@misc{FrankReichsteinBahnetal.2015, author = {Frank, Dorothe A. and Reichstein, Markus and Bahn, Michael and Thonicke, Kirsten and Frank, David and Mahecha, Miguel D. and Smith, Pete and Van der Velde, Marijn and Vicca, Sara and Babst, Flurin and Beer, Christian and Buchmann, Nina and Canadell, Josep G. and Ciais, Philippe and Cramer, Wolfgang and Ibrom, Andreas and Miglietta, Franco and Poulter, Ben and Rammig, Anja and Seneviratne, Sonia I. and Walz, Ariane and Wattenbach, Martin and Zavala, Miguel A. and Zscheischler, Jakob}, title = {Effects of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: concepts, processes and potential future impacts}, series = {Global change biology}, volume = {21}, journal = {Global change biology}, number = {8}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1354-1013}, doi = {10.1111/gcb.12916}, pages = {2861 -- 2880}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Extreme droughts, heat waves, frosts, precipitation, wind storms and other climate extremes may impact the structure, composition and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems, and thus carbon cycling and its feedbacks to the climate system. Yet, the interconnected avenues through which climate extremes drive ecological and physiological processes and alter the carbon balance are poorly understood. Here, we review the literature on carbon cycle relevant responses of ecosystems to extreme climatic events. Given that impacts of climate extremes are considered disturbances, we assume the respective general disturbance-induced mechanisms and processes to also operate in an extreme context. The paucity of well-defined studies currently renders a quantitative meta-analysis impossible, but permits us to develop a deductive framework for identifying the main mechanisms (and coupling thereof) through which climate extremes may act on the carbon cycle. We find that ecosystem responses can exceed the duration of the climate impacts via lagged effects on the carbon cycle. The expected regional impacts of future climate extremes will depend on changes in the probability and severity of their occurrence, on the compound effects and timing of different climate extremes, and on the vulnerability of each land-cover type modulated by management. Although processes and sensitivities differ among biomes, based on expert opinion, we expect forests to exhibit the largest net effect of extremes due to their large carbon pools and fluxes, potentially large indirect and lagged impacts, and long recovery time to regain previous stocks. At the global scale, we presume that droughts have the strongest and most widespread effects on terrestrial carbon cycling. Comparing impacts of climate extremes identified via remote sensing vs. ground-based observational case studies reveals that many regions in the (sub-)tropics are understudied. Hence, regional investigations are needed to allow a global upscaling of the impacts of climate extremes on global carbon-climate feedbacks.}, language = {en} } @article{HerreroThorntonMasonD'Crozetal.2020, author = {Herrero, Mario and Thornton, Philip K. and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Palmer, Jeda and Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon and Pradhan, Prajal and Barrett, Christopher B. and Benton, Tim G. and Hall, Andrew and Pikaar, Ilje and Bogard, Jessica R. and Bonnett, Graham D. and Bryan, Brett A. and Campbell, Bruce M. and Christensen, Svend and Clark, Michael and Fanzo, Jessica and Godde, Cecile M. and Jarvis, Andy and Loboguerrero, Ana Maria and Mathys, Alexander and McIntyre, C. Lynne and Naylor, Rosamond L. and Nelson, Rebecca and Obersteiner, Michael and Parodi, Alejandro and Popp, Alexander and Ricketts, Katie and Smith, Pete and Valin, Hugo and Vermeulen, Sonja J. and Vervoort, Joost and van Wijk, Mark and van Zanten, Hannah H. E. and West, Paul C. and Wood, Stephen A. and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals}, series = {The lancet Planetary health}, volume = {5}, journal = {The lancet Planetary health}, number = {1}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {2542-5196}, doi = {10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1}, pages = {E50 -- E62}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Food system innovations will be instrumental to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, major innovation breakthroughs can trigger profound and disruptive changes, leading to simultaneous and interlinked reconfigurations of multiple parts of the global food system. The emergence of new technologies or social solutions, therefore, have very different impact profiles, with favourable consequences for some SDGs and unintended adverse side-effects for others. Stand-alone innovations seldom achieve positive outcomes over multiple sustainability dimensions. Instead, they should be embedded as part of systemic changes that facilitate the implementation of the SDGs. Emerging trade-offs need to be intentionally addressed to achieve true sustainability, particularly those involving social aspects like inequality in its many forms, social justice, and strong institutions, which remain challenging. Trade-offs with undesirable consequences are manageable through the development of well planned transition pathways, careful monitoring of key indicators, and through the implementation of transparent science targets at the local level.}, language = {en} } @article{ReichsteinBahnCiaisetal.2013, author = {Reichstein, Markus and Bahn, Michael and Ciais, Philippe and Frank, Dorothea and Mahecha, Miguel D. and Seneviratne, Sonia I. and Zscheischler, Jakob and Beer, Christian and Buchmann, Nina and Frank, David C. and Papale, Dario and Rammig, Anja and Smith, Pete and Thonicke, Kirsten and van der Velde, Marijn and Vicca, Sara and Walz, Ariane and Wattenbach, Martin}, title = {Climate extremes and the carbon cycle}, series = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science}, volume = {500}, journal = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science}, number = {7462}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {0028-0836}, doi = {10.1038/nature12350}, pages = {287 -- 295}, year = {2013}, abstract = {The terrestrial biosphere is a key component of the global carbon cycle and its carbon balance is strongly influenced by climate. Continuing environmental changes are thought to increase global terrestrial carbon uptake. But evidence is mounting that climate extremes such as droughts or storms can lead to a decrease in regional ecosystem carbon stocks and therefore have the potential to negate an expected increase in terrestrial carbon uptake. Here we explore the mechanisms and impacts of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle, and propose a pathway to improve our understanding of present and future impacts of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon budget.}, language = {en} } @article{RoeStreckBeachetal.2021, author = {Roe, Stephanie and Streck, Charlotte and Beach, Robert and Busch, Jonah and Chapman, Melissa and Daioglou, Vassilis and Deppermann, Andre and Doelman, Jonathan and Emmet-Booth, Jeremy and Engelmann, Jens and Fricko, Oliver and Frischmann, Chad and Funk, Jason and Grassi, Giacomo and Griscom, Bronson and Havlik, Petr and Hanssen, Steef and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Landholm, David and Lomax, Guy and Lehmann, Johannes and Mesnildrey, Leah and Nabuurs, Gert-Jan and Popp, Alexander and Rivard, Charlotte and Sanderman, Jonathan and Sohngen, Brent and Smith, Pete and Stehfest, Elke and Woolf, Dominic and Lawrence, Deborah}, title = {Land-based measures to mitigate climate change}, series = {Global change biology}, volume = {27}, journal = {Global change biology}, number = {23}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1365-2486}, doi = {10.1111/gcb.15873}, pages = {6025 -- 6058}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Land-based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land-based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing "bottom-up" sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost-effective (available up to \$100/tCO2eq) land-based mitigation is 8-13.8 GtCO2eq yr-1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost-effective sectoral estimate is about 40\% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost-effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost-effective potential is approximately 50\% from forests and other ecosystems, 35\% from agriculture, and 15\% from demand-side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75-4.8 GtCO2eq yr-1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60\% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand-side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co-benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio-cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land-based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80\%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near-term, low-cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land-based measures available, their potential co-benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country-specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.}, language = {en} }