Doing nothing and allowing 'bad' invasive species to reclaim land can store more carbon in the soil than active, human-led tree planting projects.
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.
Comparing diversity-carbon tradeoffs between passive and active reforestation at a long-term floodplain experiment
SSRN · 6504245
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