Modelled biophysical impacts of conservation agriculture on local climates

Including the parameterization of land management practices into Earth System Models has been shown to influence the simulation of regional climates, particularly for temperature extremes. However, recent model development has focused on implementing irrigation where other land management practices such as conservation agriculture (CA) has been limited due to the lack of global spatially explicit datasets describing where this form of management is practiced. Here, we implement a representation of CA into the Community Earth System Model and show that the quality of simulated surface energy fluxes improves when including more information on how agricultural land is managed. We also compare the climate response at the subgrid scale where CA is applied. We find that CA generally contributes to local cooling (~1°C) of hot temperature extremes in mid‐latitude regions where it is practiced, while over tropical locations CA contributes to local warming (~1°C) due to changes in evapotranspiration dominating the effects of enhanced surface albedo. In particular, changes in the partitioning of evapotranspiration between soil evaporation and transpiration are critical for the sign of the temperature change: a cooling occurs only when the soil moisture retention and associated enhanced transpiration is sufficient to offset the warming from reduced soil evaporation. Finally, we examine the climate change mitigation potential of CA by comparing a simulation with present‐day CA extent to a simulation where CA is expanded to all suitable crop areas. Here, our results indicate that while the local temperature response to CA is considerable cooling (>2°C), the grid‐scale changes in climate are counteractive due to negative atmospheric feedbacks. Overall, our results underline that CA has a nonnegligible impact on the local climate and that it should therefore be considered in future climate projections.     

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.     

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.     

Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance

In order to better assess the role of agriculture within the global climate‐vegetation system, we present a model of the managed planetary land surface, Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land (LPJmL), which simulates biophysical and biogeochemical processes as well as productivity and yield of the most important crops worldwide, using a concept of crop functional types (CFTs). Based on the LPJ‐Dynamic Global Vegetation Model, LPJmL simulates the transient changes in carbon and water cycles due to land use, the specific phenology and seasonal CO₂ fluxes of agricultural‐dominated areas, and the production of crops and grazing land. It uses 13 CFTs (11 arable crops and two managed grass types), with specific parameterizations of phenology connected to leaf area development. Carbon is allocated daily towards four carbon pools, one being the yield‐bearing storage organs. Management (irrigation, treatment of residues, intercropping) can be considered in order to capture their effect on productivity, on soil organic carbon and on carbon extracted from the ecosystem. For transient simulations for the 20th century, a global historical land use data set was developed, providing the annual cover fraction of the 13 CFTs, rain‐fed and/or irrigated, within 0.5° grid cells for the period 1901–2000, using published data on land use, crop distributions and irrigated areas. Several key results are compared with observations. The simulated spatial distribution of sowing dates for temperate cereals is comparable with the reported crop calendars. The simulated seasonal canopy development agrees better with satellite observations when actual cropland distribution is taken into account. Simulated yields for temperate cereals and maize compare well with FAO statistics. Monthly carbon fluxes measured at three agricultural sites also compare well with simulations. Global simulations indicate a ∼24% (respectively ∼10%) reduction in global vegetation (respectively soil) carbon due to agriculture, and 6–9 Pg C of yearly harvested biomass in the 1990s. In contrast to simulations of the potential natural vegetation showing the land biosphere to be an increasing carbon sink during the 20th century, LPJmL simulates a net carbon source until the 1970s (due to land use), and a small sink (mostly due to changing climate and CO₂) after 1970. This is comparable with earlier LPJ simulations using a more simple land use scheme, and within the uncertainty range of estimates in the 1980s and 1990s. The fluxes attributed to land use change compare well with Houghton's estimates on the land use related fluxes until the 1970s, but then they begin to diverge, probably due to the different rates of deforestation considered. The simulated impacts of agriculture on the global water cycle for the 1990s are∼5% (respectively∼20%) reduction in transpiration (respectively interception), and∼44% increase in evaporation. Global runoff, which includes a simple irrigation scheme, is practically not affected.     

Potential carbon sequestration of European arable soils estimated by modelling a comprehensive set of management practices

Bottom–up estimates from long‐term field experiments and modelling are the most commonly used approaches to estimate the carbon (C) sequestration potential of the agricultural sector. However, when data are required at European level, important margins of uncertainty still exist due to the representativeness of local data at large scale or different assumptions and information utilized for running models. In this context, a pan‐European (EU + Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Norway) simulation platform with high spatial resolution and harmonized data sets was developed to provide consistent scenarios in support of possible carbon sequestration policies. Using the CENTURY agroecosystem model, six alternative management practices (AMP) scenarios were assessed as alternatives to the business as usual situation (BAU). These consisted of the conversion of arable land to grassland (and vice versa), straw incorporation, reduced tillage, straw incorporation combined with reduced tillage, ley cropping system and cover crops. The conversion into grassland showed the highest soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration rates, ranging between 0.4 and 0.8 t C ha^?1 yr^?1, while the opposite extreme scenario (100% of grassland conversion into arable) gave cumulated losses of up to 2 Gt of C by 2100. Among the other practices, ley cropping systems and cover crops gave better performances than straw incorporation and reduced tillage. The allocation of 12 to 28% of the European arable land to different AMP combinations resulted in a potential SOC sequestration of 101–336 Mt CO₂ eq. by 2020 and 549‐2141 Mt CO₂ eq. by 2100. Modelled carbon sequestration rates compared with values from an ad hoc meta‐analysis confirmed the robustness of these estimates.     

Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials,risks and trade‐offs

Afforestation is considered a cost‐effective and readily available climate change mitigation option. In recent studies afforestation is presented as a major solution to limit climate change. However, estimates of afforestation potential vary widely. Moreover, the risks in global mitigation policy and the negative trade‐offs with food security are often not considered. Here we present a new approach to assess the economic potential of afforestation with the IMAGE 3.0 integrated assessment model framework. In addition, we discuss the role of afforestation in mitigation pathways and the effects of afforestation on the food system under increasingly ambitious climate targets. We show that afforestation has a mitigation potential of 4.9 GtCO₂/year at 200 US$/tCO₂ in 2050 leading to large‐scale application in an SSP2 scenario aiming for 2°C (410 GtCO₂ cumulative up to 2100). Afforestation reduces the overall costs of mitigation policy. However, it may lead to lower mitigation ambition and lock‐in situations in other sectors. Moreover, it bears risks to implementation and permanence as the negative emissions are increasingly located in regions with high investment risks and weak governance, for example in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Afforestation also requires large amounts of land (up to 1,100 Mha) leading to large reductions in agricultural land. The increased competition for land could lead to higher food prices and an increased population at risk of hunger. Our results confirm that afforestation has substantial potential for mitigation. At the same time, we highlight that major risks and trade‐offs are involved. Pathways aiming to limit climate change to 2°C or even 1.5°C need to minimize these risks and trade‐offs in order to achieve mitigation sustainably.     

Mitigation of unwanted direct and indirect land‐use change – an integrated approach illustrated for palm oil,pulpwood, rubber and rice production in North and East Kalimantan,Indonesia

The widespread production of cash crops can result in the decline of forests, peatlands, rice fields and local community land. Such unwanted land‐use and land‐cover (LULC) change can lead to decreased carbon stocks, diminished biodiversity, displaced communities and reduced local food production. In this study, we analysed to what extent four main commodities, namely, palm oil, pulpwood, rice and rubber, can be produced in North and East Kalimantan in Indonesia without such unwanted LULC change. We investigated the technical potential of four measures to mitigate unwanted LULC change between 2008 and 2020 under low, medium and high scenarios, referring to the intensities of the mitigation measures compared with those implemented in 2008. These measures are related to land sparing through (i) the improvements of yields, (ii) chain efficiencies, (iii) chain integration and (iv) the steering of any expansion of these commodities to suitable and available underutilised (potentially degraded) lands. Our analyses resulted in a land‐sparing potential of 0.4–1.2 Mha (i.e. 24–62% of the total land demand of the commodities) between 2008 and 2020, depending on the land‐use projection of the four commodities and the scenario for implementing the mitigation measures. Additional expansion on underutilised land is the most important mitigation measure (45–62% of the total potential), followed by yield improvements as the second most important mitigation measure (32–46% of the total potential). Our study shows that reconciling the production of palm oil, pulpwood, rice and rubber with the maintenance of existing agricultural lands, forests and peatlands is technically possible only (i) under a scenario of limited agricultural expansion, (ii) if responsible land zoning is applied and enforced and (iii) if the yields and chain efficiencies are strongly improved.     

A review of global potentially available cropland estimates and their consequences for model‐based assessments

The world's population is growing and demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel is increasing, placing greater demand on land and its resources for crop production. We review previously published estimates of global scale cropland availability, discuss the underlying assumptions that lead to differences between estimates, and illustrate the consequences of applying different estimates in model‐based assessments of land‐use change. The review estimates a range from 1552 to 5131 Mha, which includes 1550 Mha that is already cropland. Hence, the lowest estimates indicate that there is almost no room for cropland expansion, while the highest estimates indicate that cropland could potentially expand to over three times its current area. Differences can largely be attributed to institutional assumptions, i.e. which land covers/uses (e.g. forests or grasslands) are societally or governmentally allowed to convert to cropland, while there was little variation in biophysical assumptions. Estimates based on comparable assumptions showed a variation of up to 84%, which originated mainly from different underlying data sources. On the basis of this synthesis of the assumptions underlying these estimates, we constructed a high, a medium, and a low estimate of cropland availability that are representative of the range of estimates in the reviewed studies. We apply these estimates in a land‐change model to illustrate the consequences on cropland expansion and intensification as well as deforestation. While uncertainty in cropland availability is hardly addressed in global land‐use change assessments, the results indicate a large range of estimates with important consequences for model‐based assessments.     

Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands

While improved management of agricultural landscapes is promoted as a promising natural climate solution, available estimates of the mitigation potential are based on coarse assessments of both agricultural extent and aboveground carbon density. Here we combine 30 meter resolution global maps of aboveground woody carbon, tree cover, and cropland extent, as well as a 1 km resolution map of global pasture land, to estimate the current and potential carbon storage of trees in nonforested portions of agricultural lands. We find that global croplands currently store 3.07 Pg of carbon (C) in aboveground woody biomass (i.e., trees) and pasture lands account for an additional 3.86 Pg C across a combined 3.76 billion ha. We then estimate the climate mitigation potential of multiple scenarios of integration and avoided loss of trees in crop and pasture lands based on region‐specific biomass distributions. We evaluate our findings in the context of nationally determined contributions and find that the majority of potential carbon storage from integration and avoided loss of trees in crop and pasture lands is in countries that do not identify agroforestry as a climate mitigation technique.     

Initial soil C and land‐use history determine soil C sequestration under perennial bioenergy crops

In the UK and other temperate regions, short rotation coppice (SRC) and Miscanthus x giganteus (Miscanthus) are two of the leading ‘second‐generation’ bioenergy crops. Grown specifically as a low‐carbon (C) fossil fuel replacement, calculations of the climate mitigation provided by these bioenergy crops rely on accurate data. There are concerns that uncertainty about impacts on soil C stocks of transitions from current agricultural land use to these bioenergy crops could lead to either an under‐ or overestimate of their climate mitigation potential. Here, for locations across mainland Great Britain (GB), a paired‐site approach and a combination of 30‐cm‐ and 1‐m‐deep soil sampling were used to quantify impacts of bioenergy land‐use transitions on soil C stocks in 41 commercial land‐use transitions; 12 arable to SRC, 9 grasslands to SRC, 11 arable to Miscanthus and 9 grasslands to Miscanthus. Mean soil C stocks were lower under both bioenergy crops than under the grassland controls but only significant at 0–30 cm. Mean soil C stocks at 0–30 cm were 33.55 ± 7.52 Mg C ha^?1 and 26.83 ± 8.08 Mg C ha^?1 lower under SRC (P = 0.004) and Miscanthus plantations (P = 0.001), respectively. Differences between bioenergy crops and arable controls were not significant in either the 30‐cm or 1‐m soil cores and smaller than for transitions from grassland. No correlation was detected between change in soil C stock and bioenergy crop age (time since establishment) or soil texture. Change in soil C stock was, however, negatively correlated with the soil C stock in the original land use. We suggest, therefore, that selection of sites for bioenergy crop establishment with lower soil C stocks, most often under arable land use, is the most likely to result in increased soil C stocks.     

Which practices co‐deliver food security,climate change mitigation and adaptation,and combat land degradation and desertification?

There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO₂eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing‐up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.     

Winners and losers of national and global efforts to reconcile agricultural intensification and biodiversity conservation

Closing yield gaps within existing croplands, and thereby avoiding further habitat conversions, is a prominently and controversially discussed strategy to meet the rising demand for agricultural products, while minimizing biodiversity impacts. The agricultural intensification associated with such a strategy poses additional threats to biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. The uneven spatial distribution of both yield gaps and biodiversity provides opportunities for reconciling agricultural intensification and biodiversity conservation through spatially optimized intensification. Here, we integrate distribution and habitat information for almost 20,000 vertebrate species with land‐cover and land‐use datasets. We estimate that projected agricultural intensification between 2000 and 2040 would reduce the global biodiversity value of agricultural lands by 11%, relative to 2000. Contrasting these projections with spatial land‐use optimization scenarios reveals that 88% of projected biodiversity loss could be avoided through globally coordinated land‐use planning, implying huge efficiency gains through international cooperation. However, global‐scale optimization also implies a highly uneven distribution of costs and benefits, resulting in distinct “winners and losers” in terms of national economic development, food security, food sovereignty or conservation. Given conflicting national interests and lacking effective governance mechanisms to guarantee equitable compensation of losers, multinational land‐use optimization seems politically unlikely. In turn, 61% of projected biodiversity loss could be avoided through nationally focused optimization, and 33% through optimization within just 10 countries. Targeted efforts to improve the capacity for integrated land‐use planning for sustainable intensification especially in these countries, including the strengthening of institutions that can arbitrate subnational land‐use conflicts, may offer an effective, yet politically feasible, avenue to better reconcile future trade‐offs between agriculture and conservation. The efficiency gains of optimization remained robust when assuming that yields could only be increased to 80% of their potential. Our results highlight the need to better integrate real‐world governance, political and economic challenges into sustainable development and global change mitigation research.     

Agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation potential globally,in Europe and in the UK: what have we learnt in the last 20 years?

Agricultural lands occupy about 40–50% of the Earth's land surface. Agricultural practices can make a significant contribution at low cost to increasing soil carbon sinks, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contributing biomass feedstocks for energy use. Considering all gases, the global technical mitigation potential from agriculture (excluding fossil fuel offsets from biomass) by 2030 is estimated to be ca. 5500–6000 Mt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1. Economic potentials are estimated to be 1500–1600, 2500–2700 and 4000–4300 Mt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1 at carbon prices of up to $US20, 50 and 100 t CO₂‐eq.^?1, respectively. The value of the global agricultural GHG mitigation at the same three carbon prices is $US32 000, 130 000 and 420 000 million yr^?1, respectively. At the European level, early estimates of soil carbon sequestration potential in croplands were ca. 200 Mt CO₂ yr^?1, but this is a technical potential and is for geographical Europe as far east as the Urals. The economic potential is much smaller, with more recent estimates for the EU27 suggesting a maximum potential of ca. 20 Mt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1. The UK is small in global terms, but a large part of its land area (11 Mha) is used for agriculture. Agriculture accounts for about 7% of total UK GHG emissions. The mitigation potential of UK agriculture is estimated to be ca. 1–2 Mt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1, accounting for less than 1% of UK total GHG emissions.     

Carbon emission and sequestration by agricultural land use: a model study for Europe

A model was developed to calculate carbon fluxes from agricultural soils. The model includes the effects of crop (species, yield and rotation), climate (temperature, rainfall and evapotranspiration) and soil (carbon content and water retention capacity) on the carbon budget of agricultural land. The changes in quality of crop residues and organic material as a result of changes in CO₂ concentration and changed management were not considered in this model. The model was parameterized for several arable crops and grassland. Data from agricultural, meteorological, soil, and land use databases were input to the model, and the model was used to evaluate the effects of different carbon dioxide mitigation measures on soil organic carbon in agricultural areas in Europe. Average carbon fluxes under the business as usual scenario in the 2008–2012 commitment period were estimated at 0.52 tC ha^?1 y^?1 in grassland and ?0.84 tC ha^?1 y^?1 in arable land. Conversion of arable land to grassland yielded a flux of 1.44 tC ha^?1 y^?1. Farm management related activities aiming at carbon sequestration ranged from 0.15 tC ha^?1 y^?1 for the incorporating of straw to 1.50 tC ha^?1 y^?1 for the application of farmyard manure. Reduced tillage yields a positive flux of 0.25 tC ha^?1 y^?1. The indirect effect associated with climate was an order of magnitude lower. A temperature rise of 1 °C resulted in a ?0.05 tC ha^?1 y^?1 change whereas the rising CO₂ concentrations gave a 0.01 tC ha^?1 y^?1 change. Estimates are rendered on a 0.5 × 0.5° grid for the commitment period 2008–2012. The study reveals considerable regional differences in the effectiveness of carbon dioxide abatement measures, resulting from the interaction between crop, soil and climate. Besides, there are substantial differences between the spatial patterns of carbon fluxes that result from different measures.     

Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections

Understanding uncertainties in land cover projections is critical to investigating land‐based climate mitigation policies, assessing the potential of climate adaptation strategies and quantifying the impacts of land cover change on the climate system. Here, we identify and quantify uncertainties in global and European land cover projections over a diverse range of model types and scenarios, extending the analysis beyond the agro‐economic models included in previous comparisons. The results from 75 simulations over 18 models are analysed and show a large range in land cover area projections, with the highest variability occurring in future cropland areas. We demonstrate systematic differences in land cover areas associated with the characteristics of the modelling approach, which is at least as great as the differences attributed to the scenario variations. The results lead us to conclude that a higher degree of uncertainty exists in land use projections than currently included in climate or earth system projections. To account for land use uncertainty, it is recommended to use a diverse set of models and approaches when assessing the potential impacts of land cover change on future climate. Additionally, further work is needed to better understand the assumptions driving land use model results and reveal the causes of uncertainty in more depth, to help reduce model uncertainty and improve the projections of land cover.     

Co‐benefits,trade‐offs,barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture,forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector

The agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector is responsible for approximately 25% of anthropogenic GHG emissions mainly from deforestation and agricultural emissions from livestock, soil and nutrient management. Mitigation from the sector is thus extremely important in meeting emission reduction targets. The sector offers a variety of cost‐competitive mitigation options with most analyses indicating a decline in emissions largely due to decreasing deforestation rates. Sustainability criteria are needed to guide development and implementation of AFOLU mitigation measures with particular focus on multifunctional systems that allow the delivery of multiple services from land. It is striking that almost all of the positive and negative impacts, opportunities and barriers are context specific, precluding generic statements about which AFOLU mitigation measures have the greatest promise at a global scale. This finding underlines the importance of considering each mitigation strategy on a case‐by‐case basis, systemic effects when implementing mitigation options on the national scale, and suggests that policies need to be flexible enough to allow such assessments. National and international agricultural and forest (climate) policies have the potential to alter the opportunity costs of specific land uses in ways that increase opportunities or barriers for attaining climate change mitigation goals. Policies governing practices in agriculture and in forest conservation and management need to account for both effective mitigation and adaptation and can help to orient practices in agriculture and in forestry towards global sharing of innovative technologies for the efficient use of land resources. Different policy instruments, especially economic incentives and regulatory approaches, are currently being applied however, for its successful implementation it is critical to understand how land‐use decisions are made and how new social, political and economic forces in the future will influence this process.     

Models meet data: Challenges and opportunities in implementing land management in Earth system models

As the applications of Earth system models (ESMs) move from general climate projections toward questions of mitigation and adaptation, the inclusion of land management practices in these models becomes crucial. We carried out a survey among modeling groups to show an evolution from models able only to deal with land‐cover change to more sophisticated approaches that allow also for the partial integration of land management changes. For the longer term a comprehensive land management representation can be anticipated for all major models. To guide the prioritization of implementation, we evaluate ten land management practices—forestry harvest, tree species selection, grazing and mowing harvest, crop harvest, crop species selection, irrigation, wetland drainage, fertilization, tillage, and fire—for (1) their importance on the Earth system, (2) the possibility of implementing them in state‐of‐the‐art ESMs, and (3) availability of required input data. Matching these criteria, we identify “low‐hanging fruits” for the inclusion in ESMs, such as basic implementations of crop and forestry harvest and fertilization. We also identify research requirements for specific communities to address the remaining land management practices. Data availability severely hampers modeling the most extensive land management practice, grazing and mowing harvest, and is a limiting factor for a comprehensive implementation of most other practices. Inadequate process understanding hampers even a basic assessment of crop species selection and tillage effects. The need for multiple advanced model structures will be the challenge for a comprehensive implementation of most practices but considerable synergy can be gained using the same structures for different practices. A continuous and closer collaboration of the modeling, Earth observation, and land system science communities is thus required to achieve the inclusion of land management in ESMs.     

Yield potential of Miscanthus energy crops in the Loess Plateau of China

Growing second‐generation energy crops on marginal land is conceptualized as one of the primary means of future bioenergy development. However, the extent to which marginal land can support energy crop production remains unclear. The Loess Plateau of China, one of the most seriously eroded regions of the world, is particularly rich in marginal land. On the basis of the previous field experiment of planting Miscanthus species in Qingyang of the Gansu Province, herein, we estimated the yield potential of Miscanthus lutarioriparius, the species with the highest biomass, across the Loess Plateau. On the basis of the radiation model previously developed from Miscanthus field trials, annual precipitation was introduced as an additional variable for yield estimate in the semiarid and semihumid regions of the Loess Plateau. Of 62 million hectares (Mha) of the Loess Plateau, our model estimated that 48.7 Mha can potentially support Miscanthus growth, with the average yield of 17.8 t ha^?1 yr^?1. After excluding high‐quality cropland and pasture and land suitable for afforestation, a total of 33.3 Mha of presumably marginal land were left available for producing the energy crop at the average yield of 16.8 t ha^?1 yr^?1 and the total annual yield of 0.56 billion tons. The analysis of environmental factors indicated that erosion, aridity, and field steepness were the primary contributors to the poor quality of the marginal land. The change of land uses from traditional agriculture to energy crop production may prevent further erosion and land degradation and consequently establish a sustainable economy for the region.     

Observation of irrigation‐induced climate change in the Midwest United States

Irrigated agriculture alters near‐surface temperature and humidity, which may mask global climate change at the regional scale. However, observational studies of irrigation‐induced climate change are lacking in temperate, humid regions throughout North America and Europe. Despite unknown climate impacts, irrigated agriculture is expanding in the Midwest United States, where unconfined aquifers provide groundwater to support crop production on coarse soils. This is the first study in the Midwest United States to observe and quantify differences in regional climate associated with irrigated agricultural conversion from forests and rainfed agriculture. To this end, we established a 60 km transect consisting of 28 stations across varying land uses and monitored surface air temperature and relative humidity for 31 months in the Wisconsin Central Sands region. We used a novel approach to quantify irrigated land use in both space and time with a database containing monthly groundwater withdrawal estimates by parcel for the state of Wisconsin. Irrigated agriculture decreased maximum temperatures and increased minimum temperatures, thus shrinking the diurnal temperature range (DTR) by an average of 3°C. Irrigated agriculture also decreased the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) by an average of 0.10 kPa. Irrigated agriculture significantly decreased evaporative demand for 25% and 66% of study days compared to rainfed agriculture and forest, respectively. Differences in VPD across the land‐use gradient were highest (0.21 kPa) during the peak of the growing season, while differences in DTR were comparable year‐round. Interannual variability in temperature had greater impacts on differences in DTR and VPD across the land‐use gradient than interannual variability in precipitation. These regional climate changes must be considered together with increased greenhouse gas emissions, changes to groundwater quality, and surface water degradation when evaluating the costs and benefits of groundwater‐sourced irrigation expansion in the Midwest United States and similar regions around the world.     

The overlooked spatial dimension of climate‐smart agriculture

Climate‐smart agriculture (CSA) and sustainable intensification (SI) are widely claimed to be high‐potential solutions to address the interlinked challenges of food security and climate change. Operationalization of these promising concepts is still lacking and potential trade‐offs are often not considered in the current continental‐ to global‐scale assessments. Here we discuss the effect of spatial variability in the context of the implementation of climate‐smart practices on two central indicators, namely yield development and carbon sequestration, considering biophysical limitations of suggested benefits, socioeconomic and institutional barriers to adoption, and feedback mechanisms across scales. We substantiate our arguments by an illustrative analysis using the example of a hypothetical large‐scale adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) in sub‐Saharan Africa. We argue that, up to now, large‐scale assessments widely neglect the spatially variable effects of climate‐smart practices, leading to inflated statements about co‐benefits of agricultural production and climate change mitigation potentials. There is an urgent need to account for spatial variability in assessments of climate‐smart practices and target those locations where synergies in land functions can be maximized in order to meet the global targets. Therefore, we call for more attention toward spatial planning and landscape optimization approaches in the operationalization of CSA and SI to navigate potential trade‐offs.