Wits researchers help create ‘most accurate maps yet' of where reforestation can best fight climate change

The study has strong implications for Africa where natural grasslands and savannas are often misguidedly and inappropriately converted to forests, which can actually harm biodiversity and even exacerbate global warming.
A new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, has identified land roughly equivalent to the combined area of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe where reforestation can deliver optimal climate benefits while supporting wildlife habitat, food production, and freshwater availability.
It identifies an area for reforestation that can net 2,225 TgCO₂e (teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent) or roughly 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year total in net mitigation potential. That's roughly five times South Africa's annual emissions.
Though global in scope, the study has strong implications for Africa where natural grasslands and savannas are often misguidedly and inappropriately converted to forests, which can actually harm biodiversity and even exacerbate global warming.
It also holds the potential to better inform and operationalise the nature-based solution's potential on the continent, which faces disproportionate climate impacts despite contributing very little to human-induced climate change.
The study, in part from the University of the Witwatersrand's Future Ecosystems for Africa (Fefa) programme, saw the creation of what it described as 'the most accurate maps' of 195 million hectares globally where tree restoration will deliver 'maximum climate benefits'.
Professor Sally Archibald from Wits' School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Science, who leads the Fefa programme, explains that 'previous studies often failed to address how afforestation could have negative effects on biodiversity and human well-being, especially for poor people living in remote rural areas often targeted for reforestation'.
'The drop from previous estimates is due to layers that previous maps haven't been able to incorporate, because the research was still nascent at the time.'
Archibald explains that the research 'accounts for the albedo effect, for example, which means restoring tree cover can, in some locations, actively heat the Earth rather than cool it by affecting how much sunlight is absorbed or reflected. It also excludes native grasslands and other ecosystems where carpeting the land with trees would harm biodiversity and exacerbate fire regimes.'
This aspect of the research accords with the findings of another, earlier study, led in part by Emeritus professor of biological sciences at the University of Cape Town (UCT), William Bond.
Daily Maverick reported at the time that the Bond study bust the myth that planting trees everywhere is the silver bullet to slowing global warming, and explained why we need areas like open grasslands in the savannas.
Africa contains more grasses than any other continent. According to the South African National Biodiversity Institute, the savanna is the biggest biome in southern Africa, covering 46% of its area.
Bond explained at the time that savannas – characterised by grasslands – are an open habitat peppered with a handful of trees, and that in a healthy grassland ecosystem there is a very delicate balance between trees and grasses that needs to be maintained for the diversity of animal species that it supports to survive and thrive.
Tree-planting plans to offset carbon threaten the ancient grasslands and everything it supports, he said.
'What many don't realise is that grasslands store carbon in their soils and reflect more sunlight back into space than forests, playing a very important part in cooling the Earth.'
Dr Susan Cook-Patton, at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a senior author of the latest study, told The Guardian that 'reforestation is not a substitute for cutting fossil fuel emissions, but even if we were to drive down emissions tomorrow, we still need to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.
'As the number of climate-fuelled disasters stack up worldwide, it's increasingly obvious that we can't waste time on well-meaning but hazily understood interventions,' Cook-Patton said.
'We must fast-track our focus toward the places with greatest benefits for people and nature and the fewest downsides, the places most likely to be win-win. This study will help leaders and investors do just that.' DM

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

eNCA

11 hours ago

• eNCA

How did life survive 'Snowball Earth'? In ponds, study suggests

Earth has not always been so hospitable to live. During several ice ages, the planet's surface was almost completely frozen over, creating what has been dubbed "Snowball Earth". Liquid water appears to be the most important ingredient for life on any planet, raising the question: how did anything survive such frosty, brutal times? A group of scientists said Thursday that they had found an astonishing diversity of micro-organisms in tiny pools of melted ice in Antarctica, suggesting that life could have ridden out Snowball Earth in similar ponds. During the Cryogenian Period between 635 and 720 million years ago, the average global temperature did not rise above -50 degrees Celsius (-58 Fahrenheit). The climate near the equator at the time resembled modern-day Antarctica. Yet even in such extreme conditions, life found a way to keep evolving. Fatima Husain, the lead author of a new study published in Nature Communications, told AFP there was evidence of complex life forms "before and after the Cryogenian in the fossil record". "There are multiple hypotheses regarding possible places life may have persisted," said Husain, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Perhaps it found shelter in patches of open ocean, or in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, or under vast sheets of ice. The tiny melted ice pools that dotted the equator were another proposed refuge. These ponds could have been oases for eukaryotes, complex organisms that eventually evolved into multicellular life forms that would rise to dominate Earth, including humans. - Could aliens be hiding in ponds? - Melted ice ponds still exist today in Antarctica, at the edges of ice sheets. In 2018, members of a New Zealand research team visited the McMurdo ice shelf in east Antarctica, home to several such pools, which are only a few metres wide and less a metre deep. The bottom of the ponds are lined with a mat of microbes that have accumulated over the years to form slimy layers. "These mats can be a few centimetres thick, colourful, and they can be very clearly layered," Husain said. They are made up of single-celled organisms called cyanobacteria that are known to be able to survive extreme conditions. But the researchers also found signs indicating there were eukaryotes such as algae or microscopic animals. This suggests there was surprising diversity in the ponds, which appears to have been influenced by the amount of salt each contained. "No two ponds were alike," Husain said. "We found diverse assemblages of eukaryotes from all the major groups in all the ponds studied." "They demonstrate that these unique environments are capable of sheltering diverse assemblages of life, even in close proximity," she added. This could have implications in the search for extraterrestrial life. "Studies of life within these special environments on Earth can help inform our understanding of potential habitable environments on icy worlds, including icy moons in our Solar System," Husain said. Saturn's moon Enceladus and Jupiter's Europa are covered in ice, but scientists increasingly suspect they could be home to simple forms of life, and several space missions have been launched to find out more about them. By Bénédicte Rey

Daily Maverick

a day ago

• Daily Maverick

Wits researchers help create ‘most accurate maps yet' of where reforestation can best fight climate change

The study has strong implications for Africa where natural grasslands and savannas are often misguidedly and inappropriately converted to forests, which can actually harm biodiversity and even exacerbate global warming. A new study, published in the journal Nature Communications, has identified land roughly equivalent to the combined area of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe where reforestation can deliver optimal climate benefits while supporting wildlife habitat, food production, and freshwater availability. It identifies an area for reforestation that can net 2,225 TgCO₂e (teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent) or roughly 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year total in net mitigation potential. That's roughly five times South Africa's annual emissions. Though global in scope, the study has strong implications for Africa where natural grasslands and savannas are often misguidedly and inappropriately converted to forests, which can actually harm biodiversity and even exacerbate global warming. It also holds the potential to better inform and operationalise the nature-based solution's potential on the continent, which faces disproportionate climate impacts despite contributing very little to human-induced climate change. The study, in part from the University of the Witwatersrand's Future Ecosystems for Africa (Fefa) programme, saw the creation of what it described as 'the most accurate maps' of 195 million hectares globally where tree restoration will deliver 'maximum climate benefits'. Professor Sally Archibald from Wits' School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Science, who leads the Fefa programme, explains that 'previous studies often failed to address how afforestation could have negative effects on biodiversity and human well-being, especially for poor people living in remote rural areas often targeted for reforestation'. 'The drop from previous estimates is due to layers that previous maps haven't been able to incorporate, because the research was still nascent at the time.' Archibald explains that the research 'accounts for the albedo effect, for example, which means restoring tree cover can, in some locations, actively heat the Earth rather than cool it by affecting how much sunlight is absorbed or reflected. It also excludes native grasslands and other ecosystems where carpeting the land with trees would harm biodiversity and exacerbate fire regimes.' This aspect of the research accords with the findings of another, earlier study, led in part by Emeritus professor of biological sciences at the University of Cape Town (UCT), William Bond. Daily Maverick reported at the time that the Bond study bust the myth that planting trees everywhere is the silver bullet to slowing global warming, and explained why we need areas like open grasslands in the savannas. Africa contains more grasses than any other continent. According to the South African National Biodiversity Institute, the savanna is the biggest biome in southern Africa, covering 46% of its area. Bond explained at the time that savannas – characterised by grasslands – are an open habitat peppered with a handful of trees, and that in a healthy grassland ecosystem there is a very delicate balance between trees and grasses that needs to be maintained for the diversity of animal species that it supports to survive and thrive. Tree-planting plans to offset carbon threaten the ancient grasslands and everything it supports, he said. 'What many don't realise is that grasslands store carbon in their soils and reflect more sunlight back into space than forests, playing a very important part in cooling the Earth.' Dr Susan Cook-Patton, at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a senior author of the latest study, told The Guardian that 'reforestation is not a substitute for cutting fossil fuel emissions, but even if we were to drive down emissions tomorrow, we still need to remove excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. 'As the number of climate-fuelled disasters stack up worldwide, it's increasingly obvious that we can't waste time on well-meaning but hazily understood interventions,' Cook-Patton said. 'We must fast-track our focus toward the places with greatest benefits for people and nature and the fewest downsides, the places most likely to be win-win. This study will help leaders and investors do just that.' DM

The Herald

11-06-2025

• The Herald

Groundbreaking study finds new genes in black women causing breast cancer

All participants were from the Soweto region, with 2,485 population cases and 1,101 control cases. The South African BC cases and controls were well-matched and clustered, while the non-South African samples and West African populations were distinct from South African populations. The Genome-Wide Association study (Gwas), which is the first to focus on black women on the continent, was published in the journal Nature Communications . It brings to the fore the importance of deepening knowledge about the genetic basis of the disease. In the past, most breast cancer genetics research has focused on European and Asian populations, with studies of African ancestry limited primarily to African-American women, who largely descend from West African populations. A tool that estimates lifetime cancer risk based on DNA, the polygenic risk score (PRS), performed poorly in distinguishing South African women with breast cancer from those without. Dr Jean-Tristan Brandenburg, also in the SBIMB and a lead author, said this was a result of the mechanism not being tailored for the black population. 'This is because most PRSs were developed in European populations, and their inaccuracy in African populations highlights the urgent need for ancestry-specific tools in cancer risk prediction,' Brandenburg said. African populations have more genetic variation than any other population in the world, but they have been significantly underrepresented in genomic research. This means the global understanding of disease risk and the tools and treatment developed from it are limited. 'The study reveals that more people can benefit from genetic discoveries. It proves that new risk factors are still out there, waiting to be found,' says Hayat. TimesLIVE