Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

What is the best type of tree to use for forest restoration?

In forest experiments, tree species capable of high rates of photosynthesis grow more slowly than species with lower maximum rates of photosynthesis — with implications for tree-planting projects.
By
  1. Pieter A. Zuidema

    1. Pieter A. Zuidema is in the Forest Ecology and Forest Management group, Wageningen University & Research, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.

  2. Madelon Lohbeck

    1. Madelon Lohbeck is in the Forest Ecology and Forest Management group, Wageningen University & Research, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.

The United Nations declared 2021–2030 to be the decade of ecosystem restoration, an initiative aiming to halt ecosystem degradation and restore 350 million hectares of forest (see go.nature.com/41uy171). To achieve this goal, efficient and scalable restoration strategies are needed. Planting trees is probably the most common approach, leading to a surge in the extent of tree plantations1. In tree-planting projects, fast-growing species are often the preferred choice to deliver rapid returns. These species are usually selected on the basis of their potentially high rates of photosynthesis, the process that converts sunlight and carbon dioxide into sugars and wood. Writing in Nature, Augusto et al.2 show that such species (described as acquisitive) are outperformed in field trials by tree species that have a lower maximum rate of photosynthesis and are considered to use resources more conservatively (conservative species). This counter-intuitive finding has implications for the planning of forest restoration.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 640, 325-326 (2025)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00802-z

References

  1. Fagan, M. E., Reid, J. L., Holland, M. B., Drew, J. G. & Zahawi, R. A. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12700 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Augusto, L. et al. Nature 640, 395–401 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chapin, F. S., Autumn, K. & Pugnaire, F. Am. Nat. 142, S78–S92 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chazdon, R. L. Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age of Deforestation (Univ. Chicago Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Poorter, L. et al. Science, 374, 1370–1376 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coleman, E. A. et al. Nature Sustain. 4, 997–1004 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Parr, C. L., te Beest, M. & Stevens, N. Science 383, 698–701 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brouwer, R. et al. in Restoring Forests and Trees for Sustainable Development: Policies, Practices, Impacts, and Ways Forward (eds Katila, P. et al.) Ch. 7 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2024).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. One Earth 5, 452–455 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links