Scoping review of climate-smart forestry for carbon sequestration in boreal and temperate forests

Abstract Afforestation, reforestation, conservation, and restoration represent nature-based solutions (NBS) for carbon sequestration. These forest management options, aimed at advancing global targets outlined in international agreements, may limit the provision of specific ecosystem services and generate trade-offs, posing notable challenges for silviculture. In this context, we conducted a scoping review to collect and map evidence from studies evaluating management strategies for establishing, preserving, and restoring forest carbon sinks within a climate-smart framework in boreal and temperate ecoregions. We gathered data on forest types, the scale and duration of the analysis, carbon sequestration estimation methods, carbon pool types, disturbances, synergies and trade-offs. Our search, covering the period 1990–2025, revealed an increase in peer-reviewed research on afforestation, reforestation, conservation, and restoration outcomes since 2012, with occasional declines (e.g., 2014–2015 and 2019) indicating fluctuations in research intensity. Most of the studies were conducted in Europe (49%), North America (39%), and Asia (12%). Aboveground biomass and soil were the most frequently assessed carbon pools, with most studies employing wood or soil sampling and modelling approaches (e.g., the Gap-type forest ecosystem model, Yasso07 model, Forest Vegetation Simulator model) to estimate carbon sequestration. Our analysis revealed a critical gap in comprehensive assessments of synergies and trade-offs between climate-smart and conventional land management practices, particularly regarding their carbon sequestration potential and the effectiveness of climate-smart strategies in mitigating risks to forest carbon capture and storage functions. Additionally, uncertainty in climate projections limits the ability to optimise benefits and minimise trade-offs through silvicultural strategies. This scoping review highlights a scarcity of studies that explicitly address trade-offs among management strategies and goals. Greater empirical evidence, cross-sectoral integration (e.g., forestry and agriculture), and concurrent consideration of climate impacts and market dynamics are needed.