Active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option under the EU Nature Restoration Law
Ambio, ISSN: 1654-7209, Vol: 53, Issue: 7, Page: 970-983
2024
- 5Citations
- 57Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes4
- Policy Citations1
- 1
- Captures57
- Readers57
- 57
- Mentions2
- Blog Mentions1
- 1
- News Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent Blog
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #19 2024
Open access notables A Global Increase in Nearshore Tropical Cyclone Intensification, Balaguru et al., Earth's Future: Tropical Cyclones (TCs) inflict substantial coastal damages, making it pertinent to understand changing storm characteristics in the important nearshore region. Past work examined several aspects of TCs relevant for impacts in coastal regions. However, few studies explored nearsho
Most Recent News
The need for phasing out peat to reduce climate crises: Latvia’s challenges and opportunities
Story by Maksis Apinis, energy transformation campaigner, Latvia The most significant uses of peat in the world are for the creation of soil substrates and
Article Description
The EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is critical for the restoration of degraded ecosystems and active afforestation of degraded peatlands has been suggested as a restoration measure under the NRL. Here, we discuss the current state of scientific evidence on the climate mitigation effects of peatlands under forestry. Afforestation of drained peatlands without restoring their hydrology does not fully restore ecosystem functions. Evidence on long-term climate benefits is lacking and it is unclear whether CO sequestration of forest on drained peatland can offset the carbon loss from the peat over the long-term. While afforestation may offer short-term gains in certain cases, it compromises the sustainability of peatland carbon storage. Thus, active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option for climate mitigation under the EU Nature Restoration Law and might even impede future rewetting/restoration efforts. Instead, restoring hydrological conditions through rewetting is crucial for effective peatland restoration.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85191944209&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02016-5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38696060; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13280-024-02016-5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02016-5; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-024-02016-5
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know