Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system 1. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests 2–5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced 6 and satellite-derived approaches 2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea 2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets

Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system1. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests2–5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced6 and satellite-derived approaches2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets

Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system1. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests2,3,4,5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced6 and satellite-derived approaches2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets

Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced6 and satellitederived approaches to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets.Fil: Mo, Lidong. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Zohner, Constantin M.. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Reich, Peter B.. Western Sydney University; Australia. University of Michigan; Estados Unidos. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Liang, Jingjing. Purdue University; Estados UnidosFil: de Miguel, Sergio Ruben. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Santa Fe. Instituto de Investigaciones en Catálisis y Petroquímica "Ing. José Miguel Parera". Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Instituto de Investigaciones en Catálisis y Petroquímica "Ing. José Miguel Parera"; ArgentinaFil: Nabuurs, Gert Jan. Wageningen University; Países BajosFil: Renner, Susanne S.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: van den Hoogen, Johan. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Araza, Arnan. Wageningen University; Países BajosFil: Herold, Martin. Helmholtz GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences; AlemaniaFil: Mirzagholi, Leila. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Ma, Haozhi. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Averill, Colin. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Phillips, Oliver L.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Gamarra, Javier G. P.. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; ItaliaFil: Hordijk, Iris. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Routh, Devin. University of Zürich; SuizaFil: Abegg, Meinrad. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; SuizaFil: Adou Yao, Yves C.. University Félix Houphouët-Boigny; FranciaFil: Alberti, Giorgio. National Biodiversity Future Center; Italia. University of Udine; ItaliaFil: Almeyda Zambrano, Angelica M.. University of Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Vilchez Alvarado, Braulio. Tecnológico de Costa Rica TEC; Costa RicaFil: Alvarez Dávila, Esteban. Universidad Nacional Abierta y A Distancia (unad);Fil: Alvarez Loayza, Patricia. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia de Santa Cruz. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Santa Cruz. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia de Santa Cruz. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia de Santa Cruz; ArgentinaFil: Zhou, Mo. Purdue University; Estados UnidosFil: Zhu, Zhi Xin. Hainan University; ChinaFil: Zo Bi, Irie C.. National Polytechnic Institute; FranciaFil: Gann, George D.. Society for Ecological Restoration; Estados UnidosFil: Crowther, Thomas W.. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; Suiz

Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land use and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system 1. Remote-sensing estimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests 2–5 are characterized by considerable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to benchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced 6 and satellite-derived approaches 2,7,8 to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential outside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions demonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% difference between the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total deficit of 226 Gt (model range = 151–363 Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139 Gt C) of this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can allow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87 Gt C) of potential lies in regions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea 2,3,9 that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets.ISSN:0028-0836ISSN:1476-468