Quantitative assessment of the potential benefits of global afforestation on ecosystem productivity

Bibliographic Data

ID15550798
AuthorsJintong Ren (0000-0003-4774-8190, Guizhou University, corresponding author), Jianhua Xiao (0000-0003-1109-9133, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources), Jun Ma (0000-0003-3412-7766, Fudan University), Panxing He (0000-0002-8055-5457, Fudan University)
Year2025
Volume20
Issue3
Pages034055-034055
Publication date2025-02-27
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEnvironmental Research Letters (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1748-9326 • E-ISSN: 1748-9326
PublisherIOP Publishing (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1088/1748-9326/adbb03
OpenAlexW4408012881
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited54

Accurately estimating the contribution of afforestation/deforestation to gross primary productivity (GPP) of an ecosystem is necessary to develop future afforestation policies. However, there is currently a lack of quantitative assessments of the potential consequences of afforestation and deforestation on GPP at a global scale. In this study, we used a 30 m high-resolution forest raster map and a satellite-driven GPP product to assess GPP differences under various afforestation/deforestation scenarios, using spatial rather than temporal comparisons. Our results showed that (1) the simultaneous occurrence of high-intensity afforestation and deforestation was extremely low globally (4.64%). Under this hypothetical scenario, the potential GPP of afforestation could reach 734.13 g C m −2 yr −1 , significantly higher than that in the other scenarios. While the percentage of concurrent medium- to low-intensity afforestation and deforestation was up to 41.37%, the potential value of afforestation to promote GPP increase was only 219.56 g C m −2 yr −1 . (2) The potential of afforestation to boost GPP varied significantly across space and time. Proximity to equatorial forests, such as evergreen broad-leaved forests, generally facilitate GPP accumulation. However, as latitudinal zonality increased, the fixed GPP potential of high-latitude coniferous forests decreased significantly. Summer (particularly June) showed the highest potential for afforestation to enhance GPP, more than twice as much as in the other seasons, and this pattern was consistent globally. (3) Afforestation costs vary substantially depending on forest type and cover. Afforestation in rainforest areas with a better water-heat balance often requires a higher GPP to achieve the desired effect. Low-density forests dominated by temperate or cold zones yield significantly lower GPP benefits than afforestation in tropical rainforests. This study quantifies the potential impact of afforestation on GPP for the first time and provides guidelines for future afforestation planning across various regions

Afforestation · Agroforestry · Economic growth · Economics · Ecosystem · Environmental resource management · Natural resource economics · Productivity · Botany and Plant Ecology Studies · Environmental Science · Forest ecology and management · Forest Management and Policy · Ecology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access