Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts

Most climate mitigation scenarios involve negative emissions, especially those that aim to limit global temperature increase to 2°C or less. However, the carbon uptake potential in land‐based climate change mitigation efforts is highly uncertain. Here, we address this uncertainty by using two land‐based mitigation scenarios from two land‐use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) as input to four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs; LPJ‐GUESS, ORCHIDEE, JULES, LPJmL). Each of the four combinations of land‐use models and mitigation scenarios aimed for a cumulative carbon uptake of ~130 GtC by the end of the century, achieved either via the cultivation of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or avoided deforestation and afforestation (ADAFF). Results suggest large uncertainty in simulated future land demand and carbon uptake rates, depending on the assumptions related to land use and land management in the models. Total cumulative carbon uptake in the DGVMs is highly variable across mitigation scenarios, ranging between 19 and 130 GtC by year 2099. Only one out of the 16 combinations of mitigation scenarios and DGVMs achieves an equivalent or higher carbon uptake than achieved in the land‐use models. The large differences in carbon uptake between the DGVMs and their discrepancy against the carbon uptake in IMAGE and MAgPIE are mainly due to different model assumptions regarding bioenergy crop yields and due to the simulation of soil carbon response to land‐use change. Differences between land‐use models and DGVMs regarding forest biomass and the rate of forest regrowth also have an impact, albeit smaller, on the results. Given the low confidence in simulated carbon uptake for a given land‐based mitigation scenario, and that negative emissions simulated by the DGVMs are typically lower than assumed in scenarios consistent with the 2°C target, relying on negative emissions to mitigate climate change is a highly uncertain strategy.     

Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land‐use and energy experts, land‐use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life‐cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end‐use efficiency, improved land carbon‐stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small‐scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr^?1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large‐scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land‐intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.     

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Finding the win–wins for energy,negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) features heavily in the energy scenarios designed to meet the Paris Agreement targets, but the models used to generate these scenarios do not address environmental and social implications of BECCS at the regional scale. We integrate ecosystem service values into a land‐use optimization tool to determine the favourability of six potential UK locations for a 500 MW BECCS power plant operating on local biomass resources. Annually, each BECCS plant requires 2.33 Mt of biomass and generates 2.99 Mt CO₂ of negative emissions and 3.72 TWh of electricity. We make three important discoveries: (a) the impacts of BECCS on ecosystem services are spatially discrete, with the most favourable locations for UK BECCS identified at Drax and Easington, where net annual welfare values (from the basket of ecosystems services quantified) of £39 and £25 million were generated, respectively, with notably lower annual welfare values at Barrow (?£6 million) and Thames (£2 million); (b) larger BECCS deployment beyond 500 MW reduces net social welfare values, with a 1 GW BECCS plant at Drax generating a net annual welfare value of £19 million (a 50% decline compared with the 500 MW deployment), and a welfare loss at all other sites; (c) BECCS can be deployed to generate net welfare gains, but trade‐offs and co‐benefits between ecosystem services are highly site and context specific, and these landscape‐scale, site‐specific impacts should be central to future BECCS policy developments. For the United Kingdom, meeting the Paris Agreement targets through reliance on BECCS requires over 1 GW at each of the six locations considered here and is likely, therefore, to result in a significant welfare loss. This implies that an increased number of smaller BECCS deployments will be needed to ensure a win–win for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services.     

Impacts of land use change due to biofuel crops on carbon balance,bioenergy production,and agricultural yield,in the conterminous United States

Growing concerns about energy and the environment have led to worldwide use of bioenergy. Switching from food crops to biofuel crops is an option to meet the fast‐growing need for biofuel feedstocks. This land use change consequently affects the ecosystem carbon balance. In this study, we used a biogeochemistry model, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model, to evaluate the impacts of this change on the carbon balance, bioenergy production, and agricultural yield, assuming that several land use change scenarios from corn, soybean, and wheat to biofuel crops of switchgrass and Miscanthus will occur. We found that biofuel crops have much higher net primary production (NPP) than soybean and wheat crops. When food crops from current agricultural lands were changed to different biofuel crops, the national total NPP increased in all cases by a range of 0.14–0.88 Pg C yr^?1, except while switching from corn to switchgrass when a decrease of 14% was observed. Miscanthus is more productive than switchgrass, producing about 2.5 times the NPP of switchgrass. The net carbon loss ranges from 1.0 to 6.3 Tg C yr^?1 if food crops are changed to switchgrass, and from 0.4 to 6.7 Tg C yr^?1 if changed to Miscanthus. The largest loss was observed when soybean crops were replaced with biofuel crops. Soil organic carbon increased significantly when land use changed, reaching 100 Mg C ha^?1 in biofuel crop ecosystems. When switching from food crops to Miscanthus, the per unit area croplands produced a larger amount of ethanol than that of original food crops. In comparison, the land use change from wheat to Miscanthus produced more biomass and sequestrated more carbon. Our study suggests that Miscanthus could better serve as an energy crop than food crops or switchgrass, considering both economic and environmental benefits.     

Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th Carbon Budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 Mt_DM/year of biomass respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 /year in the centralized and distributed energy systems respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions and water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks. The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO₂ reductions of approximately 18 and 23 /year from the centralized and distributed energy systems respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 /year from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 Mt_DM/year of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO₂ from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO₂ transport infrastructures.     

The role of bioenergy for global deep decarbonization: CO2 removal or low‐carbon energy?

Bioenergy is expected to have a prominent role in limiting global greenhouse emissions to meet the climate change target of the Paris Agreement. Many studies identify negative emissions from bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as its key contribution, but assume that no other CO₂ removal technologies are available. We use a global integrated assessment model, TIAM‐UCL, to investigate the role of bioenergy within the global energy system when direct air capture and afforestation are available as cost‐competitive alternatives to BECCS. We find that the presence of other CO₂ removal technologies does not reduce the pressure on biomass resources but changes the use of bioenergy for climate mitigation. While we confirm that when available BECCS offers cheaper decarbonization pathways, we also find that its use delays the phase‐out of unabated fossil fuels in industry and transport. Furthermore, it displaces renewable electricity generation, potentially increasing the likelihood of missing the Paris Agreement target. We found that the most cost‐effective solution is to invest in a basket of CO₂ removal technologies. However, if these technologies rely on CCS, then urgent action is required to ramp up the necessary infrastructure. We conclude that a sustainable biomass supply is critical for decarbonizing the global energy system. Since only a few world regions carry the burden of producing the biomass resource and store CO₂ in geological storage, adequate international collaboration, policies and standards will be needed to realize this resource while avoiding undesired land‐use change.     

Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions

Climate stabilization scenarios emphasize the importance of land‐based mitigation to achieve ambitious mitigation goals. The stabilization scenarios informing the recent IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report suggest that bioenergy could contribute anywhere between 10 and 245 EJ to climate change mitigation in 2100. High deployment of bioenergy with low life cycle GHG emissions would enable ambitious climate stabilization futures and reduce demands on other sectors and options. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) would even enable so‐called negative emissions, possibly in the order of magnitude of 50% of today's annual gross emissions. Here, I discuss key assumptions that differ between economic and ecological perspectives. I find that high future yield assumptions, plausible in stabilization scenarios, look less realistic when evaluated in biophysical metrics. Yield assumptions also determine the magnitude of counterfactual land carbon stock development and partially determine the potential of BECCS. High fertilizer input required for high yields would likely hasten ecosystem degradation. I conclude that land‐based mitigation strategies remain highly speculative; a constant iteration between synoptic integrated assessment models and more particularistic and fine‐grained approaches is a crucial precondition for capturing complex dynamics and biophysical constraints that are essential for comprehensive assessments.     

Trade‐offs between land and water requirements for large‐scale bioenergy production

Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the future energy mix as it can substitute fossil fuels and contribute to climate change mitigation. However, large‐scale bioenergy cultivation may put substantial pressure on land and water resources. While irrigated bioenergy production can reduce the pressure on land due to higher yields, associated irrigation water requirements may lead to degradation of freshwater ecosystems and to conflicts with other potential users. In this article, we investigate the trade‐offs between land and water requirements of large‐scale bioenergy production. To this end, we adopt an exogenous demand trajectory for bioenergy from dedicated energy crops, targeted at limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector to 1100 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent until 2095. We then use the spatially explicit global land‐ and water‐use allocation model MAgPIE to project the implications of this bioenergy target for global land and water resources. We find that producing 300 EJ yr^?1 of bioenergy in 2095 from dedicated bioenergy crops is likely to double agricultural water withdrawals if no explicit water protection policies are implemented. Since current human water withdrawals are dominated by agriculture and already lead to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, such a doubling will pose a severe threat to freshwater ecosystems. If irrigated bioenergy production is prohibited to prevent negative impacts of bioenergy cultivation on water resources, bioenergy land requirements for meeting a 300 EJ yr^?1 bioenergy target increase substantially (+ 41%) – mainly at the expense of pasture areas and tropical forests. Thus, avoiding negative environmental impacts of large‐scale bioenergy production will require policies that balance associated water and land requirements.     

Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment

The potential for climate change mitigation by bioenergy crops and terrestrial carbon sinks has been the object of intensive research in the past decade. There has been much debate about whether energy crops used to offset fossil fuel use, or carbon sequestration in forests, would provide the best climate mitigation benefit. Most current food cropland is unlikely to be used for bioenergy, but in many regions of the world, a proportion of cropland is being abandoned, particularly marginal croplands, and some of this land is now being used for bioenergy. In this study, we assess the consequences of land‐use change on cropland. We first identify areas where cropland is so productive that it may never be converted and assess the potential of the remaining cropland to mitigate climate change by identifying which alternative land use provides the best climate benefit: C₄ grass bioenergy crops, coppiced woody energy crops or allowing forest regrowth to create a carbon sink. We do not present this as a scenario of land‐use change – we simply assess the best option in any given global location should a land‐use change occur. To do this, we use global biomass potential studies based on food crop productivity, forest inventory data and dynamic global vegetation models to provide, for the first time, a global comparison of the climate change implications of either deploying bioenergy crops or allowing forest regeneration on current crop land, over a period of 20 years starting in the nominal year of 2000 ad . Globally, the extent of cropland on which conversion to energy crops or forest would result in a net carbon loss, and therefore likely always to remain as cropland, was estimated to be about 420.1 Mha, or 35.6% of the total cropland in Africa, 40.3% in Asia and Russia Federation, 30.8% in Europe‐25, 48.4% in North America, 13.7% in South America and 58.5% in Oceania. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars are the bioenergy feedstock with the highest climate mitigation potential. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars provide the best climate mitigation option on ≈485 Mha of cropland worldwide with ~42% of this land characterized by a terrain slope equal or above 20%. If that land‐use change did occur, it would displace ≈58.1 Pg fossil fuel C equivalent (C_eq oil). Woody energy crops such as poplar, willow and Eucalyptus species would be the best option on only 2.4% (≈26.3 Mha) of current cropland, and if this land‐use change occurred, it would displace ≈0.9 Pg C_eq oil. Allowing cropland to revert to forest would be the best climate mitigation option on ≈17% of current cropland (≈184.5 Mha), and if this land‐use change occurred, it would sequester ≈5.8 Pg C in biomass in the 20‐year‐old forest and ≈2.7 Pg C in soil. This study is spatially explicit, so also serves to identify the regional differences in the efficacy of different climate mitigation options, informing policymakers developing regionally or nationally appropriate mitigation actions.     

Can biomass supply meet the demands of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

To reach the reduced carbon emission targets proposed by the Paris agreement, one of the widely proposed decarbonizing strategies, referred to as negative emissions technologies (NETs), is the production and combustion of bioenergy crops in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, concerns have been increasingly raised that relying on the potential of BECCS to achieve negative emissions could result in delayed reductions in gross CO₂ emissions, with consequent high risk of overshooting global temperature targets. We focus on two particular issues: the carbon efficiency and payback time of bioenergy use in BECCS and the potential constraints on the supply of bioenergy. The simplistic vision of BECCS is that 1 tonne of CO₂ captured in the growth of biomass equates to 1 tonne of CO₂ sequestered geologically, but this cannot be the case as CO₂ is emitted by variable amounts during the lifecycle from crop establishment to sequestration below ground in geological formations. The deployment of BECCS is ultimately reliant on the availability of sufficient, sustainably sourced, biomass. The two most important factors determining this supply are land availability and land productivity. The upper bounds of the area estimates required correspond to more than the world's harvested land for cereal production. To achieve these estimates of biomass availability requires the rapid evolution of a multitude of technological, social, political and economic factors. Here, we question whether, because of the limited sustainable supply of biomass, BECCS should continue to be considered the dominant NET in IPCC and other scenarios achieving the Paris targets, or should it be deemed no longer fit for purpose?     

The conversion of the corn/soybean ecosystem to no-till agriculture may result in a carbon sink

Mitigating or slowing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO₂]) has been the focus of international efforts, most apparent with the development of the Kyoto Protocol. Sequestration of carbon (C) in agricultural soils is being advocated as a method to assist in meeting the demands of an international C credit system. The conversion of conventionally tilled agricultural lands to no till is widely accepted as having a large-scale sequestration potential. In this study, C flux measurements over a no-till corn/soybean agricultural ecosystem over 6 years were coupled with estimates of C release associated with agricultural practices to assess the net biome productivity (NBP) of this no-till ecosystem. Estimates of NBP were also calculated for the conventionally tilled corn/soybean ecosystem assuming net ecosystem exchange is C neutral. These measurements were scaled to the US as a whole to determine the sequestration potential of corn/soybean ecosystems, under current practices where 10% of agricultural land devoted to this ecosystem is no-tilled and under a hypothetical scenario where 100% of the land is not tilled. The estimates of this analysis show that current corn/soybean agriculture in the US releases ∼7.2 Tg C annually, with no-till sequestering ∼2.2 Tg and conventional-till releasing ∼9.4 Tg. The complete conversion of land area to no till might result in 21.7 Tg C sequestered annually, representing a net C flux difference of ∼29 Tg C. These results demonstrate that large-scale conversion to no-till practices, at least for the corn/soybean ecosystem, could potentially offset ca. 2% of annual US carbon emissions.     

Land‐use legacies regulate decomposition dynamics following bioenergy crop conversion

Land‐use conversion into bioenergy crop production can alter litter decomposition processes tightly coupled to soil carbon and nutrient dynamics. Yet, litter decomposition has been poorly described in bioenergy production systems, especially following land‐use conversion. Predicting decomposition dynamics in postconversion bioenergy production systems is challenging because of the combined influence of land‐use legacies with current management and litter quality. To evaluate how land‐use legacies interact with current bioenergy crop management to influence litter decomposition in different litter types, we conducted a landscape‐scale litterbag decomposition experiment. We proposed land‐use legacies regulate decomposition, but their effects are weakened under higher quality litter and when current land use intensifies ecosystem disturbance relative to prior land use. We compared sites left in historical land uses of either agriculture (AG) or Conservation Reserve Program grassland (CRP) to those that were converted to corn or switchgrass bioenergy crop production. Enzyme activities, mass loss, microbial biomass, and changes in litter chemistry were monitored in corn stover and switchgrass litter over 485 days, accompanied by similar soil measurements. Across all measured variables, legacy had the strongest effect (P < 0.05) relative to litter type and current management, where CRP sites maintained higher soil and litter enzyme activities and microbial biomass relative to AG sites. Decomposition responses to conversion depended on legacy but also current management and litter type. Within the CRP sites, conversion into corn increased litter enzymes, microbial biomass, and litter protein and lipid abundances, especially on decomposing corn litter, relative to nonconverted CRP. However, conversion into switchgrass from CRP, a moderate disturbance, often had no effect on switchgrass litter decomposition parameters. Thus, legacies shape the direction and magnitude of decomposition responses to bioenergy crop conversion and therefore should be considered a key influence on litter and soil C cycling under bioenergy crop management.     

The role of protected areas in land use/land cover change and the carbon cycle in the conterminous United States

Protected areas (PAs) cover about 22% of the conterminous United States. Understanding their role on historical land use and land cover change (LULCC) and on the carbon cycle is essential to provide guidance for environmental policies. In this study, we compiled historical LULCC and PAs data to explore these interactions within the terrestrial ecosystem model (TEM). We found that intensive LULCC occurred in the conterminous United States from 1700 to 2005. More than 3 million km² of forest, grassland and shrublands were converted into agricultural lands, which caused 10,607 Tg C release from land ecosystems to atmosphere. PAs had experienced little LULCC as they were generally established in the 20th century after most of the agricultural expansion had occurred. PAs initially acted as a carbon source due to land use legacies, but their accumulated carbon budget switched to a carbon sink in the 1960s, sequestering an estimated 1,642 Tg C over 1700–2005, or 13.4% of carbon losses in non‐PAs. We also find that PAs maintain larger carbon stocks and continue sequestering carbon in recent years (2001–2005), but at a lower rate due to increased heterotrophic respiration as well as lower productivity associated to aging ecosystems. It is essential to continue efforts to maintain resilient, biodiverse ecosystems and avoid large‐scale disturbances that would release large amounts of carbon in PAs.     

Integrating future scenario‐based crop expansion and crop conditions to map switchgrass biofuel potential in eastern Nebraska,USA

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) has been evaluated as one potential source for cellulosic biofuel feedstocks. Planting switchgrass in marginal croplands and waterway buffers can reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and improve regional ecosystem services (i.e. it serves as a potential carbon sink). In previous studies, we mapped high risk marginal croplands and highly erodible cropland buffers that are potentially suitable for switchgrass development, which would improve ecosystem services and minimally impact food production. In this study, we advance our previous study results and integrate future crop expansion information to develop a switchgrass biofuel potential ensemble map for current and future croplands in eastern Nebraska. The switchgrass biomass productivity and carbon benefits (i.e. NEP: net ecosystem production) for the identified biofuel potential ensemble areas were quantified. The future scenario‐based (‘A1B’) land use and land cover map for 2050, the US Geological Survey crop type and Compound Topographic Index (CTI) maps, and long‐term (1981–2010) averaged annual precipitation data were used to identify future crop expansion regions that are suitable for switchgrass development. Results show that 2528 km² of future crop expansion regions (~3.6% of the study area) are potentially suitable for switchgrass development. The total estimated biofuel potential ensemble area (including cropland buffers, marginal croplands, and future crop expansion regions) is 4232 km² (~6% of the study area), potentially producing 3.52 million metric tons of switchgrass biomass per year. Converting biofuel ensemble regions to switchgrass leads to potential carbon sinks (the total NEP for biofuel potential areas is 0.45 million metric tons C) and is environmentally sustainable. Results from this study improve our understanding of environmental conditions and ecosystem services of current and future cropland systems in eastern Nebraska and provide useful information to land managers to make land use decisions regarding switchgrass development.     

Critical land change information enhances the understanding of carbon balance in the United States

Large‐scale terrestrial carbon (C) estimating studies using methods such as atmospheric inversion, biogeochemical modeling, and field inventories have produced different results. The goal of this study was to integrate fine‐scale processes including land use and land cover change into a large‐scale ecosystem framework. We analyzed the terrestrial C budget of the conterminous United States from 1971 to 2015 at 1‐km resolution using an enhanced dynamic global vegetation model and comprehensive land cover change data. Effects of atmospheric CO₂ fertilization, nitrogen deposition, climate, wildland fire, harvest, and land use/land cover change (LUCC) were considered. We estimate annual C losses from cropland harvest, forest clearcut and thinning, fire, and LUCC were 436.8, 117.9, 10.5, and 10.4 TgC/year, respectively. C stored in ecosystems increased from 119,494 to 127,157 TgC between 1971 and 2015, indicating a mean annual net C sink of 170.3 TgC/year. Although ecosystem net primary production increased by approximately 12.3 TgC/year, most of it was offset by increased C loss from harvest and natural disturbance and increased ecosystem respiration related to forest aging. As a result, the strength of the overall ecosystem C sink did not increase over time. Our modeled results indicate the conterminous US C sink was about 30% smaller than previous modeling studies, but converged more closely with inventory data.     

Meeting Europe's climate change commitments: quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union is committed to a reduction in CO₂ emissions to 92% of baseline (1990) levels during the first commitment period (2008–2012). The Kyoto Protocol allows carbon emissions to be offset by demonstrable removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, land‐use/land‐management change and forestry activities that are shown to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels can be included in the Kyoto targets. These activities include afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol) and the improved management of agricultural soils (article 3.4). In this paper, we estimate the carbon mitigation potential of various agricultural land‐management strategies and examine the consequences of European policy options on carbon mitigation potential, by examining combinations of changes in agricultural land‐use/land‐management. We show that no single land‐management change in isolation can mitigate all of the carbon needed to meet Europe's climate change commitments, but integrated combinations of land‐management strategies show considerable potential for carbon mitigation. Three of the combined scenarios, one of which is an optimal realistic scenario, are by themselves able to meet Europe's emission limitation or reduction commitments. Through combined land‐management scenarios, we show that the most important resource for carbon mitigation in agriculture is the surplus arable land. We conclude that in order to fully exploit the potential of arable land for carbon mitigation, policies will need to be implemented to allow surplus arable land to be put into alternative long‐term land‐use. Of all options examined, bioenergy crops show the greatest potential for carbon mitigation. Bioenergy crop production also shows an indefinite mitigation potential compared to other options where the mitigation potential is finite. We suggest that in order to exploit fully the bioenergy option, the infrastructure for bioenergy production needs to be significantly enhanced before the beginning of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2008. It is not expected that Europe will attempt to meet its climate change commitments solely through changes in agricultural land‐use. A reduction in CO₂‐carbon emissions will be key to meeting Europe's Kyoto targets, and forestry activities (Kyoto Article 3.3) will play a major role. In this study, however, we demonstrate the considerable potential of changes in agricultural land‐use and ‐management (Kyoto Article 3.4) for carbon mitigation and highlight the policies needed to promote these agricultural activities. As all sources of carbon mitigation will be important in meeting Europe's climate change commitments, agricultural carbon mitigation options should be taken very seriously.     

A regional assessment of land‐based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy,BECCS, reforestation,and forest management

Land‐based solutions are indispensable features of most climate mitigation scenarios. Here we conduct a novel cross‐sectoral assessment of regional carbon mitigation potential by running an ecosystem model with an explicit representation of forest structure and climate impacts for Bavaria, Germany, as a case study. We drive the model with four high‐resolution climate projections (EURO‐CORDEX) for the representative concentration pathway RCP4.5 and present‐day land‐cover from three satellite‐derived datasets (CORINE, ESA‐CCI, MODIS) and identify total mitigation potential by not only accounting for carbon storage but also material and energy substitution effects. The model represents the current state in Bavaria adequately, with a simulated forest biomass 12.9 ± 0.4% lower than data from national forest inventories. Future land‐use changes according to two ambitious land‐use harmonization scenarios (SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP4xRCP3.4) achieve a mitigation of 206 and 247 Mt C (2015–2100 period) via reforestation and the cultivation and burning of dedicated bioenergy crops, partly combined with carbon capture and storage. Sensitivity simulations suggest that converting croplands or pastures to bioenergy plantations could deliver a carbon mitigation of 40.9 and 37.7 kg C/m², respectively, by the year 2100 if used to replace carbon‐intensive energy systems and combined with CCS. However, under less optimistic assumptions (including no CCS), only 15.3 and 12.2 kg C/m² are mitigated and reforestation might be the better option (20.0 and 16.8 kg C/m²). Mitigation potential in existing forests is limited (converting coniferous into mixed forests, nitrogen fertilization) or even negative (suspending wood harvest) due to decreased carbon storage in product pools and associated substitution effects. Our simulations provide guidelines to policy makers, farmers, foresters, and private forest owners for sustainable and climate‐benefitting ecosystem management in temperate regions. They also emphasize the importance of the CCS technology which is regarded critically by many people, making its implementation in the short or medium term currently doubtable.     

Role of arthropod communities in bioenergy crop litter decomposition†

The extensive land use conversion expected to occur to meet demands for bioenergy feedstock production will likely have widespread impacts on agroecosystem biodiversity and ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration. Although arthropod detritivores are known to contribute to litter decomposition and thus energy flow and nutrient cycling in many plant communities, their importance in bioenergy feedstock communities has not yet been assessed. We undertook an experimental study quantifying rates of litter mass loss and nutrient cycling in the presence and absence of these organisms in three bioenergy feedstock crops—miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and a planted prairie community. Overall arthropod abundance and litter decomposition rates were similar in all three communities. Despite effective reduction of arthropods in experimental plots via insecticide application, litter decomposition rates, inorganic nitrogen leaching, and carbon–nitrogen ratios did not differ significantly between control (with arthropods) and treatment (without arthropods) plots in any of the three community types. Our findings suggest that changes in arthropod faunal composition associated with widespread adoption of bioenergy feedstock crops may not be associated with profoundly altered arthropod‐mediated litter decomposition and nutrient release.     

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.     

Uncertainty in estimating land use and management impacts on soil organic carbon storage for US agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997

Uncertainty was quantified for an inventory estimating change in soil organic carbon (SOC) storage resulting from modifications in land use and management across US agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. This inventory was conducted using a modified version of a carbon (C) accounting method developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Probability density functions (PDFs) were derived for each input to the IPCC model, including reference SOC stocks, land use/management activity data, and management factors. Change in C storage was estimated using a Monte‐Carlo approach with 50 000 iterations, by randomly selecting values from the PDFs after accounting for dependencies in the model inputs. Over the inventory period, mineral soils had a net gain of 10.8 Tg C yr^?1, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 6.5 to 15.3 Tg C yr^?1. Most of this gain was due to setting‐aside lands in the Conservation Reserve Program. In contrast, managed organic soils lost 9.4 Tg C yr^?1, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 6.4 to 13.3 Tg C yr^?1. Combining these gains and losses in SOC, US agricultural soils accrued 1.3 Tg C yr^?1 due to land use and management change, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from a loss of 4.4 Tg C yr^?1 to a gain of 6.9 Tg C yr^?1. Most of the uncertainty was attributed to management factors for tillage, land use change between cultivated and uncultivated conditions, and C loss rates from managed organic soils. Based on the uncertainty, we are not able to conclude with 95% confidence that change in US agricultural land use and management between 1982 and 1997 created a net C sink for atmospheric CO₂.