Large‐scale impact of climate change vs. land‐use change on future biome shifts in Latin America

Boit, Alice; Sakschewski, Boris; Boysen, Lena; Cano-Crespo, Ana; Clément, Jan; García-Alaníz, Nashieli; Kok, Kasper; Kolb, Mélanie; Langerwisch, Fanny; Rammig, Anja; Sachse, René; Eupen, M. van; Bloh, Werner von; Zemp, Delphine Clara; Thonicke, Kirsten

doi:10.1111/gcb.13355

Cited by 43 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several modeling studies have investigated the relative importance of historic or future LUC versus CC impacts on ecosystems by studying the effects on variables like vegetation cover and/or carbon cycling globally (e.g., Davies-Barnard et al, 2015;Devaraju et al, 2016;Levy et al, 2004;McGuire et al, 2001;Müller et al, 2007;Ostberg et al, 2015;Tharammal et al, 2018) or regionally (Aleman et al, 2016;Boit et al, 2016;Zaehle et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2015). However, these studies were often restricted by the usage of only ©2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodel Analysis of Future Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Functioning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land use and climate changes both affect terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we used three combinations of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and Representative Concentration Pathways (SSP1xRCP26, SSP3xRCP60, and SSP5xRCP85) as input to three dynamic global vegetation models to assess the impacts and associated uncertainty on several ecosystem functions: terrestrial carbon storage and fluxes, evapotranspiration, surface albedo, and runoff. We also performed sensitivity simulations in which we kept either land use or climate (including atmospheric CO 2 ) constant from year 2015 on to calculate the isolated land use versus climate effects. By the 2080-2099 period, carbon storage increases by up to 87 ± 47 Gt (SSP1xRCP26) compared to present day, with large spatial variance across scenarios and models. Most of the carbon uptake is attributed to drivers beyond future land use and climate change, particularly the lagged effects of historic environmental changes. Future climate change typically increases carbon stocks in vegetation but not soils, while future land use change causes carbon losses, even for net agricultural abandonment (SSP1xRCP26). Evapotranspiration changes are highly variable across scenarios, and models do not agree on the magnitude or even sign of change of the individual effects. A calculated decrease in January and July surface albedo (up to −0.021 ± 0.007 and −0.004 ± 0.004 for SSP5xRCP85) and increase in runoff (+67 ± 6 mm/year) is largely driven by climate change. Overall, our results show that future land use and climate change will both have substantial impacts on ecosystem functioning. However, future changes can often not be fully explained by these two drivers and legacy effects have to be considered.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodel Analysis of Future Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Functioning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crop yield refers to the harvested biomass and is translated to calorific values by first converting biomass carbon to dry matter and further to fresh matter (Wirsenius, ) before crop‐specific calorific factors are being applied (FAO). The model's performance in simulating agricultural properties has been demonstrated in many applications (Boit et al., ; Bondeau et al., ; Fader et al., ; Jägermeyr et al., ; Maiorano et al., ; Rolinski et al., ; Sakschewski, von Bloh, Huber, Müller, & Bondeau, ; Schauberger et al., ; Waha, van Bussel, Müller, & Bondeau, ; Weindl et al., ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade‐offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential

Boysen

Lucht

Gerten

2017

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale biomass plantations (BPs) are a common factor in climate mitigation scenarios as they promise double benefits: extracting carbon from the atmosphere and providing a renewable energy source. However, their terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) potentials depend on important factors such as land availability, efficiency of capturing biomass-derived carbon and the timing of operation. Land availability is restricted by the demands of future food production depending on yield increases and population growth, by requirements for nature conservation and, with respect to climate mitigation, avoiding unfavourable albedo changes. We integrate these factors in one spatially explicit biogeochemical simulation framework to explore the tCDR opportunity space on land available after these constraints are taken into account, starting either in 2020 or 2050, and lasting until 2100. We find that assumed future needs for nature protection and food production strongly limit tCDR potentials. BPs on abandoned crop and pasture areas (~1,300 Mha in scenarios of either 8.0 billion people and yield gap reductions of 25% until 2020 or 9.5 billion people and yield gap reductions of 50% until 2050) could, theoretically, sequester ~100 GtC in land carbon stocks and biomass harvest by 2100. However, this potential would be ~80% lower if only cropland was available or ~50% lower if albedo decreases were considered as a factor restricting land availability. Converting instead natural forest, shrubland or grassland into BPs could result in much larger tCDR potentials ̶ but at high environmental costs (e.g. biodiversity loss). The most promising avenue for effective tCDR seems to be improvement of efficient carbon utilization pathways, changes in dietary trends or the restoration of marginal lands for the implementation of tCDR.

show abstract

“…Soil data were based on the Harmonized World Soil Database (Schaphoff et al 2013). Land-use data were taken from the land-cover change model CLUE (Conservation of Land Use and its Effects), which was used in the ROBIN project (van Eupen et al 2014;Boit et al 2016). A spin-up period of 1000 years was used to bring the carbon pools and fluxes of the vegetation into equilibrium with historic climate and atmospheric CO 2 concentration while starting from bare ground.…”

Section: Using the Lpjml Model Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling carbon stock and carbon sequestration ecosystem services for policy design: a comprehensive approach using a dynamic vegetation model

Quijas

Boit

Thonicke

et al. 2018

Ecosystems and People

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem service (ES) models can only inform policy design adequately if they incorporate ecological processes. We used the Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land (LPJmL) model, to address following questions for Mexico, Bolivia and Brazilian Amazon: (i) How different are C stocks and C sequestration quantifications under standard (when soil and litter C and heterotrophic respiration are not considered) and comprehensive (including all C stock and heterotrophic respiration) approach? and (ii) How does the valuation of C stock and C sequestration differ in national payments for ES and global C funds or markets when comparing both approach? We found that up to 65% of C stocks have not been taken into account by neglecting to include C stored in soil and litter, resulting in gross underpayments (up to 500 times lower). Since emissions from heterotrophic respiration of organic material offset a large proportion of C gained through growth of living matter, we found that markets and decision-makers are inadvertently overestimating up to 100 times C sequestrated. New approaches for modelling C services relevant ecological process-based can help accounting for C in soil, litter and heterotrophic respiration and become important for the operationalization of agreements on climate change mitigation following the COP21 in 2015.

show abstract

Large‐scale impact of climate change vs. land‐use change on future biome shifts in Latin America

Cited by 43 publications

References 54 publications

Multimodel Analysis of Future Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Functioning

Multimodel Analysis of Future Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Functioning

Trade‐offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential

Modelling carbon stock and carbon sequestration ecosystem services for policy design: a comprehensive approach using a dynamic vegetation model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About