Articles | Volume 21, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5005-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5005-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
14 Nov 2024
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 14 Nov 2024
| 14 Nov 2024
How to measure the efficiency of bioenergy crops compared to forestation
Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Munich, Germany
Stefanie Falk
Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Munich, Germany
Dorothea Mayer
Kuratorium für Waldarbeit und Forstwirtschaft e.V., Groß-Umstadt, Germany
Tobias Nützel
Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Munich, Germany
Wolfgang A. Obermeier
Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Munich, Germany
Julia Pongratz
Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, Munich, Germany
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Nikolina Mileva, Julia Pongratz, Vivek K. Arora, Akihiko Ito, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Sonali S. McDermid, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Roland Séférian, Yanwu Zhang, and Wolfgang Buermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 2137–2160, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-2137-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-2137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Despite forests being so important for mitigating climate change, there are still uncertainties about how much the changes in forest cover contribute to the cooling/warming of the climate. Climate models and real-world observations often disagree about the magnitude and even the direction of these changes. We constrain climate models scenarios of widespread deforestation with satellite and in-situ data and show that models still have difficulties representing the movement of heat and water.
Stefanie Falk, Luca Reißig, Bianca Zilker, Andreas Richter, and Björn-Martin Sinnhuber
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 15653–15682, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-15653-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-15653-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone depletion events (ODEs) and bromine explosions in the Arctic were studied for 2019/20. Our model underestimated boundary layer height and showed warm biases, affecting ODE simulation. Updates improved coastal ozone agreement but failed to capture strong ODEs. Bromine monoxide (BrO) was overestimated at the surface yet underestimated in columns. Long-term data show declining strong ODEs since 2008, suggesting additional climate-driven factors beyond sea ice age.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Kjetil Aas, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Nicolas Bellouin, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Carla F. Berghoff, Raffaele Bernardello, Laurent Bopp, Ida B. M. Brasika, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Nathan O. Collier, Thomas H. Colligan, Margot Cronin, Laique Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Matt P. Enright, Kazutaka Enyo, Michael Erb, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Filippa Fransner, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Jefferson Goncalves De Souza, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Bertrand Guenet, Özgür Gürses, Kirsty Harrington, Ian Harris, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Akihiko Ito, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Yawen Kong, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Charles Koven, Taro Kunimitsu, Xin Lan, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Zhu Liu, Claire Lo Monaco, Lei Ma, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Joe Melton, Natalie Monacci, Erwan Monier, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Jens D. Müller, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Lorna R. Nayagam, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nutzel, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Naiqing Pan, Sudhanshu Pandey, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Pierre A. G. Regnier, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Ingunn Skjelvan, T. Luke Smallman, Victoria Spada, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Didier Swingedouw, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Xiangjun Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Erik van Ooijen, Guido van der Werf, Sebastiaan J. van de Velde, Anthony Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-659, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-659, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2025 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2025). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Olivier Bouriaud, Ernst-Detlef Schulze, Konstantin Gregor, Issam Boukhris, Peter Högberg, Roland Irslinger, Phillip Papastefanou, Julia Pongratz, Anja Rammig, Riccardo Valentini, and Christian Körner
Biogeosciences, 22, 4729–4741, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-4729-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-4729-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of harvesting on forests' carbon sink capacities is debated. One view is that their sink strength is resilient to harvesting, and the other is that it disrupts these capacities. Our work shows that leaf area index (LAI) has been overlooked in this discussion. We found that temperate forests' carbon uptake is largely insensitive to variations in LAI beyond 4.5 m² m-² but that forests operate at higher levels.
Rubaya Pervin, Scott Robeson, Mallory Barnes, Stephen Sitch, Anthony Walker, Ben Poulter, Fabienne Maignan, Qing Sun, Thomas Colligan, Sönke Zaehle, Kashif Mahmud, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Vladislav Bastrikov, Liam Bogucki, Bertrand Decharme, Christine Delire, Stefanie Falk, Akihiko Ito, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Michael O’Sullivan, Wenping Yuan, and Natasha MacBean
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2841, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2841, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
Drylands contribute more than a third of the global vegetation productivity. Yet, these regions are not well represented in global vegetation models. Here, we tested how well 15 global models capture annual changes in dryland vegetation productivity. Models that didn’t have vegetation change over time or fire have lower variability in vegetation productivity. Models need better representation of grass cover types and their coverage. Our work highlights where and how these models need to improve.
Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Michael O'Sullivan, Maria Carolina Duran-Rojas, Thais Michele Rosan, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Louise P. Chini, and George C. Hurtt
Biogeosciences, 22, 3547–3561, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3547-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3547-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Indonesia is the world's third-highest carbon emitter from land use change. However, there are uncertainties in the carbon emissions of Indonesia. Our best estimate of carbon emissions from land use change in Indonesia is 0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr with a steady trend. Despite many uncertainties created by drivers, models, and products, we also found robust agreements between these models and products. All agree that Indonesian carbon emissions from LULCC (land use and land cover change) have had no decreasing trend for the last 2 decades.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets to track real-world changes over time. To make our work relevant to policymakers, we follow methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the IPCC assessment.
Amali A. Amali, Clemens Schwingshackl, Akihiko Ito, Alina Barbu, Christine Delire, Daniele Peano, David M. Lawrence, David Wårlind, Eddy Robertson, Edouard L. Davin, Elena Shevliakova, Ian N. Harman, Nicolas Vuichard, Paul A. Miller, Peter J. Lawrence, Tilo Ziehn, Tomohiro Hajima, Victor Brovkin, Yanwu Zhang, Vivek K. Arora, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 803–840, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-803-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study explored the impact of anthropogenic land-use change (LUC) on climate dynamics, focusing on biogeophysical (BGP) and biogeochemical (BGC) effects using data from the Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). We found that LUC-induced carbon emissions contribute to a BGC warming of 0.21 °C, with BGC effects dominating globally over BGP effects, which show regional variability. Our findings highlight discrepancies in model simulations and emphasize the need for improved representations of LUC processes.
Suqi Guo, Felix Havermann, Steven J. De Hertog, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Thomas Raddatz, Hongmei Li, Wim Thiery, Quentin Lejeune, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, David Wårlind, Lars Nieradzik, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 631–666, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-631-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-631-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and land management changes (LCLMCs) can alter climate even in intact areas, causing carbon changes in remote areas. This study is the first to assess these effects, finding they substantially alter global carbon dynamics, changing terrestrial stocks by up to dozens of gigatonnes. These results are vital for scientific and policy assessments, given the expected role of LCLMCs in achieving the Paris Agreement's goal to limit global warming below 1.5 °C.
William Lamb, Robbie Andrew, Matthew Jones, Zebedee Nicholls, Glen Peters, Chris Smith, Marielle Saunois, Giacomo Grassi, Julia Pongratz, Steven Smith, Francesco Tubiello, Monica Crippa, Matthew Gidden, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jan Minx, and Piers Forster
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-188, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-188, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores why global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates vary. Key reasons include different coverage of gases and sectors, varying definitions of anthropogenic land use change emissions, and the Paris Agreement not covering all emission sources. The study highlights three main ways emissions data is reported, each with different objectives and resulting in varying global emission totals. It emphasizes the need for transparency in choosing datasets and setting assessment scopes.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Bradley Hall, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel M. Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik Schumacher, Guido van der Werf, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2625–2658, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tracks some key indicators of global warming through time, from 1850 through to the end of 2023. It is designed to give an authoritative estimate of global warming to date and its causes. We find that in 2023, global warming reached 1.3 °C and is increasing at over 0.2 °C per decade. This is caused by all-time-high greenhouse gas emissions.
Guilherme L. Torres Mendonça, Julia Pongratz, and Christian H. Reick
Biogeosciences, 21, 1923–1960, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1923-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1923-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We study the timescale dependence of airborne fraction and underlying feedbacks by a theory of the climate–carbon system. Using simulations we show the predictive power of this theory and find that (1) this fraction generally decreases for increasing timescales and (2) at all timescales the total feedback is negative and the model spread in a single feedback causes the spread in the airborne fraction. Our study indicates that those are properties of the system, independently of the scenario.
Steven J. De Hertog, Carmen E. Lopez-Fabara, Ruud van der Ent, Jessica Keune, Diego G. Miralles, Raphael Portmann, Sebastian Schemm, Felix Havermann, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 265–291, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-265-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-265-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Changes in land use are crucial to achieve lower global warming. However, despite their importance, the effects of these changes on moisture fluxes are poorly understood. We analyse land cover and management scenarios in three climate models involving cropland expansion, afforestation, and irrigation. Results show largely consistent influences on moisture fluxes, with cropland expansion causing a drying and reduced local moisture recycling, while afforestation and irrigation show the opposite.
Wolfgang Alexander Obermeier, Clemens Schwingshackl, Ana Bastos, Giulia Conchedda, Thomas Gasser, Giacomo Grassi, Richard A. Houghton, Francesco Nicola Tubiello, Stephen Sitch, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 605–645, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-605-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-605-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We provide and compare country-level estimates of land-use CO2 fluxes from a variety and large number of models, bottom-up estimates, and country reports for the period 1950–2021. Although net fluxes are small in many countries, they are often composed of large compensating emissions and removals. In many countries, the estimates agree well once their individual characteristics are accounted for, but in other countries, including some of the largest emitters, substantial uncertainties exist.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Matthew J. McGrath, Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Philippe Peylin, Robbie M. Andrew, Bradley Matthews, Frank Dentener, Juraj Balkovič, Vladislav Bastrikov, Meike Becker, Gregoire Broquet, Philippe Ciais, Audrey Fortems-Cheiney, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Giacomo Grassi, Ian Harris, Matthew Jones, Jürgen Knauer, Matthias Kuhnert, Guillaume Monteil, Saqr Munassar, Paul I. Palmer, Glen P. Peters, Chunjing Qiu, Mart-Jan Schelhaas, Oksana Tarasova, Matteo Vizzarri, Karina Winkler, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Antoine Berchet, Peter Briggs, Patrick Brockmann, Frédéric Chevallier, Giulia Conchedda, Monica Crippa, Stijn N. C. Dellaert, Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon, Sara Filipek, Pierre Friedlingstein, Richard Fuchs, Michael Gauss, Christoph Gerbig, Diego Guizzardi, Dirk Günther, Richard A. Houghton, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Ronny Lauerwald, Bas Lerink, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Géraud Moulas, Marilena Muntean, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Aurélie Paquirissamy, Lucia Perugini, Wouter Peters, Roberto Pilli, Julia Pongratz, Pierre Regnier, Marko Scholze, Yusuf Serengil, Pete Smith, Efisio Solazzo, Rona L. Thompson, Francesco N. Tubiello, Timo Vesala, and Sophia Walther
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 4295–4370, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate estimation of fluxes of carbon dioxide from the land surface is essential for understanding future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate system. A wide variety of methods currently exist to estimate these sources and sinks. We are continuing work to develop annual comparisons of these diverse methods in order to clarify what they all actually calculate and to resolve apparent disagreement, in addition to highlighting opportunities for increased understanding.
Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, Vivek K. Arora, Christian Seiler, Almut Arneth, Stefanie Falk, Atul K. Jain, Fortunat Joos, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Stephen Sitch, Michael O'Sullivan, Naiqing Pan, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Nicolas Vuichard, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 767–795, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Nitrogen (N) is an essential limiting nutrient to terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration. We evaluate N cycling in an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models. We find that variability in N processes across models is large. Models tended to overestimate C storage per unit N in vegetation and soil, which could have consequences for projecting the future terrestrial C sink. However, N cycling measurements are highly uncertain, and more are necessary to guide the development of N cycling in models.
Piers M. Forster, Christopher J. Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Blair Trewin, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Arlene Birt, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Lijing Cheng, Frank Dentener, Pierre Friedlingstein, José M. Gutiérrez, Johannes Gütschow, Bradley Hall, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, June-Yi Lee, Colin Morice, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel Killick, Jan C. Minx, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Robert Rohde, Maisa Rojas Corradi, Dominik Schumacher, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295–2327, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is a critical decade for climate action, but there is no annual tracking of the level of human-induced warming. We build on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports that are authoritative but published infrequently to create a set of key global climate indicators that can be tracked through time. Our hope is that this becomes an important annual publication that policymakers, media, scientists and the public can refer to.
Steven J. De Hertog, Felix Havermann, Inne Vanderkelen, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Dim Coumou, Edouard L. Davin, Gregory Duveiller, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 629–667, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-629-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-629-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and land management changes are important strategies for future land-based mitigation. We investigate the climate effects of cropland expansion, afforestation, irrigation and wood harvesting using three Earth system models. Results show that these have important implications for surface temperature where the land cover and/or management change occur and in remote areas. Idealized afforestation causes global warming, which might offset the cooling effect from enhanced carbon uptake.
Steven J. De Hertog, Carmen E. Lopez-Fabara, Ruud van der Ent, Jessica Keune, Diego G. Miralles, Raphael Portmann, Sebastian Schemm, Felix Havermann, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-953, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-953, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and management changes can affect the climate and water availability. In this study we use climate model simulations of extreme global land cover changes (afforestation, deforestation) and land management changes (irrigation) to understand the effects on the global water cycle and local to continental water availability. We show that cropland expansion generally leads to higher evaporation and lower amounts of precipitation and afforestation and irrigation expansion to the opposite.
Giacomo Grassi, Clemens Schwingshackl, Thomas Gasser, Richard A. Houghton, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Alessandro Cescatti, Philippe Ciais, Sandro Federici, Pierre Friedlingstein, Werner A. Kurz, Maria J. Sanz Sanchez, Raúl Abad Viñas, Ramdane Alkama, Selma Bultan, Guido Ceccherini, Stefanie Falk, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Jürgen Knauer, Anu Korosuo, Joana Melo, Matthew J. McGrath, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Anna A. Romanovskaya, Simone Rossi, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1093–1114, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1093-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1093-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Striking differences exist in estimates of land-use CO2 fluxes between the national greenhouse gas inventories and the IPCC assessment reports. These differences hamper an accurate assessment of the collective progress under the Paris Agreement. By implementing an approach that conceptually reconciles land-use CO2 flux from national inventories and the global models used by the IPCC, our study is an important step forward for increasing confidence in land-use CO2 flux estimates.
Hongmei Li, Tatiana Ilyina, Tammas Loughran, Aaron Spring, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 101–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-101-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-101-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
For the first time, our decadal prediction system based on Max Planck Institute Earth System Model enables prognostic atmospheric CO2 with an interactive carbon cycle. The evolution of CO2 fluxes and atmospheric CO2 growth is reconstructed well by assimilating data products; retrospective predictions show high confidence in predicting changes in the next year. The Earth system predictions provide valuable inputs for understanding the global carbon cycle and informing climate-relevant policy.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Steven J. De Hertog, Felix Havermann, Inne Vanderkelen, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Dim Coumou, Edouard L. Davin, Gregory Duveiller, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1305–1350, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1305-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1305-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and land management changes are important strategies for future land-based mitigation. We investigate the climate effects of cropland expansion, afforestation, irrigation, and wood harvesting using three Earth system models. Results show that these have important implications for surface temperature where the land cover and/or management change occurs and in remote areas. Idealized afforestation causes global warming, which might offset the cooling effect from enhanced carbon uptake.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Philippe Ciais, Ana Bastos, Frédéric Chevallier, Ronny Lauerwald, Ben Poulter, Josep G. Canadell, Gustaf Hugelius, Robert B. Jackson, Atul Jain, Matthew Jones, Masayuki Kondo, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Prabir K. Patra, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Shilong Piao, Chunjing Qiu, Celso Von Randow, Pierre Regnier, Marielle Saunois, Robert Scholes, Anatoly Shvidenko, Hanqin Tian, Hui Yang, Xuhui Wang, and Bo Zheng
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1289–1316, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1289-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1289-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The second phase of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP) will provide updated quantification and process understanding of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions and sinks for ten regions of the globe. In this paper, we give definitions, review different methods, and make recommendations for estimating different components of the total land–atmosphere carbon exchange for each region in a consistent and complete approach.
Jan C. Minx, William F. Lamb, Robbie M. Andrew, Josep G. Canadell, Monica Crippa, Niklas Döbbeling, Piers M. Forster, Diego Guizzardi, Jos Olivier, Glen P. Peters, Julia Pongratz, Andy Reisinger, Matthew Rigby, Marielle Saunois, Steven J. Smith, Efisio Solazzo, and Hanqin Tian
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 5213–5252, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide a synthetic dataset on anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for 1970–2018 with a fast-track extension to 2019. We show that GHG emissions continued to rise across all gases and sectors. Annual average GHG emissions growth slowed, but absolute decadal increases have never been higher in human history. We identify a number of data gaps and data quality issues in global inventories and highlight their importance for monitoring progress towards international climate goals.
Stefanie Falk, Ane V. Vollsnes, Aud B. Eriksen, Lisa Emberson, Connie O'Neill, Frode Stordal, and Terje Koren Berntsen
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-260, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-260, 2021
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Subarctic vegetation is threatened by climate change and ozone. We assess essential climate variables in 2018/19. 2018 was warmer and brighter than usual in Spring with forest fires and elevated ozone in summer. Visible damage was observed on plant species in 2018. We find that generic parameterizations used in modeling ozone dose do not suffice. We propose a method to acclimate these parameterizations and find an ozone-induced biomass loss of 2.5 to 17.4 % (up to 6 % larger than default).
Lina Teckentrup, Martin G. De Kauwe, Andrew J. Pitman, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Anthony P. Walker, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 5639–5668, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Australian continent is included in global assessments of the carbon cycle such as the global carbon budget, yet the performance of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) over Australia has rarely been evaluated. We assessed simulations by an ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models over Australia and highlighted a number of key areas that lead to model divergence on both short (inter-annual) and long (decadal) timescales.
Stefanie Falk, Ane V. Vollsnes, Aud B. Eriksen, Frode Stordal, and Terje Koren Berntsen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 15647–15661, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15647-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15647-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate regional and global models for ozone modeling and damage risk mapping of vegetation over subarctic Europe. Our analysis suggests that low-resolution global models do not reproduce the observed ozone seasonal cycle at ground level, underestimating ozone by 30–50 %. High-resolution regional models capture the seasonal cycle well, still underestimating ozone by up to 20 %. Our proposed gap-filling method for site observations shows a 76 % accuracy compared to the regional model (80 %).
Ana Bastos, René Orth, Markus Reichstein, Philippe Ciais, Nicolas Viovy, Sönke Zaehle, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Pierre Gentine, Emilie Joetzjer, Sebastian Lienert, Tammas Loughran, Patrick C. McGuire, Sungmin O, Julia Pongratz, and Stephen Sitch
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1015–1035, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1015-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1015-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Temperate biomes in Europe are not prone to recurrent dry and hot conditions in summer. However, these conditions may become more frequent in the coming decades. Because stress conditions can leave legacies for many years, this may result in reduced ecosystem resilience under recurrent stress. We assess vegetation vulnerability to the hot and dry summers in 2018 and 2019 in Europe and find the important role of inter-annual legacy effects from 2018 in modulating the impacts of the 2019 event.
Guilherme L. Torres Mendonça, Julia Pongratz, and Christian H. Reick
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 501–532, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-501-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-501-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Linear response functions are a powerful tool to both predict and investigate the dynamics of a system when subjected to small perturbations. In practice, these functions must often be derived from perturbation experiment data. Nevertheless, current methods for this identification require a tailored perturbation experiment, often with many realizations. We present a method that instead derives these functions from a single realization of an experiment driven by any type of perturbation.
Guilherme L. Torres Mendonça, Julia Pongratz, and Christian H. Reick
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 533–564, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-533-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-533-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We apply a new identification method to derive the response functions that characterize the sensitivity of the land carbon cycle to CO2 perturbations in an Earth system model. By means of these response functions, which generalize the usually employed single-valued sensitivities, we can reliably predict the response of the land carbon to weak perturbations. Further, we demonstrate how by this new method one can robustly derive and interpret internal spectra of timescales of the system.
Louise Chini, George Hurtt, Ritvik Sahajpal, Steve Frolking, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Stephen Sitch, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Lei Ma, Lesley Ott, Julia Pongratz, and Benjamin Poulter
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4175–4189, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon emissions from land-use change are a large and uncertain component of the global carbon cycle. The Land-Use Harmonization 2 (LUH2) dataset was developed as an input to carbon and climate simulations and has been updated annually for the Global Carbon Budget (GCB) assessments. Here we discuss the methodology for producing these annual LUH2 updates and describe the 2019 version which used new cropland and grazing land data inputs for the globally important region of Brazil.
Ana Bastos, Kerstin Hartung, Tobias B. Nützel, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Richard A. Houghton, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 745–762, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-745-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-745-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Fluxes from land-use change and management (FLUC) are a large source of uncertainty in global and regional carbon budgets. Here, we evaluate the impact of different model parameterisations on FLUC. We show that carbon stock densities and allocation of carbon following transitions contribute more to uncertainty in FLUC than response-curve time constants. Uncertainty in FLUC could thus, in principle, be reduced by available Earth-observation data on carbon densities at a global scale.
Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Louise Chini, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Felix Havermann, George C. Hurtt, Tammas Loughran, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tobias Nützel, Wolfgang A. Obermeier, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 763–782, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-763-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-763-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we model the relative importance of several contributors to the land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) flux based on a LULCC dataset including uncertainty estimates. The uncertainty of LULCC is as relevant as applying wood harvest and gross transitions for the cumulative LULCC flux over the industrial period. However, LULCC uncertainty matters less than the other two factors for the LULCC flux in 2014; historical LULCC uncertainty is negligible for estimates of future scenarios.
Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Matthew J. McGrath, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Peylin, Glen P. Peters, Philippe Ciais, Gregoire Broquet, Francesco N. Tubiello, Christoph Gerbig, Julia Pongratz, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Giacomo Grassi, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Pierre Regnier, Ronny Lauerwald, Matthias Kuhnert, Juraj Balkovič, Mart-Jan Schelhaas, Hugo A. C. Denier van der
Gon, Efisio Solazzo, Chunjing Qiu, Roberto Pilli, Igor B. Konovalov, Richard A. Houghton, Dirk Günther, Lucia Perugini, Monica Crippa, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Pete Smith, Saqr Munassar, Rona L. Thompson, Giulia Conchedda, Guillaume Monteil, Marko Scholze, Ute Karstens, Patrick Brockmann, and Albertus Johannes Dolman
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 2363–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2363-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-2363-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study is topical and provides a state-of-the-art scientific overview of data availability from bottom-up and top-down CO2 fossil emissions and CO2 land fluxes in the EU27+UK. The data integrate recent emission inventories with ecosystem data, land carbon models and regional/global inversions for the European domain, aiming at reconciling CO2 estimates with official country-level UNFCCC national GHG inventories in support to policy and facilitating real-time verification procedures.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Anja Katzenberger, Jacob Schewe, Julia Pongratz, and Anders Levermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 367–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-367-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-367-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
All state-of-the-art global climate models that contributed to the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) show a robust increase in Indian summer monsoon rainfall that is even stronger than in the previous intercomparison (CMIP5). Furthermore, they show an increase in the year-to-year variability of this seasonal rainfall that crucially influences the livelihood of more than 1 billion people in India.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Cited articles
Anderegg, W. R., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Anderson, C. M., Bartuska, A., Ciais, P., Cullenward, D., Field, C. B., Freeman, J., Goetz, S. J., Hicke, J. A., Huntzinger, D., Jackson, R. B., Nickerson, J., Pacala, S., and Randerson, J. T.: Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests, Science, 368, eaaz7005, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7005, 2020. a
Anderegg, W. R., Chegwidden, O. S., Badgley, G., Trugman, A. T., Cullenward, D., Abatzoglou, J. T., Hicke, J. A., Freeman, J., and Hamman, J. J.: Future climate risks from stress, insects and fire across US forests, Ecol. Lett., 25, 1510–1520, https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14018, 2022. a, b
Awty-Carroll, D., Magenau, E., Al Hassan, M., Martani, E., Kontek, M., van der Pluijm, P., Ashman, C., de Maupeou, E., McCalmont, J., Petrie, G. J., Davey, C., van der Cruijsen, K., Jurišić, V., Amaducci, S., Lamy, I., Shepherd, A., Kam, J., Hoogendam, A., Croci, M., Dolstra, O., Ferrarini, A., Lewandowski, I., Trindade, L. M., Kiesel, A., and Clifton-Brown, J.: Yield performance of 14 novel inter- and intra-species Miscanthus hybrids across Europe, GCB Bioenergy, 15, 399–423, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.13026, 2023. a, b
Azar, C., Johansson, D. J., and Mattsson, N.: Meeting global temperature targets – The role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034004, 2013. a
Babin, A., Vaneeckhaute, C., and Iliuta, M. C.: Potential and challenges of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage as a carbon-negative energy source: A review, Biomass Bioenerg., 146, 105968, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.105968, 2021. a, b
Borchers, M., Förster, J., Thrän, D., Beck, S., Thoni, T., Korte, K., Gawel, E., Markus, T., Schaller, R., Rhoden, I., Chi, Y., Dahmen, N., Dittmeyer, R., Dolch, T., Dold, C., Herbst, M., Heß, D., Kalhori, A., Jakobsen, K. K., Li, Z., Oschlies, A., Reusch, T. B. H., Sachs, T., Hattenberger, C. S., Stevenson, A., Wu, J., Yeates, C., and Mengis, N.: A Comprehensive Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal Options for Germany Earth' s Future, Earth's Future, 12, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003986, 2024. a
Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W., Gerten, D., Heck, V., Lenton, T. M., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal, Earth's Future, 5, 463–474, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000469, 2017. a, b
Braakhekke, M. C., Doelman, J. C., Baas, P., Müller, C., Schaphoff, S., Stehfest, E., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Modeling forest plantations for carbon uptake with the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 617–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019, 2019. a
Budinis, S., Krevor, S., Dowell, N. M., Brandon, N., and Hawkes, A.: An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential, Energy Strateg. Rev., 22, 61–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003, 2018. a
Byers, E., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Schaeffer, R., Kikstra, J., Lamboll, R., Nicholls, Z., Sandstad, M., Smith, C., van der Wijst, K., Al-Khourdajie, A., Lecocq, F., Portugal-Pereira, J., Saheb, Y., Stromman, A., Winkler, H., Auer, C., Brutschin, E., Gidden, M., Hackstock, P., Harmsen, M., Huppmann, D., Kolp, P., Lepault, C., Lewis, J., Marangoni, G., Müller-Casseres, E., Skeie, R., Werning, M., Calvin, K., Forster, P., Guivarch, C., Hasegawa, T., Meinshausen, M., Peters, G., Rogelj, J., Samset, B., Steinberger, J., Tavoni, M., and van Vuuren, D.: AR6 Scenarios Database, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7197970, 2022. a, b
Canadell, J., Monteiro, P., Costa, M., da Cunha, L. C., Cox, P., Eliseev, A., Henson, S., Ishii, M., Jaccard, S., Koven, C., Lohila, A., Patra, P., Piao, S., Rogelj, J., Syampungani, S., Zaehle, S., and Zickfeld, K.: Global Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, in: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basiss. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., 673–816, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, ISBN 9781009157896, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.007, 2021. a
Cannell, M. G.: Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: Theoretical, potential and achievable capacities globally, in Europe and the UK, Biomass Bioenerg., 24, 97–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00103-4, 2003. a
Cheng, Y., Huang, M., Chen, M., Guan, K., Bernacchi, C., Peng, B., and Tan, Z.: Parameterizing Perennial Bioenergy Crops in Version 5 of the Community Land Model Based on Site-Level Observations in the Central Midwestern United States, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001719, 2020. a, b
Cheng, Y., Huang, M., Lawrence, D. M., Calvin, K., Lombardozzi, D. L., Sinha, E., Pan, M., and He, X.: Future bioenergy expansion could alter carbon sequestration potential and exacerbate water stress in the United States, Sci. Adv., 8, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm8237, 2022. a, b, c, d
Cheng, Y., Lawrence, D. M., Pan, M., Zhang, B., Graham, N. T., Lawrence, P. J., Liu, Z., and He, X.: A bioenergy- focused versus a reforestation- focused mitigation pathway yields disparate carbon storage and climate responses, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 121, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas, 2024. a, b, c, d, e
Christian, D. G., Riche, A. B., and Yates, N. E.: Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus x giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests, Industrial Crops and Products, 28, 320–327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.009, 2008. a
Chum, H., Faaij, A., Moreira, J., Berndes, G., Dhamija, P., Dong, H., Gabrielle, B., Eng, a. G., Cerutti, O. M., Mcintyre, T., Minowa, T., Pingoud, K., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., and Kingdom, U.: SRREN – Chapter 2 – Bioenergy, in: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, edited by: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlömer, S., and von Stechow, C., 209–332, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, ISBN 9781107607101, 2011. a, b
Clifton-Brown, J., Renvoize, S., Chiang, Y.-C., Ibaragi, Y., Flavell, R., Greef, J., Huang, L., Hsu, T. W., Kim, D.-S., Hastings, A., Schwarz, K., Stampfl, P., Valentine, J., Yamada, T., Xi, Q., and Donnison, I.: Chapter 15: Developing Miscanthus for Bioenergy, in: Energy Crops, edited by: Halford, N. G. and Karp, A., RSC Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1039/9781849732048-00301, 2010. a
Clifton-Brown, J., Hastings, A., Mos, M., McCalmont, J. P., Ashman, C., Awty-Carroll, D., Cerazy, J., Chiang, Y. C., Cosentino, S., Cracroft-Eley, W., Scurlock, J., Donnison, I. S., Glover, C., Goła̧b, I., Greef, J. M., Gwyn, J., Harding, G., Hayes, C., Helios, W., Hsu, T. W., Huang, L. S., Jeżowski, S., Kim, D. S., Kiesel, A., Kotecki, A., Krzyzak, J., Lewandowski, I., Lim, S. H., Liu, J., Loosely, M., Meyer, H., Murphy-Bokern, D., Nelson, W., Pogrzeba, M., Robinson, G., Robson, P., Rogers, C., Scalici, G., Schuele, H., Shafiei, R., Shevchuk, O., Schwarz, K. U., Squance, M., Swaller, T., Thornton, J., Truckses, T., Botnari, V., Vizir, I., Wagner, M., Warren, R., Webster, R., Yamada, T., Youell, S., Xi, Q., Zong, J., and Flavell, R.: Progress in upscaling Miscanthus biomass production for the European bio-economy with seed-based hybrids, GCB Bioenergy, 9, 6–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12357, 2017. a, b
Creutzig, F.: Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions, GCB Bioenergy, 8, 4–10, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12235, 2016. a, b
Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Tabeau, A., Hof, A. F., Braakhekke, M. C., Gernaat, D. E., van den Berg, M., van Zeist, W. J., Daioglou, V., van Meijl, H., and Lucas, P. L.: Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade-offs, Glob. Change Biol., 26, 1576–1591, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14887, 2020. a
Egerer, S.: Scripts to publication 'How to measure the efficiency of bioenergy crops compared to forestation', Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13355458, 2024. a
Ercoli, L., Mariotti, M., Masoni, A., and Bonari, E.: Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency of energy use in crop production of Miscanthus, Field Crop Res., 63, 3–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(99)00022-2, 1999. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Anderegg, W. R., Christoffersen, B. O., Dietze, M. C., Farrior, C. E., Holm, J. A., Hurtt, G. C., Knox, R. G., Lawrence, P. J., Lichstein, J. W., Longo, M., Matheny, A. M., Medvigy, D., Muller-Landau, H. C., Powell, T. L., Serbin, S. P., Sato, H., Shuman, J. K., Smith, B., Trugman, A. T., Viskari, T., Verbeeck, H., Weng, E., Xu, C., Xu, X., Zhang, T., and Moorcroft, P. R.: Vegetation demographics in Earth System Models: A review of progress and priorities, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 35–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13910, 2018. a
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023. a
Frühwirth, P., Graf, A., Humer, M., Hunger, F., Köppl, H., Liebhard, P., and Thumfart, K.: Miscanthus sinensis, 'Giganteus' – Chinaschilf als nachwachsender Rohstoff, Tech. rep., Landwirtschaftskammer Österreich, ISBN 9783902325020, 2006. a
Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R. M., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Jones, C. D., Kraxner, F., Nakicenovic, N., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R., Sharifi, A., Smith, P., and Yamagata, Y.: Betting on negative emissions, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 850–853, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392, 2014. a
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., De Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. V., Wilcox, J., Del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M., and Minx, J. C.: Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 063002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f, 2018. a
Gholami, R., Raza, A., and Iglauer, S.: Leakage risk assessment of a CO2 storage site: A review, Earth-Sci. Rev., 223, 103849, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103849, 2021. a
Goll, D. S., Brovkin, V., Liski, J., Raddatz, T., Thum, T., and Todd-Brown, K. E.: Strong dependence of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land cover change on initial land cover and soil carbon parametrization, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 29, 1511–1523, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004988, 2015. a
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., Herrero, M., Kiesecker, J., Landis, E., Laestadius, L., Leavitt, S. M., Polasky, S., Potapov, P., Putz, F. E., Sanderman, J., Silvius, M., Wollenberg, E., and Fargione, J.: Natural climate solutions, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 11645–11650, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114, 2017. a
Gutjahr, O., Putrasahan, D., Lohmann, K., Jungclaus, J. H., von Storch, J.-S., Brüggemann, N., Haak, H., and Stössel, A.: Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2) for the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3241–3281, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3241-2019, 2019. a
Hanssen, S. V., Steinmann, Z. J., Daioglou, V., Čengić, M., Van Vuuren, D. P., and Huijbregts, M. A.: Global implications of crop-based bioenergy with carbon capture and storage for terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity, GCB Bioenergy, 14, 307–321, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12911, 2022. a
Harper, A. B., Powell, T., Cox, P. M., House, J., Huntingford, C., Lenton, T. M., Sitch, S., Burke, E., Chadburn, S. E., Collins, W. J., Comyn-Platt, E., Daioglou, V., Doelman, J. C., Hayman, G., Robertson, E., van Vuuren, D., Wiltshire, A., Webber, C. P., Bastos, A., Boysen, L., Ciais, P., Devaraju, N., Jain, A. K., Krause, A., Poulter, B., and Shu, S.: Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets, Nat. Commun., 9, 2938, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., and Piontek, F.: A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 219–236, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-219-2013, 2013. a
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B. L., Weindl, I., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Kreidenweis, U., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., and Stevanovic, M.: Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs?, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 024011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e3b, 2018. a, b
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L., Sahajpal, R., Frolking, S., Bodirsky, B. L., Calvin, K., Doelman, J. C., Fisk, J., Fujimori, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Heinimann, A., Humpenöder, F., Jungclaus, J., Kaplan, J. O., Kennedy, J., Krisztin, T., Lawrence, D., Lawrence, P., Ma, L., Mertz, O., Pongratz, J., Popp, A., Poulter, B., Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E., Stehfest, E., Thornton, P., Tubiello, F. N., van Vuuren, D. P., and Zhang, X.: Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5425–5464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d, e
IPCC Working Group III: Climate change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Full Report, Tech. Rep. 1, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US, ISBN 9789291691609, https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210012973c007, 2022a. a, b
Jayakrishnan, K. U. and Bala, G.: A comparison of the climate and carbon cycle effects of carbon removal by afforestation and an equivalent reduction in fossil fuel emissions, Biogeosciences, 20, 1863–1877, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1863-2023, 2023. a
Jönsson, J.: Historical perspectives on forestry science and monocultures: Ideas of rationality in Sweden during the early twentieth century, Ambio, 53, 933–940, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-01987-9, 2024. a
Kalt, G., Mayer, A., Theurl, M. C., Lauk, C., Erb, K. H., and Haberl, H.: Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?, GCB Bioenergy, 11, 1283–1297, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12626, 2019. a, b, c
Klein Goldewijk, K., Dekker, S. C., and van Zanden, J. L.: Per-capita estimations of long-term historical land use and the consequences for global change research, Journal of Land Use Science, 12, 313–337, https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2017.1354938, 2017. a
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., and Arneth, A.: Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators, Biogeosciences, 14, 4829–4850, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017, 2017. a, b, c
Krause, A., Pugh, T. A., Bayer, A. D., Li, W., Leung, F., Bondeau, A., Doelman, J. C., Humpenöder, F., Anthoni, P., Bodirsky, B. L., Ciais, P., Müller, C., Murray-Tortarolo, G., Olin, S., Popp, A., Sitch, S., Stehfest, E., and Arneth, A.: Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 3025–3038, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14144, 2018. a, b, c, d
Lange, S. and Büchner, M.: ISIMIP3b bias-adjusted atmospheric climate input data, ISIMIP Repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.842396.1, 2021. a, b
Lasslop, G., Thonicke, K., and Kloster, S.: Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 740–755, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000284, 2014. a
Lawrence, D. M., Hurtt, G. C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Calvin, K. V., Jones, A. D., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, P. J., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Pongratz, J., Seneviratne, S. I., and Shevliakova, E.: The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2973–2998, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016, 2016. a
LeBauer, D., Kooper, R., Mulrooney, P., Rohde, S., Wang, D., Long, S. P., and Dietze, M. C.: BETYdb: a yield, trait, and ecosystem service database applied to second-generation bioenergy feedstock production, GCB Bioenergy, 10, 61–71, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12420, 2018. a, b
Li, W., Yue, C., Ciais, P., Chang, J., Goll, D., Zhu, D., Peng, S., and Jornet-Puig, A.: ORCHIDEE-MICT-BIOENERGY: an attempt to represent the production of lignocellulosic crops for bioenergy in a global vegetation model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2249–2272, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2249-2018, 2018b. a, b, c, d
Li, W., Ciais, P., Makowski, D., and Peng, S.: A global yield dataset for major lignocellulosic bioenergy crops based on field measurements, Figshare [data set], https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3951967, 2018c. a, b
Li, W., Ciais, P., Han, M., Zhao, Q., Chang, J., Goll, D. S., Zhu, L., and Wang, J.: Bioenergy Crops for Low Warming Targets Require Half of the Present Agricultural Fertilizer Use, Environ. Sci. Technol., 55, 10654–10661, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02238, 2021. a, b
Littleton, E. W., Harper, A. B., Vaughan, N. E., Oliver, R. J., Duran-Rojas, M. C., and Lenton, T. M.: JULES-BE: representation of bioenergy crops and harvesting in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator vn5.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1123–1136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1123-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Longato, D., Gaglio, M., Boschetti, M., and Gissi, E.: Bioenergy and ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies in marginal agricultural lands: A remote-sensing-based assessment method, J. Clean. Prod., 237, 117672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117672, 2019. a
Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E. D., Börner, A., Knohl, A., Hessenmöller, D., Law, B. E., Ciais, P., and Grace, J.: Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks, Nature, 455, 213–215, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07276, 2008. a
Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E.-D., Knohl, A., Law, B. E., Grace, P. C., and Grace, J.: Reply to: Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated, Nature, 591, E24–E25, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03267-y, 2021. a
Matthews, H. D., Zickfeld, K., Dickau, M., MacIsaac, A. J., Mathesius, S., Nzotungicimpaye, C. M., and Luers, A.: Temporary nature-based carbon removal can lower peak warming in a well-below 2 °C scenario, Commun. Environ., 3, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00391-z, 2022. a
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Fläschner, D., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M., Goll, D. S., Haak, H., Hagemann, S., Hedemann, C., Hohenegger, C., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T., Jimenéz-de-la Cuesta, D., Jungclaus, J., Kleinen, T., Kloster, S., Kracher, D., Kinne, S., Kleberg, D., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Möbis, B., Müller, W. A., Nabel, J. E., Nam, C. C., Notz, D., Nyawira, S. S., Paulsen, H., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Popp, M., Raddatz, T. J., Rast, S., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Rohrschneider, T., Schemann, V., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K. D., Stein, L., Stemmler, I., Stevens, B., von Storch, J. S., Tian, F., Voigt, A., Vrese, P., Wieners, K. H., Wilkenskjeld, S., Winkler, A., and Roeckner, E.: Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and Its Response to Increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 998–1038, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400, 2019. a
May, M. M. and Rehfeld, K.: Negative Emissions as the New Frontier of Photoelectrochemical CO2 Reduction, Adv. Energy Mater., 12, 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202103801, 2022. a
Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Eyring, V., Flato, G., Lamarque, J. F., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., and Schlund, M.: Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models, Sci. Adv., 6, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981, 2020. a
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S., Smith, S. J., van den Berg, M., Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., and Wang, R. H. J.: The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, 2020. a
Melnikova, I., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Tanaka, K., Gasser, T., Hajima, T., Quilcaille, Y., Shiogama, H., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Vuichard, N., Yokohata, T., and Ciais, P.: Impact of bioenergy crop expansion on climate–carbon cycle feedbacks in overshoot scenarios, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 779–794, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-779-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d
Meyer, M. H., Paul, J., and Anderson, N. O.: Competive ability of invasive Miscanthus biotypes with aggressive switchgrass, Biol. Invasions, 12, 3809–3816, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9773-0, 2010. a
Muri, H.: The role of large – Scale BECCS in the pursuit of the 1.5 °C target: An Earth system model perspective, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 044010, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab324, 2018. a
Nabel, J. E. M. S., Naudts, K., and Pongratz, J.: Accounting for forest age in the tile-based dynamic global vegetation model JSBACH4 (4.20p7; git feature/forests) – a land surface model for the ICON-ESM, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 185–200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-185-2020, 2020. a
Naidu, S. L. and Long, S. P.: Potential mechanisms of low-temperature tolerance of C4 photosynthesis in Miscanthus × giganteus: An in vivo analysis, Planta, 220, 145–155, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-004-1322-6, 2004. a
Nützel, T.: Calculation of parameter values based on observations for the herbaceous biomass plantation PFT representing Miscanthus in JSBACH3.2, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11193881, 2024. a
Obermeier, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Loughran, T., Hartung, K., Bastos, A., Havermann, F., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Goll, D. S., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Luyssaert, S., McGuire, P. C., Melton, J. R., Poulter, B., Sitch, S., Sullivan, M. O., Tian, H., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., Zaehle, S., and Pongratz, J.: Modelled land use and land cover change emissions – a spatio-temporal comparison of different approaches, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021. a
Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Bultan, S., Obermeier, W., Havermann, F., and Guo, S.: Land Use Effects on Climate: Current State, Recent Progress, and Emerging Topics, Current Climate Change Reports, 7, 99–120, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00178-y, 2021. a
Pugh, T. A., Lindeskog, M., Smith, B., Poulter, B., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., and Calle, L.: Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 116, 4382–4387, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810512116, 2019. a
Raddatz, T. J., Reick, C. H., Knorr, W., Kattge, J., Roeckner, E., Schnur, R., Schnitzler, K. G., Wetzel, P., and Jungclaus, J.: Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate-carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century?, Clim. Dynam., 29, 565–574, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0247-8, 2007. a
Reick, C. H., Raddatz, T., Brovkin, V., and Gayler, V.: Representation of natural and anthropogenic land cover change in MPI-ESM, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 459–482, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20022, 2013. a
Reick, C. H., Gayler, V., Goll, D., Hagemann, S., Heidkamp, M., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Raddatz, T., Roeckner, E., Schnur, R., and Wilkenskjeld, S.: JSBACH 3 – The land component of the MPI Earth System Model: documentation of version 3.2, Berichte zur Erdsystemforschung, 240, https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3279802, 2021. a
Reiner, D. M.: Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, Nat. Energ., 1, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.11, 2016. a
Roe, S., Streck, C., Obersteiner, M., Frank, S., Griscom, B., Drouet, L., Fricko, O., Gusti, M., Harris, N., Hasegawa, T., Hausfather, Z., Havlík, P., House, J., Nabuurs, G. J., Popp, A., Sánchez, M. J. S., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., Stehfest, E., and Lawrence, D.: Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 817–828, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9, 2019. a, b, c, d, e
Rose, S. K., Kriegler, E., Bibas, R., Calvin, K., Popp, A., van Vuuren, D. P., and Weyant, J.: Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management, Climatic Change, 123, 477–493, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3, 2014. a
Schulzweida, U.: CDO User Guide (2.3.0), Zenodo, Tech. rep., https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10020800, 2023. a
Searchinger, T., James, O., Dumas, P., Kastner, T., and Wirsenius, S.: EU climate plan sacrifices carbon storage and biodiversity for bioenergy, Nature, 612, 27–30, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04133-1, 2022. a
Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T., and Dumas, P.: Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change, Nature, 564, 249–253, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z, 2018. a
Seidl, R., Thom, D., Kautz, M., Martin-Benito, D., Peltoniemi, M., Vacchiano, G., Wild, J., Ascoli, D., Petr, M., Honkaniemi, J., Lexer, M. J., Trotsiuk, V., Mairota, P., Svoboda, M., Fabrika, M., Nagel, T. A., and Reyer, C. P.: Forest disturbances under climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 395–402, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3303, 2017. a
Seo, B., Brown, C., Lee, H., and Rounsevell, M.: Bioenergy in Europe is unlikely to make a timely contribution to climate change targets, Environ. Res. Lett., 19, 044004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad2d11, 2024. a, b
Sharma, B., Kumar, J., Ganguly, A. R., and Hoffman, F. M.: Carbon cycle extremes accelerate weakening of the land carbon sink in the late 21st century, Biogeosciences, 20, 1829–1841, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1829-2023, 2023. a
Smith, P., Davis, S. J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B., Kato, E., Jackson, R. B., Cowie, A., Kriegler, E., Van Vuuren, D. P., Rogelj, J., Ciais, P., Milne, J., Canadell, J. G., McCollum, D., Peters, G., Andrew, R., Krey, V., Shrestha, G., Friedlingstein, P., Gasser, T., Grübler, A., Heidug, W. K., Jonas, M., Jones, C. D., Kraxner, F., Littleton, E., Lowe, J., Moreira, J. R., Nakicenovic, N., Obersteiner, M., Patwardhan, A., Rogner, M., Rubin, E., Sharifi, A., Torvanger, A., Yamagata, Y., Edmonds, J., and Yongsung, C.: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 42–50, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870, 2016. a, b
Smith, S. M., Geden, O., Gidden, M. J., Lamb, W. F., Nemet, G. F., Minx, J. C., Buck, H., Burke, J., Cox, E., Edwards, M. R., Fuss, S., Johnstone, I., Müller-Hansen, F., Pongratz, J., Probst, B. S., Roe, S., Schenuit, F., Schulte, I., and Vaughan, N. E. E.: The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, 2nd Edn., Tech. rep., OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ, 2024. a
Soimakallio, S., Kalliokoski, T., Lehtonen, A., and Salminen, O.: On the trade-offs and synergies between forest carbon sequestration and substitution, Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Gl., 26, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09942-9, 2021. a
Sonntag, S., Pongratz, J., Reick, C. H., and Schmidt, H.: Reforestation in a high-CO2 world – Higher mitigation potential than expected, lower adaptation potential than hoped for, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6546–6553, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068824, 2016. a, b, c
Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D., Kram, T., and Bouwman, L.: Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0: Model description and policy applications, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, ISBN 978-94-91506-71-0, 2014. a
Terlouw, T., Bauer, C., Rosa, L., and Mazzotti, M.: Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal technologies: A critical review, Energy and Environmental Science, 14, 1701–1721, https://doi.org/10.1039/d0ee03757e, 2021. a
Thonicke, K., Spessa, A., Prentice, I. C., Harrison, S. P., Dong, L., and Carmona-Moreno, C.: The influence of vegetation, fire spread and fire behaviour on biomass burning and trace gas emissions: results from a process-based model, Biogeosciences, 7, 1991–2011, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1991-2010, 2010. a
Tudge, S. J., Purvis, A., and De Palma, A.: The impacts of biofuel crops on local biodiversity: a global synthesis, Biodivers. Conserv., 30, 2863–2883, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02232-5, 2021. a
van Vuuren, D. P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D. E., Doelman, J. C., van den Berg, M., Harmsen, M., de Boer, H. S., Bouwman, L. F., Daioglou, V., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Girod, B., Kram, T., Lassaletta, L., Lucas, P. L., van Meijl, H., Müller, C., van Ruijven, B. J., van der Sluis, S., and Tabeau, A.: Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm, Glob. Environ. Change, 42, 237–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.008, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Vaughan, N. E. and Gough, C.: Synthesising existing knowledge on feasibility of BECCS: Workshop Report, Tech. Rep. 1104872, AVOID 2, 2015. a
Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F. E., and Bond, W. J.: Where Tree Planting and Forest Expansion are Bad for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, BioScience, 65, 1011–1018, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv118, 2015. a
Wang, J., Ciais, P., Gasser, T., Chang, J., Tian, H., Zhao, Z., Zhu, L., Li, Z., and Li, W.: Temperature Changes Induced by Biogeochemical and Biophysical Effects of Bioenergy Crop Cultivation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 57, 2474–2483, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05253, 2023. a, b
Weber, J., King, J. A., Abraham, N. L., Grosvenor, D. P., Smith, C. J., Shin, Y. M., Lawrence, P., Roe, S., Beerling, D. J., and Martin, M. V.: Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third of forestation's CO2 removal benefits, Science, 383, 860–864, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg6196, 2024. a
Weedon, G. P., Balsamo, G., Bellouin, N., Gomes, S., Best, M. J., and Viterbo, P.: Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data, Water Resour. Res., 50, 7505–7514, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015638, 2014. a
Wilkenskjeld, S., Kloster, S., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., and Reick, C. H.: Comparing the influence of net and gross anthropogenic land-use and land-cover changes on the carbon cycle in the MPI-ESM, Biogeosciences, 11, 4817–4828, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4817-2014, 2014. a
Winckler, J., Lejeune, Q., Reick, C. H., and Pongratz, J.: Nonlocal Effects Dominate the Global Mean Surface Temperature Response to the Biogeophysical Effects of Deforestation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 745–755, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080211, 2019. a
Zhao, X., Mignone, B. K., Wise, M. A., and McJeon, H. C.: Trade-offs in land-based carbon removal measures under 1.5 °C and 2 °C futures, Nat. Commun., 15, 2297, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46575-3, 2024. a
Zhuang, Q., Qin, Z., and Chen, M.: Biofuel, land and water: Maize, switchgrass or Miscanthus?, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 015020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015020, 2013. a
Co-editor-in-chief
The use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques is essential to achieving the objectives of the Paris agreements. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to introduce negative emission technologies as soon as possible. Among these technologies, CDRs, and more particularly CDRs applied to land surfaces, seem to be good candidates. However, until now, the methodologies used to estimate the efficiency of CDRs have taken very little account of certain parameters such as the turnover time of biomass products. This article proposes an innovative methodology for this purpose and applies it to estimate the storage potential of various CDRs. Results suggest, for example, that afforestation/reforestation (AR) appears to be more effective in China, while bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is more effective in South America and Africa. Nevertheless, the authors also highlight the importance of considering the evolution of the efficiency of fossil fuel substitution (FFS) techniques in parallel to refine the estimate of the potential of CDRs, thus stressing the complexity of such a task.
The use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques is essential to achieving the objectives of...
Short summary
Using a state-of-the-art land model, we find that bioenergy plants can store carbon more efficiently than forests over long periods in the soil, in geological reservoirs, or by substituting fossil-fuel-based energy. Planting forests is more suitable for reaching climate targets by 2050. The carbon removal potential depends also on local environmental conditions. These considerations have important implications for climate policy, spatial planning, nature conservation, and agriculture.
Using a state-of-the-art land model, we find that bioenergy plants can store carbon more...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint