It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The number of reforestation projects worldwide is increasing. In many cases funding is obtained through the claimed carbon capture of the trees, presented as immediate and durable, whereas reforested plots need time and maintenance to realise their carbon capture potential. Further, claims usually overlook the environmental costs of natural or anthropogenic disturbances during the forest’s lifetime, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the reforestation are not allowed for. This study uses life cycle assessment to quantify the carbon footprint of setting up a reforestation plot in the Peruvian Amazon. In parallel, we combine a soil carbon model with an above- and below-ground plant carbon model to predict the increase in carbon stocks after planting. We compare our results with the carbon capture claims made by a reforestation platform. Our results show major errors in carbon accounting in reforestation projects if they (1) ignore the time needed for trees to reach their carbon capture potential; (2) ignore the GHG emissions involved in setting up a plot; (3) report the carbon capture potential per tree planted, thereby ignoring limitations at the forest ecosystem level; or (4) under-estimate tree losses due to inevitable human and climatic disturbances. Further, we show that applications of biochar during reforestation can partially compensate for project emissions.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Cranfield University, School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield, UK (GRID:grid.12026.37) (ISNI:0000 0001 0679 2190)
2 University of Liège, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Gembloux, Belgium (GRID:grid.4861.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 0805 7253)
3 Centro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, Madre de Dios, Peru (GRID:grid.4861.b); Wake Forest University, Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, Winston-Salem, USA (GRID:grid.241167.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 3318); Wake Forest University, Department of Biology, Winston-Salem, USA (GRID:grid.241167.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 3318)
4 Centro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, Madre de Dios, Peru (GRID:grid.241167.7); Wake Forest University, Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, Winston-Salem, USA (GRID:grid.241167.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 3318)
5 Centro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, Madre de Dios, Peru (GRID:grid.241167.7)
6 University of Aberdeen, Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Aberdeen, UK (GRID:grid.7107.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7291)