A lesson unlearned? Underestimating tree cover in drylands biases global restoration maps

Two recent global maps of tree restoration potential have identified vast regions where tree cover could be increased, ranging from 0.9 to 2.3 billion hectares. Both maps, however, emphasized dryland regions, with arid biomes making up 36%–42% of potential restoration area. Dryland biomes have repeatedly been recognized as inappropriate regions for expanding tree cover due to the risks of biodiversity loss, water overconsumption, and fire, so maps that highlight these regions for restoration must sustain careful scrutiny. Here, I show that both recent attempts to map restoration potential in arid regions have been hindered by underlying errors in the global tree cover maps they used. Systematic underestimates of existing sparse tree cover led directly to large overestimates of the potential for tree recovery in drylands. The Atlas of Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities (Laestadius et al., Unasylva, 2011, 62, 47) overestimated tree restoration potential across a third of arid biomes by between 7% and 20% (55–166 million hectares [Mha]). Similarly, Bastin, Finegold, Garcia, Mollicone, et al. (Science, 2019, 365, 76) overestimated tree restoration potential across all arid biomes by 33%–45% (316–440 Mha). These inaccuracies limit the utility of this research for policy decisions in drylands and overstate the potential for tree planting to address climate change. Given this long‐standing but underappreciated challenge in mapping global tree cover, I propose various ways forward that keep this lesson in mind. To better monitor and restore tree cover, I call for re‐interpretation and correction of existing global maps, and for a new focus on quantifying sparse tree cover in drylands and other systems. An analysis of two recent studies (Bastin, Finegold, Garcia, Mollicone, et al., Science, 2019, 365, 76; Laestadius et al., Unasylva, 2011, 62, 47) reveals that errors in global tree cover products inflated their estimates of the potential area available for tree restoration in arid biomes, by as much as 45%. For example, the Hansen et al. (Science, 2013, 342, 850) global product underpredicted tree cover in drylands (panel A; Bastin, Berrahmouni, et al., Science, 2017, 356, 635); the boxes highlight locations where extensive tree restoration potential (panel B; Bastin, Finegold, Garcia, Mollicone, et al., Science, 2019, 365, 76) coincides with tree cover underpredictions in drylands. Drylands can benefit from restoring trees, but restoration programs and pro