ArticleNature communications2023
Mixed success for carbon payments and subsidies in support of forest restoration in the neotropics.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- How Mixed Are Production-Oriented Planted Forests? A Global Review and Classification Approach.Global change biology · 2026Review
- Nutritional and dietary clinical trials for Parkinson's disease: a narrative review.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2025Review
- Persistent Effects of Landscape Context on Recruitment Dynamics During Secondary Succession of Tropical Forests.Global change biology · 2025Article
- Antivenom slithers back to life.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restoration of forests in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has the potential to contribute to international carbon mitigation targets. However, high upfront costs and variable cashflows are obstacles for many landholders. Carbon payments have been promoted as a mechanism to incentivize restoration and economists have suggested cost-sharing by third parties to reduce financial burdens of restoration. Yet empirical evidence to support this theory, based on robust, dynamic field sampling is lacking. Here we use large, long-term datasets from Panama to evaluate the financial prospects of three forest restoration methods under different cost-sharing and carbon payment designs where income is generated through timber harvests. We show some, but not all options are economically viable. Further work combining growth and survival data from field trials with more sophisticated financial analyses is essential to understanding barriers and realizing the potential of forest restoration in LMICs to help meet global carbon mitigation commitments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.