The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Paul Miller. Photo.

Paul Miller

Senior lecturer

Paul Miller. Photo.

Forestation in CMIP6: wide model spread in tree cover and land carbon uptake

Author

  • Sabine Egerer
  • David M Lawrence
  • Peter J Lawrence
  • Arthur Argles
  • Vivek Arora
  • Alina L Barbu
  • Ian N Harman
  • Paul A Miller
  • Thomas Raddatz
  • Nicolas Vuichard
  • David Wårlind
  • Tilo Ziehn
  • Julia Pongratz
Show all

Summary, in English

Forestation is expected to play an significant role as a terrestrial carbon dioxide removal technology in low-emission scenarios by storing carbon in the biosphere, thereby changing the physical properties of the land surface. To represent land use change, including afforestation and reforestation (AR), Earth system models (ESM) that contribute to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) draw on common projected land use data from Integrated Assessment Models. The extent and spatial distribution of AR differ substantially between the CMIP6 models ranging from −197 to 363 Mha of tree cover change by 2100 in the low-emission scenario SSP1-2.6 that has the highest AR among all future scenarios. The variability in simulated tree cover distributions, in combination with different representations of the carbon cycle, causes a high uncertainty in future land carbon uptake. Here, we disentangle the input information used to represent AR by CMIP6 models and differences in the carbon uptake process to explain the variable simulated potential of carbon sequestration due to AR. We provide recommendations on how AR might be implemented more consistently in future model intercomparison studies, especially regarding more consistent tree cover input (e.g. aligning present-day tree cover, consistent transition between land use and land cover types), and carbon-cycle-related processes (e.g. nitrogen cycle and disturbances). Adoption of these recommendations would increase the relevance of ESMs in terms of providing more accurate estimates of future land carbon uptake through AR.

Department/s

  • LU Profile Area: Nature-based future solutions
  • eSSENCE: The e-Science Collaboration
  • Dept of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
  • BECC: Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate
  • MERGE: ModElling the Regional and Global Earth system

Publishing year

2025-04-11

Language

English

Publication/Series

Environmental Research Letters

Volume

20

Issue

5

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

IOP Publishing

Topic

  • Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Keywords

  • forestation
  • CMIP6 models
  • land carbon uptake
  • terrestrial carbon dioxide removal

Status

Published

Project

  • Response of the Earth System to overshoot, Climate neUtrality and negative Emissions

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1748-9326