Philippa Kaur

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstrasse 4, 04103, Leipzig, GermanyHelen R. P. Phillips, Joanne M. Bennett, Rémy Beugnon, Olga Ferlian, Carlos A. Guerra, Birgitta König-Ries, Julia J. Krebs, Ulrich Brose & Nico EisenhauerInstitute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstrasse 4, 04103, Leipzig, GermanyHelen R. P. Phillips, Rémy Beugnon, Olga Ferlian, Julia J. Krebs & Nico EisenhauerDepartment of Environmental Science, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaHelen R. P. Phillips & Erin K. CameronGlobal Soil Biodiversity Initiative and School of Global Environmental Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USAElizabeth M. Bach & Diana H. WallDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USAElizabeth M. Bach & Diana H. WallUniversidade Positivo, Rua Prof. Pedro Viriato Parigot de Souza, 5300, Curitiba, PR, 81280-330, BrazilMarie L. C. BartzCenter of Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martins de Freitas, 3000-456, Coimbra, PortugalMarie L. C. BartzInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108, Halle (Saale), GermanyJoanne M. Bennett & Carlos A. GuerraCentre for Applied Water Science, Institute for Applied Ecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Canberra, Canberra, AustraliaJoanne M. BennettDepartamento de Ecología y Biología Animal, Universidad de Vigo, 36310, Vigo, SpainMaria J. I. BrionesEmbrapa Forestry, Estrada da Ribeira, km. 111, C.P. 231, Colombo, PR, 83411-000, BrazilGeorge G. BrownA.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky pr., 33, Moscow, 119071, RussiaKonstantin B. Gongalsky & Iurii M. LebedevM.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991, RussiaKonstantin B. Gongalsky & Iurii M. LebedevInstitute of Computer Science, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Ernst-Abbe-Platz 2, 07743, Jena, GermanyBirgitta König-RiesEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, ItalyAlberto OrgiazziDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), 6700, Wageningen, AB, The NetherlandsKelly S. Ramirez, Wim H. van der Putten & Madhav P. ThakurSenckenberg Museum for Natural History Görlitz, Department of Soil Zoology, 02826, Görlitz, GermanyDavid J. RussellBiometry and Environmental System Analysis, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106, Freiburg, GermanyBenjamin SchwarzInstitute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger-Str. 159, 07743, Jena, GermanyUlrich BroseCEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, FranceThibaud DecaënsSorbonne Université, Institut d’Ecologie et des Sciences de l’Environnement, 75005, Paris, FrancePatrick LavelleCentre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station, CNRS, 09200, Moulis, FranceMichel LoreauSorbonne Université, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (UMR 7618 IEES-Paris, CNRS, INRA, UPMC, IRD, UPEC), 4 place Jussieu, 75000, Paris, FranceJérôme MathieuINRA, IRD, Institut d’Ecologie et des Sciences de l’Environnement de Paris, F-75005, Paris, FranceJérôme MathieuDepartment of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Catania, Via Androne 81, 95124, Catania, ItalyChristian MulderLaboratory of Nematology, Wageningen University, PO Box 8123, 6700, Wageningen, ES, The NetherlandsWim H. van der PuttenInstitute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195, Berlin, GermanyMatthias C. Rillig & Daniel R. LammelInstitute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsFranciska T. de VriesAsian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 639798, SingaporeDavid A. WardleCentre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Landuse, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, Göttingen, GermanyChristian AmmerSilviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, Göttingen, GermanyChristian AmmerForest Sciences and Forest Ecology, University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 1, Göttingen, GermanySabine AmmerInstitute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, 3-1-3 Kan-nondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, JapanMiwa AraiLand Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, University of Nairobi, Kapenguria Road, Off Naivasha Road, P.O Box 29053, Nairobi, KenyaFredrick O. AyukeRwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture, KG 541, Kigali, RwandaFredrick O. AyukeHealth & Biosecurity, CSIRO, PO Box 1700, Canberra, AustraliaGeoff H. BakerDepartment of Animal Science, Santa Catarina State University, Chapecó, SC, 89815-630, BrazilDilmar BarettaExperimental Infrastructure Platform (EIP), Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Eberswalder Str. 84, Müncheberg, GermanyDietmar Barkusky & Monika JoschkoDépartment de biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, CanadaRobin Beauséjour & Robert L. BradleyGeology Department, FCEFQyN, ICBIA-CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), National University of Rio Cuarto, Ruta 36 Km, 601, Río Cuarto, ArgentinaJose C. Bedano & Anahí DomínguezDepartment of Ecology, Brandenburg University of Technology, Konrad-Wachsmann-Allee 6, Cottbus, GermanyKlaus BirkhoferEco&Sols, Univ Montpellier, IRD, INRAE, CIRAD, Institut Agro, Montpellier, FranceEric Blanchart & Michel BrossardNatural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USABernd BlosseyEarth Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, 4, IrelandThomas BolgerSchool of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, IrelandThomas BolgerDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, 3132, Comstock Hall, Ithaca, NY, USAJames C. BurtisEMMAH, UMR 1114, INRA, Site Agroparc, Avignon, FranceYvan CapowiezThe School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The Waite Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, AustraliaTimothy R. CavagnaroFaculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, CanadaAmy Choi & Sandy M. SmithLaboratoire Écologie et Biologie des Interactions, équipe EES, UMR CNRS 7267, Université de Poitiers, 5 rue Albert Turpain, Poitiers, FranceJulia ClauseUMR ECOBIO (Ecosystems, Biodiversity, Evolution) CNRS-Université de Rennes, Station Biologique, 35380, Paimpont, FranceDaniel Cluzeau & Guénola PérèsECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH, Boettgerstr. 2-14, Floersheim, GermanyAnja CoorsInstitute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth Universtiy, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, SY24 3EE, United KingdomFelicity V. CrottySchool for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Royal Agricultural University, Stroud Road, Cirencester, GL7 6JS, United KingdomFelicity V. CrottyOdum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, 140 E Green Street, Athens, USAJasmine M. CrumseyDepartment of Biological Sciencies, SUNY Cortland, 1215 Bowers Hall, Cortland, USAAndrea DávalosBiodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Faculty of Biology, University Complutense of Madrid, José Antonio Novais, 12, Madrid, SpainDarío J. Díaz Cosín, Mónica Gutiérrez López, Juan B. Jesús, Marta Novo & Dolores TrigoYale School of the Environment, Yale University, 370 Prospect St, New Haven, CT, USAAnnise M. DobsonDepartamento de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Nacional de Luján, Argentina – INEDES (Universidad Nacional de Luján – CONICET), Luján, ArgentinaAndrés Esteban DuhourLouis Bolk Institute, Kosterijland 3-5, Bunnik, The NetherlandsNick van EekerenDepartment of Soil Science, University of Trier, Campus II, Behringstraße 21, Trier, GermanyChristoph EmmerlingDepartamento de Ciencias Básicas, Instituto de Ecología y Desarrollo Sustentable, Universidad Nacional de Luján, Av. Constitución y Ruta 5, Luján, ArgentinaLiliana B. FalcoAnimal Biodiversity and Evolution, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta 37, Barcelona, SpainRosa FernándezDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, 1170 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, USASteven J. Fonte & Tunsisa T. HurissoBiodiversity and Systematic Network, Institute of Ecology A.C., El Haya, Xalapa, Veracruz, 91070, MexicoCarlos FragosoDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, 200 West Lake Street, Fort Collins, CO, USAAndré L. C. FrancoDepartment of Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies, University of the Philippines Mindanao, Tugbok District, Davao, PhilippinesAbegail FusileroLaboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Environmental Toxicology Unit – GhEnToxLab, Ghent University, Campus Coupure, Coupure Links 653, Ghent, BelgiumAbegail FusileroCenter for Forest Ecology and Productivity RAS, Profsoyuznaya st. 84/32 bldg. 14, Moscow, RussiaAnna P. GeraskinaRazi University, Kermanshah, IranShaieste Gholami & Ehsan SayadUnited States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 1201 Ceiba Street, San Juan, Puerto RicoGrizelle GonzálezDepartment of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skogsmarksgrand 17, 901 83, Umeå, SwedenMichael J. GundaleDepartment of Biology, University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8 A, Osijek, CroatiaBranimir K. Hackenberger & Davorka K. HackenbergerAgriculture engineering, Agroecology Postgraduate Program, Maranhão State University, Avenida Lourenço Vieira da Silva 1000, São Luis, BrazilLuis M. Hernández & Guillaume X. RousseauDepartment of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, Agriculture Victoria, Chiltern Valley Road, Rutherglen, AustraliaJeff R. HirthFaculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 394 Tsubakuro, Sasaguri, Fukuoka, 811-2415, JapanTakuo HishiMinnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road, St Paul, MN, USAAndrew R. HoldsworthDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, Aarhus, DenmarkMartin HolmstrupDepartment of Biological Science, Northern Kentucky University, 1 Nunn Drive, Highland Heights, KY, USAKristine N. HopfenspergerAgricultura Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Av. Polígono s/n Cd. Industrial Lerma, Campeche, Campeche, MexicoEsperanza Huerta LwangaSoil Physics and Land Management Group, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsteeg 4, Wageningen, The NetherlandsEsperanza Huerta Lwanga & Loes van SchaikDept. of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Box 35, Jyväskylä, FinlandVeikko HuhtaCollege of Agriculture, Environmental and Human Sciences, Lincoln University of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, 65101, USATunsisa T. HurissoSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, USABasil V. Iannone IIISustainable Development and Environmental Engineering, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Banat “King Michael the 1st of Romania” from Timisoara, Calea Aradului 119, Timisoara, RomaniaMadalina IordacheInstitute for Ecosystem Research, University of Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 40, 24098, Kiel, GermanyUlrich IrmlerTartu College, Tallinn University of Technology, Puiestee 78, Tartu, EstoniaMari IvaskDepartment of Soil and Water Systems, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive MS, 2340, Moscow, USAJodi L. Johnson-MaynardFaculty of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Fukushima University, Kanayagawa 1, Fukushima, JapanNobuhiro KanekoDepartment of Environment, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Matej Bel University, Tajovského 40, Banská Bystrica, SlovakiaRadoslava KanianskaUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, United KingdomAidan M. KeithLand Use and Governance, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Eberswalder Str. 84, Müncheberg, GermanyMaria L. KerneckerUFR Sciences de la Nature, UR Gestion Durable des Sols, Université Nangui Abrogoua, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoireArmand W. KonéFaculty of Natural Resources and Marine Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, 46417-76489, Noor, Mazandaran, IranYahya KoochProduction Systems, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Survontie 9 A, Jyväskylä, FinlandSanna T. KukkonenDepartment of Zoology, Pachhunga University College, Aizawl, Mizoram, IndiaH. LalthanzaraSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, 30-1 Bolshoy Boulevard, Moscow, 121205, RussiaIurii M. LebedevSAS, INRAE, Institut Agro, 35042, Rennes, FranceEdith Le CadreTropical Plant and Soil Sciences, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 3190 Maile Way, St. John 102, Honolulu, USANoa K. LincolnEcologia Aplicada, Instituto de Zoologia y Ecologia Tropical, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Los Chaguaramos, Ciudad Universitaria, Caracas, VenezuelaDanilo López-HernándezDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C, Ag Hall, Stillwater, USAScott R. Loss & Shishir PaudelUPR Systèmes de Pérennes, CIRAD, Univ Montpellier, TA B-34/02 Avenue Agropolis, Montpellier, FranceRaphael MarichalDepartment of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Prague, Czech RepublicRadim MatulaTochigi Prefectural Museum, 2-2 Mutsumi-cho, Utsunomiya, JapanYukio MinamiyaThuenen-Institute of Biodiversity, Bundesallee 65, Braunschweig, GermanyJan Hendrik MoosThuenen-Institute of Organic Farming, Trenthorst 32, Westerau, GermanyJan Hendrik MoosPlant Biology, Ecology and Earth Science, INDEHESA, University of Extremadura, Plasencia, SpainGerardo MorenoConservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Av. Rancho, poligono 2 A, Cd. Industrial de Lerma, Campeche, MexicoAlejandro Morón-RíosDepartment of Environmental Systems Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Doshisha University, Kyoto, 602-8580, JapanHasegawa MotohiroDepartment of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E Box, 2411, Leuven, BelgiumBart MuysResearch Institute for Nature and Forest, Gaverstraat 35, 9500, Geraardsbergen, BelgiumJohan NeirynckSchool of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Länggasse 85, Zollikofen, SwitzerlandLindsey NorgroveSoil Ecosystems, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Tietotie 4, Jokioinen, FinlandVisa NuutinenNatural Area Consultants, 1 West Hill School Road, Richford, NY, USAVictoria NuzzoDepartment of Zoology, PSMO College, Tirurangadi, Malappuram, Kerala, India, Malappuram, IndiaP. Mujeeb RahmanCSIRO Ocean and Atmosphere, CSIRO, New Illawarra Road, Lucas Heights, NSW, AustraliaJohan PansuUMR7144 Adaptation et Diversité en Milieu Marin, Station Biologique de Roscoff, CNRS/Sorbonne Université, Place Georges Teissier, Roscoff, FranceJohan PansuPhipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USAShishir PaudelUMR SAS, INRAE, Institut Agro Agrocampus Ouest, 35000, Rennes, FranceGuénola PérèsForest Ecology and Restoration Group, Department of Life Sciences, University of Alcalá, 28805, Alcalá De Henares, SpainLorenzo Pérez-Camacho & Salvador RebolloAdaptations du Vivant, CNRS UMR 7179, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 4 Avenue du Petit Château, Brunoy, FranceJean-François PongeDepartment of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technical University of Munich, Emil-Ramann-Str. 2, 85354, Freising, GermanyJörg PrietzelTembotov Institute of Ecology of Mountain Territories, Russian Academy of Sciences, I. Armand, 37a, Nalchik, RussiaIrina B. RapoportCenter of Excellence in Environmental Studies, King Abdulaziz University, P.O Box 80216, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi ArabiaMuhammad Imtiaz RashidGlobal Change Ecology and Evolution Research Group (GloCEE), Department of Life Sciences, University of Alcalá, 28805, Alcalá De Henares, SpainMiguel Á. RodríguezDepartment of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, 1530, Cleveland Ave. N, St. Paul, USAAlexander M. RothFriends of the Mississippi River, 101 E 5th St. Suite 2000, St Paul, USAAlexander M. RothBiology, Biodiversity and Conservation Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Maranhão, Avenida dos Portugueses 1966, São Luis, BrazilGuillaume X. RousseauInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, Kraków, PolandAnna RozenCollege of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI, 54481, USABryant ScharenbrochThe Morton Arboretum, 4100 Illinois Route 53, Lisle, IL, 60532, USABryant ScharenbrochDepartment Engineering for Crop Production, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, Potsdam, GermanyMichael SchirrmannSchool of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Agriculture and Food Science Centre, Dublin, IrelandOlaf SchmidtUCD Earth Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandOlaf SchmidtLandscape Ecology and Environmental Systems Analysis, Institute of Geoecology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Langer Kamp 19c, Braunschweig, GermanyBoris SchröderDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, Innsbruck, AustriaJulia SeeberInstitute for Alpine Environment, Eurac Research, Viale Druso 1, Bozen/Bolzano, ItalyJulia Seeber & Michael SteinwandterLaboratory of Ecosystem Modelling, Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institutskaya str., 2, Pushchino, RussiaMaxim P. ShashkovLaboratory of Computational Ecology, Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology RAS – the Branch of Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vitkevicha str., 1, Pushchino, RussiaMaxim P. ShashkovDepartment of Zoology, Khalsa College Amritsar, Amritsar, Punjab, IndiaJaswinder SinghDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, USAKatalin SzlaveczDepartment of animal biology, edaphology and geology, Faculty of Sciences (Biology), University of La Laguna, La Laguna, Santa Cruz De Tenerife, SpainJosé Antonio TalaveraForest Science, Kochi University, Monobe Otsu 200, Nankoku, JapanJiro TsukamotoJuárez Autonomous University of Tabasco, Nanotechnology Engineering, Multidisciplinary Academic Division of Jalpa de Méndez, Carr. Estatal libre Villahermosa-Comalcalco, Km 27 S/N, C.P. 86205 Jalpa de Méndez, Tabasco, MexicoSheila Uribe-LópezUnit Food & Agriculture, WWF-Netherlands, Driebergseweg 10, Zeist, The NetherlandsAnne W. de ValençaDpto. Ciencias, IS-FOOD, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Edificio Olivos – Campus Arrosadia, Pamplona, SpainIñigo VirtoDepartment of Soil, Water and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, USAAdrian A. WackettEarth Innovation Institute, 98 Battery Street Suite 250, San Francisco, USAMatthew W. WarrenUniversity of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, USAEmily R. WebsterNatural Resources & Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1910 East West Rd, Honolulu, USANathaniel H. WehrNatural Resource Sciences, McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, CanadaJoann K. WhalenThe Nature Conservancy, 4245 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, USAMichael B. WironenAnimal Ecology, Justus Liebig University, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26, Giessen, GermanyVolkmar WoltersInstitute of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Southwest Minzu University, Chengdu, ChinaPengfei WuLaboratory of terrestrial ecosystems, Federal Research Centre “Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences”, Institute of North Industrial Ecology Problems (INEP KSC RAS), Akademgorodok, 14a, Apatity, Murmansk, Province, RussiaIrina V. ZenkovaKey Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for the Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions (Henan University), Ministry of Education, College of Environment and Planning, Henan University, Kaifeng, ChinaWeixin ZhangFaculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Post Office Box 65, FI 00014, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FinlandErin K. CameronThe sWorm workshops were organised by N.E., E.K.C. and H.R.P.P., with funding acquired by N.E., E.K.C. and M.P.T. Data collation and formatting was led by H.R.P.P., with assistance from J.K., M.J.I.B., G.B., K.B.G. and B.S. Harmonisation of earthworm species names was completed by G.B., M.J.I.B., M.L.C.B. and P.L. Advice and feedback on data collation protocols was provided by E.M.B., M.J.I.B., G.B., O.F., C.A.G., B.K.R., A.O., D.R., and D.H.W. Writing of the manuscript was led by H.R.P.P. All authors provided input and comments on the manuscript. The majority of authors provided data to the database. More

RESEARCH SUMMARY

21 May 2021

Balancing carbon storage under elevated CO2

A global synthesis of experiments reveals that increases in plant biomass under conditions of elevated CO2 mean that plants need to mine the soil for nutrients, which decreases soil’s ability to store carbon. In forests, elevated CO2 generally seems to greatly increase plant biomass, but not soil carbon. In grasslands, by contrast, it causes small changes in biomass and large increases in soil carbon.

César Terrer

 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5479-3486

0

César Terrer

Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA; and the Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

This is a summary of Terrer, C. et al. A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03306-8 (2021).

Access options

Access through your institution

Change institution

Buy or subscribe

/* style specs start */
style{display:none!important}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 *{align-content:stretch;align-items:stretch;align-self:auto;animation-delay:0s;animation-direction:normal;animation-duration:0s;animation-fill-mode:none;animation-iteration-count:1;animation-name:none;animation-play-state:running;animation-timing-function:ease;azimuth:center;backface-visibility:visible;background-attachment:scroll;background-blend-mode:normal;background-clip:borderBox;background-color:transparent;background-image:none;background-origin:paddingBox;background-position:0 0;background-repeat:repeat;background-size:auto auto;block-size:auto;border-block-end-color:currentcolor;border-block-end-style:none;border-block-end-width:medium;border-block-start-color:currentcolor;border-block-start-style:none;border-block-start-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-left-radius:0;border-bottom-right-radius:0;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-collapse:separate;border-image-outset:0s;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-inline-end-color:currentcolor;border-inline-end-style:none;border-inline-end-width:medium;border-inline-start-color:currentcolor;border-inline-start-style:none;border-inline-start-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-spacing:0;border-top-color:currentcolor;border-top-left-radius:0;border-top-right-radius:0;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;bottom:auto;box-decoration-break:slice;box-shadow:none;box-sizing:border-box;break-after:auto;break-before:auto;break-inside:auto;caption-side:top;caret-color:auto;clear:none;clip:auto;clip-path:none;color:initial;column-count:auto;column-fill:balance;column-gap:normal;column-rule-color:currentcolor;column-rule-style:none;column-rule-width:medium;column-span:none;column-width:auto;content:normal;counter-increment:none;counter-reset:none;cursor:auto;display:inline;empty-cells:show;filter:none;flex-basis:auto;flex-direction:row;flex-grow:0;flex-shrink:1;flex-wrap:nowrap;float:none;font-family:initial;font-feature-settings:normal;font-kerning:auto;font-language-override:normal;font-size:medium;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal;font-style:normal;font-synthesis:weight style;font-variant:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-position:normal;font-weight:400;grid-auto-columns:auto;grid-auto-flow:row;grid-auto-rows:auto;grid-column-end:auto;grid-column-gap:0;grid-column-start:auto;grid-row-end:auto;grid-row-gap:0;grid-row-start:auto;grid-template-areas:none;grid-template-columns:none;grid-template-rows:none;height:auto;hyphens:manual;image-orientation:0deg;image-rendering:auto;image-resolution:1dppx;ime-mode:auto;inline-size:auto;isolation:auto;justify-content:flexStart;left:auto;letter-spacing:normal;line-break:auto;line-height:normal;list-style-image:none;list-style-position:outside;list-style-type:disc;margin-block-end:0;margin-block-start:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-inline-end:0;margin-inline-start:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;margin-top:0;mask-clip:borderBox;mask-composite:add;mask-image:none;mask-mode:matchSource;mask-origin:borderBox;mask-position:0% 0%;mask-repeat:repeat;mask-size:auto;mask-type:luminance;max-height:none;max-width:none;min-block-size:0;min-height:0;min-inline-size:0;min-width:0;mix-blend-mode:normal;object-fit:fill;object-position:50% 50%;offset-block-end:auto;offset-block-start:auto;offset-inline-end:auto;offset-inline-start:auto;opacity:1;order:0;orphans:2;outline-color:initial;outline-offset:0;outline-style:none;outline-width:medium;overflow:visible;overflow-wrap:normal;overflow-x:visible;overflow-y:visible;padding-block-end:0;padding-block-start:0;padding-bottom:0;padding-inline-end:0;padding-inline-start:0;padding-left:0;padding-right:0;padding-top:0;page-break-after:auto;page-break-before:auto;page-break-inside:auto;perspective:none;perspective-origin:50% 50%;pointer-events:auto;position:static;quotes:initial;resize:none;right:auto;ruby-align:spaceAround;ruby-merge:separate;ruby-position:over;scroll-behavior:auto;scroll-snap-coordinate:none;scroll-snap-destination:0 0;scroll-snap-points-x:none;scroll-snap-points-y:none;scroll-snap-type:none;shape-image-threshold:0;shape-margin:0;shape-outside:none;tab-size:8;table-layout:auto;text-align:initial;text-align-last:auto;text-combine-upright:none;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:solid;text-emphasis-color:currentcolor;text-emphasis-position:over right;text-emphasis-style:none;text-indent:0;text-justify:auto;text-orientation:mixed;text-overflow:clip;text-rendering:auto;text-shadow:none;text-transform:none;text-underline-position:auto;top:auto;touch-action:auto;transform:none;transform-box:borderBox;transform-origin:50% 50% 0;transform-style:flat;transition-delay:0s;transition-duration:0s;transition-property:all;transition-timing-function:ease;vertical-align:baseline;visibility:visible;white-space:normal;widows:2;width:auto;will-change:auto;word-break:normal;word-spacing:normal;word-wrap:normal;writing-mode:horizontalTb;z-index:auto;-webkit-appearance:none;-moz-appearance:none;-ms-appearance:none;appearance:none;margin:0}.LiveAreaSection-193358632{width:100%}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .login-option-buybox{display:block;width:100%;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-access-options{display:block;font-weight:700;font-size:17px;line-height:30px;color:#222;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child)::before{transform:translateY(-50%);content:”;height:1rem;position:absolute;top:50%;left:0;border-left:2px solid #999}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li:not(:first-child){padding-left:10px}.LiveAreaSection-193358632 .additional-login >li{display:inline-block;position:relative;vertical-align:middle;padding-right:10px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;flex:1;flex-direction:row-reverse;margin:-30px -15px 0}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .box-inner{width:100%;height:100%}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:1;flex-basis:255px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .subscribe-buybox{background-color:#f3f3f3;flex-shrink:1;flex-grow:4;flex-basis:300px;background-clip:content-box;padding:0 15px;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:29%;margin-left:29%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .title-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:24px;line-height:32px;color:#222;padding-top:30px;text-align:center;font-family:Harding,Palatino,serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .asia-link{color:#069;cursor:pointer;text-decoration:none;font-size:1.05em;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:1.05em6}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-readcube{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:10%;margin-left:10%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-asia-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:5%;margin-left:5%;font-size:14px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .access-buybox{display:block;margin:0;margin-right:30%;margin-left:30%;font-size:14px;color:#222;opacity:.8px;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-buybox{display:block;font-size:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;padding-top:30px;text-align:center}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .price-from{font-size:14px;padding-right:10px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .issue-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;text-align:center;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:19px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .no-price-buybox{display:block;font-size:13px;line-height:18px;text-align:center;padding-right:10%;padding-left:10%;padding-bottom:20px;padding-top:30px;color:#222;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .vat-buybox{display:block;margin-top:5px;margin-right:20%;margin-left:20%;font-size:11px;color:#222;padding-top:10px;padding-bottom:15px;text-align:center;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;line-height:17px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container{display:block;padding-right:20px;padding-left:20px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-container >a:hover,.Button-505204839:hover{text-decoration:none}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .readcube-button{background:#fff;margin-top:30px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-asia{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:75px}.BuyBoxSection-683559780 .button-label-asia,.ButtonLabel-3869432492{display:block;color:#fff;font-size:17px;line-height:20px;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,”Helvetica Neue”,sans-serif;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;cursor:pointer}.Button-505204839{background:#069;border:1px solid #069;border-radius:0;cursor:pointer;display:block;padding:9px;outline:0;text-align:center;text-decoration:none;min-width:80px;margin-top:10px}.Button-505204839 .readcube-label{color:#069}
/* style specs end */Subscribe to JournalGet full journal access for 1 year$199.00only $3.90 per issueSubscribeAll prices are NET prices. VAT will be added later in the checkout.Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Additional access options:

Log in

Learn about institutional subscriptions

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01117-5

References1.van Groenigen, K. J., Qi, X., Osenberg, C. W., Luo, Y. & Hungate, B. A. Science 344, 508–509 (2014PubMedArticle
Google Scholar2.Jastrow, J. D. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 2057–2064 (2005).Article
Google Scholar3.Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V. & Ojima, D. S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 1173–1179 (1987).Article
Google Scholar4.Todd-Brown, K. E. O. et al. Biogeoscience 11, 2341–2356 (2014).Article
Google Scholar5.Terrer, C., Vicca, S., Hungate, B. A., Phillips, R. P. & Prentice, I. C. Science 353, 72–74 (2016).PubMedArticle
Google ScholarDownload references

Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.

Latest on:

Climate sciences

Overwintering fires in boreal forests
Article 19 MAY 21

Contrails: tweaking flight altitude could be a climate win
Correspondence 18 MAY 21

Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet — if we act now
Comment 12 MAY 21

Climate change

Overwintering fires in boreal forests
Article 19 MAY 21

Contrails: tweaking flight altitude could be a climate win
Correspondence 18 MAY 21

Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet — if we act now
Comment 12 MAY 21

Ecology

Our radical changes to Earth’s greenery began long ago — with farms, not factories
Research Highlight 20 MAY 21

Controversial forestry experiment will be largest-ever in United States
News 20 MAY 21

Overwintering fires in boreal forests
Article 19 MAY 21

Jobs from Nature Careers

All jobs

Post-Doc – Numerical and microfabrication development of 4D metamaterials for mechanical, acoustic and photonics applications
Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté (UBFC)
BESANCON, France

JOB POST

Postdoctoral Position – Ecological Modeler
The University of British Columbia (UBC)
Vancouver, Canada

JOB POST

Postdoctoral Fellow | Zandstra Stem Cell Bioengineering Lab
The University of British Columbia (UBC)
Vancouver, Canada

JOB POST

Masterthesis / internship (m/f/x)
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)
Leipzig, Germany

JOB POST

Nature Briefing
An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Email address

Yes! Sign me up to receive the daily Nature Briefing email. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy.

Sign up

Access through your institution

Change institution

Buy or subscribe

Related Articles

Effects of rising CO2 levels on carbon sequestration are coordinated above and below ground

Subjects

Climate sciences

Climate change

Ecology

Sign up to Nature Briefing
An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Email address

Yes! Sign me up to receive the daily Nature Briefing email. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy.

Sign up More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

1.Lawrence, M. G. et al. Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat. Commun. 9, 3734 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L. & Keith, D. W. Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 °C Paris target. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20160454 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Crutzen, P. J. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77, 211–220 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Ahlm, L. et al. Marine cloud brightening—as effective without clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 13071–13087 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Muri, H. et al. Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multimethod comparison. J. Clim. 31, 6319–6340 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Kravitz, B. et al. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Atmos. Sci. Lett. 12, 162–167 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Robock, A., Oman, L. & Stenchikov, G. L. Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D16101 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Tjiputra, J. F., Grini, A. & Lee, H. Impact of idealized future stratospheric aerosol injection on the large-scale ocean and land carbon cycles. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 2015JG003045 (2016).
Google Scholar 
9.Russell, L. M. et al. Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan. Ambio 41, 350–369 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Xia, L. et al. Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: a case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 8695–8711 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Zhan, P., Zhu, W., Zhang, T., Cui, X. & Li, N. Impacts of sulfate geoengineering on rice yield in china: results from a multimodel ensemble. Earth Future 7, 395–410 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Parkes, B., Challinor, A. & Nicklin, K. Crop failure rates in a geoengineered climate: impact of climate change and marine cloud brightening. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084003 (2015).13.Yang, H. et al. Potential negative consequences of geoengineering on crop production: a study of Indian groundnut. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 11786–11795 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Pongratz, J., Lobell, D. B., Cao, L. & Caldeira, K. Crop yields in a geoengineered climate. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 101–105 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Proctor, J., Hsiang, S., Burney, J., Burke, M. & Schlenker, W. Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions. Nature 560, 480–483 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Tjiputra, J. F. et al. Evaluation of the carbon cycle components in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM). Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 301–325 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.MacMartin, D. G. & Kravitz, B. Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1089–1094 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Lombardozzi, D. L. et al. Simulating agriculture in the community land model version 5. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005529 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
19.Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Google Scholar 
20.O’Neill, B. C. et al. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).22.FAOSTAT (FAO, 2019); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/QC23.Tai, A. P. K., Martin, M. V. & Heald, C. L. Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 817–821 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Hsiao, J., Swann, A. L. S. & Kim, S.-H. Maize yield under a changing climate: the hidden role of vapor pressure deficit. Agric. For. Meteorol. 279, 107692 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Grossiord, C. et al. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16485 (2020).26.Rigden, A. J., Mueller, N. D., Holbrook, N. M., Pillai, N. & Huybers, P. Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields. Nat. Food 1, 127–133 (2020).
Google Scholar 
27.Konings, A. G., Williams, A. P. & Gentine, P. Sensitivity of grassland productivity to aridity controlled by stomatal and xylem regulation. Nat. Geosci. 10, 284–288 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2: Tansley review. New Phytol. 165, 351–372 (2004).
Google Scholar 
30.Bishop, K. A., Leakey, A. D. B. & Ainsworth, E. A. How seasonal temperature or water inputs affect the relative response of C3 crops to elevated CO2: a global analysis of open top chamber and free air CO2 enrichment studies. Food Energy Secur. 3, 33–45 (2014).
Google Scholar 
31.Ainsworth, E. A. et al. A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on soybean (Glycine max) physiology, growth and yield. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 695–709 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
32.Leakey, A. D. B. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the future of C4 crops for food and fuel. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2333–2343 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising CO2: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 258–270 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.National Research Council Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (National Academies, 2015); https://doi.org/10.17226/1898835.Lutsko, N. J., Seeley, J. T. & Keith, D. W. Estimating impacts and trade-offs in solar geoengineering scenarios with a moist energy balance model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087290 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
36.Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
37.Tilmes, S. et al. The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 11,036–11,058 (2013).
Google Scholar 
38.Lawrence, D. M. et al. The community land model version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Fisher, R. A. et al. Parametric controls on vegetation responses to biogeochemical forcing in the CLM5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 2879–2895 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Bonan, G. B. et al. Model structure and climate data uncertainty in historical simulations of the terrestrial carbon cycle (1850–2014). Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1310–1326 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Osborne, T., Rose, G. & Wheeler, T. Variation in the global-scale impacts of climate change on crop productivity due to climate model uncertainty and adaptation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 183–194 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
42.Peng, B. et al. Improving maize growth processes in the community land model: implementation and evaluation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 250–251, 64–89 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
43.Buzan, J. R. & Huber, M. Moist heat stress on a hotter earth. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 623–655 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Wieder, W. R. et al. Beyond static benchmarking: using experimental manipulations to evaluate land model assumptions. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1289–1309 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Mercado, L. M. et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Cheng, S. J. et al. Variations in the influence of diffuse light on gross primary productivity in temperate ecosystems. Agric. For. Meteorol. 201, 98–110 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Shao, L. et al. The fertilization effect of global dimming on crop yields is not attributed to an improved light interception. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1697–1713 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Vattioni, S. et al. Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 4877–4897 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Levis, S., Badger, A., Drewniak, B., Nevison, C. & Ren, X. CLMcrop yields and water requirements: avoided impacts by choosing RCP 4.5 over 8.5. Climatic Change 146, 501–515 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
50.Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).
Google Scholar 
51.Lauvset, S. K., Tjiputra, J. & Muri, H. Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production. Biogeosciences 14, 5675–5691 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Climatic Change 109, 117–161 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
53.West, T. O. et al. Cropland carbon fluxes in the United States: increasing geospatial resolution of inventory-based carbon accounting. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1074–1086 (2010).
Google Scholar 
54.Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Farquhar, G., von Caemmerer, Svon & Berry, J. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M. & Berry, J. A. Coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model for leaves of C4 plants. Funct. Plant Biol. 19, 519–538 (1992).
Google Scholar 
57.Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B., Nösberger, J. & Ort, D. R. Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312, 1918–1921 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.The NCAR Command Language (NCL, Version 6.5.0) (UCAR, NCAR, CISL, TDD, 2018); https://doi.org/10.5065/D6WD3XH5 More

After preprocessing the data, methods consisted of spatial analyses to map areas at risk of conflict; statistical analyses to identify the most important factors affecting lion and elephant population numbers; economic analyses to estimate the EAA of building and maintaining mitigation fences in areas under severe and high risk of conflict, and fragmentation analyses to assess the impact of fences on migratory mammal species. We describe each step in detail below (see Supplementary Fig. 2 for a flowchart of the analysis). All spatial data were converted to vectors for analysis to reduce commission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be present) when converting the species-range maps from vector to raster. Data preprocessing was carried out using the open source database PostgreSQL 11.4 (https://www.postgresql.org/about/) with the GIS extensions of PostGIS 2.5 (https://postgis.net/); conflict mapping and range fragmentation analyses used PostgreSQL 11.4 and PostGIS 2.5, and Python v. 3.7.060; statistical and economic analyses used R v. 3.6.061; sensitivity analyses used PostgreSQL 11.4 and PostGIS 2.5, and Python v. 3.7.060 and R v. 3.6.061.PreprocessingHuman pressuresHuman pressure layers were independently generated from this study. We used Gridded Population of the World Version 4 (GPWv4) as a layer for human population density62. GPWv4 is a minimally modelled data set consisting of estimates of human population (number of persons per raster grid cell) based on non-spatial population data (i.e., tabular counts of population listed by administrative area) and spatially explicit administrative boundary data. Population input data are collected at the most detailed spatial resolution available from the results of the 2010 round of Population and Housing Censuses. The input data are then extrapolated to 2020 using calculated growth rates to produce future population estimates. A proportional allocation gridding algorithm, utilizing ~13.5 million national and subnational administrative units, assigned population counts to 30 arcsecond (~1 km at the equator) grid cells. The population density rasters were created by dividing the population count raster for a given target year by the land-area raster.We used the most recent version of the Gridded Livestock of the World database63, reflecting the compiled and harmonized subnational livestock distribution data for 2010, to extract information on cattle density. The data set provides global population densities of cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, and ducks in each land pixel at a spatial resolution of 0.083333 decimal degrees (~10 km at the equator). Detailed livestock census statistics are mined from agricultural yearbooks or through direct contacts with ministries or statistical bureaus. The census statistics are usually found in the form of numbers per administrative unit that must be linked to corresponding geographic information system boundaries. Densities are estimated in each census polygon by dividing the number of animals from the census by the surface area of the administrative unit polygon (estimated in an Albert equal-area projection), corrected by a mask excluding unsuitable areas. Livestock densities were then extracted from the subnational census data and were used as the dependent variable in Random Forest models to estimate a density value in each pixel, based on raster predictor variables.We used spatially detailed crop maps available from the Copernicus Global Land Cover map at ~0.001° (~100 m) resolution64. The land-cover map is a discrete map with ten continuous cover fractions (nine base land-cover classes and seasonal water) to provide spatial information about land for a diversity of applications, including biodiversity conservation. Cropland (as percentage of 100 m pixel that is covered by cropland) refers to cultivated and managed agriculture, but does not include perennial woody crops that are classified under the appropriate forest or shrub land-cover type64. Cropland also refers to both irrigated and rainfed agriculture. The land-cover map was generated by compiling the 5-daily PROBA-V multi-spectral image data with a Ground Sampling Distance of ~0.001° as the primary earth observation data and PROBA-V UTM daily multi-spectral image data with a Ground Sampling Distance of ~0.003° (~300 m) as the secondary earth observation data. Next, the 5-daily PROBA-V 100 m and daily 300 m datasets were fused using a Kalman filtering approach. The global overall accuracy of the product for the base year 2015 was calculated through an independent pre-validation and reached 80%.Species-range mapsUpdated range maps showing current distribution for lions and elephants were provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Cat and African Elephant Specialist Groups65. In addition to the range maps, the specialist groups provided information on the number of African lions (2018) and elephants (2016) within sites where they are still extant. We also obtained species-range maps for all terrestrial mammal species in orders Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Carnivora occurring in Africa from the IUCN Red List portal (www.iucnredlist.org/). Mammal species in these orders include migratory mammal species (e.g., the common wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus), which might be negatively affected by mitigation fences, e.g., by potentially blocking migratory routes.Protected areasThe data on protected areas were based on the May 2019 release of the World Database on Protected Areas66 (retrieved from http://www.protectedplanet.net). To prevent overestimation of the area coverage of protected areas caused by overlapping designations, we merged polygons into a single layer. We only included in the analysis IUCN categories Ia (Strict Nature Reserve), Ib (Wilderness Area), II (National Park), III (Natural Monument or Feature), and IV (Habitat/Species Management Area), because we wanted to prevent fences from excluding people from protected areas that had been modified by the interaction of nature and people over time (e.g., V, Protected Landscape/Seascape).Mapping potential risk of conflictA database on the spatial distribution of conflict locations between humans and lions and elephants is not available across Africa. We therefore mapped the most prominent factors known to affect conflict: human population density (for both lion and elephant), crop raiding (elephants), and cattle killing (lions)8. Furthermore, spatial modelling of range contractions in carnivores showed that contractions were significantly more likely in regions with high rural human population density, cattle density, and/or cropland4. Therefore, we only retained areas where human, cattle, and crop densities were in the first decile (in our case, the first decile is the decile with the highest human population, crop, and cattle densities) by PostgreSQL/PostGIS. Using only the highest decile likely resulted in a conservative map of spatial conflict.We further classified areas at the highest potential conflict into low, moderate, high, or severe risk of conflict. Specifically, areas at severe risk of conflict are those where the highest human population, crop, and cattle densities all overlap; areas at high risk of conflict are those with overlaps between the highest densities of human population and either crops or cattle; areas at moderate risk of conflict are the areas where the highest crop and cattle densities overlap; and areas at low risk of conflict are those with only one human pressure, i.e., the highest human population, or crop, or cattle density. The remainder was considered as being at no risk of conflict, as it did not meet any of the above criteria, but note the conservative nature of our analysis (see above).The lion and elephant range maps and the protected area layer were intersected to select all protected areas that contain parts of lion and elephant range and/or were adjacent to the species-range maps. The identified protected areas were then merged with the species-range maps to create a new extended range layer (see for an example in Supplementary Fig. 1). These extended range maps were used (i) to identify potential areas where lions and elephants could be restored, and (ii) to avoid interrupting ecological processes (e.g., migrations) and/or causing unintended consequences (e.g., fragment populations) to other biodiversity in neighbouring protected areas.We then identified areas at risk of conflict by intersecting the extended range map layer for lions and elephants with the classified conflict map. In all cases, the intersections were carried out so that the classified conflict areas were either adjacent to, or within a distance of 10 km from, the edge of the extended range map layer. We set this distance to consider the wide-ranging behaviour of both lions and elephants, to account for the fact that conflict decreases at greater distances from protected area boundaries37,38, and to account for the fact that future human pressures will likely increase before conservation actions take place2.We assessed how robust our results were to commission (where human pressure is mistakenly assumed to exist) and omission (where human pressure is mistakenly assumed to be absent) errors in the human pressure maps by carrying out a sensitivity analysis that randomly varied the distances between the extended range maps and the human pressure maps. We first used Latin hypercube sampling, which is a form of sampling used to reduce the number of runs necessary for a Monte Carlo simulation to achieve a reasonably accurate random distribution67, to randomly vary 100 times the distance values between the extended range and human pressure maps. Specifically, we divided the low, moderate, high, and severe conflict lines into 100 m segments, calculated the minimum distance for each segment to human pressure within a 10, 20, and 30 km buffer distance from the edge of the extended range map layer, and then randomly varied that distance 100 times across ±10% of the value. We then averaged the resulting 100 randomly created distance values for each segment and identified which segments fell outside of the analyzed buffer distances of 10, 20, and 30 km. We tested for 20 and 30 km buffer distances, as we wanted to assess the variability of the fencing distance to different buffer sizes. We also estimated the certainty of lion and elephant presence by identifying segments of the perimeter of the range maps of lion and elephant that overlapped with protected areas. We did this as we had information on certain presence of both species from within protected areas, as opposed to areas extending outside of protected areas.Statistical analysesWe used an information theoretic approach68 and Bayesian information criterion to calculate statistical models. We used generalized linear mixed models with a negative‐binomial error distribution to account for over-dispersed count data and a log‐link function to examine factors affecting lion (n = 77) and elephant (n = 191) population sizes in Africa. Generalized linear mixed models were fitted with both random and fixed effects, to capture the data structure. Country was included as a random intercept to represent the hierarchical structure of the data. All variables listed in Supplementary Table 8 were fitted as fixed effects, i.e., with constant regression coefficients across countries. The site-specific variables were calculated only for sites where lions and elephants are currently present and not for the extended ranges. For transboundary sites that stretch across countries, we used the value for Gross Domestic Product, Conservation expenditure, and the Ibrahim Index of African Governance, for the country making the largest area contribution to the site. We compared and ranked models using the Bayesian information criterion68. To avoid multicollinearity among variables, we only selected variables with the strongest effect on population numbers that correlated at r 0.7 was selected as an input into the modelling process. We assessed each model’s relative probability, using Bayesian information criterion weights and the structural goodness-of-fit from the percentage of deviance explained by the model. We determined the magnitude and direction of the coefficients for the independent variables with multi-model averaging implemented in the R package glmulti69. The relative importance of each predictor variable was measured as the sum of the weights over the six top‐ranked models with Bayesian information criterion values closer to that of the best model containing the parameter of interest. Finally, we used a 10-fold cross-validation (a bootstrap resampling procedure using 1000 iterations) to assess the predictive ability of the top-ranked model.Range fragmentation analysesWe assessed how the proposed mitigation fences affected species-range connectivity by calculating the perimeter length-to-area ratio for mammal species in orders Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Carnivora, whose ranges were identified as intersecting with areas at severe risk of conflict. Minimizing the perimeter length-to-area ratio is an important method of optimizing protected area design, resulting in compact reserves with high connectivity that can enhance persistence of the species. The smaller the ratio, the greater the clumping and connectivity of the species ranges. Specifically, we calculated the ratios of perimeter length to area for the ranges of 20 migratory mammalian species (i) under current conditions without fences and (ii) under future conditions where the identified mitigation fences would pass through their ranges. In the latter case, we used a 20 m buffer around the identified fences to account for further habitat clearance due to maintaining clearances around the fences for management purposes.Economic analysesWe used EAA to estimate the return on investment of building and maintaining mitigation fences to reduce cattle loss and crop damage. EAA calculates the constant annual cash flow generated by a project over its lifespan if it were an annuity and the annuity can then be compared to other projects of similar or different lifespan. Therefore, the measure potentially provides an important means for funders/donors to compare different investment opportunities. EAA is calculated by dividing the NPV of a project by the present value of annuity factor39. We started by calculating NPV in countries with areas at severe and high risk of conflict as:$${{NPV}}={sum }_{i}^{n}frac{{R}_{i}}{{left(1+dright)}^{i}}-Z$$
(1)
where ({R}_{i}) is net cash flow, (d) is the discount rate specific to each country (Supplementary Table 9), n is the number of time periods, (i) is the cash flow period, and (Z) is the initial investment of building the fences. NPV was calculated over a 10-year investment period. ({R}_{i}) was calculated as:$${R}_{i}=B-C$$
(2)
where (B) is the economic benefit derived from mitigation fences and (C) is the cost of maintaining mitigation fences. The economic benefits of mitigation fences for countries with severe risk of conflict refer to the potential reduction in cattle loss (for lions) and crop damage (for elephants) derived from building fences:$$B=L+E$$
(3)
where (L) represents the economic benefits of reducing cattle loss and (E) measures the economic benefits of reducing crop damage. For countries with high risk of conflict, the benefit ((B)) is derived from one or the other, i.e., (B) = (L) or (B) = (E).$$L=v * w * P$$
(4)
where (v) is the number of cattle that are not lost because of the presence of fences, (w) is the average weight in kg of adult cattle in that country, and (P) is the price of meat per kg paid to producers in that country in 2017 (data can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP). (v) was calculated as the percentage of total cattle present in the 10 km buffer adjacent to severe and high conflict areas, which could potentially be killed, based on published estimates across Africa45. Estimates range from 0.8 to 2.6% of cattle losses, and we decided to use a conservative 1% loss in the analysis (see below for how we accounted for uncertainty in model parameters). (w) was based on the average weight of an adult cow with estimates available at a regional level (west Africa: 262 kg; central Africa: 281 kg; east Africa: 283 kg; and southern Africa: 339 kg)70.$$E=left(d * Aright) * y * P$$
(5)
where (d) is the percentage of crop area damaged by elephants; data are taken from published estimates (ranging from 0.2 to 4% and we used a conservative 1% in the analysis)44; (A) is the total area in km2 available as crops in the 10 km buffer adjacent to the areas at severe and high risk of conflict; (y) is the yield (ton/km2) for the crop known to be targeted by elephants (cassava, maize, millet, banana, sorghum, groundnuts)44, which covered the largest area size in that country in 2017 (data calculated from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP); and (P) is the price per ton paid to producers for that crop in that country in 2017 (data can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP). Although there might be several crops available within the buffer, this information is currently not available at the continental scale. Therefore, we decided to use the most common cultivated crop known to be targeted by elephants in each country.The cost of maintaining mitigation fences ((C)) was calculated as:$$C=f * c$$
(6)
where f is the fence length in that country and (c) is the cost for maintaining the fence. We obtained cost estimates of building (Z) and maintaining ((c)) the fences from Pekor et al.33. We used the median estimated current cost of USD 9522 per km for building fences and the median stated annual budget cost of USD 487 per km for adequate fence inspection and maintenance. This is the most up-to-date information validated through peer review on the costs (converted to 2017 USD) across Africa33. Cost estimates varied across surveyed conservation areas because of fence height and materials but included relevant costs of electrification and predator-proof structures33. The data were collected from 29 partially fenced ( More

The author wishes to thank N. Haan, G. P. Robertson and N. Haddad for their valuable comments. Financial support was provided by USDA/NIFA (awards 2019-67012-29595 and 2015-68007-23133), the US National Science Foundation’s Long-term Ecological Research Program (award 1637653), the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research (awards DESC0018409 and DE-FC02-07ER64494), and Michigan State University AgBioResearch. More

A clear-cut slope in the Elliott State Forest, Oregon.Credit: Matthew Betts

Despite lingering tensions among environmentalists and loggers, a plan to launch the largest forestry experiment in the United States — and perhaps the world — last month cleared a major hurdle. Controversially, the study would allow logging in a new research forest, in an attempt to answer a grand question: in a world where wood remains a necessary resource, but biodiversity is declining, what’s the best way to balance timber production with conservation?“We all love wood, and we all need wood,” says Thomas DeLuca, dean of the College of Forestry at Oregon State University (OSU) in Corvallis. “We have to find ways to produce it sustainably, and this project could help us do that.”
These scientists are setting a forest on fire — and studying it with drones
If the project — proposed by DeLuca and other researchers at OSU — launches successfully, the newly created Elliott State Research Forest in southwestern Oregon would occupy a roughly 33,000-hectare parcel of land. This would be divided into more than 40 sections, in which scientists would test several forest-management strategies, some including extensive logging. The advisory committee for the project, which comprises environmentalists, hunters, loggers and members of local Indigenous tribes, approved the latest research proposal on 22 April.The plan comes as US President Joe Biden and other international leaders are strengthening commitments to conserve land and biodiversity before a meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity later this year. In time, the Elliott research forest could help policymakers to determine how best to define and implement those pledges, says DeLuca.A contested forestFor decades, the land that makes up the Elliott State Forest has been mired in controversy. Logging is big business in the US Pacific Northwest, and this particular state-owned piece of land contains old-growth forest filled with valuable Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and other trees. Other sections have been actively logged and replanted since 1930. It also hosts threatened species such as the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) and the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), a seabird that nests in old-growth forests. In 2012, a lawsuit aimed at protecting the marbled murrelet brought commercial logging in the forest to a halt.

Source: Deanne Carlson, OSU/Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office; Design: Nature

The state of Oregon considered various options for the land, before OSU researchers stepped forward with a plan in 2018. Their proposal to convert the property into a research forest would allow logging to resume at a lower level — but in the service of science and conservation, the scientists say. According to the plan, the profit from logging in the Elliott forest — around US$5 million to $7 million annually, says DeLuca — would help to pay for the experiment’s infrastructure and operations.There are dozens of research forests around the globe, including in the United States, and scientists have used them to study everything from ecology and soils to acid rain and the effects of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. But the Elliott research forest would be larger than most of its predecessors, and advocates say that it would provide scientists with the first opportunity to test ecological forestry at such a large scale.A sea change for forestryAs currently designed, the project would leave more than 40% of the forest — a section of old growth that has been regenerating naturally since the area last burnt, a century and a half ago — untouched by logging. In the remaining area, researchers would run a series of replicated experiments, carrying out 4 types of land management across 40 small watersheds. On some plots, selective logging of individual trees would take place across the entire area. On others, clear-cutting would take place on half of the land, with the other half reserved for conservation. Other types of experimental plot would mix these two approaches (see ‘A grand experiment’). To understand the impacts of each management type, scientists would measure a variety of parameters, including levels of carbon in the forest; stream health; and insect, bird and fish diversity.So far, around 20 OSU researchers are involved in the project’s design, but the university hopes eventually to attract more scientists from across the world, who would run their own projects.

Old-growth areas such as this one would be protected as reserves under a plan to convert the Elliott State Forest into an experimental forest.Credit: Matthew Betts

The scale and approach of the experiment proposed by OSU would represent a sea change in forestry research, says Sue Baker, a forest ecologist at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, who is setting up a retrospective study looking at similar questions in Tasmanian forests. “I can’t think of anything similar anywhere in the world where people have been able to manipulate the forest landscape at this scale,” says Baker.More hurdles aheadSince its creation in 1930, the Elliott State Forest has been legally obliged to generate revenue for Oregon’s public schools through logging. Before OSU can take it over, the state must compensate the school fund to the tune of $221 million (the value of the forest); it has so far allocated less than half of that amount.And other hurdles remain. The university must finish a detailed management plan that will lay out rules governing the forest, and it must craft a separate plan for managing threatened and endangered species; this will need to be approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
How much can forests fight climate change?
The OSU team has spent the past few years trying to build a broad — and unlikely — coalition for the effort, through public meetings and engagement with local Indigenous tribes, industry, environmentalists and other members of the project’s advisory panel, whose support will be crucial as state leaders weigh their final decision. But tensions haven’t disappeared entirely. Many environmentalists continue to question the logic of clear-cutting forests that absorb and store carbon in the middle of a climate crisis. Rather than perpetuating a long and damaging legacy of clear-cutting, the Elliott forest could be used to pioneer new forestry methods that restore biodiversity and boost carbon storage, says Josh Laughlin, executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, a conservation group based in Eugene, Oregon. “Let’s not make the same mistakes we’ve made over the past 100 years.”Given OSU’s long-standing ties to the timber industry, and controversies surrounding its management of existing research forests, it will also need to overcome scepticism about its role as a land steward, says Bob Van Dyk, a policy director at the Wild Salmon Center, an environmental group based in Portland, Oregon. In 2019, for instance, OSU’s College of Forestry authorized clear-cutting on 6.5 hectares of one of its forests, felling trees that were hundreds of years old.
When will the Amazon hit a tipping point?
DeLuca acknowledges that there have been mistakes in the past, but says the university has a solid academic record, and is committed to building a world-class research facility with the Elliott forest. “If we are able to demonstrate practices that accommodate the broadest array of species while still generating timber for meeting human resource needs, we can have a much larger impact,” says DeLuca.Everything will depend on the final management plan, but for now, Van Dyk and other members of the advisory board have unanimously given a provisional green light to the latest proposal. “It’s a good project, and we don’t get many chances to do something that is truly novel and interesting,” he says. More

A nineteenth-century illustration of a harvest in ancient Greece. Farming intensified around 2000 BC, when the rate of change in Earth’s plant life sped up. Credit: Docutres/Index/Heritage Images/Alamy

Ecology
20 May 2021
Our radical changes to Earth’s greenery began long ago — with farms, not factories

Humanity’s imprint on plant species and abundance began roughly 4,000 years ago, when agriculture took off.

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Human activity began to transform the number and variety of plant species on Earth thousands of years ago, long before the Industrial Revolution, and might have had an even greater impact on vegetation than did the last ice age.Ice entombed much of the planet from roughly 115,000 to some 20,000 years ago. Then, massive glaciers around the world started to retreat and global temperatures rose, resulting in dramatic alterations to Earth’s ecosystems.To investigate how the abundance and composition of global vegetation changed after that thaw, Ondřej Mottl and Suzette Flantua at the University of Bergen in Norway and their colleagues analysed 1,181 fossilized pollen samples from the past 18,000 years. The pollen came from all continents except Antarctica.The researchers found that global vegetation has been transformed, first by the climate changes that accompanied the end of the last glacial period. However, starting about 4,000 years ago, when agriculture intensified, the pace of change in global vegetation accelerated, reaching or exceeding the rate of change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Science (2021)

Ecology More