WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
In surveys of 352 households and 72 plots, mean living-baobab biomass carbon was highest in homesteads (58.61 Mg C/ha), followed by agricultural parkland (48.15) and woodland (43.51). Juvenile recruitment was poor across land uses and woodlands lacked very large diameter cohorts.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
Standing carbon says little about population replacement. Stewardship should connect regeneration and local land-use pressure with standing-stock measurements and the benefits households receive from baobabs.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
Biomass stocks are not total ecosystem carbon. Neither the surveyed pressures nor the authors' assisted-regeneration recommendations were experimentally evaluated.
SOURCE
Abebe and Reda · Discover Sustainability · Ethiopian baobab study
View original evidence ↗