Climate risks to Amazon agriculture suggest a rationale to conserve local ecosystems

Abstract

In southern Amazonia, more than half of all cropland is devoted to the production of two rainfed crops per year, an agricultural practice known as “double cropping” (DC). Climate change, including feedbacks between changes in land use and the local climate, is shortening the extent of the historical rainy season in southern Amazonia, increasing the risk of future detrimental environmental conditions, and posing a threat to the intensive DC agriculture that is currently practiced in that region, with potential negative consequences at regional, national, and even global scales. We argue that the conservation of undeveloped forests and savannas in southern Amazonia is supported by socioeconomic justifications and is in the best interests of agribusiness, local governments, and the public.

Assessment of climate change impact on double-cropping systems

“…3) and temperatures ( Fig. 2) will affect and may even compromise the adequate development of at least one of the two crops in the double-cropping system [1,17]. Variations in climate dynamics added to crop management decisions, such as late soybean's sowing dates, will also delay maize's beginning of the cycle (Table 1) and compromise its development under lower amount of rainfall and higher temperatures.…”

Climate Change and Public Policies in the Brazilian Amazon State of Mato Grosso: Perceptions and Challenges

“…Nobre et al [62] proposed a paradigm that could be considered at several levels of governance (federal, state wise or locally) as well as by the private sector in order to improve and/or develop the socio-economic level of the region, while containing deforestation and acting to mitigate its compounding effects to those of global climate change in the Amazon region. Beyond recommendations given by several authors (enforcement of the Forest Code, anti-deforestation plans, regulation of land appropriation and use, voluntary market mechanisms, innovative management of land use; e.g., [41,50,55,56,60,61,65,66,76,[99][100][101]), in general, we echo Weber [12], Nobre et al [62] and Mello-Théry [102], among others, in that education on climate change and closing the gap (perceived or real) between scientists, stakeholders and laypeople are crucial to develop a relationship of trust that will enable a conjoint action of development and climate change mitigation. There is a need to appease an ongoing feeling that "discussions on climate change are high up in the sky whereas they [public decision-making on climate change] happen at ground level.…”

Scale and climate regulation as a conservation incentive

“…We share the concerns of Costa et al . () regarding the threat that deforestation poses to biodiversity and climate regulation in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. However, while the authors argue that climate‐model–based projections of a shorter growing season, due to extensive deforestation across the region, provide a rationale for conservation by crop producers, we are less optimistic about the persuasiveness of this argument, for reasons that we explain here.…”