Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Journal Article

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators


Krause,  A.
External Organizations;

Pugh,  T. A. M.
External Organizations;

Bayer,  A. D.
External Organizations;

Doelman,  J. C.
External Organizations;


Humpenöder,  Florian
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Anthoni,  P.
External Organizations;

Olin,  S.
External Organizations;


Bodirsky,  Benjamin Leon
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;


Popp,  Alexander
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Stehfest,  E.
External Organizations;

Arneth,  A.
External Organizations;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)

(Publisher version), 4MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

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.

Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_22030
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.