ReviewAmbio2026
Why forests can mitigate floods of all sizes: Evaluating the scientific basis for forest-based flood mitigation.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.