The DOI matches its Crossref record; 151 of the 151 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 111 of the 246 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Restoring Degraded Lands
Open accessAbstract
Land degradation continues to be an enormous challenge to human societies, reducing food security, emitting greenhouse gases and aerosols, driving the loss of biodiversity, polluting water, and undermining a wide range of ecosystem services beyond food supply and water and climate regulation. Climate change will exacerbate several degradation processes. Investment in diverse restoration efforts, including sustainable agricultural and forest land management, as well as land set aside for conservation wherever possible, will generate co-benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation and morebroadly for human and societal well-being and the economy. This review highlights the magnitude of the degradation problem and some of the key challenges for ecological restoration. There are biophysical as well as societal limits to restoration. Better integrating policies to jointly address poverty, land degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions and removals is fundamental to reducing many existing barriers and contributing to climate-resilient sustainable development.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Land degradation is a widespread challenge driven mainly by socioeconomic factors, and climate change is expected to exacerbate it while degradation itself contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Restoration and sustainable land management can deliver climate mitigation, adaptation, and broader co-benefits, but adoption barriers and hard ecological/social limits remain.
Key findings
- Approximately 70–75% of the ice-free land area is affected by human use, nearly 50% intensively; degradation negatively impacts livelihoods in more than a quarter of the Earth’s ice-free land area, with possibly up to 3.2 (1.3–3.2) billion people affected globally, and about 500 (±120) million people live in or near desertification hotspots.
- Since 1961, crop production increased about 3.5-fold and animal product production 2.5-fold, enabled by fertilizer inputs (+800%) and freshwater withdrawals (+100%); population rose from 3.0 to 7.8 billion by 2020, while per capita calorie intake increased 32%.
- Restoration and sustainable land management can yield economic returns: case studies found each US$1 invested in land restoration could yield US$3–$6 in societal economic returns over 30 years; forest restoration increased biodiversity by 15–84% and vegetation structure by 36–77% above degraded ecosystems, though values remained below old-growth forests.
- Risks exist: large-scale afforestation/reforestation or bioenergy can backfire through biodiversity loss, food-production trade-offs, and land-use displacement; the Bonn Challenge aims to restore 3.5 Mkm² of forested landscapes by 2030, while 2019 voluntary restoration commitments totaled 230 million hectares of forest.
Methods
- This is a review/synthesis article; it draws on cited literature and IPCC/IPBES assessments and presents summary tables (Tables 1–2) and figures rather than primary data collection.
- Data/sample: Not stated in the paper as a primary dataset; the article synthesizes global and regional estimates from referenced studies and assessments.
- Main analysis: narrative synthesis of degradation drivers, climate interactions, restoration practices, governance, and policy, with no new empirical modeling or systematic review protocol reported.
Limitations
- The paper states soft barriers (human, social, economic, institutional, technological) and hard limits to restoration, including species already committed to extinction, habitat loss from sea-level rise, and possible tipping points such as climate-driven desertification or permafrost collapse; return to pristine historical states may be difficult or impossible.
- The paper states uncertainties and a lack of restoration scenarios, noting that attribution of climate change as a degradation driver is complicated by concurrent CO₂ increases and regional variability, and that measuring mitigation-adaptation co-benefits is technically complex, expensive, and may take years to decades.
- Evident from the text: as a review, reported estimates depend on cited sources with differing definitions and methods (e.g., forest area, wetland extent), and no systematic search or quality appraisal is described.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
67 Own interpretation · 61 Partly supported · 57 No full text of the sources · 31 Sources not found · 23 Supported · 14 No basis given · 9 Couldn’t confirm · 6 Supported so far · 4 Not checked yet · 3 Not supported · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The shift from conventional agriculture, characterized by frequent tillage and complete removal of vegetation for parts of the season, to regenerative (or conservation) agriculture is particularly promising and universally applicable (104).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [104] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5.6, “Practices of sustainable agriculture” (page unavailable), says practices must be tailored to each case and that there is no “one size fits all” approach. Section 5.6.1, “Conservation agriculture” (page unavailable), also reports variable outcomes depending on conditions, contrary to the claim of universal applicability. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Land conversions (i.e., replacement of forests with cropland and pastures) and land management [i.e., harvesting of timber from managed forests or removal of herbaceous biomass through grazing (9)] almost equally cause these differences.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] source
The Abstract states that land-cover conversion accounts for 53–58% and land management for 42–47% of the difference between potential and actual vegetation biomass stocks—an almost equal contribution. The Methods section, “Attribution to land management and land-cover conversions,” explains how those categories were assigned and notes that the separation is a proxy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For instance, land degradation is of great concern for oceans, manifested by the now more than 500 dead coastal marine zones where excessive nutrient runoff from agriculture has contributed to the collapse of coastal marine ecosystems (5).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages labeled Abstract (page unavailable) link agricultural runoff and nutrient inputs to coastal hypoxia and report massive coral-reef mortality in a documented event. But the paper lists 494 coastal dead zones, not more than 500, and does not say that agricultural runoff caused the collapse of ecosystems in all of them. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Removal of deadwood as part of forest management has also been associated with reducing habitat diversity for numerous species (20).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [20] source
In “The reduction of deadwood,” the paper describes deadwood removal during forest management and states that reducing deadwood leads to a decline in associated biodiversity. “Deadwood in natural forests” also describes the varied deadwood structures and microhabitats used by dependent species. Together, these support the paraphrase about reduced habitat diversity for numerous species. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The latter is estimated at 11.3 Mkm 2 in 2000 (9)”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Extended Data Table 1 gives an area of 11.3 Mkm² for artificial grasslands, and Methods (‘Actual biomass stock maps 1 and 2’) defines these as grasslands on potentially forested areas. The paper describes the underlying land-use dataset as present-day and derived from a year-2000 dataset, but does not explicitly date the 11.3 Mkm² estimate to 2000. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Converted grassland holds biomass stocks that are less than 10% of the potential biomass stock (9).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] source
Extended Data Table 1 reports a 94% difference between potential and actual biomass stocks for artificial grasslands, which the Methods define as grasslands on potential forest sites. That leaves actual stocks at about 6% of potential stocks, below the claimed 10%. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Likewise, residue removal or whole-tree harvest can also cause soil disturbance, and remove root, stump, or bark biomass that would otherwise be part of soil organic matter cycling, including the formation of recalcitrant carbon pools (19).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [19] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5 (Removal of harvest residues; page unavailable) identifies bark and roots as harvest residues and says stump harvesting causes additional soil disturbance and reduces root litter input. It does not establish that residue removal or whole-tree harvesting generally causes that disturbance. Section 5.2 (Gaps in knowledge and research needs; page unavailable) says the effects of residue management on labile and recalcitrant carbon pools need further study, so the claim about formation of recalcitrant pools is not established. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Intensively used grasslands are relatively species-poor (34)”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results text (page not available in our copy) says land-use intensification reduced species richness for most aboveground groups. But it reports neutral or positive effects on belowground organisms, so the unqualified claim that intensively used grasslands are relatively species-poor overgeneralizes the finding. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The extent of permanent pastures and meadows, the key category for which global statistical data are available (http://faostat.fao.org;any grazing land used for more than five consecutive years), spans 28 (33) to 34 Mkm², including extensively used natural grasslands (Section 2.2), intensively managed pastures and meadows established in natural grassland areas, as well as grassland that was estab”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [33] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 (§32) estimates 28.0 million km² of pasture and reports FAOSTAT’s 34.4 million km²; section 2.2 (§12) defines permanent pasture to include cultivated and wild forage land. Section 4.2 (§36) describes pasture replacing grasslands and forests. But the Discussion (§45) says the pasture data reveal nothing about grazing intensity, so the claim that pastures established in natural grassland areas are intensively managed is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Given that at present humans withdraw approximately 2,500-3,200 km 3 a -1 , these numbers paint at first sight a relatively encouraging picture.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [55] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘A Basis for a PB on Water’ section gives 3,200 km³/year as a modeled planetary-boundary estimate, not a measurement of present human withdrawals. The ‘Model Variability and Limitations’ section reports runoff and water-availability estimates. Searches for 2,500 and current withdrawals found no passage giving the claimed withdrawal range; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Approximately half of the rise since 2007 comes from the increasing number of ruminant livestock, whereas the other half has uncertain origins.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [50] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6.1 says expanding tropical ruminant populations may have contributed to methane growth, and the discussion says cattle probably contribute alongside wetlands. Section 5 says the relative causes of the rise are not yet constrained. The paper does not assign approximately half of the rise since 2007 to livestock or identify the other half as having uncertain origins. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Only 37% of rivers longer than 1,000 km remain free-flowing over their entire length, often in very remote regions (57).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [57] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (p. 3) says that 36% of rivers longer than 1,000 km remain free-flowing along their full length, not 37%. The Main Text (p. 6) supports the location claim, saying that these rivers remain prevalent only in remote or less-developed areas. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Restoring already degraded wetlands can sequester carbon on a century scale, albeit at an often relatively slow pace and possibly at the expense of increased CH 4 emissions (53), but with large potential to improve conditions for biodiversity (54).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [54] source
The Results section (“Biodiversity recovery”) reports that restoring degraded wetlands enhanced biodiversity by 19%, with biodiversity in restored wetlands not significantly different from that in natural wetlands. The Discussion likewise says restoration increased biodiversity in degraded wetlands, while noting that gains varied among organisms. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The availability and quality of freshwater is projected to continue to decline in the future due to extraction for irrigation, drinking water, and energy, pollution, and increased shipping, with dam building for irrigation expected to disproportionately impact South America, south and east Asia, and the Balkan region (59).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [59] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract identifies South America, South and East Asia, and the Balkan region as areas disproportionately affected by dam development. But it specifies hydropower dams and impacts on freshwater megafauna richness, not dams built for irrigation or a general decline in freshwater availability and quality. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The availability and quality of freshwater is projected to continue to decline in the future due to extraction for irrigation, drinking water, and energy, pollution, and increased shipping, with dam building for irrigation expected to disproportionately impact South America, south and east Asia, and the Balkan region (59).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [59] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports that dam construction can affect water use and availability and deteriorate water quality. It does not project an overall decline in freshwater availability and quality caused by extraction for irrigation or drinking water, pollution, and increased shipping. The paper identifies South America, South and East Asia, and the Balkans as areas disproportionately affected by hydropower development, not dam building for irrigation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“On the basis of estimated global blue water runoff (approximately 42,000 km 3 a -1 ), a sustainable level of human use may be 1,200-8,300 km 3 a -1 (55), depending on the chosen criteria.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [55] source
In “A Basis for a PB on Water,” the paper reports global blue water runoff of 41,300 km³ per year, close to the cited approximation of 42,000. It gives 8,300 km³ per year as blue water availability under its precautionary calculation and 1,200 km³ per year as the most precautionary consumption boundary. The 8,300 figure is availability before the further reductions used to estimate exploitable water. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Approximately half of the rise since 2007 comes from the increasing number of ruminant livestock, whereas the other half has uncertain origins.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [50] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5 says the causes of methane’s rise are not fully understood and that evidence is insufficient to determine the relative contributions of sources and sinks. Section 6.1 discusses expanding ruminant populations as one possible contributor, but the paper does not establish that ruminants account for half the rise or define a remaining half of uncertain origin. The uncertainty is supported; the numerical split is not. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The projected increases in drought severity can also increase the incidence and extent of wildfires (73,74).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [73] source
- Supportedcites [74] source
In “Recent Climate Change and Vegetation Responses” (page unavailable), the paper links warmer conditions and earlier drying of forest fuels to increasing numbers of large wildfires and greater total area burned in western US forests. Its discussion of continued warming and drought supports the claim’s qualified statement that projected drying can increase wildfire incidence and extent. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Projections show that under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) SSP2 (a “middle of the road” scenario), by 2050 approximately 1,152 million people in dryland areas alone will be exposed to higher drought intensity and water stress at 2°C warming, whereas this number would be reduced to 974 million people under SSP1 (“sustainable” scenario) and increased to 1,267 million people in an SSP3 (“frag”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [70] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 discusses drought intensity and water stress, but does not give a population estimate for dryland areas; it also says arid areas were masked out for the drought-intensity indicator. Section 3.3 compares population exposure across SSPs and warming levels, but does not report 1,267 million people under SSP3 for this combination of hazards. Searches for the figure and for dryland exposure found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)
- Not matchedcites [71] Hurlbert M, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Changes in fire regimes can also contribute to a shift in vegetation composition, as more frequent fires, especially those coinciding with drought or insect outbreaks, suppress seedling regeneration and push, for example, closed forests toward more open forest-steppe systems (77,78).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, drought impacts can be alleviated by SLM practices, such as use of cover crops and mulching, supplementary irrigation if surface or groundwater sources are available, or the selection of drought-tolerant crop and forest species (66).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [66] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available Abstract passage links agricultural drought to rainwater losses and says mulching can improve water availability, supporting that example. It does not establish the other listed practices—cover crops, supplementary irrigation, or selection of drought-tolerant crop and forest species—and the passage ends mid-sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Projections show that under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) SSP2 (a “middle of the road” scenario), by 2050 approximately 1,152 million people in dryland areas alone will be exposed to higher drought intensity and water stress at 2°C warming, whereas this number would be reduced to 974 million people under SSP1 (“sustainable” scenario) and increased to 1,267 million people in an SSP3 (“frag”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [70] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.3 discusses how exposure and vulnerability differ across SSP scenarios, and Section 3.1 discusses water stress and drought intensity. Neither gives a projection of 974 million people in dryland areas exposed to both hazards under SSP1 at 2°C. Searches for “974,” “drylands,” and the combined hazard description found no matching estimate in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not matchedcites [71] Hurlbert M, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In drylands, the land area annually experiencing droughts has already increased by approximately 50% since 1961 (69).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [69] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction defines drought and distinguishes it from aridity, but does not report a trend in the annual area affected by drought in drylands. Searches for the claimed 50% increase since 1961 found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In many regions, for example, leaf-area index and land ecosystem carbon uptake have increased over recent decades, partly due to the CO 2 fertilization effect (60,62).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [60] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports widespread increases in leaf-area index during 1982–2009 and attributes much of the greening trend to CO2 fertilization. It also describes a modeled increase in leaf-level carbon assimilation in response to rising CO2, but does not establish an increase in land-ecosystem carbon uptake over recent decades. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [62] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1.2 (pp. 20–21) reports that the global terrestrial CO₂ sink increased from the 1960s to 2008–2017, and Section 2.6.1 (p. 16) identifies fertilization by rising atmospheric CO₂ as a possible contributor. The paper does not report an increase in leaf-area index across many regions; its discussion of leaf-area index concerns model evaluation (Sections 2.6.2 and 3.1.3, pp. 17, 22). (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Climate change-related forest decline is observed in many regions, e.g., in the US Northwest and British Columbia, in which drought and increasing fire frequency interact with additional stressors such as insect infestation (79).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [79] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion and conclusion report climate-related increases in fire, drought and insect disturbances across many forests. Pathways of climate influence says drought can facilitate both insects and fire, but the paper does not establish the claimed combination of observed forest decline and interacting stressors specifically in the US Northwest and British Columbia; British Columbia appears in reference titles, not in that finding. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Higher temperature increases result in higher projected numbers of people exposed to, and vulnerable to, water scarcity and droughts (70,71).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [70] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.3 reports that higher warming increases the projected numbers of people exposed to and vulnerable to multi-sector risks. Section 3.1 identifies water stress and drought intensity among the water-sector risks, but the cited passages do not establish that the projected numbers exposed to each of those specific hazards increase with temperature. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites [71] Hurlbert M, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Projections show that under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) SSP2 (a “middle of the road” scenario), by 2050 approximately 1,152 million people in dryland areas alone will be exposed to higher drought intensity and water stress at 2°C warming, whereas this number would be reduced to 974 million people under SSP1 (“sustainable” scenario) and increased to 1,267 million people in an SSP3 (“frag”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [70] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 describes projections for SSP2 in 2050 at 2°C warming, and Section 3.1 discusses drought intensity and water stress as separate indicators. The passages do not report that 1,152 million people in drylands are exposed to both; searches for that figure and dryland-specific exposure found no such estimate. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites [71] Hurlbert M, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and severity of droughts in many areas of the world (67,68).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67] Jia G, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites [68] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports observed drought trends since 1950, including increases in some regions and decreases in others. A search for future drought projections found no passage in our copy stating that climate change is projected to increase drought frequency and severity across many areas of the world. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, indirect climate change-related drivers, such as large-scale mitigation efforts on land, have also raised concerns with respect to increasing degradation (1, 63).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [63] source
The Results section on land degradation and desertification says large-scale bioenergy and BECCS require substantial land, increasing pressures for land degradation and desertification. These land-based mitigation efforts support the citing sentence's example; the paper does not say that all mitigation efforts increase degradation. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Over an 80-year perspective, a recent study (92) estimated for different forms of BECCS and a range of annual bioenergy production potentials a land area requirement between 22 and 46 Mkm 2 , with the upper end similar in magnitude to the entire remaining global forest area.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [92] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Mitigating climate change by utilizing vast land areas globally for the production of bioenergy (Section 3.3) or reforestation and afforestation (Section 4.2), which is at present still integral to many climate change scenarios, is unsustainable (1, 63, 96; also see the IPCC Annex-I Glossary's definition of reforestation and afforestation: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/glossary/).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [63] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Co-delivery across the land challenges; page unavailable) identifies potential adverse effects when bioenergy, afforestation, and reforestation are deployed at very large scales. But it says those effects depend on scale and context and may be ameliorated through sustainable landscape management; the Conclusions likewise describe possible harms rather than declaring these approaches categorically unsustainable. The claim overstates that qualified finding, particularly for reforestation. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [96] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says large bioenergy deployment can conflict with biodiversity and food production, and §4.3, “Side-effects,” says large-scale BECCS and afforestation pose risks for other land uses. But §4.3 also says outcomes depend on implementation and scale, with land governance and marginal-land cultivation able to reduce risks; it does not conclude that such mitigation is categorically unsustainable. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Expansion of purpose-grown energy crops such as canola, soy, miscanthus, or oil palm causes loss of carbon stocks in biomass and soil, loss of soil fertility, and loss of biodiversity if it leads, directly or indirectly, to the conversion of grassland or natural forest to cropland or plantations and/or to further environmentally detrimental intensification of cropland management.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Proven and cost-effective methods exist that can be implemented now to increase the soil carbon content of agricultural soils without compromising productivity and food security (40).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [40] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Status of soil carbon as a climate solution section (page unavailable) describes soil-carbon practices as generally beneficial and readily deployable without additional land, while Soil contribution to Natural Climate Solution Pathways (page unavailable) identifies substantial cost-effective potential and possible productivity benefits. The paper does not establish that the methods can be implemented without compromising productivity or food security in all cases; it treats food security as a reason to exclude croplands from its reforestation pathway. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For strong climate change mitigation scenarios, the required expansion of land area for bioenergy crops was found to have similarly negative impacts on terrestrial biodiversity as had unmitigated climate change (95) due to the reduction in species' ranges and pressure on protected areas.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [95] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Theoretically, the intensification is assumed to be at least linearly linked to warming at a rate of 6-7% per degree K (the Clausius-Clapeyron response), but empirical evidence and model studies indicate a steeper increase in precipitation intensity, particularly in dry regions (82,83).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [82] source
- Could not verifycites [83] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed passages labeled Abstract contain bibliographic information rather than the paper’s substantive text. Searches for precipitation intensity, the Clausius–Clapeyron rate, and dry regions found no passage addressing the claim, so our copy cannot verify it. (LLM, conf=0.72)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is also increasing recognition that restoration and management of restored ecosystems will need to be dynamically adopted in response to ongoing and unavoidable changes (101-103).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] source
- Partly supportedcites [102] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.2 describes restoration and management of ecosystems as activities that help people adapt to climate change. Section 3.5 recommends monitoring outcomes over time, but does not say that management of restored ecosystems must be dynamically adjusted in response to ongoing and unavoidable changes. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [103] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Effectiveness of nature-based solutions under climate change” (page unavailable), says climate change can shift ecosystems to new states and that active management can reduce exposure to its impacts. It does not specifically say that restoration and the management of restored ecosystems must be dynamically adjusted as conditions change. (LLM, conf=0.80)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Whether this will translate into larger areas burnt or more intense fires depends greatly on location and on active (suppression, extinction) and passive (landscape fragmentation, fuel reduction) management (81).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [81] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports regional differences in burned area and describes how reduced fuel continuity can suppress fire spread. The Conclusions say that fire policies beyond suppression could avoid fuel buildup and counteract climate-change effects. The paper does not establish the claim about more intense fires or specifically assess extinction and landscape fragmentation as management measures. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As a co-benefit, these practices also enhance ecosystem carbon sinks and food security as well as deliver multiple other co-benefits (63), with positive changes in areas totaling globally greater than 10 Mkm 2 (63).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [63] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 11 in the Results section estimates that several practices have the potential to benefit areas exceeding 10 Mkm². The paper presents these as potential impacts, not positive changes already achieved across that area globally. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Agroforestry not only reduces risks (having at least partial production if one crop fails) but also delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts; however, potentially higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport need to be considered (111).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [111] source
Section 4.1 (page unavailable) says agroforestry’s diverse products can reduce farmers’ risk. The Introduction (page unavailable) contrasts this with the danger of relying heavily on a single crop. Together, these support the paraphrase that production from other crops can remain if one fails. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A global meta-analysis found that forest restoration can increase biodiversity (mammals, birds, herpetofauna, invertebrates, and plants) by 15-84% and vegetation structure (biomass, cover, stem density, and height or amount of leaf litter) by 36-77% above degraded ecosystems-although values remained below those found in old-growth forests (119).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [119] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports that biodiversity and vegetation-structure values in restored systems were lower than in reference systems. The comparison does not establish the result specifically for old-growth forests: the paper's reference systems also included less-disturbed forests. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Agroforestry not only reduces risks (having at least partial production if one crop fails) but also delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts; however, potentially higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport need to be considered (111).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [111] source
Section 4.1 states that agroforestry can supply fruits and nuts and identifies them as sources of revenue. Section 4.1.1 likewise describes fruit- and nut-producing trees as providing longer-term revenue. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Forests planted in savannahs or other ecosystems with low tree cover will critically damage these often highly species-diverse and carbon-rich ecosystems (113, 114).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [113] source
- Partly supportedcites [114] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report substantial losses of savanna plant and ant species where forest encroached, and the Discussion extends the biodiversity concern to other species-rich savannas and grasslands (page numbers unavailable). But the study examined forest encroachment following fire suppression, not planted forests, and it does not characterize the affected low-tree-cover ecosystems as carbon-rich; its Results report higher carbon stocks in forest than in open savanna. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Agroforestry not only reduces risks (having at least partial production if one crop fails) but also delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts; however, potentially higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport need to be considered (111).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [111] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5, “Challenges to Agroforestry Adoption” (page unavailable), says harvesting fruits and nuts can be logistically challenging and that larger plantings may need mechanization to be economically competitive. This supports considering harvest-related costs, but the paper does not state that storage or transport costs may be higher. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A global meta-analysis found that forest restoration can increase biodiversity (mammals, birds, herpetofauna, invertebrates, and plants) by 15-84% and vegetation structure (biomass, cover, stem density, and height or amount of leaf litter) by 36-77% above degraded ecosystems-although values remained below those found in old-growth forests (119).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [119] source
The Results section (‘Restoration enhances biodiversity and vegetation structure’; page unavailable) reports that measures of vegetation structure were 36–77% higher in restored than in degraded systems. The Methods section identifies biomass, cover, density, height and litter among the measures examined. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A global meta-analysis found that forest restoration can increase biodiversity (mammals, birds, herpetofauna, invertebrates, and plants) by 15-84% and vegetation structure (biomass, cover, stem density, and height or amount of leaf litter) by 36-77% above degraded ecosystems-although values remained below those found in old-growth forests (119).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [119] source
The Abstract reports that the global forest-restoration meta-analysis found biodiversity 15–84% higher in restored than in degraded ecosystems and defines biodiversity to include mammals, birds, herpetofauna, invertebrates and plants. The Results section reports the same percentage range for measures of biodiversity. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Given that trees, shrubs, or hedges provide very different habitat to agricultural crops or pure pasture, agroforestry is also beneficial to conservation and enhancement of biodiversity-which in turn can be beneficial to production by enhancing pollinator presence or biological pest control (111).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [111] source
Section 4.2, “Benefits of Agroforestry” (page not provided), explicitly says agroforestry contributes to biodiversity conservation compared with monocultures. It adds that trees and shrubs provide habitat for more numerous and diverse wildlife populations, and describes benefits from pollinators and predatory insects. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In addition, on heavily contaminated or saline soils, energy crops such as perennial grasses and short-rotation woody species including poplar and mallee can be strategically planted to improve soil conditions and contribute to phytoremediation (107, 108).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [107] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The temperate short-rotation coppice case study describes planting mallee energy crops where salinity is evident and identifies dryland salinity mediation as an environmental objective. The tropical fast-growing legume tree case study also describes revegetating mine wastes and tailings. Our copy does not establish that poplar or perennial grasses are planted on heavily contaminated or saline soils for phytoremediation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [108] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, relying on forests for long-term carbon sequestration is a risk, particularly for monocultures with high vulnerability to storms, fire, or pest outbreaks (12,116).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] source
- Supportedcites [116] source
The Industrial plantations section (page not provided) says plantations are often monospecific and calls plantation reforestation a relatively risky option for long-term carbon sequestration because pests, wind, and fire can release stored carbon. This supports the claim’s emphasis on monocultures and those hazards. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Carbon sinks decline in all forests as they mature.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Given that trees, shrubs, or hedges provide very different habitat to agricultural crops or pure pasture, agroforestry is also beneficial to conservation and enhancement of biodiversity-which in turn can be beneficial to production by enhancing pollinator presence or biological pest control (111).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [111] source
Section 4.2 says that trees, shrubs, and other perennial vegetation provide habitat for more diverse wildlife. It adds that birds and predatory insects can help control pests, while pollinator habitat can improve pollination of horticultural crops. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A suite of case studies conducted in various settings across the world (124) showed that each dollar invested into land restoration activities could yield between US$3 and $6 of societal economic returns, through both provisioning and nonprovisioning ecosystem services, over a 30-year period (124).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [124] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As with the beneficial aspect of different crop production systems, when combined with a strong restoration focus (i.e., regrowth of natural vegetation and limited management), large co-benefits exist from both an economic and nature conservation perspective (98, 116).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [98] source
The Results (p. 9) report that a strategically prioritized restoration scenario increased biodiversity benefits while reducing costs by 57% relative to the baseline. The Costs section (pp. 30–31) describes natural regeneration as regrowth of native trees and says areas suited to it require less human intervention and have lower restoration costs. These findings support the attributed restoration co-benefits in the Atlantic Forest setting studied. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [116] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (page unavailable) describe different co-benefits from forest recovery, and the Spontaneously regenerating forests section reports biodiversity gains and some useful forest products. But the Conclusions also say naturally regenerating forests tend to provide fewer economically valuable services. The paper therefore does not support the claim that a restoration focus yields large co-benefits from both economic and nature-conservation perspectives. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Globally, the estimated forest carbon sink for 2001-2010 was approximately 40% in intact old-growth forests and 60% in regrowing forests (18).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] source
The Abstract reports a 2001–2010 forest carbon sink of 0.85 Pg C per year in intact old-growth forests and 1.30 Pg C per year in regrowing stands. Those amounts are approximately 40% and 60% of their 2.15 Pg C per year total. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Yields in agroforestry areas also tend to be higher when compared to the yields obtained if crops and woody perennials were grown separately (111).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [111] source
Section 4.2 (Benefits of Agroforestry) reports land-equivalent ratios above one and explicitly says these indicate higher productivity when trees and crops are integrated than when grown separately. The comparison concerns combined production per unit of land, not the yield of each individual crop. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Land degradation neutrality, 1 target 15.3 of the SDGs, provides an incentive and framework that encourages strategic actions to restore and rehabilitate degraded land, within the context of integrated landscape planning and management, aimed at delivering multiple environmental and development objectives (136).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [136] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Governance of ecosystems can be a hard limit to adaptation or restoration, unless radical changes can be achieved (142, 143).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [142] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Small inland communities section describes persistent governance failures as possible limits to adaptation for downstream ecosystems, and the Conclusions say radical changes in governance may push back adaptation limits. But the paper calls governance-related limits “soft,” reserving “hard” limits for cases where species or ecosystems cannot adjust to climate change. It does not establish the claim about restoration. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [143] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Commitments under the Bonn Challenge and other voluntary restoration targets in 2019 resulted in the aim of restoring a total of 230 million hectares of forest (137).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [137] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 (Source data; page unavailable) says the authors compiled Bonn Challenge pledges and other voluntary national restoration targets, supporting that part of the claim. Neither that section nor the retrieved passages give a combined target of 230 million hectares for 2019; the specific total is therefore unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Governance is key in fostering restoration because of its social function in steering collective behavior toward desired outcomes and decision-making by individuals, households, markets, organizations, and government (132).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5. GOVERNANCE, POLICY, AND THE LIMITS TO RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [132] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Capturing resilience” (page unavailable), the paper says governance arrangements can shift human activities toward adaptive management and that governance systems are needed for sustainability. It does not specifically say governance fosters restoration or describe decision-making across the listed groups—individuals, households, markets, organizations, and government. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Continuous, collaborative problem solving of multiscale decision-making that employs experimentation and conflict resolution has been shown to build capacity for resource self-management (135).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5. GOVERNANCE, POLICY, AND THE LIMITS TO RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [135] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Lessons for Adaptive Comanagement’ section (page unavailable) supports collaborative problem solving, ongoing monitoring, and conflict resolution in marine-resource governance. It does not establish that experimentation and multiscale decision-making build capacity for resource self-management; the sentence presents that outcome as demonstrated when the cited discussion does not. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“As one example, for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, Strassburg et al. (98) showed that a spatial prioritization of restoration efforts could deliver large co-benefits for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage, at drastically lower costs compared to a nonsystematic baseline approach.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Strassburg et al. (98) source
The paper’s comparison for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest is explicit: the baseline has farmers restore land within their own farms, while alternative scenarios spatially prioritize biodiversity and climate benefits alongside costs (p. 6). It reports a compromise scenario with greater biodiversity and carbon benefits and 57% lower costs than the baseline (p. 3); the Discussion (p. 14) likewise describes substantial benefits alongside reduced costs. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Coupled global-scale, socio-ecological models are emerging as tools to account for a full range of human decision-making processes, beyond economic factors alone (146).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [146] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available passages labeled Abstract contain bibliographic details and keywords, including “Human agency” and “Integrated assessment models,” but no substantive discussion of what the models account for. Searches for coupled socio-ecological models, decision-making processes, and economic factors found no passage that verifies the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“large scope for the restoration of grasslands, drylands, coastal ecosystems (e.g., mangroves), and wetlands to contribute to climate change mitigation and biodiversity, if the climate change risks to carbon uptake (Section 3) are minimized (63).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [63] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Potential of the practices for delivering mitigation; page unavailable) say coastal wetland restoration could provide high levels of mitigation and peatland restoration moderate levels. Materials and Methods (page unavailable) also identifies biodiversity protection as a benefit of peatland restoration. The grassland finding concerns preventing conversion to cropland, not restoration; the cited passages do not establish large mitigation and biodiversity benefits across all the listed ecosystems or the stated condition about minimizing climate risks to carbon uptake. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a theoretical analysis based on the complete absence of land use and with current climate, land ecosystems were estimated to store approximately twice as much as the current 450 GtC in vegetation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 70 to 75% of the ice-free land area is affected by human use, nearly 50% intensively so (Figure 1).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 70 to 75% of the ice-free land area is affected by human use, nearly 50% intensively so (Figure 1).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A particular challenge in providing solutions to halt and reverse degradation arises from the majority of the people affected living in poverty in developing countries (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Land degradation has social, political, cultural, and economic causes (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The intensive use of land, with the extraction of wood, agricultural commodities, and water, has until now been the dominant driver of degradation and desertification, as well as the associated accelerating loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (1,2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.), 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These climate change impacts also amplify the impacts of forest mismanagement (12) (Section 3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drivers of forest degradation include unsustainable forest exploitation such as illegal logging; extracting high-value species and leaving behind lower-value, damaged, and diseased trees; failure to regenerate forests after harvest; conversion of natural forests to monoculture plantations; and other forms of degradation that in severe cases can culminate in deforestation”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the impacts of degradation extend beyond the local land surface and societies, affecting marine and freshwater systems, as well as people and ecosystems far away from the location of degradation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change is expected to exacerbate degradation, in particular through weather extremes (Section 3), and degradation also contributes to climate change, chiefly through emissions of greenhouse gases and by reducing the capacity of ecosystems to absorb atmospheric CO 2 .”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since 1961, crop production increased approximately 3.5-fold and production of animal products 2.5-fold, which was made possible by a massive increase in fertilizer inputs (+800%) and freshwater withdrawals (+100%) (1) (Figure 2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change is expected to exacerbate degradation, in particular through weather extremes (Section 3), and degradation also contributes to climate change, chiefly through emissions of greenhouse gases and by reducing the capacity of ecosystems to absorb atmospheric CO 2 .”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Globally, less than 30% of the world's forests are considered to be still intact (1)”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change is expected to exacerbate degradation, in particular through weather extremes (Section 3), and degradation also contributes to climate change, chiefly through emissions of greenhouse gases and by reducing the capacity of ecosystems to absorb atmospheric CO 2 .”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The intensive use of land, with the extraction of wood, agricultural commodities, and water, has until now been the dominant driver of degradation and desertification, as well as the associated accelerating loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (1,2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.), 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Since 1961, crop production increased approximately 3.5-fold and production of animal products 2.5-fold, which was made possible by a massive increase in fertilizer inputs (+800%) and freshwater withdrawals (+100%) (1) (Figure 2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Since 1961, crop production increased approximately 3.5-fold and production of animal products 2.5-fold, which was made possible by a massive increase in fertilizer inputs (+800%) and freshwater withdrawals (+100%) (1) (Figure 2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Degradation occurs as a consequence of complex and highly dynamic interactions of natural and socioeconomic drivers (3,4).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is strongly associated with the conversion of natural into managed land and the increase of use intensity in agricultural, freshwater, and forest systems.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Still, at least in many tropical forest regions, the area of degraded forests could well equal or even exceed the area of deforestation (15,16);”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since 1961, crop production increased approximately 3.5-fold and production of animal products 2.5-fold, which was made possible by a massive increase in fertilizer inputs (+800%) and freshwater withdrawals (+100%) (1) (Figure 2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The proportion of soil carbon lost from agricultural soils varies from approximately 20% to more than 60% (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Ambiguous and insecure land tenure regimes combined with widespread poverty and frequent marginalization of pastoralist communities across many grassland areas (32) limit investment in their sustainable use and management, including access to veterinary and rural advisory services, financial and insurance markets, as well as input and output markets.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Different management practices, policies, and law enforcement can have large impacts on the long-term maintenance of forest carbon stocks (including below-ground).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This natural variability makes these regions vulnerable to widespread and longer-term degradation as a result of human use.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intensively managed grazing land is thus likely to be a net greenhouse gas source.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Grasslands are sources of ruminant methane (CH4) emissions and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from excreta or fertilized pastures.
In the paper
“Many sustainable land management (SLM) (3) practices require up-front investments that take several years to pay back (both in pasture-and cropland-related SLM; see Tables 1 and 2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Less than 5% of global temperate grasslands are protected (27).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“grazing systems are also particularly threatened by invasive plant species (35).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35] Shin Y-J, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Traditions, practices Human Farmer/forester Moderate/high Communication and engagement”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Reliance on imports, trade agreements Institutional Government High Include environmental standards in trade agreements”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One cause might be the high global temperatures since 2014, which have accelerated emissions of CH 4 from low-latitude wetlands (51), whereas emissions responses from high-latitude wetlands are more uncertain (52).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Perverse subsidies Institutional Government High Redirect to act on environmental concerns”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Wetland degradation can result in emissions of both CO 2 and CH 4 (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, global averages hide the very large regional and intra-annual variation in river runoff.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lack of access to input and output markets Economic Farmer/forester; government Moderate Financial incentives, transportation infrastructure, labeling”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Diverse lobby groups Institutional Government High Dialog with lobbyists transparent to public”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Freshwater extraction typically takes place in regions where freshwater is much scarcer than the global average (56).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lack of adequate spatial planning Institutional Government; farmer/forester Moderate/locally contextual Appropriate regulations and engagement with stakeholders”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Hidden and transaction costs Economic/institutional Farmer/forester Moderate Simplification of regulations”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lack of political incentives Institutional Government High Targeted political measures, redirection of subsidies”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Costs of adoption/lack of access to credit Economic Farmer/forester Moderate Investment support”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lack of infrastructure Technological/economic Farmer/forester Moderate/locally contextual Investment support”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Actual or perceived effects on performance of restoration/sustainable land management practices Human/social Farmer/forester High Communication and education; rural advisory services”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Actual or perceived lack of financial benefit Economic Farmer/forester High Communication and education, financial incentives”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One cause might be the high global temperatures since 2014, which have accelerated emissions of CH 4 from low-latitude wetlands (51), whereas emissions responses from high-latitude wetlands are more uncertain (52).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Uncertain land tenure Institutional Government; farmer/forester Moderate/locally contextual Appropriate regulations and engagement with stakeholders”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, if droughts increase in numbers and intensity, this can disrupt the ability of vegetation to recover (47), leading to degradation, particularly when coupled with unsustainable land management.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47] Prince S, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The extreme fires in parts of Australia during 2019-2020, which were associated with unprecedented drought and heat, were estimated to impact >30% of the habitat area of 21 animal species threatened with extinction (76).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [76] source
hedgedcorrelationaln = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Although climate change has until now had relatively minor impacts on degradation, it is expected to become more important for degradation in the future (3, 4), exacerbating the effects of land-use change.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Occurrence of droughts does not automatically lead to land degradation, as the land productivity may recover completely after the end of a drought event (4).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Model-based estimates of NPP indicate that climate change is an important driver of degradation in approximately 35-45% of the world's degraded grasslands (36,61).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attribution of climate change as a driver of degradation is made more difficult by concurrent increases in atmospheric CO 2 and the large regional variability in observed and projected climate trends.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Future climate change is expected to accelerate degradation most strongly through weather extremes (heatwaves, drought, floods) and associated episodic events such as wildfire and insect outbreaks (12), given that these extremes override the positive impacts that might arise from trends in temperature, precipitation, or CO 2 .”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, in many dryland areas, droughts together with unsustainable land management can amplify degradation, including increasing duststorm activity.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The increasing intensity of rainfall expected from climate change will lead to increased erosion and nutrient loss from croplands unless SLM practices are widely implemented (86).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [86] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although investment in adopting fire management practices under climate change can reduce wildfire impacts in populated regions, it seems unlikely that impacts from changes in fires on remote ecosystems can be prevented.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although investment in adopting fire management practices under climate change can reduce wildfire impacts in populated regions, it seems unlikely that impacts from changes in fires on remote ecosystems can be prevented.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Measuring and monitoring the success of combined mitigation-adaptation approaches is nontrivial; multiple and very different indicators need to be used that are cognizant of the agreements made in international conventions as well as capturing local consequences (101).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, the benefits to biodiversity or the avoided damage to human societies, especially from extreme weather events (101), will accrue only over a long-term time period.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Because most scenarios illustrating pathways to meet a 1.5 or 2° temperature goal show heavy reliance on BECCS (91), bioenergy could become an indirect climate change-related cause of degradation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [91] IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change), 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Numerous options exist to create synergies between the management of agriculture and forest vegetation and soils with the objective to reverse degradation (Table 1).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Regenerative agriculture increased from 7.5% to 15% of global croplands between 2008/2009 and 2015/2016 (105).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [105] Montgomery DR., 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because most scenarios illustrating pathways to meet a 1.5 or 2° temperature goal show heavy reliance on BECCS (91), bioenergy could become an indirect climate change-related cause of degradation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a warmer, drier climate, fire risk will increase.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In South Korea, for instance, as a consequence of reforestation, total forest volume increased more than tenfold between 1973 and 2016, with significant co-benefits such as a 43% simulated increase in downstream water yields across catchments and an 87% reduction in soil losses (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Agroforestry, characterized by growing woody perennials with agricultural crops, animal grazing, or a combination of both, has also been shown to enhance soil carbon content significantly compared with more conventional agricultural systems, especially in the upper soil layers (>30 cm), in which an overall increase of approximately 25% was detected in a meta-analysis of field studies (110).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [110] De Stefano A, 2018, Agroforestry Syst source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In South Korea, for instance, as a consequence of reforestation, total forest volume increased more than tenfold between 1973 and 2016, with significant co-benefits such as a 43% simulated increase in downstream water yields across catchments and an 87% reduction in soil losses (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Large herbivores also influence ecosystem structure and function through physical impacts such as trampling or pushing over trees (122).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.3. Role of Wild Animals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [122] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Inoculating such types of soil animals into degraded soils, or stimulating them through indirect measures (such as compost), has been found to enhance important soil physical and chemical properties, especially related to restoring land for crop production (121).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.3. Role of Wild Animals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [121] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Earthworms and termites are well known for their role in decomposition of litter and soil organic matter and nutrient turnover.
In the paper
“It now covers more than 70% of the cropland in the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) region and 34% in North America, but only approximately 5% in Europe (106).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [106] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, predicting the trophic response (and hence its interaction with functioning) of restoring carnivores (or large mammals) to ecosystems has been shown to be challenging (123), and assumptions about ecosystems simply returning to a historical state seem too simplistic given interactions with climate change and episodic events such as fire.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.3. Role of Wild Animals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [123] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, replacing these ecosystems with forest will severely limit the intended climate change mitigation benefits.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, perennial woody or herbaceous energy crops (e.g., grasses such as switchgrass or Miscanthus species) can be grown where topsoil has been lost, as they are able to grow, albeit slowly, on low fertility soils.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Perennial woody or herbaceous energy crops are able to grow, albeit slowly, on low fertility soils.
In the paper
“Tree cover was observed to increase in the Serengeti National Park following the recovery of the wildebeest population after the eradication of rinderpest (122).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.3. Role of Wild Animals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [122] source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SLM and restoring and rehabilitating degraded lands are high-return actions from not only an environmental but also an economic and social perspective.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In South Korea, for instance, as a consequence of reforestation, total forest volume increased more than tenfold between 1973 and 2016, with significant co-benefits such as a 43% simulated increase in downstream water yields across catchments and an 87% reduction in soil losses (3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It now covers more than 70% of the cropland in the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) region and 34% in North America, but only approximately 5% in Europe (106).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [106] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It now covers more than 70% of the cropland in the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) region and 34% in North America, but only approximately 5% in Europe (106).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [106] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Giger et al.'s (126) analysis of the costs and benefits of individual SLM technologies showed that most of the SLM technologies analyzed became profitable within three to ten years after continued application.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [126] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This reduces the incentive to invest in land restoration.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: An important share of the economic benefits of restoration is in the form of nonprovisioning ecosystem services, which benefit society as a whole, but individual land users cannot fully monetize these benefits.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In these cases, societal or institutional resistance to change has been too large to enact necessary and forward-looking responses to a rapid environmental change (such as climate change).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, an increasing set of studies indicate that farming practices exist that reverse degradation while still producing sufficient food for a growing human population.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Despite this strong economic justification, the adoption of SLM technologies and the initiation of land restoration and rehabilitation activities remains insufficient to address the ongoing land degradation around the world (4).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the European Court of Auditors highlighted that €66 billion spent within the common agricultural policy between 2014 and 2020 did not achieve its goal of stopping agricultural biodiversity loss”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53892
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given large uncertainties about the future (and a general lack of restoration scenarios) static goals and policies that aim to achieve restoration (and sustainable development more generally) are likely to fail.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Large uncertainties about the future exist.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There is a general lack of restoration scenarios.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As indicated in Sections 3.3 and 4.2, largescale deployment of bioenergy and afforestation/reforestation would have major negative impacts on biodiversity and land degradation, if they were to lead to the conversion of natural vegetation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Sustainable, bottom-up and place-based solutions build on existing governance arrangements (134).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5. GOVERNANCE, POLICY, AND THE LIMITS TO RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [134] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Projected outcomes of agricultural or forest land-use change do not, therefore, capture whether crops, pastures, or forests are managed sustainably.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land degradation exacerbates food insecurity; emits greenhouse gases and aerosols; drives the loss of biodiversity; and undermines wide-ranging ecosystem services, including access to clean drinking water and the regulation of air quality.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If done poorly, both land-based climate change mitigation measures and restoration measures could backfire as a result of trade-offs between land for climate mitigation versus food or conservation, or between forest biomass-based livelihoods versus global carbon storage.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land degradation exacerbates food insecurity; emits greenhouse gases and aerosols; drives the loss of biodiversity; and undermines wide-ranging ecosystem services, including access to clean drinking water and the regulation of air quality.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land degradation exacerbates food insecurity; emits greenhouse gases and aerosols; drives the loss of biodiversity; and undermines wide-ranging ecosystem services, including access to clean drinking water and the regulation of air quality.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land degradation exacerbates food insecurity; emits greenhouse gases and aerosols; drives the loss of biodiversity; and undermines wide-ranging ecosystem services, including access to clean drinking water and the regulation of air quality.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 86
- Probably not a substantial claim. 58
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Since the Neolithic Revolution some 12,000 years ago, the upper 2 m of soils are estimated to have lost almost 116 GtC, of which 37 GtC have been attributed to croplands and associated vegetation cover classes (39).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [39] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion section (page unavailable) estimates 133 Pg C lost from the upper 2 m of soil, not almost 116 GtC. It attributes 35 Pg C, not 37 GtC, to the cropland and crop/natural vegetation mosaic categories. The source supports the historical scope and soil depth, but gives contrary figures for both quantities. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“However, increasing forest areas also led to the contraction and further intensification of cropland and pastureland, in some scenarios causing negative impacts on many carbon and biodiversity hotspots in the Americas, India, and Indonesia due to land-use displacement (Section 4.2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.5. Lack of Restoration Scenarios for Climate Change/Biodiversity Projections
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [130] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For instance, soil disturbance accompanying clear-cutting reduces soil carbon on average by approximately 10% with much larger losses in forest floor and organic soil horizons (19).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [19] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 (Harvesting; page not provided) reports average soil-carbon losses of 8% and 11.2% after harvesting, with larger losses in forest-floor and organic horizons. But it does not attribute those average losses specifically to soil disturbance accompanying clear-cutting; it principally relates losses to reduced carbon inputs and/or faster decomposition. Section 6 discusses soil disturbance from site preparation separately. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“associated above-ground carbon losses have been estimated to increase estimates of gross deforestation losses by approximately 25% up to >600% (17), with additional, unknown amounts of carbon lost from soils.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [17] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Fig. 2; page unavailable) report a 626% increase over the forest-clearance estimate, but that figure includes forgone carbon removals as well as emissions from degradation. It does not establish a range starting at approximately 25% for above-ground degradation losses. The soil-carbon clause follows the citation in the citing sentence, so it is not treated as attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, climate change impacts (including also the effects of increasing atmospheric CO 2 concentration) can, in cases where other factors are not limiting, also increase forest productivity, resulting in, for example, faster tree growth (13) or elevating treelines in mountain regions (14).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] source
- Supportedcites [14] source
Citation 14 is attached to the treeline example, not the faster-growth example. The Introduction describes upward treeline shifts as a predicted response to climate change, and the Discussion reports treeline advances while noting that local conditions affect where they occur. The paper does not establish a specific climatic driver for every observed advance, but the citing sentence says climate change can elevate treelines, not that it always does. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Currently approximately one-quarter to one-third of the total potential net primary production on land is used by humans, i.e., of the net primary productivity (NPP) that would prevail in the absence of land use [estimated at approximately 60 GtC a -1 (6)]”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] source
The Global Changes in HANPP section reports that human appropriation reached 25% of potential NPP in 2005, within the claimed one-quarter-to-one-third range. The paper defines potential NPP as production in the absence of human land use and, in Table 1, reports estimates of 54, 66, and 75 GtC/year, consistent with an approximate 60 GtC/year figure. The indexed passages do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“less than 40% of forest area has been estimated to contain old-growth forest [in Reference 18, forests identified to be older than 140 years].”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] source
The Abstract defines old-growth stands as more than 140 years old and estimates 16.5 million km² of old-growth forest versus 26.3 million km² of regrowth forest in 2010. Old-growth therefore accounts for about 38.6% of the forest area reported, below 40%. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“N 2 O emissions are generally associated with increased use of (mostly mineral) fertilizer, which (on an expanding area of cropland) has been estimated to have contributed >80% of the N 2 O emission increase since the 1860s (43).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [43] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results passage on cropland emissions (page unavailable) estimates that increased cropland soil N₂O emissions accounted for 82% of the global soil-emission increase from the 1860s to the recent decade. The ‘Contributions of factors responsible for the increased N₂O emissions’ section also identifies fertilizer addition as a contributor. But the 82% figure is for cropland emissions, not the share caused by mostly mineral fertilizer on expanding cropland; the paper assesses manure, deposition, climate and other factors separately. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Deadwood is especially important as a living environment for insects and wood-inhabiting fungi but also affects higher trophic levels through related food webs (20).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [20] source
The section “The importance of deadwood for biodiversity” describes deadwood as insect habitat and says it promotes diversity at higher trophic levels by increasing food resources. The Figure 2 caption identifies a wood-inhabiting fungus in deadwood, and the Figure 4 caption describes deadwood-associated invertebrates as food for woodpeckers. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Overview of key sustainable land management practices that contribute strongly to halting and reversing degradation and with notable co-benefits for climate change mitigation and/or adaptation.Sources: see References 3, 4, 62, 67, 96, 147”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [62] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3 (p. 10) says some land-management activities create CO₂ sinks, and the Discussion (p. 32) notes the importance of land-use emissions for climate mitigation strategies. The paper does not establish that key sustainable land-management practices strongly halt or reverse degradation, or that they provide adaptation co-benefits. (LLM, conf=0.81)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Grassland degradation is a widespread phenomenon, with overgrazing being a key driver, together with frequent wheel traffic, or overfertilization, all of which result in changes in sward composition, reduction in yields, and deterioration of soils.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For instance, dryland areas have high climatic variability, with periods of dry and wet climates, and corresponding cycles of greening and browning, most famously in the Sahel region (29,30).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [29] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening summary (pp. 1–11) describes Sahel droughts in the 1970s and 1980s, followed by increased rainfall and vegetation greening. It supports the Sahel example, but does not establish recurring greening-and-browning cycles or extend that pattern to drylands generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Supportedcites [30] source
The Introduction (pp. 1–2) describes drought-associated reductions in Sahelian vegetation productivity followed by vegetation recovery, and attributes much of the apparent degradation to climate variability. The Conclusions (p. 21) likewise report increased greenness after more favorable climate returned. These passages support the Sahel as an example of climate-linked browning and greening. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“natural temperate grasslands are now reduced to a fraction of their original area and are considered one of the most endangered biomes in the world (27,28).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] source
- Could not verifycites [28] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes permanent grasslands as biodiversity hot spots, but does not say natural temperate grasslands have shrunk to a fraction of their original area or rank among the most endangered biomes. Searches for their original extent, loss, and endangered status found no passage addressing those claims in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, the large historic loss of soil carbon implies that agricultural systems have a significant capacity to take up CO 2 from the atmosphere and to store it in the form of soil carbon with a wide range of co-benefits in addition to climate change mitigation (40).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [40] source
The Abstract (page unavailable) says that 60% of the soil-carbon mitigation potential it estimates comes from rebuilding depleted stocks, including potential in agriculture and grasslands. It also describes removing atmospheric CO2 and delivering ecosystem services beyond climate mitigation; “Looking forward” names improved soil fertility and climate resilience as co-benefits. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The total amount of carbon stored in wetlands and peatlands has been estimated at approximately 1,500 GtC, approximately 30-40% of the global terrestrial carbon stock (44,45).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] source
- Partly supportedcites [45] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 1 and the Summary Points describe peatlands as major carbon stores and estimate that they contain 500–700 GtC. The paper does not give the claimed 1,500 GtC estimate for wetlands and peatlands together or the figure of 30–40% of global terrestrial carbon stock. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The lack of formal protection, therefore, is of concern; tropical grassy biomes have a substantially lower proportion of protected areas than tropical forest, often with individual areas under protection that are far too small (26).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [26] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Tropical grassy biomes in protected areas” (page unavailable), the paper reports that 13% of tropical grassy biomes are protected, versus 24% of tropical forest. It also explains why protected areas need to be large and discusses small areas in fragmented landscapes, but does not establish that individual protected areas are often too small. The paper qualifies the overall protection gap: outside the Neotropics, the two biomes receive proportionally similar protection. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The key human drivers of grassland and savannah degradation include expansion of cropped areas or conversion to intensive pasture systems (Section 2.3) (27), reduced livestock mobility and overgrazing, and-in savannahs-fuelwood extraction (4,31).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] source
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [31] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s “Drivers of Change” section says land-use change and intensification disrupt tropical grassy biomes, and that roads and fences prohibit large-scale animal movements. Its “Human use and value” discussion identifies fuelwood harvesting as significant, but says its sustainability varies; the copy does not identify reduced livestock mobility, overgrazing, and fuelwood extraction together as key drivers of degradation, or specifically describe conversion to intensive pasture systems. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Global CH 4 emissions have risen rapidly since 2007, with a further acceleration after 2014 (50).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [50] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Figure 3 discussion report that atmospheric methane growth resumed in 2007 and became stronger from 2014 (page numbers not supplied). But Section 5 says the causes remain uncertain and may involve changes in emissions, sinks, or both; the paper does not establish that global emissions themselves accelerated. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Estimates of the current and recent areal extent of wetlands vary substantially, from under 2% to over 20% of the global land area (46).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [46] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 2) describes substantially varying wetland estimates and reports that satellite imagery places permanent water coverage as low as 1.6% of land. Section 2.5.2 (p. 8) reports a wetland estimate of 22.6%, but identifies it as potential extent that does not account for human-caused losses. The claimed range therefore draws on different measures, rather than estimates of current or recent wetland extent throughout. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Changes in river flow regimes, but also pollution inflow from agricultural fields, can increase algal biomass; reduce invertebrate richness, abundance, and density; and alter organic matter decomposition (58).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [58] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that human-driven water stress increased algal biomass, reduced invertebrate richness, abundance and density, and reduced organic matter breakdown. It links these effects chiefly to altered flows from dams and water abstraction; the passages do not establish pollution inflow from agricultural fields as a cause of those outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Restoring already degraded wetlands can sequester carbon on a century scale, albeit at an often relatively slow pace and possibly at the expense of increased CH 4 emissions (53), but with large potential to improve conditions for biodiversity (54).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [53] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.5 reports that restored wetlands sequestered carbon and that methane emissions delayed net greenhouse-gas benefits for at least half a century, with the wetlands becoming net atmospheric sinks after a century or more. It does not establish that carbon sequestration itself proceeds slowly; the century-scale delay concerns climate benefit after the methane burden, and the paper describes the restored wetlands as sizeable carbon sinks. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Vegetation fires are an important ecological feature of most land ecosystems and are used as a management tool but also often negatively affect human societies through, e.g., losses of properties and lives and local and long-range air pollution (75).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [75] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes fire as fundamental to most terrestrial ecosystems, notes its use as a management tool, and says recent fires have had negative consequences for humans. Section 6.3 (page unavailable) says smoke affects human health and travels beyond burn perimeters. Our copy does not specifically substantiate the claimed losses of property and lives. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Groundwater recharge is expected to respond to climate change with increases during wet, winter periods and declines during dry, summer periods; overall declines are expected in more arid locations (72).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [72] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.3 (page unavailable) projects dry-season declines for Bandung and Ho Chi Minh City and wet-season increases for Bangkok, supporting parts of the seasonal pattern. It does not equate wet and dry seasons with winter and summer or predict overall declines for arid locations. The pattern is not general across the four cities: Lahore’s recharge increases in both seasons, with the larger increase in the dry season. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Analyses of remotely sensed vegetation greenness (and vegetation browning) as well as model-based studies found that climate change has contributed to degradation chiefly in regions located around 15-45 o S, although studies disagree regarding the exact region of impact (36,60,61).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] source
- Partly supportedcites [60] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passage on regional climate effects (section labeled Abstract; no page given) says climatic effects are negative in some regions and that South America is the only continent where negative effects were statistically significant. It also reports inconsistency between models. It does not establish that degradation occurred chiefly at 15–45°S or that studies disagree about the exact region affected. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“These are difficult to gauge and difficult to compare, which often prevents the assessment of co-benefits or trade-offs (101, 103).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] source
- Supportedcites [103] source
Section 5 says benefits of nature-based solutions are rarely accounted for because they can be difficult to monetize, and that appraisals rarely factor in trade-offs. It also says measuring and comparing intervention outcomes is extremely challenging, supporting the cited point about difficulty assessing co-benefits and trade-offs. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The overall frequency of tropical cyclones may not change, or may even decrease with continued climate change, but high intensity cyclones are expected to increase in number and intensity as well as the amount and intensity of rainfall (87,88).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] source
- Supportedcites [88] source
The introductory passage reports that models suggest more intense tropical cyclones in the future, despite uncertainty about overall cyclone frequency. The Discussion reports future intensification and increased rainfall in the studied storms, while the TC rainfall section reports more extremely intense rainfall rates under warming. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As a co-benefit, these practices also enhance ecosystem carbon sinks and food security as well as deliver multiple other co-benefits (63), with positive changes in areas totaling globally greater than 10 Mkm 2 (63).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [63] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Co-delivery across the land challenges; page unavailable) says most agricultural land-management practices have benefits across the four land challenges, while noting exceptions for food security. The Results (Potential of practices for addressing land degradation and desertification; page unavailable) say more than 10 million km² could benefit from improved management—not that positive changes have already occurred across that area. The citing sentence presents these potential benefits as established outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These analyses demonstrate that regionally adapted restoration activities have large potential to support climate change mitigation while simultaneously reducing climate change impacts on ecosystems and people, with added benefits for multiple ecosystem services.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [97] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) says carbon conservation could mitigate climate change while benefiting biodiversity and other ecosystem services, and recommends regional-to-local conservation planning. It does not demonstrate that regionally adapted restoration activities reduce climate-change impacts on ecosystems and people; its analyses concern conservation priorities, not restoration outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [98] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (p. 14) reports substantial climate-mitigation and biodiversity benefits from spatially planned restoration in the Atlantic Forest, and the Discussion (p. 12) identifies potential local ecosystem-service benefits. But the Results (p. 10) say climate-change adaptation *might* benefit from more resilient ecosystems; the paper does not demonstrate that restoration reduces climate-change impacts on ecosystems and people. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [99] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s summary and its section on synergies between forest-based carbon emission reduction and biodiversity conservation describe modeled REDD+ scenarios with climate-mitigation and biodiversity benefits. They do not establish that regionally adapted restoration reduces climate-change impacts on ecosystems and people or provides benefits across multiple ecosystem services; the analysis concerns allocation of REDD+ funds, not those restoration outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Likewise, the reduction of negative impacts, which reflects successful adaptation, could be quantified, e.g., in terms of enhanced assets and livelihoods; in resources (food, water) security, health, cultural, or spiritual well-being; or in conservation and biodiversity (101, 102).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] source
- Partly supportedcites [102] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.3 defines adaptation outcomes as reduced harm or risk, and section 3.3 identifies assets, livelihoods, food security, resource security, and health as outcome dimensions. But section 3.3 mentions culture and spirituality only as part of an earlier typology, while sections 3.5 and 4 treat conservation and biodiversity as intervention components rather than the adaptation outcomes measured here. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Under current climatic conditions, erosion and nutrient leakage from agricultural land is substantial and an important cause of deterioration of marine and terrestrial aquatic ecosystems (84,85).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [84] Wang Z-H, 2019 source
- Partly supportedcites [85] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and §3.1 describe agricultural nutrient leakage as a major contributor to eutrophication and degraded inland and coastal waters. §2 identifies erosion as a pathway for nutrient loss, but the passages do not establish that erosion itself is substantial under current climatic conditions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“But the intensification of the hydrological cycle as a result of warming of the atmosphere is well understood, and the effect has been detected in climatic time series for several decades.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [82] source
- Could not verifycites [83] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages are bibliographic material, not discussion of the hydrological cycle. Searches of the indexed copy for atmospheric warming, hydrological-cycle intensification, and detection in climatic time series found no passage addressing either part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The overall frequency of tropical cyclones may not change, or may even decrease with continued climate change, but high intensity cyclones are expected to increase in number and intensity as well as the amount and intensity of rainfall (87,88).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] source
- Supportedcites [88] source
The passage labeled Abstract (page not supplied) says there is no consensus on future global tropical cyclone frequency: most climate models project fewer cyclones, while others project more. This supports the claim's cautious statement that overall frequency may stay the same or decrease. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sustainable cultivation of lignocellulosic energy crops provides a financial return, while at the same time supporting the rehabilitation of degraded lands and restoring productivity (125).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [125] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Lesson 3 (page unavailable) calls for restoring damaged land to its pre-project agricultural capability, and Lesson 8 describes pasture establishment as a way to restore soil function. These passages support the rehabilitation and productivity aspect, but do not establish that cultivating lignocellulosic energy crops achieves it or provides a financial return. (LLM, conf=0.79)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Afforestation and reforestation are considered relatively cost-effective climate change mitigation options (96).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [96] source
Section 4.2 (Costs; page not provided) says afforestation and reforestation can be available at low, zero, or even negative cost in some places, supporting the broad characterization as relatively cost-effective mitigation options. It also notes that their costs rise as deployment expands. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Exotic monoculture plantations have little or no benefit for biodiversity, or they can even be detrimental if the planted species becomes invasive (115).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [115] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 2) says non-native trees can harm nature conservation when they become invasive, supporting the second half of the claim. It does not say exotic monoculture plantations generally have little or no biodiversity benefit: the habitat-restoration section (p. 22) says some alien-tree plantations remain monocultures, while the Introduction also notes that planted forests can support biodiversity conservation. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Energy crops can enhance the biodiversity of degraded lands, especially if native species are included and/or if perennial grasses and woody crops enhance habitat diversity in what are otherwise large cropland monocultures (109).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.1. Principles of Sustainable Land Management and Contribution to Restoration/Rehabilitation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [109] source
In “The importance of initial land use,” the review reports biodiversity benefits when degraded or marginal land is converted, while cautioning that outcomes depend on the land’s existing biodiversity. “Better management practices” identifies native species as a biodiversity-friendly practice, and “Drivers and pressures” and “Land-use planning and landscape design” describe habitat and landscape benefits from perennial crops, including trees, in intensive cropland. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, the need for dynamic conservation strategies was not considered in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, nor is it being considered in the current draft of the post-Aichi objectives (144).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [144] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Climate Change and Global Biodiversity Targets” (page unavailable), the paper says Aichi Target 11 and the corresponding draft post-2020 targets may lead to static protected-area approaches, although flexible, dynamic measures are needed. It says the draft targets *might* lead to static approaches, not that the need for dynamic conservation was wholly unconsidered across the draft objectives; the citing sentence overstates that conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, the commitments of approximately a quarter of countries are larger than the existing forest or agricultural areas in those countries, which implies the need for enormous transformation in current land-use practices and agricultural and forest economies (137; see also Section 4.2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [137] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Establishing financial mechanisms for compensating land users for SLM and improved delivery of ecosystem services, e.g., through payments for ecosystem services, could provide a much-needed incentive for increased investment into land restoration and rehabilitation (111, 127, 128).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [111] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Challenges to Agroforestry Adoption” (page unavailable), the paper says that some agroforestry practices may need markets that compensate land users for ecosystem services to make financial sense. “Moving Forward—Policy and Research Needs” (page unavailable) also proposes credits for environmental services to encourage adoption. These passages support the proposed financial incentive, but they do not extend it to sustainable land management generally or explicitly link it to increased investment in land restoration and rehabilitation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [127] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites [128] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Enhancing synergies and reducing trade-offs can be achieved by (a) policy decisions and implementation that consider cross-disciplinary scientific knowledge on natural, economic, and societal aspects and (b) mapping and quantification of stakeholder choices in relation to various ecosystem service choices (139).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [139] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes an ecosystem-services framework that bridges disciplines and incorporates human decisions and values into natural-resource management. The paper also discusses working with policy and practice, but it does not establish that these steps enhance synergies or reduce trade-offs, or describe mapping and quantifying stakeholder choices to achieve that result. A search for “trade-offs” found only a comment about understanding them, not reducing them. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They found that meeting these targets would require an increase in global tree cover of 4 million km² that would increase forest carbon stocks by 50 Gt and protect 28% of the terrestrial surface with high biodiversity and carbon values.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.5. Lack of Restoration Scenarios for Climate Change/Biodiversity Projections
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [130] source
The Abstract reports that meeting the modeled global land restoration and protection targets would increase tree cover by 4 million km², forest carbon stocks by 50 Gt, and protect 28% of terrestrial area with the highest biodiversity and carbon-storage value. The claim accurately paraphrases those findings. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Rather than making fixed and irreversible decisions now, alternative climate change mitigation and restoration pathways could explore the future outcomes of decision-making when accounting for climate or socioeconomic developments, new knowledge or technologies, and changing societal values (145).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [145] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction supports flexible decisions that adapt as conditions unfold, and §2.2 describes evaluating alternative policy pathways and monitoring developments that trigger later actions. The Waas case considers climate and land-use scenarios. The paper addresses climate adaptation and flood management, however, not mitigation or restoration pathways; the cited passages also do not establish changing societal values or new knowledge as factors evaluated in those pathways. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Scown et al. (129), who estimated that subsidies in the CAP (common agricultural policy) supported high-pollution practices in agriculture and low nature-value farmland, as well as increasing income inequality.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [129] source
In “CAP Payments Compared with Social and Environmental Needs” (page unavailable), the paper reports that substantial CAP income support went to high-GHG-emitting regions and regions with little high-nature-value farmland. The same section explicitly concludes that current payments increase income inequality within agriculture. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved forest management For example, improved tree varieties, mixed forests, reduced disturbance when harvesting, selective logging Enhance forest carbon content; reduced risks from insects/pathogens; habitat for biodiversity 0.4-2.1 >25 Access to knowledge, technology”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar addition Add biochar to agricultural soils Enhanced soil structure, water-and nutrientholding capacity and enhance long-term carbon storage Mitigation estimate is net across supply chain from feedstock production to soil application, including avoided emissions and carbon sequestered.0.03-6.6(Plausible to technical potential) 0.5-2 (Sustainable potential) Up to 3,200 unless arable land w”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Integrated water management Increase irrigation effi ciency Reduce competition for drinking water; reduce water pollution; reduce pressure on freshwater biodiversity 0.1-0.72 250 Access to fi nance, technology”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reduced deforestation/ degradation Stop conversion of forests and savannahs into agricultural systems Maintain carbon stocks and uptake potential; fl ood control; habitat for biodiversity 0.5-5.81-25 Government regulation; land-use zoning and planning; alternative income opportunities to forest-dependent communities; weak law enforcement to protect forests and dependent communities”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Restoration/ reduced conversion of inland wetlands and peatlands Remove drainage systems in former peatlands; create/ maintain natural dams Enhance net carbon content (balance of CO 2 uptake and CH 4 emissions); fl ood regulation; habitat for biodiversity 0.6-2 Unknown Government regulation, restoration requirements; alternative income opportunities to wetlanddependent communities; weak law enforc”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reforestation/ restoration Foster natural forest regrowth or planting of mixed-species forests on former cropland or pastures that are naturally forested Enhance forest carbon content; reduced risks from insects/pathogens; habitat for biodiversity 1.5-10.1 >25 Access to knowledge, fi nance and technology”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fire management Foster controlled burning; minimize risks of extreme wildfi res Reduce risk of large-scale forest (and property) loss and fi re-related ecosystem shifts; maintain ecological role of fi re 0.5-8.1 >6 Government regulation, restoration requirements”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although changes in carbon pool sizes do not necessarily imply a loss of productivity, they nonetheless indicate a loss of ecological integrity, including loss of biodiversity and altered ecosystem functioning and services (see the sidebar titled A Short Reflection on Terminology).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Annual forestry harvest has continuously increased since the early 1960s, and in the first decades of the twenty-first century amounts to approximately 1 GtC a -1 (1,8).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] Arneth A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [8] 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Avoiding, reducing, and reversing land degradation needs to be part of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, with many possible co-benefits for ecosystems and human societies.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 1. DEGREE AND TRENDS IN DEGRADATION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change contributes to forest degradation; e.g., drought and heat stress increase regeneration failure and tree mortality.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Drivers of degradation include very short-term events [such as rainstorms causing erosion (10)] as well as slow processes that accumulate over years and decades (such as nutrient losses or loss in biodiversity), interacting with management and land-use change”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a consequence, restoration measures (Sections 4 and 5) work best if the short-term, often weather-driven impacts are alleviated and the long-term impacts are addressed”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2. DRIVERS OF DEGRADATION AND IMPACTS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although harvested above-ground biomass and litter carbon recovers in regrowing vegetation, the impacts of forest management on soil processes are longer term and much more difficult to quantify.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.1. Forests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis of studies found that heavy grazing decreases soil organic carbon content in grassland dominated by vegetation of the C3 photosynthetic pathway and increased soil organic carbon content in mixed and C4 photosynthetic-type grasslands (37).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These drivers of grassland degradation also limit the adaptive capacities of pastoral communities, making them severely vulnerable to climate change, degradation, and continuing marginalization in favor of crop production (4).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: These grasslands represent the key source of livelihoods for approximately 100 million to 200 million pastoralists around the world.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved access to financial markets creates more possibilities for obtaining credit to invest in SLM measures, and insurance can reduce associated risks.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using biological productivity (e.g., NPP; see the sidebar titled A Short Reflection on Terminology) as an indicator, degradation in numerous grasslands across Europe, North America, and Asia was found to be primarily caused directly by human activities, although climate change is also a strong contributing factor (36) (Section 3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“30% of the approximately 46% (±0.8%) of the global land area defined as drylands are grassy ecosystems (22)(23)(24).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Likewise, isolated trees in tropical savannahs support biodiversity in these ecosystems, as well as providing food and shelter to humans (25).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Crop management and soil moisture are also important determinants of emissions whereby waterlogging and soil compaction generally are associated with high CH 4 emissions (42).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, better access to input and output markets lowers the costs of applied inputs (e.g., fertilizer) and transportation (e.g., for sales), ultimately increasing profit margins, which provides greater capacity for reinvestment in SLM.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.2. Grasslands and Savannahs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Whereas ruminant livestock are the main source of CH 4 from the agricultural sector, rice cultivation is the most important source of CH 4 from agricultural soils (41).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.4. Croplands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Humphreys J, 2019, Geoderma Reg source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Others have argued that carbon sinks or sources in grasslands depend heavily on the previous land use, climate, and/or time since conversion (38).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.3. Intensively Managed Grazing Land
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This large variation is due to the lack of an accepted definition of wetlands and difficulties in linking definitions with data sources.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The most important human drivers of wetland decline are urbanization, drainage for agricultural expansion, and increasing use of irrigation in agriculture causing wetlands to dry (48).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Historical data on their areal extent are highly uncertain, but an estimated 87% of the world's wetlands were lost in the past 300 years, 54% since 1900 (47), and 35% since 1970 (48).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [47] Prince S, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Climate change is projected to exacerbate the degradation of wetlands due to increasing evaporation and increasing demand for irrigation, as well as enhancing fire risks (49) (Section 3).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.5. Wetlands and Peatlands
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The building of dams alters habitats and results in biodiversity loss putting pressure on freshwater megafauna by blocking fish migration, range contraction, and population decline.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 2.6. Rivers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although wildfires that have coevolved with an ecosystem are not a degrading feature, there is concern that a change in fire regimes caused by climate change could negatively interfere with the integrity of an ecosystem, lead to changes in biome type, and cause increased risk to the human populations living in fire-prone environments.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increasing droughts will cause stress to coastal and inland wetlands.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Frequently burned sites across continents were found to have up to tenfold less soil organic matter decomposing extracellular enzyme activity and up to 185% lower soil carbon and nitrogen concentrations due to reduced biomass inputs and reduced tree abundance (80).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [80] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wildfires in boreal regions, which have experienced overproportional warming, can accelerate permafrost thaw and cause large carbon losses from vegetation and organic soils.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Although climate change has until now had relatively minor impacts on degradation, it is expected to become more important for degradation in the future (3, 4), exacerbating the effects of land-use change.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Olsson L, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Droughts usually evolve relatively slowly, posing difficulties in identifying their onset and end (64), although the rapid onset of flash droughts is also possible (65).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [64] Wilhite D, 2017
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [65] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Responding to droughts proactively by increasing the resilience of societies and ecosystems was found to be more efficient in limiting drought impacts than reactive drought relief efforts, which are still widely practiced across the world (4).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.1. Drought
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] Mirzabaev A, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ignition sources, vegetation characteristics, land use, fire management, and climate all play a role in determining the frequency, severity, and spread of wildfires.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.2. Wildfire
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measures to achieve mitigation in land ecosystems with immediate positive synergies with conservation and adaptation are foremost a reduction in the conversion of forest and nonforest (semi)natural ecosystems into intensively managed ecosystems, together with the restoration of ecosystems with large carbon sequestration potential.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In mountainous regions, landslides and other impacts of intensive rainfall are often the major cause of climate-related loss of life and damage to property (90).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.3. Rainfall Extremes and Flood
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [90] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Measuring and monitoring the success of combined mitigation-adaptation approaches is nontrivial; multiple and very different indicators need to be used that are cognizant of the agreements made in international conventions as well as capturing local consequences (101).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acting immediately and simultaneously with regionally adjusted measures would enhance food, fiber, and water security, help to curb loss of biodiversity, as well as alleviate and reverse land degradation, without compromising the nonmaterial or regulating benefits from land ecosystems.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Socioeconomic drivers of degradation such as population growth and increasing per capita demand for ecosystem services are projected to continue into the future.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When faced with climate change, restoration will be about managing change, with a return to historical states hard or impossible to achieve.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Likewise, removal of residues that would otherwise be retained on the soil surface increases the risk of soil erosion and depletes soil organic matter (93,94).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Demand for bioenergy is anticipated to grow along with demand for other renewables, especially bioenergy linked with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which emerges in future scenarios as one of the few technologies that can deliver carbon dioxide removal at required scales.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [91] IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change), 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Biodiversity and productivity in forests are positively correlated globally (118).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [118] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall impact on productivity (as an important degradation measure) will likely differ between regions and ecosystem types.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.3. Role of Wild Animals
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These discussions mostly neglect the role of animals, despite their essential role in shaping habitat structure, ecosystem productivity, and nutrient cycling (122).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.3. Role of Wild Animals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [122] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practices that enhance soil carbon and nutrients in principle should deliver the same yields with less input and hence be more economically viable.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.4. Economic Aspects
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition to the carbon removal during tree growth, Churkina et al. (112) recently estimated a large potential for using timber in construction, which decreases carbon emissions from concrete and steel production and provides long-term carbon storage in wood.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.2. Reforestation/Afforestation Are Not Necessarily the Same as Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [112] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In principle, two strategies apply (141): the revision of policies that impede restoration objectives and the introduction of targeted initiatives that could directly help remove the key barriers.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More than 120 countries have already committed to set land degradation neutrality targets (https://www.unccd.int/actions/ldn-target-setting- programme).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites https://www.unccd.int/actions/ldn-target-setting- programme
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Effective main-streaming of mitigation and adaptation in sustainable land and forest management needs to combine the advantages of centralized governance (notably coordination, stability, compliance) with those of more horizontal structures (that allow flexibility, autonomy for local decision-making, multistakeholder engagement, co-management) (133).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5. GOVERNANCE, POLICY, AND THE LIMITS TO RESTORATION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [133] Acosta LA, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change is expected to exacerbate degradation processes in many regions, while degradation-related greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of carbon sink capacity in turn contribute to climate change.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 6. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Approximately 30% of government pledges in the NDCs are predicated on land-based measures to help achieve their climate change mitigation and/or adaptation goals, but many of the measures are not yet clearly defined (138).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [138] Seddon N, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Successful restoration will, therefore, be much more about managing change, with a return to a pristine historical ecosystem state in some places difficult or impossible to achieve.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This highlighted the importance of targeted land-management measures that are consistent with policy targets of global restoration.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4.5. Lack of Restoration Scenarios for Climate Change/Biodiversity Projections
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“restoration measures could also be aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Global leadership could advance such local initiatives.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5. GOVERNANCE, POLICY, AND THE LIMITS TO RESTORATION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Soft barriers to restoration include human (cognitive and behavioral obstacles), social (undermined participation in decision-making and inequity), economic (market failures, perverse incentives, lack of domestic funds), institutional (mal-coordination of policies, government failures, path-dependent institutions and a lack of cross-sectoral policy making), and technological (140).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [140] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SSPs currently widely used in the global environmental change research community vary in their challenges to climate change adaptation and mitigation, but do not specify challenges to nature conservation, nor many of the critical drivers of ecosystem change.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The SSPs are currently widely used in the global environmental change research community.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These new models could be used to identify the environmental and societal co-benefits of considering multiple ecosystem services as part of human agency.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the required efforts of coordination and societal and policy coherence are massive.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Barriers specific to restoration may include a perceived lack of financial benefit, insufficient information or education, prohibitive costs of adoption, lack of access to credit, systems of uncertain land tenure, and lack of infrastructure or appropriate spatial planning (141) (Table 2).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [141] Wreford A, 2017 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the challenges at hand, but also the multiple co-benefits from restoration, applying new modeling methods to novel scenario frameworks would help to identify plausible pathways that achieve multiple societal and political visions, while concurrently avoiding further degradation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of these barriers can be addressed.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.2. Limits to Restoration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although there is climate change mitigation potential in restoring forests (and avoiding further deforestation), if done poorly, both land-based climate change mitigation measures and restoration measures could backfire.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These measures also contribute to many SDGs, including 15 (through restored landscapes and protected forests and biodiversity), 13 (through carbon capture and storage and enhanced ecosystem resilience), and 1 (by increasing income from forest and agriculture sector).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Many synergies exist between restoration and key international policy areas that relate to nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation (UNFCCC), avoiding and reducing degradation and restoring degraded land (UNCCD), and the CBD and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
In the paper
“Future climate change will cause shifts in species distributions and ranges that may go beyond the boundaries of static protected areas and/or increase the number and frequency of episodic, forest stand-destroying events such as wildfire or insect and pest outbreaks (12).”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.3. Dealing With Uncertain Futures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Impacts could cascade through SDGs due to trade-offs between land for climate mitigation versus food production, or between forest biomass-based livelihoods versus global carbon storage with impacts on poverty alleviation.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 5.1. Restoration and International Policy Targets and Objectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land degradation is a ubiquitous challenge to human societies, driven mostly by socioeconomic factors.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enhanced adoption of SLM technologies and the initiation of land restoration and rehabilitation activities will require overcoming numerous societal and economic barriers to provide the necessary incentive for increased investments in land restoration.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > FUTURE ISSUES
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Land-based solutions aimed only at greenhouse gas mitigation, such as large-scale afforestation or bioenergy plantations, are at risk of contributing to land degradation and can have other negative, unintended societal and environmental consequences.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 6. CONCLUSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acting immediately and simultaneously with regionally adjusted measures to alleviate and reverse land degradation would enhance food, fiber, and water security and help to curb loss of biodiversity, without compromising the nonmaterial or regulating benefits from land.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The success of land restoration activities can be promoted by the provision of incentive schemes such as payments for ecosystem services, although more research and experimentation is needed to test other options, especially in nonforest ecosystems.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > FUTURE ISSUES
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Governance is key to fostering successful restoration if it supports the identification and integration of the interests of all actors, but the degree of extant environmental change commitments and the rate of change can pose hard environmental and social limits.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Synergies exist between fostering restoration in international policies and goals related to, for example, the Paris Agreement, land degradation neutrality targets, and the post-2020 biodiversity targets.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > FUTURE ISSUES
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Investment in diverse restoration efforts, and land set aside for conservation, can generate co-benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation, economically and more broadly for human and societal well-being.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Removing the existing barriers to their adaptation (such as financial incentives and the redirection of perverse subsidies, access to knowledge and technology, enforcement of environmental policies, appropriate spatial planning) requires multilevel governance supported by crossdisciplinary scientific knowledge of natural, economic, and societal drivers and impacts.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate change is expected to increase in importance as a driver of degradation in the future, exacerbating the effects of land use and management.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > SUMMARY POINTS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, multiple strands of evidence show that degradation can be halted and reversed with appropriate land management practices, which would deliver co-benefits for a range of sustainable development objectives.”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 6. CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
These grasslands represent the key source of livelihoods for approximately 100 million to 200 million pastoralists around the world.
“These grasslands represent the key source of livelihoods for approximately 100 million to 200 million pastoralists around the world.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Grasslands provide essential supporting, regulating, and cultural ecosystem functions and services.
“Grasslands also provide essential supporting, regulating, and cultural ecosystem functions and services.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Tropical grassy ecosystems harbor approximately half of the vascular plant richness found in tropical forests, and species richness for mammals, birds, and amphibians is also high.
“For instance, tropical grassy ecosystems harbor approximately half of the vascular plant richness found in tropical forests, and species richness for mammals, birds, and amphibians is also high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Grassland degradation is a widespread phenomenon, with overgrazing being a key driver, together with frequent wheel traffic, or overfertilization, all of which result in changes in sward composition, reduction in yields, and deterioration of soils.
“Grassland degradation is a widespread phenomenon, with overgrazing being a key driver, together with frequent wheel traffic, or overfertilization, all of which result in changes in sward composition, reduction in yields, and deterioration of soils.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Grasslands can act as carbon sinks, transferring carbon below-ground via their expansive root systems.
“Grasslands can act as carbon sinks, transferring carbon below-ground via their expansive root systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The global extent of land used for grazing is estimated to be 28–42 Mkm², with the range mainly determined by differences in definitions.
“The global extent of land used for grazing is estimated to be 28-42 Mkm², the range being mainly determined by differences in definitions.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Grassland established after deforestation can be assumed to be under intensive management schemes.
“and can be assumed to be under intensive management schemes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Grasslands are sources of ruminant methane (CH4) emissions and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from excreta or fertilized pastures.
“grasslands are sources of ruminant methane (CH 4 ) emissions as well as nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from excreta or fertilized pastures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Modern conventional agriculture is a driver of terrestrial and marine ecosystem degradation and emissions of greenhouse gases.
“It is axiomatic that modern conventional agriculture is a driver of terrestrial and marine ecosystem degradation as well as emissions of greenhouse gases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Agricultural soils and practices are a major source of CH4 and N2O.
“Agricultural soils and practices are also a major source of CH 4 and N 2 O.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Within the agricultural and forestry sector, annual emissions of CH4 and N2O together are similar (in CO2-equivalents) to emissions of CO2 from net deforestation.
“Within the agricultural and forestry sector, annual emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O together are similar (in CO 2 -equivalents) to emissions of CO 2 from net deforestation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Wetlands play a vital role for a range of ecosystem services, such as flood control, water purification, groundwater replenishment, and nutrient retention, and they are often hotspots of biodiversity.
“Wetlands play a vital role for a range of ecosystem services, such as flood control, water purification, groundwater replenishment, and nutrient retention, and they are often hotspots of biodiversity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Wetlands are under severe stress and subject to degradation.
“Despite their importance, wetlands are under severe stress and subject to degradation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The intensification of the hydrological cycle is at least linearly linked to warming at a rate of 6-7% per degree K (the Clausius-Clapeyron response).
“Theoretically, the intensification is assumed to be at least linearly linked to warming at a rate of 6-7% per degree K (the Clausius-Clapeyron response), but empirical evidence and model studies indicate a steeper increase in precipitation intensity, particularly in dry regions (82,83).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Erosion from agricultural fields under conventional tillage is often 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the rate of soil formation.
“Erosion from agricultural fields under conventional tillage is often 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than the rate of soil formation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood for domestic use is a major cause of land degradation, especially in tropical and dryland regions.
“Unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood for domestic use is a major cause of land degradation, especially in tropical and dryland regions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Expansion of purpose-grown energy crops such as canola, soy, miscanthus, or oil palm causes loss of carbon stocks in biomass and soil, loss of soil fertility, and loss of biodiversity if it leads, directly or indirectly, to the conversion of grassland or natural forest to cropland or plantations and/or to further environmentally detrimental intensification of cropland management.
“Expansion of purposegrown energy crops such as canola, soy, miscanthus, or oil palm causes loss of carbon stocks in biomass and soil, loss of soil fertility, and loss of biodiversity if it leads, directly or indirectly, to the conversion of grassland or natural forest to cropland or plantations and/or to further environmentally detrimental intensification of cropland management.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Socioeconomic drivers of degradation such as population growth and increasing per capita demand for ecosystem services are projected to continue into the future.
“Socioeconomic drivers of degradation such as population growth and increasing per capita demand for ecosystem services are projected to continue into the future.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions or atmospherically reactive precursors of climate forcers are in principle measurable, but these measurements are often technically complex and expensive and require large investment in human power and instrumental infrastructure.
“For instance, reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions or atmospherically reactive precursors of climate forcers are in principle measurable, but these measurements are often technically complex and expensive and require large investment in human power and instrumental infrastructure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The effectiveness of measures may only become evident years or even decades after implementation.
“In both cases, the effectiveness of measures may only become evident years or even decades after implementation, such as the carbon uptake of a restored forest (including the fate of wood products or carbon losses through fire or insects) or the net carbon budget (CO 2 versus CH 4 ) and catchment water balance in restored wetlands, which may take decades to centuries to semiequilibrate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Carbon sinks decline in all forests as they mature.
“Carbon sinks decline in all forests as they mature.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Biophysical surface exchange processes in tropical forests cause local cooling as a climate co-benefit.
“Biophysical surface exchange processes in tropical forests, with often large evapotranspiration rates, cause local cooling as a climate co-benefit.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Animals have carbon to nitrogen ratios lower than plant material.
“And animals have carbon to nitrogen ratios that are lower than plant material; hence, the return of nutrients to soil in the form of animal feces has quite different decomposition rates than plant litter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The return of nutrients to soil in the form of animal feces has quite different decomposition rates than plant litter.
“And animals have carbon to nitrogen ratios that are lower than plant material; hence, the return of nutrients to soil in the form of animal feces has quite different decomposition rates than plant litter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The presence or absence of large carnivores impacts type and density of prey animals, including the abundance of herbivores and the type and amount of consumed green leaf area.
“Furthermore, the presence or absence of large carnivores impacts type and density of prey animals, including the abundance of herbivores and the type and amount of consumed green leaf area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Earthworms and termites are well known for their role in decomposition of litter and soil organic matter and nutrient turnover.
““Soil engineers” such as earthworms and termites are well known for their role in decomposition of litter and soil organic matter and nutrient turnover.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Perennial woody or herbaceous energy crops are able to grow, albeit slowly, on low fertility soils.
“Likewise, perennial woody or herbaceous energy crops (e.g., grasses such as switchgrass or Miscanthus species) can be grown where topsoil has been lost, as they are able to grow, albeit slowly, on low fertility soils.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Wolves preying on moose in Northern American boreal forests enhance NPP and net ecosystem carbon uptake by up to 30% via increased growth of deciduous trees and enhanced tree leaf area index.
“Wolves preying on moose in Northern American boreal forests were also estimated to enhance NPP and net ecosystem carbon uptake by up to 30% via increased growth of deciduous trees (which, as the preferred fodder of moose, are suppressed in their presence) and enhanced tree leaf area index.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are very few examples of large-scale scenarios of restoring degraded land.
“Although scenario analysis is used widely across the environmental sciences, there are very few examples of large-scale scenarios of restoring degraded land.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Restoration is part of the CBD's post-2020 biodiversity targets expected to be agreed at the next UN CBD COP in China in 2021.
“Restoration is also part of the CBD's post-2020 biodiversity targets that are expected to be agreed upon at the next UN CBD Conference of the Parties (COP) in China (which will take place in 2021)”
The paper relies on this without support.
At least 66% of Paris Agreement signatories include nature-based solutions in some form in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
“At least 66% of Paris Agreement signatories were found to include nature-based solutions in some form in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).”
The paper relies on this without support.
An important share of the economic benefits of restoration is in the form of nonprovisioning ecosystem services, which benefit society as a whole, but individual land users cannot fully monetize these benefits.
“Firstly, an important share of the economic benefits of restoration is in the form of nonprovisioning ecosystem services, which benefit society as a whole, but individual land users cannot fully monetize these benefits.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Benefits of private goods may accrue only after a long period of time, while up-front costs may be prohibitively high, especially for the poor without access to credit.
“Secondly, even when the value of private goods can be realized by land users, the benefits may accrue only after a long period of time, while up-front costs may be prohibitively high, especially for the poor without access to credit.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Continuing institutional barriers such as land tenure insecurity and lack of access to rural advisory services pose formidable barriers to the wider adoption of SLM practices and technologies.
“Furthermore, continuing institutional barriers such as land tenure insecurity and lack of access to rural advisory services, i.e., to the information and know-how about SLM and land restoration technologies, pose formidable barriers to the wider adoption of SLM practices and technologies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many synergies exist between restoration and key international policy areas that relate to nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation (UNFCCC), avoiding and reducing degradation and restoring degraded land (UNCCD), and the CBD and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
“Many synergies exist between restoration and key international policy areas that relate to nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation (UNFCCC), avoiding and reducing degradation and restoring degraded land (UNCCD), and the CBD and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Large uncertainties about the future exist.
“Given large uncertainties about the future (and a general lack of restoration scenarios) static goals and policies that aim to achieve restoration (and sustainable development more generally) are likely to fail.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is a general lack of restoration scenarios.
“Given large uncertainties about the future (and a general lack of restoration scenarios) static goals and policies that aim to achieve restoration (and sustainable development more generally) are likely to fail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The SSPs are currently widely used in the global environmental change research community.
“The SSPs currently widely used in the global environmental change research community vary in their challenges to climate change adaptation and mitigation, but do not specify challenges to nature conservation, nor many of the critical drivers of ecosystem change.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS ARISING FROM AVOIDING FURTHER DEGRADATION AND INCREASING RESTORATION
“Mitigating climate change by utilizing vast land areas globally for the production of bioenergy (Section 3.3)”
§ Annual Review of Environment and Resources Restoring Degraded Lands > 3.4. Bioenergy
“## 3.4. Bioenergy”
Citations
Cites
(2019) · Cited by 3,602
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020
(2020) · doi:10.4060/ca9825en · Cited by 3,408
Forest disturbances under climate change
Seidl, R., Thom, D., Kautz, M., Martin-Benito, D., Peltoniemi, M., Vacchiano, G., Wild, J., Ascoli, D., Petr, M., Honkaniemi, J., et al. (2017) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3303 · Cited by 2,878
Greening of the Earth and its drivers
Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Arneth, A., et al. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3004 · Cited by 2,779
Self-citationMapping the world’s free-flowing rivers
Grill, G., Lehner, B., Thieme, M., Geenen, B., Tickner, D., Antonelli, F., Babu, S., Borrelli, P., Cheng, L., Crochetiere, H., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9 · Cited by 2,473 · cited 1×
“Only 37% of rivers longer than 1,000 km remain free-flowing over their entire length, often in very remote regions (57).”
BackgroundSeddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A. J., Smith, A., & Turner, B. (2020) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0120 · Cited by 2,024 · cited 1×
“These are difficult to gauge and difficult to compare, which often prevents the assessment of co-benefits or trade-offs (101, 103).”
BackgroundFarming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C., & Foley, J. A. (2008) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2007gb002952 · Cited by 1,942 · cited 1×
“org; any grazing land used for more than five consecutive years), spans 28 (33) to 34 Mkm2, including extensively used natural grasslands (Section 2.”
BackgroundMore extreme precipitation in the world’s dry and wet regions
Donat, M. G., Lowry, A. L., Alexander, L. V., O’Gorman, P. A., & Maher, N. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2941 · Cited by 1,792 · cited 1×
“Theoretically, the intensification is assumed to be at least linearly linked to warming at a rate of 6–7% per degree K (the Clausius-Clapeyron response), but empirical evidence and model studies indicate a steeper increase in precipitation intensity, particularly in dry regions (82, 83).”
BackgroundLe Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2018) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 · Cited by 1,645
Self-citationNegative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., de Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., et al. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f · Cited by 1,525
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.), 2019, The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
- Olsson L, 2019, Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, 345
- Mirzabaev A, 2019, Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, 249
- FAO (United Nations Food Agric. Organ.), 2016, Trees, Forests and Land Use in Drylands: The First Global Assessment—Preliminary Findings
- Shin Y-J, 2019, The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
- Prince S, 2018, The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration, 315
- Jia G, 2019, Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, 131
- Hurlbert M, 2019, Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, 673
- IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change), 2018, Global Warming of 1.5°C
- Montgomery DR., 2017, Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life
- De Stefano A, 2018, Agroforestry Syst, 92, 285
- Seddon N, 2019, Nature-Based Solutions in Nationally Determined Contributions: Synthesis and Recommendations for Enhancing Climate Ambition and Action by 2020
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The enduring world forest carbon sink
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Phillips, O. L., Houghton, R. A., Fang, J., Kauppi, P. E., Keith, H., Kurz, W. A., Ito, A., Lewis, S. L., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x · Cited by 846
“Recovery of functions by degraded forests and lands offers further opportunities for enhancing carbon sinks, with many additional benefits, such as protecting biodiversity 46 .”
Self-citationActions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate
Shin, Y., Midgley, G. F., Archer, E. R. M., Arneth, A., Barnes, D. K. A., Chan, L., Hashimoto, S., Hoegh‐Guldberg, O., Insarov, G., Leadley, P., et al. (2022) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16109 · Cited by 279
Self-citationAlexander, P. M., Arneth, A., Henry, R., Maire, J., Rabin, S. S., & Rounsevell, M. (2022) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-022-00659-9 · Cited by 179
Self-citationRounsevell, M., Arneth, A., Brown, C., Cheung, W. W. L., Giménez, O., Holman, I. P., Leadley, P., Luján, C., Mahévas, S., Maréchaux, I., et al. (2021) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.003 · Cited by 107
Self-citationBioenergy: a foundation to environmental sustainability in a changing global climate scenario
Rather, R. A., Wani, A. W., Mumtaz, S., Padder, S. A., Khan, A. H., Almohana, A. I., Almojil, S. F., Alam, S. S., & Baba, T. R. (2021) · Journal of King Saud University - Science · doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101734 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A.
- Affiliations
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- Lund University (SE)
- Government of New South Wales (AU)
- BOKU University (AT)
- University of Regina (CA)
- Canadian Forest Service (CA)
- University of Bonn (DE)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Annual Review of Environment and Resources
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2021-10-18
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 569-599
- ISSN
- 1543-5938 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2050
- OpenAlex
- W3193845121
- Semantic Scholar
- f5ec9f0a28bb3d035380be5434cd39a3fbf2cf36
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 136
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Environment and Resources (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- KITopen (cc-by)
- Funders
- Canada Research Chairs
- Vetenskapsrådet (2016-06300)
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (773901, 757995)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Water and Land Management
- Keywords
- land degradation, ecological restoration, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem services, sustainable agriculture, forest management, land conservation, poverty, sustainable development, food security, biodiversity loss
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-17, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-17 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
