Search for: All records

Global change is complex and multidimensional, making it challenging to understand how human activities affect ecosystem processes. A critical gap in this understanding is how drivers of global change broadly affect food webs. While an industry of studies documents shifts in food webs in response to anthropogenic pressures, a general synthesis is lacking. To address this, we review studies across diverse ecosystems that use stable isotope analysis, energetic food web modelling and gut content analysis to reveal the prevalence of asymmetric rewiring—a phenomenon whereby anthropogenic pressures differentially impact habitats across space, altering some energy pathways within food webs relative to others. We then highlight several examples from the literature to illustrate how this process unfolds. To explore its broader consequences, we use a simple food web model to demonstrate how asymmetric rewiring alters resilience and key ecosystem functions, such as primary and secondary production. Our synthesis uncovers a remarkably general response in food web structure to global change that needs to be better understood to protect nature and the services that human societies rely on in a rapidly changing world. 

Purpose Three Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models involved in the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Inter-comparison Project (GeoMIP) project were used to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on the mean surface air temperature and precipitation extremes in Africa. Design/methodology/approach This impact was examined under G4 and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenarios on the total precipitation, the number of rainy days (RR1) and of days with heavy rainfall (R20 mm), the rainfall intensity (SDII), the maximum length of consecutive wet (CWD) and dry (CDD) days and on the maximum rainfall in five consecutive days (Rx5day) across four regions: Western Africa (WAF), Eastern Africa (EAF), Northern Africa and Southern Africa (SAF). Findings During the 50 years (2020–2069) of SAI, mean continental warming is −0.40°C lower in G4 than under RCP4.5. During the post-injection period (2070–2090), the temperature continues to increase, but at a lower rate (−0.19°C) than in RCP4.5. During SAI, annual rainfall in G4 is significantly greater than in RCP4.5 over the high latitudes (especially over SAF) and lower over the tropics. The termination of SAI leads to a significant increase of rainfall over Sahel and EAF and a decrease over SAF and Guinea Coast (WAF). Practical implications Compared to RCP4.5, SAI will contribute to reducing significantly regional warming but with a significant decrease of rainfall in the tropics where rainfed agriculture account for a large part of the economies. After the SAI period, the risk of drought over the extratropical regions (especially in SAF) will be mitigated, while the risk of floods will be exacerbated in the Central Sahel. Originality/value To meet the Paris Agreement, African countries will implement mitigation measures to contribute to keep the surface air temperature below 2°C. Geoengineering with SAI is suggested as an option to meet this challenge, but its implication on the African climate system needs a deep investigation in the aim to understand the impacts on temperature and precipitation extremes. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the potential impact of SAI using the G4 experiment of GeoMIP on temperature and precipitation extremes of the African continent. 

Abstract. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as “test-bed” experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning, and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than 100 studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which did not, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of intermodel differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods, and future areas of model development that would be necessary in the future? We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches and reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community. 

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering has been proposed as a potential solution to reduce climate change and its impacts. Here, we explore the responses of the Hadley circulation (HC) intensity and the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) using the strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, in which sulfur dioxide was injected into the stratosphere at four different locations to maintain the global-mean surface temperature and the interhemispheric and equator-to-pole temperature gradients at present-day values (baseline). Simulations show that, relative to the baseline, strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering generally maintains northern winter December–January–February (DJF) HC intensity under RCP8.5, while it overcompensates for the greenhouse gas (GHG)-forced southern winter June–July–August (JJA) HC intensity increase, producing a 3.5 ± 0.4% weakening. The residual change of southern HC intensity in JJA is mainly associated with stratospheric heating and tropospheric temperature response due to enhanced stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Geoengineering overcompensates for the GHG-driven northward ITCZ shifts, producing 0.7° ± 0.1° and 0.2° ± 0.1° latitude southward migrations in JJA and DJF, respectively relative to the baseline. These migrations are affected by tropical interhemispheric temperature differences both at the surface and in the free troposphere. Further strategies for reducing the residual change of HC intensity and ITCZ shifts under stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could involve minimizing stratospheric heating and restoring and preserving the present-day tropical tropospheric interhemispheric temperature differences. 

Overview and history of Ecosystem Ecology 

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic‐focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels (“Arctic Low”) or restore it to 2010 levels (“Arctic High”). Both simulations maintain or restore September sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO₂at lower latitudes. However, Arctic‐focused SAI is not merely a “reset button” for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high‐latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2‐4.5. Additionally, while Arctic‐focused SAI produces the most cooling near the pole, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid‐latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy. 

ABSTRACT MotivationSNAPSHOT USA is an annual, multicontributor camera trap survey of mammals across the United States. The growing SNAPSHOT USA dataset is intended for tracking the spatial and temporal responses of mammal populations to changes in land use, land cover and climate. These data will be useful for exploring the drivers of spatial and temporal changes in relative abundance and distribution, as well as the impacts of species interactions on daily activity patterns. Main Types of Variables ContainedSNAPSHOT USA 2019–2023 contains 987,979 records of camera trap image sequence data and 9694 records of camera trap deployment metadata. Spatial Location and GrainData were collected across the United States of America in all 50 states, 12 ecoregions and many ecosystems. Time Period and GrainData were collected between 1st August and 29th December each year from 2019 to 2023. Major Taxa and Level of MeasurementThe dataset includes a wide range of taxa but is primarily focused on medium to large mammals. Software FormatSNAPSHOT USA 2019–2023 comprises two .csv files. The original data can be found within the SNAPSHOT USA Initiative in the Wildlife Insights platform.