Articles | Volume 4, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-347-2013
© Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-347-2013
© Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
08 Oct 2013
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 08 Oct 2013
Critical impacts of global warming on land ecosystems
S. Ostberg
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain 1: Earth System Analysis, Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain 1: Earth System Analysis, Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Dept. of Geography, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
S. Schaphoff
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain 1: Earth System Analysis, Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
D. Gerten
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain 1: Earth System Analysis, Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Related authors
Emmanuel Okiria, Naota Hanasaki, Simon N. Gosling, Emmanuel Nyenah, Peter Burek, Yusuke Satoh, Sebastian Ostberg, Kedar Otta, and Luca Guillaumot
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2043, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2043, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated why global hydrological models struggle to simulate reservoir storage. By comparing five models against satellite data from 424 dams, we found they often exaggerate seasonal storage fluctuations due to simple one-size-fits-all global rules. Customising these settings significantly improved accuracy. This proves generic rules are a major flaw. Future models must combine traditional physics with real satellite observations to better predict global water resources.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2407–2436, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2407-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2407-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Sibyll Schaphoff, David Hötten, Christoph Müller, Dieter Gerten, Sebastian Ostberg, and Werner von Bloh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6210, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6210, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Methane is a strong greenhouse gas. We improved a global model of vegetation, soils and water so it can better show how methane forms and moves in wetlands and rice fields. The model now captures waterlogged areas, methane creation and escape, and flood-tolerant plants. It reproduces global wetland patterns and emissions more realistically, helping scientists assess how climate and land use changes may alter future methane release.
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.
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.
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.
Heindriken Dahlmann, Lauren S. Andersen, Sibyll Schaphoff, Fabian Stenzel, Johanna Braun, Christoph Müller, and Dieter Gerten
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 3185–3201, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3185-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3185-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Green water stress can negatively affect agricultural production and is often mitigated through irrigation. In this global modelling study, we investigate where and to what extent the implementation of irrigation helps to compensate for green water stress but at the same time leads to an increase in blue water scarcity. Our findings highlight the need to consider both water stresses together, along with their dynamic interactions, for sustainable water management.
Emmanuel Okiria, Naota Hanasaki, Simon N. Gosling, Emmanuel Nyenah, Peter Burek, Yusuke Satoh, Sebastian Ostberg, Kedar Otta, and Luca Guillaumot
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2043, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2043, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated why global hydrological models struggle to simulate reservoir storage. By comparing five models against satellite data from 424 dams, we found they often exaggerate seasonal storage fluctuations due to simple one-size-fits-all global rules. Customising these settings significantly improved accuracy. This proves generic rules are a major flaw. Future models must combine traditional physics with real satellite observations to better predict global water resources.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2407–2436, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2407-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2407-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Sibyll Schaphoff, David Hötten, Christoph Müller, Dieter Gerten, Sebastian Ostberg, and Werner von Bloh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6210, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6210, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Methane is a strong greenhouse gas. We improved a global model of vegetation, soils and water so it can better show how methane forms and moves in wetlands and rice fields. The model now captures waterlogged areas, methane creation and escape, and flood-tolerant plants. It reproduces global wetland patterns and emissions more realistically, helping scientists assess how climate and land use changes may alter future methane release.
Dieter Gerten, Bruna Almeida, Steven J. Lade, and Anna Norberg
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Transgression of planetary boundaries increases the risk of Earth system destabilization, in particular as the impacts may compound each other. This Perspective unravels processes underlying interactions between the planetary boundaries for freshwater change, climate change and land-system change. It proposes a systematic model-based assessment of drivers and impacts of their interactions, emphasising the need to maintain multiple boundaries collectively so as to avoid uncontrolled feedbacks.
Jannes Breier, Luana Schwarz, Hannah Prawitz, Werner von Bloh, Christoph Müller, Stephen Björn Wirth, Max Bechthold, Dieter Gerten, and Jonathan F. Donges
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4475, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4475, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new modelling framework that links global vegetation and agricultural modelling with human decision-making processes in an integrated simulation approach. This makes it possible to explore how farming practices and environmental changes influence each other over time. By combining climate, land use, and social dynamics in one system, the framework opens new ways to study food security, climate adaptation strategies, and long-term impacts.
Luana Schwarz, Jannes Breier, Hannah Prawitz, Max Bechthold, Werner von Bloh, Sara M. Constantino, Dieter Gerten, Jobst Heitzig, Ronja Hotz, Leander John, Christoph Müller, Johan Rockström, and Jonathan F. Donges
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4079, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4079, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel global model that links farmer decisions with ecological processes to explore how agricultural systems co-evolve. Unlike previous tools, it captures feedbacks between society and nature at up-to planetary scale. We find that conservation practices can restore soil health and support stable harvests. Adoption spreads through learning and norms, showing how regeneration at the farm scale can ripple outward, contributing to global sustainability and Earth system resilience.
Arne Tobian, Sarah Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Dieter Gerten, and Johan Rockström
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2202, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2202, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The land use change reallocation tool LUCATOO enables the creation of future land use change scenario datasets tailored to specific requirements in model study applications. Its usability is demonstrated in the planetary boundaries interaction context. Being written in the programming language R and made openly accessible, LUCATOO can be easily adapted to be employed in contexts other than the planetary boundaries framework.
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.
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.
Markus Drüke, Wolfgang Lucht, Werner von Bloh, Stefan Petri, Boris Sakschewski, Arne Tobian, Sina Loriani, Sibyll Schaphoff, Georg Feulner, and Kirsten Thonicke
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 467–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-467-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-467-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The planetary boundary framework characterizes major risks of destabilization of the Earth system. We use the comprehensive Earth system model POEM to study the impact of the interacting boundaries for climate change and land system change. Our study shows the importance of long-term effects on carbon dynamics and climate, as well as the need to investigate both boundaries simultaneously and to generally keep both boundaries within acceptable ranges to avoid a catastrophic scenario for humanity.
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.
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.
Chinchu Mohan, Tom Gleeson, James S. Famiglietti, Vili Virkki, Matti Kummu, Miina Porkka, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Xander Huggins, Dieter Gerten, and Sonja C. Jähnig
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 6247–6262, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6247-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6247-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The relationship between environmental flow violations and freshwater biodiversity at a large scale is not well explored. This study intended to carry out an exploratory evaluation of this relationship at a large scale. While our results suggest that streamflow and EF may not be the only determinants of freshwater biodiversity at large scales, they do not preclude the existence of relationships at smaller scales or with more holistic EF methods or with other biodiversity data or metrics.
Vili Virkki, Elina Alanärä, Miina Porkka, Lauri Ahopelto, Tom Gleeson, Chinchu Mohan, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Martina Flörke, Dieter Gerten, Simon N. Gosling, Naota Hanasaki, Hannes Müller Schmied, Niko Wanders, and Matti Kummu
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3315–3336, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3315-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3315-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Direct and indirect human actions have altered streamflow across the world since pre-industrial times. Here, we apply a method of environmental flow envelopes (EFEs) that develops the existing global environmental flow assessments by methodological advances and better consideration of uncertainty. By assessing the violations of the EFE, we comprehensively quantify the frequency, severity, and trends of flow alteration during the past decades, illustrating anthropogenic effects on streamflow.
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.
Jonathan F. Donges, Wolfgang Lucht, Sarah E. Cornell, Jobst Heitzig, Wolfram Barfuss, Steven J. Lade, and Maja Schlüter
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1115–1137, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1115-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1115-2021, 2021
Markus Drüke, Werner von Bloh, Stefan Petri, Boris Sakschewski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Matthias Forkel, Willem Huiskamp, Georg Feulner, and Kirsten Thonicke
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4117–4141, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4117-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4117-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we couple the well-established and comprehensively validated state-of-the-art dynamic LPJmL5 global vegetation model to the CM2Mc coupled climate model (CM2Mc-LPJmL v.1.0). Several improvements to LPJmL5 were implemented to allow a fully functional biophysical coupling. The new climate model is able to capture important biospheric processes, including fire, mortality, permafrost, hydrological cycling and the the impacts of managed land (crop growth and irrigation).
Cited articles
Anderson, R. C., Fralish, J. S., and Baskin, J. M.: Introduction, in: Savanna, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–6, 1999.
Blois, J. L., Williams, J. W., Fitzpatrick, M. C., Jackson, S. T., and Ferrier, S.: Space can substitute for time in predicting climate-change effects on biodiversity, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 9374–9379, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220228110, 2013.
Chapin, F. S., Matson, P. A., and Vitousek, P. M.: Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology, 2nd Edn., Springer, New York, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9504-9, 2011.
Collatz, G., Ribas-Carbo, M., and Berry, J.: Coupled Photosynthesis-Stomatal Conductance Model for Leaves of C4 Plants, Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 19, 519–538, https://doi.org/10.1071/PP9920519, 1992.
Cramer, W., Bondeau, A., Woodward, F. I., Prentice, I. C., Betts, R. A., Brovkin, V., Cox, P. M., Fisher, V., Foley, J. A., Friend, A. D., Kucharik, C., Lomas, M. R., Ramankutty, N., Sitch, S., Smith, B., White, A., and Young-Molling, C.: Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models, Global Change Biol., 7, 357–373, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x, 2001.
Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V., and Teng, H.: Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability, Clim. Dynam., 38, 527–546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0977-x, 2010.
Farquhar, G. D., Caemmerer, S., and Berry, J. A.: A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species, Planta, 149, 78–90, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386231, 1980.
Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W., and Sitch, S.: Terrestrial vegetation and water balance – hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model, J. Hydrol., 286, 249–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.029, 2004.
Gerten, D., Lucht, W., Ostberg, S., Heinke, J., Kowarsch, M., Kreft, H., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Rastgooy, J., Warren, R., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: Asynchronous exposure to global warming: freshwater resources and terrestrial ecosystems, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034032, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034032, 2013.
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J., and Lister, D. H.: Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10 Dataset, Int. J. Climatol., https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3711, online first, 2013.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change, Clim. Dynam., 37, 407–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6, 2010.
Heinke, J., Ostberg, S., Schaphoff, S., Frieler, K., Müller, C., Gerten, D., Meinshausen, M., and Lucht, W.: A new dataset for systematic assessments of climate change impacts as a function of global warming, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 5, 3533–3572, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-5-3533-2012, 2012.
Heyder, U., Schaphoff, S., Gerten, D., and Lucht, W.: Risk of severe climate change impact on the terrestrial biosphere, Environ. Res. Lett., 6, 034036, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034036, 2011.
Hickler, T., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Mjöfors, K., Miller, P., Arneth, A., and Sykes, M. T.: CO2 fertilization in temperate FACE experiments not representative of boreal and tropical forests, Global Change Biol., 14, 1531–1542, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01598.x, 2008.
Holling, C. S.: Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems, Ecosystems, 4, 390–405, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5, 2001.
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H., Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A. J., Vandermeer, J., and Wardle, D. A.: Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current Knowledge, Ecol. Monogr., 75, 3–35, https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922, 2005.
Huntingford, C. and Cox, P. M.: An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations, Clim. Dynam., 16, 575–586, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820000067, 2000.
IPCC: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
Leemans, R. and Eickhout, B.: Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change, Global Environ. Change, 14, 219–228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.04.009, 2004.
Lloyd, A. H.: Ecological histories from Alaskan tree lines provide insight into future change, Ecology, 86, 1687–1695, https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0786, 2005.
Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Beringer, T., Müller, C., Bondeau, A., Rost, S., and Lucht, W.: Scenarios of global bioenergy production: The trade-offs between agricultural expansion, intensification and trade, Ecol. Model., 221, 2188–2196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.10.002, 2010.
Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Taylor, K. E., Delworth, T., Stouffer, R. J., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., and Mitchell, J. F. B.: The WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1383, 2007.
Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 1: Model description and calibration, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1417–1456, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011, 2011.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., Elmquist, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lavorel, S., Mace, G. M., Palmer, M., Scholes, R., and Yahara, T.: Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 1, 46–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.07.006, 2009.
Murray, S. J., Watson, I. M., and Prentice, I. C.: The use of dynamic global vegetation models for simulating hydrology and the potential integration of satellite observations, Prog. Phys. Geogr., 37, 63–97, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133312460072, 2012.
New, M., Hulme, M., and Jones, P.: Representing Twentieth-Century Space-Time Climate Variability, Part II: Development of 1901–96 Monthly Grids of Terrestrial Surface Climate, J. Climate, 13, 2217–2238, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<2217:RTCSTC>2.0.CO;2, 2000.
Parmesan, C.: Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 37, 637–669, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100, 2006.
Piontek, F., Müller, C., Pugh, T. A. M., Clark, D., Deryng, D., Elliott, J., Colón-González, F. J., Flörke, M., Folberth, C., Franssen, W., Frieler, K., Friend, A. D., Goslin, S. N., Hemming, D., Khabarov, N., Kim, H., Lomas, M., Masaki, Y., Mengel, M., Morse, A., Neumann, K., Nishina, K., Ostberg, S., Pavlick, R., Ruane, A. C., Schewe, J., Schmid, E., Stacke, T., Tang, Q., Tessler, Z., Tompkins, A. M., Warszawski, L., Wisser, D., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: Leaving the world as we know it: Hotspots of global climate change impacts, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, in press, 2013.
Ripl, W.: Water: the bloodstream of the biosphere, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B, 358, 1921–1934, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1378, 2003.
Rogelj, J., Nabel, J., Chen, C., Hare, W., Markmann, K., Meinshausen, M., Schaeffer, M., Macey, K., and Höhne, N.: Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry, Nature, 464, 1126–1128, https://doi.org/10.1038/4641126a, 2010.
Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., and Knutti, R.: Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 248–253, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1385, 2012.
Rudolf, B., Becker, A., Schneider, U., Meyer-Christoffer, A., and Ziese, M.: GPCC Status Report December 2010 (New gridded global data by the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC)), Tech. Rep., DWD/GPCC, Offenbach/Main, Germany, 2010.
Scholze, M., Knorr, W., Arnell, N. W., and Prentice, I. C.: A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 13116–13120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601816103, 2006.
Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Kaplan, J. O., Levis, S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., and Venevsky, S.: Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model, Global Change Biol., 9, 161–185, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x, 2003.
Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P. E., Lomas, M., Piao, S. L., Betts, R., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Prentice, I. C., and Woodward, F. I.: Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), Global Change Biol., 14, 2015–2039, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01626.x, 2008.
Sykes, M. T., Prentice, I. C., and Laarif, F.: Quantifying the impact of global climate change on potential natural vegetation, Climatic Change, 41, 37–52, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005435831549, 1999.
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/key_documents/the_convention/items/2853.php (last access: 15 May 2013), 1992.
UNFCCC – Conference of the Parties (COP): Decision 1/CP.16 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf, last access: 15 May 2013, 2–31, 2011.
van Vuuren, D. P., Isaac, M., den Elzen, M. G., Stehfest, E., and van Vliet, J.: Low Stabilization Scenarios and Implications for Major World Regions from an Integrated Assessment Perspective, Energy J., 31, 165–191, https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol31-NoSI-7, 2010.
Walker, D. A., Epstein, H. E., Raynolds, M. K., Kuss, P., Kopecky, M. A., Frost, G. V., Daniëls, F. J. A., Leibman, M. O., Moskalenko, N. G., Matyshak, G. V., Khitun, O. V., Khomutov, A. V., Forbes, B. C., Bhatt, U. S., Kade, A. N., Vonlanthen, C. M., and Tichý, L.: Environment, vegetation and greenness (NDVI) along the North America and Eurasia Arctic transects, Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 015504, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015504, 2012.
Warszawski, L., Friend, A., Ostberg, S., Frieler, K., Lucht, W., Schaphoff, S., Beerling, D., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Kahana, R., Ito, A., Keribin, R., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M., Nishina, K., Pavlick, R., Rademacher, T. T., Piontek, F., Schewe, J., Serdeczny, O., Buechner, M., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: A multi-model analysis of risk of ecosystem shift under climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., accepted, 2013.
Williams, J. W. and Jackson, S. T.: Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises, Front. Ecol. Environ., 5, 475–482, https://doi.org/10.1890/070037, 2007.
Woodward, F. I., Lomas, M. R., and Kelly, C. K.: Global climate and the distribution of plant biomes, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B, 359, 1465–1476, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1525, 2004.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint