Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts

Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts Most climate mitigation scenarios involve negative emissions, especially those that aim to limit global temperature increase to 2°C or less. However, the carbon uptake potential in land‐based climate change mitigation efforts is highly uncertain. Here, we address this uncertainty by using two land‐based mitigation scenarios from two land‐use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) as input to four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs; LPJ‐GUESS, ORCHIDEE, JULES, LPJmL). Each of the four combinations of land‐use models and mitigation scenarios aimed for a cumulative carbon uptake of ~130 GtC by the end of the century, achieved either via the cultivation of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or avoided deforestation and afforestation (ADAFF). Results suggest large uncertainty in simulated future land demand and carbon uptake rates, depending on the assumptions related to land use and land management in the models. Total cumulative carbon uptake in the DGVMs is highly variable across mitigation scenarios, ranging between 19 and 130 GtC by year 2099. Only one out of the 16 combinations of mitigation scenarios and DGVMs achieves an equivalent or higher carbon uptake than achieved in the land‐use models. The large differences in carbon uptake between the DGVMs and their discrepancy against the carbon uptake in IMAGE and MAgPIE are mainly due to different model assumptions regarding bioenergy crop yields and due to the simulation of soil carbon response to land‐use change. Differences between land‐use models and DGVMs regarding forest biomass and the rate of forest regrowth also have an impact, albeit smaller, on the results. Given the low confidence in simulated carbon uptake for a given land‐based mitigation scenario, and that negative emissions simulated by the DGVMs are typically lower than assumed in scenarios consistent with the 2°C target, relying on negative emissions to mitigate climate change is a highly uncertain strategy. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Global Change Biology Wiley

Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts

Download PDF
14 pages
Read Article

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/large-uncertainty-in-carbon-uptake-potential-of-land-based-climate-0IVnydjg2L
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
ISSN
1354-1013
eISSN
1365-2486
DOI
10.1111/gcb.14144
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Most climate mitigation scenarios involve negative emissions, especially those that aim to limit global temperature increase to 2°C or less. However, the carbon uptake potential in land‐based climate change mitigation efforts is highly uncertain. Here, we address this uncertainty by using two land‐based mitigation scenarios from two land‐use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) as input to four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs; LPJ‐GUESS, ORCHIDEE, JULES, LPJmL). Each of the four combinations of land‐use models and mitigation scenarios aimed for a cumulative carbon uptake of ~130 GtC by the end of the century, achieved either via the cultivation of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or avoided deforestation and afforestation (ADAFF). Results suggest large uncertainty in simulated future land demand and carbon uptake rates, depending on the assumptions related to land use and land management in the models. Total cumulative carbon uptake in the DGVMs is highly variable across mitigation scenarios, ranging between 19 and 130 GtC by year 2099. Only one out of the 16 combinations of mitigation scenarios and DGVMs achieves an equivalent or higher carbon uptake than achieved in the land‐use models. The large differences in carbon uptake between the DGVMs and their discrepancy against the carbon uptake in IMAGE and MAgPIE are mainly due to different model assumptions regarding bioenergy crop yields and due to the simulation of soil carbon response to land‐use change. Differences between land‐use models and DGVMs regarding forest biomass and the rate of forest regrowth also have an impact, albeit smaller, on the results. Given the low confidence in simulated carbon uptake for a given land‐based mitigation scenario, and that negative emissions simulated by the DGVMs are typically lower than assumed in scenarios consistent with the 2°C target, relying on negative emissions to mitigate climate change is a highly uncertain strategy.

Journal

Global Change Biology – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ; ; ;

References

  • Modelling the perennial energy crop market: The role of spatial diffusion
    Alexander, P.; Moran, D.; Rounsevell, M. D. A.; Smith, P.
  • World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision
    Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J.
  • Evaluating the land and ocean components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models
    Anav, A.; Friedlingstein, P.; Kidston, M.; Bopp, L.; Ciais, P.; Cox, P.; Zhu, Z.
  • The trouble with negative emissions
    Anderson, K.; Peters, G.
  • Carbon dynamics of mature and regrowth tropical forests derived from a pantropical database (TropForC‐db)
    Anderson‐Teixeira, K. J.; Wang, M. M. H.; Mcgarvey, J. C.; Lebauer, D. S.
  • Historical carbon dioxide emissions caused by land‐use changes are possibly larger than assumed
    Arneth, A.; Sitch, S.; Pongratz, J.; Stocker, B. D.; Ciais, P.; Poulter, B.; Zaehle, S.
  • High‐resolution forest carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon
    Asner, G. P.; Powell, G. V. N.; Mascaro, J.; Knapp, D. E.; Clark, J. K.; Jacobson, J.; Flint Hughes, R.
  • Uncertainties in the land‐use flux resulting from land‐use change reconstructions and gross land transitions
    Bayer, A. D.; Lindeskog, M.; Pugh, T. A. M.; Anthoni, P. M.; Fuchs, R.; Arneth, A.
  • The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes
    Best, M. J.; Pryor, M.; Clark, D. B.; Rooney, G. G.; Essery, R .L. H.; Ḿenard, C. B.; Harding, R. J.
  • Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance
    Bondeau, A.; Smith, P. C.; Zaehle, S.; Schaphoff, S.; Lucht, W.; Cramer, W.; Smith, B
  • Trade‐offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential
    Boysen, L. R.; Lucht, W.; Gerten, D.
  • The limits to global‐warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal
    Boysen, L. R.; Lucht, W.; Gerten, D.; Heck, V.; Lenton, T. M.; Schellnhuber, H. J.
  • Root biomass allocation in the world's upland forests
    Cairns, M. A.; Brown, S.; Helmer, E. H.; Baumgardner, G. A.
  • The European carbon balance. Part 2: Croplands
    Ciais, P.; Wattenbach, M.; Vuichard, N.; Smith, P.; Piao, S. L.; Don, A.; Leip, A.
  • The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics
    Clark, D. B.; Mercado, L. M.; Sitch, S.; Jones, C. D.; Gedney, N.; Best, M. J.; Boucher, O.
  • A comparison of plot‐based satellite and Earth system model estimates of tropical forest net primary production
    Cleveland, C. C.; Taylor, P.; Chadwick, K. D.; Dahlin, K.; Doughty, C. E.; Malhi, Y.; Townsend, A. R.
  • Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions
    Creutzig, F.
  • Past and future sensitivity of primary production to human modification of the landscape
    Defries, R.
  • Global patterns of the effects of land‐use changes on soil carbon stocks
    Deng, L.; Zhu, G.; Tang, Z.; Shangguan, Z.
  • Exploring SSP land‐use dynamics using the IMAGE model: Regional and gridded scenarios of land‐use change and land‐based climate change mitigation
    Doelman, J. C.; Stehfest, E.; Tabeau, A.; van Meijl, H.; Lassaletta, L.; Gernaat, D. E.; van der Sluis, S.
  • Impact of tropical land‐use change on soil organic carbon stocks – a meta‐analysis
    Don, A.; Schumacher, J.; Freibauer, A.
  • Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt
    Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P.
  • Commentary: Betting on negative emissions
    Fuss, S.; Canadell, J. G.; Peters, G. P.; Tavoni, M.; Andrew, R. M.; Ciais, P.; Le Quéré, C.
  • Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 degrees C
    Gasser, T.; Guivarch, C.; Tachiiri, K.; Jones, C. D.; Ciais, P.
  • Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta analysis
    Guo, L. B.; Gifford, R. M.
  • Is extensive terrestrial carbon dioxide removal a ‘green’ form of geoengineering? A global modelling study
    Heck, V.; Gerten, D.; Lucht, W.; Boysen, L. R.
  • A trend‐preserving bias correction – the ISI‐MIP approach
    Hempel, S.; Frieler, K.; Warszawski, L.; Schewe, J.; Piontek, F.
  • Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally
    Houghton, R. A.; Nassikas, A. A.
  • Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies
    Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Dietrich, J. P.; Klein, D.; Lotze‐Campen, H.; Bonsch, M.; Müller, C.
  • Variation in stem mortality rates determines patterns of above‐ground biomass in Amazonian forests: Implications for dynamic global vegetation models
    Johnson, M. O.; Galbraith, D.; Gloor, M.; De Deurwaerder, H.; Guimberteau, M.; Rammig, A.; Phillips, O. L.
  • The risks of relying on tomorrow's ‘negative emissions’ to guide today's mitigation action
    Kartha, S.; Dooley, K
  • The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human‐induced global land‐use change over the past 12,000 years
    Klein Goldewijk, K.; Beusen, A.; Drecht, G.; Vos, M.
  • The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: An assessment using REMIND‐MAgPIE
    Klein, D.; Luderer, G.; Kriegler, E.; Strefler, J.; Bauer, N.; Leimbach, M.; Edenhofer, O.
  • Impacts of land‐use history on the recovery of ecosystems after agricultural abandonment
    Krause, A.; Pugh, T. A. M.; Bayer, A. D.; Lindeskog, M.; Arneth, A.
  • Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators
    Krause, A.; Pugh, T. A. M.; Bayer, A. D.; Doelman, J. C.; Humpenöder, F.; Anthoni, P.; Arneth, A.
  • A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere‐biosphere system
    Krinner, G.; Viovy, N.; Noblet‐Ducoudre, N.; Ogée, J.; Polcher, J.; Friedlingstein, P.; Prentice, I. C.
  • Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: A meta‐analysis
    Laganiere, J.; Angers, D. A.; Pare, D.
  • Global carbon budget 2016
    Quéré, C.; Andrew, R. M.; Canadell, J. G.; Sitch, S.; Korsbakken, J. I.; Peters, G. P.; Keeling, R. F.
  • The potential for land‐based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration
    Lenton, T. M.
  • The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options
    Lenton, T. M.; Vaughan, N. E.
  • Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: A spatially explicit mathematical programming approach
    Lotze‐Campen, H.; Müller, C.; Bondeau, A.; Rost, S.; Popp, A.; Lucht, W.
  • The European carbon balance. Part 3: Forests
    Luyssaert, S.; Ciais, P.; Piao, S. L.; Schulze, E. D.; Jung, M.; Zaehle, S.; Abril, G.
  • Carbon pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical secondary forests
    Martin, P. A.; Newton, A. C.; Bullock, J. M.
  • Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: A global review
    Mcsherry, M. E.; Ritchie, M. E.
  • The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300
    Meinshausen, M.; Smith, S. J.; Calvin, K.; Daniel, J. S.; Kainuma, M. L. T.; Lamarque, J. F.; van Vuuren, D. P. P.
  • Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000
    Monfreda, C.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J. A.
  • Conversion from forests to pastures in the Colombian Amazon leads to contrasting soil carbon dynamics depending on land management practices
    Navarrete, D.; Sitch, S.; Aragao, L. E. O. C.; Pedroni, L.
  • Soil carbon management in large‐scale Earth system modelling: Implications for crop yields and nitrogen leaching
    Olin, S.; Lindeskog, M.; Pugh, T. A. M.; Schurgers, G.; Wårlind, D.; Mishurov, M.; Arneth, A.
  • Change in soil carbon following afforestation
    Paul, K. I.; Polglase, P. J.; Nyakuengama, J. G.; Khanna, P. K.
  • Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land‐use change in the temperate zone – carbon response functions as a model approach
    Poeplau, C.; Don, A.; Vesterdal, L.; Leifeld, J.; Wesemael, B.; Schumacher, J.; Gensior, A.
  • Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests
    Poorter, L.; Ongers, F. B.; Aide, T. M.; Zambrano, A. M. A.; Balvanera, P.; Becknell, J. M.; Craven, D.
  • Land‐use futures in the shared socio‐economic pathways
    Popp, A.; Calvin, K.; Fujimori, S.; Havlik, P.; Humpenöder, F.; Stehfest, E.; Hasegawa, T.
  • Land‐use protection for climate change mitigation
    Popp, A.; Humpenöder, F.; Weindl, I.; Bodirsky, B. L.; Bonsch, M.; Lotze‐Campen, H.; Dietrich, J. P.
  • Land‐use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: Model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options
    Popp, A.; Rose, S. K.; Calvin, K.; Van Vuuren, D. P.; Dietrich, J. P.; Wise, M.; Kriegler, E.
  • Geographic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks with tropical land‐use changes precludes spatial extrapolation
    Powers, J. S.; Corre, M. D.; Twine, T. E.; Veldkamp, E.
  • Simulated carbon emissions from land use change are substantially enhanced by accounting for agricultural management
    Pugh, T. A. M.; Arneth, A.; Olin, S.; Ahlström, A.; Bayer, A. D.; Klein Goldewijk, K.; Schurgers, G.
  • The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview
    Riahi, K.; Vuuren, D. P.; Kriegler, E.; Edmonds, J.; O'Neill, B. C.; Fujimori, S.; Lutz, W.
  • Energy system transformations for limiting end‐of‐century warming to below 1.5 degrees C
    Rogelj, J.; Luderer, G.; Pietzcker, R. C.; Kriegler, E.; Schaeffer, M.; Krey, V.; Riahi, K.
  • Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use
    Sanderman, J.; Hengl, T.; Fiske, G. J.
  • What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets?
    Sanderson, B. M.; O'Neill, B.C.; Tebaldi, C.
  • Global soil carbon: Understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool
    Scharlemann, J. P. W.; Tanner, E. V. J.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V.
  • Will energy crop yields meet expectations?
    Searle, S. Y.; Malins, C. J.
  • The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands
    Silver, W. L.; Ostertag, R.; Lugo, A. E.
  • Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model
    Sitch, S.; Smith, B.; Prentice, I. C.; Arneth, A.; Bondeau, A.; Cramer, W.; Thonicke, K.
  • Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions
    Smith, P.; Davis, S. J.; Creutzig, F.; Fuss, S.; Minx, J.; Gabrielle, B; Van Vuuren, D. P.
  • Global change pressures on soils from land use and management
    Smith, P.; House, J. I.; Bustamante, M.; Sobocká, J.; Harper, R.; Pan, G.; Paustian, K.
  • Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual‐based dynamic vegetation model
    Smith, B.; Warlind, D.; Arneth, A.; Hickler, T.; Leadley, P.; Siltberg, J.; Zaehle, S.
  • Reforestation in a high‐CO2 world‐Higher mitigation potential than expected, lower adaptation potential than hoped for
    Sonntag, S.; Pongratz, J.; Reick, C. H.; Schmidt, H.
  • Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0: Model description and policy applications
    Stehfest, E.; Van Vuuren, D.; Bouwman, L.; Kram, T.
  • Modeling meets science and technology: An introduction to a special issue on negative emissions
    Tavoni, M.; Socolow, R.
  • Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: Current status and future directions
    Tian, H. Q.; Lu, C. Q.; Yang, J.; Banger, K.; Huntzinger, D. N.; Schwalm, C. R.; Zeng, N.
  • Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations
    Todd‐Brown, K. E. O.; Randerson, J. T.; Post, W. M.; Hoffman, F. M.; Tarnocai, C.; Schuur, E. A. G.; Allison, S. D.
  • The effectiveness of net negative carbon dioxide emissions in reversing anthropogenic climate change
    Tokarska, K. B.; Zickfeld, K.
  • Scrutinize CO2 removal methods
    Williamson, P.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.

Try 2 weeks free now

DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

or browse the journals available

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

Sign up
for free
Start 14 day
Free Trial