A regional assessment of land-based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy, BECCS, reforestation, and forest management

被引:17
|
作者
Krause, Andreas [1 ]
Knoke, Thomas [1 ]
Rammig, Anja [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, TUM Sch Life Sci Weihenstephan, Hans Carl von Carlowitz Pl 2, D-85354 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany
来源
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY | 2020年 / 12卷 / 05期
关键词
afforestation; BECCS; climate mitigation; land management; land-use change; negative emissions; CLIMATE-CHANGE; CROP YIELDS; ENERGY CROP; MISCANTHUS; BENEFITS; STORAGE; MODEL; SCENARIOS; RECOVERY; CAPTURE;
D O I
10.1111/gcbb.12675
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Land-based solutions are indispensable features of most climate mitigation scenarios. Here we conduct a novel cross-sectoral assessment of regional carbon mitigation potential by running an ecosystem model with an explicit representation of forest structure and climate impacts for Bavaria, Germany, as a case study. We drive the model with four high-resolution climate projections (EURO-CORDEX) for the representative concentration pathway RCP4.5 and present-day land-cover from three satellite-derived datasets (CORINE, ESA-CCI, MODIS) and identify total mitigation potential by not only accounting for carbon storage but also material and energy substitution effects. The model represents the current state in Bavaria adequately, with a simulated forest biomass 12.9 +/- 0.4% lower than data from national forest inventories. Future land-use changes according to two ambitious land-use harmonization scenarios (SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP4xRCP3.4) achieve a mitigation of 206 and 247 Mt C (2015-2100 period) via reforestation and the cultivation and burning of dedicated bioenergy crops, partly combined with carbon capture and storage. Sensitivity simulations suggest that converting croplands or pastures to bioenergy plantations could deliver a carbon mitigation of 40.9 and 37.7 kg C/m(2), respectively, by the year 2100 if used to replace carbon-intensive energy systems and combined with CCS. However, under less optimistic assumptions (including no CCS), only 15.3 and 12.2 kg C/m(2) are mitigated and reforestation might be the better option (20.0 and 16.8 kg C/m(2)). Mitigation potential in existing forests is limited (converting coniferous into mixed forests, nitrogen fertilization) or even negative (suspending wood harvest) due to decreased carbon storage in product pools and associated substitution effects. Our simulations provide guidelines to policy makers, farmers, foresters, and private forest owners for sustainable and climate-benefitting ecosystem management in temperate regions. They also emphasize the importance of the CCS technology which is regarded critically by many people, making its implementation in the short or medium term currently doubtable.
引用
收藏
页码:346 / 360
页数:15
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Managing Land-based CDR: BECCS, Forests and Carbon Sequestration
    Brack, Duncan
    King, Richard
    [J]. GLOBAL POLICY, 2021, 12 : 45 - 56
  • [2] Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)-a review
    Karki, Lokendra
    Lieu, Jenny
    Xylia, Maria
    Laub, Moritz
    Ismangil, David
    Virla, Luis
    Rahn, Eric
    Bilbao, Bibiana Alejandra
    Indriani, Siti Nurlaila
    Gallego, Pilar Martin
    Suleiman, Afnan Khalil Ahmad
    Schaldch, Ruediger
    Takama, Takeshi
    da Silva, Jose Rafael Marques
    Johnson, Francis X.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2023, 18 (09)
  • [3] Land-based climate change mitigation potentials within the agenda for sustainable development
    Frank, Stefan
    Gusti, Mykola
    Havlik, Petr
    Lauri, Pekka
    DiFulvio, Fulvio
    Forsell, Nicklas
    Hasegawa, Tomoko
    Krisztin, Tamas
    Palazzo, Amanda
    Valin, Hugo
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2021, 16 (02):
  • [4] Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based and land-based climate mitigation options
    Hayman, Garry D.
    Comyn-Platt, Edward
    Huntingford, Chris
    Harper, Anna B.
    Powell, Tom
    Cox, Peter M.
    Collins, William
    Webber, Christopher
    Lowe, Jason
    Sitch, Stephen
    House, Joanna, I
    Doelman, Jonathan C.
    van Vuuren, Detlef P.
    Chadburn, Sarah E.
    Burke, Eleanor
    Gedney, Nicola
    [J]. EARTH SYSTEM DYNAMICS, 2021, 12 (02) : 513 - 544
  • [5] A mixed-effect model approach for assessing land-based mitigation in integrated assessment models: A regional perspective
    Oliveira, Thais Diniz
    Brunelle, Thierry
    Guenet, Bertrand
    Ciais, Philippe
    Leblanc, Florian
    Guivarch, Celine
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2021, 27 (19) : 4671 - 4685
  • [6] Examining spatial carbon metabolism: Features, future simulation, and land-based mitigation
    Cui, Xuezhu
    Li, Shaoying
    Gao, Feng
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2020, 438
  • [7] Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment
    Albanito, Fabrizio
    Beringer, Tim
    Corstanje, Ronald
    Poulter, Benjamin
    Stephenson, Anna
    Zawadzka, Joanna
    Smith, Pete
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2016, 8 (01): : 81 - 95
  • [8] Carbon sequestration potential of forest land: Management for products and bioenergy versus preservation
    Van Deusen, P.
    [J]. BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2010, 34 (12): : 1687 - 1694
  • [9] Land-Use and Carbon Cycle Responses to Moderate Climate Change: Implications for Land-Based Mitigation?
    Humpenoeder, Florian
    Popp, Alexander
    Stevanovic, Miodrag
    Mueller, Christoph
    Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon
    Bonsch, Markus
    Dietrich, Jan Philipp
    Lotze-Campen, Hermann
    Weindl, Isabelle
    Biewald, Anne
    Rolinski, Susanne
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2015, 49 (11) : 6731 - 6739
  • [10] Global models of human decision-making for land-based mitigation and adaptation assessment
    Arneth A.
    Brown C.
    Rounsevell M.D.A.
    [J]. Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4 (7) : 550 - 557