Accounting for albedo in carbon market protocols.

Lynn M Riley, Susan C Cook-Patton, Loren P Albert, Christopher J Still, Christopher A Williams, Jacob J Bukoski

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. 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

6 authors.

Lynn M RileyAmerican Forest Foundation, Washington, DC, USA. lriley@forestfoundation.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3812-3280

Susan C Cook-PattonTackle Climate Change Program, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7194-4397

Loren P AlbertDepartment of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9674-6071

Christopher J StillDepartment of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8295-4494

Christopher A WilliamsGraduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5047-0639

Jacob J BukoskiDepartment of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2334-5023

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The climate benefits of some Voluntary Carbon Market projects may be overestimated due to a lack of accounting for albedo change. Here we analyze 172 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation projects within the market and find more than 10% occur in places where albedo may entirely negate the climate mitigation benefit, and a quarter occur in places where albedo may halve the mitigation benefit. Yet, the majority are concentrated where albedo changes are expected to be minimal, and 9% of projects occur where albedo would augment the mitigation benefit. Recent data are making albedo accounting possible, and we outline an iterative approach for incorporating albedo considerations into carbon crediting protocols to prioritize projects with greater climate benefit and more accurately quantify credits that may be used to address unabated emissions. We also call on the scientific community to create tools to enable accounting for other important biophysical changes, such as evapotranspiration, which is not yet quantifiable within the Voluntary Carbon Market.

Identifiers

PMID41053041

DOI10.1038/s41467-025-64317-x

PMCPMC12500933

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.