Dataset Information

Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation.

ABSTRACT: Limiting the magnitude of climate change via stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation is necessary to prevent further biodiversity loss. However, some strategies to mitigate GHG emission involve greater land-based mitigation efforts, which may cause biodiversity loss from land-use changes. Here we estimate how climate and land-based mitigation efforts interact with global biodiversity by using an integrated assessment model framework to project potential habitat for five major taxonomic groups. We find that stringent GHG mitigation can generally bring a net benefit to global biodiversity even if land-based mitigation is adopted. This trend is strengthened in the latter half of this century. In contrast, some regions projected to experience much growth in land-based mitigation efforts (i.e., Europe and Oceania) are expected to suffer biodiversity loss. Our results support the enactment of stringent GHG mitigation policies in terms of biodiversity. To conserve local biodiversity, however, these policies must be carefully designed in conjunction with land-use regulations and societal transformation in order to minimize the conversion of natural habitats.

SUBMITTER: Ohashi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6868141 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation.

Ohashi Haruka H Hasegawa Tomoko T Hirata Akiko A Fujimori Shinichiro S Takahashi Kiyoshi K Tsuyama Ikutaro I Nakao Katsuhiro K Kominami Yuji Y Tanaka Nobuyuki N Hijioka Yasuaki Y Matsui Tetsuya T

Nature communications 20191120 1

Limiting the magnitude of climate change via stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation is necessary to prevent further biodiversity loss. However, some strategies to mitigate GHG emission involve greater land-based mitigation efforts, which may cause biodiversity loss from land-use changes. Here we estimate how climate and land-based mitigation efforts interact with global biodiversity by using an integrated assessment model framework to project potential habitat for five major taxonomic groups. ...[more]

PMID: 31748549

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current observed as well as projected changes in biodiversity are the result of multiple interacting factors, with land use and climate change often marked as most important drivers. We aimed to disentangle the separate impacts of these two for sets of vascular plant, bird, butterfly and dragonfly species listed as characteristic for European dry grasslands and wetlands, two habitats of high and threatened biodiversity. We combined articulations of the four frequently used SRES climate scenarios and associated land use change projections for 2030, and assessed their impact on population trends in species (i.e. whether they would probably be declining, stable or increasing). We used the BIOSCORE database tool, which allows assessment of the effects of a range of environmental pressures including climate change as well as land use change. We updated the species lists included in this tool for our two habitat types. We projected species change for two spatial scales: the EU27 covering most of Europe, and the more restricted biogeographic region of 'Continental Europe'. Other environmental pressures modelled for the four scenarios than land use and climate change generally did not explain a significant part of the variance in species richness change. Changes in characteristic bird and dragonfly species were least pronounced. Land use change was the most important driver for vascular plants in both habitats and spatial scales, leading to a decline in 50-100% of the species included, whereas climate change was more important for wetland dragonflies and birds (40-50 %). Patterns of species decline were similar in continental Europe and the EU27 for wetlands but differed for dry grasslands, where a substantially lower proportion of butterflies and birds declined in continental Europe, and 50 % of bird species increased, probably linked to a projected increase in semi-natural vegetation. In line with the literature using climate envelope models, we found little divergence among the four scenarios. Our findings suggest targeted policies depending on habitat and species group. These are, for dry grasslands, to reduce land use change or its effects and to enhance connectivity, and for wetlands to mitigate climate change effects.

Project description:Climate and land use changes are key drivers of current biodiversity trends, but interactions between these drivers are poorly modeled, even though they could amplify or mitigate negative impacts of climate change. Here, we attempt to predict the impacts of different agricultural change scenarios on common breeding birds within farmland included in the potential future climatic suitable areas for these species. We used the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to integrate likely changes in species climatic suitability, based on species distribution models, and changes in area of farmland, based on the IMAGE model, inside future climatic suitable areas. We also developed six farmland cover scenarios, based on expert opinion, which cover a wide spectrum of potential changes in livestock farming and cropping patterns by 2050. We ran generalized linear mixed models to calibrate the effects of farmland cover and climate change on bird specific abundance within 386 small agricultural regions. We used model outputs to predict potential changes in bird populations on the basis of predicted changes in regional farmland cover, in area of farmland and in species climatic suitability. We then examined the species sensitivity according to their habitat requirements. A scenario based on extensification of agricultural systems (i.e., low-intensity agriculture) showed the greatest potential to reduce reverse current declines in breeding birds. To meet ecological requirements of a larger number of species, agricultural policies accounting for regional disparities and landscape structure appear more efficient than global policies uniformly implemented at national scale. Interestingly, we also found evidence that farmland cover changes can mitigate the negative effect of climate change. Here, we confirm that there is a potential for countering negative effects of climate change by adaptive management of landscape. We argue that such studies will help inform sustainable agricultural policies for the future.

Project description:Climate change mitigation benefits from the land sector are not being fully realised because of uncertainty and controversy about the role of native forest management. The dominant policy view, as stated in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, is that sustainable forest harvesting yielding wood products, generates the largest mitigation benefit. We demonstrate that changing native forest management from commercial harvesting to conservation can make an important contribution to mitigation. Conservation of native forests results in an immediate and substantial reduction in net emissions relative to a reference case of commercial harvesting. We calibrated models to simulate scenarios of native forest management for two Australian case studies: mixed-eucalypt in New South Wales and Mountain Ash in Victoria. Carbon stocks in the harvested forest included forest biomass, wood and paper products, waste in landfill, and bioenergy that substituted for fossil fuel energy. The conservation forest included forest biomass, and subtracted stocks for the foregone products that were substituted by non-wood products or plantation products. Total carbon stocks were lower in harvested forest than in conservation forest in both case studies over the 100-year simulation period. We tested a range of potential parameter values reported in the literature: none could increase the combined carbon stock in products, slash, landfill and substitution sufficiently to exceed the increase in carbon stock due to changing management of native forest to conservation. The key parameters determining carbon stock change under different forest management scenarios are those affecting accumulation of carbon in forest biomass, rather than parameters affecting transfers among wood products. This analysis helps prioritise mitigation activities to focus on maximising forest biomass. International forest-related policies, including negotiations under the UNFCCC, have failed to recognize fully the mitigation value of native forest conservation. Our analyses provide evidence for decision-making about the circumstances under which forest management provides mitigation benefits.

Dataset Information

Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation.

Publications

Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets