Abstract
Key message
Bastin et al. 2019 use two flawed assumptions: 1) that the area suitable for restoration does not contain any carbon currently, and 2) that soil organic carbon (SOC) from increased canopy cover will accumulate quickly enough to mitigate anthropogenic carbon emissions. We re-evaluated the potential carbon storage worldwide using empirical relationships of tree cover and carbon. We use global datasets of tree cover, soil organic carbon, and above ground biomass to estimate the empirical relationships of tree cover and carbon stock storage. A more realistic range of global carbon storage potential is between 71.7 and 75.7 GtC globally, with a large uncertainty associated with SOC. This is less than half of the original 205 GtC estimate. The potential global carbon storage of restored forests is much less than that estimated by Bastin et al. 2019. While we agree on the value of assessing global reforestation potential, we suggest caution in considering it the most effective strategy to mitigate anthropogenic emissions. A preprint version of this article was published on 13 August 2019 at https://doi.org/10.1101/730325
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.1 Main
Bastin et al. (2019) (hereafter referred to as Bastin 2019) use a novel machine learning based method to model global tree canopy cover potential. After accounting for current tree canopy cover and areas already occupied by urban and agricultural land, they estimate 900 Mha of potential tree canopy cover available worldwide for reforestation. Using biome specific estimates of tonnes C per hectare they calculate the global carbon storage potential of this 900 Mha of tree canopy cover. The tonnes C per hectare values for each biome are derived from average estimates of total carbon storage from two studies of forest (Pan et al. 2011) and tropical grassland (Grace et al. 2006) carbon stock. Thus from their calculation, a hectare of restored tree canopy is equivalent to adding a full hectare of carbon stock potential regardless of the vegetation already in place and results in an overestimate of the global carbon stock potential of restored trees.
To better estimate the relationship between total carbon stock density and tree cover, we randomly sampled locations from four global datasets of (1) aboveground biomass (Woods Hole Research Center 2019), (2) soil organic carbon (SOC) to 1 m (Hengl et al. 2017), (3) percent tree cover (Hansen et al. 2013), and (4) the corresponding biome (Olson et al. 2001) (Table 1). We further subset these locations to those within protected areas (Levels I–V, UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2019) to minimize human influence on vegetation development and better represent the full carbon storage potential. Across all biomes, there is already ample carbon stock at all levels of tree cover, and the relationship is weak in several biomes due to the contribution of SOC (Fig. 1). The slope of this relationship is a more accurate representation of the potential carbon stock gained with tree cover. For example in Tropical Grasslands, Bastin 2019 estimate that an additional 0.5 ha of canopy cover (an additional 50% canopy cover) will add 141.25 tonnes C. The empirical relationship shows an additional 50% tree cover in this biome means an additional 25.6 tonnes C/ha on average. Further, the boreal forest and tundra biomes have a negative relationship between carbon stock and tree canopy cover, potentially resulting in a net carbon source if tree canopy cover was added in these biomes. Applying the updated estimates across all 14 biomes results in 28.4 GtC of potential carbon stock if the additional 900 Mha of global tree canopy potential was realized, and 71.7 GtC if the negative contribution from boreal and tundra biomes are removed.
This calculation is further complicated by SOC. SOC makes up the majority of carbon stock in all biomes, and in seven biomes, it has no relationship with tree cover (*p > 0.05, Fig. 2). In boreal regions (the biome for 19.8% of the potential canopy area estimated by Bastin 2019), afforestation can cause a temporary increase of greenhouse gas emissions due to quicker SOC mineralization, which can take several decades to recover (Karhu et al. 2011). SOC also forms at rates of less than 0.5 Mg ha−1 year−1 in many areas (Trumbore and Harden 1997; Gaudinski et al. 2000; LICHTER et al. 2008), though sometimes up to 1.5 Mg ha−1 year−1 (Shi and Han 2014), and it is unreasonable to assume increased tree cover would lead to SOC accumulation at a rate quick enough to effectively mitigate carbon emissions (He et al. 2016). To explore the potential carbon storage of increased global tree cover without considering the complexities of SOC, we adjusted all estimates by removing the contribution of SOC. For the Bastin 2019 estimates, we re-calculated the carbon stock potential minus the SOC fraction using the original sources (Grace et al. 2006; Pan et al. 2011). For our own estimates, we considered only aboveground carbon and its slope with respect to tree cover. With these estimates, the global carbon storage potential is 104 GtC using the re-calculated estimates from Bastin 2019, and 75.7 GtC using the empirical relationships from the global datasets.
Bastin 2019 state that global tree restoration is “the most effective solution” for mitigating climate change. This conclusion uses simple assumptions which ignore complex carbon dynamics, potential feedback loops, societal costs, and carbon saturation as forests mature (see de Coninck et al. 2018 sec. 4.3.7.2 and references therein). For example, some authors consider afforestation and reforestation as an effective mitigation solution only in the tropics since it would reduce albedo in high latitudes (Fuss et al. 2018). Yet, increasing forested areas in the tropics would compete for agriculture and other land use, triggering a number of socio-economic impacts (Fuss et al. 2018). It is also difficult to place the 205 GtC estimate in the context of other mitigation options without a quantitative estimate of the timescale of global forest regrowth, which requires local studies using more nuanced analysis of carbon uptake (e.g., Requena Suarez et al. 2019). Several other comments to Bastin 2019 have raised similar concerns. Namely that the original analysis does not adequately consider SOC, currently in place vegetation, or feedback loops such as fire and changed albedo (Friedlingstein et al. 2019; Lewis et al. 2019; Veldman et al. 2019). Veldman et al. (2019) re-analyzed the Bastin 2019 results using literature-derived values of carbon storage and arrived at a potential 107 GtC from the original 900 Mha of canopy cover. Here, by using biome specific empirically derived relationships of carbon storage and canopy cover from global datasets, we show the potential global carbon storage of restored forests ranges between 71.7 and 75.7 GtC, less than 40% of the original estimate. Along with the other comments, this demonstrates that the original Bastin 2019 estimate was clearly overestimated.
Data availability
All code and extracted data is archived on Zenodo repository (Taylor 2019) at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3364028.
References
Bastin J-F, Finegold Y, Garcia C et al (2019) The global tree restoration potential. Science (80- ) 365:76–79. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848
de Coninck H, Revi A, Babiker M, et al (2018) Chapter 4: strengthening and implementing the global response. In: IPCC Special Report 2018: Global Warming of 1.5 °C
Friedlingstein P, Allen M, Canadell JG et al (2019) Comment on “The global tree restoration potential.”. Science (80- ) 366:eaay8060. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay8060
Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW et al (2018) Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett 13:063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
Gaudinski JB, Trumbore SE, Davidson EA, Zheng S (2000) Soil carbon cycling in a temperate forest: radiocarbon-based estimates of residence times, sequestration rates and partitioning of fluxe. Biogeochemistry 51:33–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006301010014
Grace J, Jose JS, Meir P et al (2006) Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical savannas. J Biogeogr 33:387–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01448.x
Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R et al (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science (80- ) 342:850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693
He Y, Trumbore SE, Torn MS et al (2016) Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century. Science (80- ) 353:1419–1424. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4273
Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GBM, Ruiperez Gonzalez M, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, Shangguan W, Wright MN, Geng X, Bauer-Marschallinger B, Guevara MA, Vargas R, MacMillan R, Batjes NH, Leenaars JG, Ribeiro E, Wheeler I, Mantel S, Kempen B (2017) SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12:e0169748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748
Karhu K, Wall A, Vanhala P et al (2011) Effects of afforestation and deforestation on boreal soil carbon stocks—comparison of measured C stocks with Yasso07 model results. Geoderma 164:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.05.008
Lewis SL, Mitchard ETA, Prentice C et al (2019) Comment on “The global tree restoration potential.”. Science (80- ) 366:eaaz0388. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz0388
LICHTER J, BILLINGS SA, ZIEGLER SE et al (2008) Soil carbon sequestration in a pine forest after 9 years of atmospheric CO 2 enrichment. Glob Chang Biol 14:2910–2922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01701.x
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51:933–938
Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science (80- ) 333:988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609
Requena Suarez D, Rozendaal DMA, De Sy V et al (2019) Estimating aboveground net biomass change for tropical and subtropical forests: refinement of IPCC default rates using forest plot data. Glob Chang Biol gcb 14767. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14767
Shi S, Han P (2014) Estimating the soil carbon sequestration potential of China’s Grain for Green Project. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 28:1279–1294. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004924
Taylor S (2019) Code for: Rethinking global carbon storage potential of trees. A comment on Bastin et. al 2019.V1. Zenodo. [Dataset]. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3364028
Trumbore SE, Harden JW (1997) Accumulation and turnover of carbon in organic and mineral soils of the BOREAS northern study area. J Geophys Res Atmos 102:28817–28830. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD02231
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2019) Protected Planet: the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) Aug/2019
Veldman JW, Aleman JC, Alvarado ST et al (2019) Comment on “The global tree restoration potential.”. Science (80- ) 366:eaay7976. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay7976
Woods Hole Research Center. (2019). Aboveground live woody biomass density. Accessed July 6, 2019. http://climate.globalforestwatch.org
Funding
This research was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s Data-Driven Discovery Initiative through grant GBMF4563 to E.P. White.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Handling Editor: Erwin Dreyer
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contribution of the co-authors
ST conceived of the idea and performed the analysis. ST and SM wrote the manuscript.
A preprint version of this article was published on 13 August 2019 at https://doi.org/10.1101/730325
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, S.D., Marconi, S. Rethinking global carbon storage potential of trees. A comment on Bastin et al. (2019). Annals of Forest Science 77, 23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-0922-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-020-0922-z