ArticleNature ecology & evolution2025
A globally consistent negative effect of edge on aboveground forest biomass.
Article in Nature ecology & evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extra Climate Benefits From Afforestation Due to Reduced Forest Fragmentation in China.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Larger forest patches have greater per-area productivity.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Enhancing carbon sinks in China using a spatially-optimized forestation strategy.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Impact of power line corridors on carbon stocks of upland forests in eastern Canada.Plant and soil · 2026Article
- Accelerated land surface greening caused by earlier permafrost thawing.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A globally consistent negative effect of edge on aboveground forest biomass.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because of widespread forest fragmentation, 70% of the world's forest area lies within 1 km of an edge. Forest biomass density near edges often differs markedly from biomass density in the interior. In some biomes, these 'edge effects' are responsible for substantial reductions in forest carbon storage. However, there is little consensus on the direction and magnitude of edge effects on forest biomass across the globe, which hampers their consideration in forest carbon stock accounting. Here we examined eight million forested locations to quantify variability in edge effects on biomass at a global scale. We found negative edge effects across 97% of examined areas, with aboveground biomass density on average 16% lower near edges than in interior forests. Higher temperature, precipitation and proportion of agricultural land were linked to more negative edge effects. Along with differences in the spatial scale of analysis, this variation can explain contrasting observations among previous studies. We estimate that edge effects have reduced the total aboveground biomass of forests by 9%, equivalent to a loss of 58 Pg. These findings underscore the substantial impact of forest fragmentation on global biomass stocks and highlight the critical need to account for edge effects in carbon stock assessments.
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.