Nature Geoscience | Volume 18 | August 2025 | 761–768
765
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01742-z
nearly double potential carbon sequestration, while also provide a
control on misplaced tree planting and afforestation with undesired
effects, such as warming due to reduced albedo 22,23,37, increased
wildfires15 and biodiversity declines.
The above 85.2 Gt can be increased by prioritizing regions
with the highest potential carbon benefit. For this, we laid a grid of
100 km × 100 km mesh size on the terrestrial surface of Earth and
selected those cells as priority regions that cover 20% of the poten -
tially restorable area with the highest possible carbon gain. Starting
restoration until 2030 within these priority regions and then con -
tinuing randomly with the rest increases capture to 96.9 Gt carbon
until 2100. These priority regions include temperate areas, such as
American prairies and central Asian steppes (Fig. 4 ), and not only
formerly prioritized tropical rainforest regions 29. On reflection, we
probably received this nuanced pattern over previous studies via our
ecosystem-inclusive approach, the use of rates over final carbon stocks
and that we did not ignore the carbon sequestration of the ecosys -
tem type before restoration. As a result, there is a more even biogeo-
graphic distribution of priority regions, with greater opportunities
for both high- and low-income countries to contribute to large-scale
restoration, supporting climate justice, ameliorating an increasing
pressure on historically low-emitting countries to meet ambitious res-
toration targets29,38,39. The inclusion of non-forested ecosystems offers
the promise of more equitable global NCS efforts than, for example,
simplistic tree-planting campaigns. Such campaigns driven by carbon
credits may eventually have little climate change mitigation37,40,41 and
rather have detrimental impacts on biodiversity 21 and livelihoods of
local people42–44, for example, by displacing people for afforestation,
which in turn can lead to deforestation elsewhere. In addition, future
agricultural expansion in low-income countries can cause conflicts
with the realization of ecosystem restoration predicted on the scale
of the present study. The total area allocated to agriculture is expected
to be more stable in high-income countries45, making them also perhaps
sustainable targets of restoration interventions.
Our estimate of 96.9 Gt carbon sequestration potential is substan-
tially smaller than previous models9,10, as it equals to 47.3% and 31.8%
of their respective predictions, and amounts to 17.6% of the 640 Gt
of carbon emissions since 1750 11. We estimate our difference from
previous studies is primarily due to the use of rates instead of final
stocks of mature ecosystems, as most restored sites would not reach
maturity by 2100 due to the gradual implementation of restoration over
the twenty-first century and that certain ecosystem types (Extended
Data Fig. 9) require >70 years to build up their carbon stock.
Our predicted amount thus forms an important but moderate
contribution to reducing atmospheric CO 2 closer to pre-industrial
levels by 2100. A more realistic role of ecosystem restoration may
thus be to keep pace with future emissions. Shared Socioeconomic
Pathways (SSPs) are widely applied scenarios for forecasting emissions
that consider impacts of varied climate policies from a shift towards a
sustainable green future (SSP1–2.6) to business as usual (SSP5–8.5)46,47.
Combining the carbon benefit of global ecosystem restoration with
emission trends of each SSP (SSP1–2.6: 169.6 Gt, SSP2–4.5: 642.4 Gt,
SSP3–7.0: 1,319.4 Gt and SSP5–8.5: 1,989.0 Gt) suggests restoration
has a limited mitigating effect without transformative global climate
policies (Fig. 5 ). Anthropogenic contributions to the atmospheric
carbon balance remain positive throughout the twenty-first century
in SSP5–8.5 and SSP3–7.0 even with restoration site prioritization for
carbon gain, and the proportion of total anthropogenic carbon burden
can only be reduced by 3.7% (SSP5–8.5) or 5.0% (SSP3–7.0). Ecosystem
restoration in SSP2–4.5 leads to zero annual emissions by 2100 (and a
7.6% reduction of the carbon burden), but this is insufficient to meet
any reasonable climate target. SSP1–2.6 is the most difficult scenario
to realize due to its dramatic global greening requirements of the
industry, but its implementation with predicted restoration actions
could reduce the atmospheric carbon burden by 12.0%. SSP1–2.6 entails
zero and then negative emissions from the second half of the 2070s.
Combined with global restoration, this threshold can be brought
forward to the late 2060s. Prioritization of regions with the highest
carbon gain affects this date only marginally. However, SSP1–2.6 also
contains some NCS-based mitigation by afforestation46, so the actual
improvement of this pathway might be overestimated by simply adding
all restoration-related sequestration to it.
Considering restoration possibilities and predicted ecosys -
tem state transitions using climate projections, our model provides
alarming results, as we predict a continuous loss of ecosystem-locked
carbon, particularly in tropical forest regions, although carbon gains
180°
180°
120° E
120° E
60° E
60° E
0°
Longitude
0°
60° W
60° W
120° W
120° W
180°
180°
30° N 30° N
0°
Latitude
0°
30° S 30° S
60° N 60° N
60° S 60° S
3.38
0
(t ha–1 yr–1)
Fig. 3 | Global distribution of potential annual carbon gain rates of all
restorable land predicted using current climates. A global maximum
sequestration rate gain of 1.92 Gt yr−1 can be achieved using restoration, of which
67.4%, 9.2%, 12.3% and 11.4% come from restored forests, shrublands, grasslands
and wetlands, respectively. Carbon gain includes both above- and belowground
carbon capture (except in savannah grasslands where we considered only
belowground rates due to frequent fires). Shown carbon gain rates are calculated
as the difference between the rates of the predicted restoration targets minus the
rates of the current ecosystem types in 1 × 1 km modelling sites. We used biome-
specific rates for each of the four ecosystem types instead of global averages.
Nature Geoscience | Volume 18 | August 2025 | 761–768 766
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01742-z
are also expected at higher latitudes. Depending on the scenario,
the rate of annual carbon emission is predicted to range from 0.11 to
0.64 Gt, in SSP1–26 and SSP5–8.5, respectively, with the other scenarios
located between them. However, it is important to acknowledge the
resilience of natural, functional ecosystems against state transitions48,
which thus may take place with some delay after underlying drivers
exceeded their original rate of variability. Our findings highlight the
importance of measures supporting ecosystem resilience (for example,
promoting tree recruitment in forests threatened by climate change49)
to delay state transitions48 and concomitant carbon emissions. If this
is sustained until all mitigation measures (including improved
habitat management and industrial solutions) restore atmospheric
CO2 levels in a more distant future, unfavourable state transitions
may be prevented. Furthermore, future climate scenarios probably
contain novel climates that our model is inherently not trained for,
reducing its reliability50.
In sum, we demonstrated that terrestrial ecosystem restora -
tion can play a role in climate change mitigation in the near future, if
applied in conjunction with a prompt shift towards energy-efficient,
renewable-based economies of SSP1–2.6 and if ecosystem state transi-
tions are suppressed where possible and desirable. In other scenarios,
the most appropriate aims of ecosystem restoration as an NCS will
be around local to regional-scale climate change adaptation due to
uncertainties related to global-scale mitigation. Optimizing restora-
tion site selection for adaptation instead of mitigation would probably
yield lower carbon capture, but the importance of ecosystem restora-
tion in climate change adaptation cannot be overestimated for the
livelihoods of local communities, especially those that are nature-
reliant51,52. Intact ecosystems dampen the effects of heatwaves by opti-
mal evapotranspiration rates53, prevent soil erosion after increased
precipitation events due to well-developed root systems54 and increase
the resilience of pollinator populations 55, which are threatened
by climate change 56,57. Due to the limited likelihood of any notable
mitigation of climate change through global ecosystem restoration
in the short or medium term, future policies should (1) prioritize
adaptation and optimize restoration activities in favour of vulnerable
peoples, (2) streamline mitigation plans by rigorous mechanisms
to cut emissions instead of investing in offsetting with uncertain
results20,43 and (3) support the original goal of ecosystem restoration
to combat the biodiversity crisis58 and thereby increase the resilience
of ecosystem services, rather than solely carbon sequestration.
Online content
Any methods, additional references, Nature Portfolio reporting sum-
maries, source data, extended data, supplementary information,
acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author con -
tributions and competing interests; and statements of data and code
availability are available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01742-z.
180°
180°
120° E
120° E
60° E
60° E
0°
Longitude
Latitude
0°
60° W
60° W
120° W
120° W
180°
180°
30° N 30° N
0° 0°
30° S 30° S
60° N 60° N
60° S 60° S
Fig. 4 | Distribution of the 2,675 priority regions for ecosystem restoration.
Priority regions are 100 × 100 km pixels, covering 20% of all restorable land area
with the highest possible carbon gain. Priority regions do not necessarily require
restoration in their entire area and certain amounts of the degraded areas may
not be available for restoration. Restoration is not restricted to reforestation but
is inclusive of any potential ecosystem type (that is, forest, shrubland, grassland,
wetland or their mosaic) predicted to each region.
–10
–5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
SSP5–8.5
SSP3–7.0
SSP2–4.5
SSP1–2.6
Year
Annual carbon emissions (Gt C yr –1 )
Fig. 5 | The effect of global ecosystem restoration on annual carbon emissions
according to four future climate pathways. Solid line: no restoration,
dashed line: restoration without prioritization, dotted line: restoration with
site prioritization for carbon gain. Arrows point at the years when the global
zero-emissions line is crossed, whereas the shaded area corresponds to negative
emissions. In SSP1–2.6, we expect a pervasive shift towards sustainable green
economies globally, whereas SSP2–4.5 is characterized by slower progress and
little shift from the current socio-economic patterns. In contrast, SSP3–7.0 takes
place if domestic and regional concerns about competitiveness and security
hinder the global shift towards sustainability, and SSP5–8.5 will take place if we
keep on relying on competitive markets and rapid technological progress to
maintain a resource- and energy-intensive lifestyle all over the world45. Decimal
numbers in the pathway names indicate expected radiative forcing values
(expressed in W m−2) in 2100.
Nature Geoscience | Volume 18 | August 2025 | 761–768
767
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01742-z
References
1.
Nature Restoration Law (European Commission, 2023);
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/
nature-restoration-law_en
2.
Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. Tree planting is not a simple solution.
Science 368, 580–581 (2020).
3.
Fischer, J., Riechers, M., Loos, J., Martin-Lopez, B. & Temperton,
V. M. Making the UN decade on ecosystem restoration a
social-ecological endeavour. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 20–28 (2021).
4.
Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2
emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).
5.
Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Protect, manage and then restore lands
for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1027–1034 (2021).
6.
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).
7.
Walker, W. S. et al. The global potential for increased storage
of carbon on land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2111312119
(2022).
8.
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4,
850–853 (2014).
9.
Bastin, J. F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science
365, 76–79 (2019).
10. Strassburg, B. B. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem
restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).
11.
Lewis, S. L., Mitchard, E. T., Prentice, C., Maslin, M. & Poulter, B.
Comment on ‘the global tree restoration potential’. Science 366,
eaaz0388 (2019).
12. Veldman, J. W. et al. Comment on ‘the global tree restoration
potential’. Science 366, eaay7976 (2019).
13. Tölgyesi, C. et al. Underground deserts below fertility islands?
Woody species desiccate lower soil layers in sandy drylands.
Ecography 43, 848–859 (2020).
14. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J., Stevens, N. & Berenguer, E. Valuing the
functionality of tropical ecosystems beyond carbon. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 38, 1109–1111 (2023).
15. 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).
16. Pellegrini, A. F. et al. Soil carbon storage capacity of drylands
under altered fire regimes. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 1089–1094
(2023).
17. Stevens, N. & Bond, W. J. A trillion trees: carbon capture or
fuelling fires? Trends Ecol. Evol. 39, 1–4 (2024).
18. Zhou, Y. et al. Limited increases in savanna carbon stocks over
decades of fire suppression. Nature 603, 445–449 (2022).
19. Jackson, R. B. et al. Trading water for carbon with biological
carbon sequestration. Science 310, 1944–1947 (2005).
20. Tölgyesi, C., Buisson, E., Helm, A., Temperton, V. M. & Török, P.
Urgent need for updating the slogan of global climate actions
from ‘tree planting’ to ‘restore native vegetation’. Restor. Ecol. 30,
e13594 (2022).
21. Wieczorkowski, J. D. & Lehmann, C. E. Encroachment diminishes
herbaceous plant diversity in grassy ecosystems worldwide.
Glob. Change Biol. 28, 5532–5546 (2022).
22. Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet
climate objectives. Nature 562, 259–262 (2018).
23. Rohatyn, S., Yakir, D., Rotenberg, E. & Carmel, Y. Limited climate
change mitigation potential through forestation of the vast
dryland regions. Science 377, 1436–1439 (2022).
24. Pausas, J. G. & Bond, W. J. Alternative biome states in terrestrial
ecosystems. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 250–263 (2020).
25. Erdős, L. et al. How climate, topography, soils, herbivores, and
fire control forest–grassland coexistence in the Eurasian forest‐
steppe. Biol. Rev. 97, 2195–2208 (2022).
26. Mattos, C. R. et al. Double stress of waterlogging and drought
drives forest–savanna coexistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120,
e2301255120 (2023).
27. Doelman, J. C. & Stehfest, E. The risks of overstating the
climate benefits of ecosystem restoration. Nature 609, E1–E3
(2022).
28. Mo, L. et al. Integrated global assessment of the natural forest
carbon potential. Nature 624, 92–101 (2023).
29. Williams, B. A. et al. Global potential for natural regeneration in
deforested tropical regions. Nature 636, 131–137 (2024).
30. IPBES in Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondizio, E. S. et al.)
(IPBES Secretariat, 2019).
31. Zhang, J., Ma, K. & Fu, B. Wetland loss under the impact of
agricultural development in the Sanjiang Plain, NE China. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 166, 139–148 (2010).
32. Mitchell, M. E. et al. Potential of water quality wetlands to
mitigate habitat losses from agricultural drainage modernization.
Sci. Total Environ. 838, 156358 (2022).
33. Anadón, J. D., Sala, O. E. & Maestre, F. T. Climate change will
increase savannas at the expense of forests and treeless
vegetation in tropical and subtropical Americas. J. Ecol. 102,
1363–1373 (2014).
34. Xu, X., Jia, G., Zhang, X., Riley, W. J. & Xue, Y. Climate regime shift
and forest loss amplify fire in Amazonian forests. Glob. Change
Biol. 26, 5874–5885 (2020).
35. Flores, B. M. et al. Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system.
Nature 626, 555–564 (2024).
36. Zeng, Y. et al. Economic and social constraints on reforestation
for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nat. Clim. Change 10,
842–844 (2020).
37. Weber, J. et al. Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third
of forestation’s CO2 removal benefits. Science 383, 860–864
(2024).
38. Ratnam, J. et al. Trees as nature-based solutions: a global south
Perspective. One Earth 3, 140–144 (2020).
39. Fleischman, F. et al. Restoration prioritization must be informed
by marginalized people. Nature 607, E5–E6 (2022).
40. Temperton, V. M. et al. Step back from the forest and step up to
the Bonn Challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can
promote successful landscape restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27,
705–719 (2019).
41. Heilmayr, R., Echeverría, C. & Lambin, E. F. Impacts of Chilean
forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity.
Nat. Sustain. 3, 701–709 (2020).
42. Ramprasad, V., Joglekar, A. & Fleischman, F. Plantations and
pastoralists: afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian
Himalaya vulnerable. Ecol. Soc. 25, 1 (2020).
43. Fleischman, F. et al. Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need
people-centered natural climate solutions. BioScience 70,
947–950 (2020).
44. Coleman, E. A. et al. Limited effects of tree planting on forest
canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nat. Sustain.
4, 997–1004 (2021).
45. Potapov, P. et al. Global maps of cropland extent and change
show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century.
Nat. Food 3, 19–28 (2022).
46. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their
energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications:
an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
47. Gidden, M. J. et al. Global emissions pathways under different
socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of
harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the
century. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1443–1475 (2019).