scholarly journals Multi-gas and multi-source comparisons of six land use emission datasets and AFOLU estimates in the Fifth Assessment Report, for the tropics for 2000–2005

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (20) ◽  
pp. 5799-5819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta ◽  
Martin Herold ◽  
Mariana C. Rufino ◽  
Todd S. Rosenstock ◽  
Richard A. Houghton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Forest Sector ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Enteric Fermentation ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
Food And Agriculture Organization ◽  
The Tropics

Abstract. The Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector contributes with ca. 20–25 % of global anthropogenic emissions (2010), making it a key component of any climate change mitigation strategy. AFOLU estimates, however, remain highly uncertain, jeopardizing the mitigation effectiveness of this sector. Comparisons of global AFOLU emissions have shown divergences of up to 25 %, urging for improved understanding of the reasons behind these differences. Here we compare a variety of AFOLU emission datasets and estimates given in the Fifth Assessment Report for the tropics (2000–2005) to identify plausible explanations for the differences in (i) aggregated gross AFOLU emissions, and (ii) disaggregated emissions by sources and gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). We also aim to (iii) identify countries with low agreement among AFOLU datasets to navigate research efforts. The datasets are FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division), EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research), the newly developed AFOLU “Hotspots”, “Houghton”, “Baccini”, and EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) datasets. Aggregated gross emissions were similar for all databases for the AFOLU sector: 8.2 (5.5–12.2), 8.4, and 8.0 Pg CO2 eq. yr−1 (for Hotspots, FAOSTAT, and EDGAR respectively), forests reached 6.0 (3.8–10), 5.9, 5.9, and 5.4 Pg CO2 eq. yr−1 (Hotspots, FAOSTAT, EDGAR, and Houghton), and agricultural sectors were with 1.9 (1.5–2.5), 2.5, 2.1, and 2.0 Pg CO2 eq. yr−1 (Hotspots, FAOSTAT, EDGAR, and EPA). However, this agreement was lost when disaggregating the emissions by sources, continents, and gases, particularly for the forest sector, with fire leading the differences. Agricultural emissions were more homogeneous, especially from livestock, while those from croplands were the most diverse. CO2 showed the largest differences among the datasets. Cropland soils and enteric fermentation led to the smaller N2O and CH4 differences. Disagreements are explained by differences in conceptual frameworks (carbon-only vs. multi-gas assessments, definitions, land use vs. land cover, etc.), in methods (tiers, scales, compliance with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines, legacies, etc.) and in assumptions (carbon neutrality of certain emissions, instantaneous emissions release, etc.) which call for more complete and transparent documentation for all the available datasets. An enhanced dialogue between the carbon (CO2) and the AFOLU (multi-gas) communities is needed to reduce discrepancies of land use estimates.

scholarly journals Multi-gas and multi-source comparisons of six land use emission datasets and AFOLU estimates in the Fifth Assessment Report

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta ◽  
Martin Herold ◽  
Mariana C. Rufino ◽  
Todd S. Rosenstock ◽  
Richard A. Houghton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Forest Sector ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Enteric Fermentation ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Carbon Neutrality ◽  
Ipcc Guidelines ◽  
Agricultural Emissions ◽  
The Tropics

Abstract. The Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector contributes with ca. 20–25 % of global anthropogenic emissions (2010), making it a key component of any climate change mitigation strategy. AFOLU estimates remain, however, highly uncertain, jeopardizing the mitigation effectiveness of this sector. Global comparisons of AFOLU emissions have shown divergences of up to 25 %, urging for improved understanding on the reasons behind these differences. Here we compare a diversity of AFOLU emission datasets (e.g. FAOSTAT, EDGAR, the newly developed AFOLU "Hotspots", "Houghton", "Baccini", and EPA) and estimates given in the Fifth Assessment Report, for the tropics (2000–2005), to identify plausible explanations for the differences in: i) aggregated gross AFOLU emissions, and ii) disaggregated emissions by sources, and by gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). We also aim to iii) identify countries with low agreement among AFOLU datasets, to navigate research efforts. Aggregated gross emissions were similar for all databases for the AFOLU: 8.2 (5.5–12.2), 8.4 and 8.0 Pg CO2e. yr−1 (Hotspots, FAOSTAT and EDGAR respectively), Forests: 6.0 (3.8–10), 5.9, 5.9 and 5.4 Pg CO2e. yr−1 (Hotspots, FAOSTAT, EDGAR, and Houghton), and Agricultural sectors: 1.9 (1.5–2.5), 2.0, 2.1, and 2.0 Pg CO2e. yr−1 (Hotspots, FAOSTAT, EDGAR, and EPA). However, this agreement was lost when disaggregating by sources, continents, and gases, particularly for the forest sector (fire leading the differences). Agricultural emissions were more homogeneous, especially livestock, while croplands were the most diverse. CO2 showed the largest differences among datasets. Cropland soils and enteric fermentation led the smaller N2O and CH4 differences. Disagreements are explained by differences in conceptual frameworks (e.g. carbon-only vs multi-gas assessments, definitions, land use versus land cover, etc), in methods (Tiers, scales, compliance with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines, legacies, etc) and in assumptions (e.g. carbon neutrality of certain emissions, instantaneous emissions release, etc) that call for more complete and transparent documentation for all the available datasets. Enhanced dialogue between the carbon (CO2) and the AFOLU (multi-gas) communities is needed to reduce discrepancies of land use estimates.

Refining estimates of carbon released from tropical land-use change

1991 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. S. Hall ◽  
James Uhlig
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Change ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Shifting Cultivation ◽  
Long Term Storage ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
Food And Agriculture Organization ◽  
Carbon Release ◽  
The Tropics ◽  
Open Forests

We report the results of incorporating two changes in the data base that we used for our previously published summary estimates of the quantity of carbon released to the atmosphere from tropical land-use change (R.P. Detwiler and C.A.S. Hall. 1988. Science (Washington, D.C.), 239: 42–47). First, and most important, we used new statistical approaches to estimate biomass. Second, we incorporated recent minor modifications in the estimates of land-use change provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Our new, best estimate of carbon release for 1980 is 0.58 ± 0.06 Gt/year. The range of 0.06 Gt/year is due only to the statistieal uncertainty associated with the biomass data base and not to the uncertainty associated with other factors. (Our previous high estimate, based on the use of destructively sampled biomass, remains at 1.6 Gt/year). This new estimate for the tropics as a whole is 26% higher than the analogous number by Detwiler and Hall (R.P. Detwiler and C.A.S. Hall. 1988. Science (Washington, D.C.), 239: 42–47). About 7% of this increase in our estimates of carbon release from the tropics is a result of the new estimates of land-use change for open forests; the rest is due to changing estimates of biomass. In addition, we explored further uncertainties in our data base. When we reduced our estimate of the proportion of cut biomass that goes to long-term storage from 16 to 3%, carbon release increased by about 30%. We also examined the hypothesis that shifting cultivation could be ignored in our analyses. When shifting cultivation was not considered at all in our analyses, an underestimate of 20% resulted for the carbon release in 1980 for the entire tropics. The results of using different data sources for particular countries with large areas in shifting cultivation showed larger differences in carbon flux.

Modeling impacts of climate and land use change on streamflow, nitrate, and ammonium in the Kor River, southwest of Iran

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 818-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Asadi Vaighan ◽  
Nasser Talebbeydokhti ◽  
Alireza Massah Bavani ◽  
Paul Whitehead
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Use Changes ◽  
Climate Change Scenarios ◽  
Future Period ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Kor River ◽  
Southwest Of Iran ◽  
Catchment Model

Abstract This study examined the separate and combined impacts of future changes in climate and land use on streamflow, nitrate and ammonium in the Kor River Basin, southwest of Iran, using the representative concentration pathway 2.6 and 8.5 scenarios of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Different land use and climate change scenarios were used and the streamflow, nitrate and ammonium in the future period (2020–2049) under these scenarios were simulated by Integrated Catchment Model for Nitrogen (INCA–N). Results indicated that climate change will increase streamflows and decrease nitrate and ammonium concentrations in summer and autumn. Land use changes were found to have a little impact on streamflows but a significant impact on water quality, particularly under an urban development scenario. Under combined scenarios, larger seasonal changes in streamflows and mixed changes of nitrate and ammonium concentrations were predicted.

scholarly journals Impact of Ex-Closure in above and below Ground Carbon Stock Biomass

Forests ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 130
Author(s):  
Gedion Tsegay ◽  
Xiang-Zhou Meng
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Emissions ◽  
Carbon Stock ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Resource Assessment ◽  
Forest Loss ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
Food And Agriculture Organization ◽  
Below Ground ◽  
The Impact

Globally, there is a serious issue in carbon stock due to high deforestation and the loss of land, limited carbon storage pools in aboveground and underground forests in different regions, and increased carbon emissions to the atmosphere. This review paper highlights the impact of exclosures on above and below ground carbon stocks in biomass as a solution to globally curb carbon emissions. The data has been analyzed dependent on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Forest Resource Assessment report (FRA, 2020), and scientific journal publications mostly from the last decade, to show the research results of carbon stock and the impact of exclosures, particularly the challenges of deforestation and erosion of land and opportunities of area exclosures to provide a general outlook for policymakers. Overall, the world’s forest regions are declining, and although the forest loss rate has slowed, it has still not stopped sufficiently because the knowledge and practice of exclosures are limited. The global forest loss and carbon stock have decreased from 7.8 million ha/yr to 4.7 million ha/yr and from 668 gigatons to 662 gigatons respectively due to multiple factors that differ across the regions. However, a move toward natural rehabilitation and exclosures to reduce the emissions of Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) is needed. In the global production of carbon, the exclosure of forests plays an important role, in particular for permanent sinks of carbon.

scholarly journals Hotspots of gross emissions from the land use sector: patterns, uncertainties, and leading emission sources for the period 2000–2005 in the tropics

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 4253-4269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta ◽  
Mariana C. Rufino ◽  
Martin Herold ◽  
Klaus Butterbach-Bahl ◽  
Todd S. Rosenstock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Emission Sources ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Wood Harvesting ◽  
Global Mean Temperature ◽  
Agricultural Emissions ◽  
Mitigation Action ◽  
The Tropics

Abstract. According to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions must be cut by 41–72 % below 2010 levels by 2050 for a likely chance of containing the global mean temperature increase to 2 °C. The AFOLU sector (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use) contributes roughly a quarter ( ∼  10–12 Pg CO2e yr−1) of the net anthropogenic GHG emissions mainly from deforestation, fire, wood harvesting, and agricultural emissions including croplands, paddy rice, and livestock. In spite of the importance of this sector, it is unclear where the regions with hotspots of AFOLU emissions are and how uncertain these emissions are. Here we present a novel, spatially comparable dataset containing annual mean estimates of gross AFOLU emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O), associated uncertainties, and leading emission sources, in a spatially disaggregated manner (0.5°) for the tropics for the period 2000–2005. Our data highlight the following: (i) the existence of AFOLU emissions hotspots on all continents, with particular importance of evergreen rainforest deforestation in Central and South America, fire in dry forests in Africa, and both peatland emissions and agriculture in Asia; (ii) a predominant contribution of forests and CO2 to the total AFOLU emissions (69 %) and to their uncertainties (98 %); (iii) higher gross fluxes from forests, which coincide with higher uncertainties, making agricultural hotspots appealing for effective mitigation action; and (iv) a lower contribution of non-CO2 agricultural emissions to the total gross emissions (ca. 25 %), with livestock (15.5 %) and rice (7 %) leading the emissions. Gross AFOLU tropical emissions of 8.0 (5.5–12.2) were in the range of other databases (8.4 and 8.0 Pg CO2e yr−1 in FAOSTAT and the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) respectively), but we offer a spatially detailed benchmark for monitoring progress in reducing emissions from the land sector in the tropics. The location of the AFOLU hotspots of emissions and data on their associated uncertainties will assist national policy makers, investors, and other decision-makers who seek to understand the mitigation potential of the AFOLU sector.

scholarly journals A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 4537-4562 ◽  
Author(s):  
HyeJin Kim ◽  
Isabel M. D. Rosa ◽  
Rob Alkemade ◽  
Paul Leadley ◽  
George Hurtt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Multiple Scales ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Global Impacts

Abstract. 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.

Introduction

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Orr
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Political Leader ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Media ◽  
Political Trauma ◽  
E Mail

In our final hour (2003), cambridge university astronomer Martin Rees concluded that the odds of global civilization surviving to the year 2100 are no better than one in two. His assessment of threats to humankind ranging from climate change to a collision of Earth with an asteroid received good reviews in the science press, but not a peep from any political leader and scant notice from the media. Compare that nonresponse to a hypothetical story reporting, say, that the president had had an affair. The blow-dried electronic pundits, along with politicians of all kinds, would have spared no effort to expose and analyze the situation down to parts per million. But Rees’s was only one of many credible and well-documented warnings from scientists going back decades, including the Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). All were greeted with varying levels of denial, indifference, and misinterpretation, or were simply ignored altogether. It is said to be a crime to cause panic in a crowded theater by yelling “fire” without cause, but is it less criminal not to warn people when the theater is indeed burning? My starting point is the oddly tepid response by U.S. leaders at virtually all levels to global warming, more accurately described as “global destabilization.” I will be as optimistic as a careful reading of the evidence permits and assume that leaders will rouse themselves to act in time to stabilize and then reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases below the level at which we lose control of the climate altogether by the effects of what scientists call “positive carbon cycle feedbacks.” Even so, with a warming approaching or above 2°C we will not escape severe social, economic, and political trauma. In an e-mail to the author on November 19, 2007, ecologist and founder of the Woods Hole Research Center George Woodwell puts it this way: . . . There is an unfortunate fiction abroad that if we can hold the temperature rise to 2 or 3 degrees C we can accommodate the changes. The proposition is the worst of wishful thinking.

scholarly journals A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
HyeJin Kim ◽  
Isabel M. D. Rosa ◽  
Rob Alkemade ◽  
Paul Leadley ◽  
George Hurtt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Multiple Scales ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Global Impacts

Abstract. 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) to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenarios 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 service models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modelling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modelling 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document