Mapping forest-based natural climate solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural climate solutions are critical actions of ecosystem stewardship to mitigate climate change. However, prioritizing locations and possible actions is challenging. We demonstrate a generalizable approach for identifying potential opportunities for natural climate solutions by creating a spatial hierarchy of land management restrictions. Global forest carbon stocks and flux models were then used to explore forest-based natural climate solutions in the high-carbon density coastal temperate rainforests of western North America. Our results show 13 million hectares are available for action, an area that holds 4,900 ± 640 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and represents 45% of regional and 0.5% of global aboveground forest carbon stocks. Based on historical trends, a 10% reduction in average annual forest carbon loss through improved forest management and conservation could reduce forest carbon emissions by 9.1 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, corresponding to 5.2% of the 2030 land-based climate commitments made by the United States and Canada. Large-scale implementation of natural climate solutions will require collaborative planning with forest-dependent communities, industry, governments, and Indigenous peoples. In the coastal temperate rainforests of western North America, the reduction of forest loss by improved management and conservation could reduce forest greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis using global forest carbon stocks and flux models and landownership data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".