CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 831Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and Policy

The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches

Open access
Hua, Fangyuan, Bruijnzeel, L. Adrian, Meli, Paula, Martin, Philip A., Zhang, Jun, Nakagawa, Shinichi, Miao, Xinran, Wang, Weiyi +6 more·2022·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.abl4649
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Forest restoration is being scaled up globally to deliver critical ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits; however, there is a lack of rigorous comparison of cobenefit delivery across different restoration approaches. Through global synthesis, we used 25,950 matched data pairs from 264 studies in 53 countries to assess how delivery of climate, soil, water, and wood production services, in addition to biodiversity, compares across a range of tree plantations and native forests. Benefits of aboveground carbon storage, water provisioning, and especially soil erosion control and biodiversity are better delivered by native forests, with compositionally simpler, younger plantations in drier regions performing particularly poorly. However, plantations exhibit an advantage in wood production. These results underscore important trade-offs among environmental and production goals that policy-makers must navigate in meeting forest restoration commitments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.abl4649

Cites

447 of 447 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

12 of 27 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationown data

    The synthesis refutes the implicit assumption of ecosystem service-oriented forest restoration initiatives that tree plantations can deliver ecosystem services as effectively as native forests.

    “Our synthesis refutes the implicit assumptions of ecosystem service-oriented forest restoration initiatives such as China's Grain-for-Green Program covering >34 million hectares (37,38), and a large collection of projects targeting carbon storage (39), soil conservation (40), and water provisioning (41) that have focused mostly on establishing (monoculture) tree plantations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [37] 37. R. L. Chazdon, D. A. Falk, L. F. Banin, M. Wagner, S. Wilson, R. C. Grabowski, K. N. Suding, The intervention continuum in restoration ecology: Rethinking the active-passive dichotomy. Restor. Ecol. •••, 1-13 (2021). doi:10.1111/rec.13535 source

      The Forest ecosystems section discusses natural regeneration, tree planting, and ecosystem services such as soil fertility and water quality, but it does not compare the services delivered by plantations and native forests. Searches for monoculture plantations, water provisioning, and Grain-for-Green found no passage addressing the claimed assumption or its refutation; the available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [38] 38. C. O. Delang, Z. Yuan, China's Grain for Green Program (Springer International Publishing, 2015). source
    • cites [39] 39. NFGA (National Forestry and Grassland Administration), "Twenty years of China's Grain-for-Green Program (1999-2019)" (2020).

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

  • Premisecitation

    Reference native forests not resulting from restoration represent reference environmental conditions toward which forest restoration can aspire.

    “Not having undergone deforestation, these native forests represent reference environmental conditions (20) toward which forest restoration can aspire (Fig. 2A) (18).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [20] 20. FAO, Mean annual volume increment of selected industrial forest plantation species. Forest Plantation Thematic Papers, Working Paper 1. FAO, Rome (2001).

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

    • cites [18] 18. E. Dinerstein, C. Vynne, E. Sala, A. R. Joshi, S. Fernando, T. E. Lovejoy, J. Mayorga, D. Olson, G. P. Asner, J. E. M. Baillie, N. D. Burgess, K. Burkart, R. F. Noss, Y. P. Zhang, A. Baccini, T. Birch, N. Hahn, L. N. Joppa, E. Wikramanayake, A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 Medline source
  • Study design and conductcitation

    The study cannot rule out potential influence of pre-existing site differences from land-use history and species turnover across space on results.

    “we cannot rule out the potential influence of pre-existing site differences incurred by land-use history (13) and species turnover across space (beta-diversity) (48), both of which are often difficult to ascertain.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [13] 13. G. Wang, J. L. Innes, J. Lei, S. Dai, S. W. Wu, Ecology. China's forestry reforms. Science 318, 1556-1557 (2007). doi:10.1126/science.1147247 Medline source
    • cites [48] 48. E. A. Coleman, B. Schultz, V. Ramprasad, H. Fischer, P. Rana, A. M. Filippi, B. Güneralp, A. Ma, C. Rodriguez Solorzano, V. Guleria, R. Rana, F. Fleischman, Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nat. Sustain. 4, 997-1004 (2021). doi:10.1038/s41893- 021-00761-z source

      The Forest cover analysis and Impact Model sections describe checks for pre-establishment trends and controls for site characteristics, but do not say that land-use history could have left influential pre-existing site differences. Searches for land-use history, historical land use and site differences found no passage making that point. The separate citation (48) accompanies the species-turnover part of the citing sentence, so it is not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    Delivering environmental benefits through native forest restoration typically creates a trade-off with wood production because plantations have a yield advantage over restored native forests.

    “However, delivering these outcomes will typically result in a trade-off with wood production because of the yield advantage of plantations over restored native forests (31)(32)(33), as measured in wood volumes”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [31] 31. X. Feng, B. Fu, S. Piao, S. Wang, P. Ciais, Z. Zeng, Y. Lü, Y. Zeng, Y. Li, X. Jiang, B. Wu, Revegetation in China's Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 1019-1022 (2016). doi:10.1038/nclimate3092 source
    • cites [32] 32. A. Paquette, C. Messier, The role of plantations in managing the world's forests in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 27-34 (2010). doi:10.1890/080116 source

      The 'Protection of natural or unmanaged forests' section (p. 2) reports higher wood-volume yields for intensive plantations than for natural forests, supporting the yield-advantage portion of the claim. It does not specifically compare plantations with restored native forests or establish that restoration typically entails a trade-off with wood production. The 'Restoration and ecological services' section (p. 4) also says ecological and socioeconomic objectives need not necessarily be at odds. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [33] 33. F. Cubbage, P. Mac Donagh, J. Sawinski Júnior, R. Rubilar, P. Donoso, A. Ferreira, V. Hoeflich, V. M. Olmos, G. Ferreira, G. Balmelli, J. Siry, M. N. Báez, J. Alvarez, Timber investment returns for selected plantations and native forests in South America and the southern United States. New For. 33, 237- 255 (2007). doi:10.1007/s11056-006-9025-4 source
  • Premisecitation

    Previous research on co-benefits of forest restoration has focused on where to restore.

    “Previous research on the co-benefits of forest restoration has focused on 'where to restore' (29,49).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [29] 29. H. C. A. Brown, F. A. Berninger, M. Larjavaara, M. Appiah, Above-ground carbon stocks and timber value of old timber plantations, secondary and primary forests in southern Ghana. For. Ecol. Manage. 472, 118236 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118236 source

      The Introduction and section 4.1 discuss restoration benefits and compare reforestation methods, but do not say that previous co-benefits research has focused on where to restore. A 'When and where to actively restore ecosystems?' title appears in the References, but a cited title alone does not establish the claimed focus of prior research (searched: 'where to restore,' co-benefits, and spatial prioritization). (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [49] 49. J. B. Socolar, J. J. Gilroy, W. E. Kunin, D. P. Edwards, How should beta- diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 67-80 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005 Medline source

      The Protected area selection section discusses where to locate reserves, and the References list includes a study of carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration. Neither passage says that previous research on forest-restoration co-benefits focused on where to restore. Searches for restoration site selection and co-benefits found no passage making that point; the indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 3
  • May combine two claims. 12

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

    Premisecitation

    Mean annual precipitation likely influences protective ground cover, and MAP and native forest seasonality likely influence hydrological behaviors of forest ecosystems.

    “We also considered mean annual precipitation (in mm y -1 ; 'MAP' hereafter) for soil erosion due to its likely influence on protective ground cover, as well as MAP and the seasonality of native forests (evergreen or deciduous) for water yield due to their likely influence on the hydrological behaviors of forest ecosystems (18,26,27).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [18] 18. E. Dinerstein, C. Vynne, E. Sala, A. R. Joshi, S. Fernando, T. E. Lovejoy, J. Mayorga, D. Olson, G. P. Asner, J. E. M. Baillie, N. D. Burgess, K. Burkart, R. F. Noss, Y. P. Zhang, A. Baccini, T. Birch, N. Hahn, L. N. Joppa, E. Wikramanayake, A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869 Medline source

      The Introduction discusses ecosystems and access to water, and the ‘Protecting biodiversity’ section sets targets for freshwater habitats and forested watersheds. Neither passage addresses whether mean annual precipitation affects protective ground cover or whether precipitation and forest seasonality affect water yield. Searches for those terms, soil erosion, and hydrological behavior found no passage supporting the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [26] 26. J. S. Lefcheck, J. E. K. Byrnes, F. Isbell, L. Gamfeldt, J. N. Griffin, N. Eisenhauer, M. J. S. Hensel, A. Hector, B. J. Cardinale, J. E. Duffy, Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6, 6936 (2015). doi:10.1038/ncomms7936 Medline source

      The Results and Discussion > Conclusions passage addresses biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality, not the proposed effects of precipitation or forest seasonality. Searches of our copy for protective ground cover, soil erosion, water yield, and evergreen or deciduous forests found no passage addressing those relationships. No page number is available for the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [27] 27. J. M. Bosch, J. D. Hewlett, A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol. (Amst.) 55, 3-23 (1982). doi:10.1016/0022-1694(82)90117-2 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using supplementary non-paired data, average annual volume increments for restored native forests were 61.3% lower than the lower bound and 86.9% lower than the upper bound of monoculture plantations.

    “average annual volume increments for restored native forests were 61.3% (Welch two-sample t test: t28.8 = -6.40,P <0.0001) and 86.9% (t26.4 = -9.76,P <0.0001) lower than the lower and upper bounds of the monocultures, respectively”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For old or abandoned plantations, differences persisted for species-specific abundance (14.6%, 95% CI 2.3-25.3) and aboveground biomass (24.0%, 95% CI 6.2-38.5), with too few data for soil erosion control.

    “However, differences for the other metrics persisted, albeit less marked: 14.6% ( 2.3 to 25.3%) for species-specific abundance, and 24.0% (6.2 to 38.5%) for aboveground biomass; there were too few data to assess soil erosion control”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study found no evidence that other variables explained variation in response ratios, or that any variable explained plantation performance relative to restored native forests of similar age.

    “We did not find evidence of other variables explaining variation in RR values, or for any variable explaining plantation performance relative to restored native forests of similar age (fig.S7 and table S6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Native forests outperform tree plantations in carbon, water, soil, and biodiversity benefits, and simpler, younger plantations in drier areas do especially poorly.

    “Carbon storage, water provisioning, and especially soil erosion control and biodiversity benefits are all delivered better by native forests, with compositionally simpler, younger plantations in drier regions performing particularly poorly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Increasing mean annual precipitation predicted more positive response ratios for water yield when comparing tree plantations against reference native forests, indicating greater plantation shortfalls in water provisioning in drier climates.

    “increasing MAP (range covered by our data: 490 to 4210 mm y -1 ) predicted more positive RRs for water yield when comparing tree plantations against reference native forests (Fig. 4B; table S7), indicating greater plantation shortfalls in water provisioning in drier climates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Prolonged age (≥40 years) or abandonment somewhat improved plantations' environmental performance; water yield shortfall became non-significant (mean 6.7%, 95% CI -23.4 to 29.4).

    “Prolonged age (≥40 years) or abandonment appeared to somewhat improve the environmental performance of plantations (18), with water yield shortfall no longer significant (mean: 6.7%; 95% CI: -23.4 to 29.4%; Fig. 2B, lower panel; table S5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Increasing plantation age improved plantations' performance relative to reference native forests in species-specific abundance and aboveground biomass, though improvement was limited.

    “increasing plantation age improved plantations' performance relative to that of reference native forests in speciesspecific abundance and aboveground biomass (table S7), although such improvement was limited”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Premisecitation

    Warmer climates may show greater contrasts between plantations and native forests in vegetation complexity and ecosystem service delivery because they support higher plant diversity.

    “The rationale for considering MAT was that by supporting higher plant diversity (24), warmer climates may show greater contrasts between plantations versus native forests in vegetation complexity, and in turn, in delivery of carbon, soil, and water ecosystem services (25).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [24] 24. L. R. Holdridge, Life Zone Ecology. pp. 206 (1967).

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

    • cites [25] 25. J. G. Pausas, M. P. Austin, Patterns of plant species richness in relation to different environments: An appraisal. J. Veg. Sci. 12, 153-166 (2001). doi:10.2307/3236601 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses except one sensitivity analysis on soil erosion control, which showed ameliorated plantation shortfalls relative to reference native forests in warmer or wetter climates.

    “with the exception of one sensitivity analysis on soil erosion control (table S6), which showed ameliorated plantation shortfalls relative to reference native forests in warmer or wetter climates (fig.S7 and table S7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Findings were robust to publication bias and sensitivity analyses on weighting schemes and model structure.

    “Findings were robust to publication bias (Supplementary Text; fig.S6) and various sensitivity analyses related to weighting schemes and model structure) (18) (table S5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Restoring native forests typically delivers greater-and certainly no less-environmental benefits than establishing tree plantations, in terms of biodiversity conservation and aboveground carbon storage, soil erosion control, and water provisioning.

    “We found that restoring native forests typically delivers greater-and certainly no less-environmental benefits than establishing tree plantations, in terms of biodiversity conservation and the key ecosystem services of aboveground carbon storage, soil erosion control, and water provisioning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study assessed the rigor of matching for each data pair and weighed it accordingly in subsequent analyses.

    “We assessed the rigor of matching for each data pair and weighed it accordingly in subsequent analyses (18).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study used paired data and accounted for the rigor of site matching in its analyses.

    “while we used paired data and accounted for the rigor of site matching in our analyses (18)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
14 of 14

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Rigorous comparison of co-benefit delivery across different forest restoration approaches is lacking.

    “yet we lack rigorous comparison of co-benefit delivery across different restoration approaches.”
1 of 1

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 456 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. J. M. Roberts “Plants and water in forests and woodlands” in Eco-Hydrology: Plants and Water in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments A. J. Baird R. L. Wilby Eds. (Routledge 1999) pp. 181–236.
  2. J. M. Fritsch “The hydrological effects of clearing tropical rainforest and of the implementation of alternative land uses” in Hydrology of Warm Humid Regions J. S. Gladwell Ed. (International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication 216 1993) pp. 53–66.
  3. D. A. Norton, Indigenous biodiversity conservation and plantation forestry: Options for the future. New Zeal. For. 43, 34–39 (1998).
  4. A. Gupta “Erosion and sediment yield in Southeast Asia: a regional perspective” in Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and Regional Perspectives D. E. Walling B. W. Webb Eds. (International Association of 15 Hydrological Sciences Publication 236 1996) pp. 215–222.
  5. L. S. Hamilton P. N. King Tropical Forested Watersheds: Hydrologic and Soil Responses to Major Uses or Conversions (Westview Press 1983).
  6. G. Wallis, S. McMahon, The impacts of forest management on erosion and sedimentation: A New Zealand review. Logging Ind. Res. Organ. Rep. 19, 1–15 (1994).
  7. K. F. Wiersum “Surface erosion under various tropical agroforestry systems” in Symposium on Effect of Forest Land Use on Erosion and Slope Stability C. L. O’Loughlin A. J. Pearce Eds. (Environment and Policy Institute 1984) pp. 231–239.
  8. IUFRO “Forests and Water on a Changing Planet: Vulnerability Adaptation and Governance Opportunities” I. F. Creed M. van Noordwijk Eds. (IUFRO World Series vol. 38 2018).
  9. US National Committee for Man and the Biosphere Forest Hydrological Resources in China: An Analytical Assessment: Proceedings of a Workshop Harbin China August 18-23 1987 D. P. Guertin P. F. Ffolliott Eds. (US Department of State 1990); https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100687843/Cite
  10. A. R. Hibbert “Forest treatment effects on water yield” in International Symposium on Forest Hydrology W. E. Sopper H. W. Lull Eds. (Pergamon Press 1967) pp. 527–543.
  11. A. A. Molchanov “Cycles of atmospheric precipitation in different types of forests of natural zones of the U.S.S.R.” in Productivity of Forest Ecosystems . (Proceedings of Brussels Symposium Ecology & Conservation Series 54 UNESCO 1971) pp. 49–68.
  12. H. Nakano “Effects of changes of forest conditions on water yield peak flow and direct runoff of small watersheds in Japan” in International Symposium on Forest Hydrology W. E. Sopper H. W. Lull Eds. (Pergamon Press 1967) pp. 551–564.
  13. L. Oyebande “Effects of tropical forest on water yield” in Forests Climate and Hydrology: Regional Impacts E. R. C. Reynolds F. B. Thompson Eds. (United Nations Univ. 1988) pp. 16–50.
  14. A. K. Peck Hydrometeorological and microclimatic characteristics of beech forests thesis Berichte des Meteorologischen Institutes der Universität Freiburg (2004).
  15. B. Schmalz, U. Looser, U. Schröder, H. Meesenburg, S. Schumann, Small hydrological research basins in German-speaking countries of Central Europe. Hydrol. Wasserbewirtsch. 59, 184–189 (2015).
  16. I. A. Shiklomanov O. I. Krestovsky “The influence of forests and forest reclamation practice on streamflow and water balance” in Forests Climate and Hydrology: Regional Impacts E. R. C. Reynolds F. B. Thompson Eds. (United Nations Univ. 1988) pp. 78–116.
  17. W. E. Sopper H. W. Lull Eds. International Symposium on Forest Hydrology (Pergamon Press 1967).
  18. 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2004.30.059 · DOI
  19. D. S. Chauhan, C. S. Dhanai, B. Singh, S. Chauhan, N. P. Todaria, M. A. Khalid, Regeneration and tree diversity in natural and planted forests in a Terai - Bhabhar forest in Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Trop. Ecol. 49, 53–67 (2008).
  20. Z.-X. Lu, K.-L. Li, N.-N. Zhang, Y.-Q. Chen, Diversity and indicator species of leaf-litter ants in Eucalyptus grandis plantations and secondary natural forests. For. Res. 29, 576–580 (2016).
  21. M. A. Maglianesi, Avifauna associated to native forest and forest plantations of exotic conifers in the Reserva Forestal Grecia, Costa Rica. Ornitol. Neotrop. 21, 339–350 (2010).
  22. K. Upadhaya, N. Thapa, S. K. Barik, Tree diversity and biomass of tropical forests under two management regimes in Garo hills of north-eastern India. Trop. Ecol. 56, 257–268 (2015).
  23. J.-W. Zhao, Z.-X. Lu, Y.-Q. Chen, Diversity of canopy foraging ant communities in secondary natural forest and plantations in Lüchun, Yunnan. For. Res. 30, 823–830 (2017).
  24. T. Kawahara, Y. Kanazawa, S. Sakurai, Biomass and net production of man-made forests in the Philippines. Nihon Shinrin Gakkaishi 63, 320–327 (1981).
  25. A. H. Oliveira “Erosão hídrica e seus componentes na sub-bacia hidrográfica do horto florestal terra dura Eldorado do Sul” thesis Universidade Federal de Lavras (2011).
  26. L. Qi, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, Z. Wang, Runoff and sediment characteristics of typical vegetation restoration patterns in a watershed, Wuling Mountain Region. Sources Sci. 30, 709–716 (2008).
  27. Y. Yang, Z. Wang, X. Chen, R. Zhang, Effects of different utilization model on soil and water conservation and ecology in red soil region of south China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 18, 84–87 (2004).
  28. M. Aubinet, C. Vincke, B. Heinesch, Q. Hurdebise, T. Manise, Twenty years of measurements of the exchange of CO2 and water vapour at the Vielsalm Terrestrial Observatory. Forêt-Nature 139, 17–28 (2016).
  29. C. Bailly, G. B. de Coignac, C. Malvos, J. M. Ningre, J. M. Sarrailh, Étude de l’influence du couvert naturel et de ses modifications á Madagascar. Cahiers Scientifiques 4, 1–114 (1974).
  30. P. N. Beets, G. R. Oliver, Water use by managed stands of Pinus radiata, indigenous podocarp/hardwood forest, and improved pasture in the central North Island of New Zealand. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 37, 306–323 (2007).
  31. J. Sutmöller H. Meesenburg Impact of forest stand development and climate change on the water budget of the Lange Bramke basin Harz Mountains Germany. Hydrol. und Wasserbewirtschaftung 3 184–198 (2018). 10.5675/HyWa_2018 3_5 · DOI
  32. R. Calvo de Anta, M. X. Gómez Rey, Spatial distribution of water cycling in forest soils under Pinus radiata in Galicia (NW Spain). Edafología 9, 49–60 (2002).
  33. A. P. González, F. D.-F. Viqueira, Contribution to the knowledge on soil water use. Ann. Edafol. y Agrobiol. 44, 1081–1100 (1985).
  34. A. C. de Almeida, J. V. Soares, Comparison of water use in Eucalyptus grandis plantations and Atlantic rainforest on the East coast of Brazil. Rev. Arvore 27, 159–170 (2003).
  35. A. J. Huber, R. Trecaman, Water-use efficiency of Pinus radiata stands in Chile. Bosque (Valdivia) 25, 33–43 (2004).
  36. C. Oyarzún, A. Huber, Water balance in young plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus radiata in southern Chile. Terra 17, 35–44 (1999).
  37. V. G. Einsele., Water budget, intake and discharge of matter, and biological studies in the Schönbuch Nature Park near Tübingen. Forstw. Cbl. 102, 281–324 (1983).
  38. F. I. Unit, K. B. Station, Statistical report of hydrological obsrvation at Tatsunokuchiyama Experimental Watershed. Bull. For. For. Prod. Res. Inst. 308, 133–195 (1979).
  39. I. Hosoda, Y. Kominami, T. Miyama, M. Okano, Y. Goto, Hydrological observation reports in the Tatsunokuchi-yama Experimental Watershed (January 2006-December 2010). Bull. For. For. Prod. Res. Inst. 18, 111–128 (2019).
  40. J. E. Gyenge, M. Elena Fernández, J. Licata, M. Weigandt, B. J. Bond, T. M. Schlichter, Water use and productivity of native and planted forests in NW Patagonia: Ecohydrological and ecophysiological approaches. Ecol. Austral 21, 271–284 (2011).
  41. C. E. Oyarzún P. Hervé-Fernandez C. Frêne “Effects of land use changes and management practices on water yield in native forests and exotic plantations in Southern Chile” in Forest Management A. Cruz R. Correa Eds. (Nova Science Publishers 2012) pp. 79–101.
  42. I. Hosoda, H. Daimaru, W. Murakami, M. Kitada, T. Sato, Statistical reports of hydrological observation at Kamabuchi Experimental Watershed. Bull. For. For. Prod. Res. Inst. 376, 1–52 (1999).
  43. I. Hosoda, W. Murakami, Hydrological observation reports of the Kamabuchi experimental (January 1994 to December 2000). Bull. For. For. Prod. Res. Inst. 5, 99–118 (2006).
  44. J.-L. Hwong, S.-C. Liaw, M.-C. Chen, H.-B. King, S.-Y. Lu, Review and analysis of forest hydrological resaerches in the Lien-hua-chi Experimental Forest. J. Exp. For. Natl. Univ. Taiwan 16, 95–114 (2002).
  45. H. Sheng, T. Cai, Y. Li, Y. Liu, Rainfall redistribution in Larix gmelinii forest on northern of Daxing’an Mountains, North-east of China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 28, 101–105 (2014).
  46. Y. F. Yao “Impacts of climate and forest cover changes on streamflow in the Xiaoxing’an Mountains forested watersheds” thesis Northeast Forestry Univ. (2011).
  47. K. Kuraji N. Tanaka M. Gomyo “Long-term meteorological and hydrological observation at Ananomiya and Shirasaka Experimental Watersheds Ecohydrology Research Institute the Univ. of Tokyo” in Developing a Network of Long-Term Research Field Stations to Monitor Environmental Changes and Ecosystem Responses in Asian Forests N. Kamata K. Kuraji T. Owari B. T. Guan Eds. (The Univ. of Tokyo Forests Press 2019) pp. 81–95.
  48. N. Nandakumar R. W. Mein “Analysis of paired catchment data for some of the hydrologic effects of landuse change” in Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium Newcastle (The Institute of Engineers Australia National Conference Publication no. 93/14 1993) pp. 87–92.
  49. E. Tsykin E. M. Laurenson A. Y. K. Wu “Hydrologic effects of replacement of Eucalypt forest by pasture and pines” in First National Symposium on Forest Hydrology Melbourne (The Institute of Engineers Australia National Conference Publication no. 82/6 1982) pp. 124–132.
  50. D. H. Pilgrim D. G. Doran I. A. Rowbottom S. M. Mackay J. Tjendana “Water balance and runoff characteristics of mature and cleared pine and eucalypt catchments at Lidsdale New South Wales.” in First National Symposium on Forest Hydrology Melbourne (The Institute of Engineers Australia National Conference Publication no. 82/6 1982) pp. 103–110.
  51. J. H. Richardson, Some implications of tropical forest replacement in Jamaica. Zeitschrift für Geomorphol. Neue Folge Suppl. Band 44, 107–118 (1982).
  52. G. L. Vásquez-Velásquez “Influence of land use in the hydrological response of headwaters in the central Andes of Colombia” thesis Universidad Nacional de Colombia (2016).
  53. M. Voigtlaender “Caracterização hidrológica e biogeoquímica de microbacias: Uma comparação entre Mata Atlântica e Pinus taeda L.” thesis Universidade de São Paulo (2007).
  54. X. Wang “The impact of forest on runoff under different space scale on the Loess Plateau” thesis Beijing Forestry Univ. (2015).
  55. G. Zhou, Z. Yu, S. Peng, A study on energy balance in three ecosystems at Xiaoliang Experimental Station. Redai Yaredai Zhiwu Xuebao 7, 93–101 (1999).
  56. Z. Zou, B. Chen, Hydrological features of rainstorms in two forest types in Maofeng Mountain of Guangzhou. Shengtai Huanjing Xuebao 26, 770–777 (2017).
  57. X. Zhang, L. Jia, Y. Zhang, C. Zheng, Individual growth simulation for natural secondary forest of Quercus variabilis in Qinling area based on FVS. J. Beijing For. Univ. 37, 19–29 (2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Smith, P., Edwards, D. P., & Balmford, A.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Universidad de La Frontera (CL)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Hua, Fangyuan
  • Bruijnzeel, L. Adrian
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2022-05-20
Volume
376
Issue
6595
Pages
839-844
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.abl4649
OpenAlex
W4220952637
Cited by
831
References
456
Citations by year
2026: 213 · 2025: 234 · 2024: 191 · 2023: 136 · 2022: 57
FWCI
61.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Communities in ADDI (University of the Basque Country) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Omeka S (Universidad de La Frontera) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2016/00052-9)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
forest restoration, ecosystem services, biodiversity, forest plantations, native forest, aboveground carbon storage, water supply, soil erosion control, timber production, climate services, soil ecosystem services, restoration policy
MeSH terms
Trees, Water, Biodiversity, Environmental Restoration and Remediation, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-02.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-02.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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