Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35909989›Full record

ArticleGlobal change biology. Bioenergy2022

Changes in perspective needed to forge 'no-regret' forest-based climate change mitigation strategies.

Karl-Heinz Erb, Helmut Haberl, Julia Le Noë, Ulrike Tappeiner, Erich Tasser, Simone Gingrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global change biology. Bioenergy, 2022. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

6 authors.

Karl-Heinz ErbInstitute of Social Ecology University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8335-4159
Helmut HaberlInstitute of Social Ecology University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-5446
Julia Le NoëInstitute of Social Ecology University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8816-5800
Ulrike TappeinerEurac Research Institute for Alpine Environment Bozen/Bolzano Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-7459
Erich TasserEurac Research Institute for Alpine Environment Bozen/Bolzano Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9179-7494
Simone GingrichInstitute of Social Ecology University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7891-8688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forest-based mitigation strategies will play a pivotal role in achieving the rapid and deep net-emission reductions required to prevent catastrophic climate change. However, large disagreement prevails on how to forge forest-based mitigation strategies, in particular in regions where forests are currently growing in area and carbon density. Two opposing viewpoints prevail in the current discourse: (1) A widespread viewpoint, specifically in countries in the Global North, favours enhanced wood use, including bioenergy, for substitution of emissions-intensive products and processes. (2) Others instead focus on the biophysical, resource-efficiency and time-response advantages of forest conservation and restoration for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation, whilst often not explicitly specifying how much wood extraction can still safeguard these ecological benefits. We here argue for a new perspective in sustainable forest research that aims at forging "no-regret" forest-based climate change mitigation strategies. Based on the consideration of forest growth dynamics and the opportunity carbon cost associated with wood use, we suggest that, instead of taking (hypothetical) wood-for-fossil substitution as starting point in assessments of carbon implications of wood products and services, analyses should take the potential and desired carbon sequestration of forests as starting point and quantify sustainable yield potentials compatible with those carbon sequestration potentials. Such an approach explicitly addresses the possible benefits provided by forests as carbon sinks, brings research on the permanence and vulnerability of C-stocks in forests, of substitution effects, as well as explorations of demand-side strategies to the forefront of research and, in particular, aligns better with the urgency to find viable climate solutions.

Indexed as

carbon sequestrationclimate change mitigationfossil‐fuel substitutionnature‐based solutionsopportunity carbon costresearch strategy

Identifiers

PMID35909989
PMCPMC9306738

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.