Abstract
Reforestation and afforestation is expected to achieve a quarter of all emission reduction pledged under the Paris Agreement. Trees store carbon in biomass and soil but also alter the surface energy balance, warming or cooling the local climate. Mitigation scenarios and policies often neglect these biogeophysical (BGP) effects. Here we combine observational BGP datasets with carbon uptake or emission data to assess the end-of-century mitigation potential of forestation. Forestation and conservation of tropical forests achieve the highest climate benefit at 732.12 tCO2e ha–1. Higher-latitude forests warm the local winter climate, affecting 73.7% of temperate forests. Almost a third (29.8%) of forests above 56° N induce net winter warming if only their biomass is considered. Including soil carbon reduces the net warming area to 6.8% but comes with high uncertainty (2.9–42.0%). Our findings emphasize the necessity to conserve and re-establish tropical forests and consider BGP effects in policy scenarios.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data on the combined BGC and BGP impact of forestation and forest conservation, as well as the BGP impact on its own, are available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5184884)39.
Code availability
The Geospatial Data Abstraction Library v.2.4.1 and QGIS 2.18 were used with Python 3.6.5 to process and assess the described datasets. The code is available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5211680)40 and GitHub (https://github.com/mikewin-climsci/BGPvBGC.git).
References
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (IPCC, 2019).
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx (UNFCCC, 2015); https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs/indcs
Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2017).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
Ellison, D. et al. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 51–61 (2017).
Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155121 (2008).
Betts, R. A. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2000).
Betts, R. A., Falloon, P. D., Goldewijk, K. K. & Ramankutty, N. Biogeophysical effects of land use on climate: model simulations of radiative forcing and large-scale temperature change. Agric. For. Meteorol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.08.021 (2007).
Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6550–6555 (2007).
Davin, E. L. & de Noblet-Ducoudre, N. Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim. 23, 97–112 (2010).
Perugini, L. et al. Biophysical effects on temperature and precipitation due to land cover change. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 053002 (2017).
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 177–181 (2012).
Sonntag, S., Pongratz, J., Reick, C. H. & Schmidt, H. Reforestation in a high-CO2 world—higher mitigation potential than expected, lower adaptation potential than hoped for. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 6546–6553 (2016).
Gao, F. et al. Multiscale climatological albedo look-up maps derived from moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer BRDF/albedo products. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 8, 083532 (2014).
Bright, R. M. et al. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3250 (2017).
Duveiller, G., Hooker, J. & Cescatti, A. The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance. Nat. Commun. 9, 679 (2018).
Davin, E. L., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N. & Friedlingstein, P. Impact of land cover change on surface climate: relevance of the radiative forcing concept. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029678 (2007).
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
Aaron, R. & Gibbs, H. K. New IPCC Tier-1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for the Year 2000 (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 2008); https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/global_carbon/carbon_documentation.html
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9575–9580 (2017).
Devaraju, N., Bala, G. & Modak, A. Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: remote versus local effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3257–3262 (2015).
Meier, R. et al. Empirical estimate of forestation-induced precipitation changes in Europe. Nat. Geosci. 14, 473–478 (2021).
Kirschbaum, M. U. F., Saggar, S., Tate, K. R., Thakur, K. P. & Giltrap, D. L. Quantifying the climate-change consequences of shifting land use between forest and agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.026 (2013).
Williams, D. W. & Liebhold, A. M. Climate change and the outbreak ranges of two North American bark beetles. Agric. Entomol. 4, 87–99 (2002).
Kurz, W. A. et al. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452, 987–990 (2008).
Battisti, A. et al. Expansion of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecol. Appl. 15, 2084–2096 (2005).
Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).
Gomes, V. H. F., Vieira, I. C. G., Salomão, R. P. & ter Steege, H. Amazonian tree species threatened by deforestation and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 547–553 (2019).
Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K. & Edwards, D. P. Global loss of climate connectivity in tropical forests. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 623–626 (2019).
Winckler, J., Lejeune, Q., Reick, C. H. & Pongratz, J. Nonlocal effects dominate the global mean surface temperature response to the biogeophysical effects of deforestation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 745–755 (2019).
Wessel, P. & Smith, W. H. F. A Global, Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Shoreline database. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 101, 8741–8743 (1996).
Wessel, P. et al. The Generic Mapping Tools version 6. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 20, 5556–5564 (2019).
Lejeune, Q., Seneviratne, S. I. & Davin, E. L. Historical land-cover change impacts on climate: comparative assessment of LUCID and CMIP5 multimodel experiments. J. Clim. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0213.1 (2017).
Schwaab, J. et al. Carbon storage versus albedo change: radiative forcing of forest expansion in temperate mountainous regions of Switzerland. Biogeosci. Discuss. 11, 10123–10165 (2014).
Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 12.5.4 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
Clark, W. C. Carbon Dioxide Review: 1982 467 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1982); https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6438207
Windisch, M. G., Davin, E. L. & Seneviratne, S. I. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts—data (v1.0.0) [Dataset]. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5184884 (2021).
Windisch, M. G. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts—code (v1.0.0). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5211680 (2021).
Acknowledgements
We thank T. Crowther for valuable discussions during the conception of this study and J. Schwaab for technical assistance and guidance. This research received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) via the LAMACLIMA projectas part of AXIS, an ERANET initiated by JPI Climate (http://www.jpi-climate.eu/AXIS/Activities/LAMACLIMA, last access: 09 September 2021, grant no. 01LS1905A),with co-funding from the European Union (grant no. 776608).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.L.D. and S.I.S. conceived the study, which was then further developed by M.G.W. M.G.W. performed the analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors together interpreted the results and edited the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Lucia Perugini and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Combined impact of BGP and BGC effects of forestation and forest conservation on annual climate based on a conversion of the BGP effect to a CO2 equivalent metric using the global instead of the local TCRE.
Climate impact of forestation a) of current grass-, shrub-, and cropland by a neighbouring forest and avoided deforestation of standing forests b) measured by the sum of their CO2 uptake (or avoided loss) and the CO2 equivalent of the local BGP effect induced. The CO2 equivalent of the local BGP warming or cooling response is produced by the global TCRE value in opposition to the local TCRE response used in the main manuscript. Base map adapted from GSHHG32 and GMT33.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Seasonality of the BGP impact of forestation and forest conservation based on a conversion of the BGP effect to a CO2 equivalent metric using the global instead of the local TCRE.
Fraction of the BGP impact of forestation (reforestation and afforestation) (left) and avoided deforestation (right) expressed as CO2 equivalent compared to the effect of their CO2 uptake or avoided loss in percent. The CO2 equivalent of the local BGP warming or cooling response is produced by the global mean TCRE instead of the local TCRE used in the main manuscript. Fractions are reported for the annual average response of forestation (a) and conservation (b), and the boreal winter response to forestation (c) and conservation (e), as well as the boreal summer response to forestation (d) and conservation (f). Brown colours depict areas where BGP effects oppose the BGC impact, turquoise colours are assigned to areas where the cooling effect of the carbon uptake is locally enhanced by BGP processes. Base map adapted from GSHHG32 and GMT33.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Table 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Windisch, M.G., Davin, E.L. & Seneviratne, S.I. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 867–871 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01161-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01161-z
