Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators
<p>A future of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, changing climate, growing human populations, and shifting socioeconomic conditions means that the global agricultural system will need to adapt in order to feed the world. These changes will affect not only agricultural land...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2020-04-01
|
| Series: | Earth System Dynamics |
| Online Access: | https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/357/2020/esd-11-357-2020.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818318253321093120 |
|---|---|
| author | S. S. Rabin P. Alexander P. Alexander R. Henry P. Anthoni T. A. M. Pugh T. A. M. Pugh M. Rounsevell A. Arneth |
| author_facet | S. S. Rabin P. Alexander P. Alexander R. Henry P. Anthoni T. A. M. Pugh T. A. M. Pugh M. Rounsevell A. Arneth |
| author_sort | S. S. Rabin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>A future of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations,
changing climate, growing human populations, and shifting
socioeconomic conditions means that the global agricultural system
will need to adapt in order to feed the world. These changes will
affect not only agricultural land but terrestrial ecosystems in
general. Here, we use the coupled land use and vegetation model LandSyMM (Land System Modular Model) to quantify future land use change (LUC) and resulting
impacts on ecosystem service indicators relating to carbon
sequestration, runoff, biodiversity, and nitrogen pollution. We
additionally hold certain variables, such as climate or land use,
constant to assess the relative contribution of different drivers to
the projected impacts. Some ecosystem services depend critically on
land use and management: for example, carbon storage, the gain in
which is more than 2.5 times higher in a low-LUC scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 4 and Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0; SSP4-60)
than a high-LUC one with the same carbon dioxide and climate
trajectory (SSP3-60). Other trends are mostly dominated by the
direct effects of climate change and carbon dioxide increase. For
example, in those two scenarios, extreme high monthly runoff
increases across 54 % and 53 % of land,
respectively, with a mean increase of 23 % in
both. Scenarios in which climate change mitigation is more difficult
(SSPs 3 and 5) have the strongest impacts
on ecosystem service indicators, such as a loss of 13 %–19 %
of land in biodiversity hotspots and a 28 % increase in
nitrogen pollution. Evaluating a suite of ecosystem service
indicators across scenarios enables the identification of tradeoffs
and co-benefits associated with different climate change mitigation
and adaptation strategies and socioeconomic developments.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T09:50:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ec649f7bcfd64e829290c66d60f79616 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2190-4979 2190-4987 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T09:50:17Z |
| publishDate | 2020-04-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Earth System Dynamics |
| spelling | doaj.art-ec649f7bcfd64e829290c66d60f796162022-12-21T23:51:56ZengCopernicus PublicationsEarth System Dynamics2190-49792190-49872020-04-011135737610.5194/esd-11-357-2020Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicatorsS. S. Rabin0P. Alexander1P. Alexander2R. Henry3P. Anthoni4T. A. M. Pugh5T. A. M. Pugh6M. Rounsevell7A. Arneth8Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, GermanySchool of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKGlobal Academy of Agriculture and Food Security, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKSchool of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKInstitute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, GermanySchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKBirmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UKInstitute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, GermanyInstitute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany<p>A future of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, changing climate, growing human populations, and shifting socioeconomic conditions means that the global agricultural system will need to adapt in order to feed the world. These changes will affect not only agricultural land but terrestrial ecosystems in general. Here, we use the coupled land use and vegetation model LandSyMM (Land System Modular Model) to quantify future land use change (LUC) and resulting impacts on ecosystem service indicators relating to carbon sequestration, runoff, biodiversity, and nitrogen pollution. We additionally hold certain variables, such as climate or land use, constant to assess the relative contribution of different drivers to the projected impacts. Some ecosystem services depend critically on land use and management: for example, carbon storage, the gain in which is more than 2.5 times higher in a low-LUC scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 4 and Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0; SSP4-60) than a high-LUC one with the same carbon dioxide and climate trajectory (SSP3-60). Other trends are mostly dominated by the direct effects of climate change and carbon dioxide increase. For example, in those two scenarios, extreme high monthly runoff increases across 54 % and 53 % of land, respectively, with a mean increase of 23 % in both. Scenarios in which climate change mitigation is more difficult (SSPs 3 and 5) have the strongest impacts on ecosystem service indicators, such as a loss of 13 %–19 % of land in biodiversity hotspots and a 28 % increase in nitrogen pollution. Evaluating a suite of ecosystem service indicators across scenarios enables the identification of tradeoffs and co-benefits associated with different climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies and socioeconomic developments.</p>https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/357/2020/esd-11-357-2020.pdf |
| spellingShingle | S. S. Rabin P. Alexander P. Alexander R. Henry P. Anthoni T. A. M. Pugh T. A. M. Pugh M. Rounsevell A. Arneth Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators Earth System Dynamics |
| title | Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators |
| title_full | Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators |
| title_fullStr | Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators |
| title_full_unstemmed | Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators |
| title_short | Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators |
| title_sort | impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators |
| url | https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/357/2020/esd-11-357-2020.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ssrabin impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT palexander impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT palexander impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT rhenry impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT panthoni impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT tampugh impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT tampugh impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT mrounsevell impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators AT aarneth impactsoffutureagriculturalchangeonecosystemserviceindicators |