Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39444511›Full record

ArticleBioscience2024

River restoration can increase carbon storage but is not yet a suitable basis for carbon credits.

Katherine B Lininger, Rebecca Lave

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Katherine B LiningerDepartment of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0378-9505
Rebecca LaveIndiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing organic carbon storage in river corridors (channels and floodplains) is a potential cobenefit of some river restoration approaches, raising the possibility of using restoration to produce carbon credits and, therefore, increase restoration funding. However, the uncertainty already associated with existing carbon credits is compounded in river corridors, which are dynamic on daily, seasonal, annual, and longer timescales. We currently do not know how much river restoration approaches could increase carbon storage or how significant increased organic carbon storage from restoration would be compared with other forms of climate mitigation. We also do not know whether river corridor carbon credits could meet market needs for quickly established, stable, and simple credits. Therefore, we argue that biophysical and political economic uncertainties make river corridor restoration carbon credits currently unfeasible but that research on river restoration projects would demonstrate whether restoration carbon credits could be feasible in the future.

Indexed as

carbon creditsfloodplain carbon storagemarkets for ecosystem servicesriver restorationrivers and the carbon cycle

Identifiers

PMID39444511
PMCPMC11494629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.