Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Greenhouse gas mitigation efficacy of afforestation and reforestation depends on regional contexts such as local climate conditions, forest plantation management strategies, tree species, and wood product types and their life cycle activities.
“GHG mitigation efficacy of AR depends on regional contexts, such as local climate conditions (18, 26), forest plantation management strategies (3, 19, 27–30), tree species (28, 31), and wood product types and their life cycle activities [e.g., manufacturing processes, use phase, substitution benefits, and end of life (EOL)] (18, 19, 29, 30).”
From Climate-smart forestry through innovative wood products and commercial afforestation and reforestation on marginal land (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
Commercial afforestation and reforestation for wood production in tropical regions is less favorable than protection afforestation and reforestation for carbon removal.
“For instance, commercial AR for wood production in tropical regions is less favorable than protection AR for carbon removal (26), but commercial AR in temperate regions show greater GHG mitigation potential (18).”
From Climate-smart forestry through innovative wood products and commercial afforestation and reforestation on marginal land (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
The greenhouse gas mitigation potential of commercial and protection afforestation and reforestation has been highlighted in the literature, but their greenhouse gas mitigation efficacy has been debated.
“The GHG mitigation potential of commercial and protection AR has been highlighted in the literature (3, 18–25), but their GHG mitigation efficacy has been debated (18, 26, 27).”
From Climate-smart forestry through innovative wood products and commercial afforestation and reforestation on marginal land (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
Protection afforestation and reforestation was estimated to have 10.1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year greenhouse gas mitigation potential from 678 million hectares of land globally in 2030, equivalent to 14.9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year per million hectares.
“Protection AR was estimated to have 10.1 Gt CO2e y−1 GHG mitigation potential from 678 Mha of land globally in 2030 (equivalent to 14.9 Mt CO2e y−1 per Mha) (26).”
From Climate-smart forestry through innovative wood products and commercial afforestation and reforestation on marginal land (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 9 · Cited by 946
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [1]1. Lewis, S. L. Nature 532, 283 (2016).
- [3]3. Griscom, B. W. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645-11650 (2016).
- [7]7. Harper, A. B. et al. Nature Commun. 9, 2938 (2018).
- Authors
- Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Koch, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Lewis, Simon L.
- Wheeler, Charlotte E.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2019-04-02
- Volume
- 568
- Issue
- 7750
- Pages
- 25-28
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2932737671
- Cited by
- 946
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 100 · 2025: 139 · 2024: 157 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 34
- FWCI
- 54.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Environment Research Council (1200775)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
- Keywords
- natural forest restoration, afforestation, plantation growth, carbon sequestration, climate change mitigation, 1.5°C target, forest carbon, climate policy
- MeSH terms
- Sustainable Development, Atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide, International Cooperation, Time Factors, Trees, Forestry, Global Warming, Carbon Sequestration, Environmental Policy, Forests
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
