Search for: All records

Decarbonization is crucial to combat climate change. However, some decarbonization strategies could profoundly impact the nitrogen cycle. In this Review, we explore the nitrogen requirements of five major decarbonization strategies to reveal the complex interconnections between the carbon and nitrogen cycles and identify opportunities to enhance their mutually sustainable management. Some decarbonization strategies require substantial new nitrogen production, potentially leading to increased nutrient pollution and exacerbation of eutrophication in aquatic systems. For example, the strategy of substituting 44% of fossil fuels used in marine shipping with ammonia-based fuels could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 0.38 Gt CO2-eq yr−1 but would require a corresponding increase in new nitrogen synthesis of 212 Tg N yr−1. Similarly, using biofuels to achieve 0.7 ± 0.3 Gt CO2-eq yr−1 mitigation would require new nitrogen inputs to croplands of 21–42 Tg N yr−1. To avoid increasing nitrogen losses and exacerbating eutrophication, decarbonization efforts should be designed to provide carbon–nitrogen co-benefits. Reducing the use of carbon-intensive synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is one example that can simultaneously reduce both nitrogen inputs by 14 Tg N yr−1 and CO2 emissions by 0.04 (0.03–0.06) Gt CO2-eq yr−1. Future research should guide decarbonization efforts to mitigate eutrophication and enhance nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture, food and energy systems. 

Abstract Estimating realistic potential yields by crop type and region is challenging; such yields depend on both biophysical characteristics (e.g., soil characteristics, climate, etc.), and the crop management practices available in any site or region (e.g., mechanization, irrigation, crop cultivars). A broad body of literature has assessed potential yields for selected crops and regions, using several strategies. In this study we first analyze future potential yields of major crop types globally by two different estimation methods, one of which is based on historical observed yields (“Empirical”), while the other is based on biophysical conditions (“Simulated”). Potential yields by major crop and region are quite different between the two methods; in particular, Simulated potential yields are typically 200% higher than Empirical potential yields in tropical regions for major crops. Applying both of these potential yields in yield gap closure scenarios in a global agro-economic model, GCAM, the two estimates of future potential yields lead to very different outcomes for the agricultural sector globally. In the Simulated potential yield closure scenario, Africa, Asia, and South America see comparatively favorable outcomes for agricultural sustainability over time: low land use change emissions, low crop prices, and high levels of self-sufficiency. In contrast, the Empirical potential yield scenario is characterized by a heavy reliance on production and exports in temperate regions that currently practice industrial agriculture. At the global level, this scenario has comparatively high crop commodity prices, and more land allocated to crop production (and associated land use change emissions) than either the baseline or Simulated potential yield scenarios. This study highlights the importance of the choice of methods of estimating potential yields for agro-economic modeling. 

Abstract The concept of sustainability inherently spans multiple spatial scales, sectors, variables, and time horizons. This study links a recently developed method of assessing present‐day agricultural sustainability across environmental, economic, and social dimensions with a process‐based integrated assessment model, in order to allow forward‐looking analysis of sustainability by region and scenario. The sustainable agriculture matrix estimates present‐day agricultural sustainability at the national level using 18 indicator variables, of which this study estimates nine to the year 2100, using an enhanced version of the Global Change Analysis Model. Scenarios include a reference scenario, and scenarios that apply the following measures, both individually and in combination, that are thought to improve sustainability: yield intensification, transition toward more plant‐based (“flexitarian”) diets, and economy‐wide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. The scenarios illustrate considerable complexity and tradeoffs inherent to efforts to improve agricultural sustainability in all regions globally. For example, yield intensification typically increases nitrogen pollution, flexitarian diets can reduce agricultural output, and greenhouse gas mitigation efforts may either increase deforestation or crowd out crop and livestock production due to consequent bioenergy demands. However, there is considerable inter‐regional heterogeneity in the responses, and the importance of such secondary responses also differs by region. The analysis and post‐processing methods developed in this study allow quantification and visualization of the absolute and relative magnitude of the tradeoffs between agricultural sustainability indicator variables across regions, time periods, and scenarios. 

Abstract Despite broad consensus on the benefits of a nexus approach to multi-sector planning, actual implementation in government and other decision-making institutions is still rare. This study presents an approach to conducting integrated energy-water-land (EWL) planning, using Uruguay as an example. This stakeholder-driven study focuses on assessing the EWL nexus implications of actual planned policies aimed at strengthening three of Uruguay’s key exports (beef, soy, and rice), which account for more than 40% of total national export revenue. Five scenarios are analyzed in the study: a reference scenario, a climate impacts scenario, and three policy scenarios. The three policy scenarios include measures such as increasing the intensity of beef production while simultaneously decreasing emissions, increasing irrigated soybean production, and improving rice yields. This study supplements previous sector-specific planning efforts in Uruguay by conducting the first stakeholder-driven integrated multi-sector assessment of planned policies in Uruguay using a suite of integrated modeling tools. Key insights from the study are: as compared to a reference scenario, improving beef productivity could lead to cropland expansion (+30%) and significant indirect increases in water requirements (+20%); improving rice yields could lead to increases in total emissions (+3%), which may partially offset emissions reductions from other policies; expanding irrigated soy could have the least EWL impacts amongst the policies studied; and climate-driven changes could have significantly less impact on EWL systems as compared to human actions. The generalizable insights derived from this analysis are readily applicable to other countries facing similar multi-sector planning challenges. In particular, the study’s results reinforce the fact that policies often have multi-sector consequences, and thus policies can impact one another’s efficacy. Thus, policy design and implementation can benefit from coordination across sectors and decision-making institutions.