ArticlePublisher preview available
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

The Paris Agreement advances forest management as one of the pathways to halt climate warming through carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction1. The climate benefits from carbon sequestration from forest management may, however, be reinforced, counteracted, or even offset by concurrent management-induced changes in surface albedo, surface roughness, biogenic volatile organic compound emissions, transpiration, and sensible heat flux2–4. Forest management could, thus, offset CO2 emissions without halting global temperature rise. It remains, therefore, to be confirmed that sustainable forest management portfolios for the end of the 21st-century for Europe would comply with the Paris Agreement, i.e., reduce the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, reduce the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and neither increase the near-surface air temperature nor decrease precipitation. Here we show that a spatially-optimized portfolio that maximises the carbon sink through carbon sequestration, wood use and product and energy substitution, reduces the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 but does not meet any of the other criteria. The portfolios that maximise the carbon sink or forest albedo pass only one, albeit different, criterion. Managing the European forests with the objective to reduce near-surface air temperature, on the other hand, will also reduce the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, thus meeting two out of four criteria. Our results demonstrate that if present-day forest cover is sustained, the additional climate benefits through forest management would be modest and local rather than global. Based on these findings we argue that if adaptation would require large-scale changes in species composition and silvicultural systems over Europe5,6, these changes could be implemented with little unintended climate effects.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate
Sebastiaan Luyssaert1,2*, Guillaume Marie1, Aude Valade3,5, Yi-Ying Chen2,6, Sylvestre Njakou Djomo4, James Ryder2,7,
Juliane Otto2,8, Kim Naudts2,9, Anne Sofie Lansø2, Josefine Ghattas3 & Matthew J. McGrath2
The Paris Agreement promotes forest management as a pathway
towards halting climate warming through the reduction of carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions1. However, the climate benefits from
carbon sequestration through forest management may be reinforced,
counteracted or even offset by concurrent management-induced
changes in surface albedo, land-surface roughness, emissions of
biogenic volatile organic compounds, transpiration and sensible
heat flux2–4. Consequently, forest management could offset CO2
emissions without halting global temperature rise. It therefore
remains to be confirmed whether commonly proposed sustainable
European forest-management portfolios would comply with the
Paris Agreement—that is, whether they can reduce the growth rate
of atmospheric CO2, reduce the radiative imbalance at the top of the
atmosphere, and neither increase the near-surface air temperature
nor decrease precipitation by the end of the twenty-first century. Here
we show that theportfolio made up of management systemsthat
locallymaximize the carbon sink through carbon sequestration,
wood use and product and energy substitution reduces the growth
rate of atmospheric CO2, but does not meet any of the other criteria.
The portfolios that maximize the carbon sink or forest albedo pass
only one—different in each case—criterion. Managing the European
forests with the objective of reducing near-surface air temperature,
on the other hand, will also reduce the atmospheric CO
growth rate,
thus meeting two of the four criteria.Trade-off are thus unavoidable
when using European forests to meet climate objectives. Furthermore,
our results demonstrate that if present-day forest cover is sustained,
the additional climate benefits achieved through forest management
would be modest and local, rather than global. On the basis of these
findings, we argue that Europe shouldnot rely onforest management
to mitigate climate change.The modest climate effects fromchanges
in forest management imply, however, that if adaptation to future
climate were to require large-scale changes in species composition
and silvicultural systems over Europe
, theforestscould be adapted
to climate change with neither positive nor negative climate effects.
Following the Paris Agreement, the European Union and its 28
member states have committed to a 40% domestic reduction in
greenhouse-gas emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2030. About 99%
of this reduction is expected to come from emission reductions and
the remaining 1% from land use, land-use change and forestry
. The
commitment to reduce domestic greenhouse-gas emissions through
forestry is in turn reflected in the national strategies of several European
countries for energy, climate change and forestry
. These strategies
typically focus on enhancing forestry-based sinks and reservoirs and
developing neutral- or negative-emission approaches based on woody
biomass. Furthermore, European forest owners who have reported to
have experienced climate change have indicated that this experience
influenced their management decisions11. Hence, climate change and
the Paris Agreement are already shaping forest-management decisions.
Despite being explicitly mentioned in both the Kyoto Protocol
the Paris Agreement
, little is known about the climate effects of forest
management, including the effects of human-induced changes in tree
species and silvicultural systems3,13,14.
This study searches for spatially explicit forest-management portfo-
lios for Europe that comply with the Paris Agreement up to the turn of
the twenty-first century. The agreement requires that forest manage-
ment jointly reduces the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (Articles 4 and
5) and the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (Article 2).
Furthermore, forest management compliant with the Paris Agreement
should neither increase the near-surface air temperature (hereafter
referred to as ‘air temperature’) nor decrease precipitation, because
changing the climate of the terrestrial biosphere would make adaptation
to climate change (Article 7) even more difficult (seeSupplementary
Information, ‘Operationalizing the Paris Agreement’).
Simulation experiments that combine vegetation modelling, climate
modelling, vegetation–climate feedbacks and life-cycle analysis are used
to quantify the CO
emissions, radiative imbalance at the top of the
atmosphere, air temperature and precipitation of three spatially explicit
forest-management portfolios for Europe (Extended Data Fig.1). Each
portfolio has a distinct objective: maximize the forest carbon sink, max
imize forest albedo or reduce air temperature.
All portfolios start from the same 2010 species and age–class distri-
bution. Once an individual forest reaches maturity, six scenarios are
explored: (i) refrain from harvesting; (ii) har vest, replant the same species
and apply the same silvicultural system as before; (iii) harvest, replant
the same species and thin before the final felling; (iv) harvest, change to
the most common deciduous species in that region and thin before the
final felling; (v) harvest, change to the most common deciduous species
in that region and manage it as a coppice; and (vi) harvest, change to
the most common conifer species in that region and thin before the
final felling. Subsequently, portfolios are constructed by selecting the
best-performing management scenario for each of the three objectives
and for each 0.5° × 0.5° grid cell in the European domain.
In contrast to previous land-use simulation experiments, our portfo-
lios simulate a realistic rate of change for tree-species distributions and
silvicultural systems because changes are only implemented following
a harvest or stand-replacing mortality. Thus, management changes are
dictated by forest growth and human choices within natural constraints,
rather than through externally prescribed harvest volumes or through
strictly natural succession.
A management portfolio that maximizes the carbon sink
the widely held view that the net climate effect of forest management is
dominated by decreasing the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 through
forest-based carbon sequestration, carbon storage in wood products, and
material and energy substitution. Implementing the sink-maximizing
portfolio—instead of the business-as-usual one—would require con
verting 475,000km
of deciduous forest in central and southern Europe
1Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE/IPSL), CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay,
Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 3Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL), Paris, France. 4Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark. 5Present address: Global Ecology Unit CREAF-UAB,
Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. 6Present address: Research Center for Environmental Changes (RCEC), Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. 7Present address: National Physical Laboratory, Teddington,
London, UK. 8Present address: Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht (HZG), Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Hamburg, Germany. 9Present address: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology,
Hamburg, Germany. *e-mail:
Corrected: Author Correction
11 OCTOBER 2018 | VOL 562 | NATURE | 259
© 2018 Springer Nature Limited. All rights reserved.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved

Supplementary resource (1)

... Our global study particularly showed that the tree species composition of a forest, by determining the dominant plant traits, was the first driver of its capacity to store SOC, but that the role of forest composition was context-dependent 71 , meaning that probably no unique global mitigation strategy exists 72 . Indeed, our study suggests that functional traits of tree species do not play an important role for SOC storage in warm-wet regions, like tropical regions. ...
... Beyond their positive effect on SOC accumulation ( Supplementary Fig. S8), conservative tree species are adapted to maintain their growth in constrained and competitive environments 69,70 . They are more able to profit from the CO 2 enrichment of the atmosphere than acquisitive species 78 , and they only have a slight effect on air temperature through biophysical effects 72,77 . In boreal forests, where SOC constitutes the largest carbon pool of the ecosystem 2 and where conifers are welladapted to the widely-spread poor soils, forest composition is consequently a major force for enhancing SOC storage. ...
... Further, most land management practices are not included in the model used here and were absent in many other CMIP5 models. Recent modeling studies [Davin et al., 2014;Luyssaert et al., 2014a;Luyssaert et al., 2018;Naudts et al., 2016;Julia Pongratz et al., 2018] con rm the land management practices such as irrigation, no-tillage, grazing and forest management can considerably alter both biophysical and biogeochemical effects in large regions of the world. Therefore, our results stress the importance of improving Earth system model structures by implementing a consistent anthropogenic LCC reconstruction and including land management practices [Julia Pongratz et al., 2018; . ...
Full-text available
The biophysical (land surface physical characteristics) and biogeochemical (chemical characteristics) effects of land cover change (LCC) contributed substantially to the historical climate change. Future land-use activity is expected to increase to meet the growing demand for food, fiber, and energy with uncertain sign of its effect on net climate change. Here, the relative importance of biophysical and biogeochemical effects of LCC on climate is assessed using the simulations from the Community Earth System Model (CESM1) for the historical (1850–2005) and future scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, RCP2.6, 4.5, and 8.5 [2006–2100]). We find that the biophysical effect of LCC in the historical period causes global mean cooling and it dampens the global mean warming due to the biogeochemical effect by ~ 38%. In the three future scenarios, the biophysical effect causes global mean warming and it is ~ 1.5 to 5-fold higher than the warming due to biogeochemical effect, depending on the RCP scenario. Increased albedo due to deforestation and the associated reduction in the absorption of shortwave radiation in temperate region during the historical period contribute dominantly to global mean biophysical cooling. In the RCP scenarios, increases in the shortwave radiation absorption and evapotranspiration in the boreal and temperate regions due to afforestation along with post-harvest regrowth contribute to strong global mean warming. Our results highlight the importance of the biophysical warming effects of LCC in the future scenarios, especially over the northern middle and high-latitude regions. Hence, this study indicate that any comprehensive assessment through land-based mitigation pathways should carefully include the biophysical effects.
... Our results also point out, however, a narrow operational space surrounding the BAU scheme which can be designated as near-optimal over a wide and diversified portfolio of alternative management schemes across the broad range of RCP/ESM-based climate change scenarios. Conversely, other studies (Garcia-Gonzalo et al., 2007;Luyssaert et al., 2018) showed that harvest intensity should be loosened in order to maximize the carbon sink which would lead to reductions in the wood harvesting rates. However, under adverse climate change effects, reductions in wood harvesting rates may correspond with declining carbon sequestration. ...
Full-text available
Forest management practices might act as nature-based methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and slow anthropogenic climate change and thus support an EU forest-based climate change mitigation strategy. However, the extent to which diversified management actions could lead to quantitatively important changes in carbon sequestration and stocking capacity at the tree level remains to be thoroughly assessed. To that end, we used a state-of-the-science bio-geochemically based forest growth model to simulate effects of multiple forest management scenarios on net primary productivity (NPP) and potential carbon woody stocks (pCWS) under twenty scenarios of climate change in a suite of observed and virtual forest stands in temperate and boreal European forests. Previous modelling experiments indicated that the capacity of forests to assimilate and store atmospheric CO2 in woody biomass is already being attained under business-as-usual forest management practices across a range of climate change scenarios. Nevertheless, we find that on the long-term, with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and warming, managed forests show both higher productivity capacity and a larger potential pool size of stored carbon than unmanaged forests as long as thinning and tree harvesting are of moderate intensity.
... About half of the reviewed papers discussed the conservation of biodiversity. These trends indicate that the sustainability of logging is increasingly conceptualized with the diversified values of forests and woodlands entailing complex trade-offs and synergies among them (Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008;Luyssaert et al., 2018;Timko et al., 2018;Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012;Wagner et al., 2014). ...
... Furthermore, afforestation has been broadly proposed as a nature-based solution to mitigate climate warming. This proposal is mostly built on the cooling effect of afforestation through carbon sequestration and some biogeophysical processes (e.g., the evaporative cooling effect) [41][42][43] , but the afforestation effect on temperature variability has never been considered and evaluated. Therefore, understanding the afforestation effect on daily temperature variability can help to avoid unanticipated climatic consequences following the implementation of large-scale afforestation. ...
Full-text available
While the biogeophysical effects of deforestation on average and extreme temperatures are broadly documented, how deforestation influences temperature variability remains largely unknown. To fill this knowledge gap, we investigate the biogeophysical effects of idealized deforestation on daily temperature variability at the global scale based on multiple earth system models and in situ observations. Here, we show that deforestation can intensify daily temperature variability (by up to 20%) in the northern extratropics, particularly in winter, leading to more frequent rapid extreme warming and cooling events. The higher temperature variability can be attributed to the enhanced near-surface horizontal temperature advection and simultaneously is partly offset by the lower variability in surface sensible heat flux. We also show responses of daily temperature variability to historical deforestation and future potential afforestation. This study reveals the overlooked effects of deforestation or afforestation on temperature variability and has implications for large-scale afforestation in northern extratropic countries.
... In developing countries, reforestation of degraded lands will help reduce atmospheric CO 2 concentrations [13]. Further, the implementation of appropriate forest management practices can also enhance biomass carbon stocks [14,15]. Tong et al. [16] corroborated these findings, noting that 72% of the regional carbon sink contribution was primarily from newly established forests, as well as forest growth within existing stands and deforested areas. ...
Full-text available
Maximizing the carbon sequestration of forested land is important for achieving carbon neutrality. Although some studies have discussed forest carbon sequestration efficiency (FCSE) from the perspective of total factor production, it is being increasingly recognized that forestland use regulates sequestration and emissions. When viewing forestland use as input and carbon emissions as output, there is a lack of empirical evidence on FCSE and its influencing factors. Here, a superefficiency slacks-based measurement model was applied to estimate FCSE for 66 counties in Zhejiang Province, China. The influencing factors and spatial spillover effects of FCSE were also analyzed using a spatial autocorrelation model. The findings showed that over the sample observation period, county FCSE ranged from 0.199 to 1.258, with considerable gaps. The global Moran’s I index showed that county-level FCSE was markedly spatially autocorrelated. Spatially, forestland use, cutting, pests, and diseases had negative spatial spillover effects on FCSE, whereas average annual temperature and precipitation displayed positive spillover effects. These findings suggest that the overall coordination of forest resource supervision and management among counties should be strengthened. The implementation of forestry management models aimed at consolidating or increasing forest carbon sequestration should be emphasized to improve forest quality, thereby promoting FCSE enhancement.
Full-text available
Abstract Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) is one of southern China's most important native tree species, which has experienced noticeable climate-induced changes. Published papers (1978–2020) on tree growth of Chinese fir forests in China were collected and critically reviewed. After that, a comprehensive growth data set was developed from 482 sites, which are distributed between 102.19° and 130.07°E in longitude, between 21.87° and 37.24°N in latitude and between 5 and 2260 m in altitude. The dataset consists of 2265 entries, including mean DBH (cm), mean H (m), volume (m3), biomass (dry weight) (kg) (stem (over bark) biomass, branches biomass, leaves biomass, bark biomass, aboveground biomass, roots biomass, total trees biomass) and related information, i.e. geographical location (Country, province, study site, longitude, latitude, altitude, slope, and aspect), climate (mean annual precipitation-MAP and mean annual temperature-MAT), stand description (origin, age, canopy density and stand density), and sample regime (plot size, number and investigation year). Our results showed that (1) the best prediction of height was obtained using nonlinear composite model Height = $$1.3 + 34.23*(1 - {\text{e}}^{{\left( { - 0.01025*{\text{DBH}}^{1.347} } \right)}} )$$ 1.3 + 34.23 ∗ ( 1 - e - 0.01025 ∗ DBH 1.347 ) , (R2 = 0.8715, p barks (88.95%) > roots (86.71%), and explained greater than 64% variability in branch biomass. The foliage biomass equation was the poorest among biomass components (R2 = 0.6122). The estimation equations derived in this study are particularly suitable for the Chinese fir forests in China. This dataset can provide a theoretical basis for predicting and assessing the potential of carbon sequestration and afforestation activities of Chinese fir forests on a national scale.
Understanding landowners’ willingness to act on climate change is important for effective climate policy. This study investigates the determinants of Finnish non-industrial private forest owners’ preferences for alternative climate change mitigation strategies related to forests and wood use. The study tests hypotheses concerning the role of risk perception and political leaning for the support of seven alternative strategies with varying degree of disruption to the current logic of commercial forestry in Finland, which further aligns with the temporal delay in the impact of climate change mitigation strategies that landowners are willing to accept. Based on 887 survey responses from three regions, the study finds that forest owners generally support all but one of the seven strategies: reduced harvest. Results from ordinal logistic regression models further indicate that along with socio-demographic determinants, higher perceived risk and left-wing leaning with a university degree explain support for more disruptive strategies with more immediate mitigation impact (increased conservation, reduced harvest), while lower perceived risk and right-wing leaning without a university degree tend to associate with support for the less disruptive strategies (intensified management, increased harvest), both of which arguably sideline the urgency of climate action. In the highly politicized matter of harvest levels in Finland, the study also finds that right-wing leaning may negate the effect of higher education, which otherwise predicts greater support for more disruptive strategies. Implications for policy at the climate-forest nexus are derived.
Full-text available
This article explores how rural labor migration affects the forest management income. Based on consecutive annual surveys of 397 forest households in the Jiangxi Province from 2011 to 2018, the panel-Tobit and IV-Tobit and mediation models are conducted. The studies showed that the migration effect of labor migration inhibits forest management income, and the remittance effect of labor migration has a promoting effect, but the total effect of labor migration inhibited household forest management income. A heterogeneity analysis showed that, the labor migration effect in hilly and mountainous areas has a significant inhibitory effect on forest management income, while the promoting effect of the remittance effect of labor migration on forest management income is only significant in plain areas. At the same time, compared with the elderly group, the migration effect of labor migration of the youth group has a greater inhibitory effect on household forest management income, while the impact of the remittance effect of labor migration is only significant in the elderly group. A test of action mechanism showed that, cash investment plays a partial mediating role on the impact of labor migration effect on forest management income, but it has a suppressing role in the impact of the remittance effect. Labor input plays a partial mediating role on both the labor migration effect and the labor remittance effect on forest management income. Our analysis provides an important basis for policymakers to formulate pertinent policies to support forest management in collective forest regions.
Full-text available
This article summarizes the changes in landscape structure because of human land management over the last several centuries, and using observed and modeled data, documents how these changes have altered biogeophysical and biogeochemical surface fluxes on the local, mesoscale, and regional scales. Remaining research issues are presented including whether these landscape changes alter large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns far from where the land use and land cover changes occur. We conclude that existing climate assessments have not yet adequately factored in this climate forcing. For those regions that have undergone intensive human landscape change, or would undergo intensive change in the future, we conclude that the failure to factor in this forcing risks a misalignment of investment in climate mitigation and adaptation. 
Full-text available
Europe's managed forests contribute to warming For most of the past 250 years, surprisingly it seems that Europe's managed forests have been a net source of carbon, contributing to climate warming rather than mitigating it. Naudts et al. reconstructed the history of forest management in Europe in the context of a land-atmosphere model. The release of carbon otherwise stored in litter, dead wood, and soil carbon pools in managed forests was one key factor contributing to climate warming. Second, the conversion of broadleaved forests to coniferous forests has changed the albedo and evapotranspiration of those forests, also leading to warming. Thus, climate change mitigation policies in Europe and elsewhere may need to consider changes in forest management. Science , this issue p. 597
Full-text available
EU forests and the forest sector play a significant role in the EU greenhouse gas balance. These forests and their products reduce emissions, enhance sinks, store carbon and provide a continuous stream of ecosystem services, including wood products, energy and biodiversity conservation. EU forests and the forest sector currently produce an overall climate mitigation impact that amounts to about 13% of the total EU emissions. A new bottom-up approach to mitigation commitments has emerged in the UNFCCC climate negotiations process, opening the way to greater flexibility. New data has also enabled scientists to understand how to better use the forest sector in tackling climate change. This means that there is great scope to enhance the role of EU forests in tackling climate change. The new EFI From Science to Policy study “ A new role for forests and the forest sector in the EU post-2020 climate targets ” aims to support EU policy makers in answering this complex question. It concludes that with the right incentives and investments, a significant contribution can be expected from EU forests, forestry and the forest-based industries. There could be a combined, additional effect on top of the existing sink and substitution of as much as 9% of current EU CO2 emissions – some 400 Mt CO2/y by 2030.
Afforestation and reforestation have become popular instruments of climate mitigation policy, as forests are known to store large quantities of carbon. However, they also modify the fluxes of energy, water and momentum at the land surface. Previous studies have shown that these biogeophysical effects can counteract the carbon drawdown and, in boreal latitudes, even overcompensate it due to large albedo differences between forest canopy and snow. This study investigates the role forest cover plays for global climate by conducting deforestation and afforestation experiments with the earth system model of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-ESM). Complete deforestation of the tropics (18.75° S–15° N) exerts a global warming of 0.4 °C due to an increase in CO2 concentration by initially 60 ppm and a decrease in evapotranspiration in the deforested areas. In the northern latitudes (45° N–90° N), complete deforestation exerts a global cooling of 0.25 °C after 100 years, while afforestation leads to an equally large warming, despite the counteracting changes in CO2 concentration. Earlier model studies are qualitatively confirmed by these findings. As the response of temperature as well as terrestrial carbon pools is not of equal sign at every land cell, considering forests as cooling in the tropics and warming in high latitudes seems to be true only for the spatial mean, but not on a local scale.
Forest-based climate mitigation may occur through conserving and enhancing the carbon sink and through reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation. Yet the inclusion of forests in international climate agreements has been complex, often considered a secondary mitigation option. In the context of the Paris Climate Agreement, countries submitted their (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions ((I)NDCs), including climate mitigation targets. Assuming full implementation of (I)NDCs, we show that land use, and forests in particular, emerge as a key component of the Paris Agreement: turning globally from a net anthropogenic source during 1990–2010 (1.3 ± 1.1 GtCO2e yr⁻¹) to a net sink of carbon by 2030 (up to −1.1 ± 0.5 GtCO2e yr⁻¹), and providing a quarter of emission reductions planned by countries. Realizing and tracking this mitigation potential requires more transparency in countries’ pledges and enhanced science-policy cooperation to increase confidence in numbers, including reconciling the ≈3 GtCO2e yr⁻¹ difference in estimates between country reports and scientific studies.
Greenland ice-core data have revealed large decadal climate variations over the North Atlantic that can be related to a major source of low-frequency variability, the North Atlantic Oscillation. Over the past decade, the Oscillation has remained in one extreme phase during the winters, contributing significantly to the recent wintertime warmth across Europe and to cold conditions in the northwest Atlantic. An evaluation of the atmospheric moisture budget reveals coherent large-scale changes since 1980 that are linked to recent dry conditions over southern Europe and the Mediterranean, whereas northern Europe and parts of Scandinavia have generally experienced wetter than normal conditions.
In the light of daunting global sustainability challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and food security, improving our understanding of the complex dynamics of the Earth system is crucial. However, large knowledge gaps related to the effects of land management persist, in particular those human-induced changes in terrestrial ecosystems that do not result in land-cover conversions. Here, we review the current state of knowledge of ten common land management activities for their biogeochemical and biophysical impacts, the level of process understanding and data availability. Our review shows that ca. one-tenth of the ice-free land surface is under intense human management, half under medium and one-fifth under extensive management. Based on our review, we cluster these ten management activities into three groups: (i) management activities for which data sets are available, and for which a good knowledge base exists (cropland harvest and irrigation); (ii) management activities for which sufficient knowledge on biogeochemical and biophysical effects exists but robust global data sets are lacking (forest harvest, tree species selection, grazing and mowing harvest, N fertilization); and (iii) land management practices with severe data gaps concomitant with an unsatisfactory level of process understanding (crop species selection, artificial wetland drainage, tillage and fire management and crop residue management, an element of crop harvest). Although we identify multiple impediments to progress, we conclude that the current status of process understanding and data availability is sufficient to advance with incorporating management in, for example, Earth system or dynamic vegetation models in order to provide a systematic assessment of their role in the Earth system. This review contributes to a strategic prioritization of research efforts across multiple disciplines, including land system research, ecological research and Earth system modelling.
It's not only the carbon in the trees Forest loss affects climate not just because of the impacts it has on the carbon cycle, but also because of how it affects the fluxes of energy and water between the land and the atmosphere. Evaluating global impact is complicated because deforestation can produce different results in different climate zones, making it hard to determine large-scale trends rather than more local ones. Alkama and Cescatti conducted a global assessment of the biophysical effects of forest cover change. Forest loss amplifies diurnal temperature variations, increases mean and maximum air temperatures, and causes a significant amount of warming when compared to CO 2 emission from land-use change. Science , this issue p. 600