tree planting project proposal methodology

The Methodology of Tree Planting

A footnote on the progress of the Southern Beaches Community Garden at Tugun in south east Queensland, Australia.

Our last planting of the food forest was held on the 4th August 2010. Since then we have had a very wet winter and spring this year in the lead up to the wet season in Queensland. So our food forest in now on its own and thriving.

I’m putting the success down to the planting methodology shared by a good friend and college of mine, Matt Kilby from www.globallandrepair.com.au . Matt has been researching and refining this methodology over many years.

It’s not what you plant but how you plant it. And in my own experience over the years in the Landscape industry, where we must have planted hundreds of thousands of tube stock trees over 12 years, we could only manage an 85% strike rate on mass plant outs.

The approach that Matt Kilby has been mastering looks at preparation as one of the keys to mastering tree planting and the high survival rates, as well as biological planting methods used.

At the community garden we didn’t have the chance to get much preparation done, like deep ripping on contour with a Yeomans Keyline Plow 12 months before planting. Instead we had to look and really concentrating on the soil (or sand in our case) and what we could do to improve it and what biological methods could we look at.

Below I have listed the steps that Southern Beaches Community Garden adapted from Matt’s methodology to produce these successful results:

Step 1: Compost was sourced from a local permaculturist and added to the tree hole that was dug 3x the size of the tree’s pot that was going in the hole — wide and deep to allow good root penetration and development.

Step 2: We then added Tree Starter. Tree Starter uses a three-pronged support system for soil biology. Firstly, it supplies a wide range of food sources for soil life including humates, kelp (seaweed) and compost. Secondly, it retains moisture and provides a home-base for beneficial organisms through the inclusion of zeolite and rock minerals. Finally, highly paramagnetic materials are included into the formula to stimulate microbial proliferation. In addition to this trio of benefits, the compost component also inoculates a new workforce of beneficial microbes into the soil to get the trees jumping out of the ground.

Step 3: We flood-irrigated the tubes and fruit trees to remove all the hot air from the roots. In the water we added Tree Tonic. During transplanting trees often suffer from transplant shock. This is due to root damage and a change of environment during the transplanting process. Tree Tonic lessens the impact of transplant shock by providing essential nutrients and to reverse the negative effects of transplanting and helps the plant to recover and increase growth rates. One thing I must say is that these plants started their life the conventional chemical way, so this biological treat must have seemed like paradise to them.

Step 4: We added something which I think is very special. Tree specific mycorrhiza fungi. Mycorrhizas are fungi that live in a beneficial relationship with most tree roots. Mycorrhiza increase the tree roots’ access to water and nutrients and therefore increases tree growth, especially in poor soil conditions which are often found in tree planting areas. And that was more the case in our sand pit of a garden.

Just as we apply starter fertiliser when young trees are planted we also need to consider inoculating with mycorrhiza to enhance survival rates. Most soils in Australia are becoming more and more devoid of mycorrhiza due to tillage, chemicals, compaction and loss of organic matter, making small trees very susceptible to drought and nutrients shortages. If we can inoculate the tube stock with mycorrhiza we can limit these stresses and survival/growth rates will increase — as demonstrated now in our food forest trees.

Step 5: Back to the hole preparation and the finishing off or landscaping the earth around the tree. A bull horn swale, a technique that Matt always uses, places the tree in a dish below ground level with small swales to focus the water into the tree. This is another of the keys to this methodology, giving the tree every chance it can to thrive rather that just survive.

Step 6: We used recycled paper Eco Mulch Mats, specially designed for this type of work, and the thing for our gardeners was that the Eco Mulch Mats would last for 12 – 18 months and is the equivalent to 100mm of mulch. Also, they are organic certified and contain organic fertiliser. The mats deliver sustained nutrient release including essential trace elements as the mat naturally biodegrades. We also placed 300mm deep of mulch around the outside of the tree guard 1m around the tree.

Step 7: Our Garden members all laughed at me when we got to step seven: pink tree guards. That right folks, pink . Now I have been working and trialing these tree guards for some time now, and I’m a believer. The theory is that visible light can be split into a spectrum of colours. Green leaves absorb light from the red fraction to drive photosynthesis. Research has demonstrated that the colour pink reflects and focuses the red fraction, concentrating this photosynthetic energy to enhance plant growth.

The guards at our community garden location have also provided wind protection against strong salt-laden wind, which can cause severe dehydration of young trees and can result in high losses and salt burn. The Plant Pink Tree Guards have given our food forest ideal protection from strong winds in this early stage of growth and also creating an environment of increased humidity and sun protection.

The guards have also stopped predation from hares, rabbits and wallabies.

Step 8: 10 – 20 liters of water per tree with Tree Tonic.

And then we left it to Gaia to look after….

So, three months on and the tube stock have bounded out of the ground. Some have a vertical growth of more than half a meter with good lateral growth. In the past 12 months I have been planting trees in some extreme climates around Australia and still this method wins hands down.

Matt is an open source and would be more than happy to share this information with you. See his website for more details or print outs of the methodology.

As for the community garden. We are in maintenance mode and have just planted more support species and ground covers like sweet potato and pinto peanut. If you have the chance to test this tree planting methodology, please keep us updated on how it goes.

Further Reading:

• A Man of a Thousand Trees

Nick Huggins

Just say no to gmo, biochar - potential or pitfall carbon storage vs. soil quality, 12 comments.

viva la manzana… VIVA!

Great work and excellant research. Im slowly coming around to the colour pink.

Won’t leaving that load of apples on stunt such a small tree?

That’s tree planting on steroids! Seems like a very successful protocol for tree planting all over the world!

Thats an amazing survival rate! I’ll try it myself. Although I agree with JBOB. It’s better to remove any fruit in the younger years. its like a 12 year old having children, although physically possible but not an ideal outcome.

The method of intensive soil amendment in the planting holes will work fine in sand or loam soil, but beware of doing this on a site with heavy clay or a compacted subsoil. When the planting hole ends up with more pore space than the surrounding soil, this space can fill up with water in wet weather, and only very slowly be absorbed into the surrounding soil. Tree death from waterlogging results. In these type of soils it’s becoming consensus wisdom to plant in unamended native soil, and apply any organic matter, manure, compost, etc. as a heavy surface mulch. When I have wanted desperately to bury amendments (such as humanure, dead animals, etc.) I have had success placing these in holes near, but not under, the new plants. Feeder roots can then access the amendments at need, and be sacrificed to waterlogging without killing the plant. In a badly hardpan, perched water-table situation I have also planted trees in shallow mounds of enriched soil. It is easier to supply water than to drain away excess. As the nound settles the tree settles with it, and surface and deeper roots spread out…

I really like those pink tree guards, could have used about 30 or so for our recent plantings.

Eventually the trees will be a windbreak, but until then, it’s not easy for new plants to survive.

And it’s nice to SEE the new plantings. I’m having a tough time finding all those little trees and it’s easy to forget to water some of them.

Looked at Matt’s site https://www.globallandrepair.com.au/contact/ and apparently they’re not available in the US. Too bad really, I’d like to order several products. There’s a business opportunity …

Bob: Good advice. Generally deep rip twice, 12 months before planting on contour with a Yeomans. Matt has worked on every soil that Australia has. And while some situations are different, the methodology is the same. Deep ripping with a Yeomans even in Clay (assuming the moisture is right, not to wet for the rip to glaze or to dry for the rip to shatter and turn the soil over)this will encourage root development of grass and or weed to penetrate. The weeds will accumulate minerals from the clay, and then you can slash them down to start the process of soil creation. This all comes back to design. (Permaculture design) you can’t just throw trees into a situation that you describe where there is a potential to get water logged. Good design through secession, Weeds, Grass then pioneer trees then your forests trees. Following succession will allow time, roots to de-compact ground, create soil and also for the plants to cycle water and regulate the grounds water holding capacity even in peak rain events.

I can be contacted at nick at globallandrepair.com.au if you have any questions.

Thanks for the Comments Christine, See a Post by Eco Films: https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/10/02/man-of-a-thousand-trees/ I would be happy to talk with you on Matt’s behalf via Skype about opportunities of the sales, marketing and licensed production of the Guards in the USA. Matt currently sends small batches of guards around the world and we could do the same for you. Last week he sent a pallet to the UK of the biggest guards he makes. Matt main focus is getting trees in the ground, having the highest survival rates and sharing his passion for it. And having people around the world using this system would be his dream coming true. Matt has been planting trees in some of the most extreme places in Australia with little or no rain fall. See the comments by Geoff Lawton’s on the post above. My email is [email protected] Skype nick.huggins

JBob, as always thanks for the advice.

Sad to pluck off your first little fruits, I know, but everything I’ve read says to prevent fruit for the first 2-3 years. Listen to old Leviticus 19:23 himself:

“And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.”

A very late comment, but here it goes;

Ditto what Adam T said. Those trees will be living in the native soil for decades. A bit of compost at planting will encourage the root to stay in the original hole, instead of spreading out in search of nutrients. Nature puts organic matter on the surface, not below the roots. Mulch, mulch, mulch.

What are you guarding the plants from? I have deer here in the U.S., ready to nibble all of my seedlings. What is the problem in Southern Beaches?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Wild Mint: An Exploration of the Varieties and Culinary Applications of the Mints

​​Okinawa Spinach

A Quick Guide To Tree Climbing Gear For Arborists

Edible Flowers of the Tropics

Flowers in the Vegetable Garden – 7 Best Flowers Which Will Protect Your Plants

Farm Update: In the Garden

Ginger in a RealFood Garden

Growing Trees From Seed

Byron Shire Permaculture starts it’s first food forest

Growing a fig tree up a wall

Tree Planting Project Proposal Template

• Great for beginners
• Ready-to-use, fully customizable Subcategory
• Get started in seconds

Related Templates

• Landscaping Project Proposal Template
• Women's Entrepreneurial Development Project Proposal Template
• Design Project Proposal Template
• Symposium Project Proposal Template
• Data Mining Project Proposal Template

Template details

Free forever with 100mb storage.

Free training & 24-hours support

Serious about security & privacy

Highest levels of uptime the last 12 months

• Product Roadmap
• Affiliate & Referrals
• On-Demand Demo
• Integrations
• Consultants
• Gantt Chart
• Native Time Tracking
• Automations
• Kanban Board
• vs Airtable
• vs Basecamp
• vs MS Project
• vs Smartsheet
• Software Team Hub
• PM Software Guide

Tips Tree Planting

An Example Sample Project Proposal on “Afforestation and Reforestation Initiatives”

This article presents a comprehensive project proposal focused on promoting afforestation and reforestation initiatives as a solution to deforestation and environmental challenges. The aim of this project is to establish sustainable forests, restore degraded lands, and raise awareness about the importance of preserving and expanding forested areas. By collaborating with local communities, government agencies, and environmental organizations, we strive to create a lasting positive impact on the environment and society.

• Citrus: Lemons, Oranges, and Limes
• Celebrating Earth Day 2022: A Commitment to Caring for Our Earth
• Woodland Grants and Incentives Overview Table
• Kansas City’s Quest to Create a Green Paradise and Fight Climate Change
• Tips for Successful Tree Planting

Project Overview

• Project Title: Afforestation and Reforestation Initiatives
• Duration: [Start Date] – [End Date]

Project Objectives:

• Establish new forests in degraded areas to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• Restore existing forests to improve their health and functionality.
• Engage local communities in tree planting and forest restoration activities.
• Raise awareness about the significance of afforestation and reforestation efforts.
• Foster partnerships with government agencies, NGOs, and local stakeholders to ensure project success.

Project Activities

Site assessment and selection:.

• Identify degraded areas suitable for afforestation or reforestation.
• Assess environmental conditions, soil quality, and existing vegetation.
• Collaborate with local communities and authorities to select appropriate sites.

Seedling Production and Procurement:

• Establish nurseries for seedling production or procure saplings from reliable sources.
• Ensure seedlings are native species appropriate for the target ecosystem.
• Implement quality control measures to ensure healthy seedlings.

Tree Planting and Forest Restoration:

• Mobilize volunteers, community groups, and project staff for tree planting.
• Adopt suitable techniques for planting, taking into account local conditions.
• Monitor and maintain planted trees to enhance survival rates.

Sustainable Forest Management:

• Develop forest management plans to guide long-term conservation efforts.
• Implement measures to control invasive species, pests, and diseases.
• Promote sustainable harvesting practices, if applicable.
• Monitor and evaluate the progress of reforestation activities.

Community Engagement and Awareness:

• Conduct educational campaigns on the importance of afforestation and reforestation.
• Organize workshops and training sessions for local communities on sustainable forest management.
• Encourage community participation through tree planting events and competitions.
• Foster partnerships with local schools, businesses, and NGOs to promote environmental stewardship.

Project Management

Project Team:

Watching: An Example Sample Project Proposal on “Afforestation and Reforestation Initiatives”

• Project Manager: Responsible for overall project coordination, planning, and monitoring.
• Forestry Experts: Provide technical guidance on afforestation and reforestation practices.
• Community Outreach Coordinator: Facilitate engagement with local communities and stakeholders.
• Monitoring and Evaluation Officer: Track progress, collect data, and evaluate project outcomes.
• Administrative Staff: Provide logistical and administrative support.
• The project budget is estimated at [total amount] for the duration of the project.
• The budget will cover activities such as seedling production, site preparation, community engagement, monitoring and evaluation, and project management.

Partnerships:

• Seek partnerships with government agencies, NGOs, and local stakeholders to leverage resources and expertise.
• Collaborate with academic institutions for research and technical support.
• Explore funding opportunities through grants, corporate sponsorships, and public-private partnerships.

Sustainability and Impact

• Develop a long-term sustainability plan to ensure the continued health and growth of reforested areas.
• Monitor the ecological impact of the project, including biodiversity enhancement and carbon sequestration.
• Assess the social and economic benefits for local communities, such as improved water quality, enhanced livelihoods, and increased tourism potential.
• Measure the project’s contribution to mitigating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

See more : Tips Tree Planting: Join the One Billion Tree-Planting Initiative Today!

This project proposal aims to address deforestation challenges through afforestation and reforestation initiatives. By establishing new forests and restoring degraded areas, we can contribute to the conservation of ecosystems, biodiversity, and the overall well-being of local communities. Through effective project management, community engagement, and partnerships, we aim to create a sustainable and impactful initiative that serves as a model for future afforestation and reforestation projects.

Source: https://tipstreeplanting.com Category: Basic Tree Planting Techniques

Related Posts:

• Volunteer to Plant Trees Abroad March 12, 2024
• Dive into the Best Marine Conservation Volunteer Programs for 2024 & 2025! March 20, 2024
• The Best and Worst Trees for Your Utah Landscape March 23, 2024
• Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances March 22, 2024
• Climate Education in the U.S.: Where It Stands, and Why It Matters March 13, 2024
• Organic vs. Inorganic Mulch March 22, 2024
• Forest Stewardship: Backyard Trees March 21, 2024
• Tree Conservation in Southlake: Efforts and Policies March 29, 2024
• Save Trees and Protect Our Planet: 100 Slogans for Tree Plantation Events March 26, 2024
• Best Companion Plants for Olive Trees March 14, 2024

• Find a Club
• Forgot Login?

• How We Work

Publications

• Media & Advertising
• Member News
• Administration
• Bulletins & E-Newsletters
• Considering Volunteering?
• Club Development
• Member to Member
• U.N. Advocacy Articles
• FAWCO At the UN
• UN Reps and Global Issues
• SDG Awareness
• Gender Equality
• Communications
• US Issues News
• US Citizenship
• US Tax & Banking
• Global Issues News
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Target Program
• Youth Program
• Mission Statement
• Resolutions & Recommendations
• FAWCO Awards
• Support FAWCO
• FAWCO 2021 Mapping Project
• FAWCO Calendar
• 2023 Bratislava
• 2022 IM Parts 1 & 2
• 2021 Virtual Biennial
• 2020 Luxembourg IM (Cancelled)
• 2019 Edinburgh
• 2018 The Hague IM
• 2017 Mumbai
• 2016 Frankfurt IM
• 2014 Brussels IC
• 2012 Dublin IC
• 2011 Marrakech
• 2010 Boston IC
• 2009 Vilnius
• 2008 Seoul IC
• Upcoming Conference
• Upcoming Regional Meetings
• Past Regional Meetings
• Inspiring Women Live 2022
• Environment Festival 2022
• Environment Festival 2021
• Human Rights in Focus Virtual Conference
• Inspiring Women
• Subscribe to Bulletins & E-Newsletters
• The Red Book
• Annual Reports
• Digital Media
• Advertise with Us
• News from Our Clubs
• News in Brief
• Connections
• FAWCO Directory
• Club Profiles
• Media Assets
• FAWCO Operating Docs
• Web Hosting
• Constant Contact
• Wild Apricot
• Committees, Teams People List
• Administrative Committees
• Tools for Being the FAWCO Rep
• Tools for Bringing FAWCO to Your Club
• Club Presidents' Post
• How to Plan a Regional Meeting
• Regional Meeting Planner - 6 Month Schedule
• Regional Meeting Planner Worksheet
• Post Regional Report Form
• FAWCO Award Recipients
• Best Practices
• Club Workshops Descriptions
• Books By Members
• Books By Clubs
• A Day in Your City
• Clubs in Motion
• Heart Pillows
• How to Join
• Is Your Club Ready to Join?
• FAWCO UN Reps Team
• UN Reps and Education
• UN Reps and Environment
• UN Reps and Health
• U.N. Human Rights Council Articles
• UN Youth Articles
• UN Youth Blogs
• SDG Awareness Articles
• Gender Equality Articles
• Commission on the Status of Women
• UN Reps Annual Reports
• Reports to the UN
• UN Climate Conference Blogs
• Overseas Americans Week
• US Issues Articles
• US Voting Articles
• US Citizenship Articles
• US Tax & Banking Articles
• Tax Articles
• Global Issues Articles
• Education Articles
• Recommended Books

Environment Articles

• Health Articles
• Human Rights Articles
• Ending Violence Articles
• FAWCO Refugee Network
• Symposium Articles
• Target Project 2023 - 2025
• Blog: Our Sustainable Future
• Target Project 2020 - 2022
• Blog: Health Matters
• Education and Awareness Target Health
• Education and Awareness
• Target Project
• Blog: Let's Get Schooled
• Zurich 2023
• Amsterdam 2022
• Athens 2019
• Berlin 2018
• In Their Own Words
• Global Issues

Planning and Organizing a Tree Planting Project

By valerie garforth, fausa.

Other FAWCO Clubs planted trees in those days, AWC Zurich and AWC of the Taunus among them, and in Morocco, AIWC Casablanca, working with the Departement des Eaux et Forêts and local villagers, helped create the FAWCO Millennium Forest in the foothills of the Atlas Mountains. If your club is considering organizing a tree planting project of your own, here are some thoughts and guidelines which we hope will be helpful and encouraging.

Why plant trees?

If your Club would like to organize a tree planting project, here are some guidelines to consider:

• Is there a special event or anniversary that you would like to commemorate, or do you want to plant trees for Earth Day or Arbor Day?
• Where will you plant trees? If your club is lucky enough to own its own clubhouse with some land attached, there may be a place for a special tree. If one of your members owns land or knows someone locally who owns land, that may be a place where new trees would be welcome.
• If you are organizing a private tree planting project, you will need to raise funds to purchase the tree(s). A specimen tree will be more expensive, and you may want to work with a nursery which will transport the tree and do the actual planting, so you would simply arrange a celebration. When FAWCO held its conference in Washington DC in 2000, we raised $250 at the conference to purchase a cherry tree which we planted in the Tidal Basin at the close of the conference. Small saplings or bare root trees are relatively inexpensive.

• Make sure to document your project and take lots of photos. You will also want to go back to the planting site regularly in spring to enjoy seeing the little trees as they grow.

Each tree planting project will be unique to your club but will be a meaningful experience. You will meet interesting people and will learn about the geography and climate of your adopted land. You will learn what trees thrive there and you may be lucky enough to experience the creation of new woodland which changes and beautifies the landscape!

Visit Our Partners

• Subscribe Page

FAWCO Books

• Books by Clubs

Media / Advertising

• PR & Media
• Pathways to Safety
• Overseas Vote Foundation

FAWCO Foundation

• Education Awards
• Development Grants
• All Past Conferences
• Regional Meetings
• Virtual Events
• Repatriation How-To
• Make a Donation to FAWCO
• Contact FAWCO
• Site Search
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Member Login

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 07 October 2021

Assessing the carbon capture potential of a reforestation project

• David Lefebvre 1 ,
• Adrian G. Williams 1 ,
• Guy J. D. Kirk 1 ,
• J. Burgess 1 ,
• Jeroen Meersmans 2 ,
• Miles R. Silman 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Francisco Román-Dañobeytia 3 , 4 ,
• Jhon Farfan 3 &
• Pete Smith 6  

Scientific Reports volume  11 , Article number:  19907 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

31k Accesses

28 Citations

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Environmental impact

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways

Trees on smallholder farms and forest restoration are critical for Rwanda to achieve net zero emissions

Potential of land-based climate change mitigation strategies on abandoned cropland

Introduction.

Carbon (C) sequestration programs are necessary to reach the UNFCCC Paris Agreement targets and limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C 1 . Planting trees is an effective way to capture C 2 . Compared with other greenhouse gas (GHG) capture practices, it is cheap and easy to set up using established technology 3 . The number of tree planting projects globally has increased in the past decade 4 , with the aim of both supporting livelihoods and sequestering carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) into long-term biomass 1 , 5 . This year marks the beginning of the United Nation decade on ecosystem restoration where incentives will be put in place to restore degraded ecosystems, in part through reforestations 6 . However, the extent to which such projects can contribute to global GHG capture targets is debated 7 and it is important that claimed sequestration potentials are realistic.

So-called reforestation platforms distribute funding between different reforestation/afforestation projects. Reforestation platforms are responsible for planting large numbers of trees. Ecosia, for example, has planted over 100 million trees in more than 25 countries since its creation in 2009 8 . Reforestation platforms often cite a C or CO 2 capture figure per tree planted 9 , 10 , rather than at the forest ecosystem level. Carbon sequestration claims are often calculated ahead of time based on expected wood density and maximum height of the planted trees 10 , following carbon removal rates from published studies (e.g. Bernal et al. 11 ), or they are sometimes left to certification bodies, using similar techniques (e.g. Gold Standard 12 , Verra 13 ). This ignores the fact that reforestation is a long term undertaking and failure rates are often high, for example where a lack of soil care and seedling protection results in tree death during establishment 4 , 14 . In addition, many steps are involved in the setup and maintenance of a reforestation plot, all involving some type of energy consumption, leading to GHG emissions 15 . However, information from reforestation platforms about the time needed for capture claims to be realised, or the environmental impact of the reforestation itself, are often over-looked 9 , 16 , 17 .

In this study, we use life cycle assessment (LCA) to empirically derive the carbon footprint of setting up and maintaining a reforestation plot for one year in a tropical forest (“ Methods ”). We include a focus on biochar, a recently adopted soil amendment of widespread interest, used in the plot studied 18 . In parallel, we combine above and below ground biomass models with a soil carbon model, RothC 19 , to provide an evolving carbon capture profile tailored for the tropical plot under study. We then compare our results with claims made by a typical reforestation platform and discuss their relevance. Informative representation of the processes and stocks accounted for in this study is shown in Fig.  1 .

Descriptive schematic figure of the processes and stocks considered. ( a ) Vegetation and soil C stocks. ( b ) Processes included in the LCA and their relative impact. c effect of the planting density.

The present LCA is based on a reforestation project set up and maintained by the Centre for Amazonian Scientific Innovation (CINCIA 20 ), in the Peruvian Amazon. CINCIA has, so far, reforested 42.5 ha of degraded forest using 74 tree species on 19 different plots 21 . The plot studied here is located in the south-eastern Peruvian Amazon region of Madre de Dios (12° 41′ 3.15″ S, 69° 36′ 47.76″ W) at an altitude of 266 m above sea level (Fig.  2 ). It corresponds to Site 1 in Román-Dañobeytia et al. 18 and is on an open sandy area under an enriched biochar treatment including biochar and fertilizer (“ Supplementary Information ”) 18 .

Case study location. Generated using Google Earth Pro (version 7.3.4.8248) 22 .

System boundary and functional unit

The carbon footprint of this case study includes processes from the receipt of the seeds by the nursery, their development into seedlings and transport to the reforestation plot. In parallel, the system boundaries include the biomass collection, its transformation into biochar and the transportation of the amendments to the reforestation plot. They also include the field work necessary at the time of transplant and for the maintenance of the seedling up to one year after transplant (Fig.  3 ), following which, no further care of the plot is made by the team. The reforestation takes place in a protected area and hence the LCA excludes timber collection and assumes that the area is left untouched indefinitely. We use 100-year global warming potentials (GWP) as prescribed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) 23 and “one reforested hectare” as the functional unit.

System boundaries of the study.

Software, database and data processing

Emissions factors of processes and fuels were assessed using EcoInvent 3.7 and USLCI databases in SimaPro 8.3 24 and their carbon footprint calculated using the IPCC 2013 GWP 100a V1.03 method 25 . Data and emissions factors are available in the “ Supplementary Information ”. Life cycle impact assessment, uncertainty analysis (Monte Carlo method), modelling activities, and figures were produced using R software (version 3.5.1) 26 .

Biochar is produced and added to the site at the time of seedlings transplant at a rate of one kg (dry mass) per seedling 18 . The biochar is produced using Brazil nut husks, residues of the local Brazil nut production 27 . Pyrolysis of Brazil nut husks avoids the emissions associated with piling these residues in unmanaged heaps in the environment, as is it commonly done in the region (Jhon Farfan, pers. com .). First, the husks are loaded in a medium scale truck using a front loader. The truck then drives an average distance of 20 km from the city to the biochar producing area and unloads the biomass. The biomass is then sun-dried and manually loaded into a top-lit up-draft (TLUD) biochar pyrolyzer 27 . It is then loaded into a truck and a boat, to be transported to the plot and applied alongside each seedling in the planting hole.

CINCIA possesses its own technological tree nursery where the seeds develop into seedlings before transplant 28 . The seedlings are grown in reusable plastic nursery tubes in an in-house growing medium (“ Supplementary Information ”). CINCIA’s seedling transplant rate is 1111 seedlings ha −1 18 . The nursery grows seedlings in batches and requires 20.5 kWh electricity per month (“ Supplementary Information ”). The seedlings need 5 months to reach a sufficient height (Jhon Farfan, pers. com .), hence the average electricity needed reaches 102 kWh per hectare. The seedlings are then transported from the nursery to the field by truck (128 km) and boat (9 km) to reach the plot.

At transplanting, each seedling is planted along with 1 kg biochar followed by a surface application of an additional 100 g granulated N–P 2 O 5 –K 2 O 20–20–20 18 . All field work is done manually and requires eight people per hectare for around 3 days (Jhon Farfan, pers. com ). We accounted for the emissions associated with manual labour according to Rugani et al. 29 considering the purchasing power parity of Peru 30 for increased accuracy. The field work process also accounts for the direct and indirect N 2 O emissions associated with the nitrogen content of all amendments following the Tier 1 method 31 .

Field maintenance

Field maintenance (cleaning) is required three times in the first year (at 3, 6, and 12 months) 28 . We accounted for a team of eight people per hectare working for eight hours for each maintenance round. Manual labour was accounted for similarly to field work.

Soil carbon modelling

We used the RothC soil carbon model 19 to simulate changes in the soil carbon stock over time after transplanting. We used RothC in inverse mode to get insights into the total carbon input needed to maintain the soil carbon stock at the level of the degraded areas and the adjacent forest. We then computed a sigmoid curve between the forest litter input needed for the degraded soil C stock (minimum litter input) and the maximum forest litter input needed to reach the adjacent forest soil C stock (maximum litter input) to describe the required carbon input over time, reaching maximum carbon input 40 years after transplanting 32 , 33 and used this increasing carbon input over time in RothC to compute the soil carbon change following seedling transplant (as described in Cerri et al. 34 ). We accounted for biochar soil carbon stock impacts following the approach described in Lefebvre et al. 35 and used their modified coding of RothC in R. Meteorological data, soil and additional data required for RothC are given in the “ Supplementary Information ” file.

Above- and below-ground carbon modelling

For the above-ground carbon model we used the moist forest, non-plantation model reported in Busch et al. 36 , which simulates tropical secondary forests above-ground growth based on data from 829 tropical forest stands. We tested the model by comparing it with above-ground carbon value measured on plots near the case study plot 37 , 38 , 39 (Fig.  4 ). The model values are in the lower range of above-ground carbon stock increase for Peruvian forests 40 .

Above-ground carbon model (black line) and boxes representing above-ground carbon values from the literature of forest plot nearby our case study. Forest plots represented by the boxes on the right hand side were assumed to be a mature forest (≈ 80 years) 2 , 33 , 41 , 42 .

The below-ground carbon model has an evolving root to shoot ratio over time, specific for tropical forests, with the root to shoot ratio of one tree increasing with tree size (ranging from 0.29 to 0.65 for young and old growth forests, respectively) 43 .

Comparison with a reforestation platform

First, we used our three C pool model to foresee the time needed to reach a claim of 100 kg CO 2 captured tree −1 planted (consistent with existing reforestation platforms 9 , 10 , 16 ) considering the planting density similar to the one presented in the case study (1111 seedling ha −1 ). Similarly, we assumed the emissions associated with the nursery, field work and field maintenance processes equivalent to our case study. In addition, we considered that reforestation platform represented here does not use biochar and only reforests on highly degraded soils as the one type in our case study. Then we modify the planting density and observe its impact on the time needed to reach the carbon capture claim. Data used for the modelling activities is available in the “ Supplementary Information ”.

Modelling soil and biomass pools

The C content of topsoil took around 50 years to reach steady state following transplanting the new forest, while both above- and below-ground vegetation pools increased over 100 years at a declining rate over time (Fig.  5 a) 32 , 44 . Simulations of the below-ground biomass model matched a previous assessment 45 and the evolution of total carbon stocks after transplant (Fig.  5 b) is consistent with previous assessments 32 , 46 . About 80 years after transplanting, the additional carbon stocks comprise 45% above-ground carbon, 30% below-ground carbon and 25% soil carbon.

Changes in carbon stocks following transplanting. ( a ) Vegetation and soil. ( b ) Total, with ± 1 SD indicated by the ribbon.

Life cycle assessment of the case study plot

The LCA shows that using biochar as a reforestation amendment delivered a net capture of 1.87 ± 0.66 t CO 2 e ha −1 (0.51 ± 0.18 t C ha −1 ) within the first year after planting (Fig.  6 ), but the biochar opportunity was site specific. Most of the establishment emissions arise from pyrolysis, fertilizer manufacture and use, and associated N 2 O emissions, and 90% of the sequestration comes from the 1.11 t biochar ha −1 application (capturing 3.45 t CO 2 e ha −1 , i.e. 0.94 t C ha −1 ). Excluding biochar production and use, establishing the case study plot emits 1.27 ± 0.10 t CO 2 e ha −1 (0.35 t C ha −1 ). The complete contribution analysis is given in the “ Supplementary Information ” file.

Grouped contribution analysis of the emission and emission reduction associated with reforesting one hectare from our case study plot including one year maintenance. The error bars represent ± 1 SD.

Comparison with a hypothetical reforestation hub

We calculate it would take 4.1 years after transplanting to capture 100 kg CO 2 per tree planted in our case study plot (including all C pools—Fig.  7 ), which is a typical reforestation platform target. With a planting density of 1111 seedlings per hectare (3 m spaced grid) 100 kg CO 2 (i.e., 27.3 kg of C) per tree equates to 111,100 kg CO 2 (i.e., 30,300 kg of C) captured per ha after 4.1 years. Without biochar, setting up the case study reforestation plot would emit 1.27 ± 0.10 t CO 2 e ha −1 . This carbon debt is quickly covered by the growing seedlings (Fig.  7 ). If we only account for aboveground biomass (i.e., excluding soil C stock and below-ground C) our model predicts 8.7 years to reach the 100 kg CO 2 carbon capture target per tree.

Time needed in years (labels) to reach estimated claim of 100 kg CO 2 e captured per tree using our model considering all C pools (black), above and below-ground C pool only (yellow), and above-ground C pool only (blue). The red label represents the time in years necessary to offset the emissions associated to set up the plot. The ribbon around the model carbon capture rate is ± 1 SD.

Figure  8 shows the time needed to reach the 100 kg CO 2  tree −1 as a function of seedling density. Following the carbon capture claim per tree, the more numerous the seedlings planted per hectare, the higher the total carbon claim per hectare. However, considering the non-linear increase in C stocks in a growing forest (Fig.  5 ), the higher the total carbon capture claim per hectare, the longer it will take for the plot to achieve the claim.

Effect of the planting density on the plot-scale carbon capture rate. No manual thinning and 100% seedling transplant survival are assumed. The blue dot represents the planting density of 1111 seedling ha −1 (where our model reach 100 kg CO 2 captured per tree 4.1 years after planting).

Our study shows that the case-study plot would need to be cared for and maintained for 4.1 years before the 100 kg CO 2 e captured per tree claimed could be reached (considering 1111 seedling ha −1 ). These modelled numbers are likely to be at the lower-end of actual values achieved in the field as they were derived on a soil that was highly degraded and the carbon stock consequently increased by around 40 t C ha −1 in the first 50 years (Fig.  5 ). In addition, the biomass growth is modelled for low altitude tropical rainforest, which is not representative of all reforestation projects. Whereas the carbon sequestration occurs in the future, some reforestation platforms assume the sequestration is immediate 9 , 17 . This potentially misleads supporters and buyers into thinking that their carbon offsets are both instantaneous and permanent. Despite the importance of these reforestation platforms for climate change mitigation, their forward carbon capture claims can be misinterpreted due to (1) the omission of forest growth trajectory, (2) by ignoring the emissions associated with the reforestation and monitoring processes, and (3) the risk that either the trees die or be destroyed or that they are harvested for a use where the carbon is soon released as carbon dioxide 47 . These amplified and premature C capture values can allow companies to claim substantial carbon footprint reductions by massively investing in reforestation projects (e.g. Shell 48 ), hence misleading the public on their actual impact. This practice also risks devaluing CO 2 credits which, in turn, could undermine the attractiveness of other carbon capture techniques or platforms.

We show that GHG emissions associated with establishing the plot need to be factored into the carbon accounting. The amendments and substrates needed in the nursery and their associated nitrous oxide emissions represent a substantial share of the contribution analysis (“ Supplementary Information ”). As a result, planting density and seedling mortality should be monitored and minimised to reduce the overall carbon footprint of establishing the plot. Excluding biochar production and use, establishing the case study plot emitted 1.27 t CO 2  ha −1 , which is very similar to reforesting open woodland in a Canadian boreal forest, i.e. 1.25 t CO 2  ha −1 15 . Although low and being rapidly offset by the growing forest (Fig.  7 ), projects relying on heavy machinery for land preparation, transporting and spreading fertile soil (the practice of “re-soiling”, sometimes used for land reclamation/restoration 49 ), eliminating competitive shrubs, mounding or subsoiling the plot to increase seedling growth and/or survival 50 will have a higher establishment carbon footprint to offset before any carbon capture claim can be made. For instance, subsoiling would increase the carbon debt by an average of 41.4 ± 10.3 kg CO 2 e ha −1 51 (apart from transporting the machinery to the site).

The use of biochar provides an opportunity to offset the GHG emissions associated with establishing the plot. Using another biochar feedstock that is not destined to be composted, but could be used for other purposes, would reduce the overall capture of the practice by at least 8% (solely accounting for the avoided composting emissions—“ Supplementary Information ”). On the other hand, improving the pyrolysis process by improving equipment performance (at an economic cost) and reducing its emissions by half, would increase the carbon capture potential of using biochar by 30%. Similarly, applying the biochar at the hectare scale instead of locally to each seedling would vastly increase the carbon sequestration.

We used an above-ground carbon model of secondary tropical forest growth. Natural forest regeneration models do not accurately represent the reforestation process where seedlings are deliberately transplanted to increase cover and forest regeneration. But they do account for the natural thinning of the plot as trees mature, which is not replicated by an individual seedling’s growth trajectory on recently reforested land. In addition, studies show that natural regeneration can be more effective for increasing carbon stocks than reforestation, depending on the former land use and location of the site 52 , 53 . The speed at which carbon stocks increase in the natural regeneration model is not altered by the planting density of the hypothetical reforestation project it represents. The asymptotic shape of the calculated change in above-ground C (Fig.  5 a) symbolises a rapid colonization of the plot by pioneer species followed by a slow reduction in rate over time as the number of individuals thins out and the respiration load of the woodland increases. Reforestation platforms’ C capture claims are based on individual trees, meaning that claims per hectare are highly dependent on the planting density. Figure  8 shows that planting density clearly affects the time needed to reach the carbon capture claim per tree. Nevertheless, no matter what the original planting density was, the maximum number of thriving individual trees per hectare is limited by environmental parameters 54 . Thinning is seen in the natural regeneration model used in this study (characterized by its asymptotic shape). Although advertising the carbon capture impact of each tree planted may be an effective communication strategy by reforestation platforms, these observations should motivate carbon capture verification bodies to require carbon capture claims per hectare using context-specific models accounting for ecosystem limitations, ideally supplemented by on-site surveys. A major issue when foreseeing carbon capture figures at the individual tree level is that it implies that all trees will prosper and reach maturity, which overlooks the competition between individual trees for light and other resources leading inevitably to a maximum number of individuals of a given size that any specific area can sustain 54 .

Growing forests are subject to numerous threats. The frequency of wildfire has increased in rainforests over the past decades 55 . While it is agreed that wildfires have a major negative impact on forest carbon stocks 56 , accounting for all potential effects of the fire on the regrowth of a forest plot is difficult 55 . Although wildfires happen predominantly on old growth forest, with more dead material in old growth forests compared to secondary forests 57 , tree mortality has increased in young secondary forests, particularly in the western and southern Amazon 58 . In addition, droughts have also become more frequent in Amazonia leading to potential lasting degradation of these ecosystems and their carbon sink ability 59 , 60 . The increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration can increase tree growth in the absence of other constraints 61 but faster growth can lead to reduced tree lifespans with a negative impact on total carbon sequestration capacity 62 . These observations add to the overall adverse effects of climate change on the C sink of the Amazon 60 , 61 . While the prospective impacts of wildfires, droughts or climate change are difficult to assess for a recently reforested plot in a remote location of the rainforest, their occurrence and impact have increased. Further, diseases can have a disastrous impact on the survival of some tree species 63 . Hence, there is a substantial risk in assuming that an unsupervised young reforested plot, particularly of a single species, will provide permanent carbon sequestration.

Brander et al. argue that businesses should only report CO 2 capture figures that have been already and permanently captured 64 . An attraction of carbon storage in the above-ground biomass of forests is that it can be readily assessed using remote sensing techniques supported by surveys 65 . However, as discussed earlier, the above-ground C credits associated to the future growth of reforestation projects come with associated risks, and the figures should be frequently monitored and evaluated to ensure appropriate accuracy 64 , 66 . Another solution would be to set up a carbon stock discount rate of newly planted forests based on the risks of plot destruction. A newly planted forest could be applied a discount rate on its C capture potential based on the socio-political status or environmental disaster potential of the area in which it is planted. This discount rate would need to be context specific and agreed upon. Ex-post calculation of the C internal rate of return of the project (including emissions to set up the plot) and comparison with the local discount rate could provide insight on whether or not the plot is worth setting up. Some authors argue that the evolution of soil carbon stocks in reforested land can be a more durable form of carbon stock less prone to disturbance (e.g. logging or fire) than the above-ground stock 46 and reach equilibrium faster, at least in the tropics 32 , 46 . Including soil C stock changes in the total C accounting scheme following reforestation would increase its accuracy 67 . Although, the calculation and verification of the effect of reforestation on soil carbon stocks remains complex and challenging to non-specialists 68 , validated methodologies could improve the attraction of reforestation/afforestation projects on degraded land where potential soil C gain is higher than, for example, that in grassland ecosystems with fertile soils 69 , 70 , 71 .

Overall, because the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will, on average, remain there for centuries 72 , the carbon credit sold as an emission permit must ensure that the carbon accounted for is also sequestered for centuries. Our modelling shows that the carbon sequestration claims of reforestation platforms are likely to be unreliable if they do not allow for the time dependency of the carbon capture by planted trees, the risks of tree failure and harvest, and potential changes in soil carbon. Reforestation/afforestation projects obtain massive investments worldwide and are a potential loophole for companies with historically high GHG emissions. Therefore, it is important to emphasise that the carbon capture of reforested/afforested sites relies on the permanence of the tree stand and the end-of-life use of any harvested trees. Accounting for actual carbon stocks in growing forests needs a transparent quantification of the risks, constant monitoring and relevant functional units. There should also be the possibility of withdrawal in case of losses. It is necessary to distinguish between predictions of future carbon sequestration and validated carbon sequestration. While selling future carbon sequestration units can provide reforestation projects with financial inputs to help development and growth, the credits should not be recognised as contributing to a company’s greenhouse gas budget until the carbon has been sequestered and validated. Differentiation between “actual carbon stock increase” and “future carbon credits” should be clarified and marketed differently.

The global warming impact of planting seedlings, which is per se a GHG emitting process, can be lowered by using biochar. Reducing the global warming impact by planting trees is a useful first step, which is context-specific, but validation of the extent and permanence of the future growth is also required.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information files).

Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO 2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6 , 42–50 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568 , 25–28 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 , 11645–11650 (2017).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science (80-). 368 , 580–581 (2020).

EASAC. Negative emission technologies: What role in meeting Paris Agreement targets? 45. https://easac.eu . Accessed 23 Jan 2019 (2018).

United Nation Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. UN Decade on Restoration. https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/ . Accessed 25 May 2021 (2021).

Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science (80-). 363 , 933–934 (2019).

Ecosia. What is Ecosia? The search engine that plants trees. https://info.ecosia.org/what . Accessed 22 Apr 2021 (2021).

Reforest’Action. Reforest’Action|I plant my forest. https://www.reforestaction.com/en . Accessed 26 June 2020 (2020).

Tree-Nation. Tree-Nation—La plateforme mondiale pour planter des arbres. https://tree-nation.com/ . Accessed 26 June 2020 (2020).

Bernal, B., Murray, L. T. & Pearson, T. R. H. Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manag. 13 , 22 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gold Standard. Gold Standard Afforestation Reforestation (A/R) GHG Emissions Reduction & Sequestration Methodology. Version 1. 18. https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/401.13-AR-Methodology-V1-1.pdf . Accessed 11 Mar 2020 (2017).

Verra. Methodologies—Verra. https://verra.org/methodologies/ . https://verra.org/methodologies/ . Accessed 25 May 2021 (2021).

Bragg, D. C. S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri, and N. Dudley (eds.): Forest restoration in landscapes: Beyond planting trees. Landsc. Ecol. 22 , 477–479 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Gaboury, S., Boucher, J.-F., Villeneuve, C., Lord, D. & Gagnon, R. Estimating the net carbon balance of boreal open woodland afforestation: A case-study in Québec’s closed-crown boreal forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 257 , 483–494 (2009).

Ecosia. 50! Million! Trees! https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-has-planted-50-million-trees/ . Accessed 22 Jan 2021 (2019).

Tree-Nation. Tree-Nation—Project: Camino Verde. https://treenation.com/projects/camino-verde/species#header . Accessed 31 Aug 2021 (2021).

Román-Dañobeytia, F. et al. Survival and early growth of 51 tropical tree species in areas degraded by artisanal gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecol. Eng. 159 , 106097 (2021).

Coleman, K. & Jenkinson, D. S. RothC—A model for the turnover of carbon in soil Model—Model description and users guide . https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/sites/default/files/RothC_guide_WIN.pdf . Accessed 20 Sept 2018 (2014).

CINCIA. CINCIA—Centro de Innovación Científica Amazónica. http://cincia.wfu.edu/ . Accessed 25 Jan 2021 (2021).

Cabanillas, F., Condori, E. & B., L. L. Restauración de áreas degradadas por la extracción minera aurífera en Madre de Dios. https://cincia.wfu.edu/publicaciones/restauracion-de-areas-degradadas-por-mineria-aurifera-en-madre-de-dios/ . Accessed 25 Jan 2021 (2019).

Google. Google Earth Pro. https://www.google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html . Accessed 5 Mar 2021 (2021).

IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis . Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ . Accessed 9 June 2019 (2014).

PRé Consultants: Life Cycle consultancy and software solutions. SimaPro 8.3 . https://www.pre-sustainability.com . Accessed 9 June 2019 (2019).

Myhre, G. et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Jacob, D. et al. ) (Cambridge University Press, 2013). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse6040146 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Core Team, R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/ . Accessed 23 May 2020 (2020).

Lefebvre, D., Cabanillas, F., Román-Dañobeytia, F., Silman, M. & Fernandez, L. E. Producción y Utilización de Biocarbón . http://cincia.wfu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Nota-Técnica_Biochar-1.pdf . Accessed 11 June 2019 (2018).

Farfan, J. F. Produccion de Plantones en el Vivero Tecnificado de Mazuko Para Recuperar Suelos Degradado por Mineria Aluvial en Madre de Dios . (2020). Unpublished report. Available on demand.

Rugani, B., Panasiuk, D. & Benetto, E. An input–output based framework to evaluate human labour in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 , 795–812 (2012).

OECD. Purchasing power parities (PPP). https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm . Accessed 19 Oct 2020 (2020).

IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 11: N 2 O emissions from managed soils, and CO 2 emissions from lime and urea application. 11.1–11.54. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf . Accessed 28 Aug 2019 (2006).

Jones, I. L. et al. Above- and belowground carbon stocks are decoupled in secondary tropical forests and are positively related to forest age and soil nutrients respectively. Sci. Total Environ. 697 , 133987 (2019).

Becknell, J. M., Kissing Kucek, L. & Powers, J. S. Aboveground biomass in mature and secondary seasonally dry tropical forests: A literature review and global synthesis. For. Ecol. Manage. 276 , 88–95 (2012).

Cerri, C. E. P. et al. Modeling soil carbon from forest and pasture ecosystems of Amazon, Brazil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67 , 1879–1887 (2003).

Lefebvre, D. et al. Modelling the potential for soil carbon sequestration using biochar from sugarcane residues in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 10 , 19479 (2020).

Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 463–466 (2019).

Csillik, O. & Asner, G. P. Aboveground carbon emissions from gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 014006 (2020).

Asner, G. P. et al. High-resolution forest carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 , 16738–16742 (2010).

Messinger, M., Asner, G. & Silman, M. Rapid assessments of Amazon forest structure and biomass using small unmanned aerial systems. Remote Sens. 8 , 615 (2016).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585 , 545–550 (2020).

Lewis, T. et al. Reforestation of agricultural land in the tropics: The relative contribution of soil, living biomass and debris pools to carbon sequestration. Sci. Total Environ. 649 , 1502–1513 (2019).

Requena Suarez, D. et al. Estimating aboveground net biomass change for tropical and subtropical forests: Refinement of IPCC default rates using forest plot data. Glob. Change Biol. 25 , 3609–3624 (2019).

Waring, B. G. & Powers, J. S. Overlooking what is underground: Root:shoot ratios and coarse root allometric equations for tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 385 , 10–15 (2017).

Stephenson, N. L. et al. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature 507 , 90–93 (2014).

Vance, E. D. & Nadkarni, N. M. Root biomass distribution in a moist tropical montane forest. Plant Soil 142 , 31–39 (1992).

Berenguer, E. et al. A large-scale field assessment of carbon stocks in human-modified tropical forests. Glob. Change Biol. 20 , 3713–3726 (2014).

Ferreira, J. et al. Life cycle assessment of maritime pine wood: A Portuguese case study. J. Sustain. For. 40 , 431–445 (2021).

Shell. Shell invests in nature as part of broad drive to tackle CO2 emissions. https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2019/shell-invests-in-nature-to-tackle-co2-emissions.html . Accessed 22 Oct 2020 (2019).

ODNR. Ohio Abandoned Mine Lands Reforestation Program . http://www.ohiodnr.com/mineral/reforestation/tabid/17848/Default.aspx . Accessed 20 May 2020 (2005).

Löf, M., Dey, D. C., Navarro, R. M. & Jacobs, D. F. Mechanical site preparation for forest restoration. New For. 43 , 825–848 (2012).

Lal, R. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ. Int. 30 , 981–990 (2004).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crouzeilles, R. et al. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Sci. Adv. 3 , e1701345 (2017).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Meli, P. et al. A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery. PLoS ONE 12 , e0171368 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

ter Steege, H. et al. Hyperdominance in the Amazonian Tree Flora. Science (80-). 342 , 1243092 (2013).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Silva, C. V. J. et al. Estimating the multi-decadal carbon deficit of burned Amazonian forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 114023 (2020).

Silva, C. V. J. et al. Drought-induced Amazonian wildfires instigate a decadal-scale disruption of forest carbon dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Biol. B Sci. 373 , 20180043 (2018).

Withey, K. et al. Quantifying immediate carbon emissions from El Niño-mediated wildfires in humid tropical forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373 , 20170312 (2018).

Esquivel-Muelbert, A. et al. Tree mode of death and mortality risk factors across Amazon forests. Nat. Commun. 11 , 5515 (2020).

De Faria, B. L. et al. Model-based estimation of Amazonian forests recovery time after drought and fire events. Forests 12 , 8 (2020).

de Meira Junior, M. S. et al. The impact of long dry periods on the aboveground biomass in a tropical forest: 20 years of monitoring. Carbon Balance Manag. 15 , 12 (2020).

Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579 , 80–87 (2020).

Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Forest carbon sink neutralized by pervasive growth-lifespan trade-offs. Nat. Commun. 11 , 4241 (2020).

Hultberg, T. et al. Ash dieback risks an extinction cascade. Biol. Conserv. 244 , 108516 (2020).

Brander, M., Ascui, F., Scott, V. & Tett, S. Carbon accounting for negative emissions technologies. Clim. Policy 21 , 699–717 (2021).

Li, Y., Li, M., Li, C. & Liu, Z. Forest aboveground biomass estimation using Landsat 8 and Sentinel-1A data with machine learning algorithms. Sci. Rep. 10 , 9952 (2020).

Gorte, R. W. & Ramseur, J. L. Forest carbon markets: Potential and drawbacks . The Role of Forests in Carbon Capture and Climate Change. www.crs.gov . Accessed 17 Nov 2019 (2008).

De Rosa, M., Schmidt, J., Brandão, M. & Pizzol, M. A flexible parametric model for a balanced account of forest carbon fluxes in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 , 172–184 (2017).

Smith, P. et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 219–241 (2020).

Veldman, J. W. et al. Tyranny of trees in grassy biomes. Science (80-). 347 , 484–485 (2015).

Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 8 , 345–360 (2002).

Xiao, S. et al. Soil Organic carbon sequestration and active carbon component changes following different vegetation restoration ages on severely eroded red soils in Subtropical China. Forests 11 , 1304 (2020).

Archer, D. et al. Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37 , 117–134 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding through the UP-Green-LCA (NE/P019668/1) and Soils-R-GGREAT (NE/P019498/1) projects of the greenhouse gas removal (GGR) programme. The GGR programme is financed by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC) and the UK department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). We thank CINCIA and its funders (USAID and WWF) for their help and support during this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, Bedfordshire, UK

David Lefebvre, Adrian G. Williams, Guy J. D. Kirk & J. Burgess

TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium

Jeroen Meersmans

Centro de Innovación Científica Amazónica-CINCIA, 17001, Madre de Dios, Peru

Miles R. Silman, Francisco Román-Dañobeytia & Jhon Farfan

Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, 27106, USA

Miles R. Silman & Francisco Román-Dañobeytia

Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, 27106, USA

Miles R. Silman

Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.W., G.K., and D.L. conceived the research; A.W., G.K, and D.L. set up the methodology; P.S., J.M., M.S, F.R.D., P.B., and J.F. reviewed and validated the methodology; D.L., A.W., and G.K. wrote the original draft; P.S., J.M., M.S, F.R.D., P.B., and J.F. edited, reviewed and contributed to the end version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lefebvre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lefebvre, D., Williams, A.G., Kirk, G.J.D. et al. Assessing the carbon capture potential of a reforestation project. Sci Rep 11 , 19907 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99395-6

Download citation

Received : 07 July 2021

Accepted : 22 September 2021

Published : 07 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99395-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Global warming accelerates soil heterotrophic respiration.

• Alon Nissan
• Uria Alcolombri
• Markus Holzner

Nature Communications (2023)

A global meta-analysis of woody plant responses to elevated CO2: implications on biomass, growth, leaf N content, photosynthesis and water relations

• Mthunzi Mndela
• Julius T. Tjelele
• Hosia T. Pule

Ecological Processes (2022)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Find A Forest
• Light and Seed Magazine
• Our Forests, Our Water
• National Forest Week™
• National Forest Leadership Council
• Annual Reports
• Recent Press and Media Inquiries
• Press & News
• Donate to Plant Trees
• Small Business Tree Planting Partnerships
• Corporate Tree Planting Partnerships
• Grant Programs & Resources
• Pacific Northwest and Alaska Program
• Northern Rockies Program
• Southwest Program
• Eastern Regional Program
• Rocky Mountain Program
• California Program
• Collaboration Resources
• Treasured Landscapes, Unforgettable Experiences
• Ways to Give
• Sporting Clays Invitational
• Conservation Finance Program
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Give Monthly
• Remember or Honor a Loved One
• Plant Trees
• Plant Trees in Honor or Memory
• Launch a Business Partnership
• Other Ways to Give
• Light & Seed™ Magazine
• Leadership Council
• Financial Accountability and Transparency
• Sierra Nevada Program
• Southern California Program
• Tree Planting Program
• Collaboration
• Contracting RFPs
• Grant Opportunities
• Wood For Life
• Youth Engagement
• Contracting Opportunties
• Matching Awards Program
• Stewardship Funds
• Grantee Resources
• Shop NFF Gear
• Conservation Connect
• A Toolbox of Resources
• Partnerships on Every Forest
• Conservation Connect Fellowship Program
• Corporate Partnerships
• Reforestation Program
• Start a Fundraiser
• The Sapling Program
• Planting for Our Climate

National Forest Week

Support Your National Forests

Plant Trees Now

Southern California Forest Fund

2022 Tree Planting Projects

Category: Trees

by Monica Perez-Watkins

This Earth Day, the NFF will enter the final fundraising year of the 50 Million For Our Forests campaign. Since its launch in 2018, the campaign has planted over 22 million trees on more than 77,000 acres of public National Forest land. Fundraising for the campaign will end in 2023, but we will have two additional years to plant all 50 million trees. (And don’t worry, we will continue planting after the campaign ends!)

We have a steady stream of projects lined up to meet our goal, including nearly 50 projects that will plant over six million trees on three dozen National Forests in 2022. Projects span the gamut of reforestation objectives , and will provide innumerable benefits to wildlife, people, and communities that depend on these forests for habitat, clean air and water, and so much more .

Below is a sampling of this year’s projects, illustrating the range of objectives and locations. They may differ widely, but all will help regrow and rebuild critical forest habitat.

2022 Reforestation Project Spotlights:

Wildfire recovery on oregon’s willamette national forest.

Replanting on Willamette National Forest will rebuild forest habitat for all to enjoy. Photo by Liz Lahey.

More than ninety percent of our projects in the Pacific Northwest will support reforestation efforts following severe wildfires, such as the Lionshead and Beachie Creek Fires that burned over 135,000 acres in Oregon in 2020. Reforestation efforts began on Willamette National Forest in 2021, and in 2022, we will continue replanting on high priority burned areas. Our Forest Service partners are targeting sites critical to watershed health and wildlife habitat for the greatest restoration impact.

Whitebark Pine Restoration on National Forests of Montana

Planting whitebark pine in Montana supports bear habitat and food abundance on the Flathead National Forest. Left photo by Deana Traverso; right photo by U.S. Forest Service.

Each of our projects in Montana will contribute to the conservation and restoration of whitebark pine, an ecologically important species for its contributions to wildlife, habitat, and watershed health. Whitebark pine has undergone stark declines across its range due to white pine blister rust disease, mountain pine beetles , and climate change. Our projects in 2022 will replant this critical species across more than 700 acres on five National Forests in Western Montana.

Wildfire Recovery on Southern California’s Angeles National Forest

Planting on the site of the Powerhouse Fire, Angeles National Forest. Photo by Brian Cavallaro.

Wildfire recovery is a top planting objective in California National Forests. In 2022, our U.S. Forest Service partners are planting Coulter pine and big cone Douglas-fir seedlings on the burn scars of the 2020 Lake Fire and 2013 Powerhouse Fire. Replanting will restore mixed conifer stands, nurturing habitat and visual quality for the Forest’s more than 1.6 million annual visitors.

Bark Beetle Recovery on Colorado’s Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests

Planting for bark beetle recovery on GMUG National Forests. Photo by Joe Lavorini.

Forests in Southwest Colorado have experienced a staggering spruce beetle epidemic that have killed nearly all Engelman spruce trees across half a million acres. Our project here will replant trees where the forest has been decimated by the bark beetles and natural regeneration is not possible. Reforestation will help restore habitat and cover for many species of wildlife, including federally listed Canada lynx .

Forest Restoration and Diversity Planting on Minnesota’s Chippewa National Forest

Planting on Chippewa National Forest will support future habitat for nesting bald eagles. Photos by the U.S. Forest Service.

Numerous species of native seedlings will be planted on this lake-filled National Forest in northern Minnesota. The reasons for planting here are many, including recovery from wind events and insect and disease outbreaks, to enhance forest resilience and diversity, and to improve wildlife habitat. Chippewa National Forest has one of the highest breeding densities of American bald eagles in the lower 48, and large red and white pine trees - two of the many species to be planted – are great for nesting.

Native Habitat Restoration on South Carolina’s Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests

Forest habitat on Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests. Photo by the U.S. Forest Service.

Our project on Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests will help re-establish the declining mixed pine-oak forests in this region by planting native shortleaf pine and pitch pine seedlings. This area was historically cleared and planted to a single species monoculture for timber production in previous centuries. This project will enhance forest stand diversity, improve resilience to fire, and provide habitat for wildlife, such as black bears, deer, and many species of high conservation priority birds.

Help support reforestation efforts like these with a tree planting donation today.

Want more project information? Visit our planting map to see locations and seedling numbers for every 2022 tree planting project.

Cover photo by the U.S. Forest Service.

Related Blog Posts

What the passage of the 2021 infrastructure bill means for tree planting on national forests, our forests, their home: replanting for wildlife, tree planting impacts you. here’s how., receive national forest news and updates.

Sign-up for our email newsletter and stay connected.

Project phase

Walt disney method.

On the basis of a role play, several people look at and discuss a situation from three different perspectives (roles).

First, the team goes into the role of the dreamer. The dreamer develops ideas and visions. He can let his imagination run wild and does not care about possible limitations. Afterwards, the team takes on the role of the realist. The realist adjourns with the ideas he has won, reflects and asks himself the following questions: What needs to be done or said? What is needed for the implementation (material, people, resources, knowledge, techniques, etc.)? What do you feel about this idea? Which basics are already available? Can the approach be tested? At the last point in the cycle, the team takes on the role of the critic. It has the task of dealing constructively with the results of the realist and to express criticism. Starting points for this can be: What could be improved? What are the opportunities and risks? What was overlooked? How do I think about the proposal? Open questions are then handed back to the dreamer, who reintroduces the cycle based on the findings. The process is considered complete when the critic can no longer ask further relevant questions and when it is foreseeable that another run will not bring any optimization. This method can also be pragmatically and easily performed in a three-roll discussion at a table. In addition, additional persons can debate and take the word in the sense of the three roles.

• Concretize goals and visions. Elaboration of concepts and ideas.

The Walt Disney method is based on the interplay of three roles: the dreamer (visionary, idea supplier), the realist (maker) and the critic (quality manager). For each individual role, a separate room should be created. However, it does not necessarily have to be individual rooms; three chairs, which are placed in different corners of a room, are sufficient.

• Distribute roles
• Discuss idea

The method can also be used by individuals.

Anything to improve with the method description? Just send an e-mail with your suggestion. Thank you!

• If there are only similar characters in a team, this method helps to take a different view and break out of the old ways of thinking.
• Deadlocked thinking structures are solved
• Not necessarily required in a group of characters that already have the appropriate character traits anyway
• Bet-Cost-Matrix
• Brainstorming
• Letter to Grandma
• MoSCoW Voting
• Role Playing
• Story Cubes
• Walt-Disney-Methode (uni-protokolle.de / German)
• Walt-Disney-Methode (Wikipedia, German)
• Walt Disney Methode (ideenfindung.de, German)
• Arbeitsblatt "Walt-Disney-Methode" (BMWi / unternehmergeist macht schule, German, PDF)

The Design Method Finder is a UX and PM method data base with quick access to a lot of interesting and potentially helpful methods.