Articles | Volume 14, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
03 Nov 2017
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 03 Nov 2017
Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research – Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
Thomas A. M. Pugh
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research – Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Birmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Anita D. Bayer
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research – Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
Jonathan C. Doelman
PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2500 GH The Hague, Postbus 30314, the Netherlands
Florian Humpenöder
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegrafenberg, P.O. Box 60 12 03, Potsdam, 14412, Germany
Peter Anthoni
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research – Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
Stefan Olin
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Lund, 22362, Sweden
Benjamin L. Bodirsky
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegrafenberg, P.O. Box 60 12 03, Potsdam, 14412, Germany
Alexander Popp
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegrafenberg, P.O. Box 60 12 03, Potsdam, 14412, Germany
Elke Stehfest
PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2500 GH The Hague, Postbus 30314, the Netherlands
Almut Arneth
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research – Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Kreuzeckbahnstr. 19, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
Viewed
Total article views: 11,421 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 19 May 2017)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9,014 | 2,158 | 249 | 11,421 | 476 | 260 | 331 |
- HTML: 9,014
- PDF: 2,158
- XML: 249
- Total: 11,421
- Supplement: 476
- BibTeX: 260
- EndNote: 331
Total article views: 10,606 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 03 Nov 2017)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8,612 | 1,762 | 232 | 10,606 | 476 | 256 | 311 |
- HTML: 8,612
- PDF: 1,762
- XML: 232
- Total: 10,606
- Supplement: 476
- BibTeX: 256
- EndNote: 311
Total article views: 815 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 19 May 2017)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 402 | 396 | 17 | 815 | 4 | 20 |
- HTML: 402
- PDF: 396
- XML: 17
- Total: 815
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 11,421 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 10,488 with geography defined
and 933 with unknown origin.
Total article views: 10,606 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 9,683 with geography defined
and 923 with unknown origin.
Total article views: 815 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 805 with geography defined
and 10 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Cited
38 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts A. Krause et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14144
- Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)—a review L. Karki et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ace91f
- Carbon Sequestration Potential from Large-Scale Reforestation and Sugarcane Expansion on Abandoned Agricultural Lands in Brazil I. Kerdan et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41050-019-00012-3
- Strategic roadmap to assess forest vulnerability under air pollution and climate change A. De Marco et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16278
- From political to climate crisis O. Cavalett https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0228-4
- Climate impacts of retention forestry in a Swedish boreal pine forest F. Cherubini et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2018.1529831
- Biomass to biofuel: Impacts and mitigation of environmental, health, and socioeconomic challenges P. Chowdhury et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2025.100889
- How do we best synergize climate mitigation actions to co‐benefit biodiversity? P. Smith et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16056
- Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade‐offs J. Doelman et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14887
- Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based and land-based climate mitigation options G. Hayman et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021
- Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets A. Harper et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z
- Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? P. Smith et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878
- How diet portfolio shifts combined with land-based climate change mitigation strategies could reduce climate burdens in Germany K. Chan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134200
- Towards a multilevel modelling framework for coproducing feasible and equitable portfolios of land-based climate mitigation technologies R. Schaldach et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-026-00353-7
- Effects of Soil Organic construction on Regional Surface ET and GPP of Coal mine goaf L. Gang et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1549/2/022091
- Land use for bioenergy: Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals I. Vera et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112409
- Climate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5°C S. Seneviratne et al. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0450
- Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors P. Harrison et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1352-4
- Land management and climate change determine second‐generation bioenergy potential of the US Northern Great Plains K. Dolan et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12686
- Bioenergy Crops for Low Warming Targets Require Half of the Present Agricultural Fertilizer Use W. Li et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02238
- Rangeland Livelihood Strategies under Varying Climate Regimes: Model Insights from Southern Kenya R. Kariuki et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020047
- Measuring renewables’ impact on biosphere integrity: A review V. Bøe et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111135
- Multimodel Analysis of Future Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Functioning A. Krause et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001123
- Climate-friendly business: A study to assess its potential in the coastal areas of Bangladesh M. Chowdhury et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-022-00914-y
- Function zoning based on spatial and temporal changes in quantity and quality of ecosystem services under enhanced management of water resources in arid basins Z. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108725
- How to measure the efficiency of bioenergy crops compared to forestation S. Egerer et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5005-2024
- The impact of land‐use change emissions on the potential of bioenergy as climate change mitigation option for a Brazilian low‐carbon energy system T. Lap et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12901
- Estimating medium-term (40 years) carbon uptake in living biomass from Life Terra’s afforestation and reforestation actions: challenges and recommendations J. Palmero-Barrachina et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2025.1586743
- Modeling forest plantations for carbon uptake with the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model M. Braakhekke et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019
- A regional assessment of land‐based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy, BECCS, reforestation, and forest management A. Krause et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12675
- Careful selection of forest types in afforestation can increase carbon sequestration by 25% without compromising sustainability T. Hasegawa et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01336-4
- An overview of global desertification control efforts: Key challenges and overarching solutions Z. Ahmed et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13154
- Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system C. Brown et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0400-5
- Future projections of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe with two integrated assessment models C. Veerkamp et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01685-8
- A novel energy systems model to explore the role of land use and reforestation in achieving carbon mitigation targets: A Brazil case study I. García Kerdan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.345
- Diverging land-use projections cause large variability in their impacts on ecosystems and related indicators for ecosystem services A. Bayer et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-327-2021
- Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators S. Rabin et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-357-2020
- Global cooling induced by biophysical effects of bioenergy crop cultivation J. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27520-0
38 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts A. Krause et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14144
- Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)—a review L. Karki et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ace91f
- Carbon Sequestration Potential from Large-Scale Reforestation and Sugarcane Expansion on Abandoned Agricultural Lands in Brazil I. Kerdan et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41050-019-00012-3
- Strategic roadmap to assess forest vulnerability under air pollution and climate change A. De Marco et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16278
- From political to climate crisis O. Cavalett https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0228-4
- Climate impacts of retention forestry in a Swedish boreal pine forest F. Cherubini et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2018.1529831
- Biomass to biofuel: Impacts and mitigation of environmental, health, and socioeconomic challenges P. Chowdhury et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2025.100889
- How do we best synergize climate mitigation actions to co‐benefit biodiversity? P. Smith et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16056
- Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade‐offs J. Doelman et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14887
- Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based and land-based climate mitigation options G. Hayman et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021
- Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets A. Harper et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z
- Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? P. Smith et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878
- How diet portfolio shifts combined with land-based climate change mitigation strategies could reduce climate burdens in Germany K. Chan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134200
- Towards a multilevel modelling framework for coproducing feasible and equitable portfolios of land-based climate mitigation technologies R. Schaldach et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-026-00353-7
- Effects of Soil Organic construction on Regional Surface ET and GPP of Coal mine goaf L. Gang et al. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1549/2/022091
- Land use for bioenergy: Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals I. Vera et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112409
- Climate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5°C S. Seneviratne et al. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0450
- Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors P. Harrison et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1352-4
- Land management and climate change determine second‐generation bioenergy potential of the US Northern Great Plains K. Dolan et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12686
- Bioenergy Crops for Low Warming Targets Require Half of the Present Agricultural Fertilizer Use W. Li et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02238
- Rangeland Livelihood Strategies under Varying Climate Regimes: Model Insights from Southern Kenya R. Kariuki et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020047
- Measuring renewables’ impact on biosphere integrity: A review V. Bøe et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111135
- Multimodel Analysis of Future Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Functioning A. Krause et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001123
- Climate-friendly business: A study to assess its potential in the coastal areas of Bangladesh M. Chowdhury et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-022-00914-y
- Function zoning based on spatial and temporal changes in quantity and quality of ecosystem services under enhanced management of water resources in arid basins Z. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108725
- How to measure the efficiency of bioenergy crops compared to forestation S. Egerer et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5005-2024
- The impact of land‐use change emissions on the potential of bioenergy as climate change mitigation option for a Brazilian low‐carbon energy system T. Lap et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12901
- Estimating medium-term (40 years) carbon uptake in living biomass from Life Terra’s afforestation and reforestation actions: challenges and recommendations J. Palmero-Barrachina et al. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2025.1586743
- Modeling forest plantations for carbon uptake with the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model M. Braakhekke et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019
- A regional assessment of land‐based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy, BECCS, reforestation, and forest management A. Krause et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12675
- Careful selection of forest types in afforestation can increase carbon sequestration by 25% without compromising sustainability T. Hasegawa et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01336-4
- An overview of global desertification control efforts: Key challenges and overarching solutions Z. Ahmed et al. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13154
- Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system C. Brown et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0400-5
- Future projections of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe with two integrated assessment models C. Veerkamp et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01685-8
- A novel energy systems model to explore the role of land use and reforestation in achieving carbon mitigation targets: A Brazil case study I. García Kerdan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.345
- Diverging land-use projections cause large variability in their impacts on ecosystems and related indicators for ecosystem services A. Bayer et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-327-2021
- Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators S. Rabin et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-357-2020
- Global cooling induced by biophysical effects of bioenergy crop cultivation J. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27520-0
Saved (final revised paper)
Latest update: 08 Jul 2026
Short summary
Many climate change mitigation scenarios require negative emissions from land management. However, environmental side effects are often not considered. Here, we use projections of future land use from two land-use models as input to a vegetation model. We show that carbon removal via bioenergy production or forest maintenance and expansion affect a range of ecosystem functions. Largest impacts are found for crop production, nitrogen losses, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds.
Many climate change mitigation scenarios require negative emissions from land management....
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint