Tree-planting has become a go-to tool for taking carbon out of the atmosphere and repairing deforested habitats. And indeed, reforestation — planting trees or fostering tree regrowth in historically forested areas — is the most beneficial option, according to a new study in Science, providing habitat for wildlife while sequestering and removing carbon from the atmosphere. But if done incorrectly, planting trees can come with a significant cost to biodiversity. By comparing the effects of replacing lost trees (reforestation), adding trees (afforestation) and growing biofuel crops over natural lands (bioenergy cropping), a team of researchers from the New York Botanical Garden, The Nature Conservancy and Princeton University found that not all techniques are equal. As opposed to reforestation, afforestation means planting trees in historically unforested areas, such as savannas and grasslands. Bioenergy cropping means cultivating fast-growing, carbon-storing plants for biofuels. The study, published in January, incorporates IUCN data for more than 14,000 vertebrate species to measure the impact of each method on biodiversity. “You might assume that anything we do that helps to mitigate climate change is also going to just indirectly benefit biodiversity,” said Evelyn Beaury, a co-author and assistant curator at the New York Botanical Garden’s Center for Conservation and Restoration Ecology. “That’s really the core assumption of this paper that we’re trying to test and disentangle.” But importantly, tree-planting isn’t one-size-fits-all. Oak trees in their second year of growth at The Nature Conservancy’s Edward H. McCabe Preserve in Milton, DE. In 2019, TNC restored 39 acres of…This article was originally published on Mongabay
The post To benefit biodiversity & climate, restoring lost forests works best: Study first appeared on EnviroLink Network.