Harnessing nature-based climate solutions (NbCS) to help simultaneously achieve climate and conservation goals is an attractive win-win. The contribution of NbCS to climate action relies on both biogeochemical potential and the ability to overcome environmental, economic and governance constraints for implementation. As such, estimates of additional NbCS-related terrestrial biosphere storage potential range from less than 100 GtCO2 to more than 800 GtCO2. In this Review, we assess the negative emissions contributions of NbCS — including reforestation, improved forest management and soil carbon sequestration — alongside their environmental, social and governance constraints. Given near-term implementation challenges and long-term biogeochemical constraints, a reasonable value for the expected impact of NbCS is up to 100–200 GtCO2 in negative emissions for the remainder of the twenty-first century. To sustainably reach this level, focus should be on projects with clear co-benefits, and must not come at the expense of a reduction in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, rapid decarbonization and innovation from alternative negative emissions technologies.
Land management interventions can contribute to climate change mitigation through avoided emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and through negative emissions from increasing carbon dioxide removal via reforestation, soil carbon sequestration and more.
The largest existing estimates of negative emissions potential from nature-based climate solutions implicitly rely on a potentially risky strategy of increasing carbon storage beyond historical bounds.
More conservative estimates that focus on refilling past carbon losses from the terrestrial biosphere are likely to be more feasible and have more co-benefits.
Successful implementation of nature-based climate solutions requires rapid increases in financing, increased on-the-ground capacity, and robust policy and governance mechanisms.
In the absence of broader climate action, climate change impacts on the biosphere will limit the potential for nature-based climate solutions to contribute negative emissions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Communications Open Access 01 July 2022
Journal of Biological Engineering Open Access 29 March 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).
Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions — part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Gattuso, J.-P., Williamson, P., Duarte, C. M. & Magnan, A. K. The potential for ocean-based climate action: negative emissions technologies and beyond. Front. Clim. 2, 37 (2021).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, 2019).
IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group. The terrestrial carbon cycle: implications for the Kyoto Protocol. Science 280, 1393–1394 (1998).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Proceedings of the IPCC Conference on Tropical Forestry Response Options to Global Climate Change (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
Hua, F. et al. Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun. 7, 12717 (2016).
Putz, F. E. et al. Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biol. 6, e166 (2008).
Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A. & Faison, E. K. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).
Nolan, R. H. et al. Safeguarding reforestation efforts against changes in climate and disturbance regimes. For. Ecol. Manag. 424, 458–467 (2018).
Morecroft, M. D. et al. Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 366, eaaw9256 (2019).
Smith, P. et al. Towards an integrated global framework to assess the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon: current capability and future vision. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2089–2101 (2012).
Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).
Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
Paustian, K. et al. Soil C sequestration as a biological negative emission strategy. Front. Clim. 1, 8 (2019).
Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).
World Resources Institute. Global Forest Watch https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/global-forest-watch (2014).
Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Financing Emissions Reductions for the Future: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2019 (Forest Trends, 2019).
Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Fertile Ground: State of Forest Carbon Finance 2017 (Forest Trends, 2017).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Clean Development Mechanism Project Search https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html.
Pozo, C., Galán-Martín, Á., Reiner, D. M., Mac Dowell, N. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Equity in allocating carbon dioxide removal quotas. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 640–646 (2020).
Mulligan, J. A. et al. CarbonShot: Federal Policy Options for Carbon Removal in the United States (World Resources Institute, 2020).
Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
Cameron, D. R., Marvin, D. C., Remucal, J. M. & Passero, M. C. Ecosystem management and land conservation can substantially contribute to California’s climate mitigation goals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12833–12838 (2017).
Baker, S. E. et al. Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2020).
Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356, 706–707 (2017).
Prentice, I. C. et al. in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Ch. 3 (eds Houghton, J. T. et al.) 185–237 (World Meteorological Organization, 2001).
Mackey, B. et al. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 552–557 (2013).
Hurteau, M. D., Koch, G. W. & Hungate, B. A. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 493–498 (2008).
McDowell, N. G. et al. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368, eaaz9463 (2020).
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).
Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).
DeFries, R. S., Field, C. B., Fung, I., Collatz, G. J. & Bounoua, L. Combining satellite data and biogeochemical models to estimate global effects of human-induced land cover change on carbon emissions and primary productivity. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 803–815 (1999).
Hansis, E., Davis, S. J. & Pongratz, J. Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1230–1246 (2015).
Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9575–9580 (2017).
Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3, 269–276 (2020).
Stallard, R. F. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: Coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12, 231–257 (1998).
Kondo, M. et al. Plant regrowth as a driver of recent enhancement of terrestrial CO2 uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4820–4830 (2018).
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).
Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, 4382–4387 (2019).
Nabuurs, G.-J. et al. First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 792–796 (2013).
Peñuelas, J. et al. Shifting from a fertilization-dominated to a warming-dominated period. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1438–1445 (2017).
Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).
Griscom, B. W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190126 (2020).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).
Krause, A. et al. Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3025–3038 (2018).
Jones, C. D. et al. Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095012 (2016).
Jones, C. D. et al. C4MIP — the coupled climate–carbon cycle model intercomparison project: experimental protocol for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2853–2880 (2016).
Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2973–2998 (2016).
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 73–79 (2019).
Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).
Hong, S. et al. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nat. Sustain. 3, 694–700 (2020).
Li, D., Niu, S. & Luo, Y. Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New Phytol. 195, 172–181 (2012).
Baldocchi, D. & Penuelas, J. The physics and ecology of mining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1191–1197 (2018).
Gómez-González, S., Ochoa-Hueso, R. & Pausas, J. G. Afforestation falls short as a biodiversity strategy. Science 368, 1439 (2020).
Bellamy, R. & Osaka, S. Unnatural climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 98–99 (2020).
Indigo Ag. Indigo launches The Terraton Initiative. https://www.indigoag.com/en-au/pages/news/indigo-launches-the-terraton-initiative (2019).
Schlesinger, W. H. & Amundson, R. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 386–389 (2019).
Betts, R. A. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2000).
Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6550–6555 (2007).
Jackson, R. B. et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044006 (2008).
Li, Y. et al. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 6, 6603 (2015).
Prevedello, J. A., Winck, G. R., Weber, M. M., Nichols, E. & Sinervo, B. Impacts of forestation and deforestation on local temperature across the globe. PloS ONE 13, e0213368 (2019).
Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).
Zhang, Q. et al. Reforestation and surface cooling in temperate zones: mechanisms and implications. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3384–3401 (2020).
California Air Resources Board. Compliance Offset Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program (2013).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019).
Hemes, K. S., Chamberlain, S. D., Eichelmann, E., Knox, S. H. & Baldocchi, D. D. A biogeochemical compromise: the high methane cost of sequestering carbon in restored wetlands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 6081–6091 (2018).
CarbonPlan Team. The cost of temporary carbon removal (2020).
Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).
Chen, W., Meng, J., Han, X., Lan, Y. & Zhang, W. Past, present, and future of biochar. Biochar 1, 75–87 (2019).
Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions — part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).
Chazdon, R. & Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 365, 24–25 (2019).
Kalt, G. et al. Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice. GCB Bioenergy 11, 1283–1297 (2019).
Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).
Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A. J. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).
Dass, P., Houlton, B. Z., Wang, Y. & Warlind, D. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074027 (2018).
Jackson, R. B. et al. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310, 1944–1947 (2005).
Buck, H. J. After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration (Verso Books, 2019).
House, J. I., Prentice, I. C. & Le Quere, C. Maximum impacts of future reforestation or deforestation on atmospheric CO2. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1047–1052 (2002).
Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W. & Gerten, D. Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4303–4317 (2017).
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).
Smith, P. et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).
Popp, A. et al. The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 034017 (2011).
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Turner, P. A., Field, C. B., Lobell, D. B., Sanchez, D. L. & Mach, K. J. Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways. Nat. Sustain. 1, 240–245 (2018).
Campbell, J. E., Lobell, D. B., Genova, R. C. & Field, C. B. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 5791–5794 (2008).
Bell, S., Barriocanal, C., Terrer, C. & Rosell-Melé, A. Management opportunities for soil carbon sequestration following agricultural land abandonment. Environ. Sci. Policy 108, 104–111 (2020).
FAO and UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity, and people. http://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf (2020).
The Food and Land Use Coalition. Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf (2019).
Smith, P. et al. Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).
Dorner, P. & Thiesenhusen, W. Land Tenure and Deforestation: Interactions and Environmental Implications (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1992).
Ferreira, S. Deforestation, property rights, and international trade. Land Econ. 80, 174–193 (2004).
Robinson, B. E., Holland, M. B. & Naughton-Treves, L. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 281–293 (2014).
Laurance, W. F. Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biol. Conserv. 91, 109–117 (1999).
Murtazashvili, I., Murtazashvili, J. & Salahodjaev, R. Trust and deforestation: a cross-country comparison. For. Policy Econ. 101, 111–119 (2019).
Koyuncu, C. & Yilmaz, R. The impact of corruption on deforestation: a cross-country evidence. J. Dev. Areas 42, 213–222 (2009).
Pailler, S. Re-election incentives and deforestation cycles in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 88, 345–365 (2018).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Decision 4/CP.15 Methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (2009).
Anderson, C. M., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Forest offsets partner climate-change mitigation with conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 359–365 (2017).
Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G. & Fairfax, S. K. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom. Conserv. Biol. 18, 65–75 (2004).
Alix-Garcia, J. & Wolff, H. Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6, 361–380 (2014).
Jayachandran, S. et al. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357, 267–273 (2017).
Biggs, E. M. et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397 (2015).
Buchner, B. et al. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019 (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019).
The Food and Land Use Coalition. Nature for Net-Zero: consultation document on the need to raise corporate ambition towards nature-based net-zero emissions (2020).
Asner, G. P. et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168, 1147–1160 (2012).
Schimel, D. & Schneider, F. D., JPL Carbon and Ecosystem Participants. Flux towers in the sky: global ecology from space. New Phytol. 224, 570–584 (2019).
Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Dymond, C. C. & Neilson, E. T. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1551–1555 (2008).
Marland, G., Fruit, K. & Sedjo, R. Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 259–268 (2001).
Sedjo, R. A., Marland, G. & Fruit, K. Renting carbon offsets: the question of permanence. Resources for the Future Manuscript 12 pp (2001).
Marland, G. & Marland, E. Trading permanent and temporary carbon emissions credits. Clim. Change 95, 465 (2009).
van Oosterzee, P., Blignaut, J. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. iREDD hedges against avoided deforestation’s unholy trinity of leakage, permanence and additionality. Conserv. Lett. 5, 266–273 (2012).
May, P. J. Policy learning and failure. J. Public Policy 12, 331–354 (1992).
Geist, H. J. & Lambin, E. F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52, 143–150 (2002).
Zeng, Y. et al. Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 842–844 (2020).
Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D. & McDowell, N. G. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6, 1–55 (2015).
Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).
Lal, R. et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 145A–152A (2018).
Arora, V. K. & Montenegro, A. Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nat. Geosci. 4, 514–518 (2011).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, 2015).
Chabbi, A. et al. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 307–309 (2017).
Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T. M. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim. Change 109, 745–790 (2011).
Houghton, R. A., Unruh, J. D. & Lefebvre, P. A. Current land cover in the tropics and its potential for sequestering carbon. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 305–320 (1993).
Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 350–359 (2018).
Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).
Nilsson, S. & Schopfhauser, W. The carbon-sequestration potential of a global afforestation program. Clim. Change 30, 267–293 (1995).
Winjum, J. K., Dixon, R. K. & Schroeder, P. E. Estimating the global potential of forest and agroforest management practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut. 64, 213–227 (1992).
Sohngen, B. & Sedjo, R. Carbon sequestration in global forests under different carbon price regimes. Energy J. 27, 109–126 (2006).
Mayer, A., Hausfather, Z., Jones, A. D. & Silver, W. L. The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0932 (2018).
van Minnen, J. G., Strengers, B. J., Eickhout, B., Swart, R. J. & Leemans, R. Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model. Carbon Balance Manag. 3, 3 (2008).
Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123, 1–22 (2004).
Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Dale, L., Chan, P. & Andrasko, K. GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy J. 27, 127–162 (2006).
Canadell, J. G. & Schulze, E. D. Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nat. Commun. 5, 5282 (2014).
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R. & Verchot, L. V. Global sequestration potential of increased organic carbon in cropland soils. Sci. Rep. 7, 15554 (2017).
Caldecott, B., Lomax, G. & Workman, M. Stranded Carbon Assets and Negative Emissions Technologies (Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, 2015).
Chazdon, R. L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501639 (2016).
This research was supported by the Climate and Land Use Alliance.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Richard Houghton and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Nolan, C.J., Field, C.B. & Mach, K.J. Constraints and enablers for increasing carbon storage in the terrestrial biosphere. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2, 436–446 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00166-8
Journal of Biological Engineering (2022)
Nature Communications (2022)
Nature Climate Change (2022)
Science China Life Sciences (2022)