Synthesizing the ecosystem services benefits, synergies and trade-offs of forest restoration in China

Tao Hu; Jian Peng; Zihan Xu; Huining Zheng; Jiayao Shu; Jiabin Wang; Jianquan Dong; Yi’na Hu; Carla L Archibald

doi:10.1038/s44185-026-00134-9

. 2026 May 28;5:31. doi: 10.1038/s44185-026-00134-9

Synthesizing the ecosystem services benefits, synergies and trade-offs of forest restoration in China

Tao Hu ¹, Jian Peng ^1,^✉, Zihan Xu ², Huining Zheng ¹, Jiayao Shu ¹, Jiabin Wang ¹, Jianquan Dong ³, Yi’na Hu ⁴, Carla L Archibald ⁵

PMCID: PMC13627657 PMID: 42209677

Abstract

China’s forest restoration represents a proactive, state-led nature-based solution aligned with national climate commitments. Although previous studies assessed individual ecosystem services, few studies systematically evaluated the overall ecosystem services interactions across ecological engineering zones. Our review of 133 studies revealed strong carbon-soil-biodiversity synergies, yet water conservation varied and socio-economic benefits remained underrepresented. We highlight regional variability in these outcomes, emphasizing the need for tailored management strategies.

Subject terms: Ecology, Ecology, Environmental sciences

Introduction

Forests play an important role in supporting biodiversity, regulating carbon and water cycles, and sustaining human well-being on a local to global scale¹. However, forests continue to face degradation and deforestation, which have led to a net global forest loss of 178 million hectares since 1990², risking these crucial benefits³. In response, several global initiatives like the Bonn Challenge⁴, the New York Declaration on Forests⁵ and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework—particularly Target 2⁶—all aim to promote forest restoration as a key strategy to counter forest degradation and deforestation. Forest restoration efforts have expanded rapidly⁷, including in countries like China^8–10, where large-scale forest restoration programs have been implemented to address both environmental and socio-economic challenges. While such programs have made measurable progress in forest restoration¹¹, their capacity to simultaneously deliver multiple ecological benefits as well as social benefits has yet to be fully assessed. Particularly in diverse regional contexts where the interactions among socio-ecological outcomes may vary. Understanding where and when synergies or trade-offs emerge between ecological and social outcomes of forest restoration remains a key challenge for policy and practice.

China has undertaken globally recognized forest restoration efforts and outcomes in recent years^10,12,13. Satellite data showed that China accounted for 25% of global vegetation greening, with 42% of this linked to forest restoration, contributing to forest cover of 23.0% by 2018, including 80 million hectares of planted forests and 140 million hectares of natural forests⁷. The primary goal of these restoration initiatives is to increase forest cover, promote biodiversity, and reduce soil and water loss. Previous studies have primarily focused on the ecological outcomes of forest restoration, finding that while forest restoration promotes soil conservation and increases carbon sequestration, it may reduce regional water conservation^14,15. Beyond the potential for ecological synergies and trade-offs of forest restoration, it may also benefit or negatively impact socio-economic outcomes such as grain production and the economic income of local people¹⁶. Numerous studies on forest restoration in China have highlighted various trade-offs or synergies between ecological and socio-economic outcomes^14,16, with varying results. They highlight the need for a comprehensive and systematic review of these trade-offs and synergies to provide valuable high-level insights on the risk and benefits of forest restoration in China.

China is currently undertaking several major forest restoration initiatives aimed at protecting and restoring key national ecosystems. These ecosystems include the Northeast Forest Belt, Key Ecological Areas of the Yellow River, and Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River^17,18. Due to regional differences in the environmental conditions and management measures, the ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration differed across these regions^18,19. In the arid and semi-arid regions of the Yellow River Basin, forest restoration has been shown to induce substantial ecosystem service trade-offs, particularly between carbon sequestration and water conservation^14,20,21. Conversely, in the more humid Yangtze River Basin, water resources are abundant. While forest restoration in this region effectively enhanced soil conservation, it often competed with grain production. This trade-off is particularly pronounced in the upper reaches of the basin^22–24. To sum up, existing studies have primarily focused on trade-offs between ecosystem services within individual regions^21–24, leaving a gap in understanding how these trade-offs vary nationally and how forest restoration might be tailored accordingly to manage trade-offs.

In this study, we aimed to assess ecosystem services benefits, trade-offs and synergies of forest restoration in China²⁵, and explored regional differences (Fig. 1; Supplementary Table 1). To address this aim, we firstly used a literature review and meta-analysis to identify key papers that explored this topic and extract numeric information about the outcomes, trade-offs and synergies of forest restoration in China. We identified 133 studies and showed the overview of the social-ecological outcomes of forest restoration. Then, we used the R value (i.e., the correlation coefficient) to show the intensity of trade-off and synergy of these outcomes. We also summarized these outcomes, trade-offs and synergies at a regional level (Key Ecological Areas of the Yellow River, Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River, Northeast Forest Belt, Three-North Region, and South China karst). This study can offer a synthesis of current evidence to support more effective forest restoration in China by identifying national as well as region-specific ecosystem services benefits, synergies and trade-offs.

Fig. 1 — a Synergies occur when outcome is positively related to one another, therefore, if restoration is applied, the indicators either increase or decrease together. b Trade-offs occur when outcome is negatively related to one another, therefore if restoration is applied, one indicator may increase, yet another will decrease.

Overview of ecosystem services benefits of forest restoration in China

As shown in Fig. 2a, it can be found that the ecological outcomes of forest restoration, such as water conservation (n = 117), soil conservation (n = 106), carbon sequestration (n = 107), and biodiversity maintenance (n = 47), were of concern. Regarding socio-economic outcomes, grain production (n = 38) was noted more frequently, with the scarcity of diversification of employments and earnings (n = 4), and forest product supply (n = 6).

Water conservation

Among the papers we reviewed, over 87% (n = 117) investigated the outcome of forest restoration on water conservation in some way. Of the 40 papers that quantifying the outcome of forest restoration on water conservation, 24 studies (60%) reported an increase in water conservation after forest restoration with 16 (40%) for a decrease (Fig. 2b). Although forest restoration was generally associated with increased water conservation outcomes, water conservation had the highest proportion of associations with decreases compared to the other ecosystem services. Forest restoration showed the lowest annual decrease rate in water conservation relative to the other ecosystem services, with a minimum value of −5.11%. Many studies have also reported increases in water conservation following forest restoration, with a maximum annual increase rate of 4.06%.

Soil conservation

Approximately 80% of the papers (n = 106) focused on soil conservation under the context of forest restoration in China (Fig. 2a). Of the 37 papers quantifying the outcome of forest restoration on soil conservation, 32 studies (86%) showed that forest restoration would increase soil conservation, while only five studies (14%) found that forest restoration had a decreasing impact on soil conservation. We found that following forest restoration, the annual improvement in soil conservation increased in most studies, with a median value of 0.95% and a mean value of 1.4% (Fig. 2b). This suggested that soil conservation exhibited an annual increase of approximately 1% relative to the base year after forest restoration.

Carbon sequestration

Many studies have focused on carbon sequestration benefits of forest restoration (n = 107) (Fig. 2a). Of the 48 papers that quantifying the outcome of forest restoration on carbon sequestration, 41 studies (85%) reported that forest restoration increased carbon sequestration, with only seven studies (15%) showing a decrease. It should be noted that forest restoration promoted carbon sequestration with the median annual increase of 0.51% and the mean annual increase of 1.46% (Fig. 2b).

Biodiversity maintenance

Above 35% of the papers (n = 47) have explored the impact of forest restoration on biodiversity maintenance (Fig. 2a), primarily using habitat quality as a proxy. Of the 20 papers that quantifying the outcome of forest restoration on biodiversity maintenance, 13 studies (65%) found that forest restoration increased biodiversity maintenance, while seven studies (35%) found a decrease following forest restoration (Fig. 2b). We found that the improvement in biodiversity maintenance per year was relatively lower compared to other ecosystem services. The maximum value was 0.92%, while the minimum value was −0.86%. Overall, forest restoration tended to increase biodiversity maintenance, with an average annual growth rate of 0.02% and a median of 0.06% (Fig. 2b).

Grain production

Approximately 30% of the papers (n = 38) focused on the impact of forest restoration on grain production (Fig. 2a). Of the 14 papers that quantifying the outcome of forest restoration on grain production, 10 studies (71%) found that forest restoration increased grain production, while four studies (29%) found a decrease following forest restoration (Fig. 2c). This proportion was lower than the papers addressing ecological outcomes of forest restoration, but higher than those exploring other socio-economic outcomes. Our results also showed that, in many studies, grain production has continued to increase locally despite forest restoration efforts in the region (Fig. 2c). The reported average annual rate of change for grain production was 1.04%, with a maximum annual increase rate of 4.68%.

Forest product supply and diversification of employments and earnings

Six papers discussed the impact of forest restoration on forest product supply. Among them, four studies explicitly reported quantitative changes in forest product supply and highlighted the increase in forest product supply due to forest restoration (Fig. 2c). The annual increase in forest product supply ranged from approximately 0.37% to 3.20%, with an average of 1.43% for these four studies (Fig. 2c). While these findings pointed to a potentially positive relationship between forest restoration and forest product supply, the very small number of available studies represented a critical gap rather than robust confirmation of widespread socio-economic benefits. In the papers we reviewed, fewer than 5% (n = 4) investigated the topic of diversification of employments and earnings (Fig. 2a), with no study providing the specific values of these changes.

Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services benefits of forest restoration

We identified several trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services benefits of forest restoration (Fig. 3). Of the 133 papers analyzed, we found that most common relationships were between carbon sequestration and water conservation (n = 86), soil conservation and water conservation (n = 77), soil conservation and carbon sequestration (n = 71), carbon sequestration and biodiversity maintenance (n = 37). Some studies focused more on socio-economic outcomes like grain production, whereas outcomes like forest product supply and the diversification of employments and earnings were less commonly addressed.

Proportion of trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services

Carbon sequestration was found to have the most synergies with other ecosystem services primarily, with the highest proportions with diversification of employments and earnings (100%), soil conservation (89%) and biodiversity maintenance (84%) (Fig. 4a). Soil conservation was closely related to biodiversity maintenance (91%) and diversification of employments and earnings (100%). Water conservation was found to have a synergy with grain production in 73% of cases, and a varied relationship with all other ecosystem services.

Fig. 4 — For panels (a) and (b), the proportions are based on the number of studies that reported explicit trade-off or synergy relationships, rather than on the total number of studies. For panels (c) and (d), we present the R value of the trade-offs and synergies between ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration, and only studies providing explicit R values were included. N represents the number of cases we collected using the data provided. WC represents water conservation, SC represents soil conservation, CS represents carbon sequestration, BM represents biodiversity maintenance, DEE represents diversification of employments and earnings, FPS represents forest product supply, and GP represents grain production.

Biodiversity maintenance was found to have the most trade-offs with other ecosystem services primarily, especially with grain production (87%), forest product supply (75%) and diversification of employments and earnings (100%) (Fig. 4b). Many studies also identified trade-offs between soil conservation and water conservation in forest restoration areas (n = 38), as well as between carbon sequestration and water conservation (n = 54) (Fig. 3), with the trade-offs proportion of 49% and 63%, respectively (Fig. 4b). In terms of ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration, many studies have found a trade-off between grain production and carbon sequestration (n = 13), with the trade-offs proportion of 52%. Grain production has also shown trade-offs with soil conservation (n = 25) and biodiversity maintenance (n = 13), with the trade-offs proportion of 83% and 87%, respectively.

Few studies have systematically investigated the trade-offs between socio-economic outcomes, such as diversification of employments and earnings, and ecological outcomes. Only a limited number of studies have confirmed specific trade-offs between forest product supply and carbon sequestration (n = 4), biodiversity maintenance (n = 3), soil conservation (n = 5), and water conservation (n = 3), with the trade-offs proportion of 50%, 75%, 62% and 60% (Fig. 4b), which requires further investigation in future research.

Direction and intensity of relationship between ecosystem services

We found that the R values between soil conservation and carbon sequestration, soil conservation and biodiversity maintenance, and carbon sequestration and biodiversity maintenance were all mostly greater than 0, while the R values between water conservation and biodiversity maintenance was mainly less than 0. The R values between soil conservation and carbon sequestration, and between soil conservation and biodiversity maintenance, were relatively high, with median values of 0.39 and 0.42 and mean values of 0.40 and 0.45, respectively (Fig. 4c). The median R values between carbon sequestration and biodiversity maintenance was 0.68. The R values between water conservation and biodiversity maintenance were mostly distributed below 0, with a median of -0.30. The R values between water conservation and soil conservation, as well as between water conservation and carbon sequestration, ranged from −1 to 1, with median values of 0.09 and −0.09 and mean values of 0.08 and −0.01, respectively (Fig. 4c).

The R values between grain production and soil conservation, as well as between grain production and biodiversity maintenance, were generally less than 0, with median values of −0.11 and −0.46 and mean values of −0.16 and 0.06, respectively (Fig. 4d). The R values between grain production and water conservation were predominantly positive, with a median value of 0.14. The R values between carbon sequestration and grain production were distributed between −1 and 1, showing large variation across different studies, with the maximum value of 0.83 and minimum value of −0.51, respectively. There was a large variation in the R values between forest product supply and carbon sequestration, with the values ranging from −0.85 to 0.87.

Regional differences in trade-offs among ecological and socio-economic outcomes

Several studies have examined the ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration in the Key Ecological Areas of the Yellow River (n = 56), Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River (n = 20), the Three-North Region (n = 13), the Northeast Forest Belt (n = 7), and South China karst (n = 17), the entire country (n = 9), and regions not in these main forest restoration programs (n = 11) such as Hainan Province, highlighting the trade-offs between these outcomes in representative study areas (Fig. 5). The purpose of forest restoration projects varied depending on the environmental characteristics of each region, and the ecological and socio-economic outcomes of these projects differed accordingly.

Fig. 5 — The proportions are calculated based on the number of papers that identified the trade-offs, rather than the total number of papers.

The main trade-off was identified between water conservation and carbon sequestration as well as water conservation and soil conservation in the Key Ecological Areas of the Yellow River. A total of 56 papers identified 83 trade-off pairs in the ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration on the Loess Plateau. Among all the identified trade-off pairs, carbon sequestration and water conservation, as well as soil conservation and water conservation, exhibited relatively high trade-off ratios of 29% and 25%, respectively (Fig. 5).

There were trade-offs identified between grain production and soil conservation in the Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River, with a total of 20 papers investigating the impacts of forest restoration and found 34 trade-off pairs. The trade-off between grain production and soil conservation was the most prominent in this region, accounting for 21% (Fig. 5). The Three-North Region showed a trade-off between carbon sequestration and water conservation. A total of 13 papers have investigated the impacts of forest restoration in this region and found 15 trade-off pairs. Water conservation and carbon sequestration dominated the trade-off relationships in this region, accounting for 33% of all identified trade-off pairs (Fig. 5).

The trade-offs resulting from forest restoration in Northeast Forest Belt were mainly related to water conservation. A total of 7 papers have investigated the impacts of forest restoration in the Northeast Forest Belt and found 17 trade-off pairs. Among all the identified trade-off pairs, the trade-off ratios between water conservation and carbon sequestration, water conservation and soil conservation, and water conservation and biodiversity maintenance were all 18% (Fig. 5). The main trade-off was identified between carbon sequestration and water conservation as well as grain production and soil conservation in South China karst. 17 papers have investigated the impacts of forest restoration and found 44 trade-off pairs. Among them, nine papers highlighted the trade-off between carbon sequestration and water conservation, while seven papers found the trade-off between grain production and soil conservation. Among all the identified trade-off pairs, the trade-off ratios of these two pairs were 20% and 16%, respectively (Fig. 5).

Discussion

China is set to plant an additional 4.47 billion trees, with forest cover increasing from 23% in 2018 to 30% by 2050²⁶. Under this context, it is clear that decisions around where this restoration occurs can have different influence on the benefits, trade-offs and synergies of forest restoration. This systematic review is the first to synthesize the benefits, synergies, and trade-offs of ecosystem services associated with forest restoration in China, based on 133 case studies. Our study outlined the social and ecological outcomes of forest restoration across the country, with a particular focus on the trade-offs and synergies among these outcomes, as well as regional differences. Overall, forest restoration generally enhances ecosystem services. However, the impacts on water conservation and biodiversity maintenance appear to be mixed. Our study also revealed a widespread trade-off between soil conservation and water conservation across most regions of China, and a notable trade-off existed between grain production and soil conservation, particularly pronounced in South China karst and the Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River. These findings provide critical evidence to inform more balanced, regionally tailored restoration strategies, enabling decision-makers to maximize co-benefits, minimize conflicts, and ensure that large-scale restoration efforts meaningfully contribute to climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable development goals.

Impact of forest restoration on ecosystem services in China

Many studies showed that forest restoration has led to increases in carbon sequestration and soil conservation in China. It highlights the dual ecological benefits of forest restoration in terms of mitigating climate change and improving land stability (Fig. 6). Firstly, forests absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and fix it in various forms, including aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, litter, deadwood, and soil organic matter^12,27. Secondly, forest restoration can reduce soil erosion by intercepting rainfall, enhancing water infiltration into the soil, and stabilizing root development²⁸. Some reviews also suggest that these positive outcomes are not limited to China but are also observed in other countries, such as Ethiopia²⁹ and Bangladesh³⁰, reinforcing the global importance of forest restoration.

Fig. 6 — Here, ‘+‘ indicates an increase, ‘-‘ indicates a decrease, the number indicates the number of studies with positive or negative results, and ‘+/-‘ indicates a mixed change. Field photograph was captured by the author in the South China karst.

Whereas forest restoration had mixed impacts on water conservation and biodiversity maintenance, with some studies reporting positive while other studies showing negative outcomes. Generally, forest restoration tends to decrease water conservation by increasing evapotranspiration³¹ and reducing surface water runoff³². This negative correlation is particularly pronounced in arid and semi-arid regions where water is the limiting factor, or in projects utilizing fast-growing exotic species with high water demand^31,32. Plantations may not support water conservation as effectively as diverse natural forests. Some plantations, such as eucalyptus, may even threaten water resources. However, there are 60% of studies reporting increases in water conservation, which may be impacted by the enhanced land-atmosphere interactions. For example, Zhang et al. (2022) found that forest restoration accelerated local water recycling and increased the local precipitation on annual and seasonal scales by using numerical experiments³³. Forest restoration can improve biodiversity maintenance by providing more or better quality habitats, increasing habitat connectivity and reintroducing native species³⁴. While Bullock et al. (2011) and Kärvemo et al. (2017) found that biodiversity maintenance was increased^35,36, Ren et al (2009) did not, highlighting the uncertainty in this outcome³⁷. We found 35% of studies showed a decrease in biodiversity maintenance following forest restoration in China. Most of the studies used the InVEST Habitat Quality model to assess this outcome, which typically evaluated biodiversity by assigning values to different land use types. However, the model does not distinguish between planted forests and natural forests. As planted forest land is often a monoculture and is subject to human disturbance, it often exhibits notable fragmentation with poor connectivity, weakening biodiversity maintenance^38,39. Therefore, while this decrease in biodiversity maintenance may be an underestimation, it does highlight the need for biodiversity friendly forest restoration to ensure benefits for biodiversity conservation.

For socio-economic outcomes, the available evidence remains sparse and uneven, representing not only a limitation of this study but also a critical finding that highlights a major gap in the current literature on forest restoration. Research attention has been disproportionately focused on grain production, whereas other socio-economic outcomes have received far less consideration. Existing studies suggested that forest restoration could increase forest product supply, but its impact on grain production was mixed, with both positive and negative outcomes reported. Generally, forest restoration would occupy the cropland with slopes greater than 15° or 25°⁴⁰ and decrease grain production⁴¹. Although Xiao et al. (2019) and Li et al. (2024) revealed that forest restoration would reduce grain production, 71% of the studies found that forest restoration increased grain production^41,42. These studies indicated that grain production was less affected by forest restoration in some regions due to ongoing advancements in planting technology and the efficient use of cropland resources^38,43,44. Evidence regarding forest product supply is comparatively more consistent, with the limited number of available studies reporting increases following forest restoration. Forests provide a substantial amount of timber resources and a wealth of non-wood products, including fruits, nuts, gums, and resins^45,46. This suggests that forest restoration holds potential for enhancing local livelihoods. However, given the small number of studies addressing socio-economic outcomes overall, these findings should be interpreted with caution and cannot yet be considered robust evidence of widespread livelihood improvement. Instead, they highlight the need for future research to systematically assess socio-economic impacts using more comprehensive and comparable data.

Key trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services of forest restoration in China

Biodiversity maintenance was found to have the most trade-offs with other ecosystem services under the context of forest restoration, primarily socio-economic outcomes such as grain production, forest product supply and diversification of employments and earnings, with the trade-off ratios of 87%, 75%, 100%, respectively. Agricultural expansion and intensification are key drivers of the global extinction crisis and biodiversity loss⁴⁷. This reflects inherent trade-off between allocating land for natural habitats versus more intensive human land uses like forestry, cropping and built-up land⁴⁸. Although most studies reporting trade-offs between biodiversity and these socio-economic outcomes, some exceptions existed. For example, Xu et al. (2022) found a positive relationship between biodiversity maintenance and grain production, as well as diversification of employments and earnings, suggesting that win-win outcomes might be possible under certain conditions⁴⁹. However, a review conducted in Southeast Asia reported trade-offs between biodiversity and palm oil production for biofuels, emphasizing the reoccurring conflict between agricultural development and biodiversity conservation⁵⁰. Our finding highlights the importance of exploring how forest restoration strategies can be designed to manage these trade-offs, particularly in regions where biodiversity conservation and agricultural development objectives interact.

We identified notable trade-offs between water conservation and both soil conservation and carbon sequestration, alongside strong synergies among carbon sequestration, soil conservation and biodiversity maintenance. Our analysis revealed trade-offs between soil conservation and water conservation (n = 38) in forest restoration areas, as well as between carbon sequestration and water conservation (n = 54). These trade-offs may result from shared drivers (e.g., precipitation) or indirect interactions (e.g., nitrogen dynamics). While soil conservation and water conservation do not directly interact, they are influenced by common factors, such as agricultural activities. In contrast, carbon sequestration has a one-way interaction with water conservation¹⁴. This suggests that optimizing one ecosystem service can have the potential to compromise another, while focusing on their shared driving factors of soil conservation and water conservation, may create opportunities to enhance both services simultaneously. We also found that carbon sequestration had the most synergies with other ecosystem services, primarily soil conservation and biodiversity maintenance. This strong interconnection suggests that efforts to enhance carbon sequestration are likely to generate co-benefits across multiple ecological functions.

We found regional differences in the dominant trade-offs, although the distribution of studies across regions was uneven. Most areas exhibited a trade-off between water conservation and carbon sequestration, while notable trade-offs between grain production and soil conservation were observed in the Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River and the South China karst. These differences may be attributed to distinct environmental characteristics and specific ecological engineering implemented in each region¹⁵. For instance, in the arid and semi-arid Northwest (e.g., the upper reach of Yellow River Basin), the primary restoration objective is often to combat desertification and reduce soil erosion under severe water limitations. Consequently, restoration methods here frequently involve the use of drought-tolerant shrubs (e.g., Caragana) and engineering measures like check dams⁵¹. While effective for soil conservation, these vegetation-intensive approaches often exacerbate water scarcity, leading to the observed trade-off between water conservation and carbon sequestration. The well-represented Key Ecological Areas of the Yellow River and Three-North Region showed 29% and 33% trade-off ratios between water conservation and carbon sequestration, respectively. This may be caused by low and uneven rainfall and desertification may limit runoff, while dense tree cover can worsen this by increasing evapotranspiration⁵². These findings suggest that vegetation management in areas with dense tree cover should focus on optimizing forest structure and species composition to mitigate water scarcity. For example, thinning dense stands and selecting local species with lower water demand can help to reduce evapotranspiration and preserve soil water⁵³.

In contrast, in the humid Southeast China (e.g., the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River Basin), where precipitation is abundant, restoration priorities shift towards biodiversity recovery and reducing soil loss on steep slopes⁵⁴. Here, the primary methods include the conversion of sloping cropland to forests (Grain for Green) and afforestation with fast-growing timber species⁵⁵. These practices often result in trade-offs between grain production and soil conservation due to land-use competition, rather than water constraints. Based on available data, South China karst and Key Ecological Areas of the Yangtze River showed 16% and 21% trade-off ratios between grain production and soil conservation, respectively. Much of the sloped cropland is being converted to forest land, leading to a decline in regional grain production^15,56.

Managing ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies of forest restoration

Forest restoration is a key nature-based solution in China and is set to significantly expand by 2050²⁶. Our study highlights the key trade-offs and synergies between the social and ecological outcomes following forest restoration in China. Although forest restoration can support area based targets and specific ecosystem service benefits like carbon sequestration, in alignment with initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge⁴, the New York Declaration on Forests⁵ and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework⁶, we found that ecosystem services interactions were variable and rapid restoration efforts in China faced notable environmental and socio-economic challenges^7,8,10. Supporting synergies and addressing trade-offs is essential if forest restoration outcomes are to move beyond specific benefits and deliver holistic ecosystem services outcomes that contribute to climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and also broader sustainability goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals^1,57. Regional trade-off differences also highlight the need for forest restoration to be implemented alongside local stakeholder involvement to minimize trade-offs and enhance synergies.

To effectively manage trade-off between biodiversity maintenance and grain production in relation to forest restoration in the humid Southeast China (e.g., the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River Basin and South China karst), a fundamental shift in the restoration approach is required. This could include promoting sustainable forestry⁵⁸, adopting sustainable farming practices⁵⁹, or improving landscape planning⁶⁰, which can all better ensure the trade-offs between agricultural development and biodiversity conservation can be better managed. In detail, sustainable forestry practices involve extending timber rotation periods and minimizing high-intensity thinning, which can enhance structural complexity for biodiversity without significantly compromising carbon storage. Zero tillage practices can help to manage the conflict between grain production and carbon sequestration, as well as biodiversity maintenance, at a site-level⁶¹. Reducing thinning and extending crop rotations, can help to manage trade-offs between grain production and carbon sequestration as well as biodiversity maintenance⁶². Additionally, rural-to-urban migration in China has reduced agricultural pressure in some regions, creating new opportunities for biodiversity conservation⁶³.

In the arid and semi-arid Northwest China (e.g., the upper and middle reaches of Yellow River Basin and Three-North Region), the primary constraint is water availability. Therefore, restoration strategies must shift from high-density afforestation to low-water-consuming vegetation planting, specifically by planting drought-tolerant shrubs (e.g., Caragana) and converting marginal cropland to grassland rather than forest⁵¹. Natural regeneration (e.g., through enclosures/fencing) is also recommended to reduce soil and water depletion compared with artificial plantations⁶⁴. These measures can effectively mitigate the trade-offs between water conservation and carbon sequestration as well as soil conservation by aligning vegetation’s water demand with regional precipitation limits. Crucially, trade-offs in these fragile ecosystems often display threshold effects, where exceeding the vegetation carrying capacity (e.g., excessive tree density) leads to a disproportionate collapse in water conservation⁶⁵. Therefore, identifying region-specific critical thresholds is essential for minimizing ecosystem services trad-offs and achieving synergies of multiple ecosystem services^15,65,66.

To move beyond specific ecosystem services benefits, forest restoration in China should focus on enhancing synergies between key ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, soil conservation and biodiversity maintenance. Carbon sequestration and soil conservation was a key synergy identified in China, where afforestation efforts led to both increased carbon storage in biomass and reduced soil erosion on sloped landscapes. Similar synergies have also been observed in Africa⁶⁷ and India⁶⁸, suggesting that this synergy may represent a globally widespread phenomenon. However, the relationship between carbon sequestration and biodiversity maintenance was not so clear. Although our results suggested that prioritizing biodiversity maintenance may result in a win-win solution for carbon sequestration, prioritizing only carbon sequestration could result in biodiversity loss⁶⁹. This emphasizes the need for a careful balance between the priorities of different ecosystem services in effective management. These site-level approaches to managing ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies can be complemented by landscape-level spatial planning to maximize co-benefits and minimize conflicts between ecosystem services.

Beyond site-level management, landscape configuration is an effective strategy for promoting ecosystem service synergies and managing trade-offs⁷⁰. The spatial arrangement of these areas can prioritize ecological conservation or production, or use a balanced approach, influencing source-sink processes, species composition, and physical interdependencies⁷¹. Conserving certain natural areas can help to maintain ecosystem services. For instance, vegetation buffers along rivers and croplands can reduce trade-offs between grain production and soil conservation as well as carbon sequestration⁷². A multi-zoning approach, where each area supports a variety of species with different combinations, is an effective way to promote ecosystem services synergies⁷³. By considering local conditions, forest restoration strategies can promote both social and ecological benefits, improving the feasibility and effectiveness of restoration. Successful projects require economic incentives and local cultural guidance to ensure sustainability⁶². Stakeholders are crucial, as their cooperation or conflicts can impact project progress. They should be incorporated in forest restoration, with raised awareness about landscape conservation, and be encouraged to participate in the process of developing suitable local solutions⁷⁴.

Limitations and future outlooks

While this study provides valuable insights into the trade-offs and synergies of forest restoration in China, several limitations exist that warrant further research. Firstly, the accuracy of ecosystem services assessments conducted may be influenced by the choice of assessment methods used by each paper reviewed, and other factors such as the spatial scale leading to a source of uncertainty in the results. Among the 133 reviewed studies, 97 used the InVEST model to estimate at least one type of ecosystem service. In contrast, relatively few studies relied on field observations to assess the trade-offs associated with forest restoration. Additionally, the accuracy of the input data and the parameters set during model simulations can influence the results⁷⁵. The predominance of InVEST model-based assessments in this field may introduce methodological bias into the observed patterns of trade-offs and synergies. InVEST model typically employs a proxy-based approach heavily reliant on land use maps. This structural characteristic can induce a mechanical coupling between specific ecosystem services through shared input parameters. For instance, both Carbon Storage and Habitat Quality modules are strictly driven by land use types and their associated biophysical look-up tables. When a specific land use type (e.g., forest) is parameterized with both high carbon density and high habitat suitability, the model outputs will inherently produce a strong synergy between them.

Secondly, social and ecological outcomes assessments of forest restoration should consider various spatial scales⁷⁶, particularly at the watershed and township levels. The township scale represents the fundamental administrative unit and serves as the basis for regional ecosystem-based spatial planning and management. The watershed scale is a crucial natural unit that facilitates the integrated management of water and soil resources⁷⁷. Urbanization and human activities can affect the assessment of forest restoration outcomes, potentially skewing the results⁷⁸. While many studies have investigated changes in ecosystem services within forest restoration areas, the effects of urbanization and human activities in these regions also influence the assessment of forest restoration outcomes^22,79.

Thirdly, we found that forest restoration has predominantly focused on ecological outcomes, with less emphasis placed on the importance of the social outcomes in China, and the research about forest product supply and diversification of employments and earnings was less. The integration of multiple categories of ecosystem services is limited, with most studies focusing on individual or paired ecosystem services, especially for ecological aspects⁸⁰. Lastly, we did not distinguish between plantation forests and natural forests in the analysis of forest restoration. Given the substantial ecological and social differences between these two forest types, this represents an important limitation of this study. Future research should place greater emphasis on using experiment data to quantify ecosystem services provided by different types of forest restoration and further explore their socio-economic outcomes.

Literature review methodology

Search strategy and selection criteria

This study employed the ROSES procedures to explore the trade-offs between the ecosystem service benefits of forest restoration in China. The ROSES flowchart serves as a template for documenting the process of systematic reviews, including searching, screening, and synthesis, which helps to enhance the quality of systematic reviews^81,82. The paper selection process is illustrated in the flowchart below (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 — This flowchart illustrates the systematic process of reviewing the literature. It begins with paper identification and finishing with the primary focus of the data collection.

The identification of papers was done using the Web of Science and Scopus databases up to January 4, 2025. Using the Web of Science database, we applied the following search terms: (TS = (ecological restoration) or TS = (ecological engineering) or TS = (forest restoration) or TS = (afforestation) or TS = (forestation)), (TS = (trade-off) or TS = (synergy) or TS = (trade-offs) or TS = (synergies)), and (TS = (China) or TS = (Chinese)). We collected 493 relevant papers from the Web of Science database. Using the Scopus database, we applied the following search terms: “trade-off” OR “synergy” OR “trade-offs” OR “synergies”; “ecological restoration” OR “ecological engineering” OR “forest restoration” OR “afforestation” OR “forestation”; and “China” OR “Chinese”. This resulted in 304 papers being identified in the Scopus database. In total, 797 papers were identified for further analysis.

To screen the papers, we firstly removed duplicate papers, leaving 601 papers. We further examined these 601 papers and found that four were inaccessible. Each paper was read and screened for eligibility according to the following criteria: (1) the study is an article; (2) the study primarily focuses on forest restoration in China; (3) the study addresses ecosystem services benefits of forest restoration and their trade-offs or synergies. Based on these criteria, we excluded papers focusing on the impact of urbanization, grassland restoration, and those that did not address the ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration and their trade-offs. In the end, 133 papers were selected. If a paper does not contain relevant information regarding the outcomes, synergies or trade-offs of forest restoration in China, it will not be analyzed further.

Data extraction and analysis

We reviewed 133 papers, and data related to the studies, outcomes of forest restoration, and trade-offs and synergies identified were extracted. For each paper, we recorded details such as the study period, study area, reported outcomes of forest restoration, change ratio of specific indicators between the final year and the starting year, and reported trade-offs and synergies between outcomes, as well as its R value. This approach has been widely adopted in similar reviews that aim to summary the benefits of actions^83,84.

We used The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) classification system to generally classify ecosystem services, and adopted more specific descriptors that were related more closely to the outcome measures (Supplementary Table 1). Although all these outcomes were ecosystem services, for the purpose of discussion, we grouped water conservation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration and biodiversity maintenance as ecological outcomes, reflecting the biophysical functions of ecosystems. We also grouped grain production, forest product supply, and diversification of employments and earnings as socio-economic outcomes, highlighting the direct benefits ecosystems provided to human societies.

For ecological outcomes, we recorded the number of papers that mentioned the outcome of forest restoration on carbon sequestration, water conservation, soil conservation, and biodiversity maintenance (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1), as well as the change ratio of these outcomes during the study period. For socio-economic outcomes, we recorded the number of papers that mentioned outcomes on forest product supply, grain production, and the diversification of employments and earnings (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1), and the change ratio of these outcomes during the study period. The methods used to quantify outcomes in these papers were also recorded.

We documented the reported trade-off or synergy between each pair of outcomes, as well as the specific indicators or metrics used in each study to evaluate these relationships, and then calculated the proportion of trade-offs and synergies. The proportion was calculated by using all studies that explicitly reported such relationships. In cases where studies employed correlation analysis to characterize trade-offs or synergies, we extracted the reported correlation coefficient (R value) to represent the intensity of these interactions and only the studies with specific R-value were included.

We firstly summarized the number of studies that focused on different ecosystem services and/or socio-economic outcomes. We secondly collected the outcome of forest restoration expressed as an increase or decrease. To ensure comparability of outcomes across different studies, we calculated the improvement in ecosystem services per year by subtracting one from the ratio between the final year and the starting year of each outcome and then dividing the result by the total study period. This represents how many times the ecosystem service changes each year compared to the base year. When the value is greater than 0, it indicates that forest restoration leads to an improvement in ecosystem services; when the value is less than 0, it indicates that forest restoration results in a decline in ecosystem services.

At the regional level, we further calculated the proportion of trade-offs between each pair of outcomes relative to the total number of trade-offs identified within that region. This allowed us to identify the dominant trade-off pairs within each region.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.^{(18.3KB, docx)}

Acknowledgements

J.P. is supported by the Guangxi Science and Technology Major Program (AA24263011). C.A. was supported by Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship.

Author contributions

T.H. and J.P. designed the study. T.H. and C.A conducted the analyses, supported by J.P., Z.X., H.Z., J.S., J.W., J.D. and Y.H. The manuscript was prepared by T.H., J.P. and C.A, supported by Z.X., H.Z., J.W., J.D. and Y.H.

Data availability

The data used to produce the results of this study is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Code availability

The code used to produce the results of this study is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-026-00134-9.

References

1.Hua, F. et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science376, 839–844 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 | Global Forest Resources Assessment | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. GlobalFRAhttps://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/past-assessments/fra-2020/en/.
3.Poorter, L. et al. Multidimensional tropical forest recovery. Science374, 1370–1376 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Verdone, M. & Seidl, A. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol.25, 903–911 (2017). [Google Scholar]
5.Dave, R. et al. Second Bonn Challenge Progress Report (IUCN, 2019).
6.Nicholson, E. et al. Roles of the red list of ecosystems in the kunming-montreal global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol.8, 614–621 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain.2, 122–129 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Hu, T. et al. Social-ecological heterogeneity drove contrasting tree cover restoration in South China Karst. Commun. Earth Environ.5, 1–9 (2024). [Google Scholar]
9.Peng, J. et al. Balancing the effects of forest conservation and restoration on South China Karst greening. Earth Future11, e2023EF003487 (2023). [Google Scholar]
10.Zhang, J., Fu, B., Stafford-Smith, M., Wang, S. & Zhao, W. Improve forest restoration initiatives to meet Sustainable Development Goal 15. Nat. Ecol. Evol.5, 10–13 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Bryan, B. A. et al. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature559, 193–204 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Liu, H. et al. Nature-based framework for sustainable afforestation in global drylands under changing climate. Glob. Change Biol.28, 2202–2220 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Toivanen, T. & Kotiaho, J. S. Mimicking natural disturbances of boreal forests: the effects of controlled burning and creating dead wood on beetle diversity. Biodivers. Conserv.16, 3193–3211 (2007). [Google Scholar]
14.Feng, Q. et al. Trading-off ecosystem services for better ecological restoration: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. J. Clean. Prod.257, 120469 (2020). [Google Scholar]
15.Wang, C. et al. Determining critical thresholds of ecological restoration based on ecosystem service index: a case study in the Pingjiang catchment in southern China. J. Environ. Manag.303, 114220 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature562, 259–262 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Fu, B., Liu, Y. & Meadows, M. E. Ecological restoration for sustainable development in China. Natl. Sci. Rev.10, nwad033 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Zheng, H. et al. Effects of vegetation changes and multiple environmental factors on evapotranspiration across China over the past 34 years. Earth Future10, e2021EF002564 (2022). [Google Scholar]
19.Ren, Y. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functional enhancement by forest restoration: a meta-analysis in China. Land Degrad. Dev.28, 2062–2073 (2017). [Google Scholar]
20.Wu, F. et al. Challenges in trade-off governance of ecosystem services: Evidence from the Loess Plateau in China. Ecol. Indic.145, 109686 (2022). [Google Scholar]
21.Zhao, D. et al. Does increasing forest age lead to greater trade-offs in ecosystem services? A study of a Robinia pseudoacacia artificial forest on the Loess Plateau. China Sci. Total Environ.926, 171737 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Chen, T. et al. Response and multiscenario simulation of trade-offs/synergies among ecosystem services to the Grain to Green Program: a case study of the Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration. China Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29, 33572–33586 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Chen, X. et al. Trade-offs between grain supply and soil conservation in the Grain for Green Program under changing climate: a case study in the Three Gorges Reservoir region. Sci. Total Environ.945, 173786 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Wang, Y. et al. Impact of land use change on water-related ecosystem services under multiple ecological restoration scenarios in the Ganjiang River Basin, China. Forests15, 1225 (2024). [Google Scholar]
25.TEEB. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management (ed. Kumar, P.) 94 (Geneva: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 2011).
26.Yao, L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of tree planting in China. Nat. Commun.15, 8398 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Feng, Y. et al. Changes in the trends of vegetation net primary productivity in China between 1982 and 2015. Environ. Res. Lett.14, 124009 (2019). [Google Scholar]
28.Huang, Z. et al. The texture, structure and nutrient availability of artificial soil on cut slopes restored with OSSS – Influence of restoration time. J. Environ. Manag.200, 502–510 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Kassaye, M. et al. Carbon stock dynamics in Ethiopian forests; a systematic review for sustainable forest management towards climate change mitigation. Trees For. People20, 100841 (2025). [Google Scholar]
30.Hilmi, N. et al. Blue carbon as a nature-based climate mitigation strategy for mangrove conservation in Bangladesh. J. Nat. Conserv.86, 126885 (2025). [Google Scholar]
31.Feng, X. et al. Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang.6, 1019–1022 (2016). [Google Scholar]
32.Farley, K. A. et al. Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Glob. Change Biol.11, 1565–1576 (2005). [Google Scholar]
33.Zhang, B. et al. Revegetation does not decrease water yield in the Loess Plateau of China. Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2022GL098025 (2022). [Google Scholar]
34.Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Moving biodiversity from an afterthought to a key outcome of forest restoration. Nat. Rev. Biodivers.1, 248–261 (2025). [Google Scholar]
35.Bullock, J. M. et al. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol.26, 541–549 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Kärvemo, S. et al. Forest restoration as a double-edged sword: the conflict between biodiversity conservation and pest control. J. Appl. Ecol.54, 1658–1668 (2017). [Google Scholar]
37.Ren, H. et al. Sonneratia apetala Buch.Ham in the mangrove ecosystems of China: An invasive species or restoration species? Ecol. Eng.35, 1243–1248 (2009). [Google Scholar]
38.Ai, Z. et al. Evaluation and classification of landscape functions: A case of Pengyang County on the Loess Plateau. Ecol. Indic.142, 109221 (2022). [Google Scholar]
39.Yang, J. et al. Ecosystem services assessment, trade-off, and bundles in the Yellow River Basin, China. Diversity13, 308 (2021). [Google Scholar]
40.Qiu, S. et al. Unraveling trade-offs among reforestation, urbanization, and food security in the South China Karst region: how can a hinterland province achieve SDGs? Earth Future10, e2022EF002867 (2022). [Google Scholar]
41.Li, Y. et al. Trade-off analyses between food provision and soil conservation service of Grain for Green Program in Mountainous Area. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.12, 43–53 (2024). [Google Scholar]
42.Xiao, M. et al. Spatiotemporal changes and the driving forces of sloping farmland areas in the Sichuan region. Sustainability11, 906 (2019). [Google Scholar]
43.Li, K. et al. Identifying the potential areas of afforestation projects using cost-benefit analysis based on ecosystem services and farmland suitability: a case study of the Grain for Green Project in Jinan, China. Sci. Total Environ.787, 147542 (2021). [Google Scholar]
44.Lu, Q. et al. Influences of the Grain-for-Green project on grain security in southern China. Ecol. Indic.34, 616–622 (2013). [Google Scholar]
45.Chou, P. The role of non-timber forest products in creating incentives for forest conservation: a case study of Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Resources7, 41 (2018). [Google Scholar]
46.Zhu, L. & Lo, K. Non-timber forest products as livelihood restoration in forest conservation: a restorative justice approach. Trees, For. People6, 100130 (2021). [Google Scholar]
47.Kehoe, L. et al. Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nat. Ecol. Evol.1, 1129–1135 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Feng, Y. et al. Optimization of land-use pattern based on suitability and trade-offs between land development and protection: a case study of the Hohhot-Baotou-Ordos (HBO) area in Inner Mongolia, China. J. Clean. Prod.466, 142796 (2024). [Google Scholar]
49.Xu, G. et al. Bundling evaluating changes in ecosystem service under karst rocky desertification restoration: projects a case study of Huajiang-Guanling, Guizhou province, Southwest China. Environ. Earth Sci.81, 302 (2022). [Google Scholar]
50.Mukherjee, I. & Sovacool, B. K. Palm oil-based biofuels and sustainability in Southeast Asia: a review of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.37, 1–12 (2014). [Google Scholar]
51.Zhu, T. et al. Effect of Caragana microphylla Lam. on desertified grassland restoration. Forests15, 1801 (2024).
52.Chen, H. et al. Balancing the needs of China’s wetland conservation and rice production. Environ. Sci. Technol.49, 6385–6393 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Deng, C. et al. Vegetation dynamics and their effects on surface water-energy balance over the Three-North Region of China. Agric. Meteorol.275, 79–90 (2019). [Google Scholar]
54.Qu, S. et al. What drives the vegetation restoration in Yangtze River basin, China: climate change or anthropogenic factors? Ecol. Indic.90, 438–450 (2018). [Google Scholar]
55.Ouyang, Z. et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science352, 1455–1459 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Li, H. et al. Understanding the contrasting effects of policy-driven ecosystem conservation projects in northeastern China. Ecol. Indic.135, 108578 (2022). [Google Scholar]
57.Mazziotta, A. et al. More future synergies and less trade-offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions. Glob. Change Biol.28, 6333–6348 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Sample, V. A. Sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation: toward a new consensus. J. Sustain.21, 137–150 (2006). [Google Scholar]
59.Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.40, 132–144 (2016). [Google Scholar]
60.Tscharntke, T. et al. Beyond organic farming—harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol.36, 919–930 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Manners, R. & Varela-Ortega, C. The role of decision-making in ecosystem service trade-offs in lowland Bolivia’s Amazonian agricultural systems. Ecol. Econ.153, 31–42 (2018). [Google Scholar]
62.Tedesco, A. M. et al. Beyond ecology: ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecological transformation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 643–653 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed]
63.Zhang, X. et al. A large but transient carbon sink from urbanization and rural depopulation in China. Nat. Sustain.5, 321–328 (2022). [Google Scholar]
64.Wang, N. et al. Disparities in soil and water conservation functions among different forest types and implications for afforestation on the Loess Plateau. Ecol. Indic.155, 110935 (2023). [Google Scholar]
65.Peng, J. et al. Applying production-possibility frontier based ecosystem services trade-off to identify optimal scenarios of Grain-for-Green Program. Landsc. Urban Plan.242, 104956 (2024). [Google Scholar]
66.Liu, Q. et al. Optimizing the landscape in grain production and identifying trade-offs between ecological benefits based on production possibility frontiers: a case study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. J. Environ. Manag.377, 124583 (2025). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Kassun, B. W. et al. Land use and land cover change, trade-offs, and synergies between ecosystem services in a dry Afromontane Forest. J. Nat. Conserv.85, 126874 (2025). [Google Scholar]
68.Hasanuzzaman, M. et al. Implement agroforestry practices to reduce soil erosion and promote multiple beneficial ecosystem services in the gully-degraded lands of Northwest West Bengal. India Ecol. Front.45, 547–560 (2025). [Google Scholar]
69.Reside, A. E. et al. Trade-offs in carbon storage and biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species. Biol. Conserv.207, 9–16 (2017). [Google Scholar]
70.Karimi, J. D. et al. Understanding the importance of landscape configuration on ecosystem service bundles at a high resolution in urban landscapes in the UK. Landsc. Ecol.36, 2007–2024 (2021). [Google Scholar]
71.Xu, Z. & Peng, J. Ecosystem services-based decision-making: a bridge from science to practice. Environ. Sci. Policy135, 6–15 (2022). [Google Scholar]
72.Kennedy, C. M. et al. Optimizing land use decision-making to sustain Brazilian agricultural profits, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv.204, 221–230 (2016). [Google Scholar]
73.Zheng, H. et al. Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to achieve win–win outcomes: a review of the approaches. J. Environ. Sci.82, 103–112 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain.3, 182–190 (2020). [Google Scholar]
75.Gosal, A. S. et al. Understanding the accuracy of modelled changes in freshwater provision over time. Sci. Total Environ.833, 155042 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Andrew, M. E. et al. Spatial data, analysis approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments: a review. GISci. Remote Sens.52, 344–373 (2015). [Google Scholar]
77.Liao, Q. et al. Exploring the ecosystem services bundles and influencing drivers at different scales in southern Jiangxi, China. Ecol. Indic.148, 110089 (2023). [Google Scholar]
78.Xu, X. et al. Ecological engineering induced carbon sinks shifting from decreasing to increasing during 1981–2019 in China. Sci. Total Environ.864, 161037 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79.Hu, T. et al. Stage response of vegetation dynamics to urbanization in megacities: A case study of Changsha City, China. Sci. Total Environ.858, 159659 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Martinez-Harms, M. J. et al. Navigating ecosystem services trade-offs: a global comprehensive review. Ambio.54, 1109–1127 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
81.ROSES Flow Diagram for Systematic Reviews. Version 1.0. figsharehttps://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/ROSES_Flow_Diagram_Version_1_0/5897389/3 (2018)
82.Xu, Z. & Peng, J. Recognizing ecosystem service’s contribution to SDGs: Ecological foundation of sustainable development. Geogr. Sustain.5, 511–525 (2024). [Google Scholar]
83.Cruz, D. et al. Legume intensification leads to social-ecological win-win outcomes globally, 02 Oct 2024, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4859479/v1 [DOI]
84.Guy-Haim, T. et al. Diverse effects of invasive ecosystem engineers on marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions: a global review and meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol.24, 906–924 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary information.^{(18.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

The data used to produce the results of this study is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

The code used to produce the results of this study is available from the authors upon reasonable request.

[CR1] 1.Hua, F. et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science376, 839–844 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR2] 2.Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 | Global Forest Resources Assessment | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. GlobalFRAhttps://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/past-assessments/fra-2020/en/.

[CR3] 3.Poorter, L. et al. Multidimensional tropical forest recovery. Science374, 1370–1376 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR4] 4.Verdone, M. & Seidl, A. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol.25, 903–911 (2017). [Google Scholar]

[CR5] 5.Dave, R. et al. Second Bonn Challenge Progress Report (IUCN, 2019).

[CR6] 6.Nicholson, E. et al. Roles of the red list of ecosystems in the kunming-montreal global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol.8, 614–621 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR7] 7.Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain.2, 122–129 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR8] 8.Hu, T. et al. Social-ecological heterogeneity drove contrasting tree cover restoration in South China Karst. Commun. Earth Environ.5, 1–9 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR9] 9.Peng, J. et al. Balancing the effects of forest conservation and restoration on South China Karst greening. Earth Future11, e2023EF003487 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR10] 10.Zhang, J., Fu, B., Stafford-Smith, M., Wang, S. & Zhao, W. Improve forest restoration initiatives to meet Sustainable Development Goal 15. Nat. Ecol. Evol.5, 10–13 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR11] 11.Bryan, B. A. et al. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature559, 193–204 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR12] 12.Liu, H. et al. Nature-based framework for sustainable afforestation in global drylands under changing climate. Glob. Change Biol.28, 2202–2220 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR13] 13.Toivanen, T. & Kotiaho, J. S. Mimicking natural disturbances of boreal forests: the effects of controlled burning and creating dead wood on beetle diversity. Biodivers. Conserv.16, 3193–3211 (2007). [Google Scholar]

[CR14] 14.Feng, Q. et al. Trading-off ecosystem services for better ecological restoration: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. J. Clean. Prod.257, 120469 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR15] 15.Wang, C. et al. Determining critical thresholds of ecological restoration based on ecosystem service index: a case study in the Pingjiang catchment in southern China. J. Environ. Manag.303, 114220 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR16] 16.Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature562, 259–262 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR17] 17.Fu, B., Liu, Y. & Meadows, M. E. Ecological restoration for sustainable development in China. Natl. Sci. Rev.10, nwad033 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR18] 18.Zheng, H. et al. Effects of vegetation changes and multiple environmental factors on evapotranspiration across China over the past 34 years. Earth Future10, e2021EF002564 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR19] 19.Ren, Y. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functional enhancement by forest restoration: a meta-analysis in China. Land Degrad. Dev.28, 2062–2073 (2017). [Google Scholar]

[CR20] 20.Wu, F. et al. Challenges in trade-off governance of ecosystem services: Evidence from the Loess Plateau in China. Ecol. Indic.145, 109686 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR21] 21.Zhao, D. et al. Does increasing forest age lead to greater trade-offs in ecosystem services? A study of a Robinia pseudoacacia artificial forest on the Loess Plateau. China Sci. Total Environ.926, 171737 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR22] 22.Chen, T. et al. Response and multiscenario simulation of trade-offs/synergies among ecosystem services to the Grain to Green Program: a case study of the Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration. China Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29, 33572–33586 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR23] 23.Chen, X. et al. Trade-offs between grain supply and soil conservation in the Grain for Green Program under changing climate: a case study in the Three Gorges Reservoir region. Sci. Total Environ.945, 173786 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR24] 24.Wang, Y. et al. Impact of land use change on water-related ecosystem services under multiple ecological restoration scenarios in the Ganjiang River Basin, China. Forests15, 1225 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR25] 25.TEEB. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management (ed. Kumar, P.) 94 (Geneva: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 2011).

[CR26] 26.Yao, L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of tree planting in China. Nat. Commun.15, 8398 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR27] 27.Feng, Y. et al. Changes in the trends of vegetation net primary productivity in China between 1982 and 2015. Environ. Res. Lett.14, 124009 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR28] 28.Huang, Z. et al. The texture, structure and nutrient availability of artificial soil on cut slopes restored with OSSS – Influence of restoration time. J. Environ. Manag.200, 502–510 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR29] 29.Kassaye, M. et al. Carbon stock dynamics in Ethiopian forests; a systematic review for sustainable forest management towards climate change mitigation. Trees For. People20, 100841 (2025). [Google Scholar]

[CR30] 30.Hilmi, N. et al. Blue carbon as a nature-based climate mitigation strategy for mangrove conservation in Bangladesh. J. Nat. Conserv.86, 126885 (2025). [Google Scholar]

[CR31] 31.Feng, X. et al. Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang.6, 1019–1022 (2016). [Google Scholar]

[CR32] 32.Farley, K. A. et al. Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Glob. Change Biol.11, 1565–1576 (2005). [Google Scholar]

[CR33] 33.Zhang, B. et al. Revegetation does not decrease water yield in the Loess Plateau of China. Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2022GL098025 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR34] 34.Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Moving biodiversity from an afterthought to a key outcome of forest restoration. Nat. Rev. Biodivers.1, 248–261 (2025). [Google Scholar]

[CR35] 35.Bullock, J. M. et al. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol.26, 541–549 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR36] 36.Kärvemo, S. et al. Forest restoration as a double-edged sword: the conflict between biodiversity conservation and pest control. J. Appl. Ecol.54, 1658–1668 (2017). [Google Scholar]

[CR37] 37.Ren, H. et al. Sonneratia apetala Buch.Ham in the mangrove ecosystems of China: An invasive species or restoration species? Ecol. Eng.35, 1243–1248 (2009). [Google Scholar]

[CR38] 38.Ai, Z. et al. Evaluation and classification of landscape functions: A case of Pengyang County on the Loess Plateau. Ecol. Indic.142, 109221 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR39] 39.Yang, J. et al. Ecosystem services assessment, trade-off, and bundles in the Yellow River Basin, China. Diversity13, 308 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR40] 40.Qiu, S. et al. Unraveling trade-offs among reforestation, urbanization, and food security in the South China Karst region: how can a hinterland province achieve SDGs? Earth Future10, e2022EF002867 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR41] 41.Li, Y. et al. Trade-off analyses between food provision and soil conservation service of Grain for Green Program in Mountainous Area. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.12, 43–53 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR42] 42.Xiao, M. et al. Spatiotemporal changes and the driving forces of sloping farmland areas in the Sichuan region. Sustainability11, 906 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR43] 43.Li, K. et al. Identifying the potential areas of afforestation projects using cost-benefit analysis based on ecosystem services and farmland suitability: a case study of the Grain for Green Project in Jinan, China. Sci. Total Environ.787, 147542 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR44] 44.Lu, Q. et al. Influences of the Grain-for-Green project on grain security in southern China. Ecol. Indic.34, 616–622 (2013). [Google Scholar]

[CR45] 45.Chou, P. The role of non-timber forest products in creating incentives for forest conservation: a case study of Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Resources7, 41 (2018). [Google Scholar]

[CR46] 46.Zhu, L. & Lo, K. Non-timber forest products as livelihood restoration in forest conservation: a restorative justice approach. Trees, For. People6, 100130 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR47] 47.Kehoe, L. et al. Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nat. Ecol. Evol.1, 1129–1135 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR48] 48.Feng, Y. et al. Optimization of land-use pattern based on suitability and trade-offs between land development and protection: a case study of the Hohhot-Baotou-Ordos (HBO) area in Inner Mongolia, China. J. Clean. Prod.466, 142796 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR49] 49.Xu, G. et al. Bundling evaluating changes in ecosystem service under karst rocky desertification restoration: projects a case study of Huajiang-Guanling, Guizhou province, Southwest China. Environ. Earth Sci.81, 302 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR50] 50.Mukherjee, I. & Sovacool, B. K. Palm oil-based biofuels and sustainability in Southeast Asia: a review of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.37, 1–12 (2014). [Google Scholar]

[CR51] 51.Zhu, T. et al. Effect of Caragana microphylla Lam. on desertified grassland restoration. Forests15, 1801 (2024).

[CR52] 52.Chen, H. et al. Balancing the needs of China’s wetland conservation and rice production. Environ. Sci. Technol.49, 6385–6393 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR53] 53.Deng, C. et al. Vegetation dynamics and their effects on surface water-energy balance over the Three-North Region of China. Agric. Meteorol.275, 79–90 (2019). [Google Scholar]

[CR54] 54.Qu, S. et al. What drives the vegetation restoration in Yangtze River basin, China: climate change or anthropogenic factors? Ecol. Indic.90, 438–450 (2018). [Google Scholar]

[CR55] 55.Ouyang, Z. et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science352, 1455–1459 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR56] 56.Li, H. et al. Understanding the contrasting effects of policy-driven ecosystem conservation projects in northeastern China. Ecol. Indic.135, 108578 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR57] 57.Mazziotta, A. et al. More future synergies and less trade-offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions. Glob. Change Biol.28, 6333–6348 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR58] 58.Sample, V. A. Sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation: toward a new consensus. J. Sustain.21, 137–150 (2006). [Google Scholar]

[CR59] 59.Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.40, 132–144 (2016). [Google Scholar]

[CR60] 60.Tscharntke, T. et al. Beyond organic farming—harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol.36, 919–930 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR61] 61.Manners, R. & Varela-Ortega, C. The role of decision-making in ecosystem service trade-offs in lowland Bolivia’s Amazonian agricultural systems. Ecol. Econ.153, 31–42 (2018). [Google Scholar]

[CR62] 62.Tedesco, A. M. et al. Beyond ecology: ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecological transformation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 643–653 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed]

[CR63] 63.Zhang, X. et al. A large but transient carbon sink from urbanization and rural depopulation in China. Nat. Sustain.5, 321–328 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR64] 64.Wang, N. et al. Disparities in soil and water conservation functions among different forest types and implications for afforestation on the Loess Plateau. Ecol. Indic.155, 110935 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR65] 65.Peng, J. et al. Applying production-possibility frontier based ecosystem services trade-off to identify optimal scenarios of Grain-for-Green Program. Landsc. Urban Plan.242, 104956 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR66] 66.Liu, Q. et al. Optimizing the landscape in grain production and identifying trade-offs between ecological benefits based on production possibility frontiers: a case study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. J. Environ. Manag.377, 124583 (2025). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR67] 67.Kassun, B. W. et al. Land use and land cover change, trade-offs, and synergies between ecosystem services in a dry Afromontane Forest. J. Nat. Conserv.85, 126874 (2025). [Google Scholar]

[CR68] 68.Hasanuzzaman, M. et al. Implement agroforestry practices to reduce soil erosion and promote multiple beneficial ecosystem services in the gully-degraded lands of Northwest West Bengal. India Ecol. Front.45, 547–560 (2025). [Google Scholar]

[CR69] 69.Reside, A. E. et al. Trade-offs in carbon storage and biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species. Biol. Conserv.207, 9–16 (2017). [Google Scholar]

[CR70] 70.Karimi, J. D. et al. Understanding the importance of landscape configuration on ecosystem service bundles at a high resolution in urban landscapes in the UK. Landsc. Ecol.36, 2007–2024 (2021). [Google Scholar]

[CR71] 71.Xu, Z. & Peng, J. Ecosystem services-based decision-making: a bridge from science to practice. Environ. Sci. Policy135, 6–15 (2022). [Google Scholar]

[CR72] 72.Kennedy, C. M. et al. Optimizing land use decision-making to sustain Brazilian agricultural profits, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv.204, 221–230 (2016). [Google Scholar]

[CR73] 73.Zheng, H. et al. Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to achieve win–win outcomes: a review of the approaches. J. Environ. Sci.82, 103–112 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR74] 74.Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain.3, 182–190 (2020). [Google Scholar]

[CR75] 75.Gosal, A. S. et al. Understanding the accuracy of modelled changes in freshwater provision over time. Sci. Total Environ.833, 155042 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR76] 76.Andrew, M. E. et al. Spatial data, analysis approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments: a review. GISci. Remote Sens.52, 344–373 (2015). [Google Scholar]

[CR77] 77.Liao, Q. et al. Exploring the ecosystem services bundles and influencing drivers at different scales in southern Jiangxi, China. Ecol. Indic.148, 110089 (2023). [Google Scholar]

[CR78] 78.Xu, X. et al. Ecological engineering induced carbon sinks shifting from decreasing to increasing during 1981–2019 in China. Sci. Total Environ.864, 161037 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR79] 79.Hu, T. et al. Stage response of vegetation dynamics to urbanization in megacities: A case study of Changsha City, China. Sci. Total Environ.858, 159659 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR80] 80.Martinez-Harms, M. J. et al. Navigating ecosystem services trade-offs: a global comprehensive review. Ambio.54, 1109–1127 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[CR81] 81.ROSES Flow Diagram for Systematic Reviews. Version 1.0. figsharehttps://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/ROSES_Flow_Diagram_Version_1_0/5897389/3 (2018)

[CR82] 82.Xu, Z. & Peng, J. Recognizing ecosystem service’s contribution to SDGs: Ecological foundation of sustainable development. Geogr. Sustain.5, 511–525 (2024). [Google Scholar]

[CR83] 83.Cruz, D. et al. Legume intensification leads to social-ecological win-win outcomes globally, 02 Oct 2024, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4859479/v1 [DOI]

[CR84] 84.Guy-Haim, T. et al. Diverse effects of invasive ecosystem engineers on marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions: a global review and meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol.24, 906–924 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Synthesizing the ecosystem services benefits, synergies and trade-offs of forest restoration in China

Tao Hu

Jian Peng

Zihan Xu

Huining Zheng

Jiayao Shu

Jiabin Wang

Jianquan Dong

Yi’na Hu

Carla L Archibald

Abstract

Introduction

Fig. 1. Potential ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration.

Overview of ecosystem services benefits of forest restoration in China

Fig. 2. Social-ecological outcomes of forest restoration.

Water conservation

Soil conservation

Carbon sequestration

Biodiversity maintenance

Grain production

Forest product supply and diversification of employments and earnings

Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services benefits of forest restoration

Fig. 3. Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration.

Proportion of trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services

Fig. 4. Trade-offs and synergies between ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration.

Direction and intensity of relationship between ecosystem services

Regional differences in trade-offs among ecological and socio-economic outcomes

Fig. 5. Trade-offs between ecological and socio-economic outcomes of forest restoration in different regions.

Discussion

Impact of forest restoration on ecosystem services in China

Fig. 6. Impact of forest restoration on socio-economic and ecological outcomes.

Key trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services of forest restoration in China

Managing ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies of forest restoration

Limitations and future outlooks

Literature review methodology

Search strategy and selection criteria

Fig. 7. Literature review flowchart.

Data extraction and analysis

Supplementary information

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Data availability

Code availability

Competing interests

Footnotes

Supplementary information

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases