Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41621029›Full record

ReviewAmbio2026

Why forests can mitigate floods of all sizes: Evaluating the scientific basis for forest-based flood mitigation.

Samadhee Kaluarachchi, Younes Alila

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2026. 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.

Samadhee KaluarachchiForest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Stewardship, The University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. samadheek@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-3027-4776
Younes AlilaForest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Stewardship, The University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rising flood frequencies and magnitudes are causing the loss of lives, infrastructure damage, and economic disruption, making effective flood management imperative. Nature-based solutions are increasingly promoted, but whether forests mitigate large floods remains a decades-long scientific controversy. Resolving this issue is crucial, as flood management necessitates reliable projections and a sound, scientifically defensible understanding. We show that the conventional deterministic approach uses a non-relevant research question, improper hypothesis, and non-causal experiment, rendering its conclusion that forests have little impact on large floods scientifically indefensible. In contrast, a causal, stochastic approach captures the probabilistic nature of floods and allows for studying anthropogenic effects to hydroclimatic variables through its relevant research questions, falsifiable hypotheses, controlled experiment, and sound physical reasoning. The defensible stochastic approach must replace flawed alternatives, suggesting that forests can mitigate large floods. With rigorous methods, hydrology can support strategies which meaningfully reduce flood risk in an increasingly uncertain future.

Indexed as

FloodsForestsConservation of Natural ResourcesStochastic ProcessesCausal inferenceFlood managementForestsNature-based solutionsStochastic methods

Identifiers

PMID41621029
PMCPMC13230409

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.