English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  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., Olin, S., Bodirsky, B. L., Popp, A., Stehfest, E., Arneth, A. (2017): Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators. - Biogeosciences, 14, 21, 4829-4850.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
7841oa.pdf (Publisher version), 4MB
Name:
7841oa.pdf
Description:
-
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Krause, A.1, Author
Pugh, T. A. M.1, Author
Bayer, A. D.1, Author
Doelman, J. C.1, Author
Humpenöder, Florian2, Author              
Anthoni, P.1, Author
Olin, S.1, Author
Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon2, Author              
Popp, Alexander2, Author              
Stehfest, E.1, Author
Arneth, A.1, Author
Affiliations:
1External Organizations, ou_persistent22              
2Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ou_persistent13              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: 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.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2017
 Publication Status: Finally published
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017
PIKDOMAIN: Climate Impacts & Vulnerabilities - Research Domain II
PIKDOMAIN: Sustainable Solutions - Research Domain III
eDoc: 7841
Research topic keyword: CO2 Removal
Research topic keyword: Ecosystems
Research topic keyword: Food & Agriculture
Research topic keyword: Land use
Research topic keyword: Mitigation
Model / method: Model Intercomparison
Model / method: MAgPIE
Regional keyword: Global
Organisational keyword: RD3 - Transformation Pathways
Organisational keyword: RD2 - Climate Resilience
Working Group: Land Use and Resilience
Working Group: Land-Use Management
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Biogeosciences
Source Genre: Journal, SCI, Scopus, p3, oa
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 14 (21) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 4829 - 4850 Identifier: CoNE: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/journals47