Articles | Volume 12, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1037-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1037-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
22 Oct 2021
Research article |
| 22 Oct 2021
| 22 Oct 2021
Soil organic carbon dynamics from agricultural management practices under climate change
Tobias Herzfeld
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz
Association, P.O. Box 60 12 03, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
Jens Heinke
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz
Association, P.O. Box 60 12 03, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
Susanne Rolinski
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz
Association, P.O. Box 60 12 03, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
Christoph Müller
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz
Association, P.O. Box 60 12 03, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
Related authors
Femke Lutz, Tobias Herzfeld, Jens Heinke, Susanne Rolinski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Werner von Bloh, Jetse J. Stoorvogel, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2419–2440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2419-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2419-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Tillage practices are under-represented in global biogeochemical models so that assessments of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and climate mitigation options are hampered. We describe the implementation of tillage modules into the model LPJmL5.0, including multiple feedbacks between soil water, nitrogen, and productivity. By comparing simulation results with observational data, we show that the model can reproduce reported tillage effects on carbon and water dynamics and crop yields.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-519, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-519, 2024
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Stephen Björn Wirth, Johanna Braun, Jens Heinke, Sebastian Ostberg, Susanne Rolinski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Fabian Stenzel, Werner von Bloh, Friedhelm Taube, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7889–7914, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7889-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7889-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new approach to modelling biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) in the Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land dynamic global vegetation model. While in the original approach BNF depended on actual evapotranspiration, the new approach considers soil water content and temperature, vertical root distribution, the nitrogen (N) deficit and carbon (C) costs. The new approach improved simulated BNF compared to the scientific literature and the model ability to project future C and N cycle dynamics.
Edna Johanna Molina Bacca, Miodrag Stevanović, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Jonathan C. Doelman, Louise Parsons Chini, Jan Volkholz, Katja Frieler, Christopher Reyer, George Hurtt, Florian Humpenöder, Kristine Karstens, Jens Heinke, Christoph Müller, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Elke Stehfest, and Alexander Popp
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2441, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2441, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Land-use change projections are vital for impact studies. This study compares updated land-use model projections, including CO2 fertilization among other upgrades, from the MAgPIE and IMAGE models under three scenarios, highlighting differences, uncertainty hotspots, and harmonization effects. Key findings include reduced bioenergy crop demand projections and differences in grassland area allocation and sizes, with socioeconomic-climate scenarios' largest effect on variance starting in 2030.
Felix Jäger, Jonas Schwaab, Yann Quilcaille, Michael Windisch, Jonathan Doelman, Stefan Frank, Mykola Gusti, Petr Havlik, Florian Humpenöder, Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Christoph Müller, Kanishka Balu Narayan, Ryan Sebastian Padrón, Alexander Popp, Detlef van Vuuren, Michael Wögerer, and Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1055–1071, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change mitigation strategies developed with socioeconomic models rely on the widespread (re)planting of trees to limit global warming below 2°. However, most of these models neglect climate-driven shifts in forest damage like fires. By assessing existing mitigation scenarios, we show the exposure of projected forestation areas to fire-promoting weather conditions. Our study highlights the problem of ignoring climate-driven shifts in forest damage and ways to address it.
Fabian Stenzel, Johanna Braun, Jannes Breier, Karlheinz Erb, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Sarah Matej, Sebastian Ostberg, Sibyll Schaphoff, and Wolfgang Lucht
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3235–3258, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3235-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3235-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We provide an R package to compute two biosphere integrity metrics that can be applied to simulations of vegetation growth from the dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL. The pressure metric BioCol indicates that we humans modify and extract > 20 % of the potential preindustrial natural biomass production. The ecosystems state metric EcoRisk shows a high risk of ecosystem destabilization in many regions as a result of climate change and land, water, and fertilizer use.
Stephen Björn Wirth, Arne Poyda, Friedhelm Taube, Britta Tietjen, Christoph Müller, Kirsten Thonicke, Anja Linstädter, Kai Behn, Sibyll Schaphoff, Werner von Bloh, and Susanne Rolinski
Biogeosciences, 21, 381–410, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-381-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-381-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), the role of functional diversity in forage supply and soil organic carbon storage of grasslands is not explicitly taken into account. We introduced functional diversity into the Lund Potsdam Jena managed Land (LPJmL) DGVM using CSR theory. The new model reproduced well-known trade-offs between plant traits and can be used to quantify the role of functional diversity in climate change mitigation using different functional diversity scenarios.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
Weihang Liu, Tao Ye, Christoph Müller, Jonas Jägermeyr, James A. Franke, Haynes Stephens, and Shuo Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7203–7221, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7203-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7203-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a machine-learning-based crop model emulator with the inputs and outputs of multiple global gridded crop model ensemble simulations to capture the year-to-year variation of crop yield under future climate change. The emulator can reproduce the year-to-year variation of simulated yield given by the crop models under CO2, temperature, water, and nitrogen perturbations. Developing this emulator can provide a tool to project future climate change impact in a simple way.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Elena Xoplaki, Florian Ellsäßer, Jens Grieger, Katrin M. Nissen, Joaquim Pinto, Markus Augenstein, Ting-Chen Chen, Hendrik Feldmann, Petra Friederichs, Daniel Gliksman, Laura Goulier, Karsten Haustein, Jens Heinke, Lisa Jach, Florian Knutzen, Stefan Kollet, Jürg Luterbacher, Niklas Luther, Susanna Mohr, Christoph Mudersbach, Christoph Müller, Efi Rousi, Felix Simon, Laura Suarez-Gutierrez, Svenja Szemkus, Sara M. Vallejo-Bernal, Odysseas Vlachopoulos, and Frederik Wolf
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1460, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1460, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Europe is regularly affected by compound events and natural hazards that occur simultaneously or with a temporal lag and are connected with disproportional impacts. Within the interdisciplinary project climXtreme (https://climxtreme.net/) we investigate the interplay of these events, their characteristics and changes, intensity, frequency and uncertainties in the past, present and future, as well as the associated impacts on different socio-economic sectors in Germany and Central Europe.
Sebastian Ostberg, Christoph Müller, Jens Heinke, and Sibyll Schaphoff
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3375–3406, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new toolbox for generating input datasets for terrestrial ecosystem models from diverse and partially conflicting data sources. The toolbox documents the sources and processing of data and is designed to make inconsistencies between source datasets transparent so that users can make their own decisions on how to resolve these should they not be content with our default assumptions. As an example, we use the toolbox to create input datasets at two different spatial resolutions.
Jens Heinke, Susanne Rolinski, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2455–2475, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2455-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2455-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a livestock module for the global vegetation model LPJmL5.0 to simulate the impact of grazing dairy cattle on carbon and nitrogen cycles in grasslands. A novelty of the approach is that it accounts for the effect of feed quality on feed uptake and feed utilization by animals. The portioning of dietary nitrogen into milk, feces, and urine shows very good agreement with estimates obtained from animal trials.
Efi Rousi, Andreas H. Fink, Lauren S. Andersen, Florian N. Becker, Goratz Beobide-Arsuaga, Marcus Breil, Giacomo Cozzi, Jens Heinke, Lisa Jach, Deborah Niermann, Dragan Petrovic, Andy Richling, Johannes Riebold, Stella Steidl, Laura Suarez-Gutierrez, Jordis S. Tradowsky, Dim Coumou, André Düsterhus, Florian Ellsäßer, Georgios Fragkoulidis, Daniel Gliksman, Dörthe Handorf, Karsten Haustein, Kai Kornhuber, Harald Kunstmann, Joaquim G. Pinto, Kirsten Warrach-Sagi, and Elena Xoplaki
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1699–1718, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1699-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1699-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive, multi-faceted analysis of the 2018 extreme summer in terms of heat and drought in central and northern Europe, with a particular focus on Germany. A combination of favorable large-scale conditions and locally dry soils were related with the intensity and persistence of the events. We also showed that such extremes have become more likely due to anthropogenic climate change and might occur almost every year under +2 °C of global warming.
Kristine Karstens, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Marta Dondini, Jens Heinke, Matthias Kuhnert, Christoph Müller, Susanne Rolinski, Pete Smith, Isabelle Weindl, Hermann Lotze-Campen, and Alexander Popp
Biogeosciences, 19, 5125–5149, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5125-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5125-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soil organic carbon (SOC) has been depleted by anthropogenic land cover change and agricultural management. While SOC models often simulate detailed biochemical processes, the management decisions are still little investigated at the global scale. We estimate that soils have lost around 26 GtC relative to a counterfactual natural state in 1975. Yet, since 1975, SOC has been increasing again by 4 GtC due to a higher productivity, recycling of crop residues and manure, and no-tillage practices.
Vera Porwollik, Susanne Rolinski, Jens Heinke, Werner von Bloh, Sibyll Schaphoff, and Christoph Müller
Biogeosciences, 19, 957–977, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-957-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-957-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The study assesses impacts of grass cover crop cultivation on cropland during main-crop off-season periods applying the global vegetation model LPJmL (V.5.0-tillage-cc). Compared to simulated bare-soil fallowing practices, cover crops led to increased soil carbon content and reduced nitrogen leaching rates on the majority of global cropland. Yield responses of main crops following cover crops vary with location, duration of altered management, crop type, water regime, and tillage practice.
Yvonne Jans, Werner von Bloh, Sibyll Schaphoff, and Christoph Müller
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2027–2044, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2027-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2027-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Growth of and irrigation water demand on cotton may be challenged by future climate change. To analyze the global cotton production and irrigation water consumption under spatially varying present and future climatic conditions, we use the global terrestrial biosphere model LPJmL. Our simulation results suggest that the beneficial effects of elevated [CO2] on cotton yields overcompensate yield losses from direct climate change impacts, i.e., without the beneficial effect of [CO2] fertilization.
Bruno Ringeval, Christoph Müller, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Philippe Ciais, Christian Folberth, Wenfeng Liu, Philippe Debaeke, and Sylvain Pellerin
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1639–1656, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1639-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1639-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We assess how and why global gridded crop models (GGCMs) differ in their simulation of potential yield. We build a GCCM emulator based on generic formalism and fit its parameters against aboveground biomass and yield at harvest simulated by eight GGCMs. Despite huge differences between GGCMs, we show that the calibration of a few key parameters allows the emulator to reproduce the GGCM simulations. Our simple but mechanistic model could help to improve the global simulation of potential yield.
James A. Franke, Christoph Müller, Joshua Elliott, Alex C. Ruane, Jonas Jägermeyr, Abigail Snyder, Marie Dury, Pete D. Falloon, Christian Folberth, Louis François, Tobias Hank, R. Cesar Izaurralde, Ingrid Jacquemin, Curtis Jones, Michelle Li, Wenfeng Liu, Stefan Olin, Meridel Phillips, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Ashwan Reddy, Karina Williams, Ziwei Wang, Florian Zabel, and Elisabeth J. Moyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3995–4018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on crop yields will be critical for global food security in the next century. The models often used to study the how climate change may impact agriculture are complex and costly to run. In this work, we describe a set of global crop model emulators (simplified models) developed under the Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project. Crop model emulators make agricultural simulations more accessible to policy or decision makers.
Femke Lutz, Stephen Del Grosso, Stephen Ogle, Stephen Williams, Sara Minoli, Susanne Rolinski, Jens Heinke, Jetse J. Stoorvogel, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3905–3923, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3905-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3905-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Previous findings have shown deviations between the LPJmL5.0-tillage model and results from meta-analyses on global estimates of tillage effects on N2O emissions. By comparing model results with observational data of four experimental sites and outputs from field-scale DayCent model simulations, we show that advancing information on agricultural management, as well as the representation of soil moisture dynamics, improves LPJmL5.0-tillage and the estimates of tillage effects on N2O emissions.
Thomas A. M. Pugh, Tim Rademacher, Sarah L. Shafer, Jörg Steinkamp, Jonathan Barichivich, Brian Beckage, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Harper, Jens Heinke, Kazuya Nishina, Anja Rammig, Hisashi Sato, Almut Arneth, Stijn Hantson, Thomas Hickler, Markus Kautz, Benjamin Quesada, Benjamin Smith, and Kirsten Thonicke
Biogeosciences, 17, 3961–3989, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3961-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3961-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The length of time that carbon remains in forest biomass is one of the largest uncertainties in the global carbon cycle. Estimates from six contemporary models found this time to range from 12.2 to 23.5 years for the global mean for 1985–2014. Future projections do not give consistent results, but 13 model-based hypotheses are identified, along with recommendations for pragmatic steps to test them using existing and novel observations, which would help to reduce large current uncertainty.
James A. Franke, Christoph Müller, Joshua Elliott, Alex C. Ruane, Jonas Jägermeyr, Juraj Balkovic, Philippe Ciais, Marie Dury, Pete D. Falloon, Christian Folberth, Louis François, Tobias Hank, Munir Hoffmann, R. Cesar Izaurralde, Ingrid Jacquemin, Curtis Jones, Nikolay Khabarov, Marian Koch, Michelle Li, Wenfeng Liu, Stefan Olin, Meridel Phillips, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Ashwan Reddy, Xuhui Wang, Karina Williams, Florian Zabel, and Elisabeth J. Moyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2315–2336, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2315-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2315-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Crop models, which represent plant biology, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate, farmer choices, and new agricultural geographies. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment, under the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to evaluate and improve crop models.
Matias Heino, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Christoph Müller, Toshichika Iizumi, and Matti Kummu
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 113–128, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-113-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-113-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we analyse the impacts of three major climate oscillations on global crop production. Our results show that maize, rice, soybean, and wheat yields are influenced by climate oscillations to a wide extent and in several important crop-producing regions. We observe larger impacts if crops are rainfed or fully fertilized, while irrigation tends to mitigate the impacts. These results can potentially help to increase the resilience of the global food system to climate-related shocks.
Maarten C. Braakhekke, Jonathan C. Doelman, Peter Baas, Christoph Müller, Sibyll Schaphoff, Elke Stehfest, and Detlef P. van Vuuren
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 617–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a computer model that simulates forests plantations at global scale and how fast such forests can take up CO2 from the atmosphere. Using this new model, we performed simulations for a scenario in which a large fraction (14 %) of global croplands and pastures are either converted to planted forests or natural forests. We find that planted forests take up CO2 substantially faster than natural forests and are therefore a viable strategy for reducing climate change.
Bruno Ringeval, Marko Kvakić, Laurent Augusto, Philippe Ciais, Daniel Goll, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Christoph Müller, Thomas Nesme, Nicolas Vuichard, Xuhui Wang, and Sylvain Pellerin
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2019-298, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2019-298, 2019
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Crossed fertilization additions lead to the definition of nutrient interaction categories. However, the implications of such categories in terms of nutrient interaction modeling are not clear. We developed a theoretical analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization experiments, then applied it to current estimates of nutrient limitation in cropland. We found that a true co-limitation could affect up to 42 % of the global maize area when using a given formalism of nutrient interaction.
Femke Lutz, Tobias Herzfeld, Jens Heinke, Susanne Rolinski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Werner von Bloh, Jetse J. Stoorvogel, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2419–2440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2419-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2419-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Tillage practices are under-represented in global biogeochemical models so that assessments of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and climate mitigation options are hampered. We describe the implementation of tillage modules into the model LPJmL5.0, including multiple feedbacks between soil water, nitrogen, and productivity. By comparing simulation results with observational data, we show that the model can reproduce reported tillage effects on carbon and water dynamics and crop yields.
Vera Porwollik, Susanne Rolinski, Jens Heinke, and Christoph Müller
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 823–843, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-823-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-823-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This study describes the generation of a classification and the global spatially explicit mapping of six crop-specific tillage systems for around the year 2005. Tillage practices differ by the kind of equipment used, soil surface and depth affected, timing, and their purpose within the cropping systems. The identified tillage systems including a downscale algorithm of national Conservation Agriculture area values were allocated to crop-specific cropland areas with a resolution of 5 arcmin.
Jens Heinke, Christoph Müller, Mats Lannerstad, Dieter Gerten, and Wolfgang Lucht
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 205–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-205-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-205-2019, 2019
Anja Rammig, Jens Heinke, Florian Hofhansl, Hans Verbeeck, Timothy R. Baker, Bradley Christoffersen, Philippe Ciais, Hannes De Deurwaerder, Katrin Fleischer, David Galbraith, Matthieu Guimberteau, Andreas Huth, Michelle Johnson, Bart Krujit, Fanny Langerwisch, Patrick Meir, Phillip Papastefanou, Gilvan Sampaio, Kirsten Thonicke, Celso von Randow, Christian Zang, and Edna Rödig
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 5203–5215, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-5203-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-5203-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a generic approach for a pixel-to-point comparison applicable for evaluation of models and remote-sensing products. We provide statistical measures accounting for the uncertainty in ecosystem variables. We demonstrate our approach by comparing simulated values of aboveground biomass, woody productivity and residence time of woody biomass from four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) with measured inventory data from permanent plots in the Amazon rainforest.
Werner von Bloh, Sibyll Schaphoff, Christoph Müller, Susanne Rolinski, Katharina Waha, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2789–2812, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2789-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2789-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The dynamics of the terrestrial carbon cycle are of central importance for Earth system science. Nutrient limitations, especially from nitrogen, are important constraints on vegetation growth and the terrestrial carbon cycle. We extended the well-established global vegetation, hydrology, and crop model LPJmL with a nitrogen cycle. We find significant improvement in global patterns of crop productivity. Regional differences in crop productivity can now be largely reproduced by the model.
Sibyll Schaphoff, Werner von Bloh, Anja Rammig, Kirsten Thonicke, Hester Biemans, Matthias Forkel, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Jonas Jägermeyr, Jürgen Knauer, Fanny Langerwisch, Wolfgang Lucht, Christoph Müller, Susanne Rolinski, and Katharina Waha
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1343–1375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Here we provide a comprehensive model description of a global terrestrial biosphere model, named LPJmL4, incorporating the carbon and water cycle and the quantification of agricultural production. The model allows for the consistent and joint quantification of climate and land use change impacts on the biosphere. The model represents the key ecosystem functions, but also the influence of humans on the biosphere. It comes with an evaluation paper to demonstrate the credibility of LPJmL4.
Sibyll Schaphoff, Matthias Forkel, Christoph Müller, Jürgen Knauer, Werner von Bloh, Dieter Gerten, Jonas Jägermeyr, Wolfgang Lucht, Anja Rammig, Kirsten Thonicke, and Katharina Waha
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1377–1403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1377-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1377-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Here we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the now launched version 4.0 of the LPJmL biosphere, water, and agricultural model. The article is the second part to a comprehensive description of the LPJmL4 model. We have evaluated the model against various datasets of satellite observations, agricultural statistics, and in situ measurements by applying a range of metrics. We are able to show that the LPJmL4 model simulates many parameters and relations reasonably.
Susanne Rolinski, Christoph Müller, Jens Heinke, Isabelle Weindl, Anne Biewald, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Alberte Bondeau, Eltje R. Boons-Prins, Alexander F. Bouwman, Peter A. Leffelaar, Johnny A. te Roller, Sibyll Schaphoff, and Kirsten Thonicke
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 429–451, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-429-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-429-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
One-third of the global land area is covered with grasslands which are grazed by or mowed for livestock feed. These areas contribute significantly to the carbon capture from the atmosphere when managed sensibly. To assess the effect of this management, we included different options of grazing and mowing into the global model LPJmL 3.6. We found in polar regions even low grazing pressure leads to soil carbon loss whereas in temperate regions up to 1.4 livestock units per hectare can be sustained.
Christian Folberth, Joshua Elliott, Christoph Müller, Juraj Balkovic, James Chryssanthacopoulos, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Curtis D. Jones, Nikolay Khabarov, Wenfeng Liu, Ashwan Reddy, Erwin Schmid, Rastislav Skalský, Hong Yang, Almut Arneth, Philippe Ciais, Delphine Deryng, Peter J. Lawrence, Stefan Olin, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Alex C. Ruane, and Xuhui Wang
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-527, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-527, 2016
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Global crop models differ in numerous aspects such as algorithms, parameterization, input data, and management assumptions. This study compares five global crop model frameworks, all based on the same field-scale model, to identify differences induced by the latter three. Results indicate that foremost nutrient supply, soil handling, and crop management induce substantial differences in crop yield estimates whereas crop cultivars primarily result in scaling of yield levels.
K. Frieler, A. Levermann, J. Elliott, J. Heinke, A. Arneth, M. F. P. Bierkens, P. Ciais, D. B. Clark, D. Deryng, P. Döll, P. Falloon, B. Fekete, C. Folberth, A. D. Friend, C. Gellhorn, S. N. Gosling, I. Haddeland, N. Khabarov, M. Lomas, Y. Masaki, K. Nishina, K. Neumann, T. Oki, R. Pavlick, A. C. Ruane, E. Schmid, C. Schmitz, T. Stacke, E. Stehfest, Q. Tang, D. Wisser, V. Huber, F. Piontek, L. Warszawski, J. Schewe, H. Lotze-Campen, and H. J. Schellnhuber
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 447–460, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-447-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-447-2015, 2015
J. Jägermeyr, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, S. Schaphoff, M. Kummu, and W. Lucht
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3073–3091, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3073-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3073-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present a process-based simulation of global irrigation systems for the world’s major crop types. This study advances the global quantification of irrigation systems while providing a framework for assessing potential future transitions in these systems, a prerequisite for refined simulation of crop yields under climate change. We reveal for many river basins the potential for sizeable water savings and related increases in water productivity through irrigation improvements.
S. Rolinski, A. Rammig, A. Walz, W. von Bloh, M. van Oijen, and K. Thonicke
Biogeosciences, 12, 1813–1831, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-1813-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-1813-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Extreme weather events can but do not have to cause extreme ecosystem response. Here, we focus on hazardous ecosystem behaviour and identify coinciding weather conditions.
We use a simple probabilistic risk assessment and apply it to terrestrial ecosystems, defining a hazard as negative net biome productivity. In Europe, ecosystems are vulnerable to drought in the Mediterranean and temperate region, whereas vulnerability in Scandinavia is not caused by water shortages.
J. Elliott, C. Müller, D. Deryng, J. Chryssanthacopoulos, K. J. Boote, M. Büchner, I. Foster, M. Glotter, J. Heinke, T. Iizumi, R. C. Izaurralde, N. D. Mueller, D. K. Ray, C. Rosenzweig, A. C. Ruane, and J. Sheffield
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 261–277, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present and describe the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) project, an ongoing international effort to 1) validate global models of crop productivity, 2) improve models through detailed analysis of processes, and 3) assess the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security. We present analysis of data inputs for the project, detailed protocols for conducting and evaluating simulation outputs, and example results.
D. C. Zemp, C.-F. Schleussner, H. M. J. Barbosa, R. J. van der Ent, J. F. Donges, J. Heinke, G. Sampaio, and A. Rammig
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13337–13359, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13337-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13337-2014, 2014
M. Van Oijen, J. Balkovi, C. Beer, D. R. Cameron, P. Ciais, W. Cramer, T. Kato, M. Kuhnert, R. Martin, R. Myneni, A. Rammig, S. Rolinski, J.-F. Soussana, K. Thonicke, M. Van der Velde, and L. Xu
Biogeosciences, 11, 6357–6375, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6357-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-6357-2014, 2014
Short summary
Short summary
We use a new risk analysis method, and six vegetation models, to analyse how climate change may alter drought risks in European ecosystems. The conclusions are (1) drought will pose increasing risks to productivity in the Mediterranean area; (2) this is because severe droughts will become more frequent, not because ecosystems will become more vulnerable; (3) future C sequestration will be at risk because carbon gain in primary productivity will be more affected than carbon loss in respiration.
L. Batlle-Bayer, B. J. J. M. van den Hurk, C. Müller, and J. van Minnen
Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esdd-5-585-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esdd-5-585-2014, 2014
Revised manuscript has not been submitted
M. Kummu, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, M. Konzmann, and O. Varis
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 447–461, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-447-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-447-2014, 2014
P. Dass, C. Müller, V. Brovkin, and W. Cramer
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 409–424, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-409-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-409-2013, 2013
J. Heinke, S. Ostberg, S. Schaphoff, K. Frieler, C. Müller, D. Gerten, M. Meinshausen, and W. Lucht
Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 1689–1703, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1689-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-1689-2013, 2013
S. Hagemann, C. Chen, D. B. Clark, S. Folwell, S. N. Gosling, I. Haddeland, N. Hanasaki, J. Heinke, F. Ludwig, F. Voss, and A. J. Wiltshire
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 129–144, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-129-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-129-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Management of the Earth system: carbon sequestration and management
Carbon dioxide removal via macroalgae open-ocean mariculture and sinking: an Earth system modeling study
Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based and land-based climate mitigation options
Meeting climate targets by direct CO2 injections: what price would the ocean have to pay?
Modeling forest plantations for carbon uptake with the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model
Characteristics of soil profile CO2 concentrations in karst areas and their significance for global carbon cycles and climate change
ESD Ideas: Photoelectrochemical carbon removal as negative emission technology
Revisiting ocean carbon sequestration by direct injection: a global carbon budget perspective
Collateral transgression of planetary boundaries due to climate engineering by terrestrial carbon dioxide removal
Soil carbon management in large-scale Earth system modelling: implications for crop yields and nitrogen leaching
Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation
Jiajun Wu, David P. Keller, and Andreas Oschlies
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 185–221, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-185-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-185-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we investigate an ocean-based carbon dioxide removal method: macroalgae open-ocean mariculture and sinking (MOS), which aims to cultivate seaweed in the open-ocean surface and to sink matured biomass quickly to the deep seafloor. Our results suggest that MOS has considerable potential as an ocean-based CDR method. However, MOS has inherent side effects on marine ecosystems and biogeochemistry, which will require careful evaluation beyond this first idealized modeling study.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Fabian Reith, Wolfgang Koeve, David P. Keller, Julia Getzlaff, and Andreas Oschlies
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 711–727, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-711-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-711-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This modeling study is the first one to look at the suitability and collateral effects of direct CO2 injection into the deep ocean as a means to bridge the gap between CO2 emissions and climate impacts of an intermediate CO2 emission scenario and a temperature target on a millennium timescale, such as the 1.5 °C climate target of the Paris Agreement.
Maarten C. Braakhekke, Jonathan C. Doelman, Peter Baas, Christoph Müller, Sibyll Schaphoff, Elke Stehfest, and Detlef P. van Vuuren
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 617–630, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-617-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a computer model that simulates forests plantations at global scale and how fast such forests can take up CO2 from the atmosphere. Using this new model, we performed simulations for a scenario in which a large fraction (14 %) of global croplands and pastures are either converted to planted forests or natural forests. We find that planted forests take up CO2 substantially faster than natural forests and are therefore a viable strategy for reducing climate change.
Qiao Chen
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 525–538, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-525-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-525-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The missing carbon sink is puzzling since carbon cycle is related to global climate. The varying characteristics of soil profile CO2 concentration in carbonate areas and noncarbonates were investigated, together with pH, SOC, and isotope. It is found that carbonate corrosion deeply consumes soil CO2, which accounts for an average of 36 %. Such a process is important for karst carbon cycles and global climate changes, and may be a potential part of the
missing sink.
Matthias M. May and Kira Rehfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-1-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-1-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Current CO2 emission rates are incompatible with the 2 °C target for global warming. Negative emission technologies are therefore an important basis for climate policy scenarios. We show that photoelectrochemical CO2 reduction might be a viable, high-efficiency alternative to biomass-based approaches, which reduce competition for arable land. To develop them, chemical reactions have to be optimized for CO2 removal, which deviates from energetic efficiency optimization in solar fuel applications.
Fabian Reith, David P. Keller, and Andreas Oschlies
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 797–812, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-797-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-797-2016, 2016
Vera Heck, Jonathan F. Donges, and Wolfgang Lucht
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 783–796, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-783-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-783-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We assess the co-evolutionary dynamics of the Earth's carbon cycle and societal interventions through terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) with a conceptual model in a planetary boundary context. The focus on one planetary boundary alone may lead to navigating the Earth system out of the safe operating space due to transgression of other boundaries. The success of tCDR depends on the degree of anticipation of climate change, the potential tCDR rate and the underlying emission pathway.
S. Olin, M. Lindeskog, T. A. M. Pugh, G. Schurgers, D. Wårlind, M. Mishurov, S. Zaehle, B. D. Stocker, B. Smith, and A. Arneth
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 745–768, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-745-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-745-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Croplands are vital ecosystems for human well-being. Properly managed they can supply food, store carbon and even sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Conversely, if poorly managed, croplands can be a source of nitrogen to inland and coastal waters, causing algal blooms, and a source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, accentuating climate change. Here we studied cropland management types for their potential to store carbon and minimize nitrogen losses while maintaining crop yields.
K. Becker, V. Wulfmeyer, T. Berger, J. Gebel, and W. Münch
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 237–251, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-237-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-237-2013, 2013
Cited articles
Abdalla, K., Chivenge, P., Ciais, P., and Chaplot, V.: No-tillage lessens soil CO2 emissions the most under arid and sandy soil conditions: results from a meta-analysis, Biogeosciences, 13, 3619–3633, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-3619-2016, 2016.
Alvarez, R.: A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage
effects on soil organic carbon storage, Soil Use Manag., 21, 38–52,
https://doi.org/10.1079/SUM2005291, 2005.
Averill, C. and Waring, B.: Nitrogen limitation of decomposition and decay:
How can it occur?, Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 1417–1427,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13980, 2018.
Baker, J. M., Ochsner, T. E., Venterea, R. T., and Griffis, T. J.: Tillage
and soil carbon sequestration – What do we really know?, Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ., 118, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014, 2007.
Basso, B., Dumont, B., Maestrini, B., Shcherbak, I., Robertson, G. P.,
Porter, J. R., Smith, P., Paustian, K., Grace, P. R., Asseng, S., Bassu, S.,
Biernath, C., Boote, K. J., Cammarano, D., De Sanctis, G., Durand, J.-L.,
Ewert, F., Gayler, S., Hyndman, D. W., Kent, J., Martre, P., Nendel, C.,
Priesack, E., Ripoche, D., Ruane, A. C., Sharp, J., Thorburn, P. J.,
Hatfield, J. L., Jones, J. W., and Rosenzweig, C.: Soil Organic Carbon and
Nitrogen Feedbacks on Crop Yields under Climate Change, Agric. Environ.
Lett., 3, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2018.05.0026, 2018.
Batjes, N. H.: Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world, Eur. J.
Soil Sci., 47, 151–163, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01386.x,
1996.
Batjes, N. H.: Mitigation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by
increased carbon sequestration in the soil, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 27,
230–235, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050425, 1998.
Bodirsky, B. L., Rolinski, S., Biewald, A., Weindl, I., Popp, A., and
Lotze-Campen, H.: Global Food Demand Scenarios for the 21st Century, PLoS
One, 10, e0139201, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139201, 2015.
Bondeau, A., Smith, P. C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W.,
Gerten, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M., and Smith, B.:
Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial
carbon balance, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 679–706,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x, 2007.
Bronick, C. J. and Lal, R.: Soil structure and management: a review,
Geoderma, 124, 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005, 2005.
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U.,
Ahrens, B., Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson, J. T., and Reichstein, M.:
Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial
ecosystems, Nature, 514, 213–217, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731,
2014.
Cerdà, A., Flanagan, D. C., le Bissonnais, Y., and Boardman, J.: Soil
erosion and agriculture, Soil Tillage Res., 106, 107–108,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.10.006, 2009.
Chevallier, T., Blanchart, E., Girardin, C., Mariotti, A., Albrecht, A., and
Feller, C.: The role of biological activity (roots, earthworms) in
medium-term C dynamics in vertisol under a Digitaria decumbens (Gramineae)
pasture, Appl. Soil Ecol., 16, 11–21,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00102-5, 2001.
Chi, J., Waldo, S., Pressley, S., O'Keeffe, P., Huggins, D., Stöckle,
C., Pan, W. L., Brooks, E., and Lamb, B.: Assessing carbon and water
dynamics of no-till and conventional tillage cropping systems in the inland
Pacific Northwest US using the eddy covariance method, Agric. For.
Meteorol., 218–219, 37–49,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.11.019, 2016.
Derpsch, R., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A., and Hongwen, L.: Current status of
adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits, Int.
J. Agric. Biol. Eng., 3, 1–25, https://doi.org/10.3965/j.issn.1934-6344.2010.01.001-025, 2010.
Derpsch, R., Franzluebbers, A. J., Duiker, S. W., Reicosky, D. C., Koeller,
K., Friedrich, T., Sturny, W. G., Sá, J. C. M., and Weiss, K.: Why do we
need to standardize no-tillage research?, Soil Tillage Res., 137, 16–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.10.002, 2014.
de Vries, W.: Soil carbon 4 per mille: a good initiative but let's manage
not only the soil but also the expectations, Geoderma, 309, 111–112,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.023, 2018.
Dietrich, J. P., Mishra, A., Weindl, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Wang, X.,
Baumstark, L., Kreidenweis, U., Klein, D., Steinmetz, N., Chen, D.,
Humpenoeder, F., and Wirth, S.: mrland: MadRaT land data package, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3822083, 2020.
Dignac, M.-F., Derrien, D., Barré, P., Barot, S., Cécillon, L.,
Chenu, C., Chevallier, T., Freschet, G. T., Garnier, P., Guenet, B., Hedde,
M., Klumpp, K., Lashermes, G., Maron, P.-A., Nunan, N., Roumet, C., and
Basile-Doelsch, I.: Increasing soil carbon storage: mechanisms, effects of
agricultural practices and proxies. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0421-2, 2017.
Emde, D., Hannam, K. D., Most, I., Nelson, L. M., and Jones, M. D.: Soil
organic carbon in irrigated agricultural systems: A meta-analysis, Glob.
Change Biol., 27, 3898–3910, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15680, 2021.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture 2019 (SOFA). Moving forward on food
loss and waste reduction., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome, License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO, 2019.
Forkel, M., Carvalhais, N., Schaphoff, S., v. Bloh, W., Migliavacca, M., Thurner, M., and Thonicke, K.: Identifying environmental controls on vegetation greenness phenology through model–data integration, Biogeosciences, 11, 7025–7050, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7025-2014, 2014.
Frieler, K., Lange, S., Piontek, F., Reyer, C. P. O., Schewe, J., Warszawski, L., Zhao, F., Chini, L., Denvil, S., Emanuel, K., Geiger, T., Halladay, K., Hurtt, G., Mengel, M., Murakami, D., Ostberg, S., Popp, A., Riva, R., Stevanovic, M., Suzuki, T., Volkholz, J., Burke, E., Ciais, P., Ebi, K., Eddy, T. D., Elliott, J., Galbraith, E., Gosling, S. N., Hattermann, F., Hickler, T., Hinkel, J., Hof, C., Huber, V., Jägermeyr, J., Krysanova, V., Marcé, R., Müller Schmied, H., Mouratiadou, I., Pierson, D., Tittensor, D. P., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M., Biber, M. F., Betts, R. A., Bodirsky, B. L., Deryng, D., Frolking, S., Jones, C. D., Lotze, H. K., Lotze-Campen, H., Sahajpal, R., Thonicke, K., Tian, H., and Yamagata, Y.: Assessing the impacts of 1.5 ∘C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4321–4345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017, 2017.
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann,
T., Beringer, T., Garcia, W. de O., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G.,
Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. L. V., Wilcox, J.,
Dominguez, M. del M. Z., and Minx, J. C.: Negative emissions – Part 2:
Costs, potentials and side effects, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 063002,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f, 2018.
Gerten, D., Heck, V., Jägermeyr, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Fetzer, I.,
Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Schaphoff, S., and
Schellnhuber, H. J.: Feeding ten billion people is possible within four
terrestrial planetary boundaries, Nat. Sustain., 3, 200–208,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0465-1, 2020.
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva,
D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P.,
Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T.,
Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., Herrero, M.,
Kiesecker, J., Landis, E., Laestadius, L., Leavitt, S. M., Minnemeyer, S.,
Polasky, S., Potapov, P., Putz, F. E., Sanderman, J., Silvius, M.,
Wollenberg, E., and Fargione, J.: Natural climate solutions, P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 11645–11650,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114, 2017.
Guérif, J., Richard, G., Dürr, C., Machet, J. M., Recous, S., and
Roger-Estrade, J.: A review of tillage effects on crop residue management,
seedbed conditions and seedling establishment, Soil Tillage Res., 61,
13–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00187-8, 2001.
Gyssels, G., Poesen, J., Bochet, E., and Li, Y.: Impact of plant roots on
the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a review, Prog. Phys. Geogr.,
29, 189–217, https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133305pp443ra, 2005.
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU
TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset, Sci. Data,
7, 109, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3, 2020.
Hatton, P.-J., Castanha, C., Torn, M. S., and Bird, J. A.: Litter type
control on soil C and N stabilization dynamics in a temperate forest, Glob.
Change Biol., 21, 1358–1367, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12786, 2015.
Heijden, M. G. A. V. D., Bardgett, R. D., and Straalen, N. M. V.: The unseen
majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in
terrestrial ecosystems, Ecol. Lett., 11, 296–310,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x, 2008.
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., and Piontek, F.: Bias
corrected GCM input data for ISIMIP Fast Track, GFZ Data Services,
https://doi.org/10.5880/PIK.2016.001, 2013.
Herzfeld, T., Müller, C., Heinke, J., Rolinski, S., and Porwollik, V.:
LPJmL Model Source Code (version 5.0-tillage2), Zenodo [code],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4625868, 2021.
Hiederer, R. and Köchy, M.: Global Soil Organic Carbon Estimates and the
Harmonized World Soil Database, EUR 25225 EN, 79,
https://doi.org/10.2788/13267, 2011.
Humphrey, V., Berg, A., Ciais, P., Gentine, P., Jung, M., Reichstein, M.,
Seneviratne, S. I., and Frankenberg, C.: Soil moisture–atmosphere feedback
dominates land carbon uptake variability, Nature, 592, 65–69,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03325-5, 2021.
Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L., Sahajpal, R., Frolking, S., Bodirsky, B. L., Calvin, K., Doelman, J. C., Fisk, J., Fujimori, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Heinimann, A., Humpenöder, F., Jungclaus, J., Kaplan, J. O., Kennedy, J., Krisztin, T., Lawrence, D., Lawrence, P., Ma, L., Mertz, O., Pongratz, J., Popp, A., Poulter, B., Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E., Stehfest, E., Thornton, P., Tubiello, F. N., van Vuuren, D. P., and Zhang, X.: Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5425–5464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020, 2020.
IPCC: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared
by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, edited by: Eggleston, H. S.,
Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngar,a T., and Tanabe, K., IGES, Japan,
2006.
IPCC: 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories – Chapter 5 – Cropland – Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and
Other Land Use, edited by: Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J.,
Fukuda, M., Ngarize S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P., and
Federici, S., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Schaphoff, S., Kummu, M., and Lucht, W.: Water savings potentials of irrigation systems: global simulation of processes and linkages, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3073–3091, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3073-2015, 2015.
Jobbágy, E. G. and Jackson, R. B.: The Vertical Distribution of Soil
Organic Carbon and Its Relation to Climate and Vegetation, Ecol. Appl., 10,
423–436, https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0423:TVDOSO]2.0.CO;2,
2000.
Karstens, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Dietrich, J. P., Dondini, M., Heinke, J., Kuhnert, M., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., Smith, P., Weindl, I., Lotze-Campen, H., and Popp, A.: Management induced changes of soil organic carbon on global croplands, Biogeosciences Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-468, in review, 2020.
Kurothe, R. S., Kumar, G., Singh, R., Singh, H. B., Tiwari, S. P.,
Vishwakarma, A. K., Sena, D. R., and Pande, V. C.: Effect of tillage and
cropping systems on runoff, soil loss and crop yields under semiarid rainfed
agriculture in India, Soil Tillage Res., 140, 126–134,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.03.005, 2014.
Lal, R.: Tillage effects on soil degradation, soil resilience, soil quality,
and sustainability, Soil Tillage Res., 27, 1–8,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(93)90059-X, 1993.
Lal, R.: World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon,
Adv. Agron., 71, 145–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(01)71014-0,
2001.
Lal, R.: Offsetting global CO2 emissions by restoration of degraded
soils and intensification of world agriculture and forestry, Land Degrad.
Dev., 14, 309–322, https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.562, 2003.
Lal, R.: Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food
Security, Science, 304, 1623–1627, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396,
2004.
Lal, R.: Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research, Eur.
J. Soil Sci., 60, 158–169,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01114.x, 2009.
Lorenz, K. and Lal, R.: Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry
systems. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 34, 443–454,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y, 2014.
Luo, Y., Ahlström, A., Allison, S. D., Batjes, N. H., Brovkin, V.,
Carvalhais, N., Chappell, A., Ciais, P., Davidson, E. A., Finzi, A.,
Georgiou, K., Guenet, B., Hararuk, O., Harden, J. W., He, Y., Hopkins, F.,
Jiang, L., Koven, C., Jackson, R. B., Jones, C. D., Lara, M. J., Liang, J.,
McGuire, A. D., Parton, W., Peng, C., Randerson, J. T., Salazar, A., Sierra,
C. A., Smith, M. J., Tian, H., Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Torn, M., Groenigen, K.
J. van, Wang, Y. P., West, T. O., Wei, Y., Wieder, W. R., Xia, J., Xu, X.,
Xu, X., and Zhou, T.: Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon
dynamics by Earth system models, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 30, 40–56,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005239, 2016.
Luo, Z., Wang, E., and Sun, O. J.: Can no-tillage stimulate carbon
sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments,
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 139, 224–231,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.08.006, 2010.
Lutz, F., Herzfeld, T., Heinke, J., Rolinski, S., Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Stoorvogel, J. J., and Müller, C.: Simulating the effect of tillage practices with the global ecosystem model LPJmL (version 5.0-tillage), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2419–2440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2419-2019, 2019a.
Lutz, F., Stoorvogel, J. J., and Müller, C.: Options to model the
effects of tillage on N2O emissions at the global scale, Ecol. Model.,
392, 212–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.015, 2019b.
Macdonald, C. A., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Reay, D. S., Hicks, L. C., and
Singh, B. K.: Soil Nutrients and Soil Carbon Storage, in: Soil Carbon
Storage, Elsevier, 167–205,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812766-7.00006-8, 2018.
Maharjan, G. R., Prescher, A.-K., Nendel, C., Ewert, F., Mboh, C. M.,
Gaiser, T., and Seidel, S. J.: Approaches to model the impact of tillage
implements on soil physical and nutrient properties in different
agro-ecosystem models, Soil Tillage Res., 180, 210–221,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.03.009, 2018.
Mekki, A., Aloui, F., and Sayadi, S.: Influence of biowaste compost
amendment on soil organic carbon storage under arid climate, J. Air Waste
Manag. Assoc., 69, 867–877, https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1374311,
2019.
Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D.,
Chambers, A., Chaplot, V., Chen, Z.-S., Cheng, K., Das, B. S., Field, D. J.,
Gimona, A., Hedley, C. B., Hong, S. Y., Mandal, B., Marchant, B. P., Martin,
M., McConkey, B. G., Mulder, V. L., O'Rourke, S., Richer-de-Forges, A. C.,
Odeh, I., Padarian, J., Paustian, K., Pan, G., Poggio, L., Savin, I.,
Stolbovoy, V., Stockmann, U., Sulaeman, Y., Tsui, C.-C., Vågen, T.-G.,
van Wesemael, B., and Winowiecki, L.: Soil carbon 4 per mille, Geoderma,
292, 59–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002, 2017.
Minoli, S., Müller, C., Elliott, J., Ruane, A. C., Jägermeyr, J.,
Zabel, F., Dury, M., Folberth, C., François, L., Hank, T., Jacquemin,
I., Liu, W., Olin, S., and Pugh, T. A. M.: Global Response Patterns of Major
Rainfed Crops to Adaptation by Maintaining Current Growing Periods and
Irrigation, Earths Future, 7, 1464–1480,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001130, 2019.
Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Fuss, S., Hilaire, J., Creutzig,
F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., Garcia, W. de O., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T.,
Lenzi, D., Luderer, G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. L.
V., Wilcox, J., and Dominguez, M. del M. Z.: Negative emissions – Part 1:
Research landscape and synthesis, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 063001,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b, 2018.
Naipal, V., Ciais, P., Wang, Y., Lauerwald, R., Guenet, B., and Van Oost, K.: Global soil organic carbon removal by water erosion under climate change and land use change during AD 1850–2005, Biogeosciences, 15, 4459–4480, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4459-2018, 2018.
Nishina, K., Ito, A., Beerling, D. J., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Falloon, P., Friend, A. D., Kahana, R., Kato, E., Keribin, R., Lucht, W., Lomas, M., Rademacher, T. T., Pavlick, R., Schaphoff, S., Vuichard, N., Warszawaski, L., and Yokohata, T.: Quantifying uncertainties in soil carbon responses to changes in global mean temperature and precipitation, Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 197–209, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-197-2014, 2014.
Olin, S., Lindeskog, M., Pugh, T. A. M., Schurgers, G., Wårlind, D., Mishurov, M., Zaehle, S., Stocker, B. D., Smith, B., and Arneth, A.: Soil carbon management in large-scale Earth system modelling: implications for crop yields and nitrogen leaching, Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 745–768, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-745-2015, 2015.
Pan, G., Smith, P., and Pan, W.: The role of soil organic matter in
maintaining the productivity and yield stability of cereals in China, Agr.
Ecosyst. Environ., 129, 344–348,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.008, 2009.
Pingali, P. L.: Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead, P.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 12302–12308,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109, 2012.
Porwollik, V., Rolinski, S., Heinke, J., and Müller, C.: Generating a rule-based global gridded tillage dataset, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 823–843, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-823-2019, 2019.
Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A.,
Sanchez, P. A., and Cassman, K. G.: Limited potential of no-till agriculture
for climate change mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 678–683,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2292, 2014.
Pugh, T. A. M., Arneth, A., Olin, S., Ahlström, A., Bayer, A. D., Klein
Goldewijk, K., Lindeskog, M., and Schurgers, G.: Simulated carbon emissions
from land-use change are substantially enhanced by accounting for
agricultural management, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 124008,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124008, 2015.
Ranaivoson, L., Naudin, K., Ripoche, A., Affholder, F., Rabeharisoa, L., and
Corbeels, M.: Agro-ecological functions of crop residues under conservation
agriculture. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0432-z, 2017.
Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., and Foley, J. A.:
Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation, Nat. Commun., 3, 1–7,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2296, 2012.
Ren, W., Banger, K., Tao, B., Yang, J., Huang, Y., and Tian, H.: Global
pattern and change of cropland soil organic carbon during 1901–2010: Roles
of climate, atmospheric chemistry, land use and management, Geography and
Sustainability, 1, 59–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.03.001,
2020.
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler,
H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K., and Meinshausen, M.: Paris Agreement
climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 ∘C,
Nature, 534, 631–639, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307, 2016.
Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K. V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, J., Gernaat,
D., Fujimori, S., Strefler, J., Hasegawa, T., Marangoni, G., Krey, V.,
Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Doelman, J., Drouet, L.,
Edmonds, J., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F.,
Stehfest, E., and Tavoni, M.: Scenarios towards limiting global mean
temperature increase below 1.5 ∘C, Nat. Clim. Change, 8,
325–332, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3, 2018.
Rost, S., Gerten, D., Bondeau, A., Lucht, W., Rohwer, J., and Schaphoff, S.:
Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the
global water system, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09405,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006331, 2008.
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., and Fiske, G. J.: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years
of human land use, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 9575–9580,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114, 2017.
Schaphoff, S., Heyder, U., Ostberg, S., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., and Lucht,
W.: Contribution of permafrost soils to the global carbon budget, Environ.
Res. Lett., 8, 014026, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014026, 2013.
Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Rammig, A., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Knauer, J., Langerwisch, F., Lucht, W., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., and Waha, K.: LPJmL4 – a dynamic global vegetation model with managed land – Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1343–1375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018, 2018.
Scharlemann, J. P., Tanner, E. V., Hiederer, R., and Kapos, V.: Global soil
carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool,
Carbon Manag., 5, 81–91, https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77, 2014.
Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W.,
Kaplan, J. O., Levis, S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M. T., and others: Evaluation of
ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the
LPJ dynamic global vegetation model, Glob. Chang. Biol., 9, 161–185,
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x, 2003.
Smith, P.: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission
technologies, Glob. Change Biol., 22, 1315–1324,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13178, 2016.
Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., and Fixen, P. E.: Review of
greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer
management effects, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 133, 247–266,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021, 2009.
Stehfest, E., van Zeist, W.-J., Valin, H., Havlik, P., Popp, A., Kyle, P.,
Tabeau, A., Mason-D'Croz, D., Hasegawa, T., Bodirsky, B. L., Calvin, K.,
Doelman, J. C., Fujimori, S., Humpenöder, F., Lotze-Campen, H., van
Meijl, H., and Wiebe, K.: Key determinants of global land-use projections,
Nat. Commun., 10, 2166, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09945-w, 2019.
Stella, T., Mouratiadou, I., Gaiser, T., Berg-Mohnicke, M., Wallor, E.,
Ewert, F., and Nendel, C.: Estimating the contribution of crop residues to
soil organic carbon conservation, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 094008,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab395c, 2019.
Stockmann, U., Adams, M. A., Crawford, J. W., Field, D. J., Henakaarchchi,
N., Jenkins, M., Minasny, B., Mcbratney, A. B., Courcelles, V. D. R. D.,
Singh, K., Wheeler, I., Abbott, L., Angers, D. A., Baldock, J., Bird, M.,
Brookes, P. C., Chenu, C., Jastrow, J. D., Lal, R., Lehmann, J., O'Donnell,
A. G., Parton, W. J., Whitehead, D., and Zimmermann, M.: The knowns, known
unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon, Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ., 164, 80–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.10.001,
2013.
Tans, P. and Keeling, R.: Earth System Research Laboratories (ESRL) Global
Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce, available at:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/, last access: 30 April 2021.
Torres, A. B., Marchant, R., Lovett, J. C., Smart, J. C. R., and Tipper, R.:
Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and
reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to evaluate
their potential for implementation of climate change mitigation, Ecol.
Econ., 69, 469–477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.007, 2010.
Trost, B., Prochnow, A., Drastig, K., Meyer-Aurich, A., Ellmer, F., and
Baumecker, M.: Irrigation, soil organic carbon and N2O emissions. A review,
Agron. Sustain. Dev., 33, 733–749,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0134-0, 2013.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and Population
Division: World population prospects 2019: Highlights, (ST/ESA/SER.A/423),
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population
Division, New York, NY, 2019.
Van Kessel, J. and Reeves, J.: Nitrogen mineralization potential of dairy
manures and its relationship to composition, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 36,
118–123, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0516-y, 2002.
von Bloh, W., Schaphoff, S., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., Waha, K., and Zaehle, S.: Implementing the nitrogen cycle into the dynamic global vegetation, hydrology, and crop growth model LPJmL (version 5.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2789–2812, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2789-2018, 2018.
White, J. W., Jones, J. W., Porter, C., McMaster, G. S., and Sommer, R.:
Issues of spatial and temporal scale in modeling the effects of field
operations on soil properties, Oper. Res., 10, 279–299,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-009-0067-1, 2010.
White, R. E., Davidson, B., Lam, S. K., and Chen, D.: A critique of the
paper “Soil carbon 4 per mille” by Minasny et al. (2017), Geoderma, 309,
115–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.025, 2018.
Wik, M., Pingali, P., and Broca, S.: Global Agricultural Performance: Past
Trends and Future Prospects, Background Paper for the World Development Report 2008, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 39, 2008.
Zhang, B., Tian, H., Lu, C., Dangal, S. R. S., Yang, J., and Pan, S.: Global manure nitrogen production and application in cropland during 1860–2014: a 5 arcmin gridded global dataset for Earth system modeling, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 667–678, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-667-2017, 2017.
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R., and Verchot, L. V.: Global
Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland Soils, Sci.
Rep.-UK, 7, 15554, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15794-8, 2017.
Short summary
Soil organic carbon sequestration on cropland has been proposed as a climate change mitigation strategy. We simulate different agricultural management practices under climate change scenarios using a global biophysical model. We find that at the global aggregated level, agricultural management practices are not capable of enhancing total carbon storage in the soil, yet for some climate regions, we find that there is potential to enhance the carbon content in cropland soils.
Soil organic carbon sequestration on cropland has been proposed as a climate change mitigation...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint