Doing nothing and allowing 'bad' invasive species to reclaim land can store more carbon in the soil than active, human-led tree planting projects.
April 1, 2026
Original Paper
Comparing diversity-carbon tradeoffs between passive and active reforestation at a long-term floodplain experiment
SSRN · 6504245
The Takeaway
Environmental policy usually assumes that active human intervention is necessary for reforestation and that invasive species are a threat to climate goals. This 25-year study found that passive recovery was more effective for carbon storage because nature—and even invasive plants—can be more efficient at building soil than human-selected saplings.
From the abstract
Due to historical drainage and conversion, restored forested floodplains have depleted soil organic carbon (SOC) and vegetation carbon (C) stocks. However, it is difficult to predict C stock recovery because flooding has confounding effects on SOC dynamics and vegetation composition. Moreover, restoration managers must weigh C gains against biodiversity losses because factors that enhance C accrual often reduce plant species richness. Thus, to improve restoration predictability and decision-maki