ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Resilient tree-planting strategies for carbon dioxide removal under compounding climate and economic uncertainties.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Resilient tree-planting strategies for carbon dioxide removal under compounding climate and economic uncertainties.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To meet decarbonization targets, nations around the globe have made ambitious commitments to expand forested land. Operationalizing these commitments requires choosing a planting strategy: How many trees should be planted, of which species, and where? Given those choices must be made now but have long-term consequences, such decisions are plagued by uncertainty. For example, species that are well suited to present conditions may perform poorly under future climates, yet those future climates are themselves highly uncertain. Using the exemplar of the United Kingdom, a nation committed to achieving net zero emissions by midcentury, we quantify key uncertainties pertaining to coevolving climate and economic conditions and examine how modern methods of decision-making under uncertainty can advise on planting choices. Our analysis reveals that the best planting strategy assuming a "high-emissions" future is radically different to that for a future that remains on a "near-historic" path. Planting for the former while experiencing the latter results in substantial net costs to UK society. Assimilating uncertainty into decision-making identifies planting strategies that diversify risk and significantly reduce the probability of high-cost outcomes. Importantly, our research reveals that the scope for mitigating risk through choice of planting strategy is relatively limited. Despite this persistent risk, we find that tree planting remains a highly cost-effective carbon removal solution when compared to alternative technologies, even when those alternatives are assumed to be riskless.
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.