Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Tree Planting: Prospects and Challenges for Forest Restoration, Biodiversity and Climate Change

From UBC Wiki

Tree planting is a technique used to mitigate climate change, protect against flood damage, reduce erosion, increase biodiversity, promote carbon sequestration, and to build larger timber supplies to be harvested and sold. In many countries, tree planting carries large economic benefits for business and supplies individuals with jobs, supporting economies.

History

The act of tree planting has existed for thousands of years, the first tree planted ever being an olive tree in 4000 BC [1]. Tree planting as a form of regeneration was developed during the Middle Ages in Europe[1]. This was the development of silviculture, a branch of forestry that focuses on the growth and harvesting of trees. At the time, most planting was a tool for changing the composition of forests, by replacing species such as beech and fir with spruce, resulting in a less diverse forest[1]. Silviculture wasn’t introduced into North America until the 20th century, and prior to its introduction forests were harvested and expected to regenerate naturally[2]. Over time, silviculture vastly evolved, an example of this advancement being the Royal Commission on Forests in BC, 1945[3]. The Royal Commission on Forests in BC included two methods of sustained yield[3]. The first being the creation of the ‘private working circle’, which combined land that had been leased from the government as well as ‘crown granted land’ meaning land previously owned by the government that has been transferred to an individual or company, given some conditions[3]. On top of these two combined land types the government also contributed crown land to create continuous areas of forest management[3]. The second method included a ‘public working circle’ where all other land not included in the ‘private working circles’ was managed by the Forest Services[3].

Planted Tree Sapling in British Columbia, Canada.

Types of Trees

Types of planted trees vary significantly based on location and weather. One common theme of a successful replanting is a diverse mix of native or native and non-native species that have mutualistic interactions, while excluding invasive species.[4] Maximizing biodiversity also involves planting trees that have a variety of functions, such as seed-dispersing species, those conducive to moss and fungi, and trees that require pollination. As a result, a mixed species forest has a higher capacity to conserve biodiversity, create habitats for wildlife, and attract seed dispersers and pollinators.[4]

Tree planting can utilize fresh stock or stored stock, and either style of planting has strengths and weaknesses.[5] Fresh stock describes the process by which tree seedlings are planted immediately or shortly after being removed from nursery, while planted stock refers to trees that are removed from nursery and refrigerated until planting conditions are suitable. Fresh stock allows new trees to root quickly and with less time required for acclimation. However, it is necessary to have the planting environment prepared and healthy at the time of planting, which may not be possible.[6] When the planting environment includes certain constraints, perhaps unsuitable weather or lack of planting budget, then stored stock is used. Stored stock allows for more flexibility in planting, especially on high elevation sites where snow persists into summer, and when budgetary constraints hamper regeneration activities.[6]

Tree planter planting in late Autumn.

Planting Seasons

Tree planting is normally carried out in the summer in alpine high-altitude conditions, and in spring or late winter in most wet-temperate and cold Mediterranean-climate forests [7]. However, some wet-temperate climate forests undergo a monsoon period, which results in the mortality or poor performance of spring plantations due to water stress. For this reason, some areas which experience a monsoon period benefit from a summer planting season rather than the conventional spring[7]. However, issues arise when planting in the summer months. Summer planting seasons often hinder the establishment of young seedlings, causing stress while they are an active growing period[7]. The resulting effects are significant, because success of forest plantings is linked to seedling establishment, which is connected to root growth after planting. Choosing an ideal timing will allow the tree adequate water supply, and proper ambient temperature[7]. Additionally, short planting seasons like those extending from spring to summer introduce pressures for seedling producers, planting organizers, and mechanic and manual tree planters[8]. Studies have shown that extending the tree planting season to late autumn can improve the life of seedlings, namely of the Norway spruce[8]. Though this strategy has been under-explored by researchers, the variety of seasons for planting benefits different trees in different ways[8].

Benefits of Tree Planting

Tree root system that prevents stream bank erosion
One benefit of tree planting is its ability to help reduce erosion of land through root systems.

With forests being the world's largest carbon sinks, tree planting has a high potential for mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration, while restoring, maintaining, and improving forest function.[9][10] When implemented properly, tree planting supports ecosystem services by increasing vegetation, which reduces wind erosion, regulates soil nutrients, reduces runoff, and improves water filtration, all beneficial for crops and biodiversity.[11] It also contributes to soil retention, timber supply, increased biodiversity, and supports cultural values.[9] Tree planting is estimated to be three times more effective than the next best climate mitigation technique.[10] Studies conducted on 21 different land management strategies showed that reforestation mitigated 25% of the total greenhouse gases mitigated by all land management strategies.[10] It is also important to note that within reforestation initiatives, one third is tree planting while the rest is natural reforestation.[10] Although natural reforestation often maintains a higher biodiversity and costs less, tree planting can rapidly establish trees needed to respond to climate change.[10] Proper reforestation can also increase pest resistance through the breeding of native species.[10] Along with aesthetic and other benefits associated with trees, afforestation of cities helps cool urban areas by reducing the urban heat island effect.[12]

Other than environmental benefits, tree planting also has economic benefits for humans such as job creation, avoided costs, and timber supply. In the US, trees' air filtration valued at $7 billion per year.[12] The World Resource Institute estimated that a $4-4.5 billion federal investment in the US could create over 150,000 jobs, while restoring 60 billion trees in 20 years.[12] Investments of one million dollars in forest restoration generally supports around 40 jobs—far more than a similar investment in aviation or oil and gas.[12]

Notable Successes

Restoration in the Loess Plateau.

Successful tree planting initiatives require planning before and maintaining after the planting process. These projects are often government or NGO driven. South Korea and China are two countries that implemented ambitious and successful afforestation initiatives that began in the later portion of the 20th century [13] [14]. Both projects aimed to regulate water flow, minimize soil water loss, reduce flood risk, and improve livelihoods in the area [13] [15]. In efforts to mitigate recurrent flooding in South Korea the government introduced the Saemaul Undong (New Village Movement); they anticipated an increase in forest cover would regulate water flows producing economic benefits for farmers [15]. The project had an afforestation goal of 1 million hectares of degraded land restored [14]. To achieve this the government incentivized voluntary restoration through projects such as tree nurseries, afforestation, erosion control, and more[14]. The project became an overarching success story as the villagers and rural residents benefited from increased income while engaging in restoration[14]. By restoring 30% of the country's forest cover, flooding reduced significantly [16]. In addition, the added trees were able to stabilize the water flows, contributing to a reduction in flood risk [15]. In China, 60% of the Loess Plateau, a once forested area, is severely impacted by soil and wind erosion contributing to ~90% of the sediment in the Yellow River[13]. The intense environment negatively impacts agricultural practices creating poverty among farmers [13]. To remedy this the Chinese government introduced the Grain for Green program (GFGP) aiming to convert agricultural land to forested or grassed land [13]. The newly converted 16,000 km2 of non-crop vegetation have notably improved ecological functions since restoration. The Loess Plateau now provides a wider range of ecosystem services including climate regulation, wind blocking, sediment fixation and preservation of biodiversity[17]. China continues to invest in this program, year after year, showing that the GFGP is a worthwhile benefit to the community[18]. Returning trees to areas suffering from degradation, flooding, and wind erosion can help reduce the severity of these natural disasters, to replicate this effect China and South Korea can be studied to guide future initiatives towards success.  

Setbacks of Tree Planting

The lesser-seen side of tree planting is its negative effects on the environment and humans, especially when done improperly. Major setbacks resulting from tree planting are the loss of other vital habitats, the spread of invasive species, water availability and fire risk.[9] It is also important to remember that tree planting cannot be treated as a replacement for emissions cuts.[12]

Forest Fire
Tree Planting increases the severity and probability of forest fires.

Fires are one of tree plantings greatest risks, with potentially cascading effects. Tree planting often creates larger and more connected forests which are harder to manage and more prone to larger fires, a trend amplified by worsening fire conditions due to climate change.[9] These dangers are even more likely when afforestation occurs in arid, dry and warm landscapes, causing more severe degradation.[19] Tree planting, or high density silviculture, coupled with traditional fire suppression, which suppresses naturally occurring fires, has resulted in 40 million hectares of overstocked timberland.[10] This creates an excess fuel and increased future reforestation needs after more frequent forest fires.[10] In 2007, post forest fire reforestation was 15% of the total reforestation need, while by 2017 it rose to 81%, making it harder to keep up with demand. .[10] Large government campaigns may also have adverse effects. As a part of their Biodiversity Strategy, the EU has committed to planting three billion trees by 2030.[9] Researchers have warned that this will pose a higher fire risk as weather conditions become more ideal for fires and more droughts occur.[9] Too much tree planting can result in more devasting fires and additional reforestation needs, along with other negative effects to the ecosystem.

Rows of the same species of tree
Monoculture of trees from poor tree planting has an array of negative effects.

Large-scale campaigns obscure the importance of other ecosystems beyond forests. This includes the Trillion Tree Initiative which aims to restore or protect 1 trillion trees by 2050, and the Bonn Challenge that aims to restore 350 million ha of degraded forests by 2030.[12] Forest service data reports that only 20% of the annual reforestation needs are being met, suggesting that these projects lack proper management and follow through.[10] These projects tend to not support high biodiversity. 80% of the Bonn Challenge involves planting monocultures or very limited tree variety, instead of restoring natural forests.[20] The intensive forestry techniques involved disturb the soil, weakening its carbon storage capability.[19] The creation of monocultures directly reduces biodiversity, carbon sequestration potential, habitats creation, and erosion control compared to natural native forests.[20] "Carbon blinders" are ecosystems that often get overlooked in climate mitigation due to the prominence of using trees.[12] This includes grasslands, shrublands, wetlands and other ecosystem.[12] Temperate grasslands and savannas store large amounts of carbon underground, are less prone to fires and absorb less solar radiation.[19] Afforestation of these ecosystems may drain streams, warm the local climate, and reduce carbon benefits.[12] Even though afforestation can promote more forest specialists species, it greatly harms existing open habitat species.[11] Tree planting also often targets forest steppes, grasslands dispersed within forests, because of their ideal planting conditions.[19] Losing these landscapes reduces biodiversity and the varying habitats within forests.[19] This loss of habitat disproportionately affects certain organisms, such as amphibians, that have small ecological niches and do not have high dispersal capability.[11] Studies done on the Penton's toad and the Mali sand frog show the effects of increased vegetation.[11] Increases in woody vegetation in the study showed a decrease in populations by 29.8%.[11] This also has indirect effects on other organisms along the food chain.[11]

Tree Planting as a Greenwashing Method

With continued deforestation negatively affecting our world's ecosystems, governments have implemented emissions targets in efforts to limit companies' impact [21]. A common way to meet these standards is through carbon offset programs, where each tree planted is credited toward a reduction in emissions. Businesses use tree planting initiatives as a strategy to reduce their reported carbon footprint and enhance brand image.

Each year, Americans plant six trees for every used tree with corporations contributing to 750 million out of 1.6 billion [22]. It’s common that businesses operate on a one-to-one trade with NGO organizations, for each good or service provided one tree is planted [21]. Tree planting is commonly used as a method for companies to communicate their environmental commitments [21]. Studies have found that when consumers perceive that a business is taking steps to support environmental sustainability, they may be swayed to support the company[23].

These companies are capable of planting large amounts of forest cover, in 2019 Ecosia financed the planting of 35.9 million trees[21] but maintaining the trees after the planting process is equally important, without proper management high mortality rates can occur [21]. Some research indicates that companies may neglect the socioeconomic well being of local populations in the midst of planting [21]. Although these goals are incentivizing, they are purely quantitative, simply achieving them does not provide a holistic solution to deforestation [21].  

Researchers have identified the risk of over-crediting when it comes to carbon offsets [24]. Without a clear method for determining the costs of restoration compared to the ecological impact, businesses may receive inaccurate evaluations of their carbon footprint[24] In addition, some research suggests that such initiatives can obscure the broader environmental impacts of business operations, leaving consumers unaware of the products true footprint [25]. Companies that use tree planting initiatives to enhance their brand without changing their practices paint the picture that tree planting alone will address the climate crisis [25].

Tree planting may reinforce consumer misconceptions about environmental impacts. In reality, tree planting does not reflect the sustainability of the supply chain, this is where greenwashing occurs[21]. The details behind the tree planting process are often unclear, some companies do not advertise where the trees are being planted and if they are being planted in monocrops, if so tree plantations may lead to worse off environmental impacts than if the ecosystem were to regenerate naturally[21]. Several researchers have recommended implementing clearer labeling standards to reduce greenwashing in tree-planting claims [22].

Plantations

Pine tree plantation in the United States

Tree plantations are intensively managed, dense land cover often of a single-species stand focused solely on the commodification of lumber, palm, fruits, coffee, and other commercial crops. Tree plantations were developed in the 16th century, and have increasingly gained traction since the 1980s[26]. Plantations are among some of the largest contributors to land cover change, namely in the southern hemisphere, increasing from 5.5% of South Central Chile's land in 1975 to 42.4% in 2007 (Nahuelhual et al,. 2012). Tree plantations are also estimated to supply one third of the global industrial demand of timber, and is expected to only increase from there[27]. The clearing of land in order to create plantations is labour intensive, and therefore benefits residents through work opportunities[26]. Yet in lower income rural areas, many residents have been benefiting off their land through agriculture, an estimated 28% of their income[26]. This may result in some economic drawbacks, as the monetary contributions made towards residents are often front loaded, and may cost landowners more overtime due costs related to the displacement of their livelihood[26]. Other socioeconomic controversies to consider, include that the commercial expansion of plantations in developing countries has occurred over the past 50 years, whereas in more established continents such as Europe the expansion of tree planting dates back to the 1700s[27]. Most of this expansion in developing countries occured before or during the establishment of standardized practices and regulations[27]. Because of this many large scale companies took advantage of their lack of regulation, cheap land and labor[27]. Due to these events many scholars argue that 'industrial plantation forestry' will not be able to meet both environmental and economic goals[27]. Social scientists have also raised concerns of land grabs, the displacement of local and indigenous peoples, as well as poor working conditions[27]. Some have also raised their apprehensions on the effect of expansion of industrial tree plantations resulting in scarcity of agricultural land[27]. Tree plantation can have a large impact on the functioning of ecosystems, therefore the environmental impacts are also important to consider. Some environmental impacts of tree plantations depend on what the use of the land was prior to clearing, for example it has been found that converting agriculture land to a plantation in fact decreases environmental impact, by sequestering a higher volume of carbon as well as, limiting soil erosion and conserving water[28]. It has also been proved that the conversion of croplands, grasslands and deserts to plantations allow for an increase in soil carbon and nitrogen[28]. Although there are some positive impacts for these land cover changes, the conversion of primary and secondary forests to plantations decreases the concentrations of soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus which are all essential for the fertility of soil[28]. Studies have also shown that the conversion of a primary forest to a plantation decreases biodiversity by 32.7%[29]. This is due to habitat loss, as many species cannot find the necessary resources to survive in these landscapes. As well as the loss of native species due to the clearing of primary forests and replacement with monocrops. Factors such as whether a plantation is mixed or a monoculture also affect the biodiversity of the stand, where a mixed stand provides more habitat and food diversity[29].

The Future of Tree Planting

Oneness Vann Tree Planting project in India that uses specialized trees based on local climate and geographical environment.

Ideally, the act of tree planting would exist to create new plantations in an attempt to strengthen our existing forests and increase biodiversity. Unfortunately, it must instead be used as a tool to restore degraded lands with low agricultural productivity, reduced supply of ecosystem services, and unsuitable habitats for most native species.[30] The future of tree planting is predicted to look the same, if climate change and deforestation progress. This is because the world’s forests are being increasingly deforested each year. Currently, multitudes of efforts are underway to protect, manage, and recreate forests. However, tree planting on its own is not a magic fix, for a multitude of reasons. The act of tree planting where a forest formerly existed (reforestation) is very different from planting trees where none were before (afforestation)[31]. In grassy biomes, there is the theoretical capability to support dense canopies of trees. A combination of public misconception and misguided policy have motivated companies to reforest these grasslands, in an attempt to make them more biodiverse[30]. In doing so, these rich, already biodiverse lands can become prone to fire and unsuitable for existing wildlife[30]. However, studies are being done that bring awareness to this issue, and create a precedent for afforestation practices to come in the future. Now, forestry professionals can see data that proves that reforestation is not always the most ideal plan of action for any particular area, especially one that is already established from a biodiversity perspective[30].

Additionally, tree planting is a highly variable habitat restoration method if planted seedlings become unviable due to environmental pressures [32]. Studies for future tree-planting efforts reveal that monocultural plantations struggle when faced with drought, cold weather, and various other stressors [32]. In addition to being a variable method of restoration, monoculture plantings also hinder the biodiversity potential of areas. However, more biodiverse planting methods stabilize sapling survival in vulnerable areas[32]. Studies show that natural regeneration of threatened areas maintains fungal biodiversity within soil, while monoculture plantings significantly reduce it[33]. Monocultural plantations were found to cause biological homogenization, which is a process where two or more distinct ecological areas become increasingly similar over time [33]. These findings further the future use of natural regeneration as an ecological restoration method[32], and motivate companies to consider the preservation of existing biology instead of the general solution of monocultural tree plantations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, tree planting is a multi-dimensional solution for logging-induced deforestation and climate change as a whole. Notable successes such as restoration in the Loess plateau and the Oneness Van Tree Planting project highlight the use of tree planting as a functional conservation method, allowing for biodiversity restoration, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and in the case of Oneness Van, insight into tree selection based on local climate and geographical environment. Setbacks like monocultural planting, habitat loss, greenwashing, spread of invasive species, and fire risk are some of the downsides of tree planting, but which research and continued development of the industry is striving to solve.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Evans, J. (2009). "The History of Tree Planting and Planted Forests". CABI EBooks.
  2. ↑ Achim, A.; Moreau, G.; Coops, N.; Axelson, J.; Barrette, J.; Bédard, J.; Byrne, K.; Caspersen, J.; Dick, A (2021). "The Changing Culture of Silviculture". An International Journal of Forest Research. 95: 143–152 – via Oxford Academic.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Mitchell-Banks, P. (June 9th 2000). "The Impact of Five Forest Commissions on the History and Practice of Forestry in British Columbia, Canada". CABI EBooks. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Di Sacco, A; Hardwick, K. A; Blakesley, D; Brancalion, P. H. S; Breman, E; Cecilio Rebola, L; Chomba, S; Dixon, K., Elliott, S; Ruyonga, G; Shaw, K; Smith, P; Smith, R. J; & Antonelli, A. (2021). "Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits". Global Change Biology.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ↑ Friggens, Nina; Hester, Alison; Mitchell, Ruth; Parker, Thomas; Subke, Jens-Arne; Wookey, Philip A. (14 July 2020). "Tree planting in organic soils does not result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales". Global Change Biology.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Deborah S. Page-Dumroese; R. Kasten Dumroese; Martin F. Jurgensen; Ann Abbott; Jennifer J. Hensiek; (10 December 2008). "Effect of nursery storage and site preparation techniques on field performance of high-elevation Pinus contorta seedlings". Forest Ecology and Management. 256, Issue 12.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Luo, Na; Villar-Salvador, Pedro; Li, Guolei; Wang, Jiaxi. (July 2021). "The dark side of nursery photoperiod reduction on summer plantation performance of a temperate conifer: High winter mortality mediated by reduced seedling carbohydrate and nitrogen storage". Forest Ecology and Management.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Pikkarainen, L.; Luoranen, J.; Kilpeläinen, A.; Oijala, T.; Peltola, H. (April 202). "Comparison of planting success in one-year-old spring, summer and autumn plantings of Norway spruce and Scots pine under boreal conditions". Silva Fennica. Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Hermoso, Virgilio; Regos, Adrián; Morán-Ordóñez,, Alejandra; Duane, Andrea; Brotons, Lluís (02 April 2021). "Tree planting: A double-edged sword to fight climate change in an era of megafires". Global Change Biology – via Wiley Online Library. Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 Dumroese, R Kasten; Balloffet, Nicole; Crockett, John W; Stanturf, John A; Nave, Lucas E (Jan 2019). "A national approach to leverage the benefits of tree planting on public lands". New Forests. Vol. 50, Iss. 1 – via ProQuest.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Licata, Fulvio; Thiaw, Mamadou; Ndiaye, Papa I.; Andreone, Franco; Ficetola, Gentile F. (20 February 2025). "Negative responses of two dry-adapted amphibians to tree planting density in the Great Green Wall in Senegal". Restoration Ecology. 33 (6) – via Wiley Online Library.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 "Trees as Nature-Based Solutions". One Earth. 2(5): 387–389. 2020 May 22 – via National Center for Biotechnology Information. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Yu, Yang; Zhao, Wenwu; Martinez-Murillo, Juan F.; Pereira, Paulo (10 October 2020). "Loess Plateau: from degradation to restoration". Science of The Total Environment. Volume 738 – via Science Direct.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Ji, S.; Shin, S.; Lee, Y. (December 2022). "Forest restoration policy in the North Korea based on the reforestation experience in South Korea". International Forestry Review. Volume 24: pp. 560-572 – via Ingenta Connect.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Yoon, Jaehyun; Baak, Saang Joon; Seo, Min Young; Kim, Taejong (30 November 2022). "Impacts of Reforestation on Stabilization of Riverine Water Levels in South Korea". KDI Journal of Economic Policy. Vol. 44: pp. 1-24.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  16. ↑ Buckingham, Kathleen; Hanson, Craig (December 5, 2015). "Case Example: South Korea". The Restoration Diagnostic.
  17. ↑ Hu, Jie; Zhen, Lin; Sun, Chuan-Zhun; Du, Bing-Zhen; Wang, Chao (9 January 2015). "Ecological Footprint of Biological Resource Consumption in a Typical Area of the Green for Grain Project in Northwestern China". Environments. Volume 2: pp. 44-60.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  18. ↑ He, Wen; Di, Baofeng; Zeng, Yajie; Duan, Yanan; Li, Junhui; Qiu, Lingke; Balikuddembe, Joseph Kimuli; Peng, Qiaoqiao; Zeng, Wen (15 December 2023). "Reconsidering the Eco-Economic Benefits of Grain for Green Program in Sichuan Province, China". Ecological Indicators. Volume 157 – via Science Direct.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Tölgyesi, Csaba; Buisson, Elise; Helm, Aveliina; Temperton, Vicky M.; Török, Péter (27 October 2021). "Urgent need for updating the slogan of global climate actions from "tree planting" to "restore native vegetation"". Restoration Ecology. 30 (3) – via Wiley Online Library.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Filgas, Lindsay; Jordan, Rob (June 22nd, 2020). "Poorly designed tree-planting campaigns could do more harm than good, according to Stanford researcher and others". Stanford Report. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 Bosshard, Ennia; Jansen, Merel; Lofqvist, Sara; Kettle, Chris J. (04 January 2021). "Rooting Forest Landscape Restoration in Consumer Markets—A Review of Existing Marketing-Based Funding Initiatives". Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. Volume 3. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Blewitt, J C; Gesek, Alyssa (2024). "Lean, Clean, and Green Business: An Examination of the Millennial Consumer's Perception of Corporate Environmental Practices and Green Marketing Tactics". Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness. Volume 18 Iss. 3: pp. 43-50 – via ProQuest.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  23. ↑ Rabaski, Nayara Guetten; dos Santos, Andrew; Jaine, Souza; Santos, Natalia Silva; Grebogi, Juliana (2024). "Carbon Offset Through Tree planting : A Sustainable Initiative in Companies". Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental ; São Paulo. Volume 18, Iss. 10: pp. 1-22 – via ProQuest.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Jones, Julia P. G.; Lewis, Simon L. (24 August 2023). "Forest Carbon Offsets are Failing". Science. Vol 381, Issue 6660: pp. 830-831.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Holl, Karen D.; Brancalion, Pedro H. S. (8 May 2020). "Tree planting is not a simple solution". Science. Vol. 368, No. 6491: pp. 580-581.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 Malkamäki, Arttu; D'Amato, Dalia; Hogwarth, Nicholas J.; Kanninen, Markku; Pirard, Romain; Toppinen, Anne; Zhou, Wen (November 2018). "A Systematic Review of the Socio-Economic Impacts of Large-Scale Tree Plantations, Worldwide". Global Environmental Change. 53: 90–103 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 Andersson, Krister; Lawrence, Duncan; Zavaleta, Jennifer; Guariguata, Manuel R. (January 2016). "More Trees, More Poverty? The Socioeconomic Effects of Tree Plantations in Chile, 2001-2011". Environmental Management. 57: 123–136 – via ProQuest.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Yuan, Chaoxiang; Wu, Fuzhong; Wu, Qiqian; Fornara, Dario A.; Hedēnec, Petr; Peng, Yan; Yuan, Ji; Zhu, Guiqing; Yue, Kai (June 1st 2023). "Divergent Effects of Converting Different Types of Ecosystems to Tree Plantations on Soild Water Holding Characteristics: A Meta-Analysis". Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 348 – via Elsevier Science Direct. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Wang, Chao; Zhang, Weiwei; Li, Xiaona; Wu, Juying (December 20th 2021). "A Global Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Tree Plantations on Biodiversity". Global Ecology and Biogeography. 31: 576–587 – via Wiley Online Library. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 Chazdon, R. L; & Uriarte, M. (November 2016). "Natural regeneration in the context of large-scale forest and landscape restoration in the tropics". Biotropica.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ↑ Friggens, Nina L.; Hester, Alison J.; Mitchell, Ruth J.; Parker, Thomas C.; Subke, Jens-Arne; Wookey, Philip A.; (July 2020). "Tree planting in organic soils does not result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales". Global Change Biology.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 King, Rachel A.; Pullen, Jamie; Cook-Patton, Susan C.; Parker, John D. (May 2023). "Diversity stabilizes but does not increase sapling survival in a tree diversity experiment". Restoration Ecology.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Naka, Minagi; Masumoto, Shota; Nishizawa, Keita; Matsuoka, Shunsuke; Tatsumi, Shinichi; et al. (April 2024). "Long-term Consequences on Soil Fungal Community Structure: Monoculture Planting and Natural Regeneration". Environmental Managment. Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Tree_Planting:_Prospects_and_Challenges_for_Forest_Restoration,_Biodiversity_and_Climate_Change&oldid=880754"