Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

A prior global assessment of tree-planting areas found substantial potential for carbon drawdown, but planting trees in nonforest biomes is likely to harm native biodiversity.

“A previous global assessment of areas where trees could be planted indicated there is considerable scope for carbon drawdown 6 , but afforestation of nonforest biomes is likely to have negative consequences for native biodiversity 7,8 .”

• cites [6] Bastin, J. F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [7] Chazdon, R. & Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 365, 24–25 (2019). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [8] Temperton, V. M. et al. Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 705–719 (2019). sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

More-dispersed restoration could increase representation of ecological communities and local benefits of nature to people.

“This more-dispersed restoration could have benefits in terms of increased representation of ecological communities and local benefits of nature to people 33,34 .”

• cites [33] Anderson, C. B. et al. Determining nature’s contributions to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 14, 543–547 (2019). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [34] Martín-López, B. et al. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: a review. PLoS ONE 14, e0217847 (2019). sourceCould not verify

  The Introduction describes ecological communities and nature’s contributions to people, and section 4.3 discusses conservation and local ecosystem services. Neither passage addresses whether more-dispersed restoration increases ecological representation or local benefits; searches for restoration and its spatial distribution found no such comparison in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Adding cost minimization as an objective markedly improves cost effectiveness, consistent with earlier studies.

“Introducing cost minimization as an extra objective of the optimization markedly improves the cost effectiveness of solutions (trade-off curve with point V in Fig. 3) consistent with previous studies 9,15 .”

• cites [9] Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 62–70 (2019). sourceSupported
• cites [15] Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128 (1998). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Earlier analyses found overlaps in priority areas for different objectives but also substantial trade-offs among those objectives.

“identify overlaps between priority areas for different objectives 10 -but also indicate considerable trade-offs among these objectives 9 .”

• cites [10] Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3223 (2019). sourceSupported
• cites [9] Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 62–70 (2019). sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Linear programming yields exact solutions to linear optimization problems, whereas heuristic algorithms often used in conservation yield feasible solutions whose optimality is unknown.

“Linear programming identifies exact solutions to linear optimization problems 15,16 -unlike the heuristic algorithms that are more commonly used in conservation [12][13][14] , which identify feasible solutions of unknown optimality 17,18 .”

• cites [15] Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128 (1998). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [16] Naidoo, R. et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9495–9500 (2008). sourceCould not verify

  The citation is attached to the claim that heuristic algorithms are more commonly used in conservation. The Comparisons Between Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity section instead says this paper used integer programming; the Discussion calls its analyses heuristic in purpose, not its algorithms heuristic. Our copy does not establish how commonly conservation uses heuristic algorithms or whether their solutions have unknown optimality. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [17] Beyer, H. L., Dujardin, Y., Watts, M. E. & Possingham, H. P. Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming. Ecol. Modell. 328, 14–22 (2016). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [18] Cabeza, M. & Moilanen, A. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 242–248 (2001). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

For long-term biomass carbon accumulation after restoration, the paper adopted a method that is standard in global assessments.

“To estimate the potential carbon stocks that can accumulate in the long term in above-and belowground biomass after restoration, we used an approach commonly used in global estimates (for example, ref. 53 ).”

• cites [53] Gibbs, H. K., Brown, S., Niles, J. O. & Foley, J. A. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 045023 (2007). sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Although agricultural intensification can harm climate, biodiversity, and human health, yields can often be increased without these costs.

“Although agricultural intensification can have detrimental effects on climate, biodiversity and human health 2,[35][36][37][38][39] , yields can often be increased without incurring these costs 37 .”

• cites [2] IPCC. An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes In Terrestrial Ecosystems (SRCCL) (World Meteorological Organization, 2019).Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [35] Latawiec, A. E., Strassburg, B. B. N., Valentim, J. F., Ramos, F. & Alves-Pinto, H. N. Intensification of cattle ranching production systems: socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil. Animal 8, 1255–1263 (2014). sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction and Soil compaction sections describe ways cattle-ranching productivity can increase while sparing natural areas, reducing emissions, or benefiting biodiversity. But the paper presents these as context-dependent possibilities, not as something that often occurs without the cited costs; the passages do not establish an absence of human-health costs. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [36] Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [37] Balmford, A. et al. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain. 1, 477–485 (2018). sourcePartly supported

  The discussion (p. 12) gives examples of yield-increasing practices that avoid greenhouse-gas penalties or reduce emissions, while the biodiversity discussion (p. 6) says higher yields can reduce impacts when natural habitats are spared. But the paper does not establish that yield increases often avoid human-health costs; its conclusion (p. 13) warns that high-yield systems can harm health without additional measures. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [38] Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341, 33–34 (2013). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites [39] Erb, K.-H. et al. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun. 7, 11382 (2016). sourcePartly supported

  The Discussion (page not available) says increased yields can save land and potentially increase carbon storage. It also says those benefits may be offset by agricultural emissions and that the study cannot establish the sustainability of its scenarios. It therefore does not support the claim that yields can often be increased without climate, biodiversity, or human-health costs. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

A 15% restoration of converted lands concentrated in priority areas could prevent 60% of expected extinctions and store 299 Gt CO2, roughly 30% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.

“We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO 2 -30% of the total CO 2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Single-criterion solutions perform poorly on other criteria, but multicriteria solutions can deliver a substantial share of both biodiversity and climate benefits at the same time.

“Although single-criterion solutions do not perform well for the other criteria, multicriteria solutions can deliver a substantial fraction of both sets of benefits simultaneously.”

May combine two claims.

At 15% restoration, the multiple benefits scenario would deliver 91% of potential biodiversity benefit and 82% of climate benefit, while cutting costs by 27% relative to the biodiversity + climate scenario.

“At 15% restoration (scenario V in Fig. 3), this scenario would deliver 91% of the potential benefit for biodiversity and 82% of that for climate, while reducing costs by 27% compared to the biodiversity + climate scenario”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

If restoration targets climate mitigation, up to 335 ± 35 Gt CO2 could be sequestered, equal to 34% of the total atmospheric CO2 increase since the Industrial Revolution.

“If focused on the mitigation of climate change, up to 335 ± 35 gigatonnes of CO 2 could be sequestered (Figs.2b, 3)-equivalent to 34% of the total increase in atmospheric CO 2 since the Industrial Revolution (about ad 1750).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Across main scenarios, carbon prices of US$10-15 per tonne CO2 would cover costs for targets up to 45% of global converted area, which could deliver up to 702 ± 83 Gt CO2 in climate mitigation benefits.

“Across the main scenarios, carbon prices of US$10-15 per tonne of CO 2 would be sufficient to cover costs in targets up to 45% of global converted area (Extended Data Fig. 4), which could deliver climate mitigation benefits of as much as 702 ± 83 gigatonnes of CO 2 .”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

At national levels, outcomes would be within 3% or less of unconstrained global scenarios, while at landscape levels biodiversity benefits would drop by only 12%, instead of 67% in the uniform scenario.

“At national levels, outcomes would be within 3% or less of the unconstrained global scenarios (scenario VIII in Fig. 3), whereas at landscape levels biodiversity benefits would drop by 12% only (scenario IX in Fig. 3), instead of 67% in the uniform scenario.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Optimizing for biodiversity and climate together would deliver 95% of maximum biodiversity benefit and 89% of maximum climate mitigation.

“Optimizing for both benefits simultaneously ('biodiversity + climate' scenario in Fig. 1d) would deliver 95% of the maximum biodiversity benefit and 89% of the maximum for climate change mitigation (scenario III in Fig. 3).”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Implementing restoration in priority areas while maintaining current agricultural production through achievable yield increases would yield far greater environmental benefits and lower costs than uniformly constraining restoration to a fixed 15% of national or landscape units.

“In comparison with scenarios that uniformly constrain restoration to a fixed 15% of national or landscape units, implementing restoration in priority areas while maintaining current agricultural production via achievable yield increases would result in far greater environmental”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Converted areas within relatively intact tropical forests are also climate mitigation priorities, and South American and African shrublands are additional biodiversity priorities.

“Converted areas within relatively intact tropical forests are also priorities for the mitigation of climate change, and South American and African shrublands are additional priorities for biodiversity (Fig. 1).”

May combine two claims.

Wetlands are most important for biodiversity conservation, and forests are most important for climate mitigation.

“Wetlands and forests are of the highest relative importance for biodiversity conservation (Fig. 4a) and the mitigation of climate change (Fig. 4b), respectively.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.

May combine two claims.

Priority areas for restoration that target only biodiversity, climate mitigation, or cost minimization have distinct spatial patterns, producing widely different restoration outcomes.

“Priority areas for restoration that focus solely on biodiversity, climate change mitigation or cost minimization (Fig. 1a-c) have different spatial patterns, which result in widely variable restoration outcomes.”

May combine two claims.

Climate mitigation benefits differ threefold; 5% restoration sequesters 48-130 Gt CO2.

“Benefits for the mitigation of climate change vary threefold (sequestration of 48-130 gigatonnes of CO 2 under 5% restoration) (Fig. 2b).”

May combine two claims.

Constraining targets so all landscapes restore 15% would reduce biodiversity benefits by 67% and climate mitigation benefits by 49%, while increasing costs by 92%.

“Constraining targets so that all landscapes are restored by 15% (scenario VII in Fig. 3) would reduce biodiversity benefits by 67% and the benefits of climate change mitigation by 49%, while increasing costs by 92%.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Applying the 15% restoration target at national scale would reduce biodiversity benefits by 28% and climate benefits by 29% while increasing costs by 52% in the multiple benefits scenario, compared with the global unconstrained equivalent.

“Applying the 15% restoration target at the national scale would result in a 28% reduction in benefits for biodiversity and 29% for climate while increasing costs by 52% (scenario VI in Fig. 3) in the multiple benefits scenario, when compared to the global unconstrained equivalent.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Joint biodiversity and climate priority areas are concentrated in wetlands and tropical and subtropical forests with high carbon stocks, high diversity, and marked natural habitat loss, and are generally in biodiversity hotspots.

“Joint priority areas for biodiversity and climate are concentrated in wetlands and tropical and subtropical forests with high carbon stocks, high diversity and marked loss of natural habitat, and are generally located 10 in biodiversity hotspots 30 .”

• cites [30] Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.

May combine two claims.

Of 2,870 million hectares of converted lands identified worldwide, an estimated 54% were originally forests, 25% grasslands, 14% shrublands, 4% arid lands, and 2% wetlands.

“Of 2,870 million hectares of converted lands we identified worldwide, we estimate that 54% were originally forests, 25% grasslands, 14% shrublands, 4% arid lands and 2% wetlands (Extended Data Fig. 5).”

May combine two claims.

The biodiversity-focused 15% solution delivers 73% of potential climate-mitigation gains, while the climate-focused solution provides only 65% of potential biodiversity gains.

“The biodiversity-focused solution of the 15% target delivers 73% of potential climate-mitigation gains, whereas the climate-focused solution provides only 65% of the potential biodiversity gains.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.

May combine two claims.

Up to 61% of global priority areas, mostly in the tropics, would not be restored in national-level scenarios, though international incentive schemes such as REDD+ could target them.

“Up to 61% of the global priority areas (mostly in the tropics; red in Extended Data Fig. 8) would not be restored in these national-level scenarios, although they could potentially be targeted by international incentive schemes such as REDD+.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Biodiversity benefits, measured as reductions in extinction debt, differ sixfold for the same restored area; at 5% restoration the reduction ranges from 7% to 43%.

“Benefits for biodiversity, estimated as reductions in extinction debt, vary sixfold for the same area restored (the reduction in extinction debt for 5% restoration varies from 7 to 43%) (Fig. 2a).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.

May combine two claims.

The spatial patterns differ markedly among single criteria, which underscores why joint optimization can capture synergies.

“The spatial patterns for individual criteria (a-c) vary considerably, which highlights the role of joint optimizations (d, e) in capturing synergies.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The root mean square error of the original ecosystem-cover predictions showed relatively little variation across land-cover types: 4.0% for forests, 1.7% for grasslands, 4.3% for shrublands, 1.2% for wetlands, and 2.6% for arid areas.

“with relatively little variation among the five land-cover types: forests, 4.0% (a); grasslands, 1.7% (b); shrublands, 4.3% (c); wetlands, 1.2% (d); and arid areas, 2.6% (e).”

May combine two claims.

For a fixed restoration area, biodiversity outcomes differ greatly; at a 5% target, the choice of spatial criteria produces a sixfold spread in biodiversity results.

“The results highlight the substantial variation in outcomes for the same area target, illustrated in a by the sixfold difference in outcomes for biodiversity (α) for the same 5% restoration target depending on the criteria chosen for the spatial allocation of restoration.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Which ecosystem types matter most changes markedly with the restoration goal.

“The results highlight the substantial variation in the relative importance that each ecosystem type has depending on the objective(s) of restoration, which suggests that restoration initiatives aimed at multiple objectives should include several types of ecosystem.”

May combine two claims.

South America contains the largest area of converted land available for restoration, with those lands spread fairly evenly across the top half of global priority rankings, while the Caribbean contains the smallest such area but nearly all of it falls within the top tenth of global priority rankings.

“South America has the greatest extent of converted lands that are relatively evenly distributed in the top 50% of global priorities, whereas the Caribbean has the smallest extent of areas potentially available for restoration-but almost all of them are in the top 10% of global priorities.”

May combine two claims.

Combining retention of remaining natural ecosystems with restoration of 30% of converted lands in priority areas would mitigate 71 ± 4% of current extinction debt and sequester 465 ± 59 Gt CO2, equal to 49% of all atmospheric CO2 increase since the Industrial Revolution.

“For instance, combining the retention of remaining natural ecosystems with the restoration of 30% of converted lands in priority areas would mitigate 71 ± 4% of current extinction debt while sequestering 465 ± 59 gigatonnes of CO 2 -equivalent to 49% of all of the CO 2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Restored areas within the area of habitat of each species will become habitat for that species in the long term, reducing extinction risk.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Recolonization of restored habitat is possible, provided it falls within the ranges of species.

May combine two claims.

Unconstrained global scenarios are useful benchmarks and might support international incentive schemes such as REDD+, but they involve some regions having high proportions of converted lands prioritized for restoration.

“The unconstrained global scenarios are useful benchmarks and might support international incentive schemes such as REDD+ ('reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation' 22 ), yet involve some regions having high proportions of their converted lands prioritized for restoration.”

• cites [22] Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Impacts of incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation on global species extinctions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 350–355 (2012). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Tropical forests return to 90% of reference carbon stocks in 66 years and to more than 50% in the first 20 years, both median times.

“tropical forests (which make up most of the area of restored ecosystems in all but the 'minimize costs' scenarios) return to 90% of reference carbon stocks in 66 years and to >50% in the first 20 years (both median times) 29 .”

• cites [29] Poorter, L. et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530, 211–214 (2016). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Before this study, no global analysis of restoration priority areas had been done, and how multiple restoration objectives and biomes interact was unknown.

“a global analysis of priority areas for restoration has not yet been conducted and the interplay between multiple restoration objectives and biomes remains unknown.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

The results support restoration's large potential to address global challenges and the need to pursue these goals together.

“Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.”

May combine two claims.

Validation of the estimated original ecosystem type using 1992-2015 data shows high predictive accuracy (total RMSE 6.73%), consistent across all vegetation classes.

“Validation of the estimated original ecosystem type using data from 1992-2015 indicates high predictive accuracy (total root mean square error of 6.73%), consistent across all vegetation classes (Extended Data Fig. 6, Methods).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Regional or subset analyses indicate that restoration might be accomplished at relatively low cost.

“Analyses within regions 9 , or subsets of habitat types 10 or ecoregions 11 , suggest restoration could be achieved at relatively low cost 12”

• cites [12] Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Restoring unconverted but degraded natural ecosystems can contribute substantially to several global challenges.

“We did not include the restoration of unconverted yet degraded natural ecosystems-which can contribute substantially to several global challenges 5 -because their restoration costs and benefits are poorly quantified.”

• cites [5] IPBES. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

This carbon price range is at the lower end of IPCC mitigation cost options and below the 2019 EU trading scheme price of US$25 per tonne CO2e.

“This lies at the lower end of mitigation cost options according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2 and below the 2019 market price in the EU trading scheme (US$25 per tonne of CO 2 equivalent).”

• cites [2] IPCC. An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes In Terrestrial Ecosystems (SRCCL) (World Meteorological Organization, 2019).Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

The trade-off curves are concave, which points to possible compromise solutions near their midpoints.

“The concave shape of these trade-off curves suggests the potential for compromise options in the middle of the curves.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

These varied spatial patterns underscore the need for multicriteria approaches that incorporate several ecosystem types.

“These varied spatial patterns in turn underscore the need to adopt multicriteria approaches that incorporate several ecosystem types.”

May combine two claims.

A sensitivity analysis using a pessimistic land-use change scenario with substantial habitat loss shows the overall distribution of restoration would be very similar (RMSE 13%), and differences in biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and cost outcomes are within the margin of error of estimates based on current land-use change.

“The results show that the overall distribution of restoration would be very similar (total root mean square error of 13%), and differences in outcomes for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and costs are all within the margin of error for the estimates based on current land-use change (Extended Data Fig. 9).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

Because most of these areas are in lower-income countries, international cooperation mechanisms such as REDD+ can help achieve cost-effective global restoration outcomes.

“As most of these areas are in lower-income countries, the results reinforce the role that international cooperation mechanisms such as REDD+ can have in achieving cost-effective global outcomes through restoration.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

No primary data were collected and no sampling was done.

“No primary data was collected and no sampling was performed”

May combine two claims.

These values suggest potential for more ambitious restoration beyond the 15% Aichi target and substantial scope for integrated landscape management to provide marked environmental benefits while limiting agricultural conflicts.

“These values suggest the potential for more ambitious restoration beyond the 15% Aichi Biodiversity Target 15 and highlight the substantial scope for a restoration approach implemented through integrated landscape management to provide marked environmental benefits while limiting conflicts with agriculture.”

• cites [15] Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279, 2126–2128 (1998). sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Current remnants of natural ecosystems are successfully retained.

May combine two claims.

The method for estimating original vegetation cover might underestimate original coverage of some ecosystems, though estimates fall within literature ranges and validation indicated high accuracy.

“Second, our approach to estimating the original vegetation cover might underestimate the original coverage of some ecosystems, although our estimates fall within ranges found in the literature 5 and validation analyses indicated high accuracy (Extended Data Fig. 6).”

• cites [5] IPBES. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Experiments were not randomized and investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment.

“The experiments were not randomized and investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size.

“No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

No data were excluded from the analyses.

“No data were excluded from the analyses”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study's results are reproducible with the datasets and code produced, which are either openly accessible or obtainable on request.

“The findings can be reproduced using the datasets and codes developed, all either publicly available or available upon request”

May combine two claims.

The paper's estimates of current and potential carbon stocks carry inherent uncertainties that are merged in the delta calculation; these are likely understated because extrapolating biomass from preserved to converted areas introduces unknown bias.

“Our potential and current carbon stock estimates (Extended Data Fig. 2b) also have intrinsic uncertainties that are combined when delta carbon values are calculated, and these uncertainties are probably underestimated given the unknown biases introduced by our extrapolation of biomass values from preserved areas to converted lands.”

May combine two claims.

The paper's carbon sequestration quantification has no explicit temporal dimension and omits ecosystem feedbacks, accounting only for carbon stock changes caused by land-use change.

“Our quantification of potential carbon sequestration-similarly to other approaches (for example, that of the IPCC)-lacks an explicit temporal dimension and does not consider ecosystem feedbacks, but only changes in carbon stocks resulting from land-use change.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

It is important to use multicriteria optimization that considers multiple restoration benefits at the same time.

“which further highlights the importance of using multicriteria optimizations that take into account several benefits of restoration simultaneously.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Blinding was not applicable because the study used a modeling approach and collected no data.

“No data collection was performed, and blinding not applicable to the modeling approach used”

May combine two claims.

Area alone is an ineffective metric for ensuring substantial biodiversity and climate mitigation outcomes, with up to sixfold variation for the same restored area; targets should instead focus on outcomes such as extinction avoidance and climate mitigation.

“Second, our findings highlight that area alone is an ineffective metric for ensuring substantial biodiversity and climate mitigation outcomes, with up to sixfold variation in outcomes for the same restored area; targets should instead be oriented towards overarching outcomes, such as extinction avoidance and the mitigation of climate change.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Restoring degraded ecosystems that have not been fully cleared can also provide important benefits.

“We focused exclusively on converted areas, but the restoration of degraded ecosystems that have not been fully cleared can also provide important benefits 5 .”

• cites [5] IPBES. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Different countries have complementary roles in meeting overarching global targets, which highlights the benefits of international cooperation.

“Fourth, we show the complementary roles that different countries have in meeting overarching global targets, highlighting the benefits of international cooperation.”