Search Results
Detecting impacts of extreme events with ecological in situ monitoring networks
Extreme hydrometeorological conditions typically impact ecophysiological processes on land. Satellite-based observations of the terrestrial biosphere provide an important reference for detecting and describing the spatiotemporal development of such events. However, in-depth investigations of ecological processes during extreme events require additional in situ observations. The question is whether the density of existing ecological in situ networks is sufficient for analysing the impact of extreme events, and what are expected event detection rates of ecological in situ networks of a given size. To assess these issues, we build a baseline of extreme reductions in the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FAPAR), identified by a new event detection method tailored to identify extremes of regional relevance. We then investigate the event detection success rates of hypothetical networks of varying sizes. Our results show that large extremes can be reliably detected with relatively small networks, but also reveal a linear decay of detection probabilities towards smaller extreme events in log–log space. For instance, networks with ≈ 100 randomly placed sites in Europe yield a ≥ 90 % chance of detecting the eight largest (typically very large) extreme events; but only a ≥ 50 % chance of capturing the 39 largest events. These findings are consistent with probability-theoretic considerations, but the slopes of the decay rates deviate due to temporal autocorrelation and the exact implementation of the extreme event detection algorithm. Using the examples of AmeriFlux and NEON, we then investigate to what degree ecological in situ networks can capture extreme events of a given size. Consistent with our theoretical considerations, we find that today's systematically designed networks (i.e. NEON) reliably detect the largest extremes, but that the extreme event detection rates are not higher than would be achieved by randomly designed networks. Spatio-temporal expansions of ecological in situ monitoring networks should carefully consider the size distribution characteristics of extreme events if the aim is also to monitor the impacts of such events in the terrestrial biosphere.
Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators
Land management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the land-use models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds. In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.