Quantifying the benefits of reducing synthetic nitrogen application policy on ecosystem carbon sequestration and biodiversity

Synthetic Nitrogen (N) usage in agriculture has greatly increased food supply over the past century. However, the intensive use of N fertilizer is nevertheless the source of numerous environmental issues and remains a major challenge for policymakers to understand, measure, and quantify the interactions and trade-offs between ecosystem carbon and terrestrial biodiversity loss. In this study, we investigate the impacts of a public policy scenario that aims to halve N fertilizer application across European Union (EU) agriculture on both carbon (C) sequestration and biodiversity changes. We quantify the impacts by integrating two economic models with an agricultural land surface model and a terrestrial biodiversity model (that uses data from a range of taxonomic groups, including plants, fungi, vertebrates and invertebrates). Here, we show that the two economic scenarios lead to different outcomes in terms of C sequestration potential and biodiversity. Land abandonment associated with increased fertilizer price scenario facilitates higher C sequestration in soils (+ 1014 MtC) and similar species richness levels (+ 1.9%) at the EU scale. On the other hand, the more extensive crop production scenario is associated with lower C sequestration potential in soils (- 97 MtC) and similar species richness levels (- 0.4%) because of a lower area of grazing land. Our results therefore highlight the complexity of the environmental consequences of a nitrogen reduction policy, which will depend fundamentally on how the economic models used to project consequences.

Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets

Scenarios that limit global warming to below 2 °C by 2100 assume significant land-use change to support large-scale carbon dioxide (CO₂) removal from the atmosphere by afforestation/reforestation, avoided deforestation, and Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The more ambitious mitigation scenarios require even greater land area for mitigation and/or earlier adoption of CO₂ removal strategies. Here we show that additional land-use change to meet a 1.5 °C climate change target could result in net losses of carbon from the land. The effectiveness of BECCS strongly depends on several assumptions related to the choice of biomass, the fate of initial above ground biomass, and the fossil-fuel emissions offset in the energy system. Depending on these factors, carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS could easily be offset by losses due to land-use change. If BECCS involves replacing high-carbon content ecosystems with crops, then forest-based mitigation could be more efficient for atmospheric CO₂ removal than BECCS.

Land-based mitigation for meeting the Paris climate target must consider the carbon cycle impacts of land-use change. Here the authors show that when bioenergy crops replace high carbon content ecosystems, forest-based mitigation could be more effective for CO₂ removal than bioenergy crops with carbon capture and storage.

Modelling the influence of land-use changes on biophysical and biochemical interactions at regional and global scales

Land-use changes since the start of the industrial era account for nearly one-third of the cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In addition to the greenhouse effect of CO2 emissions, changes in land use also affect climate via changes in surface physical properties such as albedo, evapotranspiration and roughness length. Recent modelling studies suggest that these biophysical components may be comparable with biochemical effects. In regard to climate change, the effects of these two distinct processes may counterbalance one another both regionally and, possibly, globally. In this article, through hypothetical large-scale deforestation simulations using a global climate model, we contrast the implications of afforestation on ameliorating or enhancing anthropogenic contributions from previously converted (agricultural) land surfaces. Based on our review of past studies on this subject, we conclude that the sum of both biophysical and biochemical effects should be assessed when large-scale afforestation is used for countering global warming, and the net effect on global mean temperature change depends on the location of deforestation/afforestation. Further, although biochemical effects trigger global climate change, biophysical effects often cause strong local and regional climate change. The implication of the biophysical effects for adaptation and mitigation of climate change in agriculture and agroforestry sectors is discussed.