The importance of distinguishing between natural and managed tree cover gains in the moist tropics

Xueyuan Gao; Peter B Reich; Jeffrey R Vincent; Matthew E Fagan; Robin L Chazdon; Steffen Fritz; Dmitry Schepaschenko; Matthew D Potts; Matthew C Hansen; Martin Jung; Pedro H S Brancalion; María Uriarte; Trevor F Keenan; Thomas W Crowther; Ralph O Dubayah; Myroslava Lesiv; Shunlin Liang; Dongdong Wang

doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59196-1

The importance of distinguishing between natural and managed tree cover gains in the moist tropics

Nat Commun. 2025 Jul 2;16(1):6092. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59196-1.

Authors

Xueyuan Gao^{1

2

3}, Peter B Reich^{4

5

6}, Jeffrey R Vincent⁷, Matthew E Fagan⁸, Robin L Chazdon⁹, Steffen Fritz¹⁰, Dmitry Schepaschenko^{10

11}, Matthew D Potts^{12

13}, Matthew C Hansen¹⁴, Martin Jung¹¹, Pedro H S Brancalion^{15

16}, María Uriarte¹⁷, Trevor F Keenan^{12

18

19}, Thomas W Crowther²⁰, Ralph O Dubayah¹⁴, Myroslava Lesiv¹⁰, Shunlin Liang²¹, Dongdong Wang^{14

22}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. xg6497@princeton.edu.
² High Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. xg6497@princeton.edu.
³ Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. xg6497@princeton.edu.
⁴ Institute for Global Change Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁵ Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
⁶ Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
⁷ Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
⁸ Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA.
⁹ Forest Research Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia.
¹⁰ Advancing Systems Analysis Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
¹¹ Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
¹² Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
¹³ Carbon Direct Inc, New York, NY, USA.
¹⁴ Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
¹⁵ Department of Forest Sciences, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil.
¹⁶ Re.green, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
¹⁷ Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
¹⁸ Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
¹⁹ Earthshot Labs, Sebastapol, CA, USA.
²⁰ Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Zurich, Switzerland.
²¹ Jockey Club Laboratory of Quantitative Remote Sensing, Department of Geography, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
²² Institute of Remote Sensing and GIS, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Abstract

Naturally regenerated forests and managed tree systems provide different levels of carbon, biodiversity, and livelihood benefits. Here, we show that tree cover gains in the moist tropics during 1982-2015 were 56% ± 3% naturally regenerated forests and 27% ± 2.6% managed tree systems, with these differences in forest type, not only natural conditions (climate, soil, and topography), driving observed carbon recovery rates. The remaining 17% ± 3% likely represents small, unmanaged tree patches within non-forest cover types. Achieving global forest restoration goals requires robust monitoring, reporting, and verification of forest types established by restoration initiatives.

MeSH terms

Biodiversity
Carbon / metabolism
Conservation of Natural Resources* / methods
Forestry* / methods
Forests*
Soil / chemistry
Trees* / growth & development
Tropical Climate*

Substances

Soil
Carbon