4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemA protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2018) Kim, HyeJin; Rosa, Isabel M. D.; Alkemade, Rob; Leadley, Paul; Hurtt, George; Popp, Alexander; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Anthoni, Peter; Arneth, Almut; Baisero, Daniele; Caton, Emma; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Chini, Louise; De Palma, Adriana; Di Fulvio, Fulvio; Di Marco, Moreno; Espinoza, Felipe; Ferrier, Simon; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Gonzalez, Ricardo E.; Gueguen, Maya; Guerra, Carlos; Harfoot, Mike; Harwood, Thomas D.; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Haverd, Vanessa; Havlík, Petr; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hill, Samantha L. L.; Hirata, Akiko; Hoskins, Andrew J.; Janse, Jan H.; Jetz, Walter; Johnson, Justin A.; Krause, Andreas; Leclère, David; Martins, Ines S.; Matsui, Tetsuya; Merow, Cory; Obersteiner, Michael; Ohashi, Haruka; Poulter, Benjamin; Purvis, Andy; Quesada, Benjamin; Rondinini, Carlo; Schipper, Aafke M.; Sharp, Richard; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Thuiller, Wilfried; Titeux, Nicolas; Visconti, Piero; Ware, Christopher; Wolf, Florian; Pereira, Henrique M.To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land-use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e., nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)-SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP3xRCP6.0, SSP5xRCP8.6-to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenario selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem services models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modeling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modeling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.
- ItemMapping the yields of lignocellulosic bioenergy crops from observations at the global scale(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernics Publications, 2020) Li, Wei; Ciais, Philippe; Stehfest, Elke; van Vuuren, Detlef; Popp, Alexander; Arneth, Almut; Di Fulvio, Fulvio; Doelma, Jonathan; Humpenöder, Florian; Harper, Anna B.; Park, Taejin; Makowski, David; Havlik, Petr; Obersteiner, Michael; Wang, Jingmeng; Krause, Andreas; Liu, WenfengMost scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) that project greenhouse gas emissions include the use of bioenergy as a means to reduce CO2 emissions or even to achieve negative emissions (together with CCS carbon capture and storage). The potential amount of CO2 that can be removed from the atmosphere depends, among others, on the yields of bioenergy crops, the land available to grow these crops and the efficiency with which CO2 produced by combustion is captured. While bioenergy crop yields can be simulated by models, estimates of the spatial distribution of bioenergy yields under current technology based on a large number of observations are currently lacking. In this study, a random-forest (RF) algorithm is used to upscale a bioenergy yield dataset of 3963 observations covering Miscanthus, switchgrass, eucalypt, poplar and willow using climatic and soil conditions as explanatory variables. The results are global yield maps of five important lignocellulosic bioenergy crops under current technology, climate and atmospheric CO2 conditions at a 0:5 0:5 spatial resolution. We also provide a combined "best bioenergy crop" yield map by selecting one of the five crop types with the highest yield in each of the grid cells, eucalypt and Miscanthus in most cases. The global median yield of the best crop is 16.3 tDMha1 yr1 (DM dry matter). High yields mainly occur in the Amazon region and southeastern Asia. We further compare our empirically derived maps with yield maps used in three IAMs and find that the median yields in our maps are 50% higher than those in the IAM maps. Our estimates of gridded bioenergy crop yields can be used to provide bioenergy yields for IAMs, to evaluate land surface models or to identify the most suitable lands for future bioenergy crop plantations. The 0:5 0:5 global maps for yields of different bioenergy crops and the best crop and for the best crop composition generated from this study can be download from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3274254 (Li, 2019). © 2019 Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
- ItemTrade-Offs for Climate-Smart Forestry in Europe Under Uncertain Future Climate(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2022) Gregor, Konstantin; Knoke, Thomas; Krause, Andreas; Reyer, Christopher P. O.; Lindeskog, Mats; Papastefanou, Phillip; Smith, Benjamin; Lansø, Anne‐Sofie; Rammig, AnjaForests mitigate climate change by storing carbon and reducing emissions via substitution effects of wood products. Additionally, they provide many other important ecosystem services (ESs), but are vulnerable to climate change; therefore, adaptation is necessary. Climate-smart forestry combines mitigation with adaptation, whilst facilitating the provision of many ESs. This is particularly challenging due to large uncertainties about future climate. Here, we combined ecosystem modeling with robust multi-criteria optimization to assess how the provision of various ESs (climate change mitigation, timber provision, local cooling, water availability, and biodiversity habitat) can be guaranteed under a broad range of climate futures across Europe. Our optimized portfolios contain 29% unmanaged forests, and implicate a successive conversion of 34% of coniferous to broad-leaved forests (11% vice versa). Coppices practically vanish from Southern Europe, mainly due to their high water requirement. We find the high shares of unmanaged forests necessary to keep European forests a carbon sink while broad-leaved and unmanaged forests contribute to local cooling through biogeophysical effects. Unmanaged forests also pose the largest benefit for biodiversity habitat. However, the increased shares of unmanaged and broad-leaved forests lead to reductions in harvests. This raises the question of how to meet increasing wood demands without transferring ecological impacts elsewhere or enhancing the dependence on more carbon-intensive industries. Furthermore, the mitigation potential of forests depends on assumptions about the decarbonization of other industries and is consequently crucially dependent on the emission scenario. Our findings highlight that trade-offs must be assessed when developing concrete strategies for climate-smart forestry.
- ItemGlobal consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2017) Krause, Andreas; Pugh, Thomas A.M.; Bayer, Anita D.; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Humpenöder, Florian; Anthoni, Peter; Olin, Stefan; Bodirsky, Benjamin L.; Popp, Alexander; Stehfest, Elke; Arneth, AlmutLand 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.