ( SOC ; Hong et al, 2020; Veldman et al, 2019) and a lowering of albedo in boreal zones, causing temperature rises (Betts, 2000). These negative outcomes are mostly associated with the extensive use of exotic monoculture plantations, rather than restoration approaches that encourage a diverse, carbon‐rich mix of native tree species (Brancalion et al, 2018; Heilmayr et al, 2020; Lewis et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits

Sacco

Hardwick

Blakesley³

et al. 2021

Global Change Biology

338

250

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urgent solutions to global climate change are needed. Ambitious tree‐planting initiatives, many already underway, aim to sequester enormous quantities of carbon to partly compensate for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which are a major cause of rising global temperatures. However, tree planting that is poorly planned and executed could actually increase CO2 emissions and have long‐term, deleterious impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and livelihoods. Here, we highlight the main environmental risks of large‐scale tree planting and propose 10 golden rules, based on some of the most recent ecological research, to implement forest ecosystem restoration that maximizes rates of both carbon sequestration and biodiversity recovery while improving livelihoods. These are as follows: (1) Protect existing forest first; (2) Work together (involving all stakeholders); (3) Aim to maximize biodiversity recovery to meet multiple goals; (4) Select appropriate areas for restoration; (5) Use natural regeneration wherever possible; (6) Select species to maximize biodiversity; (7) Use resilient plant material (with appropriate genetic variability and provenance); (8) Plan ahead for infrastructure, capacity and seed supply; (9) Learn by doing (using an adaptive management approach); and (10) Make it pay (ensuring the economic sustainability of the project). We focus on the design of long‐term strategies to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises and support livelihood needs. We emphasize the role of local communities as sources of indigenous knowledge, and the benefits they could derive from successful reforestation that restores ecosystem functioning and delivers a diverse range of forest products and services. While there is no simple and universal recipe for forest restoration, it is crucial to build upon the currently growing public and private interest in this topic, to ensure interventions provide effective, long‐term carbon sinks and maximize benefits for biodiversity and people.

show abstract

“…Large-scale forest restoration projects in China (Hua et al, 2018) have revealed that while monoculture tree-planting can assist in carbon sequestration goals, they do not provide the same ecosystem services as native forests do, which are more valuable and should be further protected by policy. Indeed, similar concerns about adverse impacts on carbon sequestration being caused by 'the wrong trees in the wrong places' have been expressed by studies of ecosystems as far apart as Chile (Heilmayr et al, 2020) and China (Hong et al, 2020).…”

Section: 'Soft' Carbon Sequestration Solutions (Nature Based)mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…So, current plans for tree planting on a massive scale are not the panaceas that many believe. Putting such plans into effect could do more harm than good (Friggens et al, 2020;Heilmayr et al, 2020;Hong et al, 2020;Natural Capital Committee, 2020). In addition, our current forests are suffering from the effects of the climate changes that have already occurred: forested areas are dying due to newly emerged, virulent and invasive, pests and diseases as well as drought, often amplified by more devastating wildfires (Demeude & Gadault, 2020).…”

Section: 'Soft' Carbon Sequestration Solutions (Nature Based)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Saving the Planet with Appropriate Biotechnology: 5. An Action Plan

Petros¹,

Heilweck²,

Moore³

2021

Mexjbiotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluate suggestions to harness the ability of calcifying organisms (molluscs, crustacea, corals and coccolithophore algae) to remove permanently CO2 from the atmosphere into solid (crystalline) CaCO3 for atmosphere remediation. Here, we compare this blue carbon with artificial/industrial Carbon dioxide Capture & Storage (CCS) solutions. An industrial CCS facility delivers, at some cost, captured CO2, nothing more. But aquaculture enterprises cultivating shell to capture and store atmospheric CO2 also produce nutritious food and perform many ecosystem services like water filtration, biodeposition, denitrification, reef building, enhanced biodiversity, shoreline stabilisation and wave management. We estimate that a mussel farm sequesters three times as much carbon as terrestrial ecosystems retain. Blue carbon farming does not need irrigation or fertiliser, nor conflict with the use of scarce agricultural land. Blue carbon farming can be combined with restoration and conservation of overfished fisheries and usually involves so little intervention that there is no inevitable conflict with other activities. We calculate that this paradigm shift (from ‘shellfish as food’ to ‘shellfish for carbon sequestration’) makes bivalve mollusc farming and microalgal farming enterprises, viable, profitable, and sustainable, alternatives to all CCUS industrial technologies and terrestrial biotechnologies in use today.

show abstract

Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation

Cited by 126 publications

References 41 publications

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits

Saving the Planet with Appropriate Biotechnology: 5. An Action Plan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About