| Literature DB >> 31624182 |
Joseph W Veldman1,2, Julie C Aleman3,4, Swanni T Alvarado5,6, T Michael Anderson7, Sally Archibald8, William J Bond9, Thomas W Boutton3, Nina Buchmann10, Elise Buisson11, Josep G Canadell12, Michele de Sá Dechoum13, Milton H Diaz-Toribio14, Giselda Durigan15, John J Ewel14, G Wilson Fernandes16, Alessandra Fidelis17, Forrest Fleischman18, Stephen P Good19, Daniel M Griffith20, Julia-Maria Hermann21, William A Hoffmann22, Soizig Le Stradic23, Caroline E R Lehmann24,25, Gregory Mahy26, Ashish N Nerlekar3, Jesse B Nippert27, Reed F Noss28, Colin P Osborne29, Gerhard E Overbeck30, Catherine L Parr8,31,32, Juli G Pausas33, R Toby Pennington24,34, Michael P Perring35,36, Francis E Putz14, Jayashree Ratnam37, Mahesh Sankaran38,39, Isabel B Schmidt40, Christine B Schmitt41,42, Fernando A O Silveira43, A Carla Staver44, Nicola Stevens45, Christopher J Still46, Caroline A E Strömberg47, Vicky M Temperton48, J Morgan Varner49, Nicholas P Zaloumis50.
Abstract
Bastin et al's estimate (Reports, 5 July 2019, p. 76) that tree planting for climate change mitigation could sequester 205 gigatonnes of carbon is approximately five times too large. Their analysis inflated soil organic carbon gains, failed to safeguard against warming from trees at high latitudes and elevations, and considered afforestation of savannas, grasslands, and shrublands to be restoration.Entities:
Mesh：
Substances：
Year: 2019 PMID： 31624182 DOI： 10.1126/science.aay7976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Science ISSN： 0036-8075 Impact factor: 47.728