Search for: All records

Abstract. Global fire-vegetation models are widely used to assessimpacts of environmental change on fire regimes and the carbon cycle and toinfer relationships between climate, land use and fire. However,differences in model structure and parameterizations, in both the vegetationand fire components of these models, could influence overall modelperformance, and to date there has been limited evaluation of how welldifferent models represent various aspects of fire regimes. The Fire ModelIntercomparison Project (FireMIP) is coordinating the evaluation ofstate-of-the-art global fire models, in order to improve projections of firecharacteristics and fire impacts on ecosystems and human societies in thecontext of global environmental change. Here we perform a systematicevaluation of historical simulations made by nine FireMIP models to quantifytheir ability to reproduce a range of fire and vegetation benchmarks. TheFireMIP models simulate a wide range in global annual total burnt area(39–536 Mha) and global annual fire carbon emission (0.91–4.75 Pg C yr−1) for modern conditions (2002–2012), but most of the range in burntarea is within observational uncertainty (345–468 Mha). Benchmarking scoresindicate that seven out of nine FireMIP models are able to represent thespatial pattern in burnt area. The models also reproduce the seasonality inburnt area reasonably well but struggle to simulate fire season length andare largely unable to represent interannual variations in burnt area.However, models that represent cropland fires see improved simulation offire seasonality in the Northern Hemisphere. The three FireMIP models whichexplicitly simulate individual fires are able to reproduce the spatialpattern in number of fires, but fire sizes are too small in key regions, andthis results in an underestimation of burnt area. The correct representationof spatial and seasonal patterns in vegetation appears to correlate with abetter representation of burnt area. The two older fire models included inthe FireMIP ensemble (LPJ–GUESS–GlobFIRM, MC2) clearly perform less wellglobally than other models, but it is difficult to distinguish between theremaining ensemble members; some of these models are better at representingcertain aspects of the fire regime; none clearly outperforms all othermodels across the full range of variables assessed. 

Abstract Here we provide the ‘Global Spectrum of Plant Form and Function Dataset’, containing species mean values for six vascular plant traits. Together, these traits –plant height, stem specific density, leaf area, leaf mass per area, leaf nitrogen content per dry mass, and diaspore (seed or spore) mass – define the primary axes of variation in plant form and function. The dataset is based on ca. 1 million trait records received via the TRY database (representing ca. 2,500 original publications) and additional unpublished data. It provides 92,159 species mean values for the six traits, covering 46,047 species. The data are complemented by higher-level taxonomic classification and six categorical traits (woodiness, growth form, succulence, adaptation to terrestrial or aquatic habitats, nutrition type and leaf type). Data quality management is based on a probabilistic approach combined with comprehensive validation against expert knowledge and external information. Intense data acquisition and thorough quality control produced the largest and, to our knowledge, most accurate compilation of empirically observed vascular plant species mean traits to date. 

Abstract The terrestrial carbon sink provides a critical negative feedback to climate warming, yet large uncertainty exists on its long‐term dynamics. Here we combined terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) and climate projections, together with climate‐specific land use change, to investigate both the trend and interannual variability (IAV) of the terrestrial carbon sink from 1986 to 2099 under two representative concentration pathways RCP2.6 and RCP6.0. The results reveal a saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink by the end of this century under RCP6.0 due to warming and declined CO₂effects. Compared to 1986–2005 (0.96 ± 0.44 Pg C yr⁻¹), during 2080–2099 the terrestrial carbon sink would decrease to 0.60 ± 0.71 Pg C yr⁻¹but increase to 3.36 ± 0.77 Pg C yr⁻¹, respectively, under RCP2.6 and RCP6.0. The carbon sink caused by CO₂, land use change and climate change during 2080–2099 is −0.08 ± 0.11 Pg C yr⁻¹, 0.44 ± 0.05 Pg C yr⁻¹, and 0.24 ± 0.70 Pg C yr⁻¹under RCP2.6, and 4.61 ± 0.17 Pg C yr⁻¹, 0.22 ± 0.07 Pg C yr⁻¹, and ‐1.47 ± 0.72 Pg C yr⁻¹under RCP6.0. In addition, the carbon sink IAV shows stronger variance under RCP6.0 than RCP2.6. Under RCP2.6, temperature shows higher correlation with the carbon sink IAV than precipitation in most time, which however is the opposite under RCP6.0. These results suggest that the role of terrestrial carbon sink in curbing climate warming would be weakened in a no‐mitigation world in future, and active mitigation efforts are required as assumed under RCP2.6. 

Abstract Carbon fluxes at the land‐atmosphere interface are strongly influenced by weather and climate conditions. Yet what is usually known as “climate extremes” does not always translate into very high or low carbon fluxes or so‐called “carbon extremes.” To reveal the patterns of how climate extremes influence terrestrial carbon fluxes, we analyzed the interannual variations in ecosystem carbon fluxes simulated by the Terrestrial Biosphere Models (TBMs) in the Inter‐Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. At the global level, TBMs simulated reduced ecosystem net primary productivity (NPP; 18.5 ± 9.3 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹), but enhanced heterotrophic respiration (Rh; 7 ± 4.6 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹) during extremely hot events. TBMs also simulated reduced NPP (60.9 ± 24.4 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹) and reduced Rh (16.5 ± 11.4 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹) during extreme dry events. Influences of precipitation extremes on terrestrial carbon uptake were larger in the arid/semiarid zones than other regions. During hot extremes, ecosystems in the low latitudes experienced a larger reduction in carbon uptake. However, a large fraction of carbon extremes did not occur in concert with either temperature or precipitation extremes. Rather these carbon extremes are likely to be caused by the interactive effects of the concurrent temperature and precipitation anomalies. The interactive effects showed considerable spatial variations with the largest effects on NPP in South America and Africa. Additionally, TBMs simulated a stronger sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to precipitation than satellite estimates. This study provides new insights into the complex ecosystem responses to climate extremes, especially the emergent properties of carbon dynamics resulting from compound climate extremes. 

Abstract Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals.As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability?Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eightleverage pointsare: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwinedleverscan be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits.Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A freePlain Language Summarycan be found within the Supporting Information of this article.