Advertisement

Abstract

Carbon sequestration strategies highlight tree plantations without considering their full environmental consequences. We combined field research, synthesis of more than 600 observations, and climate and economic modeling to document substantial losses in stream flow, and increased soil salinization and acidification, with afforestation. Plantations decreased stream flow by 227 millimeters per year globally (52%), with 13% of streams drying completely for at least 1 year. Regional modeling of U.S. plantation scenarios suggests that climate feedbacks are unlikely to offset such water losses and could exacerbate them. Plantations can help control groundwater recharge and upwelling but reduce stream flow and salinize and acidify some soils.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Supplementary Material

File (jackson_som.pdf)

References and Notes

1
P. M. Vitousek, J. Environ. Qual.20, 348 (1991).
2
R. A. Houghton, J. L. Hackler, K. T. Lawrence, Science285, 574 (1999).
3
M. I. Hoffertet al., Science298, 981 (2002).
4
R. B. Jackson, J. L. Banner, E. G. Jobbágy, W. T. Pockman, D. H. Wall, Nature418, 623 (2002).
5
S. Pacala, R. Socolow, Science305, 968 (2004).
6
R. B. Jackson, W. H. Schlesinger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.101, 15827 (2004).
7
B. A. McCarl, U. A. Schneider, Science294, 2481 (2001).
8
J. A. Wright, A. DiNicola, E. Gaitan, J. Forestry98, 20 (2000).
9
A. J. Pearce, L. K. Rowe, J. Hydrol. N. Z.18, 73 (1979).
10
L. Zhang, W. R. Dawes, G. R. Walker, Water Resour. Res.37, 701 (2001).
11
M. G. R. Cannell, New For.17, 239 (1999).
12
K. A. Farley, E. G. Jobbágy, R. B. Jackson, Glob. Change Biol.11, 1565 (2005).
13
Materials and methods and supporting material are available on Science Online.
14
Y. Xue, M. J. Fennessy, P. J. Sellers, J. Geophys. Res.101, 7419 (1996).
15
R. A. Pielke, R. Avissar, Landscape Ecol.4, 133 (1990).
16
S. Baidya Roy, R. Avissar, J. Geophys. Res.107, (D20), 8037 (2002).
17
W. A. Hoffmann, R. B. Jackson, J. Clim.13, 1593 (2000).
18
D. M. Adams, R. J. Alig, J. M. Callaway, B. A. McCarl, S. M. Winnett, “The forest and agriculture sector optimization model (FASOM): Model structure and policy applications” (Research Paper PNW-RP-495, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, 1996).
19
W. R. Cotton et al., Meteor. Atmos. Phys82, 5 (2003).
20
R. E. Dickinson, P. Kennedy, Geophys. Res. Lett.19, 1947 (1992).
21
D. C. Le Maitre, D. F. Scott, C. Colvin, Water S.A.25, 137 (1999).
22
E. G. Jobbágy, R. B. Jackson, Glob. Change Biol.10, 1299 (2004).
23
A. Heuperman, Agric. Water Manage.39, 153 (1999).
24
M. K. Sapanov, Eurasian Soil Sci.33, 1157 (2000).
25
G. R. Walker, L. Zhang, T. W. Ellis, T. J. Hatton, C. Petheram, Hydrogeol. J.10, 68 (2002).
26
S. K. Pattanayak et al., Clim. Change71, 341 (2005).
27
R. J. George et al., Agric. Water Manage.39, 91 (1999).
28
A. J. Plantinga, J. Wu, Land Econ.79, 74 (2003).
29
D. F. Scott, W. Lesch, J. Hydrol.199, 360 (1997).
30
We gratefully acknowledge the Duke University Center on Global Change and Provost's Office, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Global Environmental Change of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the CSIR for financial support. A. Mendoza assisted with the database, and W. H. Schlesinger and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful suggestions on the manuscript.

(0)eLetters

eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Embedded figures cannot be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures within eLetters in general. If a figure is essential, please include a link to the figure within the text of the eLetter. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.

Log In to Submit a Response

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 310 | Issue 5756
23 December 2005

Submission history

Received: 24 August 2005
Accepted: 21 November 2005
Published in print: 23 December 2005

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Notes

Supporting Online Material
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1944/DC1
Materials and Methods
Tables S1 to S3
References

Authors

Affiliations

Robert B. Jackson*
Department of Biology, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708–1000, USA.
Esteban G. Jobbágy
Department of Biology, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708–1000, USA.
Grupo de Estudios Ambientales–Instituto de Matematica Aplicada de San Luis (IMASL), Universidad Nacional de San Luis and Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET), San Luis 5700, Argentina.
Roni Avissar
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Somnath Baidya Roy
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Damian J. Barrett
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia 2601.
Charles W. Cook
Department of Biology, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708–1000, USA.
Kathleen A. Farley
Department of Biology, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708–1000, USA.
David C. le Maitre
Natural Resources and Environment CSIR, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.
Bruce A. McCarl
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Brian C. Murray
Center for Regulatory Economics and Policy Research, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.

Notes

*
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage
Altmetrics

Citations

Cite as

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Cited by

  1. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches, Science, 376, 6595, (839-844), (2022)./doi/10.1126/science.abl4649
    Abstract
  2. Forest restoration: Transformative trees, Science, 366, 6463, (316-317), (2021)./doi/10.1126/science.aay7309
    Abstract
  3. Tyranny of trees in grassy biomes, Science, 347, 6221, (484-485), (2021)./doi/10.1126/science.347.6221.484-c
    Abstract
  4. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests, Science, 320, 5882, (1444-1449), (2021)./doi/10.1126/science.1155121
    Abstract
  5. Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation, Science, 320, 5882, (1456-1457), (2021)./doi/10.1126/science.1155458
    Abstract
Loading...

View Options

Check Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS ID LOGIN

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options

Register for free to read this article

As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or register for free to read this article.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Full Text

FULL TEXT

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media