Letter | Published:

Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts

Nature Geoscience volume 4, pages 514518 (2011) | Download Citation


Afforestation, the conversion of croplands or marginal lands into forests, results in the sequestration of carbon. As a result, afforestation is considered one of the key climate-change mitigation strategies available to governments by the United Nations1. However, forests are also less reflective than croplands, and the absorption of incoming solar radiation is greater over afforested areas. Afforestation can therefore result in net climate warming, particularly at high latitudes2,3,4,5. Here, we use a comprehensive Earth system model to assess the climate-change mitigation potential of five afforestation scenarios, with afforestation carried out gradually over a 50-year period. Complete (100%) and partial (50%) afforestation of the area occupied at present by crops leads to a reduced warming of around 0.45 and 0.25 °C respectively, during the period 2081–2100. Temperature benefits associated with more realistic global afforestation efforts, where less than 50% of cropland is converted, are expected to be even smaller, indicating that afforestation is not a substitute for reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. We also show that warming reductions per unit afforested area are around three times higher in the tropics than in the boreal and northern temperate regions, suggesting that avoided deforestation and continued afforestation in the tropics are effective forest-management strategies from a climate perspective.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R. & Meyer, L. A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  2. 2.

    Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2000).

  3. 3.

    , , , & Climate effects of global land cover change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23705 (2005).

  4. 4.

    et al. CO2 and albedo climate impacts of extratropical carbon and biomass plantations. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB2020 (2006).

  5. 5.

    et al. A. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 104, 6550–6555 (2007).

  6. 6.

    et al. The effect of terrestrial photosynthesis down-regulation on the 20th century carbon budget simulated with the CCCma Earth System Model. J. Clim. 22, 6066–6088 (2009).

  7. 7.

    et al. The global carbon cycle in the CCCma earth system model CanESM1: Preindustrial control simulation. J. Geophys. Res. 115, G03014 (2010).

  8. 8.

    & Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027 (1999).

  9. 9.

    & Uncertainties in the 20th century carbon budget associated with land use change. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 3327–3348 (2010).

  10. 10.

    , & Biogeophysical versus biogeochemical feedbacks of large-scale land cover change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1011–1014 (2001).

  11. 11.

    in TRENDS: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, 2008).

  12. 12.

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Decision 11/CP.7: Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry. Publication FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 (2001).

  13. 13.

    & Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: Radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim. 23, 97–112 (2010).

  14. 14.

    & Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable? Science 318, 629–632 (2007).

  15. 15.

    & Characterizing uncertainty in modeling primary terrestrial ecosystem processes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB2016 (2009).

  16. 16.

    et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).

  17. 17.

    , & Preindustrial, historical, and fertilization simulations using a global ocean carbon model with new parameterizations of iron limitation, calcification, and N2 fixation. Prog. Oceanogr. 77, 56–82 (2008).

  18. 18.

    & A coupled 1-D biological/physical model of the northeast subarctic Pacific Ocean with iron limitation. Deep-Sea Res. II 46, 2877–2908 (1999).

  19. 19.

    & A parameterization of leaf phenology for the terrestrial ecosystem component of climate models. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 39–59 (2005).

  20. 20.

    , & Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2008).

  21. 21.

    , & Global Change Scenarios of the 21st Century: Results From the IMAGE 2.1 Model (Elsevier, 1998).

  22. 22.

    , & Estimating changes in global vegetation cover (1850–2100) for use in climate models. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB3028 (2006).

Download references


We would like to thank G. Flato, J. Fyfe and D. Blain and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. A.M. is grateful for funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. We also acknowledge the work of Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis members who developed CanESM1 including, as well as the first author, G. J. Boer, C. L. Curry, J. R. Christian, K. Zahariev, K. L. Denman, G. M. Flato, J. F. Scinocca, W. J. Merryfield, W. G. Lee and D. Yang for help with processing model output.

Author information


  1. Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment Canada, PO Box 3065, STN CSC, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3V6, Canada

    • Vivek K. Arora
  2. Environmental Sciences Research Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, B2G 2W5, Canada

    • Alvaro Montenegro


  1. Search for Vivek K. Arora in:

  2. Search for Alvaro Montenegro in:


V.K.A. carried out the model simulations, analysed model output, conceived the CO2-only experiments and wrote most of the paper. A.M. conceived the primary experiments, put together land-cover data and helped with the manuscript text.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivek K. Arora.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history






Further reading