Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782807›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics.

Thomas A M Pugh, Mats Lindeskog, Benjamin Smith, Benjamin Poulter, Almut Arneth, Vanessa Haverd, Leonardo Calle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Nature's Master of Ceremony: TheNpj biological timing and sleep · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thomas A M PughSchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT Birmingham, United Kingdom; t.a.m.pugh@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6242-7371
Mats LindeskogDepartment of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden.
Benjamin SmithDepartment of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden.
Benjamin PoulterDepartment of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717.
Almut ArnethInstitute of Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Vanessa HaverdCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Oceans and Atmosphere, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Leonardo CalleDepartment of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the existence of a large carbon sink in terrestrial ecosystems is well-established, the drivers of this sink remain uncertain. It has been suggested that perturbations to forest demography caused by past land-use change, management, and natural disturbances may be causing a large component of current carbon uptake. Here we use a global compilation of forest age observations, combined with a terrestrial biosphere model with explicit modeling of forest regrowth, to partition the global forest carbon sink between old-growth and regrowth stands over the period 1981-2010. For 2001-2010 we find a carbon sink of 0.85 (0.66-0.96) Pg year

Indexed as

BiomassCarbon SequestrationForestsModels, BiologicalCarbonTreesCarboncarbon sinkdemographydisturbanceforestregrowth

Identifiers

PMID30782807
PMCPMC6410874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.