Deutsch
 
Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT
Zur Ablage hinzufügen
  Lokale TagsFreigabegeschichteDetailsÜbersicht

Freigegeben
Zeitschriftenartikel

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

Urheber*innen

Krause,  A.
External Organizations;

Pugh,  T. A. M.
External Organizations;

Bayer,  A. D.
External Organizations;

Doelman,  J. C.
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/Florian.Humpenoeder

Humpenöder,  Florian
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Anthoni,  P.
External Organizations;

Olin,  S.
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/Bodirsky

Bodirsky,  Benjamin Leon
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

/persons/resource/Alexander.Popp

Popp,  Alexander
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Stehfest,  E.
External Organizations;

Arneth,  A.
External Organizations;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)

7841oa.pdf
(Verlagsversion), 4MB

Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

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


Zitierlink: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_22030
Zusammenfassung
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.