Next Article in Journal
Forest Resilience and Vegetation Dynamics in Southwest Nigeria: Spatiotemporal Analysis and Assessment of Influencing Factors Using Geographical Detectors and Trend Models
Next Article in Special Issue
Monitoring and Assessing Ecological Environmental Quality in Qianping Reservoir, Central China: A Remote Sensing Ecological Index (RSEI) Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Changes in Net Primary Productivity in the Wuyi Mountains of Southern China from 2000 to 2022
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prediction and Trade-Off Analysis of Forest Ecological Service in Hunan Province on Explainable Deep Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/f16050810
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Planting Trees as a Nature-Based Solution to Mitigate Climate Change: Opportunities, Limits, and Trade-Offs

by
Filippo Bussotti
* and
Martina Pollastrini
Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, P. le Cascine 18, 50144 Florence, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(5), 810; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050810
Submission received: 15 March 2025 / Revised: 6 May 2025 / Accepted: 11 May 2025 / Published: 13 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forests as Nature-Based Solutions: Ecosystem Services, Multiple Benefits, and Trade-Offs)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Trees and forests are nature-based solutions of strategic importance for climate change mitigation. Policy and popular media are focused on the number of trees to plant, but that cannot be a definitive solution. A growing number of scientific papers address the problems concerning tree plantations and forest restoration for climatic purposes. In this review, we analyze ecological limitations and trade-offs to be considered for the realization and management of these interventions. Terrestrial sinks (forests and other terrestrial natural ecosystems) can absorb only a fraction of the carbon emitted, and the establishment of new effective forests is constrained by ecological limitations. Moreover, the stimulation of tree growth due to carbon fertilization is offset by the harshening of ecological conditions due to climate change (higher temperatures beyond the optimum for photosynthesis, increasing drought, and nutritional imbalances). The increase in frequency and severity of disturbances can turn forests from sinks to sources of carbon. Finally, physiological mechanisms connected to albedo and the emission of organic volatile compounds (VOCs) reduce the efficacy of climate cooling. Although such constraints exist, the establishment of new plantations and the restoration of existing forests are still necessary but are just one of the actions to fight climate change and must not be seen as an alternative to reducing carbon emissions. Considering limitations and trade-offs in the models to estimate tree growth and carbon storage will allow us to produce more realistic plans for climate mitigation.

1. Introduction

Cutting gaseous emissions into the atmosphere is the primary global climate objective today. To reach the goal of keeping the rise in temperature below 1.5 °C, drastic reductions in emissions must be accompanied by the removal of a large quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere [1]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2] about 730 billion tons of CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere within this century. Most carbon is absorbed and fixed in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Table 1, [3]).
Terrestrial ecosystems store about 2100 GtC in living organisms, litter, and soil organic matter, which is almost three times the amount that currently exists in the atmosphere. The world’s forests store approximately 861 GtC, with 44% in soil (up to a one-meter depth), 42% in living biomass (above- and belowground), 8% in dead wood, and 5% in litter. In total, this is equivalent to nearly a century’s worth of the current annual fossil fuel emissions at the mondial level [4]. Forests cover about 4 billion ha (30% of the world land surface) with 3000 billion trees [5] and store, in vegetation and soil, about half of the total terrestrial carbon.
Stopping deforestation, especially in the intertropical zone, improving the existing forests, and increasing their extension is a fundamental strategy to fight climate change [6] and is part of the European strategy for biodiversity (EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030) [7], which provides for the planting of 3 billion trees by 2030, and the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation [8].
Public discourse often focuses on the number of trees to plant, overlooking limitations such as socio-economic conflicts, ecological incompatibilities, resource constraints, climate change interactions, and species-specific behaviors. Ignoring these factors can result in failure or unintended outcomes. Programs promoting tree planting for climate mitigation rely on models estimating carbon absorption and storage potential. However, site-specific, species-specific, and management-related limiting factors can significantly reduce the expectations regarding the effectiveness of plantations or result in adverse impacts on other environmental values, such as biodiversity, water availability, and soil fertility. Consequently, there is a need to reevaluate the policies implemented.
This study analyzes, on a bibliographic basis, the role of the various factors that influence carbon uptake and storage, with the aim to provide realistic indications for future interventions.

2. Methods

To investigate the role of forests and tree plantation to mitigate climate change, a systematic search of the literature was conducted using the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, applying two levels of keywords.
The first level represents the general context of the review and included the key words “climate change mitigation”, “forest tree plantation”, “forest management”, “climatic trade-offs”, “tree regeneration”, “tree species selection”.
The second level investigated the impacts of climate change on forests and included the key words “forest disturbances”, “forest health”, “tree mortality”, “tree crown dieback”, “tree growth”, “tree crown dieback”.
The search was conducted by applying the key words mentioned above, alone and combined. To further increase the number of literature sources, the authors applied the snowball system, which entailed the use of a reference list of recent papers to identify further suitable references, starting from the most recent publications on the topic. Over 300 papers were identified. The next section was compiled according to the following criteria: (i) preferentially, we considered review papers rather than singular research works; (ii) when more paper addressed the same subject, the most recent is cited.

3. Atmospheric [CO2] and Potential Sequestration by Trees and Forests

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace gas present in the atmosphere. Its concentration before the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-18th century was around 280 ppm, equal to 0.028%. Atmospheric [CO2] plays a key role in regulating the planet’s climate because it absorbs solar radiation in the IR wavelength, reducing heat dispersion (greenhouse effect). With this mechanism, an average temperature (15 °C) favorable to the development of life is maintained on the planet. [CO2] has progressively increased with the development of industrialization until reaching 419 ppm in 2023, with an increase of 50% compared to the starting levels at the Mauna Loa Observatory (Kamuela, HI, USA) [9]. Since the mid-20th century, the annual emissions from fossil fuel combustion have increased every decade, from nearly 11 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year in the 1960s to about 36.6 billion tons today.
It is estimated that natural sinks absorbed the equivalent of about half of the carbon dioxide emitted annually during the decade 2011–2020. Because we are releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than it is being removed and stored in sinks, the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing every year [10].
The global potential tree coverage, the major terrestrial carbon sink, is of 4400 MHa of canopy cover at the global level under the current climate [11]. Excluding the already-existing forests, as well as agricultural and urban areas, there is room for an extra 900 MHa of canopy cover, which could store an additional 205 Gtons of carbon over a 100-year period [11]. This value represents about a third of the carbon emissions that have occurred to date. Most of the areas susceptible to reforestation are in the intertropical zone, where deforestation was more intense in the past. In the temperate Mediterranean regions, the existing forests appear to be expanding spontaneously [12], and forestation interventions can be made especially in urban and peri-urban areas, where the potential beneficial effects on the climate and local ecosystem services are greater [13]. A surface ranging from 141 to 322 Mha is globally located in urban or peri-urban areas [13].
According to Veldman [14], the estimates reported by Bastin et al. [11] are too optimistic and propose a more conservative assessment, predicting a removal of 40 to 100 Gton of carbon until maturity of the trees on 900 million hectares. This amount, although significant, would only represent the value of 10 years of emissions at the current rate. Extending the afforestation areas faces socio-economic, physical, and ecological limits. These include disruption of traditional landscapes and agricultural activities, high water and nutrient demands, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and impacts on existing ecosystems.
The area of planted forests increased from 167.5 to 277.9 M hectares, i.e., from 4.06% to 6.95% of the total forest area [15]. The increase was most rapid in the temperate zone. The annual rates of increase for this area were the highest in the 1990–2000 period (2.0%) and the 2000–2005 period (2.7%) but dropped in 2005–2010 (1.9%) and further in 2010–2015 (1.2%) [15]. Most planted forests comprised native species.
The existing forests currently store carbon below their potential. There are 287 petagrams (1 PgC = 1015 gC) of unrealized potential, of which 78% are in biomass, and 22% are in soil [16]. Three-quarters of this potential can be realized through more efficient forest management, with the majority of it (71%) concentrated in tropical forests [16]. Currently, carbon storage has an overall deficit of 226 Gt, of which 61% is in existing forests [17], for which protection and improvement management are recommended, and the remaining 39% is in areas where forests have been removed or fragmented.

4. Trade-Offs and Limitations

4.1. Growth and Persistence

The ability of trees to absorb and store carbon for a long time is based on two pillars: (i) growth rate and ability of trees to reach large sizes; (ii) longevity of trees and their persistence at a site. Growth and persistence, however, are regulated by contrasting factors, and the optimization of one of these aspects is detrimental for the other.
High growth rates, especially for young trees, are typical of early-successional species [18] and correspond to the strategy of quickly occupying sites. Fast-growing trees benefit from resource-rich environments; they are water-exigent and have low wood density [19] and high susceptibility to pathogens and environmental constraints, since the metabolic investment in growth comes at the expense of the production of defense substances [20]. This inverse relationship, known as the growth–defense trade-off [21,22,23], occurs because the resources and energy that could be used for defense are instead allocated to growth.

4.2. How Trees Interact with Climate

Besides carbon uptake and storage, trees influence the climate through different mechanisms [24] that can lead either to mitigation of or to an increase in temperatures (Figure 1), depending on tree species and site–species interactions. Such mechanisms may have relevance at the local level and can encourage or discourage tree plantation at specific sites. They must be considered when planning interventions.
Stomatal transpiration of water is a fundamental cooling mechanism. Forests release significant amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere through transpiration and evaporation. This process is energy-consuming, utilizing latent heat, and can have a relevant local impact on temperatures, with local reductions of up to 8 °C [25]. This action is water-consuming, is limited in conditions of low water availability, and induces negative effects on soil water resources.
Water vapor fluxes, together with albedo and canopy structure (roughness), influence local temperature, humidity, and rainfall patterns. Large-scale deforestation alters these parameters, leading to warmer and drier climates. Small-scale deforestation may enhance convective clouds and precipitation due to mesoscale circulations. Afforestation and reforestation generally increase evapotranspiration and may enhance rainfall in certain regions [26].
Canopies shading reduce the temperature under their canopies by an average of 4.1 °C [27]. During extremely hot summer days, the reduction can be of as much as 10 °C. This effect is relevant for the understory forest layer, favoring regeneration and biodiversity [28].
The albedo effect refers to the phenomenon by which forests absorb solar radiation, leading to local warming. This effect can diminish or counteract the climatic benefits of carbon sequestration by forests. Afforestation in boreal and high-latitude temperate regions can result in near-term warming due to reduced surface albedo, which may exceed the cooling benefits from carbon sequestration [29]. The albedo effect can be relevant in all the conditions in which the bare soil is more reflective than the crowns of trees. In most cases, there is at least a 20% albedo offset in temperature regulation [30].
Some tree species emit biogenic substances (BVOCs, biogenic volatile organic substances) that, through atmospheric chemical reactions, produce greenhouse gases and toxic substances like ozone [31,32]. The emission of BVOCs, for example, isoprene, is in turn influenced by factors related to climate change, such as CO2 and elevated temperatures, which enhance enzymatic activity. In the last 30 years, the production of BVOCs has increased by 10%, and a further increase in temperature (2–3 °C) may lead to a 30–45% increase in BVOC emissions [31]. BVOC emissions represent a small but significant component of the carbon cycle. They can account for up to 5–10% of the total net carbon exchange, particularly under stress conditions.

4.3. Stimulation and Limitation of Tree Growth Induced by Climate Change Factors

The responses of trees to climate change factors (increased CO2 concentrations, increased temperature, increased N deposition) determine negative feedback, i.e., stimulate growth rates and carbon uptake. This beneficial effect, however, can be threatened by concurrent trade-offs and limitations (Figure 2).
Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase the rate of photosynthesis by improving carbon assimilation and increase water use efficiency (iWUE) and resistance to drought [33,34]. A higher CO2 concentration increased the global annual terrestrial photosynthesis by 13.5 ± 3.5% between 1981 and 2020, contributing significantly to the overall terrestrial carbon sink [34]. On the other hand, tree longevity is reduced due to the same growth stimulation by CO2 [35].
Rising temperatures, at least until reaching the optimum for photosynthesis [36], stimulate the enzymatic activity of the Calvin cycle of photosynthesis. Rising temperatures also advance bud break and delay leaf abscission, thus extending the growing season [37]. Globally, the average temperature is close to exceeding the optimum [38]. A further increase in temperature will stimulate dark respiration [39], and the capacity of terrestrial vegetation to absorb carbon will significantly decrease. Forests could become a carbon source by 2040, if emissions continue at the current rates [39].
Elevated nitrogen (N) deposition, resulting from anthropogenic activities, can lead to nitrogen saturation in forest ecosystems. While initial nitrogen addition may stimulate growth, the excess N supply can cause a net decrease in tree vitality via complex and interlinked mechanisms, including increased susceptibility to insect attacks, pathogens, frost, and storm damage [40].
The interaction between these factors (carbon fertilization, nitrogen deposition, and higher temperatures) may provoke detrimental effects, and the efficacy of trees in carbon uptake and storage is declining globally [41,42,43], mainly because of two limiting factors.
Nutritional limitations: The higher photosynthetic productivity caused by atmospheric CO2 fertilization and nitrogen deposition leads to increased nutrient demand by plants. This increased demand can exceed the availability of nutrients in the soil, especially phosphorus, causing reduced foliar concentrations [44,45] and nutrient imbalances [46].
Water limitations: Reduced rainfall and the irregular distribution and intensity of rain is responsible for soil drying. Soil drought, together with increased transpiration demand caused by high vapor pressure deficit (VPD), constitutes a powerful limit to ecosystem productivity. Physiological mechanisms that limit photosynthesis and productivity include stomatal closure, reserve consumption, early leaf abscission, and hydraulic collapse due to cavitation processes [47].
The greatest risks for forest ecosystems and tree plantations are represented by drought and heatwaves. Heatwaves are characterized by persistent extreme temperatures whose frequency and intensity are increasing worldwide, enhancing fire risk and tree mortality [48].

4.4. Forest Disturbances

Although forests are considered stable carbon sinks for very long periods, there are many disturbing factors that make them extremely dynamic. Forests [49] have increased in recent years, in relation to global climate changes [50,51,52], causing, on average, 43.8 million m3 of disturbed timber volume per year over a 70-year period in Europe [52]. Disturbances, on average, accounted for 16% of the mean annual harvest in Europe. Wind was the most important disturbance agent over the study period (46% of total damage), followed by fire (24%) and bark beetles (17%). Disturbances are related to each other. For example, severe drought and wind increase the occurrence of insect outbreaks in coniferous forests, and wound decay fungi in both broadleaf and conifer stands [53].
Increasing tree mortality, growth reduction, and enhanced soil respiration [41] caused by disturbances could transform European forests from being a carbon sink to becoming a net carbon source. It is estimated that planting 3 billion trees by 2030 is insufficient to restore the efficacy of forests as carbon sinks [50].

5. Plantation and Forest: Guidelines for Climate-Smart Management

Reforestations with “ad hoc” plantations, fast-growing commercial tree plantations, management and recovery of existing forests, and conservation of natural “old-growth” forests are different ways in which forestry can contribute to mitigating climate change. All these actions can coexist within appropriate planning of the territory, considering ecological and socio-economic priorities. In the following paragraphs, we summarize objectives and guidelines for each option.

5.1. Tree Species Selection for “Ad Hoc” Plantations

The choice of species for new plantations proposes the climatic adaptability of species to current and future conditions, expected for the twenty-first century [54]. To select tree species suitable for climate change, it is necessary to adopt an approach based on climate and ecological models that project the redistribution of bioclimatic units and evaluate the feasibility of species based on future climate scenarios, and validate the selected species and provenances through common garden experiments [55]. These experiments allow us to study the performance of tree species in response to various environmental factors, such as climate, and are used to identify species and provenances that can best adapt to future climate conditions. The application of these criteria in an assisted-migration perspective [56,57,58] will allow us to proactively anticipate vegetation changes and guide forestation choices.

5.2. Fast-Growing Plantations

Fast-growing commercial tree plantations are mono-functional systems (i.e., they maximize tree growth to the detriment of other ecosystem services) and impact negatively on biodiversity and soil resources. Commercial afforestation can be an effective and robust strategy for climate change mitigation only when applied in suitable ecological conditions and in a favorable economic and social context. Monocultures of fast-growing species can sequester carbon more rapidly than naturally regenerating forests, especially during the early phases of their establishment, and under optimal cultivation conditions, can constitute an effective sink [59,60,61] because they can store carbon products (cellulose, lignin) in their woody tissues for a long time [62].
According to the study of Forster et al. [59], a national planting strategy of commercial forests in the UK could achieve cumulative GHG mitigation of up to 1.64 Pg CO2e by 2120. This is in contrast to the 0.54 Pg CO2e for semi-natural broadleaf conservation forests and 1.09 Pg CO2e for a mixed planting strategy of commercial and conservation forests. In this study, harvesting reduces long-term terrestrial carbon storage by 61% in commercial forests compared to unharvested conifer conservation forests. However, this reduction is offset by carbon storage in harvested wood products (HWPs) and the substitution of fossil fuels and concrete.

5.3. Managed Forests

Globally, managed forests are about 50 years younger, have 25% more coniferous stands, and possess 50% less carbon stocks than unmanaged forests [63]. While gross primary productivity (GPP) and net primary productivity (NPP) are similar, managed forests allocate more assimilated carbon to aboveground pools and less to fine roots and rhizosymbionts. Managed forests also exhibit higher heterotrophic respiration, indicating greater soil carbon decomposition, potentially resulting in a carbon deficit compared to natural forests. Although fertilization and nutrient availability boost soil productivity in managed forests, maximizing merchantable productivity may significantly impact soil carbon levels.
Close-to-Nature Silviculture (CNS) is considered a useful tool for adapting European temperate forests to climate change [64]. CNS involves interventions that preserve or increase the taxonomic and structural diversity and improve the ability of trees to respond to environmental stresses. Specific objectives are the following: (i) to preserve or increase carbon stock by promoting multi-layered and highly diverse formations that allow for the occupation of different ecological niches; (ii) to maintain canopy cover to limit soil respiration and protect the understory microclimate to promote natural regeneration and biodiversity; (iii) to control (at least in the most critical environments) competition for resources through thinning [65]. Thinning may conflict with the need to maintain canopy closure; therefore, each intervention must be evaluated in relation to the specific conditions at the considered sites.
Proper management, moreover, can foster the capacity of forests to deal with disturbances (for example, prevent fires and control pest outbreaks), thus minimizing their impact on carbon stock.
An approach based on the genetic adaptation of forests aims to select the most resistant species and genotypes within a community. Experiences conducted in southern Germany [66,67] have shown that the so-called “minor species” (Acer campestre L., Ulmus minor Mill., Sorbus torminalis (L.) Crantz, etc.) have a higher drought resistance than the dominant species (especially, Fagus sylvatica L.) and can represent a valid crop alternative.

5.4. Unmanaged Forests

Old-growth, unmanaged forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon-neutral [68]. Half of the primary forests (6 × 108 hectares) are located in the boreal and temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. These forests alone sequester about 1.3 ± 0.5 Gton of carbon per year and provide at least 10 percent of the global net ecosystem productivity. The 250-year-old beech forest in Hainich National Park (Germany) showed a significant carbon uptake, with 494 g C m−2 per year in 2000 and 490 g C m−2 per year in 2001 [69], contradicting the hypothesis that advanced forests are insignificant as carbon sinks. Unmanaged forests, at a late stage of development, can still act as significant carbon sinks.
Guidelines for distinct kinds of forests and tree plantations are summarized in Table 2.

6. Discussion

Considering the limitations and the actual global potential of forestation in removing CO2 [14], forest carbon sequestration should only be viewed as a component of a mitigation strategy, not as a substitute for the changes in energy supply, use, and technology that will be required if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are to be stabilized. Without strong reductions in emissions, this strategy holds low mitigation potential. Forest sinks should be preserved to offset residual carbon emissions rather than to compensate for present emissions levels [70].
Forests are important components of the overall strategy for climate change mitigation. Natural forests represent over 94% of the global forest area. Harshening of climate change factors (increases in temperature and drought), ecological interactions with site factors, and recurrent forest disturbances, however, can change the forests themselves from a sink to a source of carbon. The conservation and recovery of natural and damaged forests is therefore a priority with respect to any other intervention. The simplistic assumption that planting trees can immediately compensate for cutting intact forests is widespread but false [71].
Forests are multifunctional ecosystems that provide an array of ecosystem services, most of which are related to biodiversity [72]. Tree diversity favors growth and productivity in forests [73,74] by improving the overall functionality of the system and through the occupation of different ecological niches by different tree species [72,75]. Promoting diversity must therefore be a primary objective of forestation programs.
Natural ecosystems (grasslands, shrublands, and wetlands) store an amount of carbon and host high biodiversity. The transformation of such ecosystems in tree plantations increases carbon emissions and compromises the ecological values. The protection of the natural ecosystems is also of primary importance with respect to the creation of new plantations [76].
Newly planted forests are expected to cope with the changed climatic conditions and consequent ecological constraints in the next decades. The selection of species should consider the capacity of adaptation and persistence in the long term, rather than the potentiality of growth in a short time. This approach can favor the establishment of a more ecologically stable stand, but with lower growth and carbon sequestration potential. Intentionally allowing for or promoting the invasion by non-native trees of areas characterized by treeless vegetation could contribute to climate change mitigation by increasing carbon sequestration; however, the detrimental impacts of tree invasion on biodiversity, economic opportunities, and water yield may offset any positive effects on carbon sequestration [77].
Focusing the public and policymakers solely on the number of trees to be planted can be counterproductive to the goal of climate protection [78]. Tree plantings can be used as an excuse to avoid or delay the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels by slowing the progress toward carbon neutrality and promoting “greenwashing” by companies that continue to emit greenhouse gases. Maximizing the number of trees can divert resources from the subsequent maintenance needed for the long-term sustainability of the plantings.

7. Conclusions

Planting trees, together with other strategies to increase forest cover in appropriate places and contexts, can make a valuable contribution to ensuring the ecological and social well-being of our planet in the coming decades, but only if these efforts are considered one component of a multifaceted action to solve our complex environmental problems [79].
In the suite of actions to be undertaken to combat climate change, the creation of new forests and the protection, recovery, and close-to-nature management of the existing forests as well as the natural ecosystems represent nature-based solutions of great importance but not exclusive. To correctly evaluate the relevance that they can concretely have in the context of planning the interventions to be implemented, it will be necessary to incorporate their limitations and trade-offs into the predictive models.

Author Contributions

F.B. and M.P. contributed in equal measure to conceptualization and writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the support of the National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC) to the University of Florence, funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, PNRR, Missione 4 Componente 2, “Dalla ricerca all’impresa”, Investimento 1.4, Project CN00000033.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. In An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Masson-Delmotte, V.P., Zhai, H.-O., Pörtner, D., Roberts, J., Skea, P.R., Shukla, A., Pirani, W., Moufouma-Okia, C., Péan, R., Pidcock, S., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; 616p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lewis, S.L.; Wheeler, C.E.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; Koch, A. Regenerate natural forests to store carbon. Nature 2019, 568, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Singh, S.W.; Thawale, P.R.; Sharma, J.K.; Gautam, R.K.; Kundargi, G.P.; Juwarkar, A.A. Chapter 3—Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems. In Hydrogen Production and Remediation of Carbon and Pollutants; Lichtfouse, E., Schwarzbauer, J., Eds.; Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable World 6; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 99–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R.; Kauppi, P.E.; Kurz, W.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Shvidenko, A.; Lewis, S.L.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science 2011, 333, 988–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. FAO. State of the World Forests; Forest-Sector Innovations Towards a More Sustainable Future; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome: Rome, Italy, 2024; p. 122. [Google Scholar]
  6. Goymer, P. A trillion trees. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 208–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  8. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removals-and-carbon-farming_en (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  9. Harde, H. Understanding Increasing Atmospheric CO2. Sci. Clim. Chang. 2023, 3, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Available online: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  11. Bastin, J.-F.; Finegold, Y.; Garcia, C.; Mollicone, D.; Rezende, M.; Routh, D.; Zohner, C.M.; Crowther, T.W. The global tree restoration potential. Science 2019, 365, 76–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Palmero-Iniesta, M.; Pino, J.; Pesque, L.; Espelta, J.M. Recent forest area increase in Europe: Expanding and regenerating forests differ in their regional patterns, drivers and productivity trends. Eur. J. For. Res. 2021, 140, 793–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Francini, S.; Chirici, G.; Chiesi, L.; Costa, P.; Caldarelli, G.; Mancuso, S. Global spatial assessment of potential for new peri-urban forests to combat climate change. Nat. Cities 2014, 1, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Veldman, J.W.; Overbeck, G.E.; Negreiros, D.; Mahy, G.; Le Stradic, S.; Fernandes, G.W.; Durigan, G.; Buisson, E.; Putz, F.E.; Bond, W.J. Where Tree Planting and Forest Expansion are Bad for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. BioScience 2015, 65, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Payn, T.; Carnus, J.-M.; Freer-Smith, P.; Kimberley, M.; Kollert, W.; Liu, S.; Orazio, C.; Rodriguez, L.; Silva, L.N.; Wingfield, M.J. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Walker, W.S.; Gorelik, S.R.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Baccini, A.; Farina, M.K.; Solvik, K.K.; Ellis, P.W.; Sanderman, J.; Houghton, R.A.; Leavitt, S.M.; et al. The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2111312119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mo, L.; Zohner, C.M.; Reich, P.B.; Liang, J.; de Miguel, S.; Nabuurs, G.-J.; Renner, S.S.; van den Hoogen, J.; Araza, A.; Herold, M.; et al. Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. Nature 2013, 624, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bazzaz, F.A. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1979, 10, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Büntgen, U.; Krusic, P.J.; Piermattei, A.; Coomes, D.A.; Esper, J.; Myglan, V.S.; Kirdyanov, A.V.; Camarero, J.J.; Crivellaro, A.; Körner, C. Limited capacity of tree growth to mitigate the global greenhouse effect under predicted warming. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wasternak, C. A plant’s balance of growth and defense—Revisited. New Phytol. 2017, 215, 1291–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. He, Z.; Webster, S.; He, S.Y. Growth–defense trade-offs in plants. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, R634–R639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Issartel, J.; Coiffard, C. Extreme longevity in trees: Live slow, die old? Oecologia 2011, 165, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Liu, S.; Brienen, R.J.W.; Fan, C.; Hao, M.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, C. Tree Lifespans in a Warming World: Unravelling the Universal Trade-Off Between Growth and Lifespan in Temperate Forests. Glob. Change Biol. 2025, 31, e70023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bonan, G.B. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 2008, 320, 1444–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Winbourne, J.B.; Jones, T.S.; Garvey, S.M.; Harrison, J.L.; Wang, L.; Li, D.; Templer, P.H.; Hutyra, L.R. Tree Transpiration and Urban Temperatures: Current Understanding; Implications, and Future Research Directions. BioScience 2020, 70, 576–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matteucci, G.; Vanclay, J.; Martin-Vide, J. Do forests areas influence rainfall regime? In Water for Forest and People in the Mediterranean Region—A Challenging Balance; Birot, Y., Gracia, C., Palahí, M., Eds.; What Science Can Tell Us 1; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2011; pp. 32–36. ISBN 978-952-5453-80-5. [Google Scholar]
  27. Verheyen, K.; Gillerot, L.; Blondeel, H.; De Frenne, P.; De Pauw, K.; Depauw, L.; Lorer, E.; Sanczuk, P.; Schreel, J.; Vanneste, T.; et al. Forest canopies as nature-based solutions to mitigate global change effects on people and nature. J. Ecol. 2024, 112, 2451–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Frenne, P.; Graae, B.J.; Brunet, J.; Shevtsova, A.; De Schrijver, A.; Chabrerie, O.; Cousins, S.A.O.; Decocq, G.; Diekmann, M.; Hermy, M.; et al. The response of forest plant regeneration to temperature variation along a latitudinal gradient. Ann. Bot. 2012, 109, 1037–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lintunen, J.; Rautiainen, A.; Uusivuori, J. Which Is more Important, Carbon or Albedo? Optimizing Harvest Rotations for Timber and Climate Benefits in a Changing Climate. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 104, 134–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hasler, N.; Williams, C.A.; Denney, V.C.; Ellis, P.W.; Shrestha, S.; Terasaki Hart, D.E.; Wolff, N.H.; Yeo, S.; Crowther, T.; Werden, L.K.; et al. Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Peñuelas, J.; Staudt, M. BVOCs and global change. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Popkin, G. How much can forests fight climate change? Nature 2019, 565, 280–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Huang, J.G.; Bergeron, Y.; Denneler, B.; Berninger, F.; Tardif, J. Response of Forest Trees to Increased Atmospheric CO2. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2007, 26, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Keenan, T.F.; Luo, X.; Stocker, B.D.; De Kauwe, M.G.; Medlyn, B.E.; Prentice, I.C.; Smith, N.G.; Terrer, C.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.; et al. A constraint on historic growth in global photosynthesis due to rising CO2. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 1376–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bugmann, H.; Bigler, C. Will the CO2 fertilization effect in forests be offset by reduced tree longevity? Oecologia 2011, 165, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kirschbaum, M.U.F. Direct and Indirect Climate Change Effects on Photosynthesis and Transpiration. Plant Biol. 2004, 6, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Linderholm, H.W. Growing season changes in the last century. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2006, 137, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Duffy, K.A.; Schwalm, C.R.; Arcus, V.L.; Koch, G.W.; Liang, L.L.; Schipper, L.A. How close are we to the temperature tipping point of the terrestrial biosphere? Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eaay1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Dusenge, M.E.; Duarte, A.G.; Way, D.A. Plant carbon metabolism and climate change: Elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on photosynthesis, photorespiration and respiration. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Schmitz, A.; Sanders, T.G.M.; Bolte, A.; Bussotti, F.; Dirnböck, T.; Johnson, J.; Peñuelas, J.; Pollastrini, M.; Prescher, A.-K.; Sardans, J.; et al. Responses of forest ecosystems in Europe to decreasing nitrogen deposition. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 244, 980–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Ju, W.; Chen, J.M.; Ciais, P.; Cescatti, A.; Sardans, J.; Janssens, I.A.; Wu, M.; Berry, J.A.; et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 2020, 370, 1295–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Beedlow, P.A.; Tingey, D.T.; Phillips, D.L.; Hogsett, W.E.; Olszyk, D.M. Rising atmospheric CO2 and carbon sequestration in forests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, Z.; Wang, W.; Forzieri, G.; Cescatti, A. Transition from positive to negative indirect CO2 effects on the vegetation carbon uptake. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Braun, S.; Thomas, V.F.D.; Quiring, R.; Flückiger, W. Does nitrogen deposition increase forest production? The role of phosphorus. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 2043–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jonard, M.; Fürst, A.; Verstraeten, A.; Thimonier, A.; Timmermann, V.; Potočić, N.; Waldner, P.; Benham, S.; Hansen, K.; Merilä, P.; et al. Tree mineral nutrition is deteriorating in Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 21, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Laffitte, B.; Seyler, B.C.; Wang, W.; Li, P.; Du, J.; Tang, Y. Declining tree growth rates despite increasing water-use efficiency under elevated CO2 reveals a possible global overestimation of CO2 fertilization effect. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. McDowell, N.G.; Pockman, W.T.; Allen, C.D.; Breshears, D.D.; Cobb, N.; Kolb, T.; Plaut, J.; Sperry, J.; West, A.; Williams, D.G.; et al. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: Why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol. 2008, 178, 719–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gazol, A.; Camarero, J. Compound climate events increase tree drought mortality across European forests. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. FAO. Global Forest Resource Assessment. Terms and Definitions; Paper 118; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; 32p. [Google Scholar]
  50. Seidl, R.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Rammer, W.; Verkerk, P.J. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 806–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Senf, C.; Buras, A.; Zang, C.S.; Rammig, A.; Seidl, R. Excess forest mortality is consistently linked to drought across Europe. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Patacca, M.; Lindner, M.; Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Cordonnier, T.; Fidej, G.; Gardiner, B.; Hauf, Y.; Jasinevičius, G.; Labonne, S.; Linkevičius, E.; et al. Significant increase in natural disturbance impacts on European forests since 1950. Glob. Change Biol. 2023, 29, 1359–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anderegg, W.R.L.; Hicke, J.A.; Fisher, R.A.; Allen, C.D.; Aukema, J.; Bentz, B.; Hood, S.; Lichstein, J.W.; Macalady, A.K.; McDowell, N.; et al. Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytol. 2015, 208, 674–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wessely, J.; Essl, F.; Fiedler, K.; Gattringer, A.; Hülber, B.; Ignateva, O.; Moser, D.; Rammer, W.; Dullinger, W.; Seidl, R. A climate-induced tree species bottleneck for forest management in Europe. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 8, 1109–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Streit, K.; Brang, P.; Frei, E.R. The Swiss common garden network: Testing assisted migration of tree species in Europe. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2024, 7, 1396798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koralewski, T.E.; Wang, H.H.; Grant, W.E.; Byram, T.D. Plants on the move: Assisted migration of forest trees in the face of climate change. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 344, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bantis, F.; Graap, J.; Früchtenicht, E.; Bussotti, F.; Radoglou, K.; Brüggemann, W. Field Performances of Mediterranean Oaks in Replicate Common Gardens for Future Reforestation Under Climate Change in Central and Southern Europe: First Results from a Four-Year Study. Forests 2021, 12, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. MacKenzie, W.H.; Mahony, C.R. An ecological approach to climate change-informed tree species selection for reforestation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 481, 118705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Forster, E.J.; Healey, J.R.; Dymond, C.; Styles, D. Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Bukoski, J.J.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Melikov, C.; Ban, H.; Chen, J.L.; Goldman, E.D.; Harris, N.L.; Potts, M.D. Rates and drivers of aboveground carbon accumulation in global monoculture plantation forests. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Surya Prabha, A.C.; Velumani, R.; Senthivelu, M.; Pragadeesh, S. Carbon Sequestration in Plantations and Agriculture Systems: A Review. Environ. Ecol. 2022, 40, 893–898. [Google Scholar]
  62. Teskey, R.O.; Saveyn, A.; Steppe, K.; McGuire, M.A. Origin, fate and significance of CO2 in tree stems. New Phytol. 2008, 177, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Noormets, A.; Epron, D.; Domec, J.C.; McNulty, S.G.; Fox, T.; Sun, G.; King, J.S. Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: A review and hypothesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 355, 124–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brang, P.; Spathelf, P.; Bo Larsen, J.; Bauhus, J.; Boncčìna, A.; Chauvin, C.; Drössler, L.; García-Güemes, C.; Heiri, C.; Kerr, G.; et al. Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change. Forestry 2014, 87, 492–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vilà-Cabrera, A.; Coll, L.; Martínez-Vilalta, J.; Retana, J. Forest management for adaptation to climate change in the Mediterranean basin: A synthesis of evidence. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 407, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Walentowski, H.; Falk, W.; Mette, T.; Kunz, J.; Bräuning, A.; Meinardus, C.; Zang, C.; Sutcliffe, L.; Leuschner, C. Assessing future suitability of tree species under climate change by multiple methods: A case study in southern Germany. Ann. For. Res. 2017, 60, 101–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kunz, J.; Löffler, G.; Bauhus, J. Minor European broadleaved tree species are more drought-tolerant than Fagus sylvatica but not more tolerant than Quercus petraea. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 414, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Luyssaert, S.; Schulze, E.D.; Börner, A.; Knohl, A.; Hessenmöller, D.; Law, B.E.; Ciais, P.; Grace, J. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 2008, 455, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Knohl, A.; Schulze, E.D.; Kolle, O.; Buchmann, N. Large carbon uptake by an unmanaged 250-year-old deciduous forest in Central Germany. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2003, 118, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Roebroek Caspar, T.J.; Duveiller, G.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Davin, E.L.; Cescatti, A. Releasing global forests from human management: How much more carbon could be stored? Science 2023, 380, 749–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Holl, K.D.; Brancalion, P.H.S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 2020, 368, 580–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Scherer-Lorenzen, M. The functional role of biodiversity in the context of global change. In Forests and Global Change; Coomes, D.D., Burslem, D.F.R.P., Simonson, W.D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; British Ecological Society: London, UK, 2014; pp. 195–237. [Google Scholar]
  73. Liang, J.; Crowther, T.W.; Picard, N.; Wiser, S.; Zhou, M.; Alberti, G.; Schulze, E.-D.; McGuire, A.D.; Bozzato, F.; Pretzsch, H.; et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 2016, 354, aaf8957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Beugnon, R.; Ladouceur, E.; Sünnemann, M.; Cesarz, S.; Eisenhauer, N. Diverse forests are cool: Promoting diverse forests to mitigate carbon emissions and climate change. J. Sustain. Agric. Environ. 2022, 1, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Morin, X.; Toigo, M.; Fahse, L.; Guillemot, J.; Cailleret, M.; Bertrand, R.; Cateau, E.; de Coligny, F.; García-Valdés, R.; Ratcliffe, S.; et al. More species, more trees: The role of tree packing in promoting forest productivity. J. Ecol. 2025, 113, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Di Sacco, A.; Hardwick, K.A.; Blakesley, D.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Breman, E.; Rebola, L.C.; Chomba, S.; Dixon, K.; Elliott, S.; Ruyonga, G.; et al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 1328–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nuñez, M.A.; Davis, K.T.; Dimarco, R.D.; Peltzer, D.A.; Paritsis, J.; Maxwell, B.D.; Pauchard, A. Should tree invasions be used in treeless ecosystems to mitigate climate change? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 19, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Seddon, N.; Smith, A.; Smith, P.; Key, I.; Chausson, A.; Girardin, C.; House, J.; Srivastava, S.; Turner, B. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2012, 27, 1518–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Brancalion, P.H.S.; Holl, K.D. Guidance for successful tree planting initiatives. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2349–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 00810 g001
Figure 1. Factors that influence the effects of trees on climate. In red, the factors responsible for warming.
Figure 1. Factors that influence the effects of trees on climate. In red, the factors responsible for warming.
Forests 16 00810 g001
Forests 16 00810 g002
Figure 2. Efficacy and limitations of carbon storage in trees and forests under high atmospheric [CO2]. The graph indicates the responses of forests on harshening environmental conditions in relation to time (x-axis). The first part of the graph shows a linear increase in carbon sequestration with increasing [CO2] fertilization; then, the flat part of the line indicates the effect of the ecological limitation at the site; finally, the sudden drop is caused by forest disturbances that turn the forest from a sink to a source of carbon.
Figure 2. Efficacy and limitations of carbon storage in trees and forests under high atmospheric [CO2]. The graph indicates the responses of forests on harshening environmental conditions in relation to time (x-axis). The first part of the graph shows a linear increase in carbon sequestration with increasing [CO2] fertilization; then, the flat part of the line indicates the effect of the ecological limitation at the site; finally, the sudden drop is caused by forest disturbances that turn the forest from a sink to a source of carbon.
Forests 16 00810 g002
Table 1. Carbon stored in different ecosystems ([3]).
Table 1. Carbon stored in different ecosystems ([3]).
AreaPlantsSoilTotalGtC
BiomeM Km2(GtC)(GtC)(GtC)M Km−2
Tropical forests17.621221642824.32
Temperate forests10.45910015915.29
Boreal forests13.78847155940.8
Tropical savannas22.56626433014.67
Temperate grasslands12.5929530424.32
Deserts and semideserts45.581911994.37
Tundra9.5612112713.37
Wetlands3.51522524068.57
Croplands1631281318.19
Total151.24662011247716.38
GtC = gigatons of carbon.
Table 2. Objectives and management options for climate-smart plantations and forests.
Table 2. Objectives and management options for climate-smart plantations and forests.
ObjectiveManagement Options
Ad hoc tree plantations
Establishing stable and resilient forests for the futureConsider site compatibilities
Select tree species suitable for the future climate
Promote persistence rather than fast growth
Fostering biodiversityUtilize native species
Avoid invasive alien species
Commercial tree plantations
Maximizing the persistence of carbon over timePromote carbon storage in woody products
Managed forest
Increasing carbon storagePromote the complexity of the aboveground structure
Enhance the capacity of soil to stock carbon
Promote carbon storage in woody products
Fostering biodiversityClose-to-Nature Silviculture
Foster minor and accessory species
Reducing the impacts of forest disturbancesPlan and execute appropriate forestry roads
Monitor health conditions
Reducing the impacts of forestry interventionsReduce the use of fuel in forestry works
Unmanaged forests and natural ecosystems
Fostering protection and conservationAvoid forestation in intact ecosystems
Monitoring impacts and health conditions
Conservative management
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bussotti, F.; Pollastrini, M. Planting Trees as a Nature-Based Solution to Mitigate Climate Change: Opportunities, Limits, and Trade-Offs. Forests 2025, 16, 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050810

AMA Style

Bussotti F, Pollastrini M. Planting Trees as a Nature-Based Solution to Mitigate Climate Change: Opportunities, Limits, and Trade-Offs. Forests. 2025; 16(5):810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050810

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bussotti, Filippo, and Martina Pollastrini. 2025. "Planting Trees as a Nature-Based Solution to Mitigate Climate Change: Opportunities, Limits, and Trade-Offs" Forests 16, no. 5: 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050810

APA Style

Bussotti, F., & Pollastrini, M. (2025). Planting Trees as a Nature-Based Solution to Mitigate Climate Change: Opportunities, Limits, and Trade-Offs. Forests, 16(5), 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16050810

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop