ArticleNature2019
Global analysis of streamflow response to forest management.
Article in Nature, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Partial river flow recovery with forest age is rare in the decades following establishment.Global change biology · 2020Pooled it
- The grassland carbon cycle: Mechanisms, responses to global changes, and potential contribution to carbon neutrality.Fundamental research · 2023Review
- Streamflow response to forest management.Nature · 2020Article
- Forest age and water yield.Nature · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-02-12Error in Analyses · Error in Data · Error in Methods · Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s) ·
- Correction · 2019-09-29Conflict of Interest · Updated to Retraction ·
- Expression of concern · 2019-09-30Concerns/Issues about Data · Error in Analyses · Updated to Retraction ·
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
- Expression of concern
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting the responses of streamflow to changes in forest management is fundamental to the sustainable regulation of water resources. However, studies of changes in forest cover have yielded unclear and largely unpredictable results. Here we compile a comprehensive and spatially distributed database of forest-management studies worldwide, to assess the factors that control streamflow response to forest planting and removal. We introduce a vegetation-to-bedrock model that includes seven key landscape factors in order to explain the impacts of forest removal and planting on water yield. We show that the amount of water stored in a landscape is the most important factor in predicting streamflow response to forest removal, whereas the loss of water through evaporation and transpiration is the most important factor in predicting streamflow response to forest planting. Our findings affect model parameterizations in climate change mitigation schemes (involving, for example, afforestation or deforestation) in different geologic and climate regions around the world, and inform practices for the sustainable management of water resources.
Identifiers
31209303What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.