• Energy Research

The world's forests store large amounts of carbon (C), and growing forests can reduce atmospheric CO2 by storing C in their biomass. This has provided the impetus for world-wide tree planting initiatives to offset fossil-fuel emissions. However, forests interact with their environment in complex and multifaceted ways that must be considered for a balanced assessment of the value of planting trees. First, one needs to consider the potential reversibility of C sequestration in trees through either harvesting or tree death from natural factors. If carbon storage is only temporary, future temperatures will actually be higher than without tree plantings, but cumulative warming will be reduced, contributing both positively and negatively to future climate-change impacts. Alternatively, forests could be used for bioenergy or wood products to replace fossil-fuel use which would obviate the need to consider the possible reversibility of any benefits. Forests also affect the Earth's energy balance through either absorbing or reflecting incoming solar radiation. As forests generally absorb more incoming radiation than bare ground or grasslands, this constitutes an important warming effect that substantially reduces the benefit of C storage, especially in snow-covered regions. Forests also affect other local ecosystem services, such as conserving biodiversity, modifying water and nutrient cycles, and preventing erosion that could be either beneficial or harmful depending on specific circumstances. Considering all these factors, tree plantings may be beneficial or detrimental for mitigating climate-change impacts, but the range of possibilities makes generalisations difficult. Their net benefit depends on many factors that differ between specific circumstances. One can, therefore, neither uncritically endorse tree planting everywhere, nor condemn it as counter-productive. Our aim is to provide key information to enable appropriate assessments to be made under specific circumstances. We conclude our discussion by providing a step-by-step guide for assessing the merit of tree plantings under specific circumstances.

The world's forests store large amounts of carbon (C), and growing forests can reduce atmospheric CO2 by storing C in their biomass. This has provided the impetus for world-wide tree planting initiatives to offset fossil-fuel emissions. However, forests interact with their environment in complex and multifaceted ways that must be considered for a balanced assessment of the value of planting trees. First, one needs to consider the potential reversibility of C sequestration in trees through either harvesting or tree death from natural factors. If carbon storage is only temporary, future temperatures will actually be higher than without tree plantings, but cumulative warming will be reduced, contributing both positively and negatively to future climate-change impacts. Alternatively, forests could be used for bioenergy or wood products to replace fossil-fuel use which would obviate the need to consider the possible reversibility of any benefits. Forests also affect the Earth's energy balance through either absorbing or reflecting incoming solar radiation. As forests generally absorb more incoming radiation than bare ground or grasslands, this constitutes an important warming effect that substantially reduces the benefit of C storage, especially in snow-covered regions. Forests also affect other local ecosystem services, such as conserving biodiversity, modifying water and nutrient cycles, and preventing erosion that could be either beneficial or harmful depending on specific circumstances. Considering all these factors, tree plantings may be beneficial or detrimental for mitigating climate-change impacts, but the range of possibilities makes generalisations difficult. Their net benefit depends on many factors that differ between specific circumstances. One can, therefore, neither uncritically endorse tree planting everywhere, nor condemn it as counter-productive. Our aim is to provide key information to enable appropriate assessments to be made under specific circumstances. We conclude our discussion by providing a step-by-step guide for assessing the merit of tree plantings under specific circumstances.

AbstractSimulation models are extensively used to predict agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the uncertainties of (reduced) model ensemble simulations have not been assessed systematically for variables affecting food security and climate change mitigation, within multi‐species agricultural contexts. We report an international model comparison and benchmarking exercise, showing the potential of multi‐model ensembles to predict productivity and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions for wheat, maize, rice and temperate grasslands. Using a multi‐stage modelling protocol, from blind simulations (stage 1) to partial (stages 2–4) and full calibration (stage 5), 24 process‐based biogeochemical models were assessed individually or as an ensemble against long‐term experimental data from four temperate grassland and five arable crop rotation sites spanning four continents. Comparisons were performed by reference to the experimental uncertainties of observed yields and N2O emissions. Results showed that across sites and crop/grassland types, 23%–40% of the uncalibrated individual models were within two standard deviations (SD) of observed yields, while 42 (rice) to 96% (grasslands) of the models were within 1 SD of observed N2O emissions. At stage 1, ensembles formed by the three lowest prediction model errors predicted both yields and N2O emissions within experimental uncertainties for 44% and 33% of the crop and grassland growth cycles, respectively. Partial model calibration (stages 2–4) markedly reduced prediction errors of the full model ensemble E‐median for crop grain yields (from 36% at stage 1 down to 4% on average) and grassland productivity (from 44% to 27%) and to a lesser and more variable extent for N2O emissions. Yield‐scaled N2O emissions (N2O emissions divided by crop yields) were ranked accurately by three‐model ensembles across crop species and field sites. The potential of using process‐based model ensembles to predict jointly productivity and N2O emissions at field scale is discussed.

AbstractSimulation models are extensively used to predict agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the uncertainties of (reduced) model ensemble simulations have not been assessed systematically for variables affecting food security and climate change mitigation, within multi‐species agricultural contexts. We report an international model comparison and benchmarking exercise, showing the potential of multi‐model ensembles to predict productivity and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions for wheat, maize, rice and temperate grasslands. Using a multi‐stage modelling protocol, from blind simulations (stage 1) to partial (stages 2–4) and full calibration (stage 5), 24 process‐based biogeochemical models were assessed individually or as an ensemble against long‐term experimental data from four temperate grassland and five arable crop rotation sites spanning four continents. Comparisons were performed by reference to the experimental uncertainties of observed yields and N2O emissions. Results showed that across sites and crop/grassland types, 23%–40% of the uncalibrated individual models were within two standard deviations (SD) of observed yields, while 42 (rice) to 96% (grasslands) of the models were within 1 SD of observed N2O emissions. At stage 1, ensembles formed by the three lowest prediction model errors predicted both yields and N2O emissions within experimental uncertainties for 44% and 33% of the crop and grassland growth cycles, respectively. Partial model calibration (stages 2–4) markedly reduced prediction errors of the full model ensemble E‐median for crop grain yields (from 36% at stage 1 down to 4% on average) and grassland productivity (from 44% to 27%) and to a lesser and more variable extent for N2O emissions. Yield‐scaled N2O emissions (N2O emissions divided by crop yields) were ranked accurately by three‐model ensembles across crop species and field sites. The potential of using process‐based model ensembles to predict jointly productivity and N2O emissions at field scale is discussed.

A possible agricultural climate change mitigation option is to increase the amount of soil organic carbon (SOC). Conversely, some factors might lead to inadvertent losses of SOC. Here, we explore the effect of various management options and environmental changes on SOC storage and milk production of dairy pastures in New Zealand. We used CenW 4.1, a process-based ecophysiological model, to run a range of scenarios to assess the effects of changes in management options, plant properties and environmental factors on SOC and milk production. We tested the model by using 2years of observations of the exchanges of water and CO2 measured with an eddy covariance system on a dairy farm in New Zealand's Waikato region. We obtained excellent agreement between the model and observations, especially for evapotranspiration and net photosynthesis. For the scenario analysis, we found that SOC could be increased through supplying supplemental feed, increasing fertiliser application, or increasing water availability through irrigation on very dry sites, but SOC decreased again for larger increases in water availability. Soil warming strongly reduced SOC. For other changes in key properties, such as changes in soil water-holding capacity and plant root:shoot ratios, SOC changes were often negatively correlated with changes in milk production. The work showed that changes in SOC were determined by the complex interplay between (1) changes in net primary production; (2) the carbon fraction taken off-site through grazing; (3) carbon allocation within the system between labile and stabilised SOC; and (4) changes in SOC decomposition rates. There is a particularly important trade-off between carbon either being removed by grazing or remaining on site and available for SOC formation. Changes in SOC cannot be fully understood unless all four factors are considered together in an overall assessment.

A possible agricultural climate change mitigation option is to increase the amount of soil organic carbon (SOC). Conversely, some factors might lead to inadvertent losses of SOC. Here, we explore the effect of various management options and environmental changes on SOC storage and milk production of dairy pastures in New Zealand. We used CenW 4.1, a process-based ecophysiological model, to run a range of scenarios to assess the effects of changes in management options, plant properties and environmental factors on SOC and milk production. We tested the model by using 2years of observations of the exchanges of water and CO2 measured with an eddy covariance system on a dairy farm in New Zealand's Waikato region. We obtained excellent agreement between the model and observations, especially for evapotranspiration and net photosynthesis. For the scenario analysis, we found that SOC could be increased through supplying supplemental feed, increasing fertiliser application, or increasing water availability through irrigation on very dry sites, but SOC decreased again for larger increases in water availability. Soil warming strongly reduced SOC. For other changes in key properties, such as changes in soil water-holding capacity and plant root:shoot ratios, SOC changes were often negatively correlated with changes in milk production. The work showed that changes in SOC were determined by the complex interplay between (1) changes in net primary production; (2) the carbon fraction taken off-site through grazing; (3) carbon allocation within the system between labile and stabilised SOC; and (4) changes in SOC decomposition rates. There is a particularly important trade-off between carbon either being removed by grazing or remaining on site and available for SOC formation. Changes in SOC cannot be fully understood unless all four factors are considered together in an overall assessment.