Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34620924›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Assessing the carbon capture potential of a reforestation project.

David Lefebvre, Adrian G Williams, Guy J D Kirk, Paul, J Burgess, Jeroen Meersmans, Miles R Silman, Francisco Román-Dañobeytia, Jhon Farfan, Pete Smith

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Conservation and environmental management reimagined: Toward anti-oppressive futures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

David LefebvreSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, Bedfordshire, UK. d.lefebvre@cranfield.ac.uk.
Adrian G WilliamsSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, Bedfordshire, UK.
Guy J D KirkSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, Bedfordshire, UK.
Paul
J BurgessSchool of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, Bedfordshire, UK.
Jeroen MeersmansTERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium.
Miles R SilmanCentro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, 17001, Madre de Dios, Peru.
Francisco Román-DañobeytiaCentro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, 17001, Madre de Dios, Peru.
Jhon FarfanCentro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, 17001, Madre de Dios, Peru.
Pete SmithInstitute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK.
Cranfield University · GBWake Forest University · USGembloux Agro-Bio Tech · BEUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of reforestation projects worldwide is increasing. In many cases funding is obtained through the claimed carbon capture of the trees, presented as immediate and durable, whereas reforested plots need time and maintenance to realise their carbon capture potential. Further, claims usually overlook the environmental costs of natural or anthropogenic disturbances during the forest's lifetime, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the reforestation are not allowed for. This study uses life cycle assessment to quantify the carbon footprint of setting up a reforestation plot in the Peruvian Amazon. In parallel, we combine a soil carbon model with an above- and below-ground plant carbon model to predict the increase in carbon stocks after planting. We compare our results with the carbon capture claims made by a reforestation platform. Our results show major errors in carbon accounting in reforestation projects if they (1) ignore the time needed for trees to reach their carbon capture potential; (2) ignore the GHG emissions involved in setting up a plot; (3) report the carbon capture potential per tree planted, thereby ignoring limitations at the forest ecosystem level; or (4) under-estimate tree losses due to inevitable human and climatic disturbances. Further, we show that applications of biochar during reforestation can partially compensate for project emissions.

Indexed as

Carbon CycleConservation of Natural ResourcesForestsBiomassBrazilCarbonDatabases, FactualEcosystemModels, TheoreticalPeruSoftwareSoilTreesCarbonSoil

Identifiers

PMID34620924
PMCPMC8497602
OpenAlexW3200454203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.