Differences and uncertainties in land-use CO2 flux estimates

IF 74.1
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Clemens Schwingshackl, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Giacomo Grassi, Viola Heinrich, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Ana Bastos, Philippe Ciais, Stephen Sitch, Julia Pongratz
{"title":"Differences and uncertainties in land-use CO2 flux estimates","authors":"Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Clemens Schwingshackl, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Giacomo Grassi, Viola Heinrich, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Ana Bastos, Philippe Ciais, Stephen Sitch, Julia Pongratz","doi":"10.1038/s43017-025-00730-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accurately estimating carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from land use and land-use change (FLUC) is critical to assessing nationally determined contributions and progress towards climate targets. In this Perspective, we compare five FLUC estimation approaches, discuss the origins of large uncertainties and discrepancies in estimates and consider how to improve estimate accuracy and better align individual estimates. Global FLUC estimates between 2000 and 2023 range from net emissions of 1.9 ± 0.6 PgC yr−1 (based on dynamic global vegetation models) to net removals of −1.0 PgC yr−1 (based on Earth observations), with other estimates from bookkeeping models, country reports and atmospheric inversions falling within this range. Discrepancies arise from each approach using different definitions for FLUC, the spatial extent of managed land and including degradation and environmental effects to varying degrees. As a result, each approach accounts for different fluxes and land areas. Uncertainties within individual estimates are attributed to quality of land-use data, observational constraints and incomplete process consideration. These uncertainties can be reduced through better separation of anthropogenic and natural CO2 fluxes, including the effects of anthropogenically driven ecosystem degradation and improving model parameterizations. Thus, future research should prioritise unambiguous and consistent definitions and conducting systematic evaluations against each other to improve the translation and harmonization of FLUC estimates, which is essential to support effective climate policies and optimize land-based climate change mitigation. Robust quantification of carbon dioxide fluxes from land use is critical for guiding climate change mitigation efforts and for improved understanding of the global carbon cycle. This Perspective explores the origins of uncertainties and discrepancies in established estimation approaches and considers strategies to improve, translate and harmonize flux estimates.","PeriodicalId":18921,"journal":{"name":"Nature Reviews Earth & Environment","volume":"6 11","pages":"747-766"},"PeriodicalIF":74.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Reviews Earth & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-025-00730-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurately estimating carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from land use and land-use change (FLUC) is critical to assessing nationally determined contributions and progress towards climate targets. In this Perspective, we compare five FLUC estimation approaches, discuss the origins of large uncertainties and discrepancies in estimates and consider how to improve estimate accuracy and better align individual estimates. Global FLUC estimates between 2000 and 2023 range from net emissions of 1.9 ± 0.6 PgC yr−1 (based on dynamic global vegetation models) to net removals of −1.0 PgC yr−1 (based on Earth observations), with other estimates from bookkeeping models, country reports and atmospheric inversions falling within this range. Discrepancies arise from each approach using different definitions for FLUC, the spatial extent of managed land and including degradation and environmental effects to varying degrees. As a result, each approach accounts for different fluxes and land areas. Uncertainties within individual estimates are attributed to quality of land-use data, observational constraints and incomplete process consideration. These uncertainties can be reduced through better separation of anthropogenic and natural CO2 fluxes, including the effects of anthropogenically driven ecosystem degradation and improving model parameterizations. Thus, future research should prioritise unambiguous and consistent definitions and conducting systematic evaluations against each other to improve the translation and harmonization of FLUC estimates, which is essential to support effective climate policies and optimize land-based climate change mitigation. Robust quantification of carbon dioxide fluxes from land use is critical for guiding climate change mitigation efforts and for improved understanding of the global carbon cycle. This Perspective explores the origins of uncertainties and discrepancies in established estimation approaches and considers strategies to improve, translate and harmonize flux estimates.

Abstract Image

土地利用CO2通量估算的差异和不确定性
准确估算土地利用和土地利用变化产生的二氧化碳通量对于评估国家自主贡献和实现气候目标的进展至关重要。在这个观点中,我们比较了五种FLUC估计方法,讨论了估计中大不确定性和差异的起源,并考虑了如何提高估计精度和更好地校准单个估计。2000年至2023年全球FLUC估算值的范围从净排放量1.9±0.6 PgC /年(基于动态全球植被模型)到净清除率- 1.0 PgC /年(基于地球观测)不等,其他来自簿记模型、国家报告和大气逆温的估算值也在这一范围内。每一种方法使用不同的定义,包括不同程度的退化和环境影响,从而产生差异。因此,每种方法考虑不同的通量和土地面积。个别估算的不确定性是由于土地利用数据的质量、观测限制和不完整的过程考虑。通过更好地分离人为和自然CO2通量,包括人为驱动的生态系统退化的影响和改进模式参数化,可以减少这些不确定性。因此,未来的研究应优先考虑明确和一致的定义,并对彼此进行系统评估,以改进FLUC估算的翻译和协调,这对于支持有效的气候政策和优化陆基气候变化减缓至关重要。对土地利用产生的二氧化碳通量进行强有力的量化,对于指导减缓气候变化的努力和增进对全球碳循环的了解至关重要。本展望探讨了既定估算方法中不确定性和差异的根源,并考虑了改进、转换和协调通量估算的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书