Live woody vegetation is the largest reservoir of biomass carbon, with its restoration considered one of the most effective natural climate solutions. However, terrestrial carbon fluxes remain the largest uncertainty in the global carbon cycle. Here, we develop spatially explicit estimates of carbon stock changes of live woody biomass from 2000 to 2019 using measurements from ground, air, and space. We show that live biomass has removed 4.9 to 5.5 PgC year−1 from the atmosphere, offsetting 4.6 ± 0.1 PgC year−1 of gross emissions from disturbances and adding substantially (0.23 to 0.88 PgC year−1) to the global carbon stocks. Gross emissions and removals in the tropics were four times larger than temperate and boreal ecosystems combined. Although live biomass is responsible for more than 80% of gross terrestrial fluxes, soil, dead organic matter, and lateral transport may play important roles in terrestrial carbon sink.
Mitigation pathways by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) describe future emissions that keep global warming below specific temperature limits and are compared with countries' collective greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction pledges. This is needed to assess mitigation progress and inform emission targets under the Paris Agreement. Currently, however, a mismatch of ~5.5 GtCO 2 yr −1 exists between the global land-use fluxes estimated with IAMs and from countries' GHG inventories. Here we present a 'Rosetta stone' adjustment to translate IAMs' land-use mitigation pathways to estimates more comparable with GHG inventories. This does not change the original decarbonization pathways, but reallocates part of the land sink to be consistent with GHG inventories. Adjusted cumulative emissions over the period until net zero for 1.5 or 2 °C limits are reduced by 120-192 GtCO 2 relative to the original IAM pathways. These differences should be taken into account to ensure an accurate assessment of progress towards the Paris Agreement.
Abstract. We summed estimates of the carbon balance of forests, grasslands, arable lands and peatlands to obtain country-specific estimates of the terrestrial carbon balance during the 1990s. Forests and grasslands were sinking carbon consistently, whereas arable soils were carbon sources in all European countries. Hence, countries dominated by arable lands tended to be losing carbon from their terrestrial ecosystems, whereas forest-dominated countries tended to be sinking carbon. In countries where peatlands are still being drained or extracted, net carbon balances were much lower than expected from land use. Net terrestrial carbon fluxes were typically small relative to fossil fuel-related carbon emissions. Only where fossil fluxes were small and net terrestrial fluxes were large did terrestrial carbon fluxes matter (ranged between uptake of 70% of fossil fluxes and increase of emissions with 25%). Nonetheless, at the European scale, the small net balance is composed of two very large but opposing fluxes: uptake by forests and grasslands and losses from arable lands and peatlands. Thus, relatively minor changes in either or both of these large component fluxes could strongly affect the net total, indicating that mitigation schemes should not be discarded a priori. In the absence of carbon-oriented land management, the current net carbon balance is bound to decline soon. Protecting it will require actions at three levels. Firstly, maintaining the current sink activity of forests. Secondly, altered agricultural management practices to turn arable soils into carbon sinks. Lastly, because carbon is lost more rapidly than sequestered, the current large reservoirs (wetlands and old forests) need extra protection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.