Special Report: Special Report on Climate Change and Land
Ch 04

Land Degradation

Coordinating Lead Authors

  • Humberto Barbosa (Brazil)
  • Lennart Olsson (Sweden)

Lead Authors

  • BHADWAL Suruchi (India)
  • Annette Cowie (Australia)
  • DELUSCA Kenel (Haiti)
  • FLORES-RENTERIA Dulce (Mexico)
  • Kathleen Hermans (Germany)
  • JOBBAGY Esteban (Argentina)
  • Werner Kurz (Canada)
  • LI Diqiang (India)
  • Denis Sonwa (Cameroon)
  • STRINGER Lindsay (United Kingdom)

Review Editors

  • MORENO Jose Manuel (Spain)
  • VERA Carolina (Argentina)

Contributing Authors:

  • Timothy Crews (United States)
  • Martin Dallimer (United Kingdom)
  • Joris Eekhout (Netherlands)
  • Karlheinz ERB (Italy)
  • Eamon Haughey (Ireland)
  • HOUGHTON Richard (United States)
  • IQBAL Muhammad Mohsin (Pakistan)
  • JOHNSON Francis X. (Sweden)
  • Woo-Kyun Lee (South Korea)
  • MORTON John (United Kingdom)
  • GARCíA-OLIVA Felipe (Mexico)
  • Jan Petzold (Germany)
  • Mohammad RAHIMI (Iran)
  • Florence Renou-Wilson (Ireland)
  • Anna Tengberg (Sweden)
  • Louis Verchot (United States, Colombia)
  • Katharine Vincent (South Africa)

Chapter Scientist:

  • Maya K. Buchanan (United States)

FAQ 4.1 | How do climate change and land degradation interact with land use?

Climate change, land degradation and land use are linked in a complex web of causality. One important impact of climate change on land degradation is that increasing global temperatures intensify the hydrological cycle, resulting in more intense rainfall, which is an important driver of soil erosion. This means that sustainable land management (SLM) becomes even more important with climate change. Land-use change in the form of clearing of forest for rangeland and cropland (e.g., for provision of bio-fuels), and cultivation of peat soils, is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from both biomass and soils. Many SLM practices (e.g., agroforestry, perennial crops, organic amendments, etc.) increase carbon content of soil and vegetation cover and hence provide both local and immediate adaptation benefits, combined with global mitigation benefits in the long term, while providing many social and economic co-benefits. Avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation has a large potential to mitigate climate change and help communities to adapt to climate change.

FAQ 4.2 | How does climate change affect land-related ecosystem services and biodiversity?

Climate change will affect land-related ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, resilience to extreme climate events, water yield, soil conservation, carbon storage, etc.) and biodiversity, both directly and indirectly. The direct impacts range from subtle reductions or enhancements of specific services, such as biological productivity, resulting from changes in temperature, temperature variability or rainfall, to complete disruption and elimination of services. Disruptions of ecosystem services can occur where climate change causes transitions from one biome to another, for example, forest to grassland as a result of changes in water balance or natural disturbance regimes. Climate change will result in range shifts and, in some cases, extinction of species. Climate change can also alter the mix of land-related ecosystem services, such as groundwater recharge, purification of water, and flood protection. While the net impacts are specific to time as well as ecosystem types and services, there is an asymmetry of risk such that overall impacts of climate change are expected to reduce ecosystem services. Indirect impacts of climate change on land-related ecosystem services include those that result from changes in human behaviour, including potential large-scale human migrations or the implementation of afforestation, reforestation or other changes in land management, which can have positive or negative outcomes on ecosystem services.

Figure 4.1
View details
Figure 4.2
View details
Figure 4.3
View details
Figure 4.4
View details
Figure 4.5
View details
Figure 4.6
View details
Figure 4.7
View details
Figure-4.8
View details
Figure 4.9
View details
Figure 4.10
View details
ES

Executive Summary

Land degradation affects people and ecosystems throughout the planet and is both affected by climate change and contributes to it. In this report, land degradation is defined as a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity, ecological integrity, or value to humans. Forest degradation is land degradation that occurs in forest land. Deforestation is the conversion of forest to non-forest land and can result in land degradation. {4.1.3}

Land degradation adversely affects people’s livelihoods (very high confidence) and occurs over a quarter of the Earth’s ice-free land area (medium confidence). The majority of the 1.3 to 3.2 billion affected people (low confidence) are living in poverty in developing countries (medium confidence).

Land-use changes and unsustainable land management are direct human causes of land degradation (very high confidence), with agriculture being a dominant sector driving degradation (very high confidence). Soil loss from conventionally tilled land exceeds the rate of soil formation by >2 orders of magnitude (medium confidence). Land degradation affects humans in multiple ways, interacting with social, political, cultural and economic aspects, including markets, technology, inequality and demographic change (very high confidence). Land degradation impacts extend beyond the land surface itself, affecting marine and freshwater systems, as well as people and ecosystems far away from the local sites of degradation (very high confidence). {4.1.6, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.3, 4.6.1, 4.7, Table 4.1}

Climate change exacerbates the rate and magnitude of several ongoing land degradation processes and introduces new degradation patterns (high confidence). Human-induced global warming has already caused observed changes in two drivers of land degradation: increased frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation (medium confidence); and increased heat stress (high confidence). In some areas sea level rise has exacerbated coastal erosion (medium confidence). Global warming beyond present day will further exacerbate ongoing land degradation processes through increasing floods (medium confidence), drought frequency and severity (medium confidence), intensified cyclones (medium confidence), and sea level rise (very high confidence), with outcomes being modulated by land management (very high confidence). Permafrost thawing due to warming (high confidence), and coastal erosion due to sea level rise and impacts of changing storm paths (low confidence), are examples of land degradation affecting places where it has not typically been a problem. Erosion of coastal areas because of sea level rise will increase worldwide (high confidence). In cyclone prone areas, the combination of sea level rise and more intense cyclones will cause land degradation with serious consequences for people and livelihoods (very high confidence). {4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.9.6, Table 4.1}

Land degradation and climate change, both individually and in combination, have profound implications for natural resource-based livelihood systems and societal groups (high confidence)

The number of people whose livelihood depends on degraded lands has been estimated to be about 1.5 billion worldwide (very low confidence). People in degraded areas who directly depend on natural resources for subsistence, food security and income, including women and youth with limited adaptation options, are especially vulnerable to land degradation and climate change (high confidence). Land degradation reduces land productivity and increases the workload of managing the land, affecting women disproportionally in some regions. Land degradation and climate change act as threat multipliers for already precarious livelihoods (very high confidence), leaving them highly sensitive to extreme climatic events, with consequences such as poverty and food insecurity (high confidence) and, in some cases, migration, conflict and loss of cultural heritage (low confidence). Changes in vegetation cover and distribution due to climate change increase the risk of land degradation in some areas (medium confidence). Climate change will have detrimental effects on livelihoods, habitats and infrastructure through increased rates of land degradation (high confidence) and from new degradation patterns (low evidence, high agreement). {4.1.6, 4.2.1, 4.7}

Land degradation is a driver of climate change through emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and reduced rates of carbon uptake (very high confidence). Since 1990, globally the forest area has decreased by 3% (low confidence) with net decreases in the tropics and net increases outside the tropics (high confidence). Lower carbon density in re-growing forests, compared to carbon stocks before deforestation, results in net emissions from land-use change (very high confidence). Forest management that reduces carbon stocks of forest land also leads to emissions, but global estimates of these emissions are uncertain. Cropland soils have lost 20–60% of their organic carbon content prior to cultivation, and soils under conventional agriculture continue to be a source of GHGs (medium confidence). Of the land degradation processes, deforestation, increasing wildfires, degradation of peat soils, and permafrost thawing contribute most to climate change through the release of GHGs and the reduction in land carbon sinks following deforestation (high confidence). Agricultural practices also emit non-CO2 GHGs from soils and these emissions are exacerbated by climate change (medium confidence). Conversion of primary to managed forests, illegal logging and unsustainable forest management result in GHG emissions (very high confidence) and can have additional physical effects on the regional climate including those arising from albedo shifts (medium confidence). These interactions call for more integrative climate impact assessments. {4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5.4, 4.6}

Large-scale implementation of dedicated biomass production for bioenergy increases competition for land with potentially serious consequences for food security and land degradation (high confidence). Increasing the extent and intensity of biomass production, for example, through fertiliser additions, irrigation or monoculture energy plantations, can result in local land degradation. Poorly implemented intensification of land management contributes to land degradation (e.g., salinisation from irrigation) and disrupted livelihoods (high confidence). In areas where afforestation and reforestation occur on previously degraded lands, opportunities exist to restore and rehabilitate lands with potentially significant co-benefits (high confidence) that depend on whether restoration involves natural or plantation forests. The total area of degraded lands has been estimated at 10–60 Mkm2 (very low confidence). The extent of degraded and marginal lands suitable for dedicated biomass production is highly uncertain and cannot be established without due consideration of current land use and land tenure. Increasing the area of dedicated energy crops can lead to land degradation elsewhere through indirect land-use change (medium confidence). Impacts of energy crops can be reduced through strategic integration with agricultural and forestry systems (high confidence) but the total quantity of biomass that can be produced through synergistic production systems is unknown. {4.1.6, 4.4.2, 4.5, 4.7.1, 4.8.1, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.9.3}

Reducing unsustainable use of traditional biomass reduces land degradation and emissions of CO2 while providing social and economic co-benefits (very high confidence). Traditional biomass in the form of fuelwood, charcoal and agricultural residues remains a primary source of energy for more than one-third of the global population, leading to unsustainable use of biomass resources and forest degradation and contributing around 2% of global GHG emissions (low confidence). Enhanced forest protection, improved forest and agricultural management, fuel-switching and adoption of efficient cooking and heating appliances can promote more sustainable biomass use and reduce land degradation, with co-benefits of reduced GHG emissions, improved human health, and reduced workload especially for women and youth (very high confidence). {4.1.6, 4.5.4}

Land degradation can be avoided, reduced or reversed by implementing sustainable land management, restoration and rehabilitation practices that simultaneously provide many co-benefits, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change (high confidence). Sustainable land management involves a comprehensive array of technologies and enabling conditions, which have proven to address land degradation at multiple landscape scales, from local farms (very high confidence) to entire watersheds (medium confidence). Sustainable forest management can prevent deforestation, maintain and enhance carbon sinks and can contribute towards GHG emissions-reduction goals. Sustainable forest management generates socio-economic benefits, and provides fibre, timber and biomass to meet society’s growing needs. While sustainable forest management sustains high carbon sinks, the conversion from primary forests to sustainably managed forests can result in carbon emission during the transition and loss of biodiversity (high confidence). Conversely, in areas of degraded forests, sustainable forest management can increase carbon stocks and biodiversity (medium confidence). Carbon storage in long-lived wood products and reductions of emissions from use of wood products to substitute for emissions-intensive materials also contribute to mitigation objectives. {4.8, 4.9, Table 4.2}

Lack of action to address land degradation will increase emissions and reduce carbon sinks and is inconsistent with the emissions reductions required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. (high confidence). Better management of soils can offset 5–20% of current global anthropogenic GHG emissions (medium confidence). Measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation are available but economic, political, institutional, legal and socio-cultural barriers, including lack of access to resources and knowledge, restrict their uptake (very high confidence). Proven measures that facilitate implementation of practices that avoid, reduce, or reverse land degradation include tenure reform, tax incentives, payments for ecosystem services, participatory integrated land-use planning, farmer networks and rural advisory services. Delayed action increases the costs of addressing land degradation, and can lead to irreversible biophysical and human outcomes (high confidence). Early actions can generate both site-specific and immediate benefits to communities affected by land degradation, and contribute to long-term global benefits through climate change mitigation (high confidence). {4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.7.1, 4.8, Table 4.2}

Even with adequate implementation of measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation, there will be residual degradation in some situations (high confidence). Limits to adaptation are dynamic, site specific and determined through the interaction of biophysical changes with social and institutional conditions. Exceeding the limits of adaptation will trigger escalating losses or result in undesirable changes, such as forced migration, conflicts, or poverty. Examples of potential limits to adaptation due to climate-change-induced land degradation are coastal erosion (where land disappears, collapsing infrastructure and livelihoods due to thawing of permafrost), and extreme forms of soil erosion. {4.7, 4.8.5, 4.8.6, 4.9.6, 4.9.7, 4.9.8}

Land degradation is a serious and widespread problem, yet key uncertainties remain concerning its extent, severity, and linkages to climate change (very high confidence). Despite the difficulties of objectively measuring the extent and severity of land degradation, given its complex and value-based characteristics, land degradation represents – along with climate change – one of the biggest and most urgent challenges for humanity (very high confidence). The current global extent, severity and rates of land degradation are not well quantified. There is no single method by which land degradation can be measured objectively and consistently over large areas because it is such a complex and value-laden concept (very high confidence). However, many existing scientific and locally-based approaches, including the use of indigenous and local knowledge, can assess different aspects of land degradation or provide proxies. Remote sensing, corroborated by other data, can generate geographically explicit and globally consistent data that can be used as proxies over relevant time scales (several decades). Few studies have specifically addressed the impacts of proposed land-based negative emission technologies on land degradation. Much research has tried to understand how livelihoods and ecosystems are affected by a particular stressor – for example, drought, heat stress, or waterlogging. Important knowledge gaps remain in understanding how plants, habitats and ecosystems are affected by the cumulative and interacting impacts of several stressors, including potential new stressors resulting from large-scale implementation of negative emission technologies. {4.10}

4.1

Introduction

4.1.1

Scope of the chapter

This chapter examines the scientific understanding of how climate change impacts land degradation, and vice versa, with a focus on non-drylands. Land degradation of drylands is covered in Chapter 3. After providing definitions and the context (Section 4.1) we proceed with a theoretical explanation of the different processes of land degradation and how they are related to climate and to climate change, where possible (Section 4.2). Two sections are devoted to a systematic assessment of the scientific literature on status and trend of land degradation (Section 4.3) and projections of land degradation (Section 4.4). Then follows a section where we assess the impacts of climate change mitigation options, bioenergy and land-based technologies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), on land degradation (Section 4.5). The ways in which land degradation can impact on climate and climate change are assessed in Section 4.6. The impacts of climate-related land degradation on human and natural systems are assessed in Section 4.7. The remainder of the chapter assesses land degradation mitigation options based on the concept of sustainable land management: avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation (Section 4.8), followed by a presentation of eight illustrative case studies of land degradation and remedies (Section 4.9). The chapter ends with a discussion of the most critical knowledge gaps and areas for further research (Section 4.10).

4.1.2

Perspectives of land degradation

Land degradation has accompanied humanity at least since the widespread adoption of agriculture during Neolithic time, some 10,000 to 7,500 years ago (Dotterweich 20132; Butzer 20053; Dotterweich 20084) and the associated population increase (Bocquet-Appel 20115). There are indications that the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) – particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) – in the atmosphere already started to increase more than 3,000 years ago as a result of expanding agriculture, clearing of forests, and domestication of wild animals (Fuller et al. 20116; Kaplan et al. 20117; Vavrus et al. 20188; Ellis et al. 20139). While the development of agriculture (cropping and animal husbandry) underpinned the development of civilisations, political institutions and prosperity, farming practices led to conversion of forests and grasslands to farmland, and the heavy reliance on domesticated annual grasses for our food production meant that soils started to deteriorate through seasonal mechanical disturbances (Turner et al. 199010; Steffen et al. 200511; Ojima et al. 199412; Ellis et al. 201313). More recently, urbanisation has significantly altered ecosystems (Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 2). Since around 1850, about 35% of human-caused CO2 emissions to the atmosphere has come from land as a combined effect of land degradation and land-use change (Foley et al. 200514) and about 38% of the Earth’s land area has been converted to agriculture (Foley et al. 201115). See Chapter 2 for more details.

Not all human impacts on land result in degradation according to the definition of land degradation used in this report (Section 4.1.3). There are many examples of long-term sustainably managed land around

the world (such as terraced agricultural systems and sustainably managed forests) although degradation and its management are the focus of this chapter. We also acknowledge that human use of land and ecosystems provides essential goods and services for society (Foley et al. 200516; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 200517).

Land degradation was long subject to a polarised scientific debate between disciplines and perspectives in which social scientists often proposed that natural scientists exaggerated land degradation as a global problem (Blaikie and Brookfield 198718; Forsyth 199619; Lukas 201420; Zimmerer 199321). The elusiveness of the concept in combination with the difficulties of measuring and monitoring land degradation at global and regional scales by extrapolation and aggregation of empirical studies at local scales, such as the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation database (GLASOD) (Sonneveld and Dent 200922) contributed to conflicting views. The conflicting views were not confined to science only, but also caused tension between the scientific understanding of land degradation and policy (Andersson et al. 201123; Behnke and Mortimore 201624; Grainger 200925; Toulmin and Brock 201626). Another weakness of many land degradation studies is the exclusion of the views and experiences of the land users, whether farmers or forest-dependent communities (Blaikie and Brookfield 198727; Fairhead and Scoones 200528; Warren 200229; Andersson et al. 201130). More recently, the polarised views described above have been reconciled under the umbrella of Land Change Science, which has emerged as an interdisciplinary field aimed at examining the dynamics of land cover and land-use as a coupled human-environment system (Turner et al. 200731). A comprehensive discussion about concepts and different perspectives of land degradation was presented in Chapter 2 of the recent report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on land degradation (Montanarella et al. 201832).

In summary, agriculture and clearing of land for food and wood products have been the main drivers of land degradation for millennia (high confidence). This does not mean, however, that agriculture and forestry always cause land degradation (high confidence); sustainable management is possible but not always practised (high confidence). Reasons for this are primarily economic, political and social.

4.1.3

Definition of land degradation

To clarify the scope of this chapter, it is important to start by defining land itself. The Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) defines land as ‘the terrestrial portion of the biosphere that comprises the natural resources (soil, near surface air, vegetation and other biota, and water), the ecological processes, topography, and human settlements and infrastructure that operate within that system’ (Henry et al. 201833, adapted from FAO 200734; UNCCD 199435).

Land degradation is defined in many different ways within the literature, with differing emphases on biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services (e.g., Montanarella et al. 201836). In this report, land degradation is defined as a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity, ecological integrity or value to humans. This definition applies to forest and non-forest land: forest degradation is land degradation that occurs in forest land. Soil degradation refers to a subset of land degradation processes that directly affect soil.

The SRCCL definition is derived from the IPCC AR5 definition of desertification, which is in turn taken from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): ’Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas is a reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and integrity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest, and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns, such as (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/ or water; (ii) deterioration of the physical, chemical, biological, or economic properties of soil; and (iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation’ (UNCCD 199437, Article 1).

For this report, the SRCCL definition is intended to complement the more detailed UNCCD definition above, expanding the scope to all regions, not just drylands, providing an operational definition that emphasises the relationship between land degradation and climate. Through its attention to the three aspects – biological productivity, ecological integrity and value to humans – the SRCCL definition is consistent with the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) concept, which aims to maintain or enhance the land-based natural capital, and the ecosystem services that flow from it (Cowie et al. 201838).

In the SRCCL definition of land degradation, changes in land condition resulting solely from natural processes (such as volcanic eruptions and tsunamis) are not considered land degradation, as these are not direct or indirect human-induced processes. Climate variability exacerbated by human-induced climate change can contribute to land degradation. Value to humans can be expressed in terms of ecosystem services or Nature’s Contributions to People.

The definition recognises the reality presented in the literature that land-use and land management decisions often result in trade-offs between time, space, ecosystem services, and stakeholder groups (e.g., Dallimer and Stringer 201839). The interpretation of a negative trend in land condition is somewhat subjective, especially where there is a trade-off between ecological integrity and value to humans. The definition also does not consider the magnitude of the negative trend or the possibility that a negative trend in one criterion may be an acceptable trade-off for a positive trend in another criterion. For example, reducing timber yields to safeguard biodiversity by leaving on site more wood that can provide habitat, or vice versa, is a trade-off that needs to be evaluated based on context (i.e. the broader landscape) and society’s priorities. Reduction of biological productivity or ecological integrity or value to humans can constitute degradation, but any one of these changes need not necessarily be considered degradation. Thus, a land-use change that reduces ecological integrity and enhances sustainable food production at a specific location is not necessarily degradation. Different stakeholder groups with different world views value ecosystem services differently. As Warren (2002)40 explained: land degradation is contextual. Further, a decline in biomass carbon stock does not always signify degradation, such as when caused by periodic forest harvest. Even a decline in productivity may not equate to land degradation, such as when a high-intensity agricultural system is converted to a lower-input, more sustainable production system.

In the SRCCL definition, degradation is indicated by a negative trend in land condition during the period of interest, thus the baseline is the land condition at the start of this period. The concept of baseline is theoretically important but often practically difficult to implement for conceptual and methodological reasons (Herrick et al. 201941; Prince et al. 201842; also Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1). Especially in biomes characterised by seasonal and interannual variability, the baseline values of the indicators to be assessed should be determined by averaging data over a number of years prior to the commencement of the assessment period (Orr et al. 201743) (Section 4.2.4).

Forest degradation is land degradation in forest remaining forest. In contrast, deforestation refers to the conversion of forest to non-forest that involves a loss of tree cover and a change in land use. Internationally accepted definitions of forest (FAO 201544; UNFCCC 200645) include lands where tree cover has been lost temporarily, due to disturbance or harvest, with an expectation of forest regrowth. Such temporary loss of forest cover, therefore, is not deforestation.

4.1.4

Land degradation in previous IPCC reports

Several previous IPCC assessment reports include brief discussions of land degradation. In AR5 WGIII land degradation is one factor contributing to uncertainties of the mitigation potential of land-based ecosystems, particularly in terms of fluxes of soil carbon (Smith et al. 2014, p. 817). In AR5 WGI, soil carbon was discussed comprehensively but not in the context of land degradation, except forest degradation (Ciais et al. 201346) and permafrost degradation (Vaughan et al. 201347). Climate change impacts were discussed comprehensively in AR5 WGII, but land degradation was not prominent. Land-use and land-cover changes were treated comprehensively in terms of effects on the terrestrial carbon stocks and flows (Settele et al. 201548) but links to land degradation were, to a large extent, missing. Land degradation was discussed in relation to human security as one factor which, in combination with extreme weather events, has been proposed to contribute to human migration (Adger et al. 201449), an issue discussed more comprehensively in this chapter (Section 4.7.3). Drivers and processes of degradation by which land-based carbon is released to the atmosphere and/or the long-term reduction in the capacity of the land to remove atmospheric carbon and to store this in biomass and soil carbon, have been discussed in the methodological reports of IPCC (IPCC 200650, 2014a51) but less so in the assessment reports.

The Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (SR-LULUCF) (Watson et al. 200052) focused on the role of the biosphere in the global cycles of GHG. Land degradation was not addressed in a comprehensive way. Soil erosion was discussed as a process by which soil carbon is lost and the productivity of the land is reduced. Deposition of eroded soil carbon in marine sediments was also mentioned as a possible mechanism for permanent sequestration of terrestrial carbon (Watson et al. 2000, p. 194). The possible impacts of climate change on land productivity and degradation were not discussed comprehensively. Much of the report was about how to account for sources and sinks of terrestrial carbon under the Kyoto Protocol.

The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) (IPCC 201253) did not provide a definition of land degradation. Nevertheless, it addressed different aspects related to some types of land degradation in the context of weather and climate extreme events. From this perspective, it provided key information on both observed and projected changes in weather and climate (extremes) events that are relevant to extreme impacts on socio-economic systems and on the physical components of the environment, notably on permafrost in mountainous areas and coastal zones for different geographic regions, but few explicit links to land degradation. The report also presented the concept of sustainable land management as an effective risk-reduction tool.

Land degradation has been treated in several previous IPCC reports, but mainly as an aggregated concept associated with GHG emissions, or as an issue that can be addressed through adaptation and mitigation.

4.1.5

Sustainable land management (SLM) and sustainable forest management (SFM)

Sustainable land management (SLM) is defined as ‘the stewardship and use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions’ – adapted from World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT n.d.). Achieving the objective of ensuring that productive potential is maintained in the long term will require implementation of adaptive management and ‘triple loop learning’, that seeks to monitor outcomes, learn from experience and emerging new knowledge, modifying management accordingly (Rist et al. 201354).

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is defined as ‘the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems’ (Forest Europe 199355; Mackey et al. 201556). This SFM definition was developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and has since been adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Forest management that fails to meet these sustainability criteria can contribute to land degradation.

Land degradation can be reversed through restoration and rehabilitation. These terms are defined in the Glossary, along with other terms that are used but not explicitly defined in this section of

the report. While the definitions of SLM and SFM are very similar and could be merged, both are included to maintain the subtle differences in the existing definitions. SFM can be considered a subset of SLM – that is, SLM applied to forest land.

Climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome (Figure 4.1). Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts). To avoid, reduce or reverse degradation, land management activities can be selected to mitigate the impact of, and adapt to, climate change. In some cases, climate change impacts may result in increased productivity and carbon stocks, at least in the short term. For example, longer growing seasons due to climate warming can lead to higher forest productivity (Henttonen et al. 201757; Kauppi et al. 201458; Dragoni et al. 201159), but warming alone may not increase productivity where other factors such a water supply are limiting (Hember et al. 201760).

The types and intensity of human land-use and climate change impacts on lands affect their carbon stocks and their ability to operate as carbon sinks. In managed agricultural lands, degradation can result in reductions of soil organic carbon stocks, which also adversely affects land productivity and carbon sinks (Figure 4.1).

The transition from natural to managed forest landscapes usually results in an initial reduction of landscape-level carbon stocks. The magnitude of this reduction is a function of the differential in frequency of stand-replacing natural disturbances (e.g., wildfires) and harvest disturbances, as well as the age-dependence of these disturbances (Harmon et al. 199061; Kurz et al. 199862; Trofymow et al. 200863).

SFM applied at the landscape scale to existing unmanaged forests can first reduce average forest carbon stocks and subsequently increase the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, because net ecosystem production of forest stands is highest in intermediate stand ages (Kurz et al. 201364; Volkova et al. 201865; Tang et al. 201466). The net impact on the atmosphere depends on the magnitude of the reduction in carbon stocks, the fate of the harvested biomass (i.e. use in short – or long-lived products and for bioenergy, and therefore displacement of emissions associated with GHG-intensive building materials and fossil fuels), and the rate of regrowth. Thus, the impacts of SFM on one indicator (e.g., past reduction in carbon stocks in the forested landscape) can be negative, while those on another indicator (e.g., current forest productivity and rate of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, avoided fossil fuel emissions) can be positive. Sustainably managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon density than unmanaged forest, but the younger forests can have a higher growth rate, and therefore contribute stronger carbon sinks than older forests (Trofymow et al. 200867; Volkova et al. 201868; Poorter et al. 201669).

Selective logging and thinning can maintain and enhance forest productivity and achieve co-benefits when conducted with due care for the residual stand and at intensity and frequency that does not exceed the rate of regrowth (Romero and Putz 201870). In contrast, unsustainable logging practices can lead to stand-level degradation. For example, degradation occurs when selective logging (high-grading) removes valuable large-diameter trees, leaving behind damaged, diseased, non-commercial or otherwise less productive trees, reducing carbon stocks and also adversely affecting subsequent forest recovery (Belair and Ducey 201871; Nyland 199272).

Figure 4.1

Conceptual figure illustrating that climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome. Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts), hence management needs to respond to climate impacts in order to avoid, reduce or reverse degradation. The types and […]

Conceptual figure illustrating that climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome. Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts), hence management needs to respond to climate impacts in order to avoid, reduce or reverse degradation. The types and intensity of human land-use and climate change impacts on lands affect their carbon stocks and their ability to operate as carbon sinks. In managed agricultural lands, degradation typically results in reductions of soil organic carbon stocks, which also adversely affects land productivity and carbon sinks. In forest land, reduction in biomass carbon stocks alone is not necessarily an indication of a reduction in carbon sinks. Sustainably managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon density but the younger forests can have a higher growth rate, and therefore contribute stronger carbon sinks, than older forests. Ranges of carbon sinks in forest and agricultural lands are overlapping. In some cases, climate change impacts may result in increased productivity and carbon stocks, at least in the short term.

SFM is defined using several criteria (see above) and its implementation will typically involve trade-offs among these criteria. The conversion of primary forests to sustainably managed forest ecosystems increases relevant economic, social and other functions but often with adverse impacts on biodiversity (Barlow et al. 200773). In regions with infrequent or no stand-replacing natural disturbances, the timber yield per hectare harvested in managed secondary forests is typically lower than the yield per hectare from the first harvest in the primary forest (Romero and Putz 201874).

The sustainability of timber yield has been achieved in temperate and boreal forests where intensification of management has resulted in increased growing stocks and increased harvest rates in countries where forests had previously been overexploited (Henttonen et al. 201775; Kauppi et al. 201876). However, intensification of management to increase forest productivity can be associated with reductions in biodiversity. For example, when increased productivity is achieved by periodic thinning and removal of trees that would otherwise die due to competition, thinning reduces the amount of dead organic matter of snags and coarse woody debris that can provide habitat, and this loss reduces biodiversity (Spence 200177; Ehnström 200178) and forest carbon stocks (Russell et al. 201579; Kurz et al. 201380). Recognition of adverse biodiversity impacts of high-yield forestry is leading to modified management aimed at increasing habitat availability through, for example, variable retention logging and continuous cover management (Roberts et al. 201681) and through the re-introduction of fire disturbances in landscapes where fires have been suppressed (Allen et al. 200282). Biodiversity losses are also observed during the transition from primary to managed forests in tropical regions (Barlow et al. 200783) where tree species diversity can be very high – for example, in the Amazon region, about 16,000 tree species are estimated to exist (ter Steege et al. 201384).

Forest certification schemes have been used to document SFM outcomes (Rametsteiner and Simula 200385) by assessing a set of criteria and indicators (e.g., Lindenmayer et al. 200086). While many of the certified forests are found in temperate and boreal countries (Rametsteiner and Simula 200387; MacDicken et al. 201588), examples from the tropics also show that SFM can improve outcomes. For example, selective logging emits 6% of the tropical GHG annually and improved logging practices can reduce emissions by 44% while maintaining timber production (Ellis et al. 201989). In the Congo Basin, implementing reduced impact logging (RIL-C) practices can cut emissions in half without reducing the timber yield (Umunay et al. 201990). SFM adoption depends on the socio-economic and political context, and its improvement depends mainly on better reporting and verification (Siry et al. 200591).

The successful implementation of SFM requires well-established and functional governance, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to eliminate deforestation, illegal logging, arson, and other activities that are inconsistent with SFM principles (Nasi et al. 201192). Moreover, following human and natural disturbances, forest regrowth must be ensured through reforestation, site rehabilitation activities or natural regeneration. Failure of forests to regrow following disturbances will lead to unsustainable outcomes and long-term reductions in forest area, forest cover, carbon density, forest productivity and land-based carbon sinks (Nasi et al. 201193).

Achieving all of the criteria of the definitions of SLM and SFM is an aspirational goal that will be made more challenging where climate change impacts, such as biome shifts and increased disturbances, are predicted to adversely affect future biodiversity and contribute to forest degradation (Warren et al. 201894). Land management to enhance land sinks will involve trade-offs that need to be assessed within their spatial, temporal and societal context.

4.1.6

The human dimension of land degradation and forest degradation

Studies of land and forest degradation are often biased towards biophysical aspects, both in terms of its processes, such as erosion or nutrient depletion, and its observed physical manifestations, such as gullying or low primary productivity. Land users’ own perceptions and knowledge about land conditions and degradation have often been neglected or ignored by both policymakers and scientists (Reed et al. 200795; Forsyth 199696; Andersson et al. 201197). A growing body of work is nevertheless beginning to focus on land degradation through the lens of local land users (Kessler and Stroosnijder 200698; Fairhead and Scoones 200599; Zimmerer 1993100; Stocking et al. 2001101) and the importance of local and indigenous knowledge within land management is starting to be appreciated (Montanarella et al. 2018102). Climate change impacts directly and indirectly on the social reality, the land users, and the ecosystem, and vice versa. Land degradation can also have an impact on climate change (Section 4.6).

The use and management of land is highly gendered and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future (Kristjanson et al. 2017103). Women often have less formal access to land than men and less influence over decisions about land, even if they carry out many of the land management tasks (Jerneck 2018a104; Elmhirst 2011105; Toulmin 2009106; Peters 2004107; Agarwal 1997108; Jerneck 2018b109). Many oft-cited general statements about women’s subordination in agriculture are difficult to substantiate, yet it is clear that gender inequality persists (Doss et al. 2015110). Even if women’s access to land is changing formally (Kumar and Quisumbing 2015111), the practical outcome is often limited due to several other factors related to both formal and informal institutional arrangements and values (Lavers 2017112; Kristjanson et al. 2017113; Djurfeldt et al. 2018114). Women are also affected differently than men when it comes to climate change, having lower adaptive capacities due to factors such as prevailing land tenure frameworks, less access to other capital assets and dominant cultural practices (Vincent et al. 2014115; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015116; Gabrielsson et al. 2013117). This affects the options available to women to respond to both land degradation and climate change. Indeed, access to land and other assets (e.g., education and training) is key in shaping land-use and land management strategies (Liu et al. 2018b118; Lambin et al. 2001119). Young people are also often disadvantaged in terms of access to resources and decision-making power, even though they carry out much of the day-to-day work (Wilson et al. 2017120; Kosec et al. 2018121; Naamwintome and Bagson 2013122).

Land rights differ between places and are dependent on the political-economic and legal context (Montanarella et al. 2018123). This means that there is no universally applicable best arrangement. Agriculture in highly erosion-prone regions requires site-specific and long-lasting soil and water conservation measures, such as terraces (Section 4.8.1), which may benefit from secure private land rights (Tarfasa et al. 2018124; Soule et al. 2000125). Pastoral modes of production and community-based forest management systems are often dominated by, and benefit from, communal land tenure arrangements, which may conflict with agricultural/forestry modernisation policies implying private property rights (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015126; Benjaminsen and Lund 2003127; Itkonen 2016128; Owour et al. 2011129; Gebara 2018130).

Cultural ecosystem services, defined as the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005131) are closely linked to land and ecosystems, although often under-represented in the literature on ecosystem services (Tengberg et al. 2012132; Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013133). Climate change interacting with land conditions can impact on cultural aspects, such as sense of place and sense of belonging (Olsson et al. 2014134).

4.2

Land degradation in the context of climate change

Land degradation results from a complex chain of causes making the clear distinction between direct and indirect drivers difficult. In the context of climate change, an additional complex aspect is brought by the reciprocal effects that both processes have on each other (i.e. climate change influencing land degradation and vice versa). In this chapter, we use the terms ‘processes’ and ‘drivers’ with the following meanings:

Processes of land degradation are those direct mechanisms by which land is degraded and are similar to the notion of ‘direct drivers’ in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005135). A comprehensive list of land degradation processes is presented in Table 4.1.

Drivers of land degradation are those indirect conditions which may drive processes of land degradation and are similar to the notion of ‘indirect drivers’ in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework. Examples of indirect drivers of land degradation are changes in land tenure or cash crop prices, which can trigger land-use or management shifts that affect land degradation.

An exact demarcation between processes and drivers is not possible. Drought and fires are described as drivers of land degradation in the next section but they can also be a process: for example, if repeated fires deplete seed sources, they can affect regeneration and succession of forest ecosystems. The responses to land degradation follow the logic of the LDN concept: avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation (Orr et al. 2017136; Cowie et al. 2018137).

In research on land degradation, climate and climate variability are often intrinsic factors. The role of climate change, however, is less articulated. Depending on what conceptual framework is used, climate change is understood either as a process or a driver of land degradation, and sometimes both.

4.2.1

Processes of land degradation

A large array of interactive physical, chemical, biological and human processes lead to what we define in this report as land degradation (Johnson and Lewis 2007138). The biological productivity, ecological integrity (which encompasses both functional and structural attributes of ecosystems) or the human value (which includes any benefit that people get from the land) of a given territory can deteriorate as the result of processes triggered at scales that range from a single furrow (e.g., water erosion under cultivation) to the landscape level (e.g., salinisation through raising groundwater levels under irrigation). While pressures leading to land degradation are often exerted on specific components of the land systems (i.e., soils, water, biota), once degradation processes start, other components become affected through cascading and interactive effects. For example, different pressures and degradation processes can have convergent effects, as can be the case of overgrazing leading to wind erosion, landscape drainage resulting in wetland drying, and warming causing more frequent burning; all of which can independently lead to reductions of the soil organic matter (SOM) pools as a second-order process. Still, the reduction of organic matter pools is also a first-order process triggered directly by the effects of rising temperatures (Crowther et al. 2016139) as well as other climate changes such as precipitation shifts (Viscarra Rossel et al. 2014140). Beyond this complexity, a practical assessment of the major land degradation processes helps to reveal and categorise the multiple pathways in which climate change exerts a degradation pressure (Table 4.1).

Conversion of freshwater wetlands to agricultural land has historically been a common way of increasing the area of arable land. Despite the small areal extent – about 1% of the earth’s surface (Hu et al. 2017141; Dixon et al. 2016142) – freshwater wetlands provide a very large number of ecosystem services, such as groundwater replenishment, flood protection and nutrient retention, and are biodiversity hotspots (Reis et al. 2017143; Darrah et al. 2019144; Montanarella et al. 2018145). The loss of wetlands since 1900 has been estimated at about 55% globally (Davidson 2014146) (low confidence) and 35% since 1970 (Darrah et al. 2019147) (medium confidence) which in many situations pose a problem for adaptation to climate change. Drainage causes loss of wetlands, which can be exacerbated by climate change, further reducing the capacity to adapt to climate change (Barnett et al. 2015148; Colloff et al. 2016149; Finlayson et al. 2017150) (high confidence).

4.2.1.1

Types of land degradation processes

Land degradation processes can affect the soil, water or biotic components of the land as well as the reactions between them (Table 4.1). Across land degradation processes, those affecting the soil have received more attention. The most widespread and studied land degradation processes affecting soils are water and wind erosion, which have accompanied agriculture since its onset and are still dominant (Table 4.1). Degradation through erosion processes is not restricted to soil loss in detachment areas but includes impacts on transport and deposition areas as well (less commonly, deposition areas can have their soils improved by these inputs). Larger-scale degradation processes related to the whole continuum of soil erosion, transport and deposition include dune field expansion/ displacement, development of gully networks and the accumulation of sediments in natural and artificial water-bodies (siltation) (Poesen and Hooke 1997151; Ravi et al. 2010152). Long-distance sediment transport during erosion events can have remote effects on land systems, as documented for the fertilisation effect of African dust on the Amazon (Yu et al. 2015153).

Coastal erosion represents a special case among erosional processes, with reports linking it to climate change. While human interventions in coastal areas (e.g., expansion of shrimp farms) and rivers (e.g., upstream dams cutting coastal sediment supply), and economic activities causing land subsidence (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019154; Allison et al. 2016155) are dominant human drivers, storms and sea-level rise have already left a significant global imprint on coastal erosion (Mentaschi et al. 2018156). Recent projections that take into account geomorphological and socioecological feedbacks suggest that coastal wetlands may not be reduced by sea level rise if their inland growth is accommodated with proper management actions (Schuerch et al. 2018157).

Other physical degradation processes in which no material detachment and transport are involved include soil compaction, hardening, sealing and any other mechanism leading to the loss of porous space crucial for holding and exchanging air and water (Hamza and Anderson 2005158). A very extreme case of degradation through pore volume loss, manifested at landscape or larger scales, is ground subsidence. Typically caused by the lowering of groundwater or oil levels, subsidence involves a sustained collapse of the ground

surface, which can lead to other degradation processes such as salinisation and permanent flooding. Chemical soil degradation processes include relatively simple changes, like nutrient depletion resulting from the imbalance of nutrient extraction on harvested products and fertilisation, and more complex ones, such as acidification and increasing metal toxicity. Acidification in croplands is increasingly driven by excessive nitrogen fertilisation and, to a lower extent, by the depletion of cation like calcium, potassium or magnesium through exports in harvested biomass (Guo et al. 2010159). One of the most relevant chemical degradation processes of soils in the context of climate change is the depletion of its organic matter pool. Reduced in agricultural soils through the increase of respiration rates by tillage and the decline of below-ground plant biomass inputs, SOM pools have been diminished also by the direct effects of warming, not only in cultivated land, but also under natural vegetation (Bond-Lamberty et al. 2018160). Debate persists, however, on whether in more humid and carbon-rich ecosystems the simultaneous stimulation of decomposition and productivity may result in the lack of effects on soil carbon (Crowther et al. 2016161; van Gestel et al. 2018162). In the case of forests, harvesting – particularly if it is exhaustive, as in the case of the use of residues for energy generation – can also lead to organic matter declines (Achat et al. 2015163). Many other degradation processes (e.g., wildfire increase, salinisation) have negative effects on other pathways of soil degradation (e.g., reduced nutrient availability, metal toxicity). SOM can be considered a ‘hub’ of degradation processes and a critical link with the climate system (Minasny et al. 2017164).

Land degradation processes can also start from alterations in the hydrological system that are particularly important in the context of climate change. Salinisation, although perceived and reported in soils, is typically triggered by water table-level rises, driving salts to the surface under dry to sub-humid climates (Schofield and Kirkby 2003165). While salty soils occur naturally under these climates (primary salinity), human interventions have expanded their distribution, secondary salinity with irrigation without proper drainage being the predominant cause of salinisation (Rengasamy 2006166). Yet, it has also taken place under non-irrigated conditions where vegetation changes (particularly dry forest clearing and cultivation) have reduced the magnitude and depth of soil water uptake, triggering water table rises towards the surface. Changes in evapotranspiration and rainfall regimes can exacerbate this process (Schofield and Kirkby 2003167). Salinisation can also result from the intrusion of sea water into coastal areas, both as a result of sea level rise and ground subsidence (Colombani et al. 2016168).

Recurring flood and waterlogging episodes (Bradshaw et al. 2007169; Poff 2002170), and the more chronic expansion of wetlands over dryland ecosystems, are mediated by the hydrological system, on occasions aided by geomorphological shifts as well (Kirwan et al. 2011171). This is also the case for the drying of continental water bodies and wetlands, including the salinisation and drying of lakes and inland seas (Anderson et al. 2003172; Micklin 2010173; Herbert et al. 2015174). In the context of climate change, the degradation of peatland ecosystems is particularly relevant given their very high carbon storage and their sensitivity to changes in soils, hydrology and/or vegetation (Leifeld and Menichetti 2018175). Drainage for land-use conversion together with peat mining are major drivers of peatland degradation, yet other factors such as the extractive use of their natural vegetation and the interactive effects of water table levels and fires (both sensitive to climate change) are important (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a176; Lilleskov et al. 2019177).

The biotic components of the land can also be the focus of degradation processes. Vegetation clearing processes associated with land-use changes are not limited to deforestation but include other natural and seminatural ecosystems such as grasslands (the most cultivated biome on Earth), as well as dry steppes and shrublands, which give place to croplands, pastures, urbanisation or just barren land. This clearing process is associated with net carbon losses from the vegetation and soil pool. Not all biotic degradation processes involve biomass losses. Woody encroachment of open savannahs involves the expansion of woody plant cover and/or density over herbaceous areas and often limits the secondary productivity of rangelands (Asner et al. 2004178; Anadon et al. 2014179). These processes have accelerated since the mid-1800s over most continents (Van Auken 2009180). Change in plant composition of natural or semi-natural ecosystems without any significant vegetation structural changes is another pathway of degradation affecting rangelands and forests. In rangelands, selective grazing and its interaction with climate variability and/or fire can push ecosystems to new compositions with lower forage value and a higher proportion of invasive species (Illius and O ́Connor 1999181; Sasaki et al. 2007182), in some cases with higher carbon sequestration potential, yet with very complex interactions between vegetation and soil carbon shifts (Piñeiro et al. 2010183). In forests, extractive logging can be a pervasive cause of degradation, leading to long-term impoverishment and, in extreme cases, a full loss of the forest cover through its interaction with other agents such as fires (Foley et al. 2007184) or progressive intensification of land use. Invasive alien species are another source of biological degradation. Their arrival into cultivated systems is constantly reshaping crop production strategies, making agriculture unviable on occasions. In natural and seminatural systems such as rangelands, invasive plant species not only threaten livestock production through diminished forage quality, poisoning and other deleterious effects, but have cascading effects on other processes such as altered fire regimes and water cycling (Brooks et al. 2004185). In forests, invasions affect primary productivity and nutrient availability, change fire regimes, and alter species composition, resulting in long-term impacts on carbon pools and fluxes (Peltzer et al. 2010186).

Other biotic components of ecosystems have been shown as a focus of degradation processes. Invertebrate invasions in continental waters can exacerbate other degradation processes such as eutrophication, which is the over-enrichment of nutrients, leading to excessive algal growth (Walsh et al. 2016a187). Shifts in soil microbial and mesofaunal composition – which can be caused by pollution with pesticides or nitrogen deposition and by vegetation or disturbance regime shifts – alter many soil functions, including respiration rates and carbon release to the atmosphere (Hussain et al. 2009188; Crowther et al. 2015189). The role of the soil biota in modulating the effects of climate change on soil carbon has been recently demonstrated (Ratcliffe et al. 2017190), highlighting the importance of this lesser-known component of the biota as a focal point of land degradation. Of special relevance as both indicators and agents of land degradation recovery are mycorrhiza, which are root-associated fungal organisms (Asmelash et al. 2016191; Vasconcellos et al. 2016192). In natural dry ecosystems, biological soil crusts composed of a broad range of organisms, including mosses, are a particularly sensitive focus for degradation (Field et al. 2010193) with evidenced sensitivity to climate change (Reed et al. 2012194).

4.2.1.2

Land degradation processes and climate change

While the subdivision of individual processes is challenged by their strong interconnectedness, it provides a useful setting to identify the most important ‘focal points’ of climate change pressures on land degradation. Among land degradation processes, those responding more directly to climate change pressures include all types of erosion and SOM declines (soil focus), salinisation, sodification and permafrost thawing (soil/water focus), waterlogging of dry ecosystems and drying of wet ecosystems (water focus), and a broad group of biologically-mediated processes like woody encroachment, biological invasions, pest outbreaks (biotic focus), together with biological soil crust destruction and increased burning (soil/biota focus) (Table 4.1). Processes like ground subsidence can be affected by climate change indirectly through sea level rise (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019195).

Even when climate change exerts a direct pressure on degradation processes, it can be a secondary driver subordinated to other overwhelming human pressures. Important exceptions are three processes in which climate change is a dominant global or regional pressure and the main driver of their current acceleration. These are: coastal erosion as affected by sea level rise and increased storm frequency/intensity (high agreement, medium evidence) (Johnson et al. 2015196; Alongi 2015197; Harley et al. 2017198; Nicholls et al. 2016199); permafrost thawing responding to warming (high agreement, robust evidence) (Liljedahl et al. 2016200; Peng et al. 2016201; Batir et al. 2017202); and increased burning responding to warming and altered precipitation regimes (high agreement, robust evidence) (Jolly et al. 2015203; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016204; Taufik et al. 2017205; Knorr et al. 2016206). The previous assessment highlights the fact that climate change not only exacerbates many of the well-acknowledged ongoing land degradation processes of managed ecosystems (i.e., croplands and pastures), but becomes a dominant pressure that introduces novel degradation pathways in natural and seminatural ecosystems. Climate change has influenced species invasions and the degradation that they cause by enhancing the transport, colonisation, establishment, and ecological impact of the invasive species, and also by impairing their control practices (medium agreement, medium evidence) (Hellmann et al. 2008207).

Table 4.1

Major land degradation processes and their connections with climate change.

For each process a ‘focal point’ (soil, water, biota) on which degradation occurs in the first place is indicated, acknowledging that most processes propagate to other land components and cascade into or interact with some of the other processes listed below. The impact of climate change on each process is categorised based on the proximity (very direct = high, very indirect = low) and dominance (dominant = high, subordinate to other pressures = low) of effects. The major effects of climate change on each process are highlighted together with the predominant pressures from other drivers. Feedbacks of land degradation processes on climate change are categorised according to the intensity (very intense = high, subtle = low) of the chemical (GHG emissions or capture) or physical (energy and momentum exchange, aerosol emissions) effects. Warming effects are indicated in red and cooling effects in blue. Specific feedbacks on climate change are highlighted.

4.2.2

Drivers of land degradation

Drivers of land degradation and land improvement are many and they interact in multiple ways. Figure 4.2 illustrates how some of the most important drivers interact with the land users. It is important to keep in mind that natural and human factors can drive both degradation and improvement (Kiage 2013208; Bisaro et al. 2014209).

Figure 4.2

Schematic representation of the interactions between the human (H) and environmental (E) components of the land system showing decision-making and ecosystem services as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept […]

Schematic representation of the interactions between the human (H) and environmental (E) components of the land system showing decision-making and ecosystem services as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept broadly in balance for functional coevolution of the components. Modified with permission from Stafford Smith et al. (2007)1643.

Land degradation is driven by the entire spectrum of factors, from very short and intensive events, such as individual rain storms of 10 minutes removing topsoil or initiating a gully or a landslide (Coppus and Imeson 2002210; Morgan 2005b211) to century-scale slow depletion of nutrients or loss of soil particles (Johnson and Lewis 2007, pp. 5–6). But, instead of focusing on absolute temporal variations, the drivers of land degradation can be assessed in relation to the rates of possible recovery. Unfortunately, this is impractical to do in a spatially explicit way because rates of soil formation are difficult to measure due to the slow rate, usually <5mm/century (Delgado and Gómez 2016212). Studies suggest that erosion rates of conventionally tilled agricultural fields exceed the rate at which soil is generated by one to two orders of magnitude (Montgomery 2007a213).

The landscape effects of gully erosion from one short intensive rainstorm can persist for decades and centuries (Showers 2005214). Intensive agriculture under the Roman Empire in occupied territories in France is still leaving its marks and can be considered an example of irreversible land degradation (Dupouey et al. 2002215).

The climate-change-related drivers of land degradation are gradual changes of temperature, precipitation and wind, as well as changes of the distribution and intensity of extreme events (Lin et al. 2017216). Importantly, these drivers can act in two directions: land improvement and land degradation. Increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere is a driver of land improvement, even if the net effect is modulated by other factors, such as the availability of nitrogen (Terrer et al. 2016217) and water (Gerten et al. 2014218; Settele et al. 2015219; Girardin et al. 2016220).

The gradual and planetary changes that can cause land degradation/ improvement have been studied by global integrated models and Earth observation technologies. Studies of global land suitability for agriculture suggest that climate change will increase the area suitable for agriculture by 2100 in the Northern high latitudes by 16% (Ramankutty et al. 2002221) or 5.6 million km2 (Zabel et al. 2014222), while tropical regions will experience a loss (Ramankutty et al. 2002223; Zabel et al. 2014224).

Temporal and spatial patterns of tree mortality can be used as an indicator of climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. Episodic mortality of trees occurs naturally even without climate change, but more widespread spatio-temporal anomalies can be a sign of climate-induced degradation (Allen et al. 2010225). In the absence of systematic data on tree mortality, a comprehensive meta-analysis of 150 published articles suggests that increasing tree mortality around the world can be attributed to increasing drought and heat stress in forests worldwide (Allen et al. 2010226).

Other and more indirect drivers can be a wide range of factors such as demographic changes, technological change, changes of consumption patterns and dietary preferences, political and economic changes, and social changes (Mirzabaev et al. 2016227). It is important to stress that there are no simple or direct relationships between underlying drivers and land degradation, such as poverty or high population density, that are necessarily causing land degradation (Lambin et al. 2001228). However, drivers of land degradation need to be studied in the context of spatial, temporal, economic, environmental and cultural aspects (Warren 2002229). Some analyses suggest an overall negative correlation between population density and land degradation (Bai et al. 2008230) but we find many local examples of both positive and negative relationships (Brandt et al. 2018a, 2017231). Even if there are correlations in one or the other direction, causality is not always the same.

Land degradation is inextricably linked to several climate variables, such as temperature, precipitation, wind, and seasonality. This means that there are many ways in which climate change and land degradation are linked. The linkages are better described as a web of causality rather than a set of cause–effect relationships.

4.2.3

Attribution in the case of land degradation

The question here is whether or not climate change can be attributed to land degradation and vice versa. Land degradation is a complex phenomenon often affected by multiple factors such as climatic (rainfall, temperature, and wind), abiotic ecological factors (e.g., soil characteristics and topography), type of land use (e.g., farming of various kinds, forestry, or protected area), and land management practices (e.g., tilling, crop rotation, and logging/thinning). Therefore, attribution of land degradation to climate change is extremely challenging. Because land degradation is highly dependent on land management, it is even possible that climate impacts would trigger land management changes reducing or reversing land degradation, sometimes called transformational adaptation (Kates et al. 2012232). There is not much research on attributing land degradation explicitly to climate change, but there is more on climate change as a threat multiplier for land degradation. However, in some cases, it is possible to infer climate change impacts on land degradation, both theoretically and empirically. Section 4.2.3.1 outlines the potential direct linkages of climate change on land degradation based on current theoretical understanding of land degradation processes and drivers. Section 4.2.3.2 investigates possible indirect impacts on land degradation.

4.2.3.1

Direct linkages with climate change

The most important direct impacts of climate change on land degradation are the results of increasing temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and intensification of rainfall. These changes will, in various combinations, cause changes in erosion rates and the processes driving both increases and decreases of soil erosion. From an attribution point of view, it is important to note that projections of precipitation are, in general, more uncertain than projections of temperature changes (Murphy et al. 2004233; Fischer and Knutti 2015234; IPCC 2013a235). Precipitation involves local processes of larger complexity than temperature, and projections are usually less robust than those for temperature (Giorgi and Lionello 2008236; Pendergrass 2018237).

Theoretically the intensification of the hydrological cycle as a result of human-induced climate change is well established (Guerreiro et al. 2018238; Trenberth 1999239; Pendergrass et al. 2017240; Pendergrass and Knutti 2018241) and also empirically observed (Blenkinsop et al. 2018242; Burt et al. 2016a243; Liu et al. 2009244; Bindoff et al. 2013245). AR5 WGI concluded that heavy precipitation events have increased in frequency, intensity, and/or amount since 1950 (likely) and that further changes in this direction are likely to very likely during the 21st century (IPCC 2013246). The IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C concluded that human-induced global warming has already caused an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at the global scale (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018247). As an example, in central India, there has been a threefold increase in widespread extreme rain events during 1950–2015 which has influenced several land degradation processes, not least soil erosion (Burt et al. 2016b248). In Europe and North America, where observation networks are dense and extend over a long time, it is likely that the frequency or intensity of heavy rainfall have increased (IPCC 2013b1644). It is also expected that seasonal shifts and cycles such as monsoons and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) will further increase the intensity of rainfall events (IPCC 2013249).

When rainfall regimes change, it is expected to drive changes in vegetation cover and composition, which may be a cause of land degradation in and of itself, as well as impacting on other aspects of land degradation. Vegetation cover, for example, is a key factor in determining soil loss through water (Nearing et al. 2005250) and wind erosion (Shao 2008251). Changing rainfall regimes also affect below-ground biological processes, such as fungi and bacteria (Meisner et al. 2018252; Shuab et al. 2017253; Asmelash et al. 2016254).

Changing snow accumulation and snow melt alter volume and timing of hydrological flows in and from mountain areas (Brahney et al. 2017255; Lutz et al. 2014256), with potentially large impacts on downstream areas. Soil processes are also affected by changing snow conditions with partitioning between evaporation and streamflow and between subsurface flow and surface runoff (Barnhart et al. 2016257). Rainfall intensity is a key climatic driver of soil erosion. Early modelling studies and theory suggest that light rainfall events will decrease while heavy rainfall events increase at about 7% per degree of warming (Liu et al. 2009258; Trenberth 2011259). Such changes result in increased intensity of rainfall, which increases the erosive power of rainfall (erosivity) and hence enhances the likelihood of water erosion. Increases in rainfall intensity can even exceed the rate of increase of atmospheric moisture content (Liu et al. 2009260; Trenberth 2011261). Erosivity is highly correlated to the product of total rainstorm energy and the maximum 30-minute rainfall intensity of the storm (Nearing et al. 2004262) and increased erosivity will exacerbate water erosion substantially (Nearing et al. 2004263). However, the effects will not be uniform, but highly variable across regions (Almagro et al. 2017264; Mondal et al. 2016265). Several empirical studies around the world have shown the increasing intensity of rainfall (IPCC 2013b266; Ma et al. 2015267, 2017268) and also suggest that this will be accentuated with future increased global warming (Cheng and AghaKouchak 2015269; Burt et al. 2016b270; O’Gorman 2015271).

The very comprehensive database of direct measurements of water erosion presented by García-Ruiz et al. (2015)272 contains 4377 entries (North America: 2776, Europe: 847, Asia: 259, Latin America: 237, Africa: 189, Australia and Pacific: 67), even though not all entries are complete (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3

Map of observed soil erosion rates in database of 4,377 entries by García-Ruiz et al. (2015). The map was published by Li and Fang (2016).

Map of observed soil erosion rates in database of 4,377 entries by García-Ruiz et al. (2015)1645. The map was published by Li and Fang (2016)1646.

An important finding from that database is that almost any erosion rate is possible under almost any climatic condition (García-Ruiz et al. 2015273). Even if the results show few clear relationships between erosion and land conditions, the authors highlighted four observations (i) the highest erosion rates were found in relation to agricultural activities – even though moderate erosion rates were also found in agricultural settings, (ii) high erosion rates after forest fires were not observed (although the cases were few), (iii) land covered by shrubs showed generally low erosion rates, (iv) pasture land showed generally medium rates of erosion. Some important findings for the link between soil erosion and climate change can be noted from erosion measurements: erosion rates tend to increase with increasing mean annual rainfall, with a peak in the interval of 1000 to 1400 mm annual rainfall (García-Ruiz et al. 2015274) (low confidence). However, such relationships are overshadowed by the fact that most rainfall events do not cause any erosion, instead erosion is caused by a few high-intensity rainfall events (Fischer et al. 2016275; Zhu et al. 2019276). Hence, mean annual rainfall is not a good predictor of erosion (Gonzalez-Hidalgo et al. 2012, 2009277). In the context of climate change, it means that the tendency for rainfall patterns to change towards more intensive precipitation events is serious. Such patterns have already been observed widely, even in cases where the total rainfall is decreasing (Trenberth 2011278). The findings generally confirm the strong consensus about the importance of vegetation cover as a protection against soil erosion, emphasising how extremely important land management is for controlling erosion.

In the Mediterranean region, the observed and expected decrease in annual rainfall due to climate change is accompanied by an increase of rainfall intensity, and hence erosivity (Capolongo et al. 2008279). In tropical and sub-tropical regions, the on-site impacts of soil erosion dominate, and are manifested in very high rates of soil loss, in some cases exceeding 100 t ha–1 yr–1 (Tadesse 2001280; García-Ruiz et al. 2015281). In temperate regions, the off-site costs of soil erosion are often a greater concern, for example, siltation of dams and ponds, downslope damage to property, roads and other infrastructure (Boardman 2010). In cases where water erosion occurs, the downstream effects, such as siltation of dams, are often significant and severe in terms of environmental and economic damages (Kidane and Alemu 2015282; Reinwarth et al. 2019283; Quiñonero-Rubio et al. 2016284; Adeogun et al. 2018285; Ben Slimane et al. 2016286).

The distribution of wet and dry spells also affects land degradation, although uncertainties remain depending on resolution of climate models used for prediction (Kendon et al. 2014287). Changes in timing of rainfall events may have significant impacts on processes of soil erosion through changes in wetting and drying of soils (Lado et al. 2004288).

Soil moisture content is affected by changes in evapotranspiration and evaporation, which may influence the partitioning of water into surface and subsurface runoff (Li and Fang 2016289; Nearing et al. 2004290). This portioning of rainfall can have a decisive effect on erosion (Stocking et al. 2001291).

Wind erosion is a serious problem in agricultural regions, not only in drylands (Wagner 2013292). Near-surface wind speeds over land areas have decreased in recent decades (McVicar and Roderick 2010293), partly as a result of changing surface roughness (Vautard et al. 2010294). Theoretically (Bakun 1990295; Bakun et al. 2015296) and empirically (Sydeman et al. 2014297; England et al. 2014298) average winds along coastal regions worldwide have increased with climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Other studies of wind and wind erosion have not detected any long-term trend, suggesting that climate change has altered wind patterns outside drylands in a way that can significantly affect the risk of wind erosion (Pryor and Barthelmie 2010299; Bärring et al. 2003300). Therefore, the findings regarding wind erosion and climate change are inconclusive, partly due to inadequate measurements.

Global mean temperatures are rising worldwide, but particularly in the Arctic region (high confidence) (IPCC 2018a301). Heat stress from extreme temperatures and heatwaves (multiple days of hot weather in a row) have increased markedly in some locations in the last three decades (high confidence), and are virtually certain to continue during the 21st century (Olsson et al. 2014a302). The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C concluded that human-induced global warming has already caused more frequent heatwaves in most of land regions, and that climate models project robust differences between present-day and global warming up to 1.5°C and between 1.5°C and 2°C (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018303). Direct temperature effects on soils are of two kinds. Firstly, permafrost thawing leads to soil degradation in boreal and high-altitude regions (Yang et al. 2010304; Jorgenson and Osterkamp 2005305). Secondly, warming alters the cycling of nitrogen and carbon in soils, partly due to impacts on soil microbiota (Solly et al. 2017306). There are many studies with particularly strong experimental evidence, but a full understanding of cause and effect is contextual and elusive (Conant et al. 2011a307,b308; Wu et al. 2011309). This is discussed comprehensively in Chapter 2.

Climate change, including increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, affects vegetation structure and function and hence conditions for land degradation. Exactly how vegetation responds to changes remains a research task. In a comparison of seven global vegetation models under four representative concentration pathways, Friend et al. (2014)310 found that all models predicted increasing vegetation carbon storage, however, with substantial variation between models. An important insight compared with previous understanding is that structural dynamics of vegetation seems to play a more important role for carbon storage than vegetation production (Friend et al. 2014311). The magnitude of CO2 fertilisation of vegetation growth, and hence conditions for land degradation, is still uncertain (Holtum and Winter 2010312), particularly in tropical rainforests (Yang et al. 2016313). For more discussion on this topic, see Chapter 2 in this report.

In summary, rainfall changes attributed to human-induced climate change have already intensified drivers of land degradation (robust evidence, high agreement) but attributing land degradation to climate change is challenging because of the importance of land management (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in climate variability modes, such as in monsoons and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, can also affect land degradation (low evidence, low agreement).

4.2.3.2

Indirect and complex linkages with climate change

Many important indirect linkages between land degradation and climate change occur via agriculture, particularly through changing outbreaks of pests (Rosenzweig et al. 2001314; Porter et al. 1991315; Thomson et al. 2010316; Dhanush et al. 2015317; Lamichhane et al. 2015318), which is covered comprehensively in Chapter 5. More negative impacts have been observed than positive ones (IPCC 2014b319). After 2050, the risk of yield loss increases as a result of climate change in combination with other drivers (medium confidence) and such risks will increase dramatically if global mean temperatures increase by about 4°C (high confidence) (Porter et al. 2014). The reduction (or plateauing) in yields in major production areas (Brisson et al. 2010320; Lin and Huybers 2012321; Grassini et al. 2013322) may trigger cropland expansion elsewhere, either into natural ecosystems, marginal arable lands or intensification on already cultivated lands, with possible consequences for increasing land degradation.

Precipitation and temperature changes will trigger changes in land and crop management, such as changes in planting and harvest dates, type of crops, and type of cultivars, which may alter the conditions for soil erosion (Li and Fang 2016323).

Much research has tried to understand how plants are affected by a particular stressor, for example, drought, heat, or waterlogging, including effects on below-ground processes. But less research has tried to understand how plants are affected by several simultaneous stressors – which of course is more realistic in the context of climate change (Mittler 2006324; Kerns et al. 2016325) and from a hazards point of view (Section 7.2.1). From an attribution point of view, such a complex web of causality is problematic if attribution is only done through statistically-significant correlation. It requires a combination of statistical links and theoretically informed causation, preferably integrated into a model. Some modelling studies have combined several stressors with geomorphologically explicit mechanisms – using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model – and realistic land-use scenarios, and found severe risks of increasing erosion from climate change (Mullan et al. 2012326; Mullan 2013327). Other studies have included various management options, such as changing planting and harvest dates (Zhang and Nearing 2005328; Parajuli et al. 2016329; Routschek et al. 2014330; Nunes and Nearing 2011331), type of cultivars (Garbrecht and Zhang 2015332), and price of crops (Garbrecht et al. 2007333; O’Neal et al. 2005334) to investigate the complexity of how new climate regimes may alter soil erosion rates.

In summary, climate change increases the risk of land degradation, both in terms of likelihood and consequence, but the exact attribution to climate change is challenging due to several confounding factors. But since climate change exacerbates most degradation processes, it is clear that, unless land management is improved, climate change will result in increasing land degradation (very high confidence).

4.2.4

Approaches to assessing land degradation

In a review of different approaches and attempts to map global land degradation, Gibbs and Salmon (2015)335 identified four main approaches to map the global extent of degraded lands: expert opinions (Oldeman and van Lynden 1998336; Dregne 1998337; Reed 2005338; Bot et al. 2000339); satellite observation of vegetation greenness – for example, remote sensing of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Plant Phenology Index (PPI) – (Yengoh et al. 2015340; Bai et al. 2008c341; Shi et al. 2017342; Abdi et al. 2019343; JRC 2018344); biophysical models (biogeographical/ topological) (Cai et al. 2011b345; Hickler et al. 2005346; Steinkamp and Hickler 2015347; Stoorvogel et al. 2017348); and inventories of land use/ condition. Together they provide a relatively complete evaluation, but none on its own assesses the complexity of the process (Vogt et al. 2011349; Gibbs and Salmon 2015350). There is, however, a robust consensus that remote sensing and field-based methods are critical to assess and monitor land degradation, particularly over large areas (such as global, continental and sub-continental) although there are still knowledge gaps to be filled (Wessels et al. 2007351, 2004352; Prince 2016353; Ghazoul and Chazdon 2017354) as well as the problem of baseline values (Section 4.1.3).

Remote sensing can provide meaningful proxies of land degradation in terms of severity, temporal development, and areal extent. These proxies of land degradation include several indexes that have been used to assess land conditions, and monitoring changes of land conditions – for example, extent of gullies, severe forms of rill and sheet erosion, and deflation. The presence of open-access, quality controlled and continuously updated global databases of remote sensing data is invaluable, and is the only method for consistent monitoring of large areas over several decades (Sedano et al. 2016355; Brandt et al. 2018b356; Turner 2014357).The NDVI, as a proxy for Net Primary Production (NPP) (see Glossary), is one of the most commonly used methods to assess land degradation, since it indicates land cover, an important factor for soil protection. Although NDVI is not a direct measure of vegetation biomass, there is a close coupling between NDVI integrated over a season and in situ NPP (high agreement, robust evidence) (see Higginbottom et al. 2014358; Andela et al. 2013359; Wessels et al. 2012360).

Distinction between land degradation/improvement and the effects of climate variation is an important and contentious issue (Murthy and Bagchi 2018361; Ferner et al. 2018362).There is no simple and straightforward way to disentangle these two effects. The interaction of different determinants of primary production is not well understood. A key barrier to this is a lack of understanding of the inherent interannual variability of vegetation (Huxman et al. 2004363; Knapp and Smith 2001364; Ruppert et al. 2012365; Bai et al. 2008a366; Jobbágy and Sala 2000367). One possibility is to compare potential land productivity modelled by vegetation models and actual productivity measured by remote sensing (Seaquist et al. 2009368; Hickler et al. 2005369; van der Esch et al. 2017370), but the difference in spatial resolution, typically 0.5 degrees for vegetation models compared to 0.25–0.5 km for remote sensing data, is hampering the approach. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) provides higher spatial resolution (up to 0.25 km), delivers data for the EVI, which is calculated in the same way as NDVI, and has showed a robust approach to estimate spatial patterns of global annual primary productivity (Shi et al. 2017371; Testa et al. 2018372).

Another approach to disentangle the effects of climate and land use/ management is to use the Rain Use Efficiency (RUE), defined as the biomass production per unit of rainfall, as an indicator (Le Houerou 1984373; Prince et al. 1998374; Fensholt et al. 2015375). A variant of the RUE approach is the residual trend (RESTREND) of a NDVI time series, defined as the fraction of the difference between the observed NDVI and the NDVI predicted from climate data (Yengoh et al. 2015376; John et al. 2016377). These two metrics aim to estimate the NPP, rainfall and the time dimensions. They are simple transformations of the same three variables: RUE shows the NPP relationship with rainfall for individual years, while RESTREND is the interannual change of RUE; also, both consider that rainfall is the only variable that affects biomass production. They are legitimate metrics when used appropriately, but in many cases they involve oversimplifications and yield misleading results (Fensholt et al. 2015378; Prince et al. 1998379).

Furthermore, increases in NPP do not always indicate improvement in land condition/reversal of land degradation, since this does not account for changes in vegetation composition. It could, for example, result from conversion of native forest to plantation, or due to bush encroachment, which many consider to be a form of land degradation (Ward 2005380). Also, NPP may be increased by irrigation, which can enhance productivity in the short to medium term while increasing risk of soil salinisation in the long term (Niedertscheider et al. 2016381).

Recent progress and expanding time series of canopy characterisations based on passive microwave satellite sensors have offered rapid progress in regional and global descriptions of forest degradation and recovery trends (Tian et al. 2017382). The most common proxy is vertical optical depth (VOD) and has already been used to describe global forest/savannah carbon stock shifts over two decades, highlighting strong continental contrasts (Liu et al. 2015a383) and demonstrating the value of this approach to monitor forest degradation at large scales. Contrasting with NDVI, which is only sensitive to vegetation ‘greenness’, from which primary production can be modelled, VOD is also sensitive to water in woody parts of the vegetation and hence provides a view of vegetation dynamics that can be complementary to NDVI. As well as the NDVI, VOD also needs to be corrected to take into account the rainfall variation (Andela et al. 2013384).

Even though remote sensing offers much potential, its application to land degradation and recovery remains challenging as structural changes often occur at scales below the detection capabilities of most remote-sensing technologies. Additionally, if the remote sensing is based on vegetation index data, other forms of land degradation, such as nutrient depletion, changes of soil physical or biological properties, loss of values for humans, among others, cannot be inferred directly by remote sensing. The combination of remotely sensed images and field-based approach can give improved estimates of carbon stocks and tree biodiversity (Imai et al. 2012385; Fujiki et al. 2016386).

Additionally, the majority of trend techniques employed would be capable of detecting only the most severe of degradation processes, and would therefore not be useful as a degradation early-warning system (Higginbottom et al. 2014387; Wessels et al. 2012388). However, additional analyses using higher-resolution imagery, such as the Landsat and SPOT satellites, would be well suited to providing further localised information on trends observed (Higginbottom et al. 2014389). New approaches to assess land degradation using high spatial resolution are developing, but the need for time series makes progress slow. The use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data has been shown to be advantageous for the estimation of soil surface characteristics, in particular, surface roughness and soil moisture (Gao et al. 2017390; Bousbih et al. 2017391), and detecting and quantifying selective logging (Lei et al. 2018392). Continued research effort is required to enable full assessment of land degradation using remote sensing.

Computer simulation models can be used alone or combined with the remote sensing observations to assess land degradation. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) can be used, to some extent, to predict the long-term average annual soil loss by water erosion. RUSLE has been constantly revisited to estimate soil loss based on the product of rainfall–runoff erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and steepness factor, conservation factor, and support practice parameter (Nampak et al. 2018393). Inherent limitations of RUSLE include data-sparse regions, inability to account for soil loss from gully erosion or mass wasting events, and that it does not predict sediment pathways from hillslopes to water bodies (Benavidez et al. 2018394). Since RUSLE models only provide gross erosion, the integration of a further module in the RUSLE scheme to estimate the sediment yield from the modelled hillslopes is needed. The spatially distributed sediment delivery model, WaTEM/SEDEM, has been widely tested in Europe (Borrelli et al. 2018395). Wind erosion is another factor that needs to be taken into account in the modelling of soil erosion (Webb et al. 2017a396, 2016397). Additional models need to be developed to include the limitations of the RUSLE models.

Regarding the field-based approach to assess land degradation, there are multiple indicators that reflect functional ecosystem processes linked to ecosystem services and thus to the value for humans. These indicators are a composite set of measurable attributes from different factors, such as climate, soil, vegetation, biomass, management, among others, that can be used together or separately to develop indexes to better assess land degradation (Allen et al. 2011398; Kosmas et al. 2014399).

Declines in vegetation cover, changes in vegetation structure, decline in mean species abundances, decline in habitat diversity, changes in abundance of specific indicator species, reduced vegetation health and productivity, and vegetation management intensity and use, are the most common indicators in the vegetation condition of forest and woodlands (Stocking et al. 2001400; Wiesmair et al. 2017401; Ghazoul and Chazdon 2017402; Alkemade et al. 2009403).

Several indicators of the soil quality (SOM, depth, structure, compaction, texture, pH, C:N ratio, aggregate size distribution and stability, microbial respiration, soil organic carbon, salinisation, among others) have been proposed (Schoenholtz et al. 2000404) (Section 2.2). Among these, SOM directly and indirectly drives the majority of soil functions. Decreases in SOM can lead to a decrease in fertility and biodiversity, as well as a loss of soil structure, causing reductions in water-holding capacity, increased risk of erosion (both wind and water) and increased bulk density and hence soil compaction (Allen et al. 2011405; Certini 2005406; Conant et al. 2011a407). Thus, indicators related with the quantity and quality of the SOM are necessary to identify land degradation (Pulido et al. 2017408; Dumanski and Pieri 2000409). The composition of the microbial community is very likely to be positive impacted by both climate change and land degradation processes (Evans and Wallenstein 2014410; Wu et al. 2015411; Classen et al. 2015412), thus changes in microbial community composition can be very useful to rapidly reflect land degradation (e.g., forest degradation increased the bacterial alpha-diversity indexes) (Flores-Rentería et al. 2016413; Zhou et al. 2018414). These indicators might be used as a set of site-dependent indicators, and in a plant-soil system (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005415).

Useful indicators of degradation and improvement include changes in ecological processes and disturbance regimes that regulate the flow of energy and materials and that control ecosystem dynamics under a climate change scenario. Proxies of dynamics include spatial and temporal turnover of species and habitats within ecosystems (Ghazoul et al. 2015416; Bahamondez and Thompson 2016417). Indicators in agricultural lands include crop yield decreases and difficulty in maintaining yields (Stocking et al. 2001418). Indicators of landscape degradation/improvement in fragmented forest landscapes include the extent, size and distribution of remaining forest fragments, an increase in edge habitat, and loss of connectivity and ecological memory (Zahawi et al. 2015419; Pardini et al. 2010420).

In summary, as land degradation is such a complex and global process, there is no single method by which land degradation can be estimated objectively and consistently over large areas (very high confidence). However, many approaches exist that can be used to assess different aspects of land degradation or provide proxies of land degradation. Remote sensing, complemented by other kinds of data (i.e., field observations, inventories, expert opinions), is the only method that can generate geographically explicit and globally consistent data over time scales relevant for land degradation (several decades).

4.3

Status and current trends of land degradation

The scientific literature on land degradation often excludes forest degradation, yet here we attempt to assess both issues. Because of the different bodies of scientific literature, we assess land degradation and forest degradation under different sub-headings and, where possible, draw integrated conclusions.

4.3.1

Land degradation

There are no reliable global maps of the extent and severity of land degradation (Gibbs and Salmon 2015421; Prince et al. 2018422; van der Esch et al. 2017423), despite the fact that land degradation is a severe problem (Turner et al. 2016424). The reasons are both conceptual – that is, how land degradation is defined, using what baseline (Herrick et al. 2019425) or over what time period – and methodological – that is, how it can be measured (Prince et al. 2018426). Although there is a strong consensus that land degradation is a reduction in productivity of the land or soil, there are diverging views regarding the spatial and temporal scales at which land degradation occurs (Warren 2002427), and how this can be quantified and mapped. Proceeding from the definition in this report, there are also diverging views concerning ecological integrity and the value to humans. A comprehensive treatment of the conceptual discussion about land degradation is provided by the recent report on land degradation from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Montanarella et al. 2018428).

A review of different attempts to map global land degradation, based on expert opinion, satellite observations, biophysical models and a database of abandoned agricultural lands, suggested that between <10 Mkm2 to 60 Mkm2 (corresponding to 8–45% of the ice-free land area) have been degraded globally (Gibbs and Salmon, 2015429) (very low confidence).

One often-used global assessment of land degradation uses trends in NDVI as a proxy for land degradation and improvement during the period 1983 to 2006 (Bai et al. 2008b430,c431) with an update to 2011 (Bai et al. 2015432). These studies, based on very coarse resolution satellite data (NOAA AVHRR data with a resolution of 8 km), indicated that, between 22% and 24% of the global ice-free land area was subject to a downward trend, while about 16% showed an increasing trend. The study also suggested, contrary to earlier assessments (Middleton and Thomas 1997433), that drylands were not among the most affected regions. Another study using a similar approach for the period 1981–2006 suggested that about 29% of the global land area is subject to ‘land degradation hotspots’, that is, areas with acute land degradation in need of particular attention. These hotspot areas were distributed over all agro-ecological regions and land cover types. Two different studies have tried to link land degradation, identified by NDVI as a proxy, and number of people affected: Le et al. (2016)434 estimated that at least 3.2 billion people were affected, while Barbier and Hochard (2016435, 2018436) estimated that 1.33 billion people were affected, of which 95% were living in developing countries.

Yet another study, using a similar approach and type of remote-sensing data, compared NDVI trends with biomass trends calculated by a global vegetation model over the period 1982–2010 and found that 17–36% of the land areas showed a negative NDVI trend, while a positive or neutral trend was predicted in modelled vegetation (Schut et al. 2015437). The World Atlas of Desertification (3rd edition) includes a global map of land productivity change over the period 1999 to 2013, which is one useful proxy for land degradation (Cherlet et al. 2018438). Over that period, about 20% of the global ice-free land area shows signs of declining or unstable productivity, whereas about 20% shows increasing productivity. The same report also summarised the productivity trends by land categories and found that most forest land showed increasing trends in productivity, while rangelands had more declining trends than increasing trends (Figure 4.4). These productivity assessments, however, do not distinguish between trends due to climate change and trends due to other factors. A recent analysis of ‘greening’ of the world using MODIS time series of NDVI 2000–2017, shows a striking increase in the greening over China and India. In China the greening is seen over forested areas, 42%, and cropland areas, in which 32% is increasing (Section 4.9.3). In India, the greening is almost entirely associated with cropland (82%) (Chen et al. 2019439).

All these studies of vegetation trends show that there are regionally differentiated trends of either decreasing or increasing vegetation. When comparing vegetation trends with trends in climatic variables, Schut et al. (2015440) found very few areas (1–2%) where an increase in vegetation trend was independent of the climate drivers, and that study suggested that positive vegetation trends are primarily caused by climatic factors.

In an attempt to go beyond the mapping of global vegetation trends for assessing land degradation, Borelli et al. (2017)441 used a soil erosion model (RUSLE) and suggested that soil erosion is mainly caused in areas of cropland expansion, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. The method is controversial for conceptual reasons (i.e., the ability of the model to capture the most important erosion processes) and data limitations (i.e., the availability of relevant data at regional to global scales), and its validity for assessing erosion over large areas has been questioned by several studies (Baveye 2017442; Evans and Boardman 2016a443,b444; Labrière et al. 2015445).

An alternative to using remote sensing for assessing the state of land degradation is to compile field-based data from around the globe (Turner et al. 2016446). In addition to the problems of definitions and baselines, this approach is also hampered by the lack of standardised methods used in the field. An assessment of the global severity of soil erosion in agriculture, based on 1673 measurements around the world (compiled from 201 peer-reviewed articles), indicated that the global net median rate of soil formation (i.e., formation minus erosion) is about 0.004 mm yr–1 (about 0.05 t ha–1 yr–1) compared with the median net rate of soil loss in agricultural fields, 1.52 mm yr–1 (about 18 t ha–1 yr–1) in tilled fields and 0.065 mm yr–1 (about 0.8 t ha–1 yr–1) in no-till fields (Montgomery 2007a447). This means that the rate of soil erosion from agricultural fields is between 380 (conventional tilling) and 16 times (no-till) the natural rate of soil formation (medium agreement, limited evidence). These approximate figures are supported by another large meta-study including over 4000 sites around the world (see Figure 4.4) where the average soil loss from agricultural plots was about 21 t ha–1 yr–1 (García-Ruiz et al. 2015448). Climate change, mainly through the intensification of rainfall, will further increase these rates unless land management is improved (high agreement, medium evidence).

Figure 4.4

Proportional global land productivity trends by land-cover/land-use class. (Cropland includes arable land, permanent crops and mixed classes with over 50% crops; grassland includes natural grassland and managed pasture land; rangelands include shrubland, herbaceous and sparsely vegetated areas; forest land includes all forest categories and mixed classes with tree cover greater than 40%.) Data source: Copernicus […]

Proportional global land productivity trends by land-cover/land-use class. (Cropland includes arable land, permanent crops and mixed classes with over 50% crops; grassland includes natural grassland and managed pasture land; rangelands include shrubland, herbaceous and sparsely vegetated areas; forest land includes all forest categories and mixed classes with tree cover greater than 40%.) Data source: Copernicus Global Land SPOT VGT, 1999–2013, adapted from (Cherlet et al. 20181647).

Soils contain about 1500 Gt of organic carbon (median across 28 different estimates presented by Scharlemann et al. (2014)), which is about 1.8 times more carbon than in the atmosphere (Ciais et al. 2013449) and 2.3–3.3 times more than what is held in the terrestrial vegetation of the world (Ciais et al. 2013450). Hence, land degradation, including land conversion leading to soil carbon losses, has the potential to impact on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 substantially. When natural ecosystems are cultivated they lose soil carbon that accumulated over long time periods.The loss rate depends on the type of natural vegetation and how the soil is managed. Estimates of the magnitude of loss vary but figures between 20% and 59% have been reported in several meta studies (Poeplau and Don 2015451; Wei et al. 2015452; Li et al. 2012453; Murty et al. 2002454; Guo and Gifford 2002455). The amount of soil carbon lost explicitly due to land degradation after conversion is hard to assess due to large variation in local conditions and management, see also Chapter 2.

From a climate change perspective, land degradation plays an important role in the dynamics of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). N2O is produced by microbial activity in the soil and the dynamics are related to both management practices and weather conditions, while CH4 dynamics are primarily determined by the amount of soil carbon and to what extent the soil is subject to waterlogging (Palm et al. 2014456), see also Chapter 2.

Several attempts have been made to map the human footprint on the planet (Čuček et al. 2012457; Venter et al. 2016458) but, in some cases, they confuse human impact on the planet with degradation. From our definition it is clear that human impact (or pressure) is not synonymous with degradation, but information on the human footprint provides a useful mapping of potential non-climatic drivers of degradation.

In summary, there are no uncontested maps of the location, extent and severity of land degradation. Proxy estimates based on remote sensing of vegetation dynamics provide one important information source, but attribution of the observed changes in productivity to climate change, human activities, or other drivers is hard. Nevertheless, the different attempts to map the extent of global land degradation using remotely sensed proxies show some convergence and suggest that about a quarter of the ice-free land area is subject to some form of land degradation (limited evidence, medium agreement) affecting about 3.2 billion people (low confidence). Attempts to estimate the severity of land degradation through soil erosion estimates suggest that soil erosion is a serious form of land degradation in croplands closely associated with unsustainable land management in combination with climatic parameters, some of which are subject to climate change (limited evidence, high agreement). Climate change is one among several causal factors in the status and current trends of land degradation (limited evidence, high agreement).

4.3.2

Forest degradation

Quantifying degradation in forests has also proven difficult. Remote sensing based inventory methods can measure reductions in canopy cover or carbon stocks more easiliy than reductions in biological productivity, losses of ecological integrity or value to humans. However, the causes of reductions in canopy cover or carbon stocks can be many (Curtis et al. 2018459), including natural disturbances (e.g., fires, insects and other forest pests), direct human activities (e.g., harvest, forest management) and indirect human impacts (such as climate change) and these may not reduce long-term biological productivity. In many boreal, some temperate and other forest types natural disturbances are common, and consequently these disturbance-adapted forest types are comprised of a mosaic of stands of different ages and stages of stand recovery following natural disturbances. In those managed forests where natural disturbances are uncommon or suppressed, harvesting is the primary determinant of forest age-class distributions.

Quantifying forest degradation as a reduction in productivity, carbon stocks or canopy cover also requires that an initial condition (or baseline) is established, against which this reduction is assessed (Section 4.1.4). In forest types with rare stand-replacing disturbances, the concept of ‘intact’ or ‘primary’ forest has been used to define the initial condition (Potapov et al. 2008460) but applying a single metric can be problematic (Bernier et al. 2017461). Moreover, forest types with

frequent stand-replacing disturbances, such as wildfires, or with natural disturbances that reduce carbon stocks, such as some insect outbreaks, experience over time a natural variability of carbon stocks or canopy density, making it more difficult to define the appropriate baseline carbon density or canopy cover against which to assess degradation. In these systems, forest degradation cannot be assessed at the stand level, but requires a landscape-level assessment that takes into consideration the stand age-class distribution of the landscape, which reflects natural and human disturbance regimes over past decades to centuries and also considers post-disturbance regrowth (van Wagner 1978462; Volkova et al. 2018463; Lorimer and White 2003464).

The lack of a consistent definition of forest degradation also affects the ability to establish estimates of the rates or impacts of forest degradation because the drivers of degradation are not clearly defined (Sasaki and Putz 2009465). Moreover, the literature at times confounds estimates of forest degradation and deforestation (i.e., the conversion of forest to non-forest land uses). Deforestation is a change in land use, while forest degradation is not, although severe forest degradation can ultimately lead to deforestation.

Based on empirical data provided by 46 countries, the drivers for deforestation (due to commercial agriculture) and forest degradation (due to timber extraction and logging) are similar in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Hosonuma et al. 2012466). More recently, global forest disturbance over the period 2001–2015 was attributed to commodity-driven deforestation (27 ± 5%), forestry (26 ± 4%), shifting agriculture (24 ± 3%) and wildfire (23 ± 4%). The remaining 0.6 ± 0.3% was attributed to the expansion of urban centres (Curtis et al. 2018467).

The trends of productivity shown by several remote-sensing studies (see previous section) are largely consistent with mapping of forest cover and change using a 34-year time series of coarse resolution satellite data (NOAA AVHRR) (Song et al. 2018468). This study, based on a thematic classification of satellite data, suggests that (i) global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million km2 between 1982 and 2016 (corresponding to +7.1%) but with regional differences that contribute a net loss in the tropics and a net gain at higher latitudes, and (ii) the fraction of bare ground decreased by 1.16 million km2 (corresponding to –3.1%), mainly in agricultural regions of Asia (Song et al. 2018469), see Figure 4.5. Other tree or land cover datasets show opposite global net trends (Li et al. 2018b470), but high agreement in terms of net losses in the tropics and large net gains in the temperate and boreal zones (Li et al. 2018b471; Song et al. 2018472; Hansen et al. 2013473). Differences across global estimates are further discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.1.2.3) and Chapter 2.

Figure 4.5

Diagrams showing latitudinal profiles of land cover change over the period 1982 to 2016 based on analysis of time-series of NOAA AVHRR imagery:a) tree canopy cover change (ΔTC); b) short vegetation cover change (ΔSV); c) bare ground cover change (ΔBG). Area statistics were calculated for every 1° of latitude (Song et al. 2018). Source of […]

Diagrams showing latitudinal profiles of land cover change over the period 1982 to 2016 based on analysis of time-series of NOAA AVHRR imagery:a) tree canopy cover change (ΔTC); b) short vegetation cover change (ΔSV); c) bare ground cover change (ΔBG). Area statistics were calculated for every 1° of latitude (Song et al. 20181648). Source of data: NOAA AVHRR.

The changes detected from 1982 to 2016 were primarily linked to direct human action, such as land-use changes (about 60% of the observed changes), but also to indirect effects, such as human-induced climate change (about 40% of the observed changes) (Song et al. 2018474), a finding also supported by a more recent study (Chen et al. 2019475). The climate-induced effects were clearly discernible in some regions, such as forest decline in the US Northwest due to increasing pest infestation and increasing fire frequency (Lesk et al. 2017476; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016477; Seidl et al. 2017478), warming-induced

vegetation increase in the Arctic region, general greening in the Sahel probably as a result of increasing rainfall and atmospheric CO2, and advancing treelines in mountain regions (Song et al. 2018479). Keenan et al. (2015)480 and Sloan and Sayer (2015)481 studied the 2015 Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (FAO 2016482) and found that the total forest area from 1990 to 2015 declined by 3%, an estimate that is supported by a global remote-sensing assessment of forest area change that found a 2.8% decline between 1990–2010 (D’Annunzio et al. 2017483; Lindquist and D’Annunzio 2016484). The trend in deforestation is, however, contradicted between these two global assessments, with FAO (2016) suggesting that deforestation is slowing down, while the remote sensing assessments finds it to be accelerating (D’Annunzio et al. 2017485). Recent estimates (Song et al. 2018486) owing to semantic and methodological differences (see Chapter 1, Section 1.1.2.3) suggest that global tree cover has increased over the period 1982–2016, which contradicts the forest area dynamics assessed by FAO (2016)487 and Lindquist and D’Annunzio (2016)488. The loss rate in tropical forest areas from 2010 to 2015 is 55,000 km2 yr-1. According to the FRA, the global natural forest area also declined from 39.61 Mkm2 to 37.21 Mkm2 during the period 1990 to 2015 (Keenan et al. 2015489).

Since 1850, deforestation globally contributed 77% of the emissions from land-use and land-cover change while degradation contributed 10% (with the remainder originating from non-forest land uses) (Houghton and Nassikas 2018490). That study also showed large temporal and regional differences with northern mid-latitude forests currently contributing to carbon sinks due to increasing forest area and forest management. However, the contribution to carbon emissions of degradation as percentage of total forest emissions (degradation and deforestation) are uncertain, with estimates varying from 25% (Pearson et al. 2017491) to nearly 70% of carbon losses (Baccini et al. 2017492). The 25% estimate refers to an analysis of 74 developing countries within tropical and subtropical regions covering 22 million km2 for the period 2005–2010, while the 70% estimate refers to an analysis of the tropics for the period 2003–2014, but, by and large, the scope of these studies is the same. Pearson et al. (2017)493 estimated annual gross emissions of 2.1 GtCO2, of which 53% were derived from timber harvest, 30% from woodfuel harvest and 17% from forest fire. Estimating gross emissions only, creates a distorted representation of human impacts on the land sector carbon cycle. While forest harvest for timber and fuelwood and land-use change (deforestation) contribute to gross emissions, to quantify impacts on the atmosphere, it is necessary to estimate net emissions, that is, the balance of gross emissions and gross removals of carbon from the atmosphere through forest regrowth (Chazdon et al. 2016a494; Poorter et al. 2016495; Sanquetta et al. 2018496).

Current efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be supported by reductions in forest-related carbon emissions and increases in sinks, which requires that the net impact of forest management on the atmosphere be evaluated (Griscom et al. 2017497). Forest management and the use of wood products in GHG mitigation strategies result in changes in forest ecosystem carbon stocks, changes in harvested wood product carbon stocks, and potential changes in emissions resulting from the use of wood products and forest biomass that substitute for other emissions-intensive materials such as concrete, steel and fossil fuels (Kurz et al. 2016498; Lemprière et al. 2013499; Nabuurs et al. 2007500). The net impact of these changes on GHG emissions and removals, relative to a scenario without forest mitigation actions, needs to be quantified, (e.g., Werner et al. 2010501; Smyth et al. 2014502; Xu et al. 2018503). Therefore, reductions in forest ecosystem carbon stocks alone are an incomplete estimator of the impacts of forest management on the atmosphere (Nabuurs et al. 2007504; Lemprière et al. 2013505; Kurz et al. 2016506; Chen et al. 2018b507). The impacts of forest management and the carbon storage in long-lived products and landfills vary greatly by region, however, because of the typically much shorter lifespan of wood products produced from tropical regions compared to temperate and boreal regions (Earles et al. 2012508; Lewis et al. 2019509; Iordan et al. 2018510) (Section 4.8.4).

Assessments of forest degradation based on remote sensing of changes in canopy density or land cover, (e.g., Hansen et al. 2013511; Pearson et al. 2017512) quantify changes in above-ground biomass carbon stocks and require additional assumptions or model-based analyses to also quantify the impacts on other ecosystem carbon pools including below-ground biomass, litter, woody debris and soil carbon. Depending on the type of disturbance, changes in above-ground biomass may lead to decreases or increases in other carbon pools, for example, windthrow and insect-induced tree mortality may result in losses in above-ground biomass that are (initially) offset by corresponding increases in dead organic matter carbon pools (Yamanoi et al. 2015513; Kurz et al. 2008514), while deforestation will reduce the total ecosystem carbon pool (Houghton et al. 2012515).

A global study of current vegetation carbon stocks (450 Gt C), relative to a hypothetical condition without land use (916 Gt C), attributed 42–47% of carbon stock reductions to land management effects without land-use change, while the remaining 53–58% of carbon stock reductions were attributed to deforestation and other land-use changes (Erb et al. 2018516). While carbon stocks in European forests are lower than hypothetical values in the complete absence of human land use, forest area and carbon stocks have been increasing over recent decades (McGrath et al. 2015517; Kauppi et al. 2018518). Studies by Gingrich et al. (2015)519 on the long-term trends in land use over nine European countries (Albania, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom) also show an increase in forest land and reduction in cropland and grazing land from the 19th century to the early 20th century. However, the extent to which human activities have affected the productive capacity of forest lands is poorly understood. Biomass Production Efficiency (BPE), i.e. the fraction of photosynthetic production used for biomass production, was significantly higher in managed forests (0.53) compared to natural forests (0.41) (and it was also higher in managed (0.63) compared to natural (0.44) grasslands) (Campioli et al. 2015521). Managing lands for production may involve trade-offs. For example, a larger proportion of NPP in managed forests is allocated to biomass carbon storage, but lower allocation to fine roots is hypothesised to reduce soil carbon stocks in the long term (Noormets et al. 2015522). Annual volume increment in Finnish forests has more than doubled over the last century, due to increased growing stock, improved forest management and environmental changes (Henttonen et al. 2017523).

As economies evolve, the patterns of land-use and carbon stock changes associated with human expansion into forested areas often include a period of rapid decline of forest area and carbon stocks, recognition of the need for forest conservation and rehabilitation, and a transition to more sustainable land management that is often associated with increasing carbon stocks, (e.g., Birdsey et al. 2006524). Developed and developing countries around the world are in various stages of forest transition (Kauppi et al. 2018525; Meyfroidt and Lambin 2011526). Thus, opportunities exist for SFM to contribute to atmospheric carbon targets through reduction of deforestation and degradation, forest conservation, forest restoration, intensification of management, and enhancements of carbon stocks in forests and harvested wood products (Griscom et al. 2017527) (medium evidence, medium agreement).

4.4

Projections of land degradation in a changing climate

Land degradation will be affected by climate change in both direct and indirect ways, and land degradation will, to some extent, also feed back into the climate system. The direct impacts are those in which climate and land interact directly in time and space. Examples of direct impacts are when increasing rainfall intensity exacerbates soil erosion, or when prolonged droughts reduce the vegetation cover of the soil, making it more prone to erosion and nutrient depletion. The indirect impacts are those where climate change impacts and land degradation are separated in time and/or space. Examples of such impacts are when declining agricultural productivity due to climate change drives an intensification of agriculture elsewhere, which may cause land degradation. Land degradation, if sufficiently widespread, may also feed back into the climate system by reinforcing ongoing climate change.

Although climate change is exacerbating many land degradation processes (high to very high confidence), prediction of future land degradation is challenging because land management practices determine, to a very large extent, the state of the land. Scenarios of climate change in combination with land degradation models can provide useful knowledge on what kind and extent of land management will be necessary to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation.

4.4.1

Direct impacts on land degradation

There are two main levels of uncertainty in assessing the risks of future climate-change-induced land degradation. The first level, where uncertainties are comparatively low, involves changes of the degrading agent, such as erosive power of precipitation, heat stress from increasing temperature extremes (Hüve et al. 2011528), water stress from droughts, and high surface wind speed. The second level of uncertainties, and where the uncertainties are much larger, relates to the above – and below-ground ecological changes as a result of changes in climate, such as rainfall, temperature, and increasing level of CO2. Vegetation cover is crucial to protect against erosion (Mullan et al. 2012529; García-Ruiz et al. 2015530).

Changes in rainfall patterns, such as distribution in time and space, and intensification of rainfall events will increase the risk of land degradation, both in terms of likelihood and consequences (high agreement, medium evidence). Climate-induced vegetation changes will increase the risk of land degradation in some areas (where vegetation cover will decline) (medium confidence). Landslides are a form of land degradation, induced by extreme rainfall events. There is a strong theoretical reason for increasing landslide activity due to intensification of rainfall, but so far, the empirical evidence that climate change has contributed to landslides is lacking (Crozier 20101649; Huggel et al. 2012532; Gariano and Guzzetti 2016533). Human disturbance may be a more important future trigger than climate change (Froude and Petley 2018534).

Erosion of coastal areas as a result of sea level rise will increase worldwide (very high confidence). In cyclone-prone areas (such as the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and the Bay of Bengal) the combination of sea level rise and more intense cyclones (Walsh et al. 2016b535) and, in some areas, land subsidence (Yang et al. 2019536; Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018537; Wang et al. 2018538; Fuangswasdi et al. 2019539; Keogh and Törnqvist 2019540), will pose a serious risk to people and livelihoods (very high confidence), in some cases even exceeding limits to adaption (Sections 4.8.4.1, 4.9.6 and 4.9.8).

4.4.1.1

Changes in water erosion risk due to precipitation changes

The hydrological cycle is intensifying with increasing warming of the atmosphere. The intensification means that the number of heavy rainfall events is increasing, while the total number of rainfall events tends to decrease (Trenberth 2011541; Li and Fang 2016542; Kendon et al. 2014543; Guerreiro et al. 2018544; Burt et al. 2016a545; Westra et al. 2014546; Pendergrass and Knutti 2018547) (robust evidence, high agreement). Modelling of the changes in land degradation that are a result of climate change alone is hard because of the importance of local contextual factors. As shown above, actual erosion rate is extremely dependent on local conditions, primarily vegetation cover and topography (García-Ruiz et al. 2015548). Nevertheless, modelling of soil erosion risks has advanced substantially in recent decades, and such studies are indicative of future changes in the risk of soil erosion, while actual erosion rates will still primarily be determined by land management. In a review article, Li and Fang (2016)549 summarised 205 representative modelling studies around the world where erosion models were used in combination with downscaled climate models to assess future (between 2030 to 2100) erosion rates. The meta-study by Li and Fang, where possible, considered climate change in terms of temperature increase and changing rainfall regimes and their impacts on vegetation and soils. Almost all of the sites had current soil loss rates above 1 t ha–1 (assumed to be the upper limit for acceptable soil erosion in Europe) and 136 out of 205 studies predicted increased soil erosion rates. The percentage increase in erosion rates varied between 1.2% to as much as over 1600%, whereas 49 out of 205 studies projected more than 50% increase. Projected soil erosion rates varied substantially between studies because the important of local factors, hence climate change impacts on soil erosion, should preferably be assessed at the local to regional scale, rather than the global (Li and Fang 2016550).

Mesoscale convective systems (MCS), typically thunder storms, have increased markedly in the last three to four decades in the USA and Australia and they are projected to increase substantially (Prein et al. 2017551). Using a climate model with the ability to represent MCS, Prein and colleagues were able to predict future increases in frequency, intensity and size of such weather systems. Findings include the 30% decrease in number of MCS of <40 mm h-1, but a sharp increase of 380% in the number of extreme precipitation events of >90 mm h–1 over the North American continent. The combined effect of increasing precipitation intensity and increasing size of the weather systems implies that the total amount of precipitation from these weather systems is expected to increase by up to 80% (Prein et al. 2017552), which will substantially increase the risk of land degradation in terms of landslides, extreme erosion events, flashfloods, and so on.

The potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion can be assessed by modelling the projected changes in particular variables of climate change known to cause erosion, such as erosivity of rainfall. A study of the conterminous United States based on three climate models and three scenarios (A2, A1B, and B1) found that rainfall erosivity will increase in all scenarios, even if there are large spatial differences – a strong increase in the north-east and north-west, and either weak or inconsistent trends in the south-west and mid-west (Segura et al. 2014553).

In a study of how climate change will impact on future soil erosion processes in the Himalayas, Gupta and Kumar (2017)554 estimated that soil erosion will increase by about 27% in the near term (2020s) and 22% in the medium term (2080s), with little difference between scenarios. A study from Northern Thailand estimated that erosivity will increase by 5% in the near term (2020s) and 14% in the medium term (2080s), which would result in a similar increase of soil erosion, all other factors being constant (Plangoen and Babel 2014555). Observed rainfall erosivity has increased significantly in the lower Niger Basin (Nigeria) and is predicted to increase further based on statistical downscaling of four General Circulation Models (GCM) scenarios, with an estimated increase of 14%, 19% and 24% for the 2030s, 2050s, and 2070s respectively (Amanambu et al. 2019556).

Many studies from around the world where statistical downscaling of GCM results have been used in combination with process-based erosion models show a consistent trend of increasing soil erosion.

Using a comparative approach, Serpa et al. (2015)557 studied two Mediterranean catchments (one dry and one humid) using a spatially explicit hydrological model – soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) – in combination with land-use and climate scenarios for 2071–2100. Climate change projections showed, on the one hand, decreased rainfall and streamflow for both catchments, whereas sediment export decreased only for the humid catchment; projected land-use change, from traditional to more profitable, on the other hand, resulted in increase in streamflow. The combined effect of climate and land-use change resulted in reduced sediment export for the humid catchment (–29% for A1B; –22% for B1) and increased sediment export for the dry catchment (+222% for A1B; +5% for B1). Similar methods have been used elsewhere, also showing the dominant effect of land-use/land cover for runoff and soil erosion (Neupane and Kumar 2015558).

A study of future erosion rates in Northern Ireland, using a spatially explicit erosion model in combination with downscaled climate projections (with and without sub-daily rainfall intensity changes), showed that erosion rates without land management changes would decrease by the 2020s, 2050s and 2100s, irrespective of changes in intensity, mainly as a result of a general decline in rainfall (Mullan et al. 2012559). When land management scenarios were added to the modelling, the erosion rates started to vary dramatically for all three time periods, ranging from a decrease of 100% for no-till land use, to an increase of 3621% for row crops under annual tillage and sub-days intensity changes (Mullan et al. 2012560). Again, it shows how crucial land management is for addressing soil erosion, and the important role of rainfall intensity changes.

There is a large body of literature based on modelling future land degradation due to soil erosion concluding that, in spite of the increasing trend of erosive power of rainfall, (medium evidence, high agreement) land degradation is primarily determined by land management (very high confidence).

4.4.1.2

Climate-induced vegetation changes, implications for land degradation

The spatial mosaic of vegetation is determined by three factors: the ability of species to reach a particular location, how species tolerate the environmental conditions at that location (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind, the topographic and soil conditions), and the interaction between species (including above/below ground species (Settele et al. 2015562). Climate change is projected to alter the conditions and hence impact on the spatial mosaic of vegetation, which can be considered a form of land degradation. Warren et al. (2018)563 estimated that only about 33% of globally important biodiversity conservation areas will remain intact if global mean temperature increases to 4.5°C, while twice that area (67%) will remain intact if warming is restricted to 2°C. According to AR5, the clearest link between climate change and ecosystem change is when temperature is the primary driver, with changes of Arctic tundra as a response to significant warming as the best example (Settele et al. 2015564). Even though distinguishing climate-induced changes from land-use changes is challenging, Boit et al. (2016)565 suggest that 5–6% of biomes in South America will undergo biome shifts until 2100, regardless of scenario, attributed to climate change. The projected biome shifts are primarily forests shifting to shrubland and dry forests becoming fragmented and isolated from more humid forests (Boit et al. 2016566). Boreal forests are subject to unprecedented warming in terms of speed and amplitude (IPCC 2013b567), with significant impacts on their regional distribution (Juday et al. 2015568). Globally, tree lines are generally expanding northward and to higher elevations, or remaining stable, while a reduction in tree lines was rarely observed, and only where disturbances occurred (Harsch et al. 2009569). There is limited evidence of a slow northward migration of the boreal forest in eastern North America (Gamache and Payette 2005570). The thawing of permafrost may increase drought-induced tree mortality throughout the circumboreal zone (Gauthier et al. 2015571).

Forests are a prime regulator of hydrological cycling, both fluxes of atmospheric moisture and precipitation, hence climate and forests are inextricably linked (Ellison et al. 2017572; Keys et al. 2017573). Forest management influences the storage and flow of water in forested

watersheds. In particular, harvesting, forest thinning and the construction of roads increase the likelihood of floods as an outcome of extreme climate events (Eisenbies et al. 2007574). Water balance of at least partly forested landscapes is, to a large extent, controlled by forest ecosystems (Sheil and Murdiyarso 2009575; Pokam et al. 2014576). This includes surface runoff, as determined by evaporation and transpiration and soil conditions, and water flow routing (Eisenbies et al. 2007577). Water-use efficiency (i.e., the ratio of water loss to biomass gain) is increasing with increased CO2 levels (Keenan et al. 2013578), hence transpiration is predicted to decrease which, in turn, will increase surface runoff (Schlesinger and Jasechko 2014579). However, the interaction of several processes makes predictions challenging (Frank et al. 2015580; Trahan and Schubert 2016581). Surface runoff is an important agent in soil erosion.

Generally, removal of trees through harvesting or forest death (Anderegg et al. 2012582) will reduce transpiration and hence increase the runoff during the growing season. Management-induced soil disturbance (such as skid trails and roads) will affect water flow routing to rivers and streams (Zhang et al. 2017583; Luo et al. 2018584; Eisenbies et al. 2007585).

Climate change affects forests in both positive and negative ways (Trumbore et al. 2015586; Price et al. 2013587) and there will be regional and temporal differences in vegetation responses (Hember et al. 20171650; Midgley and Bond 2015589). Several climate-change-related drivers interact in complex ways, such as warming, changes in precipitation and water balance, CO2 fertilisation, and nutrient cycling, which makes projections of future net impacts challenging (Kurz et al. 2013590; Price et al. 2013591) (Section 2.3.1.2). In high latitudes, a warmer climate will extend the growing seasons. However, this could be constrained by summer drought (Holmberg et al. 2019592), while increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will increase water-use efficiency but not necessarily tree growth (Giguère-Croteau et al. 2019593). Improving one growth-limiting factor will only enhance tree growth if other factors are not limiting (Norby et al. 2010594; Trahan and Schubert 2016595; Xie et al. 2016596; Frank et al. 2015597). Increasing forest productivity has been observed in most of Fennoscandia (Kauppi et al. 2014598; Henttonen et al. 2017599), Siberia and the northern reaches of North America as a response to a warming trend (Gauthier et al. 2015600) but increased warming may also decrease forest productivity and increase risk of tree mortality and natural disturbances (Price et al. 2013601; Girardin et al. 2016602; Beck et al. 2011603; Hember et al. 2016604; Allen et al. 2011605). The climatic conditions in high latitudes are changing at a magnitude faster than the ability of forests to adapt with detrimental, yet unpredictable, consequences (Gauthier et al. 2015606).

Negative impacts dominate, however, and have already been documented (Lewis et al. 2004607; Bonan et al. 2008608; Beck et al. 2011609) and are predicted to increase (Miles et al. 2004610; Allen et al. 2010611; Gauthier et al. 2015612; Girardin et al. 2016613; Trumbore et al. 2015614). Several authors have emphasised a concern that tree mortality (forest dieback) will increase due to climate-induced physiological stress as well as interactions between physiological stress and other stressors, such as insect pests, diseases, and wildfires (Anderegg et al. 2012615; Sturrock et al. 2011616; Bentz et al. 2010617; McDowell et al. 2011618). Extreme events such as extreme heat and drought, storms, and floods also pose increased threats to forests in both high – and low-latitude forests (Lindner et al. 2010619; Mokria et al. 2015620). However, comparing observed forest dieback with modelled climate-induced damages did not show a general link between climate change and forest dieback (Steinkamp and Hickler 2015621). Forests are subject to increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires which is projected to increase substantially with continued climate change (Price et al. 2013622) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2, and Chapter 2). In the tropics, interaction between climate change, CO2 and fire could lead to abrupt shifts between woodland – and grassland-dominated states in the future (Shanahan et al. 2016623).

Within the tropics, much research has been devoted to understanding how climate change may alter regional suitability of various crops. For example, coffee is expected to be highly sensitive to both temperature and precipitation changes, both in terms of growth and yield, and in terms of increasing problems of pests (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015624). Some studies conclude that the global area of coffee production will decrease by 50% (Bunn et al. 2015625). Due to increased heat stress, the suitability of Arabica coffee is expected to deteriorate in Mesoamerica, while it can improve in high-altitude areas in South America. The general pattern is that the climatic suitability for Arabica coffee will deteriorate at low altitudes of the tropics as well as at the higher latitudes (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015626). This means that climate change in and of itself can render unsustainable previously sustainable land-use and land management practices, and vice versa (Laderach et al. 2011627).

Rangelands are projected to change in complex ways due to climate change. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 directly stimulate plant growth and can potentially compensate for negative effects from drying by increasing rain-use efficiency. But the positive effect of increasing CO2 will be mediated by other environmental conditions, primarily water availability, but also nutrient cycling, fire regimes and invasive species. Studies over the North American rangelands suggest, for example, that warmer and dryer climatic conditions will reduce NPP in the southern Great Plains, the Southwest, and northern Mexico, but warmer and wetter conditions will increase NPP in the northern Plains and southern Canada (Polley et al. 2013628).

4.4.1.3

Coastal erosion

Coastal erosion is expected to increase dramatically by sea level rise and, in some areas, in combination with increasing intensity of cyclones (highlighted in Section 4.9.6) and cyclone-induced coastal erosion. Coastal regions are also characterised by high population density, particularly in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam), whereas the highest population increase in coastal regions is projected in Africa (East Africa, Egypt, and West Africa) (Neumann et al. 2015629). For coastal regions worldwide, and particularly in developing countries with high population density in low-lying coastal areas, limiting the warming to 1.5°C to 2.0°C will have major socio-economic benefits compared with higher temperature scenarios (IPCC 2018a630; Nicholls et al. 2018631). For more in-depth discussions on coastal process, please refer to Chapter 4 of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC).

Despite the uncertainty related to the responses of the large ice sheets of Greenland and west Antarctica, climate-change-induced sea level rise is largely accepted and represents one of the biggest threats faced by coastal communities and ecosystems (Nicholls et al. 2011632; Cazenave and Cozannet 2014633; DeConto and Pollard 2016634; Mengel et al. 2016635). With significant socio-economic effects, the physical impacts of projected sea level rise, notably coastal erosion, have received considerable scientific attention (Nicholls et al. 2011636; Rahmstorf 2010637; Hauer et al. 2016638).

Rates of coastal erosion or recession will increase due to rising sea levels and, in some regions, also in combination with increasing oceans waves (Day and Hodges 2018639; Thomson and Rogers 2014640; McInnes et al. 2011641; Mori et al. 2010642), lack or absence of sea-ice (Savard et al. 2009643; Thomson and Rogers 2014644) thawing of permafrost (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018645), and changing cyclone paths (Tamarin-Brodsky and Kaspi 2017646; Lin and Emanuel 2016a647). The respective role of the different climate factors in the coastal erosion process will vary spatially. Some studies have shown that the role of sea level rise on the coastal erosion process can be less important than other climate factors, like wave heights, changes in the frequency of the storms, and the cryogenic processes (Ruggiero 2013648; Savard et al. 2009649). Therefore, in order to have a complete picture of the potential effects of sea level rise on rates of coastal erosion, it is crucial to consider the combined effects of the aforementioned climate controls and the geomorphology of the coast under study.

Coastal wetlands around the world are sensitive to sea level rise. Projections of the impacts on global coastlines are inconclusive, with some projections suggesting that 20% to 90% (depending on sea level rise scenario) of present day wetlands will disappear during the 21st century (Spencer et al. 2016650). Another study, which included natural feedback processes and management responses, suggested that coastal wetlands may actually increase (Schuerch et al. 2018651).

Low-lying coastal areas in the tropics are particularly subject to the combined effect of sea level rise and increasing intensity of tropical cyclones, conditions that, in many cases, pose limits to adaptation (Section 4.8.5.1).

Many large coastal deltas are subject to the additional stress of shrinking deltas as a consequence of the combined effect of reduced sediment loads from rivers due to damming and water use, and land subsidence resulting from extraction of ground water or natural gas, and aquaculture (Higgins et al. 2013652; Tessler et al. 2016653; Minderhoud et al. 2017654; Tessler et al. 2015655; Brown and Nicholls 2015656; Szabo et al. 2016657; Yang et al. 2019658; Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018659; Wang et al. 2018660; Fuangswasdi et al. 2019661). In some cases the rate of subsidence can outpace the rate of sea level rise by one order of magnitude (Minderhoud et al. 2017662) or even two (Higgins et al. 2013663). Recent findings from the Mississippi Delta raise the risk of a systematic underestimation of the rate of land subsidence in coastal deltas (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019664).

In sum, from a land degradation point of view, low-lying coastal areas are particularly exposed to the nexus of climate change and increasing concentration of people (Elliott et al. 2014665) (robust evidence, high agreement) and the situation will become particularly acute in delta areas shrinking from both reduced sediment loads and land subsidence (robust evidence, high agreement).

4.4.2

Indirect impacts on land degradation

Indirect impacts of climate change on land degradation are difficult to quantify because of the many conflating factors. The causes of land-use change are complex, combining physical, biological and socio-economic drivers (Lambin et al. 2001666; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011667). One such driver of land-use change is the degradation of agricultural land, which can result in a negative cycle of natural land being converted to agricultural land to sustain production levels. The intensive management of agricultural land can lead to a loss of soil function, negatively impacting on the many ecosystem services provided by soils, including maintenance of water quality and soil carbon sequestration (Smith et al. 2016a668). The degradation of soil quality due to cropping is of particular concern in tropical regions, where it results in a loss of productive potential of the land, affecting regional food security and driving conversion of non-agricultural land, such as forestry, to agriculture (Lambin et al. 2003669; Drescher et al. 2016670; Van der Laan et al. 2017671). Climate change will exacerbate these negative cycles unless sustainable land management practices are implemented.

Climate change impacts on agricultural productivity (see Chapter 5) will have implications for the intensity of land use and hence exacerbate the risk of increasing land degradation. There will be both localised effects (i.e., climate change impacts on productivity affecting land use in the same region) and teleconnections (i.e., climate change impacts and land-use changes that are spatially and temporally separate) (Wicke et al. 2012672; Pielke et al. 2007673). If global temperature increases beyond 3°C it will have negative yield impacts on all crops (Porter et al. 2014674) which, in combination with a doubling of demands by 2050 (Tilman et al. 2011675), and increasing competition for land from the expansion of negative emissions technologies (IPCC 2018a676; Schleussner et al. 2016677), will exert strong pressure on agricultural lands and food security.

In sum, reduced productivity of most agricultural crops will drive land-use changes worldwide (robust evidence, medium agreement), but predicting how this will impact on land degradation is challenging because of several conflating factors. Social change, such as widespread changes in dietary preferences, will have a huge impact on agriculture and hence land degradation (medium evidence, high agreement).

4.5

Impacts of bioenergy and technologies for CO2 removal (CDR) on land degradation

4.5.1

Potential scale of bioenergy and land-based CDR

In addition to the traditional land-use drivers (e.g., population growth, agricultural expansion, forest management), a new driver will interact to increase competition for land throughout this century: the potential large-scale implementation of land-based technologies for CO2 removal (CDR). Land-based CDR includes afforestation and reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), soil carbon management, biochar and enhanced weathering (Smith et al. 2015678; Smith 2016679).

Most scenarios, including two of the four pathways in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C (IPCC 2018a680), compatible with stabilisation at 2°C involve substantial areas devoted to land-based CDR, specifically afforestation/reforestation and BECCS (Schleussner et al. 2016681; Smith et al. 2016b682; Mander et al. 2017683). Even larger land areas are required in most scenarios aimed at keeping average global temperature increases to below 1.5°C, and scenarios that avoid BECCS also require large areas of energy crops in many cases (IPCC 2018b684), although some options with strict demand-side management avoid this need (Grubler et al. 2018685). Consequently, the addition of carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems to bioenergy facilities enhances mitigation benefits because it increases the carbon retention time and reduces emissions relative to bioenergy facilities without CCS. The IPCC SR15 states that, ‘When considering pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, the full set of scenarios shows a conversion of 0.5–11 Mkm2 of pasture into 0–6 Mkm2 for energy crops, a 2 Mkm2 reduction to 9.5 Mkm2 increase [in] forest, and a 4 Mkm2 decrease to a 2.5 Mkm2 increase in non-pasture agricultural land for food and feed crops by 2050 relative to 2010.’ (Rogelj et al. 2018, p. 145). For comparison, the global cropland area in 2010 was 15.9 Mkm2 (Table 1.1), and Woods et al. (2015)686 estimate that the area of abandoned and degraded land potentially available for energy crops (or afforestation/reforestation) exceeds 5 Mkm2. However, the area of available land has long been debated, as much marginal land is subject to customary land tenure and used informally, often by impoverished communities (Baka 2013687, 2014688; Haberl et al. 2013689; Young 1999690). Thus, as noted in SR15, ‘The implementation of land-based mitigation options would require overcoming socio-economic, institutional, technological, financing and environmental barriers that differ across regions.’ (IPCC, 2018a691, p. 18).

The wide range of estimates reflects the large differences among the pathways, availability of land in various productivity classes, types of negative emission technology implemented, uncertainties in computer models, and social and economic barriers to implementation (Fuss et al. 2018692; Nemet et al. 2018693; Minx et al. 2018694).

4.5.2

Risks of land degradation from expansion of bioenergy and land-based CDR

The large-scale implementation of high-intensity dedicated energy crops, and harvest of crop and forest residues for bioenergy, could contribute to increases in the area of degraded lands: intensive land management can result in nutrient depletion, over-fertilisation and soil acidification, salinisation (from irrigation without adequate drainage), wet ecosystems drying (from increased evapotranspiration), as well as novel erosion and compaction processes (from high-impact biomass harvesting disturbances) and other land degradation processes described in Section 4.2.1.

Global integrated assessment models used in the analysis of mitigation pathways vary in their approaches to modelling CDR (Bauer et al. 2018695) and the outputs have large uncertainties due to their limited capability to consider site-specific details (Krause et al. 2018696). Spatial resolutions vary from 11 world regions to 0.25 degrees gridcells (Bauer et al. 2018697). While model projections identify potential areas for CDR implementation (Heck et al. 2018698), the interaction with climate-change-induced biome shifts, available land and its vulnerability to degradation are unknown. The crop/forest types and management practices that will be implemented are also unknown, and will be influenced by local incentives and regulations. While it is therefore currently not possible to project the area at risk of degradation from the implementation of land-based CDR, there is a clear risk that expansion of energy crops at the scale anticipated could put significant strain on land systems, biosphere integrity, freshwater supply and biogeochemical flows (Heck et al. 2018699). Similarly, extraction of biomass for energy from existing forests, particularly where stumps are utilised, can impact on soil health (de Jong et al. 2017700). Reforestation and afforestation present a lower risk of land degradation and may in fact reverse degradation (Section 4.5.3) although potential adverse hydrological and biodiversity impacts will need to be managed (Caldwell et al. 2018701; Brinkman et al. 2017702). Soil carbon management can deliver negative emissions while reducing or reversing land degradation. Chapter 6 discusses the significance of context and management in determining environmental impacts of implementation of land-based options.

4.5.3

Potential contributions of land-based CDR to reducing and reversing land degradation

Although large-scale implementation of land-based CDR has significant potential risks, the need for negative emissions and the anticipated investments to implement such technologies can also create significant opportunities. Investments into land-based CDR can contribute to halting and reversing land degradation, to the restoration or rehabilitation of degraded and marginal lands (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016703; Fritsche et al. 2017704) and can contribute to the goals of LDN (Orr et al. 2017705).

Estimates of the global area of degraded land range from less than 10 to 60 Mkm2 (Gibbs and Salmon 2015706) (Section 4.3.1). Additionally, large areas are classified as marginal lands and may be suitable for the implementation of bioenergy and land-based CDR (Woods et al. 2015707). The yield per hectare of marginal and degraded lands is lower than on fertile lands, and if CDR will be implemented on marginal and degraded lands, this will increase the area demand and costs per unit area of achieving negative emissions (Fritsche et al. 2017708). The selection of lands suitable for CDR must be considered carefully to reduce conflicts with existing users, to assess the possible trade-offs in biodiversity contributions of the original and the CDR land uses, to quantify the impacts on water budgets, and to ensure sustainability of the CDR land use.

Land use and land condition prior to the implementation of CDR affect climate change benefits (Harper et al. 2018709). Afforestation/ reforestation on degraded lands can increase carbon stocks in vegetation and soil, increase carbon sinks (Amichev et al. 2012710), and deliver co-benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services, particularly if a diversity of local species are used. Afforestation and reforestation on native grasslands can reduce soil carbon stocks, although the loss is typically more than compensated by increases in biomass and dead organic matter carbon stocks (Bárcena et al. 2014711; Li et al. 2012712; Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015713; Shi et al. 2013714), and may impact on biodiversity (Li et al. 2012715).

Strategic incorporation of energy crops into agricultural production systems, applying an integrated landscape management approach, can provide co-benefits for management of land degradation and other environmental objectives. For example, buffers of Miscanthus and other grasses can enhance soil carbon and reduce water pollution (Cacho et al. 2018716; Odgaard et al. 2019717), and strip-planting of short-rotation tree crops can reduce the water table where crops are affected by dryland salinity (Robinson et al. 2006718). Shifting to perennial grain crops has the potential to combine food production with carbon sequestration at a higher rate than annual grain crops and avoid the trade-off between food production and climate change mitigation (Crews et al. 2018719; de Olivera et al. 2018720; Ryan et al. 2018721) (Section 4.9.2).

Changes in land cover can affect surface reflectance, water balances and emissions of volatile organic compounds and thus the non-GHG impacts on the climate system from afforestation/reforestation or planting energy crops (Anderson et al. 2011722; Bala et al. 2007723; Betts 2000724; Betts et al. 2007725) (see Section 4.6 for further details). Some of these impacts reinforce the GHG mitigation benefits, while others offset the benefits, with strong local (slope, aspect) and regional (boreal vs. tropical biomes) differences in the outcomes (Li et al. 2015726). Adverse effects on albedo from afforestation with evergreen conifers in boreal zones can be reduced through planting of broadleaf deciduous species (Astrup et al. 2018727; Cai et al. 2011a728; Anderson et al. 2011729).

Combining CDR technologies may prove synergistic. Two soil management techniques with an explicit focus on increasing the soil carbon content rather than promoting soil conservation more broadly have been suggested: addition of biochar to agricultural soils (Section 4.9.5) and addition of ground silicate minerals to soils in order to take up atmospheric CO2 through chemical weathering (Taylor et al. 2017730; Haque et al. 2019731; Beerling 2017732; Strefler et al. 2018733). The addition of biochar is comparatively well understood and also field tested at large scale, see Section 4.9.5 for a comprehensive discussion. The addition of silicate minerals to soils is still highly uncertain in terms of its potential (from 95 GtCO2 yr–1 (Strefler et al. 2018) to only 2–4 GtCO2 yr–1 (Fuss et al. 2018734)) and costs (Schlesinger and Amundson 2018735).

Effectively addressing land degradation through implementation of bioenergy and land-based CDR will require site-specific local knowledge, matching of species with the local land, water balance, nutrient and climatic conditions, ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, adaptation of land management to ensure sustainability under global change (Fritsche et al. 2017736). Effective land governance mechanisms including integrated land-use planning, along with strong sustainability standards could support deployment of energy crops and afforestation/reforestation at appropriate scales and geographical contexts (Fritsche et al. 2017737). Capacity-building and technology transfer through the international cooperation mechanisms of the Paris Agreement could support such efforts. Modelling to inform policy development is most useful when undertaken with close interaction between model developers and other stakeholders including policymakers to ensure that models account for real world constraints (Dooley and Kartha 2018738).

International initiatives to restore lands, such as the Bonn Challenge (Verdone and Seidl 2017739) and the New York Declaration on Forests (Chazdon et al. 2017740), and interventions undertaken for LDN and implementation of NDCs (see Glossary) can contribute to NET objectives. Such synergies may increase the financial resources available to meet multiple objectives (Section 4.8.4).

4.5.4

Traditional biomass provision and land degradation

Traditional biomass (fuelwood, charcoal, agricultural residues, animal dung) used for cooking and heating by some 2.8 billion people (38% of global population) in non-OECD countries accounts for more than half of all bioenergy used worldwide (IEA 2017741; REN21 2018742) (Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6). Cooking with traditional biomass has multiple negative impacts on human health, particularly for women, children and youth (Machisa et al. 2013743; Sinha and Ray 2015744; Price 2017745; Mendum and Njenga 2018746; Adefuye et al. 2007747) and on household productivity, including high workloads for women and youth (Mendum and Njenga 2018748; Brunner et al. 2018749; Hou et al. 2018750; Njenga et al. 2019751). Traditional biomass is land-intensive due to reliance on open fires, inefficient stoves and overharvesting of woodfuel, contributing to land degradation, losses in biodiversity and reduced ecosystem services (IEA 2017752; Bailis et al. 2015753; Masera et al. 2015754; Specht et al. 2015755; Fritsche et al. 2017756; Fuso Nerini et al. 2017757). Traditional woodfuels account for 1.9–2.3% of global GHG emissions, particularly in ‘hotspots’ of land degradation and fuelwood depletion in eastern Africa and South Asia, such that one-third of traditional woodfuels globally are harvested unsustainably (Bailis et al. 2015758). Scenarios to significantly reduce reliance on traditional biomass in developing countries present multiple co-benefits (high evidence, high agreement), including reduced emissions of black carbon, a short-lived climate forcer that also causes respiratory disease (Shindell et al. 2012759).

A shift from traditional to modern bioenergy, especially in the African context, contributes to improved livelihoods and can reduce land degradation and impacts on ecosystem services (Smeets et al. 2012760; Gasparatos et al. 2018761; Mudombi et al. 2018762). In Sub-Saharan Africa, most countries mention woodfuel in their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) but fail to identify transformational processes to make fuelwood a sustainable energy source compatible with improved forest management (Amugune et al. 2017763). In some regions, especially in South and Southeast Asia, a scarcity of woody biomass may lead to excessive removal and use of agricultural wastes and residues, which contributes to poor soil quality and land degradation (Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009764; Mateos et al. 2017765).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, forest degradation is widely associated with charcoal production, although in some tropical areas rapid re-growth can offset forest losses (Hoffmann et al. 2017766; McNicol et al. 2018767). Overharvesting of wood for charcoal contributes to the high rate of deforestation in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is five times the world average, due in part to corruption and weak governance systems (Sulaiman et al. 2017768). Charcoal may also be a by-product of forest clearing for agriculture, with charcoal sale providing immediate income when the land is cleared for food crops (Kiruki et al. 2017769; Ndegwa et al. 2016770). Besides loss of forest carbon stock, a further concern for climate change is methane and black carbon emissions from fuelwood burning and traditional charcoal-making processes (Bond et al. 2013771; Patange et al. 2015772; Sparrevik et al. 2015773).

A fundamental difficulty in reducing environmental impacts associated with charcoal lies in the small-scale nature of much charcoal production in Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to challenges in regulating its production and trade, which is often informal, and in some cases illegal, but nevertheless widespread since charcoal is the most important urban cooking fuel (Zulu 2010774; Zulu and Richardson 2013775; Smith et al. 2015776; World Bank 2009777). Urbanisation combined with population growth has led to continuously increasing charcoal production. Low efficiency of traditional charcoal production results in a four-fold increase in raw woody biomass required and thus much greater biomass harvest (Hojas-Gascon et al. 2016778; Smeets et al. 2012779). With continuing urbanisation anticipated, increased charcoal production and use will probably contribute to increasing land pressures and increased land degradation, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (medium evidence, high agreement).

Although it could be possible to source this biomass more sustainably, the ecosystem and health impacts of this increased demand for cooking fuel would be reduced through use of other renewable fuels or, in some cases, non-renewable fuels (LPG), as well as through improved efficiency in end-use and through better resource and supply chain management (Santos et al. 2017780; Smeets et al. 2012781; Hoffmann et al. 2017782). Integrated response options such as agro-forestry (Chapter 6) and good governance mechanisms for forest and agricultural management (Chapter 7) can support the transition to sustainable energy for households and reduce the environmental impacts of traditional biomass.

4.6

Impacts of land degradation on climate

While Chapter 2 has its focus on land cover changes and their impacts on the climate system, this chapter focuses on the influences of individual land degradation processes on climate (see Table 4.1) which may or may not take place in association with land cover changes. The effects of land degradation on CO2 and other GHGs as well as those on surface albedo and other physical controls of the global radiative balance are discussed.

4.6.1

Impact on greenhouse gases (GHGs)

Land degradation processes with direct impact on soil and terrestrial biota have great relevance in terms of CO2 exchange with the atmosphere, given the magnitude and activity of these reservoirs in the global carbon cycle. As the most widespread form of soil degradation, erosion detaches the surface soil material, which typically hosts the highest organic carbon stocks, favouring the mineralisation and release as CO2. Yet complementary processes such as carbon burial may compensate for this effect, making soil erosion a long-term carbon sink (low agreement, limited evidence), (Wang et al. (2017b)783, but see also Chappell et al. (2016)784). Precise estimation of the CO2 released from eroded lands is challenged by the fact that only a fraction of the detached carbon is eventually lost to the atmosphere. It is important to acknowledge that a substantial fraction of the eroded material may preserve its organic carbon load in field conditions. Moreover, carbon sequestration may be favoured through the burial of both the deposited material and the surface of its hosting soil at the deposition location (Quinton et al. 2010785). The cascading effects of erosion on other environmental processes at the affected sites can often cause net CO2 emissions through their indirect influence on soil fertility, and the balance of organic carbon inputs and outputs, interacting with other non-erosive soil degradation processes (such as nutrient depletion, compaction and salinisation), which can lead to the same net carbon effects (see Table 4.1) (van de Koppel et al. 1997786).

As natural and human-induced erosion can result in net carbon storage in very stable buried pools at the deposition locations, degradation in those locations has a high C-release potential. Coastal ecosystems such as mangrove forests, marshes and seagrasses are at typical deposition locations, and their degradation or replacement with other vegetation is resulting in a substantial carbon release (0.15 to 1.02 GtC yr–1) (Pendleton et al. 2012787), which highlights the need for a spatially integrated assessment of land degradation impacts on climate that considers in-situ but also ex-situ emissions.

Cultivation and agricultural management of cultivated land are relevant in terms of global CO2 land–atmosphere exchange (Section 4.8.1). Besides the initial pulse of CO2 emissions associated with the onset of cultivation and associated vegetation clearing (Chapter 2), agricultural management practices can increase or reduce carbon losses to the atmosphere. Although global croplands are considered to be at a relatively neutral stage in the current decade (Houghton et al. 2012788), this results from a highly uncertain balance between coexisting net losses and gains. Degradation losses of soil and biomass carbon appear to be compensated by gains from soil protection and restoration practices such as cover crops, conservation tillage and nutrient replenishment favouring organic matter build-up. Cover crops, increasingly used to improve soils, have the potential to sequester 0.12 GtC yr–1 on global croplands with a saturation time of more than 150 years (Poeplau and Don 2015789). No-till practices (i.e., tillage elimination favouring crop residue retention in the soil surface) which were implemented to protect soils from erosion and reduce land preparation times, were also seen with optimism as a carbon sequestration option, which today is considered more modest globally and, in some systems, even less certain (VandenBygaart 2016799; Cheesman et al. 2016791; Powlson et al. 2014792). Among soil fertility restoration practices, lime application for acidity correction, increasingly important in tropical regions, can generate a significant net CO2 source in some soils (Bernoux et al. 2003793; Desalegn et al. 2017794).

Land degradation processes in seminatural ecosystems driven by unsustainable uses of their vegetation through logging or grazing lead to reduced plant cover and biomass stocks, causing net carbon releases from soils and plant stocks. Degradation by logging activities is particularly prevalent in developing tropical and subtropical regions, involving carbon releases that exceed by far the biomass of harvested products, including additional vegetation and soil sources that are estimated to reach 0.6 GtC yr–1 (Pearson et al. 2014, 2017795). Excessive grazing pressures pose a more complex picture with variable magnitudes and even signs of carbon exchanges. A general trend of higher carbon losses in humid overgrazed rangelands suggests a high potential for carbon sequestration following the rehabilitation of those systems (Conant and Paustian 2002796) with a global potential sequestration of 0.045 GtC yr-1. A special case of degradation in rangelands is the process leading to the woody encroachment of grass-dominated systems, which can be responsible for declining animal production but high carbon sequestration rates (Asner et al. 2003797; Maestre et al. 2009798).

Fire regime shifts in wild and seminatural ecosystems can become a degradation process in itself, with high impact on net carbon emission and with underlying interactive human and natural drivers such as burning policies (Van Wilgen et al. 20041651), biological invasions (Brooks et al. 2009800), and plant pest/disease spread (Kulakowski et al. 2003801). Some of these interactive processes affecting unmanaged forests have resulted in massive carbon release, highlighting how degradation feedbacks on climate are not restricted to intensively used land but can affect wild ecosystems as well (Kurz et al. 2008802).

Agricultural land and wetlands represent the dominant source of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Chen et al. 2018d803). In agricultural land, the expansion of rice cultivation (increasing CH4 sources), ruminant stocks and manure disposal (increasing CH4, N2O and NH3 fluxes) and nitrogen over-fertilisation combined with soil acidification (increasing N2O fluxes) are introducing the major impacts (medium agreement, medium evidence) and their associated emissions appear to be exacerbated by global warming (medium agreement, medium evidence) (Oertel et al. 2016804).

As the major sources of global N2O emissions, over-fertilisation and manure disposal are not only increasing in-situ sources but also stimulating those along the pathway of dissolved inorganic nitrogen transport all the way from draining waters to the ocean (high agreement, medium evidence). Current budgets of anthropogenically fixed nitrogen on the Earth System (Tian et al. 2015805; Schaefer et al. 2016806; Wang et al. 2017a807) suggest that N2O release from terrestrial soils and wetlands accounts for 10–15% of the emissions, yet many further release fluxes along the hydrological pathway remain uncertain, with emissions from oceanic ‘dead-zones’ being a major aspect of concern (Schlesinger 2009; Rabalais et al. 2014808).

Environmental degradation processes focused on the hydrological system, which are typically manifested at the landscape scale, include both drying (as in drained wetlands or lowlands) and wetting trends (as in waterlogged and flooded plains). Drying of wetlands reduces CH4 emissions (Turetsky et al. 2014812) but favours pulses of organic matter mineralisation linked to high N2O release (Morse and Bernhardt 2013813; Norton et al. 2011814). The net warming balance of these two effects is not resolved and may be strongly variable across different types of wetlands. In the case of flooding of non-wetland soils, a suppression of CO2 release is typically overcompensated in terms of net greenhouse impact by enhanced CH4 fluxes that stem from the lack of aeration but are aided by the direct effect of extreme wetting on the solubilisation and transport of organic substrates (McNicol and Silver 2014815). Both wetlands rewetting/restoration and artificial wetland creation can increase CH4 release (Altor and Mitsch 2006816; Fenner et al. 2011817). Permafrost thawing is another major source of CH4 release, with substantial long-term contributions to the atmosphere that are starting to be globally quantified (Christensen et al. 2004818; Schuur et al. 2015819; Walter Anthony et al. 2016820).

4.6.2

Physical impacts

Among the physical effects of land degradation, surface albedo changes are those with the most evident impact on the net global radiative balance and net climate warming/cooling. Degradation processes affecting wild and semi-natural ecosystems, such as fire regime changes, woody encroachment, logging and overgrazing, can trigger strong albedo changes before significant biogeochemical shifts take place. In most cases these two types of effects have opposite signs in terms of net radiative forcing, making their joint assessment critical for understanding climate feedbacks (Bright et al. 2015821).

In the case of forest degradation or deforestation, the albedo impacts are highly dependent on the latitudinal/climatic belt to which they belong. In boreal forests, the removal or degradation of the tree cover increases albedo (net cooling effect) (medium evidence, high agreement) as the reflective snow cover becomes exposed, which can exceed the net radiative effect of the associated carbon release to the atmosphere (Davin et al. 2010822; Pinty et al. 2011823). On the other hand, progressive greening of boreal and temperate forests has contributed to net albedo declines (medium agreement, medium evidence) (Planque et al. 2017824; Li et al. 2018a825). In the northern treeless vegetation belt (tundra), shrub encroachment leads to the opposite effect as the emergence of plant structures above the snow cover level reduce winter-time albedo (Sturm 2005826).

The extent to which albedo shifts can compensate for carbon storage shifts at the global level has not been estimated. A significant but partial compensation takes place in temperate and subtropical dry ecosystems in which radiation levels are higher and carbon stocks smaller compared to their more humid counterparts (medium agreement, medium evidence). In cleared dry woodlands, half of the net global warming effect of net carbon release has been compensated by albedo increase (Houspanossian et al. 2013827), whereas in afforested dry rangelands, albedo declines cancelled one-fifth of the net carbon sequestration (Rotenberg and Yakir 2010828). Other important cases in which albedo effects impose a partial compensation of carbon exchanges are the vegetation shifts associated with wildfires, as shown for the savannahs, shrublands and grasslands of Sub-Saharan Africa (Dintwe et al. 2017829). Besides the net global effects discussed above, albedo shifts can play a significant role in local climate (high agreement, medium evidence), as exemplified by the effect of no-till agriculture reducing local heat extremes in European landscapes (Davin et al. 2014830) and the effects of woody encroachment causing precipitation rises in the North American Great Plains (Ge and Zou 2013831). Modelling efforts that integrate ground data from deforested areas worldwide accounting for both physical and biogeochemical effects, indicate that massive global deforestation would have a net warming impact (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015832) at both local and global levels with highlight non-linear effects of forest loss on climate variables.

Beyond the albedo effects presented above, other physical impacts of land degradation on the atmosphere can contribute to global and regional climate change. Of particular relevance, globally and continentally, are the net cooling effects of dust emissions (low agreement, medium evidence) (Lau and Kim (2007)833, but see also Huang et al. (2014)834). Anthropogenic emission of mineral particles from degrading land appear to have a similar radiative impact than all other anthropogenic aerosols (Sokolik and Toon 1996835). Dust emissions may explain regional climate anomalies through reinforcing feedbacks, as suggested for the amplification of the intensity, extent and duration of the low precipitation anomaly of the North American Dust Bowl in the 1930s (Cook et al. 2009836). Another source of physical effects on climate are surface roughness changes which, by affecting atmospheric drag, can alter cloud formation and precipitation (low agreement, low evidence), as suggested by modelling studies showing how the massive deployment of solar panels in the Sahara could increase rainfall in the Sahel (Li et al. 2018c837), or how woody encroachment in the Arctic tundra could reduce cloudiness and raise temperature (Cho et al. 2018838). The complex physical effects of deforestation, as explored through modelling, converge into general net regional precipitation declines, tropical temperature increases and boreal temperature declines, while net global effects are less certain (Perugini et al. 2017839). Integrating all the physical effects of land degradation and its recovery or reversal is still a challenge, yet modelling attempts suggest that, over the last three decades, the slow but persistent net global greening caused by the average increase of leaf area in the land has caused a net cooling of the Earth, mainly through the rise in evapotranspiration (Zeng et al. 2017840) (low confidence).

4.7

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on poverty and livelihoods

Unravelling the impacts of climate-related land degradation on poverty and livelihoods is highly challenging. This complexity is due to the interplay of multiple social, political, cultural and economic factors, such as markets, technology, inequality, population growth, (Barbier and Hochard 2018841) each of which interact and shape the ways in which social-ecological systems respond (Morton 2007842). We find limited evidence attributing the impacts of climate-related land degradation to poverty and livelihoods, with climate often not distinguished from any other driver of land degradation. Climate is nevertheless frequently noted as a risk multiplier for both land degradation and poverty (high agreement, robust evidence) and is one of many stressors people live with, respond to and adapt to in their daily lives (Reid and Vogel 2006843). Climate change is considered to exacerbate land degradation and potentially accelerate it due to heat stress, drought, changes to evapotranspiration rates and biodiversity, as well as a result of changes to environmental conditions that allow new pests and diseases to thrive (Reed and Stringer 2016844). In general terms, the climate (and climate change) can increase human and ecological communities’ sensitivity to land degradation. Land degradation then leaves livelihoods more sensitive to the impacts of climate change and extreme climatic events (high agreement, robust evidence). If human and ecological communities exposed to climate change and land degradation are sensitive and cannot adapt, they can be considered vulnerable to it; if they are sensitive and can adapt, they can be considered resilient (Reed and Stringer 2016845). The impacts of land degradation will vary under a changing climate, both spatially and temporally, leading some communities and ecosystems to be more vulnerable or more resilient than others under different scenarios. Even within communities, groups such as women and youth are often more vulnerable than others.

4.7.1

Relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty

This section sets out the relationships between land degradation and poverty, and climate change and poverty, leading to inferences about the three-way links between them. Poverty is multidimensional and includes a lack of access to the whole range of capital assets that can be used to pursue a livelihood. Livelihoods constitute the capabilities, assets and activities that are necessary to make a living (Chambers and Conway 1992846; Olsson et al. 2014b847).

The literature shows high agreement in terms of speculation that there are potential links between land degradation and poverty. However, studies have not provided robust quantitative assessments of the extent and incidence of poverty within populations affected by land degradation (Barbier and Hochard 2016848). Some researchers, for example, Nachtergaele et al. (2011)849 estimate that 1.5 billion people were dependent upon degraded land to support their livelihoods in 2007, while >42% of the world’s poor population inhabit degraded areas. However, there is overall low confidence in the evidence base, a lack of studies that look beyond the past and present, and the literature calls for more in-depth research to be undertaken on these issues (Gerber et al. 2014850). Recent work by Barbier and Hochard (2018)851 points to biophysical constraints such as poor soils and limited rainfall, which interact to limit land productivity, suggesting that those farming in climatically less-favourable agricultural areas are challenged by poverty. Studies such as those by Coomes et al. (2011)852, focusing on an area in the Amazon, highlight the importance of the initial conditions of land holding in the dominant (shifting) cultivation system in terms of long-term effects on household poverty and future forest cover, showing that initial land tenure and socio-economic aspects can make some areas less favourable too.

Much of the qualitative literature is focused on understanding the livelihood and poverty impacts of degradation through a focus on subsistence agriculture, where farms are small, under traditional or informal tenure and where exposure to environmental (including climate) risks is high (Morton 2007853). In these situations, poorer people lack access to assets (financial, social, human, natural and physical) and in the absence of appropriate institutional supports and social protection, this leaves them sensitive and unable to adapt, so a vicious cycle of poverty and degradation can ensue. To further illustrate the complexity, livelihood assessments often focus on a single snapshot in time. Livelihoods are dynamic and people alter their livelihood activities and strategies depending on the internal and external stressors to which they are responding (O’Brien et al. 2004854). When certain livelihood activities and strategies are no longer tenable as a result of land degradation (and may push people into poverty), land degradation can have further effects on issues such as migration (Lee 2009855), as people adapt by moving (Section 4.7.3); and may result in conflict (Section 4.7.3), as different groups within society compete for scarce resources, sometimes through non-peaceful actions. Both migration and conflict can lead to land-use changes elsewhere that further fuel climate change through increased emissions.

Similar challenges as for understanding land degradation–poverty linkages are experienced in unravelling the relationship between climate change and poverty. A particular issue in examining climate change–poverty links relates to the common use of aggregate economic statistics like GDP, as the assets and income of the poor constitute a minor proportion of national wealth (Hallegatte et al. 2018856). Aggregate quantitative measures also fail to capture the distributions of costs and benefits from climate change. Furthermore, people fall into and out of poverty, with climate change being one of many factors affecting these dynamics, through its impacts on livelihoods. Much of the literature on climate change and poverty tends to look backward rather than forward (Skoufias et al. 2011857), providing a snapshot of current or past relationships (for example, Dell et al. (2009)858 who examine the relationship between temperature and income (GDP) using cross-sectional data from countries in the Americas). Yet, simulations of future climate change impacts on income or poverty are largely lacking.

Noting the limited evidence that exists that explicitly focuses on the relationship between land degradation, climate change and poverty, Barbier and Hochard (2018b)859 suggest that those people living in less-favoured agricultural areas face a poverty–environment trap that can result in increased land degradation under climate change conditions. The emergent relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty are shown in Figure 4.6 (see also Figure 6.1).

Figure 4.6

Schematic representation of links between climate change, land management and socio-economic conditions.

Schematic representation of links between climate change, land management and socio-economic conditions.

The poor have access to few productive assets – so land, and the natural resource base more widely, plays a key role in supporting the livelihoods of the poor. It is, however, hard to make generalisations about how important income derived from the natural resource base is for rural livelihoods in the developing world (Angelsen et al. 2014860). Studies focusing on forest resources have shown that approximately one quarter of the total rural household income in developing countries stems from forests, with forest-based income shares being tentatively higher for low-income households (Vedeld et al. 2007861; Angelsen et al. 2014862). Different groups use land in different ways within their overall livelihood portfolios and are, therefore, at different levels of exposure and sensitivity to climate shocks and stresses. The literature nevertheless displays high evidence and high agreement that those populations whose livelihoods are more sensitive to climate change and land degradation are often more dependent on environmental assets, and these people are often the poorest members of society. There is further high evidence and high agreement that both climate change and land degradation can affect livelihoods and poverty through their threat multiplier effect. Research in Bellona, in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (Reenberg et al. 2008863) examined event-driven impacts on livelihoods, taking into account weather events as one of many drivers of land degradation and links to broader land use and land cover changes that have taken place. Geographical locations experiencing land degradation are often the same locations that are directly affected by poverty, and also by extreme events linked to climate change and variability.

Much of the assessment presented above has considered place-based analyses examining the relationships between poverty, land degradation and climate change in the locations in which these outcomes have occurred. Altieri and Nicholls (2017)864 note that, due to the globalised nature of markets and consumption systems, the impacts of changes in crop yields linked to climate-related land degradation (manifest as lower yields) will be far reaching, beyond the sites and livelihoods experiencing degradation. Despite these teleconnections, farmers living in poverty in developing countries will be especially vulnerable due to their exposure, dependence on the environment for income and limited options to engage in other ways to make a living (Rosenzweig and Hillel 1998865). In identifying ways in which these interlinkages can be addressed, Scherr (2000)866 observes that key actions that can jointly address poverty and environmental improvement often seek to increase access to natural resources, enhance the productivity of the natural resource assets of the poor, and engage stakeholders in addressing public natural resource management issues. In this regard, it is increasingly recognised that those suffering from, and being vulnerable to, land degradation and

poverty need to have a voice and play a role in the development of solutions, especially where the natural resources and livelihood activities they depend on are further threatened by climate change.

4.8

4.8 Addressing land degradation in the context of climate change

Land degradation in the form of soil carbon loss is estimated to have been ongoing for at least 12,000 years, but increased exponentially in the last 200 years (Sanderman et al. 2017912). Before the advent of modern sources of nutrients, it was imperative for farmers to maintain and improve soil fertility through the prevention of runoff and erosion, and management of nutrients through vegetation residues and manure. Many ancient farming systems were sustainable for hundreds and even thousands of years, such as raised-field agriculture in Mexico (Crews and Gliessman 1991913), tropical forest gardens in Southeast Asia and Central America (Ross 2011914; Torquebiau 1992915; Turner and Sabloff 2012916), terraced agriculture in East Africa, Central America, Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean basin (Turner and Sabloff 2012917; Preti and Romano 2014918; Widgren and Sutton 2004919; Håkansson and Widgren 2007920; Davies and Moore 2016921; Davies 2015922), and integrated rice–fish cultivation in East Asia (Frei and Becker 2005923).

Such long-term sustainable farming systems evolved in very different times and geographical contexts, but they share many common features, such as: the combination of species and structural diversity in time and space (horizontally and vertically) in order to optimise the use of available land; recycling of nutrients through biodiversity of plants, animals and microbes; harnessing the full range of site-specific micro-environments (e.g., wet and dry soils); biological interdependencies which help suppression of pests; reliance on mainly local resources; reliance on local varieties of crops, and sometimes incorporation of wild plants and animals; the systems are often labour and knowledge intensive (Rudel et al. 2016924; Beets 1990925; Netting 1993926; Altieri and Koohafkan 2008927). Such farming systems have stood the test of time and can provide important knowledge for adapting farming systems to climate change (Koohafkann and Altieri 2011928).

In modern agriculture, the importance of maintaining the biological productivity and ecological integrity of farmland has not been a necessity in the same way as in pre-modern agriculture because nutrients and water have been supplied externally. The extreme land degradation in the US Midwest during the Dust Bowl period in the 1930s became an important wake-up call for agriculture and agricultural research and development, from which we can still learn much in order to adapt to ongoing and future climate change (McLeman et al. 2014929; Baveye et al. 2011930; McLeman and Smit 2006931).

SLM is a unifying framework for addressing land degradation and can be defined as the stewardship and use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions. It is a comprehensive approach comprising technologies combined with social, economic and political enabling conditions (Nkonya et al. 2011932). It is important to stress that farming systems are informed by both scientific and local/traditional knowledge. The power of SLM in small-scale diverse farming was demonstrated effectively in Nicaragua after the severe cyclone Mitch in 1998 (Holt-Giménez 2002933). Pairwise analysis of 880 fields with and without implementation of SLM practices showed that the SLM fields systematically fared better than the fields without SLM in terms of more topsoil remaining, higher field moisture, more vegetation, less erosion and lower economic losses after the cyclone. Furthermore, the difference between fields with and without SLM increased with increasing levels of storm intensity, slope gradient, and age of SLM (Holt-Giménez 2002934).

When addressing land degradation through SLM and other approaches, it is important to consider feedbacks that impact on climate change. Table 4.2 shows some of the most important land degradation issues, their potential solutions, and their impacts on climate change. This table provides a link between the comprehensive lists of land degradation processes (Table 4.1) and land management solutions.

Table 4.2

Interaction of human and climate drivers can exacerbate desertification and land degradation.

Climate change exacerbates the rate and magnitude of several ongoing land degradation and desertification processes. Human drivers of land degradation and desertification include expanding agriculture, agricultural practices and forest management. In turn, land degradation and desertification are also drivers of climate change through GHG emissions, reduced rates of carbon uptake, and reduced capacity of ecosystems to act as carbon sinks into the future. Impacts on climate change are either warming (in red) or cooling (in blue).

4.8.1

4.8.1 Actions on the ground to address land degradation

Concrete actions on the ground to address land degradation are primarily focused on soil and water conservation. In the context of adaptation to climate change, actions relevant for addressing land degradation are sometimes framed as ecosystem-based adaptation (Scarano 2017935) or Nature-Based Solutions (Nesshöver et al. 2017936), and in an agricultural context, agroecology (see Glossary) provides an important frame. The site-specific biophysical and social conditions, including local and indigenous knowledge, are important for successful implementation of concrete actions.

Responses to land degradation generally take the form of agronomic measures (methods related to managing the vegetation cover), soil management (methods related to tillage, nutrient supply), and mechanical methods (methods resulting in durable changes to the landscape) (Morgan 2005a937). Measures may be combined to reinforce benefits to land quality, as well as improving carbon sequestration that supports climate change mitigation. Some measures offer adaptation options and other co-benefits, such as agroforestry, involving planting fruit trees that can support food security in the face of climate change impacts (Reed and Stringer 2016938), or application of compost or biochar that enhances soil water-holding capacity, so increases resilience to drought.

There are important differences in terms of labour and capital requirements for different technologies, and also implications for land tenure arrangements. Agronomic measures and soil management require generally little extra capital input and comprise activities repeated annually, so have no particular implication for land tenure arrangements. Mechanical methods require substantial upfront investments in terms of capital and labour, resulting in long-lasting structural change, requiring more secure land tenure arrangements (Mekuriaw et al. 2018939). Agroforestry is a particularly important strategy for SLM in the context of climate change because of the large potential to sequester carbon in plants and soil and enhance resilience of agricultural systems (Zomer et al. 2016940).

Implementation of SLM practices has been shown to increase the productivity of land (Branca et al. 2013941) and to provide good economic returns on investment in many different settings around the world (Mirzabaev et al. 2015942). Giger et al. (2018)943 showed, in a meta study of 363 SLM projects over the period 1990 to 2012, that 73% of the projects were perceived to have a positive or at least neutral cost-benefit ratio in the short term, and 97% were perceived to have a positive or very positive cost-benefit ratio in the long term (robust evidence, high agreement). Despite the positive effects, uptake is far from universal. Local factors, both biophysical conditions (e.g., soils,

drainage, and topography) and socio-economic conditions (e.g., land tenure, economic status, and land fragmentation) play decisive roles in the interest in, capacity to undertake, and successful implementation of SLM practices (Teshome et al. 2016944; Vogl et al. 2017945; Tesfaye et al. 2016946; Cerdà et al. 2018947; Adimassu et al. 2016948). From a landscape perspective, SLM can generate benefits, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, for entire watersheds, but challenges remain regarding coordinated and consistent implementation (medium evidence, medium agreement) (Kerr et al. 2016949; Wang et al. 2016a950).

4.8.1.1

4.8.1.1 Agronomic and soil management measures

Rebuilding soil carbon is an important goal of SLM, particularly in the context of climate change (Rumpel et al. 2018951). The two most important reasons why agricultural soils have lost 20–60% of the soil carbon they contained under natural ecosystem conditions are the frequent disturbance through tillage and harvesting, and the change from deep- rooted perennial plants to shallow-rooted annual plants (Crews and Rumsey 2017952). Practices that build soil carbon are those that increase organic matter input to soil, or reduce decomposition of SOM.

Agronomic practices can alter the carbon balance significantly, by increasing organic inputs from litter and roots into the soil. Practices include retention of residues, use of locally adapted varieties, inter-cropping, crop rotations, and green manure crops that replace the bare field fallow during winter and are eventually ploughed before sowing the next main crop (Henry et al. 2018953). Cover crops (green manure crops and catch crops that are grown between the main cropping seasons) can increase soil carbon stock by between 0.22 and 0.4 t C ha–1yr–1 (Poeplau and Don 2015954; Kaye and Quemada 2017955).

Reduced tillage (or no-tillage) is an important strategy for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss by wind and water (Van Pelt et al. 2017956; Panagos et al. 2015957; Borrelli et al. 2016958). But the evidence that no-till agriculture also sequesters carbon is not compelling (VandenBygaart 2016959). Soil sampling of only the upper 30 cm can give biased results, suggesting that soils under no-till practices have higher carbon content than soils under conventional tillage (Baker et al. 2007960; Ogle et al. 2012961; Fargione et al. 2018962; VandenBygaart 2016963).

Changing from annual to perennial crops can increase soil carbon content (Culman et al. 2013964; Sainju et al. 2017965). A perennial grain crop (intermediate wheatgrass) was, on average, over four years a net carbon sink of about 13.5 tCO2 ha–1 yr–1 (de Oliveira et al. 2018966). Sprunger et al. (2018)967 compared an annual winter wheat crop with a perennial grain crop (intermediate wheatgrass) and found that the perennial grain root biomass was 15 times larger than winter wheat, however, there was no significant difference in soil carbon pools after the four-year experiment. Exactly how much, and over what time period, carbon can be sequestered through changing from annual to perennial crops depends on the degree of soil carbon depletion and other local biophysical factors (Section 4.9.2).

Integrated soil fertility management is a sustainable approach to nutrient management that uses a combination of chemical and organic amendments (manure, compost, biosolids, biochar), rhizobial nitrogen fixation, and liming materials to address soil chemical constraints (Henry et al. 2018968). In pasture systems, management of grazing pressure, fertilisation, diverse species including legumes and perennial grasses can reduce erosion and enhance soil carbon (Conant et al. 2017969).

4.8.1.2

Mechanical soil and water conservation

In hilly and mountainous terrain, terracing is an ancient but still practised soil conservation method worldwide (Preti and Romano 2014970) in climatic zones from arid to humid tropics (Balbo 2017981). By reducing the slope gradient of hillsides, terraces provide flat surfaces. Deep, loose soils that increase infiltration, reduce erosion and thus sediment transport. They also decrease the hydrological connectivity and thus reduce hillside runoff (Preti et al. 2018972; Wei et al. 2016973; Arnáez et al. 2015974; Chen et al. 2017975). In terms of climate change, terraces are a form of adaptation that helps in cases where rainfall is increasing or intensifying (by reducing slope gradient and the hydrological connectivity), and where rainfall is decreasing (by increasing infiltration and reducing runoff) (robust evidence, high agreement). There are several challenges, however, to continued maintenance and construction of new terraces, such as the high costs in terms of labour and/or capital (Arnáez et al. 2015976) and disappearing local knowledge for maintaining and constructing new terraces (Chen et al. 2017977). The propensity of farmers to invest in mechanical soil conservation methods varies with land tenure; farmers with secure tenure arrangements are more willing to invest in durable practices such as terraces (Lovo 2016978; Sklenicka et al. 2015979; Haregeweyn et al. 2015980). Where the slope is less severe, erosion can be controlled by contour banks, and the keyline approach (Duncan 20161652; Stevens et al. 2015982) to soil and water conservation.

4.8.1.3

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is defined as a collective name for land-use systems in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, etc.) are grown in association with herbaceous plants (crops, pastures) and/or livestock in a spatial arrangement, a rotation, or both, and in which there are both ecological and economic interactions between the tree and non-tree components of the system (Young, 1995, p. 11983). At least since the 1980s, agroforestry has been widely touted as an ideal land management practice in areas vulnerable to climate variations and subject to soil erosion. Agroforestry holds the promise of improving soil and climatic conditions, while generating income from wood energy, timber and non-timber products – sometimes presented as a synergy of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (Mbow et al. 2014984).

There is strong scientific consensus that a combination of forestry with agricultural crops and/or livestock, agroforestry systems can provide additional ecosystem services when compared with monoculture crop systems (Waldron et al. 2017985; Sonwa et al. 2011986, 2014987, 2017988; Charles et al. 2013989). Agroforestry can enable sustainable intensification by allowing continuous production on the same unit of land with higher productivity without the need to use shifting agriculture systems to maintain crop yields (Nath et al. 2016990). This is especially relevant where there is a regional requirement to find a balance between the demand for increased agricultural production and the protection of adjacent natural ecosystems such as primary and secondary forests (Mbow et al. 2014991). For example, the use of agroforestry for perennial crops such as coffee and cocoa is increasingly promoted as offering a route to sustainable farming, with important climate change adaptation and mitigation co-benefits (Sonwa et al. 2001992; Kroeger et al. 2017993). Reported co-benefits of agroforestry in cocoa production include increased carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, improved water and nutrient use efficiency and the creation of a favourable micro-climate for crop production (Sonwa et al. 2017994; Chia et al. 2016995). Importantly, the maintenance of soil fertility using agroforestry has the potential to reduce the practice of shifting agriculture (of cocoa) which results in deforestation (Gockowski and Sonwa 2011996). However, positive interactions within these systems can be ecosystem and/or species specific, but co-benefits such as increased resilience to extreme climate events, or improved soil fertility are not always observed (Blaser et al. 2017997; Abdulai et al. 2018998). These contrasting outcomes indicate the importance of field-scale research programmes to inform agroforestry system design, species selection and management practices (Sonwa et al. 2014999).

Despite the many proven benefits, adoption of agroforestry has been low and slow (Toth et al. 20171000; Pattanayak et al. 20031001; Jerneck and Olsson 20141002). There are several reasons for the slow uptake, but the perception of risks and the time lag between adoption and realisation of benefits are often important (Pattanayak et al. 20031003; Mercer 20041004; Jerneck and Olsson 20131005).

An important question for agroforestry is whether it supports poverty alleviation, or if it favours comparatively affluent households. Experiences from India suggest that the overall adoption is low, with a differential between rich and poor households. Brockington el al. (2016)1006, studied agroforestry adoption over many years in South India and found that, overall, only 18% of the households adopted agroforestry. However, among the relatively rich households who adopted agroforestry, 97% were still practising it after six to eight years, and some had expanded their operations. Similar results were obtained in Western Kenya, where food-secure households were much more willing to adopt agroforestry than food-insecure households (Jerneck and Olsson 20131007, 2014). Other experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa illustrate the difficulties (such as local institutional support) of having a continued engagement of communities in agroforestry (Noordin et al. 20011008; Matata et al. 20131009; Meijer et al. 20151010).

4.8.1.4

Crop–livestock interaction as an approach to managing land degradation

The integration of crop and livestock production into ‘mixed farming’ for smallholders in developing countries became an influential model, particularly for Africa, in the early 1990s (Pritchard et al. 19921011; McIntire et al. 19921012). Crop–livestock integration under this model was seen as founded on three pillars: improved use of manure for crop fertility management; expanded use of animal traction (draught animals); and promotion of cultivated fodder crops. For Asia, emphasis was placed on draught power for land preparation, manure for soil fertility enhancement, and fodder production as an entry point for cultivation of legumes (Devendra and Thomas 20021013). Mixed farming was seen as an evolutionary process to expand food production in the face of population increase, promote improvements in income and welfare, and protect the environment. The process could be further facilitated and steered by research, agricultural advisory services and policy (Pritchard et al. 19921014; McIntire et al. 19921015; Devendra 20021016).

Scoones and Wolmer (2002)1017 place this model in historical context, including concern about population pressure on resources and the view that mobile pastoralism was environmentally damaging. The latter view had already been critiqued by developing understandings of pastoralism, mobility and communal tenure of grazing lands (e.g., Behnke 19941018; Ellis 19941019). They set out a much more differentiated picture of crop–livestock interactions, which can take place either within a single-farm household, or between crop and livestock producers, in which case they will be mediated by formal and informal institutions governing the allocation of land, labour and capital, with the interactions evolving through multiple place-specific pathways (Ramisch et al. 20021020; Scoones and Wolmer 20021021). Promoting a diversity of approaches to crop–livestock interactions does not imply that the integrated model necessarily leads to land degradation, but increases the space for institutional support to local innovation (Scoones and Wolmer 20021022).

However, specific managerial and technological practices that link crop and livestock production will remain an important part of the repertoire of on-farm adaptation and mitigation. Howden and coauthors (Howden et al. 20071023) note the importance of innovation within existing integrated systems, including use of adapted forage crops. Rivera-Ferre et al. (2016)1024 list as adaptation strategies with high potential for grazing systems, mixed crop–livestock systems or both: crop–livestock integration in general; soil management, including composting; enclosure and corralling of animals; improved storage of feed. Most of these are seen as having significant co-benefits for mitigation, and improved management of manure is seen as a mitigation measure with adaptation co-benefits.

4.8.2

Local and indigenous knowledge for addressing land degradation

In practice, responses are anchored in scientific research, as well as local, indigenous and traditional knowledge and know-how. For example, studies in the Philippines by Camacho et al. (2016) 25examine how traditional integrated watershed management by indigenous people sustain regulating services vital to agricultural productivity, while delivering co-benefits in the form of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience at a landscape scale. Although responses can be site specific and sustainable at a local scale, the multi-scale interplay of drivers and pressures can nevertheless cause practices that have been sustainable for centuries to become less so. Siahaya et al. (2016) 1026explore the traditional knowledge that has informed rice cultivation in the uplands of East Borneo, grounded in sophisticated shifting cultivation methods (gilir balik) which have been passed on for generations (more than 200 years) in order to maintain local food production. Gilir balik involves temporary cultivation of plots, after which, abandonment takes place as the land user moves to another plot, leaving the natural (forest) vegetation to return. This approach is considered sustainable if it has the support of other subsistence strategies, adapts to and integrates with the local context, and if the carrying capacity of the system is not surpassed (Siahaya et al. 20161027). Often gilir balik cultivation involves intercropping of rice with bananas, cassava and other food crops. Once the abandoned plot has been left to recover such that soil fertility is restored, clearance takes place again and the plot is reused for cultivation. Rice cultivation in this way plays an important role in forest management, with several different types of succession forest being found in the study by Siahaya et al. (2016). Nevertheless, interplay of these practices with other pressures (large-scale land acquisitions for oil palm plantation, logging and mining), risk their future sustainability. Use of fire is critical in processes of land clearance, so there are also trade-offs for climate change mitigation, which have been sparsely assessed.

Interest appears to be growing in understanding how indigenous and local knowledge inform land users’ responses to degradation, as scientists engage farmers as experts in processes of knowledge co-production and co-innovation (Oliver et al. 20121028; Bitzer and Bijman 20151029). This can help to introduce, implement, adapt and promote the use of locally appropriate responses (Schwilch et al. 20111030). Indeed, studies strongly agree on the importance of engaging local populations in both sustainable land and forest management. Meta-analyses in tropical regions that examined both forests in protected areas and community-managed forests suggest that deforestation rates are lower, with less variation in deforestation rates presenting in community-managed forests compared to protected forests (Porter-Bolland et al. 20121031). This suggests that consideration of the social and economic needs of local human populations is vital in preventing forest degradation (Ward et al. 20181032). However, while disciplines such as ethnopedology seek to record and understand how local people perceive, classify and use soil, and draw on that information to inform its management (Barrera-Bassols and Zinck 20031033), links with climate change and its impacts (perceived and actual) are not generally considered.

4.8.3

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation and increasing afforestation

Improved stewardship of forests through reduction or avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks can all contribute to land-based natural climate solutions (Angelsen et al. 20181034; Sonwa et al. 20111035; Griscom et al. 20171036). While estimates of annual emissions from tropical deforestation and forest degradation range widely from 0.5 to 3.5 GtC yr–1 (Baccini et al. 20171037; Houghton et al. 20121038; Mitchard 20181039; see also Chapter 2), they all indicate the large potential to reduce annual emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Recent estimates of forest extent for Africa in 1900 may result in downward adjustments of historic deforestation and degradation emission estimates (Aleman et al. 20181040). Emissions from forest degradation in non-Annex I countries have declined marginally from 1.1 GtCO2 yr–1 in 2001–2010 to 1 GtCO2 yr–1 in 2011–2015, but the relative emissions from degradation compared to deforestation have increased from a quarter to a third (Federici et al. 20151041). Forest sector activities in developing countries were estimated to represent a technical mitigation potential in 2030 of 9 GtCO2 (Miles et al. 2015). This was partitioned into reduction of deforestation (3.5 GtCO2), reduction in degradation and forest management (1.7 GtCO2) and afforestation and reforestation (3.8 GtCO2). The economic mitigation potential will be lower than the technical potential (Miles et al. 20151042).

Natural regeneration of second-growth forests enhances carbon sinks in the global carbon budget (Chazdon and Uriarte 20161043). In Latin America, Chazdon et al. (2016)1044 estimated that, in 2008, second-growth forests (up to 60 years old) covered 2.4 Mkm2 of land (28.1% of the total study area). Over 40 years, these lands can potentially accumulate 8.5 GtC in above-ground biomass via low-cost natural regeneration or assisted regeneration, corresponding to a total CO2 sequestration of 31.1 GtCO2 (Chazdon et al. 2016b). While above-ground biomass carbon stocks are estimated to be declining in the tropics, they are increasing globally due to increasing stocks in temperate and boreal forests (Liu et al. 2015b), consistent with the observations of a global land sector carbon sink (Le Quéré et al. 20131045; Keenan et al. 20171046; Pan et al. 2011).

Moving from technical mitigation potentials (Miles et al. 20151047) to real reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation required transformational changes (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 20181048). This transformation can be facilitated by two enabling conditions: the presence of already initiated policy change; or the scarcity of forest resources combined with an absence of any effective forestry framework and policies. These authors and others (Angelsen et al. 20181049) found that the presence of powerful transformational coalitions of domestic pro-REDD+ (the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) political actors combined with strong ownership and leadership, regulations and law enforcement, and performance-based funding, can provide a strong incentive for achieving REDD+ goals.

Implementing schemes such as REDD+ and various projects related to the voluntary carbon market is often regarded as a no-regrets investment (Seymour and Angelsen 20121050) but the social and ecological implications (including those identified in the Cancun Safeguards) must be carefully considered for REDD+ projects to be socially and ecologically sustainable (Jagger et al. 20151051). In 2018, 34 countries have submitted a REDD+ forest reference level and/ or forest reference emission level to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Of these REDD+ reference levels, 95% included the activity ‘reducing deforestation’ while 34% included the activity ‘reducing forest degradation’ (FAO 2018). Five countries submitted REDD+ results in the technical annex to their Biennial Update Report totalling an emission reduction of 6.3 GtCO2 between 2006 and 2015 (FAO 2018).

Afforestation is another mitigation activity that increases carbon sequestration (Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1). Yet, it requires careful consideration about where to plant trees to achieve potential climatic benefits, given an altering of local albedo and turbulent energy fluxes and increasing night-time land surface temperatures (Peng et al. 20141052). A recent hydro-climatic modelling effort has shown that forest cover can account for about 40% of the observed decrease in annual runoff (Buendia et al. 20161053). A meta-analysis of afforestation in Northern Europe (Bárcena et al. 20141054) concluded that significant soil organic carbon sequestration in Northern Europe occurs after afforestation of croplands but not grasslands. Additional sequestration occurs in forest floors and biomass carbon stocks. Successful programmes of large-scale afforestation activities in South Korea and China are discussed in-depth in a special case study (Section 4.9.3).

The potential outcome of efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in Indonesia through a 2011 moratorium on concessions to convert primary forests to either timber or palm oil uses was evaluated against rates of emissions over the period 2000 to 2010. The study concluded that less than 7% of emissions would have been avoided had the moratorium been implemented in 2000 because it only curtailed emissions due to a subset of drivers of deforestation and degradation (Busch et al. 20151055).

In terms of ecological integrity of tropical forests, the policy focus on carbon storage and tree cover can be problematic if it leaves out other aspects of forests ecosystems, such as biodiversity – and particularly fauna (Panfil and Harvey 20161056; Peres et al. 20161057; Hinsley et al. 20151058). Other concerns of forest-based projects under the voluntary carbon market are potential negative socio-economic side effects (Edstedt and Carton 20181059; Carton and Andersson 20171060; Osborne 20111061; Scheidel and Work 20181062; Richards and Lyons 20161063; Borras and Franco 20181064; Paladino and Fiske 20171065) and leakage (particularly at the subnational scale), that is, when interventions to reduce deforestation or degradation at one site displace pressures and increase emissions elsewhere (Atmadja and Verchot 20121066; Phelps et al. 20101067; Lund et al. 20171068; Balooni and Lund 20141069).

Maintaining and increasing forest area, in particular native forests rather than monoculture and short-rotation plantations, contributes to the maintenance of global forest carbon stocks (Lewis et al. 20191070) (robust evidence, high agreement).

4.8.4

Sustainable forest management (SFM) and CO2 removal (CDR) technologies

While reducing deforestation and forest degradation may directly help to meet mitigation goals, SFM aimed at providing timber, fibre, biomass and non-timber resources can provide long-term livelihood for communities, reduce the risk of forest conversion to non-forest uses (settlement, crops, etc.), and maintain land productivity, thus reducing the risks of land degradation (Putz et al. 20121071; Gideon Neba et al. 20141072; Sufo Kankeu et al. 20161073; Nitcheu Tchiadje et al. 20161074; Rossi et al. 20171075).

Developing SFM strategies aimed at contributing towards negative emissions throughout this century requires an understanding of forest management impacts on ecosystem carbon stocks (including soils), carbon sinks, carbon fluxes in harvested wood, carbon storage in harvested wood products, including landfills and the emission reductions achieved through the use of wood products and bioenergy (Nabuurs et al. 20071076; Lemprière et al. 20131077; Kurz et al. 20161078; Law et al. 20181079; Nabuurs et al. 20171080). Transitions from natural to managed forest landscapes can involve a reduction in forest carbon stocks, the magnitude of which depends on the initial landscape conditions, the harvest rotation length relative to the frequency and intensity of natural disturbances, and on the age-dependence of managed and natural disturbances (Harmon et al. 19901081; Kurz et al. 19981082). Initial landscape conditions, in particular the age-class distribution and therefore carbon stocks of the landscape, strongly affect the mitigation potential of forest management options (Ter-Mikaelian et al. 20131083; Kilpeläinen et al. 20171084). Landscapes with predominantly mature forests may experience larger reductions in carbon stocks during the transition to managed landscapes (Harmon et al. 19901085; Kurz et al. 19981086; Lewis et al. 20191087). In landscapes with predominantly young or recently disturbed forests, SFM can enhance carbon stocks (Henttonen et al. 20171088).

Forest growth rates, net primary productivity, and net ecosystem productivity are age-dependent, with maximum rates of CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere occurring in young to medium-aged forests and declining thereafter (Tang et al. 20141089). In boreal forest ecosystem, estimation of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes indicate that old growth stands are typically small carbon sinks or carbon sources (Gao et al. 20181090; Taylor et al. 20141091; Hadden and Grelle 20161092). In tropical forests, carbon uptake rates in the first 20 years of forest recovery were 11 times higher than uptake rates in old-growth forests (Poorter et al. 20161093). Age-dependent increases in forest carbon stocks and declines in forest carbon sinks mean that landscapes with older forests have accumulated more carbon but their sink strength is diminishing, while landscapes with younger forests contain less carbon but they are removing CO2 from the atmosphere at a much higher rate (Volkova et al. 20171094; Poorter et al. 20161095). The rates of CDR are not just age-related but also controlled by many biophysical factors and human activities (Bernal et al. 20181096). In ecosystems with uneven-aged, multispecies forests, the relationships between carbon stocks and sinks are more difficult and expensive to quantify.

Whether or not forest harvest and use of biomass is contributing to net reductions of atmospheric carbon depends on carbon losses during and following harvest, rates of forest regrowth, and the use of harvested wood and carbon retention in long-lived or short-lived products, as well as the emission reductions achieved through the substitution of emissions-intensive products with wood products (Lemprière et al. 20131097; Lundmark et al. 20141098; Xu et al. 2018b1099; Olguin et al. 20181100; Dugan et al. 20181101; Chen et al. 2018b1102; Pingoud et al. 20181103; Seidl et al. 20071104). Studies that ignore changes in forest carbon stocks (such as some lifecycle analyses that assume no impacts of harvest on forest carbon stocks), ignore changes in wood product pools (Mackey et al. 20131105) or assume long-term steady state (Pingoud et al. 20181106), or ignore changes in emissions from substitution benefits (Mackey et al. 20131107; Lewis et al. 20191108) will arrive at diverging conclusions about the benefits of SFM. Moreover, assessments of climate benefits of any mitigation action must also consider the time dynamics of atmospheric impacts, as some actions will have immediate benefits (e.g., avoided deforestation), while others may not achieve net atmospheric benefits for decades or centuries. For example, the climate benefits of woody biomass use for bioenergy depend on several factors, such as the source and alternate fate of the biomass, the energy type it substitutes, and the rates of regrowth of the harvested forest (Laganière et al. 20171109; Ter-Mikaelian et al. 20141110; Smyth et al. 20171111). Conversion of primary forests in regions of very low stand-replacing disturbances to short-rotation plantations where the harvested wood is used for short-lived products with low displacement factors will increase emissions. In general, greater mitigation benefits are achieved if harvested wood products are used for products with long carbon retention time and high displacement factors.

With increasing forest age, carbon sinks in forests will diminish until harvest or natural disturbances, such as wildfire, remove biomass carbon or release it to the atmosphere (Seidl et al. 20171112). While individual trees can accumulate carbon for centuries (Köhl et al. 20171113), stand-level carbon accumulation rates depend on both tree growth and tree mortality rates (Hember et al. 20161114; Lewis et al. 20041115). SFM, including harvest and forest regeneration, can help maintain active carbon sinks by maintaining a forest age-class distribution that includes a share of young, actively growing stands (Volkova et al. 20181116; Nabuurs et al. 20171117). The use of the harvested carbon in either long-lived wood products (e.g., for construction), short-lived wood products (e.g., pulp and paper), or biofuels affects the net carbon balance of the forest sector (Lemprière et al. 20131118; Matthews et al. 20181119). The use of these wood products can further contribute to GHG emission-reduction goals by avoiding the emissions from the products with higher embodied emissions that have been displaced (Nabuurs et al. 20071120; Lemprière et al. 20131121). In 2007 the IPCC concluded that ‘[i]n the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit’ (Nabuurs et al. 20071122). The apparent trade-offs between maximising forest carbon stocks and maximising ecosystem carbon sinks are at the origin of ongoing debates about optimum management strategies to achieve negative emissions (Keith et al. 20141123; Kurz et al. 20161124; Lundmark et al. 20141125). SFM, including the intensification of carbon-focused management strategies, can make long-term contributions towards negative emissions if the sustainability of management is assured through appropriate governance, monitoring and enforcement. As specified in the definition of SFM, other criteria such as biodiversity must also be considered when assessing mitigation outcomes (Lecina-Diaz et al. 20181126). Moreover, the impacts of changes in management on albedo and other non-GHG factors also need to be considered (Luyssaert et al. 20181127) (Chapter 2). The contribution of SFM for negative emissions is strongly affected by the use of the wood products derived from forest harvest and the time horizon over which the carbon balance is assessed. SFM needs to anticipate the impacts of climate change on future tree growth, mortality and disturbances when designing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies (Valade et al. 20171128; Seidl et al. 20171129).

4.8.5

Policy responses to land degradation

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, recognised land degradation as a major challenge to sustainable development, and led to the establishment of the UNCCD, which specifically addressed land degradation in the drylands. The UNCCD emphasises sustainable land use to link poverty reduction on one hand and environmental protection on the other. The two other ‘Rio Conventions’ emerging from the UNCED – the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – focus on climate change and biodiversity, respectively. The land has been recognised as an aspect of common interest to the three conventions, and SLM is proposed as a unifying theme for current global efforts on combating land degradation, climate change and loss of biodiversity, as well as facilitating land-based adaptation to climate change and sustainable development.

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funds developing countries to undertake activities that meet the goals of the conventions and deliver global environmental benefits. Since 2002, the GEF has invested in projects that support SLM through its Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy, to address land degradation within and beyond the drylands.

Under the UNFCCC, parties have devised National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) that identify medium- and long-term adaptation needs. Parties have also developed their climate change mitigation plans, presented as NDCs. These programmes have the potential of assisting the promotion of SLM. It is understood that the root causes of land degradation and successful adaptation will not be realised until holistic solutions to land management are explored. SLM can help address root causes of low productivity, land degradation, loss of income-generating capacity, as well as contribute to the amelioration of the adverse effects of climate change.

The ‘4 per 1000’ (4p1000) initiative (Soussana et al. 20191130) launched by France during the UNFCCC COP21 in 2015 aims at capturing CO2 from the atmosphere through changes to agricultural and forestry practices at a rate that would increase the carbon content of soils by 0.4% per year (Rumpel et al. 20181131). If global soil carbon content increases at this rate in the top 30–40 cm, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 would be stopped (Dignac et al. 20171132). This is an illustration of how extremely important soils are for addressing climate change. The initiative is based on eight steps: stop carbon loss (priority #1 is peat soils); promote carbon uptake; monitor, report and verify impacts; deploy technology for tracking soil carbon; test strategies for implementation and upscaling; involve communities; coordinate policies; and provide support (Rumpel et al. 20181133). Questions remain, however, about the extent that the 4p1000 is achievable as a universal goal (van Groenigen et al. 20171134; Poulton et al. 20181135; Schlesinger and Amundson 20181136).

LDN was introduced by the UNCCD at Rio +20, and adopted at UNCCD COP12 (UNCCD 2016a1137). LDN is defined as ‘a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems’(Cowie et al. 20181138). Pursuit of LDN requires effort to avoid further net loss of the land-based natural capital relative to a reference state, or baseline. LDN encourages a dual-pronged effort involving SLM to reduce the risk of land degradation, combined with efforts in land restoration and rehabilitation, to maintain or enhance land-based natural capital, and its associated ecosystem services (Orr et al. 20171139; Cowie et al. 20181140). Planning for LDN involves projecting the expected cumulative impacts of land-use and land management decisions, then counterbalancing anticipated losses with measures to achieve equivalent gains, within individual land types (where land type is defined by land potential). Under the LDN framework developed by UNCCD, three primary indicators are used to assess whether LDN is achieved by 2030: land cover change; net primary productivity; and soil organic carbon (Cowie et al. 20181141; Sims et al. 20191142). Achieving LDN therefore requires integrated landscape management that seeks to optimise land use to meet multiple objectives (ecosystem health, food security, human well-being) (Cohen-Shacham et al. 20161143). The response hierarchy of Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation articulates the priorities in planning LDN interventions. LDN provides the impetus for widespread adoption of SLM and efforts to restore or rehabilitate land. Through its focus, LDN ultimately provides tremendous potential for mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change by halting and reversing land degradation and transforming land from a carbon source to a sink. There are strong synergies between the concept of LDN and the NDCs of many countries, with linkages to national climate plans. LDN is also closely related to many Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the areas of poverty, food security, environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources (UNCCD 2016b1144). The GEF is supporting countries to set LDN targets and implement their LDN plans through its land degradation focal area, which encourages application of integrated landscape approaches to managing land degradation (GEF 20181145).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations in 2015, comprises 17 SDGs. Goal 15 is of direct relevance to land degradation, with the objective to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Target 15.3 specifically addresses LDN. Other goals that are relevant for land degradation include Goal 2 (Zero hunger), Goal 3 (Good health and well-being), Goal 7 (Affordable and clean energy), Goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), and Goal 12 (Responsible production and consumption). Sustainable management of land resources underpins the SDGs related to hunger, climate change and environment. Further goals of a cross-cutting nature include 1 (No poverty), 6 (Clean water and sanitation) and 13 (Climate action). It remains to be seen how these interconnections are dealt with in practice.

With a focus on biodiversity, IPBES published a comprehensive assessment of land degradation in 2018 (Montanarella et al. 20181146). The IPBES report, together with this report focusing on climate change, may contribute to creating a synergy between the two main global challenges for addressing land degradation in order to help achieve the targets of SDG 15 (protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss).

Market-based mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the UNFCCC and the voluntary carbon market provide incentives to enhance carbon sinks on the land through afforestation and reforestation. Implications for local land use and food security have been raised as a concern and need to be assessed (Edstedt and Carton 20181147; Olsson et al. 2014b1148). Many projects aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradations (not to be confused with the national REDD+ programmes in accordance with the UNFCCC Warsaw Framework) are being planned and implemented to primarily target countries with high forest cover and high deforestation rates. Some parameters of incentivising emissions reduction, quality of forest governance, conservation priorities, local rights and tenure frameworks, and sub-national project potential are being looked into, with often very mixed results (Newton et al. 20161149; Gebara and Agrawal 20171150).

Besides international public initiatives, some actors in the private sector are increasingly aware of the negative environmental impacts of some global value chains producing food, fibre, and energy products (Lambin et al. 20181151; van der Ven and Cashore 20181152; van der Ven et al. 20181153; Lyons-White and Knight 20181154). While improvements are underway in many supply chains, measures implemented so far are often insufficient to be effective in reducing or stopping deforestation and forest degradation (Lambin et al. 20181155). The GEF is investing in actions to reduce deforestation in commodity supply chains through its Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration Impact Program (GEF 20181156).

4.8.5.1

Limits to adaptation

SLM can be deployed as a powerful adaptation strategy in most instances of climate change impacts on natural and social systems, yet there are limits to adaptation (Klein et al. 20141157; Dow, Berhout and Preston 20131158). Such limits are dynamic and interact with social and institutional conditions (Barnett et al. 20151159; Filho and Nalau 20181160). Exceeding adaptation limits will trigger escalating losses or require undesirable transformational change, such as forced migration. The rate of change in relation to the rate of possible adaptation is crucial (Dow et al. 20131161). How limits to adaptation are defined, and how they can be measured, is contextual and contested. Limits must be assessed in relation to the ultimate goals of adaptation, which is subject to diverse and differential values (Dow et al. 20131162; Adger et al. 20091163). A particularly sensitive issue is whether migration is accepted as adaptation or not (Black et al. 20111164; Tacoli 20091165; Bardsley and Hugo 20101166). If migration were understood and accepted as a form of successful adaptation, it would change the limits to adaptation by reducing, or even avoiding, future humanitarian crises caused by climate extremes (Adger et al. 20091167; Upadhyay et al. 20171168; Nalau et al. 20181169).

In the context of land degradation, potential limits to adaptation exist if land degradation becomes so severe and irreversible that livelihoods cannot be maintained, and if migration is either not acceptable or not possible. Examples are coastal erosion where land disappears (Gharbaoui and Blocher 20161170; Luetz 20181171), collapsing livelihoods due to thawing of permafrost (Landauer and Juhola 20191172), and extreme forms of soil erosion, (e.g., landslides (Van der Geest and Schindler 20161173) and gully erosion leading to badlands (Poesen et al. 20031174)).

4.8.6

Resilience and thresholds

Resilience refers to the capacity of interconnected social, economic and ecological systems, such as farming systems, to absorb disturbance (e.g., drought, conflict, market collapse), and respond or reorganise, to maintain their essential function, identity and structure. Resilience can be described as ‘coping capacity’. The disturbance may be a shock – sudden events such as a flood or disease epidemic – or it may be a trend that develops slowly, like a drought or market shift. The shocks and trends anticipated to occur due to climate change are expected to exacerbate risk of land degradation. Therefore, assessing and enhancing resilience to climate change is a critical component of designing SLM strategies.

Resilience as an analytical lens is particularly strong in ecology and related research on natural resource management (Folke et al. 20101175; Quinlan et al. 20161176) while, in the social sciences, the relevance of resilience for studying social and ecological interactions is contested

(Cote and Nightingale 20121177; Olsson et al. 20151178; Cretney 20141179; Béné et al. 20121180; Joseph 20131181). In the case of adaptation to climate change (and particularly regarding limits to adaptation), a crucial ambiguity of resilience is the question of whether resilience is a normative concept (i.e., resilience is good or bad) or a descriptive characteristic of a system (i.e., neither good nor bad). Previous IPCC reports have defined resilience as a normative (positive) attribute (see AR5 Glossary), while the wider scientific literature is divided on this (Weichselgartner and Kelman 20151182; Strunz 20121183; Brown 20141184; Grimm and Calabrese 20111185; Thorén and Olsson 20181186). For example, is outmigration from a disaster-prone area considered a successful adaptation (high resilience) or a collapse of the livelihood system (lack of resilience) (Thorén and Olsson 20181187)? In this report, resilience is considered a positive attribute when it maintains capacity for adaptation, learning and/or transformation.

Furthermore, ‘resilience’ and the related terms ‘adaptation’ and ‘transformation’ are defined and used differently by different communities (Quinlan et al. 20161188). The relationship and hierarchy of resilience with respect to vulnerability and adaptive capacity are also debated, with different perspectives between disaster management and global change communities, (e.g., Cutter et al. 20081189). Nevertheless, these differences in usage need not inhibit the application of ‘resilience thinking’ in managing land degradation; researchers using these terms, despite variation in definitions, apply the same fundamental concepts to inform management of human-environment systems, to maintain or improve the resource base, and sustain livelihoods.

Applying resilience concepts involves viewing the land as a component of an interlinked social-ecological system; identifying key relationships that determine system function and vulnerabilities of the system; identifying thresholds or tipping points beyond which the system transitions to an undesirable state; and devising management strategies to steer away from thresholds of potential concern, thus facilitating healthy systems and sustainable production (Walker et al. 20091190).

A threshold is a non-linearity between a controlling variable and system function, such that a small change in the variable causes the system to shift to an alternative state. Bestelmeyer et al. (2015)1191 and Prince et al. (2018)1192 illustrate this concept in the context of land degradation. Studies have identified various biophysical and socio-economic thresholds in different land-use systems. For example, 50% ground cover (living and dead plant material and biological crusts) is a recognised threshold for dryland grazing systems (e.g., Tighe et al. 20121193); below this threshold, the infiltration rate declines, risk of erosion causing loss of topsoil increases, a switch from perennial to annual grass species occurs and there is a consequential sharp decline in productivity. This shift to a lower-productivity state cannot be reversed without significant human intervention. Similarly, the combined pressure of water limitations and frequent fire can lead to transition from closed forest to savannah or grassland: if fire is too frequent, trees do not reach reproductive maturity and post-fire regeneration will fail; likewise, reduced rainfall/increased drought prevents successful forest regeneration (Reyer et al. 20151194; Thompson et al. 20091195) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2).

In managing land degradation, it is important to assess the resilience of the existing system, and the proposed management interventions. If the existing system is in an undesirable state or considered unviable under expected climate trends, it may be desirable to promote adaptation or even transformation to a different system that is more resilient to future changes. For example, in an irrigation district where water shortages are predicted, measures could be implemented to improve water use efficiency, for example, by establishing drip irrigation systems for water delivery, although transformation to pastoralism or mixed dryland cropping/livestock production may be more sustainable in the longer term, at least for part of the area. Application of SLM practices, especially those focused on ecological functions (e.g., agroecology, ecosystem-based approaches, regenerative agriculture, organic farming), can be effective in building resilience of agro-ecosystems (Henry et al. 2018). Similarly, the resilience of managed forests can be enhanced by SFM that protects or enhances biodiversity, including assisted migration of tree species within their current range limit (Winder et al. 20111197; Pedlar et al. 20121198) or increasing species diversity in plantation forests (Felton et al. 20101199; Liu et al. 2018a1200). The essential features of a resilience approach to management of land degradation under climate change are described by O’Connell et al. (2016)1201 and Simonsen et al. (2014)1202.

Consideration of resilience can enhance effectiveness of interventions to reduce or reverse land degradation (medium agreement, limited evidence). This approach will increase the likelihood that SLM/SFM and land restoration/rehabilitation interventions achieve long-term environmental and social benefits. Thus, consideration of resilience concepts can enhance the capacity of land systems to cope with climate change and resist land degradation, and assist land-use systems to adapt to climate change.

4.8.7

Barriers to implementation of sustainable land management (SLM)

There is a growing recognition that addressing barriers and designing solutions to complex environmental problems, such as land degradation, requires awareness of the larger system into which the problems and solutions are embedded (Laniak et al. 20131203). An ecosystem approach to sustainable land management (SLM) based on an understanding of land degradation processes has been recommended to separate multiple drivers, pressures and impacts (Kassam et al. 20131204), but large uncertainty in model projections of future climate, and associated ecosystem processes (IPCC 2013a1205) pose additional challenges to the implementation of SLM. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many SLM practices, including technologies and approaches, are available that can increase yields and contribute to closing the yield gap between actual and potential crop or pasture yield, while also enhancing resilience to climate change (Yengoh and Ardö 20141206; WOCAT n.d.). However, there are often systemic barriers to adoption and scaling up of SLM practices, especially in developing countries.

Uitto (2016)1207 identified areas that the GEF, the financial mechanism of the UNCCD, UNFCCC and other multilateral environmental agreements, can address to solve global environmental problems. These include: removal of barriers related to knowledge and information; strategies for implementation of technologies and approaches; and institutional capacity. Strengthening these areas would drive transformational change, leading to behavioural change and broader adoption of sustainable environmental practices. Detailed analysis of barriers as well as strategies, methods and approaches to scale up SLM have been undertaken for GEF programmes in Africa, China and globally (Tengberg and Valencia 20181208; Liniger et al. 20111209; Tengberg et al. 20161210). A number of interconnected barriers and bottlenecks to the scaling up of SLM have been identified in this context and are related to:

  • limited access to knowledge and information, including new SLM technologies and problem-solving capacities
  • weak enabling environment, including the policy, institutional and legal framework for SLM, and land tenure and property rights
  • inadequate learning and adaptive knowledge management in the project cycle, including monitoring and evaluation of impacts
  • limited access to finance for scaling up, including public and private funding, innovative business models for SLM technologies and financial mechanisms and incentives, such as payment for ecosystem services (PES), insurance and micro-credit schemes(see also Shames et al. 2014).Adoption of innovations and new technologies are increasingly analysed using the transition theory framework (Geels 20021211), the starting point being the recognition that many global environmental problems cannot be solved by technological change alone, but require more far-reaching change of social-ecological systems. Using transition theory makes it possible to analyse how adoption and implementation follow the four stages of sociotechnical transitions,

from predevelopment of technologies and approaches at the niche level, take-off and acceleration, to regime shift and stabilisation at the landscape level. According to a recent review of sustainability transitions in developing countries (Wieczorek 20181212), three internal niche processes are important, including the formation of networks that support and nurture innovation, the learning process, and the articulation of expectations to guide the learning process. While technologies are important, institutional and political aspects form the major barriers to transition and upscaling. In developing and transition economies, informal institutions play a pivotal role, and transnational linkages are also important, such as global value chains. In these countries, it is therefore more difficult to establish fully coherent regimes or groups of individuals who share expectations, beliefs or behaviour, as there is a high level of uncertainty about rules and social networks or dominance of informal institutions, which creates barriers to change. This uncertainty is further exacerbated by climate change. Landscape forces comprise a set of slow-changing factors, such as broad cultural and normative values, long-term economic effects such as urbanisation, and shocks such as war and crises that can lead to change.

A study on SLM in the Kenyan highlands using transition theory concluded that barriers to adoption of SLM included high poverty levels, a low-input/low-output farming system with limited potential to generate income, diminishing land sizes, and low involvement of the youth in farming activities. Coupled with a poor coordination of government policies for agriculture and forestry, these barriers created negative feedbacks in the SLM transition process. Other factors to consider include gender issues and lack of secure land tenure. Scaling up of SLM technologies would require collaboration of diverse stakeholders across multiple scales, a more supportive policy environment and substantial resource mobilisation (Mutoko et al. 20141213). Tengberg and Valencia (2018)1214 analysed the findings from a review of the GEF’s integrated natural resources management portfolio of projects using the transition theory framework (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002), adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018).

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002)1653, adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018)1654.

They concluded that to remove barriers to SLM, an agricultural innovations systems approach that supports co-production of knowledge with multiple stakeholders, institutional innovations, a focus on value chains and strengthening of social capital to facilitate shared learning and collaboration could accelerate the scaling up of sustainable technologies and practices from the niche to the landscape level. Policy integration and establishment of financial mechanisms and incentives could contribute to overcoming barriers to a regime shift. The new SLM regime could, in turn, be stabilised and sustained at the landscape level by multi-stakeholder knowledge platforms and strategic partnerships. However, transitions to more sustainable regimes and practices are often challenged by lock-in mechanisms in the current system (Lawhon and Murphy 20121215) such as economies of scale, investments already made in equipment, infrastructure and competencies, lobbying, shared beliefs, and practices, that could hamper wider adoption of SLM.

Adaptive, multi-level and participatory governance of social-ecological systems is considered important for regime shifts and transitions to take place (Wieczorek 20181216) and essential to secure the capacity of environmental assets to support societal development over longer time periods (Folke et al. 20051217). There is also recognition that effective environmental policies and programmes need to be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the biophysical, social, and economic components and processes of a system, their complex interactions, and how they respond to different changes (Kelly (Letcher) et al. 2013). But blueprint policies will not work, due to the wide diversity of rules and informal institutions used across sectors and regions of the world, especially in traditional societies (Ostrom 20091218).

The most effective way of removing barriers to funding of SLM has been mainstreaming of SLM objectives and priorities into relevant policy and development frameworks, and combining SLM best practices with economic incentives for land users. As the short-term costs for establishing and maintaining SLM measures are generally high and constitute a barrier to adoption, land users may need to be compensated for generation of longer-term public goods, such as ecosystem services. Cost-benefit analyses can be conducted on SLM interventions to facilitate such compensations (Liniger et al. 20111219; Nkonya et al. 20161220; Tengberg et al. 20161221). The landscape approach is a means to reconcile competing demands on the land and remove barriers to implementation of SLM (e.g., Sayer et al. 20131222; Bürgi et al. 20171223). It involves an increased focus on participatory governance, development of new SLM business models, and innovative funding schemes, including insurance (Shames et al. 20141224). The LDN Fund takes a landscape approach and raises private finance for SLM and promotes market-based instruments, such as PES, certification and carbon trading, that can support scaling up of SLM to improve local livelihoods, sequester carbon and enhance the resilience to climate change (Baumber et al. 20191225).

4.9

Case studies

Climate change impacts on land degradation can be avoided, reduced or even reversed, but need to be addressed in a context-sensitive manner. Many of the responses described in this section can also provide synergies of adaptation and mitigation. In this section we provide more in-depth analysis of a number of salient aspects of how land degradation and climate change interact. Table 4.3 is a synthesis of how of these case studies relate to climate change and other broader issues in terms of co-benefits.

Table 4.3

Synthesis of how the case studies interact with climate change and a broader set of co-benefits.

4.9.1

Urban green infrastructure

Over half of the world’s population now lives in towns and cities, a proportion that is predicted to increase to about 70% by the middle of the century (United Nations 20151226). Rapid urbanisation is a severe threat to land and the provision of ecosystem services (Seto et al. 20121227). However, as cities expand, the avoidance of land degradation, or the maintenance/enhancement of ecosystem services is rarely considered in planning processes. Instead, economic development and the need for space for construction is prioritised, which can result in substantial pollution of air and water sources, the degradation of existing agricultural areas and indigenous, natural or semi-natural ecosystems both within and outside of urban areas. For instance, urban areas are characterised by extensive impervious surfaces. Degraded, sealed soils beneath these surfaces do not provide the same quality of water retention as intact soils. Urban landscapes comprising 50–90% impervious surfaces can therefore result in 40–83% of rainfall becoming surface water runoff (Pataki et al. 20111228). With rainfall intensity predicted to increase in many parts of the world under climate change (Royal Society 20161229), increased water runoff is going to get worse. Urbanisation, land degradation and climate change are therefore strongly interlinked, suggesting the need for common solutions (Reed and Stringer 20161230).

There is now a large body of research and application demonstrating the importance of retaining urban green infrastructure (UGI) for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (DG Environment News Alert Service, 2012; Wentworth, 20171231) as an important tool to mitigate and adapt to climate change. UGI can be defined as all green elements within a city, including, but not limited to, retained indigenous ecosystems, parks, public greenspaces, green corridors, street trees, urban forests, urban agriculture, green roofs/walls and private domestic gardens (Tzoulas et al. 20071232). The definition is usually extended to include ‘blue’ infrastructure, such as rivers, lakes, bioswales and other water drainage features. The related concept of Nature-Based Solutions (defined as: living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by and using nature, which are designed to address various societal challenges in a resource-efficient and adaptable manner and to provide simultaneously economic, social, and environmental benefits) has gained considerable traction within the European Commission as one approach to mainstreaming the importance of UGI (Maes and Jacobs 20171233; European Union 20151234).

Through retaining existing vegetation and ecosystems, revegetating previous developed land or integrating vegetation into buildings in the form of green walls and roofs, UGI can play a direct role in mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. However, compared to overall carbon emissions from cities, effects will be small. Given that UGI necessarily involves the retention and management of non-sealed surfaces, co-benefits for land degradation (e.g., soil compaction avoidance, reduced water runoff, carbon storage and vegetation productivity (Davies et al. 20111235; Edmondson et al. 20111236, 20141237; Yao et al. 20151238) will also be apparent. Although not currently a priority, its role in mitigating land degradation could be substantial. For instance, appropriately managed innovative urban agricultural production systems, such as vertical farms, could have the potential to meet some of the food needs of cities and reduce the production (and therefore degradation) pressure on agricultural land in rural areas, although thus far this is unproven (for a recent review, see Wilhelm and Smith 2018).

The importance of UGI as part of a climate change adaptation approach has received greater attention and application (Gill et al. 20071239; Fryd et al. 20111240; Demuzere et al. 20141241; Sussams et al. 20151242). The EU’s Adapting to Climate Change white paper emphasises the ‘crucial role in adaptation in providing essential resources for social and economic purposes under extreme climate conditions’ (CEC, 2009, p. 9). Increasing vegetation cover, planting street trees and maintaining/expanding public parks reduces temperatures (Cavan et al. 20141243; Di Leo et al. 20161244; Feyisa et al. 20141245; Tonosaki and Kawai 20141246; Zölch et al. 20161247). Further, the appropriate design and spatial distribution of greenspaces within cities can help to alter urban climates to improve human health and comfort (e.g., Brown and Nicholls 20151248; Klemm et al. 20151249). The use of green walls and roofs can also reduce energy use in buildings (e.g., Coma et al. 20171250). Similarly, natural flood management and ecosystem-based approaches of providing space for water, renaturalising rivers and reducing surface runoff through the presence of permeable surfaces and vegetated features (including walls and roofs) can manage flood risks, impacts and vulnerability (e.g., Gill et al. 20071251; Munang et al. 20131252). Access to UGI in times of environmental stresses and shock can provide safety nets for people, and so can be an important adaptation mechanism, both to climate change (Potschin et al. 20161253) and land degradation.

Most examples of UGI implementation as a climate change adaptation strategy have centred on its role in water management for flood risk reduction. The importance for land degradation is either not stated, or not prioritised. In Beira, Mozambique, the government is using UGI to mitigate increased flood risks predicted to occur under climate change and urbanisation, which will be done by improving the natural water capacity of the Chiveve River. As part of the UGI approach, mangrove habitats have been restored, and future phases include developing new multi-functional urban green spaces along the river (World Bank 20161254). The retention of green spaces within the city will have the added benefit of halting further degradation in those areas. Elsewhere, planning mechanisms promote the retention and expansion of green areas within cities to ensure ecosystem service delivery, which directly halts land degradation, but are largely viewed and justified in the context of climate change adaptation and mitigation. For instance, the Berlin Landscape Programme includes five plans, one of which covers adapting to climate change through the recognition of the role of UGI (Green Surge 20161255). Major climate-related challenges facing Durban, South Africa, include sea level rise, urban heat island, water runoff and conservation (Roberts and O’Donoghue 20131256). Now considered a global leader in climate adaptation planning (Roberts 20101257), Durban’s Climate Change Adaptation plan includes the retention and maintenance of natural ecosystems, in particular those that are important for mitigating flooding, coastal erosion, water pollution, wetland siltation and climate change (eThekwini Municipal Council 20141258).

4.9.2

Perennial grains and soil organic carbon (SOC)

The severe ecological perturbation that is inherent in the conversion of native perennial vegetation to annual crops, and the subsequent high frequency of perturbation required to maintain annual crops, results in at least four forms of soil degradation that will be exacerbated by the effects of climate change (Crews et al. 20161259). First, soil erosion is a very serious consequence of annual cropping, with median losses exceeding rates of formation by one to two orders of magnitude in conventionally plowed agroecosystems, and while erosion is reduced with conservation tillage, median losses still exceed formation by several fold (Montgomery 20071260). More severe storm intensity associated with climate change is expected to cause even greater losses to wind and water erosion (Nearing et al. 20041261). Second, the periods of time in which live roots are reduced or altogether absent from soils in annual cropping systems allow for substantial losses of nitrogen from fertilised croplands, averaging 50% globally (Ladha et al. 20051262). This low retention of nitrogen is also expected to worsen with more intense weather events (Bowles et al. 20181263). A third impact of annual cropping is the degradation of soil structure caused by tillage, which can reduce infiltration of precipitation, and increase surface runoff. It is predicted that the percentage of precipitation that infiltrates into agricultural soils will decrease further under climate-change scenarios (Basche and DeLonge 20171264; Wuest et al. 20061265). The fourth form of soil degradation that results from annual cropping is the reduction of soil organic matter (SOM), a topic of particular relevance to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Undegraded cropland soils can theoretically hold far more SOM (which is about 58% carbon) than they currently do (Soussana et al. 20061266). We know this deficiency because, with few exceptions, comparisons between cropland soils and those of proximate mature native ecosystems commonly show a 40–75% decline in soil carbon attributable to agricultural practices. What happens when native ecosystems are converted to agriculture that induces such significant losses of SOM? Wind and water erosion commonly results in preferential removal of light organic matter fractions that can accumulate on or near the soil surface (Lal 20031267). In addition to the effects of erosion, the fundamental practices of growing annual food and fibre crops alters both inputs and outputs of organic matter from most agroecosystems, resulting in net reductions in soil carbon equilibria (Soussana et al. 20061268; McLauchlan 20061269; Crews et al. 20161270). Native vegetation of almost all terrestrial ecosystems is dominated by perennial plants, and the below-ground carbon allocation of these perennials is a key variable in determining formation rates of stable soil organic carbon (SOC) (Jastrow et al. 20071271; Schmidt et al. 20111272). When perennial vegetation is replaced by annual crops, inputs of root-associated carbon (roots, exudates, mycorrhizae) decline substantially. For example, perennial grassland species allocate around 67% of productivity to roots, whereas annual crops allocate between 13–30% (Saugier 20011273; Johnson et al. 20061274).

At the same time, inputs of SOC are reduced in annual cropping systems, and losses are increased because of tillage, compared to native perennial vegetation. Tillage breaks apart soil aggregates which, among other functions, are thought to inhibit soil bacteria, fungi and other microbes from consuming and decomposing SOM (Grandy and Neff 20081275). Aggregates reduce microbial access to organic matter by restricting physical access to mineral-stabilised organic compounds as well as reducing oxygen availability (Cotrufo et al. 20151276; Lehmann and Kleber 20151277). When soil aggregates are broken open with tillage in the conversion of native ecosystems to agriculture, microbial consumption of SOC and subsequent respiration of CO2 increase dramatically, reducing soil carbon stocks (Grandy and Robertson 20061278; Grandy and Neff 20081279).

Many management approaches are being evaluated to reduce soil degradation in general, especially by increasing mineral-protected forms of SOC in the world’s croplands (Paustian et al. 20161280). The menu of approaches being investigated focuses either on increasing below-ground carbon inputs, usually through increases in total crop productivity, or by decreasing microbial activity, usually through reduced soil disturbance (Crews and Rumsey 20171281). However, the basic biogeochemistry of terrestrial ecosystems managed for production of annual crops presents serious challenges to achieving the standing stocks of SOC accumulated by native ecosystems that preceded agriculture. A novel new approach that is just starting to receive significant attention is the development of perennial cereal, legume and oilseed crops (Glover et al. 20101282; Baker 20171283).

There are two basic strategies that plant breeders and geneticists are using to develop new perennial grain crop species. The first involves making wide hybrid crosses between existing elite lines of annual crops, such as wheat, sorghum and rice, with related wild perennial species in order to introgress perennialism into the genome of the annual (Cox et al. 20181284; Huang et al. 20181285; Hayes et al. 20181286). The other approach is de novo domestication of wild perennial species that have crop-like traits of interest (DeHaan et al. 20161287; DeHaan and Van Tassel 20141288). New perennial crop species undergoing de novo domestication include intermediate wheatgrass, a relative of wheat that produces grain known as Kernza (DeHaan et al. 20181289; Cattani and Asselin 20181290) and Silphium integrifolium, an oilseed crop in the sunflower family (Van Tassel et al. 20171291). Other grain crops receiving attention for perennialisation include pigeon pea, barley, buckwheat and maize (Batello et al. 20141292; Chen et al. 2018c1293) and a number of legume species (Schlautman et al. 20181294). In most cases, the seed yields of perennial grain crops under development are well below those of elite modern grain varieties. During the period that it will take for intensive breeding efforts to close the yield and other trait gaps between annual and perennial grains, perennial proto-crops may be used for purposes other than grain, including forage production (Ryan et al. 20181295). Perennial rice stands out as a high-yielding exception, as its yields matched those of elite local varieties in the Yunnan Province for six growing seasons over three years (Huang et al. 20181296).

In a perennial agroecosystem, the biogeochemical controls on SOC accumulation shift dramatically, and begin to resemble the controls that govern native ecosystems (Crews et al. 20161297). When erosion is reduced or halted, and crop allocation to roots increases by 100–200%, and when soil aggregates are not disturbed thus reducing microbial respiration, SOC levels are expected to increase (Crews and Rumsey 20171298). Deep roots growing year round are also effective at increasing nitrogen retention (Culman et al. 20131299; Jungers et al. 20191300). Substantial increases in SOC have been measured where croplands that had historically been planted to annual grains were converted to perennial grasses, such as in the US Conservation Reserve Program or in plantings of second-generation perennial biofuel crops. Two studies have assessed carbon accumulation in soils when croplands were converted to the perennial grain Kernza. In one, researchers found no differences in soil labile (permanganate-oxidisable) carbon after four years of cropping to perennial Kernza versus annual wheat in a sandy textured soil. Given that coarse textured soils do not offer the same physicochemical protection against microbial attack as many finer textured soils, these results are not surprising, but these results do underscore how variable the rates of carbon accumulation can be (Jastrow et al. 20071301). In the second study, researchers assessed the carbon balance of a Kernza field in Kansas, USA over 4.5 years using eddy covariance observations (de Oliveira et al. 2018). They found that the net carbon accumulation rate of about 1500 gC m–2 yr–1 in the first year of the study corresponding to the biomass of Kernza, increasing to about 300 gC m–2 yr–1 in the final year, where CO2 respiration losses from the decomposition of roots and SOM approached new carbon inputs from photosynthesis. Based on measurements of soil carbon accumulation in restored grasslands in this part of the USA, the net carbon accumulation in stable organic matter under a perennial grain crop might be expected to sequester 30–50 gC m–2 yr–1 (Post and Kwon 20001302) until a new equilibrium is reached. Sugar cane, a highly productive perennial, has been shown to accumulate a mean of 187 gC m–2 yr–1 in Brazil (La Scala Júnior et al. 20121303).

Reduced soil erosion, increased nitrogen retention, greater water uptake efficiency and enhanced carbon sequestration represent improved ecosystem functions, made possible in part by deep and extensive root systems of perennial crops (Figure 4.8).

Figure-4.8

Comparison of root systems between the newly domesticated intermediate wheatgrass (left) and annual wheat (right). Photo: Copyright © Jim Richardson.

Comparison of root systems between the newly domesticated intermediate wheatgrass (left) and annual wheat (right). Photo: Copyright © Jim Richardson.

When compared to annual grains like wheat, single species stands of deep-rooted perennial grains such as Kernza are expected to reduce soil erosion, increase nitrogen retention, achieve greater water uptake efficiency and enhance carbon sequestration (Crews et al. 20181304) (Figure 4.8). An even higher degree of ecosystem services can, at least theoretically, be achieved by strategically combining different functional groups of crops such as a cereal and a nitrogen-fixing legume (Soussana and Lemaire 20141305). Not only is there evidence from plant-diversity experiments that communities with higher species richness sustain higher concentrations of SOC (Hungate et al. 20171306; Sprunger and Robertson 20181307; Chen, S. 20181308; Yang et al. 20191309), but other valuable ecosystem services such as pest suppression, lower GHG emissions, and greater nutrient retention may be enhanced (Schnitzer et al. 20111310; Culman et al. 20131311).

Similar to perennial forage crops such as alfalfa, perennial grain crops are expected to have a definite productive lifespan, probably in the range of three to 10 years. A key area of research on perennial grains cropping systems is to minimise losses of SOC during conversion of one stand of perennial grains to another. Recent work demonstrates that no-till conversion of a mature perennial grassland to another perennial crop will experience several years of high net CO2 emissions as decomposition of copious crop residues exceed ecosystem uptake of carbon by the new crop (Abraha et al. 20181312). Most, if not all, of this lost carbon will be recaptured in the replacement crop. It is not known whether mineral-stabilised carbon that is protected in soil aggregates is vulnerable to loss in perennial crop succession.

Perennial grains hold promises of agricultural practices, which can significantly reduce soil erosion and nutrient leakage while sequestering carbon. When cultivated in mixes with N-fixing species (legumes) such polycultures also reduce the need for external inputs of nitrogen – a large source of GHG from conventional agriculture.

4.9.3

Reversing land degradation through reforestation

4.9.3.1

South Korea case study on reforestation success

In the first half of the 20th century, forests in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) were severely degraded and deforested during foreign occupations and the Korean War. Unsustainable harvest for timber and fuelwood resulted in severely degraded landscapes, heavy soil erosion and large areas denuded of vegetation cover. Recognising that South Korea’s economic health would depend on a healthy environment, South Korea established a national forest service (1967) and embarked on the first phase of a 10-year reforestation programme in 1973 (Forest Development Program), which was followed by subsequent reforestation programmes that ended in 1987, after 2.4 Mha of forests were restored (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9

Example of severely degraded hills in South Korea and stages of forest restoration. The top two photos are taken in the early 1970s, before and after restoration, the third photo about five years after restoration, and the bottom photo was taken about 20 years after restoration. Many examples of such restoration success exist throughout South […]

Example of severely degraded hills in South Korea and stages of forest restoration. The top two photos are taken in the early 1970s, before and after restoration, the third photo about five years after restoration, and the bottom photo was taken about 20 years after restoration. Many examples of such restoration success exist throughout South Korea. (Photos: Copyright © Korea Forest Service)

As a consequence of reforestation, forest volume increased from 11.3 m3 ha–1 in 1973 to 125.6 m3 ha–1 in 2010 and 150.2 m3 ha–1 in 2016 (Korea Forest Service 20171313). Increases in forest volume had significant co-benefits such as increasing water yield by 43% and reducing soil losses by 87% from 1971 to 2010 (Kim et al. 20171314).

The forest carbon density in South Korea has increased from 5–7 MgC ha–1 in the period 1955–1973 to more than 30 MgC ha–1 in the late 1990s (Choi et al. 20021315). Estimates of carbon uptake rates in the late 1990s were 12 TgC yr–1 (Choi et al. 20021316). For the period 1954 to 2012, carbon uptake was 8.3 TgC yr–1 (Lee et al. 20141317), lower than other estimates because reforestation programmes did not start until 1973. Net ecosystem production in South Korea was 10.55 ± 1.09 TgC yr−1 in the 1980s, 10.47 ± 7.28 Tg C yr−1 in the 1990s, and 6.32 ± 5.02 Tg C yr−1 in the 2000s, showing a gradual decline as average forest age increased (Cui et al. 20141318). The estimated past and projected future increase in the carbon content of South Korea’s forest area during 1992–2034 was 11.8 TgC yr–1 (Kim et al. 20161319).

During the period of forest restoration, South Korea also promoted inter-agency cooperation and coordination, especially between the energy and forest sectors, to replace firewood with fossil fuels, and to reduce demand for firewood to help forest recovery (Bae et al. 20121320). As experience with forest restoration programmes has increased, emphasis has shifted from fuelwood plantations, often with exotic species and hybrid varieties to planting more native species and encouraging natural regeneration (Kim and Zsuffa 19941321; Lee et al. 20151322). Avoiding monocultures in reforestation programmes can reduce susceptibility to pests (Kim and Zsuffa 19941323). Other important factors in the success of the reforestation programme were that private landowners were heavily involved in initial efforts (both corporate entities and smallholders) and that the reforestation programme was made part of the national economic development programme (Lamb 20141324).

The net present value and the cost-benefit ratio of the reforestation programme were 54.3 billion and 5.84 billion USD in 2010, respectively. The breakeven point of the reforestation investment appeared within two decades. Substantial benefits of the reforestation programme included disaster risk reduction and carbon sequestration (Lee et al. 2018a1325).

In summary, the reforestation programme was a comprehensive technical and social initiative that restored forest ecosystems, enhanced the economic performance of rural regions, contributed to disaster risk reduction, and enhanced carbon sequestration (Kim et al. 20171326; Lee et al. 2018a1327; UNDP 20171328).

The success of the reforestation programme in South Korea and the associated significant carbon sink indicate a high mitigation potential that might be contributed by a potential future reforestation programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) (Lee et al. 2018b1329).

4.9.3.2

China case study on reforestation success

The dramatic decline in the quantity and quality of natural forests in China resulted in land degradation, such as soil erosion, floods, droughts, carbon emission, and damage to wildlife habitat (Liu and Diamond 20081330). In response to failures of previous forestry and land policies, the severe droughts in 1997, and the massive floods in 1998, the central government decided to implement a series of land degradation control policies, including the National Forest Protection Program (NFPP), Grain for Green or the Conversion of Cropland to Forests and Grassland Program (GFGP) (Liu et al. 20081331; Yin 20091332; Tengberg et al. 20161333; Zhang et al. 20001334). The NFPP aimed to completely ban logging of natural forests in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers as well as in Hainan Province by 2000 and to substantially reduce logging in other places (Xu et al. 20061335). In 2011, NFPP was renewed for the 10-year second phase, which also added another 11 counties around Danjiangkou Reservoir in Hubei and Henan Provinces, the water source for the middle route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (Liu et al. 20131336). Furthermore, the NFPP afforested 31 Mha by 2010 through aerial seeding, artificial planting, and mountain closure (i.e., prohibition of human activities such as fuelwood collection and lifestock grazing) (Xu et al. 20061337). China banned commercial logging in all natural forests by the end of 2016, which imposed logging bans and harvesting reductions in 68.2 Mha of forest land – including 56.4 Mha of natural forest (approximately 53% of China’s total natural forests).

GFGP became the most ambitious of China’s ecological restoration efforts, with more than 45 billion USD devoted to its implementation since 1990 (Kolinjivadi and Sunderland 20121338) The programme involves the conversion of farmland on slopes of 15–25° or greater to forest or grassland (Bennett 20081339). The pilot programme started in three provinces – Sichuan, Shaanxi and Gansu – in 1999 (Liu and Diamond 20081340). After its initial success, it was extended to 17 provinces by 2000 and finally to all provinces by 2002, including the headwaters of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers (Liu et al. 2008).

NFPP and GFGP have dramatically improved China’s land conditions and ecosystem services, and thus have mitigated the unprecedented land degradation in China (Liu et al. 20131341; Liu et al. 20021342; Long et al. 20061343; Xu et al. 20061344). NFPP protected 107 Mha forest area and increased forest area by 10 Mha between 2000 and 2010. For the second phase (2011–2020), the NFPP plans to increase forest cover by a further 5.2 Mha, capture 416 million tons of carbon, provide 648,500 forestry jobs, further reduce land degradation, and enhance biodiversity (Liu et al. 20131345). During 2000–2007, sediment concentration in the Yellow River had declined by 38%. In the Yellow River basin, it was estimated that surface runoff would be reduced by 450 million m3 from 2000 to 2020, which is equivalent to 0.76% of the total surface water resources (Jia et al. 2006). GFGP had cumulatively increased vegetative cover by 25 Mha, with 8.8 Mha of cropland being converted to forest and grassland, 14.3 Mha barren land being afforested, and 2.0 Mha of forest regeneration from mountain closure. Forest cover within the GFGP region has increased 2% during the first eight years (Liu et al. 20081346). In Guizhou Province, GFGP plots had 35–53% less loss of phosphorus than non-GFGP plots (Liu et al. 20021347). In Wuqi County of Shaanxi Province, the Chaigou Watershed had 48% and 55% higher soil moisture and moisture-holding capacity in GFGP plots than in non-GFGP plots, respectively (Liu et al. 20021348). According to reports on China’s first national ecosystem assessment (2000–2010), for carbon sequestration and soil retention, coefficients for the GFGP targeting forest restoration and NFPP are positive and statistically significant. For sand fixation, GFGP targeting grassland restoration is positive and statistically significant. Remote sensing observations confirm that vegetation cover increased and bare soil declined in China over the period 2001 to 2015 (Qiu et al. 20171349). But, where afforestation is sustained by drip irrigation from groundwater, questions about plantation sustainability arise (Chen et al. 2018a1350). Moreover, greater gains in biodiversity could be achieved by promoting mixed forests over monocultures (Hua et al. 20161351).

NFPP-related activities received a total commitment of 93.7 billion yuan (about 14 billion USD at 2018 exchange rate) between 1998 and 2009. Most of the money was used to offset economic losses of forest enterprises caused by the transformation from logging to tree plantations and forest management (Liu et al. 20081352). By 2009, the cumulative total investment through the NFPP and GFGP exceeded 50 billion USD2009 and directly involved more than 120 million farmers in 32 million households in the GFGP alone (Liu et al. 20131353). All programmes reduce or reverse land degradation and improve human well-being. Thus, a coupled human and natural systems perspective (Liu et al. 20081354) would be helpful to understand the complexity of policies and their impacts, and to establish long-term management mechanisms to improve the livelihood of participants in these programmes and other land management policies in China and many other parts of the world.

4.9.4

Degradation and management of peat soils

Globally, peatlands cover 3–4% of the Earth’s land area (about 430 Mha) (Xu et al. 2018a1355) and store 26–44% of estimated global SOC (Moore 20021356). They are most abundant in high northern latitudes, covering large areas in North America, Russia and Europe. At lower latitudes, the largest areas of tropical peatlands are located in Indonesia, the Congo Basin and the Amazon Basin in the form of peat swamp forests (Gumbricht et al. 20171357; Xu et al. 2018a1358). It is estimated that, while 80–85% of the global peatland areas is still largely in a natural state, they are such carbon-dense ecosystems that degraded peatlands (0.3% of the terrestrial land) are responsible for a disproportional 5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions – that is, an annual addition of 0.9–3 GtCO2 to the atmosphere (Dommain et al. 20121359; IPCC 2014c1360).

Peatland degradation is not well quantified globally, but regionally peatland degradation can involve a large percentage of the areas. Land-use change and degradation in tropical peatlands have primarily been quantified in Southeast Asia, where drainage and conversion to plantation crops is the dominant transition (Miettinen et al. 20161361). Degradation of peat swamps in Peru is also a growing concern and one pilot survey showed that more than 70% of the peat swamps were degraded in one region surveyed (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a1362). Around 65,000 km2 or 10% of the European peatland area has been lost and 44% of the remaining European peatlands are degraded (Joosten, H., Tanneberger 20171363). Large areas of fens have been entirely ‘lost’ or greatly reduced in thickness due to peat wastage (Lamers et al. 20151364).

The main drivers of the acceleration of peatland degradation in the 20th century were associated with drainage for agriculture, peat extraction and afforestation related activities (burning, over-grazing, fertilisation) with a variable scale and severity of impact depending on existing resources in the various countries (O’Driscoll et al. 20181365; Cobb, A.R. et al. Dommain et al. 20181366; Lamers et al. 20151367). New drivers include urban development, wind farm construction (Smith et al. 20121368), hydroelectric development, tar sands mining and recreational uses (Joosten and Tanneberger 20171369). Anthropogenic pressures are now affecting peatlands in previously geographically isolated areas with consequences for global environmental concerns and impacts on local livelihoods (Dargie et al. 20171370; Lawson et al. 20151371; Butler et al. 20091372).

Drained and managed peatlands are GHG-emission hotspots (Swails et al. 20181373; Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a, 2017b1374; Roman-Cuesta et al. 20161375). In most cases, lowering of the water table leads to direct and indirect CO2 and N2O emissions to the atmosphere, with rates dependent on a range of factors, including the groundwater level and the water content of surface peat layers, nutrient content, temperature, and vegetation communities. The exception is nutrient-limited boreal peatlands (Minkkinen et al. 20181376; Ojanen et al. 20141377). Drainage also increases erosion and dissolved organic carbon loss, removing stored carbon into streams as dissolved and particulate organic carbon, which ultimately returns to the atmosphere (Moore et al. 20131378; Evans et al. 20161379).

In tropical peatlands, oil palm is the most widespread plantation crop and, on average, it emits around 40 tCO2 ha–1 yr–1; Acacia plantations for pulpwood are the second most widespread plantation crop and emit around 73 tCO2 ha–1 yr–1 (Drösler et al. 20131380). Other land uses typically emit less than 37 tCO2 ha-1yr-1. Total emissions from peatland drainage in the region are estimated to be between 0.07 and 1.1 GtCO2 yr–1 (Houghton and Nassikas 20171381; Frolking et al. 20111382). Land-use change also affects the fluxes of N2O and CH4. Undisturbed tropical peatlands emit about 0.8 MtCH4 yr-1 and 0.002 MtN2O yr-1, while disturbed peatlands emit 0.1 MtCH4 yr–1and 0.2 MtN2O–N yr–1 (Frolking et al. 20111383). These N2O emissions are probably low, as new findings show that emissions from fertilised oil palm can exceed 20 kgN2O–N ha–1 yr–1 (Oktarita et al. 20171384).

In the temperate and boreal zones, peatland drainage often leads to emissions in the order of 0.9 to 9.5 tCO2 ha–1 y–1 in forestry plantations and 21 to 29 tCO2 ha–1 y–1 in grasslands and croplands. Nutrient-poor sites often continue to be CO2 sinks for long periods (e.g., 50 years) following drainage and, in some cases, sinks for atmospheric CH4, even when drainage ditch emissions are considered (Minkkinen et al. 20181385; Ojanen et al. 20141386). Undisturbed boreal and temperate peatlands emit about 30 MtCH4 yr-1 and 0.02 MtN2O–N yr-1, while disturbed peatlands emit 0.1 MtCH4 yr–1and 0.2 MtN2O–N yr–1 (Frolking et al. 20111387).

Fire emissions from tropical peatlands are only a serious issue in Southeast Asia, where they are responsible for 634 (66–4070) MtCO2 yr–1 (van der Werf et al. 20171388). Much of the variability is linked with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which produces drought conditions in this region. Anomalously active fire seasons have also been observed in non-drought years and this has been attributed to the increasing effect of high temperatures that dry vegetation out during short dry spells in otherwise normal rainfall years (Fernandes et al. 20171389; Gaveau et al. 20141390). Fires have significant societal impacts; for example, the 2015 fires caused more than 100,000 additional deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and this event was more than twice as deadly as the 2006 El Niño event (Koplitz et al. 20161391).

Peatland degradation in other parts of the world differs from Asia. In Africa, for large peat deposits like those found in the Cuvette Centrale in the Congo Basin or in the Okavango inland delta, the principle threat is changing rainfall regimes due to climate variability and change (Weinzierl et al. 20161392; Dargie et al. 20171393). Expansion of agriculture is not yet a major factor in these regions. In the Western Amazon, extraction of non-timber forest products like the fruits of Mauritia flexuosa (moriche palm) and Suri worms are major sources of degradation that lead to losses of carbon stocks (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a1394).

The effects of peatland degradation on livelihoods have not been systematically characterised. In places where plantation crops are driving the conversion of peat swamps, the financial benefits can be considerable. One study in Indonesia found that the net present value of an oil palm plantation is between 3,835 and 9,630 USD per ha to land owners (Butler et al. 20091395). High financial returns are creating incentives for the expansion of smallholder production in peatlands. Smallholder plantations extend over 22% of the peatlands in insular Southeast Asia compared to 27% for industrial plantations (Miettinen et al. 20161396). In places where income is generated from extraction of marketable products, ecosystem degradation probably has a negative effect on livelihoods. For example, the sale of fruits of M. flexuosa in some parts of the western Amazon constitutes as much as 80% of the winter income of many rural households, but information on trade values and value chains of M. flexuosa is still sparse (Sousa et al. 20181397; Virapongse et al. 20171398).

There is little experience with peatland restoration in the tropics. Experience from northern latitudes suggests that extensive damage and changes in hydrological conditions mean that restoration in many cases is unachievable (Andersen et al. 20171399). In the case of Southeast Asia, where peatlands form as raised bogs, drainage leads to collapse of the dome, and this collapse cannot be reversed by rewetting. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to develop solutions, or at least partial solutions in Southeast Asia, for example, by the Indonesian Peatland Restoration Agency. The first step is to restore the hydrological regime in drained peatlands, but so far experiences with canal blocking and reflooding of the peat have been only partially successful (Ritzema et al. 20141400). Market incentives with certification through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil have also not been particularly successful as many concessions seek certification only after significant environmental degradation has occurred (Carlson et al. 20171401). Certification had no discernible effect on forest loss or fire detection in peatlands in Indonesia. To date there is no documentation of restoration methods or successes in many other parts of the tropics. However, in situations where degradation does not involve drainage, ecological restoration may be possible. In South America, for example, there is growing interest in restoration of palm swamps, and as experiences are gained it will be important to document success factors to inform successive efforts (Virapongse et al. 20171402).

In higher latitudes where degraded peatlands have been drained, the most effective option to reduce losses from these large organic carbon stocks is to change hydrological conditions and increase soil moisture and surface wetness (Regina et al. 20151403). Long-term GHG monitoring in boreal sites has demonstrated that rewetting and restoration noticeably reduce emissions compared to degraded drained sites and can restore the carbon sink function when vegetation is re-established (Wilson et al. 20161404; IPCC 2014a1405; Nugent et al. 20181406) although, restored ecosystems may not yet be as resilient as their undisturbed counterparts (Wilson et al. 20161407). Several studies have demonstrated the co-benefits of rewetting specific degraded peatlands for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, (Parry et al. 20141408; Ramchunder et al. 20121409; Renou-Wilson et al. 20181410) and other ecosystem services, such as improvement of water storage and quality (Martin-Ortega et al. 20141411) with beneficial consequences for human well-being (Bonn et al. 20161412; Parry et al. 20141413).

4.9.5

Biochar

Biochar is organic matter that is carbonised by heating in an oxygen-limited environment, and used as a soil amendment. The properties of biochar vary widely, dependent on the feedstock and the conditions of production. Biochar could make a significant contribution to mitigating both land degradation and climate change, simultaneously.

4.9.5.1

Role of biochar in climate change mitigation

Biochar is relatively resistant to decomposition compared with fresh organic matter or compost, so represents a long-term carbon store (very high confidence). Biochars produced at higher temperature (>450°C) and from woody material have greater stability than those produced at lower temperature (300–450°C), and from manures (very high confidence) (Singh et al. 20121414; Wang et al. 2016b1415). Biochar stability is influenced by soil properties: biochar carbon can be further stabilised by interaction with clay minerals and native SOM (medium evidence) (Fang et al. 20151416). Biochar stability is estimated to range from decades to thousands of years, for different biochars in different applications (Singh et al. 20151417; Wang et al. 20161418). Biochar stability decreases as ambient temperature increases (limited evidence) (Fang et al. 20171419).

Biochar can enhance soil carbon stocks through ‘negative priming’, in which rhizodeposits are stabilised through sorption of labile carbon on biochar, and formation of biochar-organo-mineral complexes (Weng et al. 20151420, 20171421, 20181422; Wang et al. 2016b). Conversely, some studies show increased turnover of native soil carbon (‘positive priming’) due to enhanced soil microbial activity induced by biochar. In clayey soils, positive priming is minor and short-lived compared to negative priming effects, which dominate in the medium to long term (Singh and Cowie 20141421; Wang et al. 2016b1422). Negative priming has been observed particularly in loamy grassland soil (Ventura et al. 20151423) and clay-dominated soils, whereas positive priming is reported in sandy soils (Wang et al. 2016b1424) and those with low carbon content (Ding et al. 20181425).

Biochar can provide additional climate-change mitigation by decreasing nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from soil, due in part to decreased substrate availability for denitrifying organisms, related to the molar H/C ratio of the biochar (Cayuela et al. 20151426). However, this impact varies widely: meta-analyses found an average decrease in N2O emissions from soil of 30–54%, (Cayuela et al. 20151427; Borchard et al. 20191428; Moore 20021429), although another study found no significant reduction in field conditions when weighted by the inverse of the number of observations per site (Verhoeven et al. 20171430). Biochar has been observed to reduce methane emissions from flooded soils, such as rice paddies, though, as for N2O, results vary between studies and increases have also been observed (He et al. 20171431; Kammann et al. 20171432). Biochar has also been found to reduce methane uptake by dryland soils, though the effect is small in absolute terms (Jeffery et al. 20161433).

Additional climate benefits of biochar can arise through: reduced nitrogen fertiliser requirements, due to reduced losses of nitrogen through leaching and/or volatilisation (Singh et al. 20101434) and enhanced biological nitrogen fixation (Van Zwieten et al. 20151435); increased yields of crop, forage, vegetable and tree species (Biederman and Harpole 20131436), particularly in sandy soils and acidic tropical soils (Simon et al. 20171437); avoided GHG emissions from manure that would otherwise be stockpiled, crop residues that would be burned or processing residues that would be landfilled; and reduced GHG emissions from compost when biochar is added (Agyarko-Mintah et al. 20171438; Wu et al. 2017a1439).

Climate benefits of biochar could be substantially reduced through reduction in albedo if biochar is surface-applied at high rates to light-coloured soils (Genesio et al. 20121440; Bozzi et al. 20151441; Woolf et al. 20101442), or if black carbon dust is released (Genesio et al. 20161443). Pelletising or granulating biochar, and applying below the soil surface or incorporating into the soil, minimises the release of black carbon dust and reduces the effect on albedo (Woolf et al. 20101444).

Biochar is a potential ‘negative emissions’ technology: the thermochemical conversion of biomass to biochar slows mineralisation of the biomass, delivering long-term carbon storage; gases released during pyrolysis can be combusted for heat or power, displacing fossil energy sources, and could be captured and sequestered if linked with infrastructure for CCS (Smith 20161445). Studies of the lifecycle climate change impacts of biochar systems generally show emissions reduction in the range 0.4 –1.2 tCO2e t–1 (dry) feedstock (Cowie et al. 20151446). Use of biomass for biochar can deliver greater benefits than use for bioenergy, if applied in a context where it delivers agronomic benefits and/or reduces non-CO2 GHG emissions (Ji et al. 20181447; Woolf et al. 20101448, 2018; Xuetal.2019).A global analysis of technical potential, in which biomass supply constraints were applied to protect against food insecurity, loss of habitat and land degradation, estimated technical potential abatement of 3.7–6.6 GtCO2e yr–1 (including 2.6–4.6 GtCO2e yr–1 carbon stabilisation), with theoretical potential to reduce total emissions over the course of a century by 240–475 GtCO2e (Woolf et al. 2010). Fuss et al. (2018) propose a range of 0.5–2 GtCO2e per year as the sustainable potential for negative emissions through biochar. Mitigation potential of biochar is reviewed in Chapter 2.

4.9.5.2

Role of biochar in management of land degradation

Biochars generally have high porosity, high surface area and surface-active properties that lead to high absorptive and adsorptive capacity, especially after interaction in soil (Joseph et al. 20101450). As a result of these properties, biochar could contribute to avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation through the following documented benefits:

  • Improved nutrient use efficiency due to reduced leaching of nitrate and ammonium (e.g., Haider et al. 20171451) and increased availability of phosphorus in soils with high phosphorus fixation capacity (Liu et al. 2018c1452), potentially reducing nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser requirements.
  • Management of heavy metals and organic pollutants: through reduced bioavailability of toxic elements (O’Connor et al. 20181453; Peng et al. 20181454), by reducing availability, through immobilisation due to increased pH and redox effects (Rizwan et al. 20161455) and adsorption on biochar surfaces (Zhang et al. 20131456) thus providing a means of remediating contaminated soils, and enabling their utilisation for food production.
  • Stimulation of beneficial soil organisms, including earthworms and mycorrhizal fungi (Thies et al. 20151457).
  • Improved porosity and water-holding capacity (Quin et al. 20141458), particularly in sandy soils (Omondi et al. 20161459), enhancing microbial function during drought (Paetsch et al. 20181460).
  • Amelioration of soil acidification, through application of biochars with high pH and acid-neutralising capacity (Chan et al. 20081461; Van Zwieten et al. 20101462).

Biochar systems can deliver a range of other co-benefits, including destruction of pathogens and weed propagules, avoidance of landfill, improved handling and transport of wastes such as sewage sludge, management of biomass residues such as environmental weeds and urban greenwaste, reduction of odours and management of nutrients from intensive livestock facilities, reduction in environmental nitrogen pollution and protection of waterways. As a compost additive, biochar has been found to reduce leaching and volatilisation of nutrients, increasing nutrient retention through absorption and adsorption processes (Joseph et al. 20181463).

While many studies report positive responses, some studies have found negative or zero impacts on soil properties or plant response (e.g., Kuppusamy et al. 20161464). The risk that biochar may enhance polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in soil or sediments has been raised (Quilliam et al. 20131465; Ojeda et al. 20161466), but bioavailability of PAH in biochar has been shown to be very low (Hilber et al. 20171467) Pyrolysis of biomass leads to losses of volatile nutrients, especially nitrogen. While availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in biochar is lower than in fresh biomass, (Xu et al. 20161468) the impact of biochar on plant uptake is determined by the interactions between biochar, soil minerals and activity of microorganisms (e.g., Vanek and Lehmann 20151655; Nguyen et al. 20171469). To avoid negative responses, it is important to select biochar formulations to address known soil constraints, and to apply biochar prior to planting (Nguyen et al. 20171470). Nutrient enrichment improves the performance of biochar from low nutrient feedstocks (Joseph et al. 20131471). While there are many reports of biochar reducing disease or pest incidence, there are also reports of nil or negative effects (Bonanomi et al. 20151472). Biochar may induce systemic disease resistance (e.g., Elad et al. 20111473), though Viger et al. (2015)1474 reported down-regulation of plant defence genes, suggesting increased susceptibility to insect and pathogen attack. Disease suppression where biochar is applied is associated with increased microbial diversity and metabolic potential of the rhizosphere microbiome (Kolton et al. 20171475). Differences in properties related to feedstock (Bonanomi et al. 20181476) and differential response to biochar dose, with lower rates more effective (Frenkel et al. 20171477), contribute to variable disease responses.

The constraints on biochar adoption include: the high cost and limited availability due to limited large-scale production; limited amount of unutilised biomass; and competition for land for growing biomass. While early biochar research tended to use high rates of application (10 t ha–1 or more) subsequent studies have shown that biochar can be effective at lower rates, especially when combined with chemical or organic fertilisers (Joseph et al. 20131478). Biochar can be produced at many scales and levels of engineering sophistication, from simple cone kilns and cookstoves to large industrial-scale units processing several tonnes of biomass per hour (Lehmann and Joseph 20151479). Substantial technological development has occurred recently, though large-scale deployment is limited to date.

Governance of biochar is required to manage climate, human health and contamination risks associated with biochar production in poorly designed or operated facilities that release methane or particulates (Downie et al. 20121480; Buss et al. 20151481), to ensure quality control of biochar products, and to ensure that biomass is sourced sustainably and is uncontaminated. Measures could include labelling standards, sustainability certification schemes and regulation of biochar production and use. Governance mechanisms should be tailored to context, commensurate with risks of adverse outcomes.

In summary, application of biochar to soil can improve soil chemical, physical and biological attributes, enhancing productivity and resilience to climate change, while also delivering climate-change mitigation through carbon sequestration and reduction in GHG emissions (medium agreement, robust evidence). However, responses to biochar depend on the biochar’s properties, which are in turn dependent on feedstock and biochar production conditions, and the soil and crop to which it is applied. Negative or nil results have been recorded.Agronomic and methane-reduction benefits appear greatest in tropical regions, where acidic soils predominate and suboptimal rates of lime and fertiliser are common, while carbon stabilisation is greater in temperate regions. Biochar is most effective when applied in low volumes to the most responsive soils and when properties are matched to the specific soil constraints and plant needs. Biochar is thus a practice that has potential to address land degradation and climate change simultaneously, while also supporting sustainable development. The potential of biochar is limited by the availability of biomass for its production. Biochar production and use requires regulation and standardisation to manage risks (strong agreement).

4.9.6

Management of land degradation induced by tropical cyclones

Tropical cyclones are normal disturbances that natural ecosystems have been affected by and recovered from for millennia. Climate models mostly predict decreasing frequency of tropical cyclones, but dramatically increasing intensity of the strongest storms, as well as increasing rainfall rates (Bacmeister et al. 20181482; Walsh et al. 2016b1483). Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity complicate both the detection and attribution of tropical cyclones to climate change (Lin and Emanuel 2016b). Yet, the force of high-intensity cyclones has increased and is expected to escalate further due to global climate change (medium agreement, robust evidence) (Knutson et al. 20101484; Bender et al. 20101485; Vecchi et al. 20081486; Bhatia et al. 20181487; Tu et al. 20181488; Sobel et al. 20161489). Tropical cyclone paths are also shifting towards the poles, increasing the area subject to tropical cyclones (Sharmila and Walsh 20181490; Lin and Emanuel 2016b1491). Climate change alone will affect the hydrology of individual wetland ecosystems, mostly through changes in precipitation and temperature regimes with great global variability (Erwin 20091492). Over the last seven decades, the speed at which tropical cyclones move has decreased significantly, as expected from theory, exacerbating the damage on local communities from increasing rainfall amounts and high wind speed (Kossin 20181493). Tropical cyclones will accelerate changes in coastal forest structure and composition. The heterogeneity of land degradation at coasts that are affected by tropical cyclones can be further enhanced by the interaction of its components (for example, rainfall, wind speed, and direction) with topographic and biological factors (for example, species susceptibility) (Luke et al. 20161494).

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are particularly affected by land degradation induced by tropical cyclones; recent examples are Matthew (2016) in the Caribbean, and Pam (2015) and Winston (2016) in the Pacific (Klöck and Nunn 20191495; Handmer and Nalau 20191496). Even if the Pacific Ocean has experienced cyclones of unprecedented intensity in recent years, their geomorphological effects may not be unprecedented (Terry and Lau 20181497).

Cyclone impacts on coastal areas is not restricted to SIDS, but a problem for all low-lying coastal areas (Petzold and Magnan 20191498). The Sundarbans, one of the world’s largest coastal wetlands, covers about one million hectares between Bangladesh and India. Large areas of the Sundarbans mangroves have been converted into paddy fields over the past two centuries and, more recently, into shrimp farms (Ghosh et al. 20151499). In 2009, cyclone Aila caused incremental stresses on the socio-economic conditions of the Sundarbans coastal communities through rendering huge areas of land unproductive for a long time (Abdullah et al. 20161500). The impact of Aila was widespread throughout the Sundarbans mangroves, showing changes between the pre- and post-cyclonic period of 20–50% in the enhanced vegetation index (Dutta et al. 20151501), although the magnitude of the effects of the Sundarbans mangroves derived from climate change is not yet defined (Payo et al. 20161502; Loucks et al. 20101503; Gopal and Chauhan 20061504; Ghosh et al. 20151505; Chaudhuri et al. 20151506). There is high agreement that the joint effect of climate change and land degradation will be very negative for the area, strongly affecting the environmental services provided by these forests, including the extinction of large mammal species (Loucks et al. 20101507). The changes in vegetation are mainly due to inundation and erosion (Payo et al. 20161508).

Tropical cyclone Nargis unexpectedly hit the Ayeyarwady River delta (Myanmar) in 2008 with unprecedented and catastrophic damages to livelihoods, destruction of forests and erosion of fields (Fritz et al. 20091509) as well as eroding the shoreline 148 m compared with the long-term average (1974–2015) of 0.62 m yr-1. This is an example of the disastrous effects that changing cyclone paths can have on areas previously not affected by cyclones (Fritz et al. 20101510).

4.9.6.1

Management of coastal wetlands

Tropical cyclones mainly, but not exclusively, affect coastal regions, threatening maintenance of the associated ecosystems, mangroves, wetlands, seagrasses, and so on. These areas not only provide food, water and shelter for fish, birds and other wildlife, but also provide important ecosystem services such as water-quality improvement, flood abatement and carbon sequestration (Meng et al. 20171511).

Despite their importance, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most heavily damaged of natural ecosystems worldwide. Starting in the 1990s, wetland restoration and re-creation became a ‘hotspot’ in the ecological research fields (Zedler 20001512). Coastal wetland restoration and preservation is an extremely cost-effective strategy for society, for example, the preservation of coastal wetlands in the USA provides storm protection services, with a cost of 23.2 billion USD yr–1 (Costanza et al. 20081513).

There is a high agreement with medium evidence that the success of wetland restoration depends mainly on the flow of the water through the system, the degree to which re-flooding occurs, disturbance regimes, and the control of invasive species (Burlakova et al. 20091514; López-Rosas et al. 20131515). The implementation of the Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation protocol (López-Portillo et al. 20171516) that includes monitoring and reporting tasks, has been proven to deliver successful rehabilitation of wetland ecosystem services.

Figure 4.10

Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland based on original site conditions. (Modified from Bosire et al. 2008.)

Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland based on original site conditions. (Modified from Bosire et al. 2008.1656)

4.9.7

Saltwater intrusion

Current environmental changes, including climate change, have caused sea levels to rise worldwide, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions (Fasullo and Nerem 20181517). Combined with scarcity of water in river channels, such rises have been instrumental in the intrusion of highly saline seawater inland, posing a threat to coastal areas and an emerging challenge to land managers and policymakers. Assessing the extent of salinisation due to sea water intrusion at a global scale nevertheless remains challenging. Wicke et al. (2011)1518 suggest that across the world, approximately 1.1 Gha of land is affected by salt, with 14% of this categorised as forest, wetland or some other form of protected area. Seawater intrusion is generally caused by (i) increased tidal activity, storm surges, cyclones and sea storms due to changing climate, (ii) heavy groundwater extraction or land-use changes as a result of changes in precipitation, and droughts/floods, (iii) coastal erosion as a result of destruction of mangrove forests and wetlands, (iv) construction of vast irrigation canals and drainage networks leading to low river discharge in the deltaic region; and (v) sea level rise contaminating nearby freshwater aquifers as a result of subsurface intrusion (Uddameri et al. 20141519).

The Indus Delta, located in the south-eastern coast of Pakistan near Karachi in the North Arabian Sea, is one of the six largest estuaries in the world, spanning an area of 600,000 ha. The Indus delta is a clear example of seawater intrusion and land degradation due to local as well as up-country climatic and environmental conditions (Rasul et al. 20121520). Salinisation and waterlogging in the up-country areas including provinces of Punjab and Sindh is, however, caused by the irrigation network and over-irrigation (Qureshi 20111521).

Such degradation takes the form of high soil salinity, inundation and waterlogging, erosion and freshwater contamination. The interannual variability of precipitation with flooding conditions in some years and drought conditions in others has caused variable river flows and sediment runoff below Kotri Barrage (about 200 km upstream of the Indus delta). This has affected hydrological processes in the lower reaches of the river and the delta, contributing to the degradation (Rasul et al. 20121657).

Over 480,000 ha of fertile land is now affected by sea water intrusion, wherein eight coastal subdivisions of the districts of Badin and Thatta are mostly affected (Chandio et al. 20111658). A very high intrusion rate of 0.179 ± 0.0315 km yr-1, based on the analysis of satellite data, was observed in the Indus delta during the 10 years between 2004 and 2015 (Kalhoro et al. 20161522). The area of agricultural crops under cultivation has been declining, with economic losses of millions of USD (IUCN 20031523). Crop yields have reduced due to soil salinity, in some places failing entirely. Soil salinity varies seasonally, depending largely on the river discharge: during the wet season (August 2014), salinity (0.18 mg L–1) reached 24 km upstream, while during the dry season (May 2013), it reached 84 km upstream (Kalhoro et al. 20161524). The freshwater aquifers have also been contaminated with sea water, rendering them unfit for drinking or irrigation purposes. Lack of clean drinking water and sanitation causes widespread diseases, of which diarrhoea is most common (IUCN 20031525).

Lake Urmia in northwest Iran, the second-largest saltwater lake in the world and the habitat for endemic Iranian brine shrimp, Artemia urmiana, has also been affected by salty water intrusion. During a 17- year period between 1998 and 2014, human disruption, including agriculture and years of dam building affected the natural flow of freshwater as well as salty sea water in the surrounding area of Lake Urmia. Water quality has also been adversely affected, with salinity fluctuating over time, but in recent years reaching a maximum of 340 g L–1 (similar to levels in the Dead Sea). This has rendered the underground water unfit for drinking and agricultural purposes and risky to human health and livelihoods. Adverse impacts of global climate change as well as direct human impacts have caused changes in land use, overuse of underground water resources and construction of dams over rivers, which resulted in the drying-up of the lake in large part. This condition created sand, dust and salt storms in the region which affected many sectors including agriculture, water resources, rangelands, forests and health, and generally presented desertification conditions around the lake (Karbassi et al. 20101526; Marjani and Jamali 20141527; Shadkam et al. 20161528).

Rapid irrigation expansion in the basin has, however, indirectly contributed to inflow reduction. Annual inflow to Lake Urmia has dropped by 48% in recent years. About three-fifths of this change was caused by climate change and two-fifths by water resource development and agriculture (Karbassi et al. 20101529; Marjani and Jamali 20141530; Shadkam et al. 20161531).

In the drylands of Mexico, intensive production of irrigated wheat and cotton using groundwater (Halvorson et al. 20031532) resulted in sea water intrusion into the aquifers of La Costa de Hermosillo, a coastal agricultural valley at the centre of Sonora Desert in Northwestern Mexico. Production of these crops in 1954 was on 64,000 ha of cultivated area, increasing to 132,516 ha in 1970, but decreasing to 66,044 ha in 2009 as a result of saline intrusion from the Gulf of California (Romo-Leon et al. 20141533). In 2003, only 15% of the cultivated area was under production, with around 80,000 ha abandoned due to soil salinisation whereas in 2009, around 40,000 ha was abandoned (Halvorson et al. 20031534; Romo-Leon et al. 20141535). Salinisation of agricultural soils could be exacerbated by climate change, as Northwestern Mexico is projected to be warmer and drier under climate change scenarios (IPCC 2013a1536).

In other countries, intrusion of seawater is exacerbated by destruction of mangrove forests. Mangroves are important coastal ecosystems that provide spawning bed for fish, timber for building, and livelihoods to dependent communities. They also act as barriers against coastal erosion, storm surges, tropical cyclones and tsunamis (Kalhoro et al. 20171537) and are among the most carbon-rich stocks on Earth (Atwood et al. 20171538). They nevertheless face a variety of threats: climatic (storm surges, tidal activities, high temperatures) and human (coastal developments, pollution, deforestation, conversion to aquaculture, rice culture, oil palm plantation), leading to declines in their areas. In Pakistan, using remote sensing, the mangrove forest cover in the Indus delta decreased from 260,000 ha in 1980s to 160,000 ha in 1990 (Chandio et al. 20111539). Based on remotely sensed data, a sharp decline in the mangrove area was also found in the arid coastal region of Hormozgan province in southern Iran during 1972, 1987 and 1997 (Etemadi et al. 20161540). Myanmar has the highest rate (about 1% yr–1) of mangrove deforestation in the world (Atwood et al. 2017). Regarding global loss of carbon stored in the mangrove due to deforestation, four countries exhibited high levels of loss: Indonesia (3410 GgCO2 yr–1), Malaysia (1288 GgCO2 yr–1), US (206 GgCO2 yr–1) and Brazil (186 GgCO2 yr–1). Only in Bangladesh and Guinea Bissau was there no decline in the mangrove area from 2000 to 2012 (Atwood et al. 20171541).

Frequency and intensity of average tropical cyclones will continue to increase (Knutson et al. 20151543) and global sea level will continue to rise. The IPCC (2013)1544 projected with medium confidence that the sea level in the Asia Pacific region will rise from 0.4 to 0.6 m, depending on the emission pathway, by the end of this century. Adaptation measures are urgently required to protect the world’s coastal areas from further degradation due to saline intrusion. A viable policy framework is needed to ensure that the environmental flows to deltas in order to repulse the intruding seawater.

4.9.8

Avoiding coastal maladaptation

Coastal degradation – for example, beach erosion, coastal squeeze, and coastal biodiversity loss – as a result of rising sea levels is a major concern for low lying coasts and small islands (high confidence). The contribution of climate change to increased coastal degradation has been well documented in AR5 (Nurse et al. 20141545; Wong et al. 20141546) and is further discussed in Section 4.4.1.3 as well as in the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). However, coastal degradation can also be indirectly induced by climate change as the result of adaptation measures that involve changes to the coastal environment, for example, coastal protection measures against increased flooding and erosion due to sea level rise, and storm surges transforming the natural coast to a ‘stabilised’ coastline (Cooper and Pile 20141547; French 20011548). Every kind of adaptation response option is context-dependent, and, in fact, sea walls play an important role for adaptation in many places. Nonetheless, there are observed cases where the construction of sea walls can be considered ‘maladaptation’ (Barnett and O’Neill 20101549; Magnan et al. 20161659) by leading to increased coastal degradation, such as in the case of small islands where, due to limitations of space, coastal retreat is less of an option than in continental coastal zones. There is emerging literature on the implementation of alternative coastal protection measures and mechanisms on small islands to avoid coastal degradation induced by sea walls (e.g., Mycoo and Chadwick 2012; Sovacool 20121551).

In many cases, increased rates of coastal erosion due to the construction of sea walls are the result of the negligence of local coastal morphological dynamics and natural variability as well as the interplay of environmental and anthropogenic drivers of coastal change (medium evidence, high agreement). Sea walls in response to coastal erosion may be ill-suited for extreme wave heights under cyclone impacts and can lead to coastal degradation by keeping overflowing sea water from flowing back into the sea, and therefore affect the coastal vegetation through saltwater intrusion, as observed in Tuvalu (Government of Tuvalu 20061552; Wairiu 20171553). Similarly, in Kiribati, poor construction of sea walls has resulted in increased erosion and inundation of reclaimed land (Donner 20121554; Donner and Webber 20141555). In the Comoros and Tuvalu, sea walls have been constructed from climate change adaptation funds and ‘often by international development organisations seeking to leave tangible evidence of their investments’ (Marino and Lazrus 20151556, p. 344). In these cases, they have even increased coastal erosion, due to poor planning and the negligence of other causes of coastal degradation, such as sand mining (Marino and Lazrus 2015; Betzold and Mohamed 20171557; Ratter et al. 20161558). On the Bahamas, the installation of sea walls as a response to coastal erosion in areas with high wave action has led to the contrary effect and has even increased sand loss in those areas (Sealey 20061559). The reduction of natural buffer zones – such as beaches and dunes – due to vertical structures, such as sea walls, increased the impacts of tropical cyclones on Reunion Island (Duvat et al. 20161560). Such a process of ‘coastal squeeze’ (Pontee 20131561) also results in the reduction of intertidal habitat zones, such as wetlands and marshes (Zhu et al. 20101562). Coastal degradation resulting from the construction of sea walls, however, is not only observed in SIDS, as described above, but also on islands in the Global North, for example, the North Atlantic (Muir et al. 20141563; Young et al. 20141564; Cooper and Pile 20141565; Bush 20041566).

The adverse effects of coastal protection measures may be avoided by the consideration of local social-ecological dynamics, including critical study of the diverse drivers of ongoing shoreline changes, and the appropriate implementation of locally adequate coastal protection options (French 20015671; Duvat 20131568). Critical elements for avoiding maladaptation include profound knowledge of local tidal regimes, availability of relative sea level rise scenarios and projections for extreme water levels. Moreover, the downdrift effects of sea walls need to be considered, since undefended coasts may be exposed to increased erosion (Zhu et al. 20101569). In some cases, it may be possible to keep intact and restore natural buffer zones as an alternative to the construction of hard engineering solutions. Otherwise, changes in land use, building codes, or even coastal realignment can be an option in order to protect and avoid the loss of the buffer function of beaches (Duvat et al. 20161570; Cooper and Pile 20141571). Examples in Barbados show that combinations of hard and soft coastal protection approaches can be sustainable and reduce the risk of coastal ecosystem degradation while keeping the desired level of protection for coastal users (Mycoo and Chadwick 20121572). Nature-based solutions and approaches such as ‘building with nature’ (Slobbe et al. 20131573) may allow for more sustainable coastal protection mechanisms and avoid coastal degradation. Examples from the Maldives, several Pacific islands and the North Atlantic show the importance of the involvement of local communities in coastal adaptation projects, considering local skills, capacities, as well as demographic and socio-political dynamics, in order to ensure the proper monitoring and maintenance of coastal adaptation measures (Sovacool 20121574; Muir et al. 20141575; Young et al. 20141576; Buggy and McNamara 20161577; Petzold 20161578).

4.10

Knowledge gaps and key uncertainties

The co-benefits of improved land management, such as mitigation of climate change, increased climate resilience of agriculture, and impacts on rural areas/societies are well known in theory, but there is a lack of a coherent and systematic global inventory of such integrated efforts. Both successes and failures are important to document systematically.

Efforts to reduce climate change through land-demanding mitigation actions aimed at removing atmospheric carbon, such as afforestation, reforestation, bioenergy crops, intensification of land management and plantation forestry can adversely affect land conditions and lead to degradation. However, they may also lead to avoidance, reduction and reversal of degradation. Regionally differentiated, socially and ecologically appropriate SLM strategies need to be identified, implemented, monitored and the results communicated widely to ensure climate effective outcomes.

Impacts of new technologies on land degradation and their social and economic ramifications need more research.

Improved quantification of the global extent, severity and rates of land degradation by combining remote sensing with a systematic use of ancillary data is a priority. The current attempts need better scientific underpinning and appropriate funding.

Land degradation is defined using multiple criteria but the definition does not provide thresholds or the magnitude of acceptable change. In practice, human interactions with land will result in a variety of changes; some may contribute positively to one criterion while adversely affecting another. Research is required on the magnitude of impacts and the resulting trade-offs. Given the urgent need to remove carbon from the atmosphere and to reduce climate change impacts, it is important to reach agreement on what level of reduction in one criterion (biological productivity, ecological integrity) may be acceptable for a given increase in another criterion (ecological integrity, biological productivity).

Attribution of land degradation to the underlying drivers is a challenge because it is a complex web of causality rather than a simple cause–effect relationship. Also, diverging views on land degradation in relation to other challenges is hampering such efforts.

A more systematic treatment of the views and experiences of land users would be useful in land degradation studies.

Much research has tried to understand how social and ecological systems are affected by a particular stressor, for example, drought, heat, or waterlogging. But less research has tried to understand how such systems are affected by several simultaneous stressors – which is more realistic in the context of climate change (Mittler 20061).

More realistic modelling of carbon dynamics, including better appreciation of below-ground biota, would help us to better quantify the role of soils and soil management for soil carbon sequestration.

References

  1. Mittler, R., 2006: Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci., 11, 15–19, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2005.11.002.
  2. Dotterweich, M., 2013: The history of human-induced soil erosion: Geomorphic legacies, early descriptions and research, and the development of soil conservation – A global synopsis. Geomorphology, 201, 1–34, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2013.07.021.
  3. Butzer, K.W., 2005: Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: Cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. J. Archaeol. Sci., 32, 1773–1800, doi:10.1016/J.JAS.2005.06.001.
  4. Dotterweich, M., 2008: The history of soil erosion and fluvial deposits in small catchments of central Europe: Deciphering the long-term interaction between humans and the environment – A review. Geomorphology, 101, 192–208, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2008.05.023.
  5. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., 2011: When the world’s population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. Science, 333, 560–561, doi:10.1126/science.1208880.
  6. Fuller, D.Q. et al. 2011: The contribution of rice agriculture and livestock pastoralism to prehistoric methane levels. The Holocene, 21, 743–759, doi:10.1177/0959683611398052.
  7. Kaplan, J.O. et al. 2011: Holocene carbon emissions as a result of anthropogenic land cover change. The Holocene, 21, 775–791, doi:10.1177/0959683610386983.
  8. Vavrus, S.J., F. He, J.E. Kutzbach, W.F. Ruddiman, and P.C. Tzedakis, 2018: Glacial inception in marine isotope stage 19: An orbital analog for a natural holocene climate. Sci. Rep., 8, 10213, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28419-5.
  9. Ellis, E.C. et al. 2013: Used planet: a global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 7978–7985, doi:10.1073/pnas.1217241110.
  10. Turner, B.L. (Billie L., W.C. Clark, R.W. Kates, J.F. Richards, T. Mathews, Jessica, and W.B. Meyer, eds.,) 1990: The Earth as transformed by human action: global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press with Clark University, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, 713 pp.
  11. Steffen, W.L. et al. 2005: Global Change and The Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 336 pp.
  12. Ojima, D.S., K.A. Galvin, and B.L. Turner, 1994: The global impact of land-use change. Bioscience, 44, 300–304, doi:10.2307/1312379.
  13. Ellis, E.C. et al. 2013: Used planet: a global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 7978–7985, doi:10.1073/pnas.1217241110.
  14. Foley, J.A. et al. 2005: Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574, doi:10.1126/science.1111772.
  15. Foley, J.A. et al. 2011: Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342, doi:10.1038/nature10452.
  16. Foley, J.A. et al. 2005: Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574, doi:10.1126/science.1111772.
  17. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 155 pp.
  18. Blaikie, P.M., and H.C. Brookfield, 1987: Land degradation and society. [P.M. Blaikie and H.C. Brookfield, (eds.)]. Methuen, Milton Park, Abingdon, UK, 222 pp.
  19. Forsyth, T., 1996: Science, myth and knowledge: Testing himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand. Geoforum, 27, 375–392, doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(96)00020-6.
  20. Lukas, M.C., 2014: Eroding battlefields: Land degradation in Java reconsidered. Geoforum, 56, 87–100, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2014.06.010.
  21. Zimmerer, K.S., 1993: Soil erosion and social (dis)courses in Cochabamba, Bolivia: Perceiving the nature of environmental degradation. Econ. Geogr., 69, 312, doi:10.2307/143453.
  22. Sonneveld, B.G.J.S., and D.L. Dent, 2009: How good is GLASOD? J. Environ. Manage., 90, 274–283, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2007.09.008.
  23. Anderson, R.G. et al. 2011: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179.
  24. Behnke, R., and M. Mortimore, 2016: Introduction: The End of Desertification? Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–34.
  25. Grainger, A., 2009: The role of science in implementing international environmental agreements: The case of desertification. L. Degrad. Dev., 20, 410–430, doi:10.1002/ldr.898.
  26. Toulmin, C. and K. Brock, 2016: Desertification in the Sahel: Local Practice Meets Global Narrative. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 37–63.
  27. Blaikie, P.M., and H.C. Brookfield, 1987: Land degradation and society. [P.M. Blaikie and H.C. Brookfield, (eds.)]. Methuen, Milton Park, Abingdon, UK, 222 pp.
  28. Fairhead, J., and I. Scoones, 2005: Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: Critical perspectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land use policy, 22, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2003.08.004.
  29. Warren, A., 2002: Land degradation is contextual. L. Degrad. Dev., 13, 449–459, doi:10.1002/ldr.532.
  30. Anderson, R.G. et al. 2011: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179.
  31. Turner, B.L., E.F. Lambin, and A. Reenberg, 2007: The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 20666–20671, doi:10.1073/pnas.0704119104.
  32. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  33. Henry, B., B. Murphy, and A. Cowie, 2018: Sustainable Land Management for Environmental Benefits and Food Security. A synthesis report for the GEF. Washington DC, USA, 127 pp.
  34. FAO, 2007: Land Evaluation: Towards a Revised Framework. Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 6. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 124 pp.
  35. UNCCD, 1994: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. United Nations General Assembly, New York City, 54 p.
  36. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  37. UNCCD, 1994: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. United Nations General Assembly, New York City, 54 p.
  38. Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35.
  39. Dallimer, M., and L.C. Stringer, 2018: Informing investments in land degradation neutrality efforts: A triage approach to decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy, 89, 198–205, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.004.
  40. Warren, A., 2002: Land degradation is contextual. L. Degrad. Dev., 13, 449–459, doi:10.1002/ldr.532.
  41. Herrick, J.E. et al. 2019: A strategy for defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments. Ecol. Indic., 97, 225–230, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.06.065.
  42. Prince, S. et al. 2018: Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem fundtions. The IPBES Assessment Report On Land Degradation And Restoration, [L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, (eds.)]. Bonn, Germany, pp. 221–338.
  43. Orr, B.J. et al. 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework For Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. 136 pp.
  44. FAO, 2015: FRA 2015 Terms and Definitions. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 1–81 pp.
  45. UNFCCC, 2006: Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany, 103 pp.
  46. Ciais, P. et al. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [J. Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 467–570.
  47. Vaughan, D.G. et al. 2013: Observations: Cryosphere. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 317.
  48. Settele, J. et al. 2015: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–360.
  49. Adger, N.W. et al. 2014: Human Security. In: Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, [C.B. Field and V.R. Barros, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 755–791.
  50. IPCC, 2006: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – A Primer. [Eggleston H.S., K. Miwa, N. Srivastava, and K. Tanabe (eds.)]. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IGES, Japan, 20 pp.
  51. IPCC, 2014a: 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. [Blain, D. Boer, R., Eggleston S., Gonzalez, S., Hiraishi, T., Irving, W., Krug, T., Krusche, A., Mpeta, E.J., Penman, J., Pipatti, R., Sturgiss, R., Tanabe, K., Towprayoon, S.], IPCC Geneva, 354 pp.
  52. Watson, R.T. et al. (eds.) 2000: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 370 pp.
  53. IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 582 pp.
  54. Rist, L., A. Felton, L. Samuelsson, C. Sandström, and O. Rosvall, 2013: A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecol. Soc., 18, doi:10.5751/ES-06183-180463.
  55. Forest Europe, 1993: Resolution H1: General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe. Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 16–17 June 1993, Helsinki. 5 pp.
  56. Mackey, B. et al. 2015: Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conserv. Lett., 8, 139–147, doi:10.1111/conl.12120.
  57. Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044.
  58. Kauppi, P.E., M. Posch, and P. Pirinen, 2014: Large impacts of climatic warming on growth of boreal forests since 1960. PLoS One, 9, 1–6, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111340.
  59. Dragoni, D. et al. 2011: Evidence of increased net ecosystem productivity associated with a longer vegetated season in a deciduous forest in south-central Indiana, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 886–897, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02281.x.
  60. Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017: Increasing net ecosystem biomass production of Canada’s boreal and temperate forests despite decline in dry climates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 31, 134–158, doi:10.1002/2016GB005459.
  61. Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin, 1990: Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science, 247, 699–702.
  62. Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps, 1998: Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 2, 405–421, doi:10.1023/b:miti.0000004486.62808.29.
  63. Trofymow, J.A., G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz, 2008: Derivation of a spatially explicit 86-year retrospective carbon budget for a landscape undergoing conversion from old-growth to managed forests on Vancouver Island, BC. For. Ecol. Manage., 256, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.056.
  64. Kurz, W.A. et al. 2013: Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest – A synthesis. Environ. Rev., 21, 260–292, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0041.
  65. Volkova, L. et al. 2018: Importance of disturbance history on net primary productivity in the world’s most productive forests and implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 4293–4303, doi:10.1111/gcb.14309.
  66. Tang, J., S. Luyssaert, A.D. Richardson, W. Kutsch, and I.A. Janssens, 2014: Steeper declines in forest photosynthesis than respiration explain age-driven decreases in forest growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 8856–8860, doi:10.1073/pnas.1320761111.
  67. Trofymow, J.A., G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz, 2008: Derivation of a spatially explicit 86-year retrospective carbon budget for a landscape undergoing conversion from old-growth to managed forests on Vancouver Island, BC. For. Ecol. Manage., 256, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.056.
  68. Volkova, L. et al. 2018: Importance of disturbance history on net primary productivity in the world’s most productive forests and implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 4293–4303, doi:10.1111/gcb.14309.
  69. Poorter, L. et al. 2016: Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530, 211–214.
  70. Romero, C. and F.E. Putz, 2018: Theory-of-change development for the evaluation of forest stewardship council certification of sustained timber yields from natural forests in Indonesia. Forests, 9, doi:10.3390/f9090547.
  71. Belair, E.P., and M.J. Ducey, 2018: Patterns in forest harvesting in New England and New York: Using FIA data to evaluate silvicultural outcomes. J. For., 116, 273–282, doi:10.1093/jofore/fvx019.
  72. Nyland, R.D., 1992: Exploitation and greed in eastern hardwood forests. J. For., 90, 33–37, doi:10.1093/jof/90.1.33.
  73. Barlow, J. et al. 2007: Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 18555–18560, doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104.
  74. Romero, C. and F.E. Putz, 2018: Theory-of-change development for the evaluation of forest stewardship council certification of sustained timber yields from natural forests in Indonesia. Forests, 9, doi:10.3390/f9090547.
  75. Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044.
  76. Kauppi, P.E., V. Sandström, and A. Lipponen, 2018: Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS One, 13, e0196248, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196248.
  77. Spence, J.R., 2001: The new boreal forestry: Adjusting timber management to accommodate biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol., 16, 591–593, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02335-7.
  78. Ehnström, B., 2001: Leaving dead wood for insects in boreal forests – suggestions for the future. Scand. J. For. Res., 16, 91–98, doi:10.1080/028275801300090681.
  79. Russell, M.B. et al. 2015: Quantifying carbon stores and decomposition in dead wood: A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 350, 107–128, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.033.
  80. Kurz, W.A. et al. 2013: Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest – A synthesis. Environ. Rev., 21, 260–292, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0041.
  81. Roberts, M.W., A.W. D’Amato, C.C. Kern, and B.J. Palik, 2016: Long-term impacts of variable retention harvesting on ground-layer plant communities in Pinus resinosa forests. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 1106–1116, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12656.
  82. Allen, C.D. et al. 2002: Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecol. Appl., 12, 1418–1433, doi:10.2307/3099981.
  83. Barlow, J. et al. 2007: Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 18555–18560, doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104.
  84. ter Steege, H. et al. 2013: Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora. Science 342, 1243092–1243092, doi:10.1126/science.1243092.
  85. Rametsteiner, E. and M. Simula, 2003: Forest certification – An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J. Environ. Manage., 67, 87–98, doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3.
  86. Lindenmayer,  D.B.,  C.R. Margules, and  D.B. Botkin, 2000: Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv. Biol., 14, 941–950, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x.
  87. Rametsteiner, E. and M. Simula, 2003: Forest certification – An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J. Environ. Manage., 67, 87–98, doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3.
  88. MacDicken, K.G. et al. 2015: Global progress toward sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 47–56, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.005.
  89. Ellis, P.W. et al. 2019: Reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 438, 255–266, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2019.02.004.
  90. Umunay, P.M., T.G. Gregoire, T. Gopalakrishna, P.W. Ellis, and F.E. Putz, 2019: Selective logging emissions and potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo Basin. For. Ecol. Manage., 437, 360–371, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.01.049.
  91. Siry, J.P., F.W. Cubbage, and M.R. Ahmed, 2005: Sustainable forest management: Global trends and opportunities. For. Policy Econ., 7, 551–561, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003.
  92. Nasi, R., F.E. Putz, P. Pacheco, S. Wunder, and S. Anta, 2011: Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+. Forests, 2, 200–217, doi:10.3390/f2010200.
  93. Nasi, R., F.E. Putz, P. Pacheco, S. Wunder, and S. Anta, 2011: Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+. Forests, 2, 200–217, doi:10.3390/f2010200.
  94. Warren, R., J. Price, J. VanDerWal, S. Cornelius, and H. Sohl, 2018: The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas. Clim. Change, 147, 395–409, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6.
  95. Reed, M.S., A.J. Dougill, and M.J. Taylor, 2007: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. L. Degrad. Dev., 18, 249–268, doi:10.1002/ldr.777.
  96. Forsyth, T., 1996: Science, myth and knowledge: Testing himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand. Geoforum, 27, 375–392, doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(96)00020-6.
  97. Andersson, E., S. Brogaard, and L. Olsson, 2011: The political ecology of land degradation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 36, 295–319, doi:10.1146/ annurev-environ-033110-092827.
  98. Kessler, C.A. and L. Stroosnijder, 2006: Land degradation assessment by farmers in Bolivian mountain valleys. L. Degrad. Dev., 17, 235–248, doi:10.1002/ldr.699.
  99. Fairhead, J., and I. Scoones, 2005: Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: Critical perspectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land use policy, 22, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2003.08.004.
  100. Zimmerer, K.S., 1993: Soil erosion and social (dis)courses in Cochabamba, Bolivia: Perceiving the nature of environmental degradation. Econ. Geogr., 69, 312, doi:10.2307/143453.
  101. Stocking, M.A., N. Murnaghan, and N. Murnaghan, 2001: A Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Routledge, London, UK, 169 p.
  102. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  103. Kristjanson, P. et al. 2017: Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 15, 482–500, doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411.
  104. Jerneck, A., 2018a: What about gender in climate change? Twelve feminist lessons from development. Sustainability, 10, 627, doi:10.3390/su10030627.
  105. Elmhirst, R., 2011: Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum, 42, 129–132, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.006.
  106. Toulmin, C., 2009: Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of local institutions. Land use policy, 26, 10–19, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2008.07.006.
  107. Peters, P.E., 2004: Inequality and social conflict over land in Africa. J. Agrar. Chang., 4, 269–314, doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00080.x.
  108. Agarwal, B., 1997: Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev. Change, 28, 1–44, doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00033.
  109. Jerneck, A., 2018b: Taking gender seriously in climate change adaptation and sustainability science research: views from feminist debates and sub-Saharan small-scale agriculture. Sustain. Sci., 13, 403–416, doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0464-y.
  110. Doss, C., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold, 2015: Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: Myth and reality. Agric. Econ., 46, 403–434, doi:10.1111/agec.12171.
  111. Kumar, N. and A.R. Quisumbing, 2015: Policy reform toward gender equality in Ethiopia: Little by little the egg begins to walk. World Dev., 67, 406–423, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.10.029.
  112. Lavers, T., 2017: Land registration and gender equality in Ethiopia: How state-society relations influence the enforcement of institutional change. 
J. Agrar. Chang., 17, 188–207, doi:10.1111/joac.12138.
  113. Kristjanson, P. et al. 2017: Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 15, 482–500, doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411.
  114. Djurfeldt, A.A., E. Hillbom, W.O. Mulwafu, P. Mvula, and G. Djurfeldt, 2018: “The family farms together, the decisions, however are made by the man” – Matrilineal land tenure systems, welfare and decision making in rural Malawi. Land use policy, 70, 601–610, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.048.
  115. Vincent, K.E., P. Tschakert, J. Barnett, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, and A. Woodward, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on Gender and Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 105–107.
  116. Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, and L.C. Stringer, 2015: Impacts of land tenure arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: The case of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land use policy, 49, 203–212, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.08.007.
  117. Gabrielsson, S., S. Brogaard, and A. Jerneck, 2013: Living without buffers – illustrating climate vulnerability in the Lake Victoria basin. Sustain. Sci., 8, 143–157, doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0191-3.
  118. Liu, T., R. Bruins, and M. Heberling, 2018b: Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis. Sustainability, 10, 432, doi:10.3390/su10020432.
  119. Lambin, E.F. et al. 2001: The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang., 11, 261–269, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3.
  120. Wilson, G.A. et al. 2017: Social memory and the resilience of communities affected by land degradation. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 383–400, doi:10.1002/ldr.2669.
  121. Kosec, K., H. Ghebru, B. Holtemeyer, V. Mueller, and E. Schmidt, 2018: The effect of land access on youth employment and migration decisions: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 100, 931–954, doi:10.1093/ajae/aax087.
  122. Naamwintome, B.A. and E. Bagson, 2013: Youth in agriculture: Prospects and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana. Net J. Agric. Sci., 1, 60–68.
  123. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  124. Tarfasa, S. et al. 2018: Modeling smallholder farmers’ preferences for soil management measures: A case study from South Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ., 145, 410–419, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.027.
  125. Soule, M.J., A. Tegene, and K.D. Wiebe, 2000: Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 82, 993–1005, doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00097.
  126. Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, and L.C. Stringer, 2015: Impacts of land tenure arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: The case of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land use policy, 49, 203–212, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.08.007.
  127. Benjaminsen, T.A., and C. Lund, 2003: Securing Land Rights in Africa. Frank Cass Publishers, London, UK, 175 pp.
  128. Itkonen, P., 2016: Land rights as the prerequisite for Sámi culture: Skolt Sámi’s changing relation to nature in Finland. In: Indigenous Rights in Modern Landscapes, Elenius, L., Allard, C. and Sandström, C. (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK, 94–105.
  129. Owour, B., W. Mauta, and S. Eriksen, 2011: Sustainable adaptation and human security: Interactions between pastoral and agropastoral groups in dryland Kenya. Clim. Dev., 3, 42–58, doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0063.
  130. Gebara, M.F., 2018: Tenure reforms in indigenous lands: Decentralized forest management or illegalism? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 32, 60–67, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.04.008.
  131. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 155 pp.
  132. Tengberg, A., S. Fredholm, I. Eliasson, I. Knez, K.Saltzman, and O. Wetterberg, 2012: Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv., 2, 14–26.
  133. Hernández-Morcillo, M., T. Plieninger, and C. Bieling, 2013: An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic., 29, 434–444, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2013.01.013.
  134. Olsson, L. et al. 2014a: Cross-Chapter Box on Heat Stress and Heat Waves. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 109–111.
  135. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 155 pp.
  136. Orr, B.J. et al. 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework For Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. 136 pp.
  137. Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35.
  138. Johnson, D.L. and L.A. Lewis, 2007: Land degradation: Creation and destruction. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 303 pp.
  139. Crowther, T.W. et al. 2016: Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature, 540, 104–108, doi:10.1038/nature20150.
  140. Viscarra Rossel, R.A., R. Webster, E.N. Bui, and J.A. Baldock, 2014: Baseline map of organic carbon in Australian soil to support national carbon accounting and monitoring under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2953–2970, doi:10.1111/gcb.12569.
  141. Hu, S., Z. Niu, Y. Chen, L. Li, and H. Zhang, 2017: Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Sci. Total Environ., 586, 319–327, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.001.
  142. Dixon, M.J.R. et al. 2016: Tracking global change in ecosystem area: The Wetland Extent Trends index. Biol. Conserv., 193, 27–35, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.023.
  143. Reis, V. et al. 2017: A global assessment of inland wetland conservation status. Bioscience, 67, 523–533, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix045.
  144. Darrah, S.E. et al. 2019: Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic., 99, 294–298, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.12.032.
  145. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  146. Davidson, N.C., 2014: How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res., 65, 934, doi:10.1071/MF14173.
  147. Darrah, S.E. et al. 2019: Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic., 99, 294–298, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.12.032.
  148. Barnett, J. et al. 2015: From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc., 20, art5, doi:10.5751/ES-07698-200305.
  149. Colloff, M.J. et al. 2016: Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate change. Ecol. Appl., 26, 1003–1017, doi:10.1890/15-0848.
  150. Finlayson, C.M. et al. 2017: Policy considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate. Mar. Freshw. Res., 68, 1803, doi:10.1071/MF16244.
  151. Poesen, J.W.A. and J.M. Hooke, 1997: Erosion, flooding and channel management in Mediterranean environments of southern Europe. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 21, 157–199, doi:10.1177/030913339702100201.
  152. Ravi, S., D.D. Breshears, T.E. Huxman, and P. D’Odorico, 2010: Land degradation in drylands: Interactions among hydrologic–aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics. Geomorphology, 116, 236–245, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.11.023.
  153. Yu, H. et al. 2015: The fertilizing role of African dust in the Amazon rainforest: A first multiyear assessment based on data from Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1984–1991, doi:10.1002/2015GL063040.
  154. Keogh, M.E., and T.E. Törnqvist, 2019: Measuring rates of present-day relative sea-level rise in low-elevation coastal zones: A critical evaluation. Ocean Sci., 15, 61–73, doi:10.5194/os-15-61-2019.
  155. Allison, M. et al. 2016: Global risks and research priorities for coastal subsidence. Eos Earth and Space Science News, (Washington. DC)., 97, doi:org/10.1029/2016EO055013.
  156. Mentaschi, L., M.I. Vousdoukas, J.-F. Pekel, E. Voukouvalas, and L. Feyen, 2018: Global long-term observations of coastal erosion and accretion. Sci. Rep., 8, 12876, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30904-w.
  157. Schuerch, M. et al. 2018: Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature, 561, 231–234, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0476-5.
  158. Hamza, M.A., and W.K. Anderson, 2005: Soil compaction in cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res., 82, 121–145, doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009.
  159. Guo, J.H. et al. 2010: Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 327, 1008–1010, doi:10.1126/science.1182570.
  160. Bond-Lamberty, B., V.L. Bailey, M. Chen, C.M. Gough, and R. Vargas, 2018: Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature, 560, 80–83, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x.
  161. Crowther, T.W. et al. 2016: Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature, 540, 104–108, doi:10.1038/nature20150.
  162. van Gestel, N. et al. 2018: Predicting soil carbon loss with warming. Nature, 554, E4–E5, doi:10.1038/nature25745.
  163. Achat, D.L., M. Fortin, G. Landmann, B. Ringeval, and L. Augusto, 2015: Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Sci. Rep., 5, 15991, doi:10.1038/srep15991.
  164. Minasny, B. et al. 2017: Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292, 59–86, doi:10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2017.01.002.
  165. Schofield, R.V. and M.J. Kirkby, 2003: Application of salinization indicators and initial development of potential global soil salinization scenario under climatic change. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, doi:10.1029/2002GB001935.
  166. Rengasamy, P., 2006: World salinization with emphasis on Australia. J. Exp. Bot., 57, 1017–1023, doi:10.1093/jxb/erj108.
  167. Schofield, R.V. and M.J. Kirkby, 2003: Application of salinization indicators and initial development of potential global soil salinization scenario under climatic change. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, doi:10.1029/2002GB001935.
  168. Colombani, N., A. Osti, G. Volta, and M. Mastrocicco, 2016: Impact of climate change on salinization of coastal water resources. Water Resour. Manag., 30, 2483–2496, doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1292-z.
  169. Bradshaw, C.J.A., N.S. Sodhi, K.S.-H. Peh, and B.W. Brook, 2007: Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob. Chang. Biol., 13, 2379–2395, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x.
  170. Poff, N.L., 2002: Ecological response to and management of increased flooding caused by climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 360, 1497–1510, doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1012.
  171. Kirwan, M.L., A.B. Murray, J.P. Donnelly, and D.R. Corbett, 2011: Rapid wetland expansion during European settlement and its implication for marsh survival under modern sediment delivery rates. Geology, 39, 507–510, doi:10.1130/G31789.1.
  172. Anderson, R.L., D.R. Foster, and G. Motzkin, 2003: Integrating lateral expansion into models of peatland development in temperate New England. J. Ecol., 91, 68–76, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00740.x.
  173. Micklin, P., 2010: The past, present, and future Aral Sea. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag., 15, 193–213, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1770.2010.00437.x.
  174. Herbert, E.R. et al. 2015: A global perspective on wetland salinization: Ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. Ecosphere, 6, art206, doi:10.1890/ES14-00534.1.
  175. Leifeld, J., and L. Menichetti, 2018: The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat. Commun., 9, 1071, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6.
  176. Hergoualc’h, K., V.H. Gutiérrez-vélez, M. Menton, and L. V Verchot, 2017a: Forest ecology and management characterizing degradation of palm swamp peatlands from space and on the ground: An exploratory study in the Peruvian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage., 393, 63–73, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.016.
  177. Lilleskov, E. et al. 2019: Is Indonesian peatland loss a cautionary tale for Peru? A two-country comparison of the magnitude and causes of tropical peatland degradation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 24, 591–623, doi:10.1007/s11027-018-9790-3.
  178. Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, and A.T. Harris, 2004: Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 261–299, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142.
  179. Van Auken, O.W., 2009: Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North American grasslands. J. Environ. Manage., 90, 2931–2942, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023.
  180. Illius, A.W., O’Connor, T.G., 1999. On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to arid and semiarid grazing systems. Ecological Applications 9(3), 798–813, doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0798:OTRONC]2.0.CO;2.
  181. Sasaki, T., T. Okayasu, U. Jamsran, and K. Takeuchi, 2007: Threshold changes in vegetation along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands. J. Ecol., 96(1), 145–154, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01315.x.
  182. Piñeiro, G., J.M. Paruelo, M. Oesterheld, and E.G. Jobbágy, 2010: Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 63, 109–119, doi:10.2111/08-255.1.
  183. Foley, J. et al. 2007, Amazonia Revealed: Forest Degradation And Loss Of Ecosystem Goods And Services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 25–32, doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[25:ARFDAL]2.0.CO;2
  184. Brooks, M.L. et al. 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience, 54, 677–688, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0677:eoiapo]2.0.co;2.
  185. Peltzer, D.A., R.B. Allen, G.M. Lovett, D. Whitehead, and D.A. Wardle, 2010: Effects of biological invasions on forest carbon sequestration. Glob. Chang. Biol., 16, 732–746, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02038.x.
  186. Walsh, J.R., S.R. Carpenter, and M.J. Vander Zanden, 2016a: Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 4081–4085, doi:10.1073/pnas.1600366113.
  187. Hussain, S., T. Siddique, M. Saleem, M. Arshad, and A. Khalid, 2009: Impact of pesticides on soil microbial diversity, enzymes, and biochemical reactions. Adv. Agron., 102, 159–200, doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(09)01005-0.
  188. Crowther, T.W. et al. 2015: Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 7033–7038, doi:10.1073/pnas.1502956112.
  189. Ratcliffe, S. et al. 2017: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. Ecol. Lett., 20, 1414–1426, doi:10.1111/ele.12849.
  190. Asmelash, F., T. Bekele, and E. Birhane, 2016: The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the restoration of degraded lands. Front. Microbiol., 7, 1095, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01095.
  191. Vasconcellos, R.L.F., J.A. Bonfim, D. Baretta, and E.J.B.N. Cardoso, 2016: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and glomalin-related soil protein as potential indicators of soil quality in a recuperation gradient of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 325–334, doi:10.1002/ldr.2228.
  192. Field, J.P. et al. 2010: The ecology of dust. Front. Ecol. Environ., 8, 423–430, doi:10.1890/090050.
  193. Reed, S.C. et al. 2012: Changes to dryland rainfall result in rapid moss mortality and altered soil fertility. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 752–755, doi:10.1038/nclimate1596.
  194. Keogh, M.E., and T.E. Törnqvist, 2019: Measuring rates of present-day relative sea-level rise in low-elevation coastal zones: A critical evaluation. Ocean Sci., 15, 61–73, doi:10.5194/os-15-61-2019.
  195. Johnson, J.M. et al. 2015: Recent shifts in coastline change and shoreline stabilization linked to storm climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 40, 569–585, doi:10.1002/esp.3650.
  196. Alongi, D.M., 2015: The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 30–39, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x.
  197. Harley, M.D. et al. 2017: Extreme coastal erosion enhanced by anomalous extratropical storm wave direction. Sci. Rep., 7, 6033, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05792-1.
  198. Nicholls, R.J., C. Woodroffe, and V. Burkett, 2016: Chapter 20 – Coastline degradation as an indicator of global change. Clim. Chang., 309–324, doi:10.1016/B978–0-444–63524-2.00020-8.
  199. Liljedahl, A.K. et al. 2016: Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology. Nat. Geosci., 9, 312–318, doi:10.1038/ngeo2674.
  200. Peng, X. et al. 2016: Response of changes in seasonal soil freeze/thaw state to climate change from 1950 to 2010 across China. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 121, 1984–2000, doi:10.1002/2016JF003876.
  201. Batir, J.F., M.J. Hornbach, and D.D. Blackwell, 2017: Ten years of measurements and modeling of soil temperature changes and their effects on permafrost in Northwestern Alaska. Glob. Planet. Change, 148, 55–71, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2016.11.009.
  202. Jolly, W.M. et al. 2015: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun., 6, 7537, doi:10.1038/ncomms8537.
  203. Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 11770–11775, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113.
  204. Taufik, M. et al. 2017: Amplification of wildfire area burnt by hydrological drought in the humid tropics. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 428–431, doi:10.1038/nclimate3280.
  205. Knorr, W., L. Jiang, and A. Arneth, 2016: Climate, CO2 and human population impacts on global wildfire emissions. Biogeosciences, 13, 267–282, doi:10.5194/bg-13-267-2016.
  206. Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes, 2008: Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv. Biol., 22, 534–543, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x.
  207. Kiage, L.M., 2013: Perspectives on the assumed causes of land degradation in the rangelands of Sub-Saharan Africa. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 37, 664–684, doi:10.1177/0309133313492543.
  208. Bisaro, A., M. Kirk, P. Zdruli, and W. Zimmermann, 2014: Global drivers setting desertification research priorities: Insights from a stakeholder consultation forum. L. Degrad. Dev., 25, 5–16, doi:10.1002/ldr.2220.
  209. Coppus, R., and A.C. Imeson, 2002: Extreme events controlling erosion and sediment transport in a semi-arid sub-andean valley. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 27, 1365–1375, doi:10.1002/esp.435.
  210. Morgan, R.P.C., and Royston P.C., 2005b: Soil Erosion And Conservation. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Harlow, Essex, UK, 198 pp.
  211. Delgado, A., and J.A. Gómez, 2016: The Soil. Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties. Principles of Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 15–26.
  212. Montgomery, D.R., 2007a: Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13268–13272, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104.
  213. Showers, K.B., 2005: Imperial Gullies: Soil Erosion and Conservation in Lesotho. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA, 346 pp.
  214. Dupouey, J.L., E. Dambrine, J.D. Laffite, and C. Moares, 2002: Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and biodiversity. Ecology, 83, 2978–2984, doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2978:IIOPLU]2.0.CO;2.
  215. Lin, K.-C. et al. 2017: Impacts of increasing typhoons on the structure and function of a subtropical forest: Reflections of a changing climate. Sci. Rep., 7, 4911, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05288-y.
  216. Terrer, C., S. Vicca, B.A. Hungate, R.P. Phillips, and I.C. Prentice, 2016: Mycorrhizal association as a primary control of the CO2 fertilization effect. Science, 353, 72–74, doi:10.1126/science.aaf4610.
  217. Gerten, D., R. Betts, and P. Döll, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on the Active Role of Vegetation in Altering Water Flows Under Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 157–161.
  218. Settele, J. et al. 2015: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–360.
  219. Girardin, M.P. et al. 2016: No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, E8406–E8414, doi:10.1073/pnas.1610156113.
  220. Ramankutty, N., J.A. Foley, J. Norman, and K. McSweeney, 2002: The global distribution of cultivable lands: Current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 11, 377–392, doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00294.x.
  221. Zabel, F., B. Putzenlechner, and W. Mauser, 2014: Global agricultural land resources – a high resolution suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change conditions. PLoS One, 9, e107522, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107522.
  222. Ramankutty, N., J.A. Foley, J. Norman, and K. McSweeney, 2002: The global distribution of cultivable lands: Current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 11, 377–392, doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00294.x.
  223. Zabel, F., B. Putzenlechner, and W. Mauser, 2014: Global agricultural land resources – a high resolution suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change conditions. PLoS One, 9, e107522, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107522.
  224. Allen, C.D. et al. 2010: A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 660–684, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.001.
  225. Allen, C.D. et al. 2010: A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 660–684, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.001.
  226. Mirzabaev, A., E. Nkonya, J. Goedecke, T. Johnson, and W. Anderson, 2016: Global Drivers of Land Degradation and Improvement. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 167–195.
  227. Lambin, E.F. et al. 2001: The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang., 11, 261–269, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3.
  228. Warren, A., 2002: Land degradation is contextual. L. Degrad. Dev., 13, 449–459, doi:10.1002/ldr.532.
  229. Bai, Y. et al. 2008a: Primary production and rain use efficiency across a precipitation gradient on the mongolia plateau. Ecology, 89, 2140–2153, doi:10.1890/07-0992.1.
  230. Brandt, M. et al. 2017: Human population growth offsets climate-driven increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 0081, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0081.
  231. Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 7156–7161, doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109.
  232. Murphy, J.M. et al. 2004: Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature, 430, 768–772, doi:10.1038/nature02771.
  233. Fischer, E.M., and R. Knutti, 2015: Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 560–564, doi:10.1038/nclimate2617.
  234. IPCC, 2013a: Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1313–1390 pp.
  235. Giorgi, F., and P. Lionello, 2008: Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob. Planet. Change, 63, 90–104, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2007.09.005.
  236. Pendergrass, A.G., 2018: What precipitation is extreme? Science, 360, 1072–1073, doi:10.1126/science.aat1871.
  237. Guerreiro, S.B. et al. 2018: Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 803–807, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0245-3.
  238. Trenberth, K.E., 1999: Conceptual Framework for Changes of Extremes of the Hydrological Cycle With Climate Change. Weather and Climate Extremes, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 327–339.
  239. Pendergrass, A.G., R. Knutti, F. Lehner, C. Deser, and B.M. Sanderson, 2017: Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep., 7, 17966, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17966-y.
  240. Pendergrass, A.G. and R. Knutti, 2018: The uneven nature of daily precipitation and its change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11,980–11,988, doi:10.1029/2018GL080298.
  241. Blenkinsop, S. et al. 2018: The INTENSE project: using observations and models to understand the past, present and future of sub-daily rainfall extremes. Adv. Sci. Res., 15, 117–126, doi:10.5194/asr-15-117-2018.
  242. Burt, T., J. Boardman, I. Foster, and N. Howden, 2016a: More rain, less soil: long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 41, 563–566, doi:10.1002/esp.3868.
  243. Liu, S.C., C. Fu, C.-J. Shiu, J.-P. Chen, and F. Wu, 2009: Temperature dependence of global precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17702, doi:10.1029/2009GL040218.
  244. Bindoff, N.L., P.A. Stott, K.M. AchutaRao, M.R. Allen, N. Gillett, D. Gutzler, K. Hansingo, G. Hegerl, Y. Hu, S. Jain, I.I. Mokhov, J. Overland, J. Perlwitz, R. Sebbari and X. Zhang, 2013: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [T.F. Stocker et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 867–940.
  245. IPCC, 2013a: Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1313–1390 pp.
  246. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  247. Burt, T., J. Boardman, I. Foster, and N. Howden, 2016a: More rain, less soil: long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 41, 563–566, doi:10.1002/esp.3868.
  248. IPCC, 2013b: Summary for Policy Makers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, p. 1535.
  249. Nearing, M.A. et al. 2005: Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. CATENA, 61, 131–154, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.03.007.
  250. Shao, Y., 2008: Physics and Modelling Of Wind Erosion. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 452 pp.
  251. Meisner, A., S. Jacquiod, B.L. Snoek, F.C. ten Hooven, and W.H. van der Putten, 2018: Drought legacy effects on the composition of soil fungal and prokaryote communities. Front. Microbiol., 9, 294, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.00294.
  252. Shuab, R., R. Lone, J. Ahmad, and Z.A. Reshi, 2017: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: A Potential Tool for Restoration of Degraded Land. Mycorrhiza – Nutrient Uptake, Biocontrol, Ecorestoration, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 415–434.
  253. Asmelash, F., T. Bekele, and E. Birhane, 2016: The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the restoration of degraded lands. Front. Microbiol., 7, 1095, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01095.
  254. Brahney, J., F. Weber, V. Foord, J. Janmaat, and P.J. Curtis, 2017: Evidence for a climate-driven hydrologic regime shift in the Canadian Columbia Basin. Can. Water Resour. J. / Rev. Can. des ressources hydriques, 42, 179–192, doi:10.1080/07011784.2016.1268933.
  255. Lutz, A.F., W.W. Immerzeel, A.B. Shrestha, and M.F.P. Bierkens, 2014: Consistent increase in high Asia’s runoff due to increasing glacier melt and precipitation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 587–592, doi:10.1038/nclimate2237.
  256. Barnhart, T.B. et al. 2016: Snowmelt rate dictates streamflow. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8006–8016, doi:10.1002/2016GL069690.
  257. Liu, S.C., C. Fu, C.-J. Shiu, J.-P. Chen, and F. Wu, 2009: Temperature dependence of global precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17702, doi:10.1029/2009GL040218.
  258. Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346.
  259. Liu, S.C., C. Fu, C.-J. Shiu, J.-P. Chen, and F. Wu, 2009: Temperature dependence of global precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17702, doi:10.1029/2009GL040218.
  260. Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346.
  261. Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50.
  262. Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50.
  263. Almagro, A., P.T.S. Oliveira, M.A. Nearing, and S. Hagemann, 2017: Projected climate change impacts in rainfall erosivity over Brazil. Sci. Rep., 7, 8130, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08298-y.
  264. Mondal, A., D. Khare, and S. Kundu, 2016: Change in rainfall erosivity in the past and future due to climate change in the central part of India. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 4, 186–194, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2016.08.004.
  265. IPCC, 2013b: Summary for Policy Makers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, p. 1535.
  266. Ma, S. et al. 2015: Observed changes in the distributions of daily precipitation frequency and amount over China from 1960 to 2013. J. Clim., 28, 6960–6978, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0011.1.
  267. Ma, S. et al. 2017: Detectable anthropogenic shift toward heavy precipitation over eastern China. J. Clim., 30, 1381–1396, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0311.1.
  268. Cheng, L., and A. AghaKouchak, 2015: Nonstationary precipitation intensity-duration-frequency curves for infrastructure design in a changing climate. Sci. Rep., 4, 7093, doi:10.1038/srep07093.
  269. Burt, T., J. Boardman, I. Foster, and N. Howden, 2016a: More rain, less soil: long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 41, 563–566, doi:10.1002/esp.3868.
  270. O’Gorman, P.A., 2015: Precipitation extremes under climate change. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 49–59, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0009-3.
  271. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  272. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  273. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  274. Fischer, F. et al. 2016: Spatio-temporal variability of erosivity estimated from highly resolved and adjusted radar rain data (RADOLAN). Agric. For. Meteorol., 223, 72–80, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2016.03.024.
  275. Zhu, Q. et al. 2019: Estimation of event-based rainfall erosivity from radar after wildfire. L. Degrad. Dev., 30, 33–48, doi:10.1002/ldr.3146.
  276. Gonzalez-Hidalgo, J.C., M. de Luis, and R.J. Batalla, 2009: Effects of the largest daily events on total soil erosion by rainwater. An analysis of the USLE database. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 34, 2070–2077, doi:10.1002/ esp.1892.
  277. Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346.
  278. Capolongo, D., N. Diodato, C.M. Mannaerts, M. Piccarreta, and R.O. Strobl, 2008: Analyzing temporal changes in climate erosivity using a simplified rainfall erosivity model in Basilicata (southern Italy). J. Hydrol., 356, 119–130, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2008.04.002.
  279. Tadesse, G., 2001: Land degradation: A challenge to Ethiopia. Environ. Manage., 27, 815–824, doi:10.1007/s002670010190.
  280. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  281. Kidane, D. and B. Alemu, 2015: The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion and sedimentation in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag., 4, 55–68.
  282. Reinwarth, B., R. Petersen, and J. Baade, 2019: Inferring mean rates of sediment yield and catchment erosion from reservoir siltation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa: An uncertainty assessment. Geomorphology, 324, 1–13, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2018.09.007.
  283. Quiñonero-Rubio, J.M., E. Nadeu, C. Boix-Fayos, and J. de Vente, 2016: Evaluation of the effectiveness of forest restoration and check-dams to reduce catchment sediment yield. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 1018–1031, doi:10.1002/ldr.2331.
  284. Adeogun, A.G., B.A. Ibitoye, A.W. Salami, and G.T. Ihagh, 2018: Sustainable management of erosion prone areas of upper watershed of Kainji hydropower dam, Nigeria. J. King Saud Univ. – Eng. Sci., doi:10.1016/J.JKSUES.2018.05.001.
  285. Ben Slimane, A. et al. 2016: Relative contribution of rill/interrill and gully/channel erosion to small reservoir siltation in mediterranean environments. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 785–797, doi:10.1002/ldr.2387.
  286. Kendon, E.J. et al. 2014: Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 570–576, doi:10.1038/nclimate2258.
  287. Lado, M., M. Ben-Hur, and I. Shainberg, 2004: Soil wetting and texture effects on aggregate stability, seal formation, and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68, 1992, doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.1992.
  288. Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004.
  289. Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50.
  290. Stocking, M.A., N. Murnaghan, and N. Murnaghan, 2001: A Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Routledge, London, UK, 169 p.
  291. Wagner, L.E., 2013: A history of Wind Erosion Prediction Models in the United States Department of Agriculture: The Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS). Aeolian Res., 10, 9–24, doi:10.1016/J.AEOLIA.2012.10.001.
  292. McVicar, T.R. and M.L. Roderick, 2010: Winds of change. Nat. Geosci., 3, 747–748, doi:10.1038/ngeo1002.
  293. Vautard, R., J. Cattiaux, P. Yiou, J.-N. Thépaut, and P. Ciais, 2010: Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness. Nat. Geosci., 3, 756–761, doi:10.1038/ngeo979.
  294. Bakun, A., 1990: Global climate change and intensification of coastal ocean upwelling. Science, 247, 198–201, doi:10.1126/science.247.4939.198.
  295. Bakun, A. et al. 2015: Anticipated effects of climate change on coastal upwelling ecosystems. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 85–93, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0008-4.
  296. Sydeman, W.J. et al. 2014: Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems. Science, 345, 77–80, doi:10.1126/science.1251635.
  297. England, M.H. et al. 2014: Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 222–227, doi:10.1038/nclimate2106.
  298. Pryor, S.C., and R.J. Barthelmie, 2010: Climate change impacts on wind energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14, 430–437, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2009.07.028.
  299. Bärring, L., P. Jönsson, J.O. Mattsson, and R. Åhman, 2003: Wind erosion on arable land in Scania, Sweden and the relation to the wind climate: A review. CATENA, 52, 173–190, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00013-4.
  300. IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  301. Olsson, L. et al. 2014a: Cross-Chapter Box on Heat Stress and Heat Waves. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 109–111.
  302. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  303. Yang, M., F.E. Nelson, N.I. Shiklomanov, D. Guo, and G. Wan, 2010: Permafrost degradation and its environmental effects on the Tibetan Plateau: A review of recent research. Earth-Science Rev., 103, 31–44, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2010.07.002.
  304. Jorgenson, M.T. and T.E. Osterkamp, 2005: Response of boreal ecosystems to varying modes of permafrost degradation. Can. J. For. Res., 35, 2100–2111, doi:10.1139/x05-153.
  305. Solly, E.F. et al. 2017: Experimental soil warming shifts the fungal community composition at the alpine treeline. New Phytol., 215, 766–778, doi:10.1111/nph.14603.
  306. Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011a: Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 3392–3404, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x.
  307. Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011b: Measuring and monitoring soil organic carbon stocks in agricultural lands for climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 169–173, doi:10.1890/090153.
  308. Wu, Z., P. Dijkstra, G.W. Koch, J. Peñuelas, and B.A. Hungate, 2011: Responses of terrestrial ecosystems to temperature and precipitation change: A meta-analysis of experimental manipulation. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 927–942, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02302.x.
  309. Friend, A.D. et al. 2014: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 3280–3285, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222477110.
  310. Friend, A.D. et al. 2014: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 3280–3285, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222477110.
  311. Holtum, J.A.M., and K. Winter, 2010: Elevated CO2 and forest vegetation: More a water issue than a carbon issue? Funct. Plant Biol., 37, 694, doi:10.1071/FP10001.
  312. Yang, Y., R.J. Donohue, T.R. McVicar, M.L. Roderick, and H.E. Beck, 2016: Long-term CO2 fertilization increases vegetation productivity and has little effect on hydrological partitioning in tropical rainforests. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 121, 2125–2140, doi:10.1002/2016JG003475.
  313. Rosenzweig, C., A. Iglesias, X.B. Yang, P.R. Epstein, and E. Chivian, 2001: Climate change and extreme weather events; implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Glob. Chang. Hum. Heal., 2, 90–104, doi:10.1023/A:1015086831467.
  314. Porter, J.H., M.L. Parry, and T.R. Carter, 1991: The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agric. For. Meteorol., 57, 221–240, doi:10.1016/0168-1923(91)90088-8.
  315. Thomson, L.J., S. Macfadyen, and A.A. Hoffmann, 2010: Predicting the effects of climate change on natural enemies of agricultural pests. Biol. Control, 52, 296–306, doi:10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2009.01.022.
  316. Dhanush, D. et al. 2015: Impact of climate change on African agriculture: focus on pests and diseases. CCAFS Info Note, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4 pp.
  317. Lamichhane, J.R. et al. 2015: Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 443–459, doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0275-9.
  318. IPCC, 2014b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., pp. 1–34.
  319. Brisson, N. et al. 2010: Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. F. Crop. Res., 119, 201–212, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2010.07.012.
  320. Lin, M., and P. Huybers, 2012: Reckoning wheat yield trends. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 024016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024016.
  321. Grassini, P., K.M. Eskridge, and K.G. Cassman, 2013: Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends. Nat. Commun., 4, 2918, doi:10.1038/ncomms3918.
  322. Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004.
  323. Mittler, R., 2006: Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci., 11, 15–19, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2005.11.002.
  324. Kerns, B.K., J.B. Kim, J.D. Kline, and M.A. Day, 2016: US exposure to multiple landscape stressors and climate change. Reg. Environ. Chang., 16, 2129–2140, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-0934-2.
  325. Mullan, D., D. Favis-Mortlock, and R. Fealy, 2012: Addressing key limitations associated with modelling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol., 156, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004.
  326. Mullan, D., 2013: Soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change: Assessing the statistical significance of future changes and the potential on-site and off-site problems. CATENA, 109, 234–246, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2013.03.007.
  327. Zhang, X.C. and M.A. Nearing, 2005: Impact of climate change on soil erosion, runoff, and wheat productivity in central Oklahoma. CATENA, 61, 185–195, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2005.03.009.
  328. Parajuli, P.B., P. Jayakody, G.F. Sassenrath, and Y. Ouyang, 2016: Assessing the impacts of climate change and tillage practices on stream flow, crop and sediment yields from the Mississippi River Basin. Agric. Water Manag., 168, 112–124, doi:10.1016/J.AGWAT.2016.02.005.
  329. Routschek, A., J. Schmidt, and F. Kreienkamp, 2014: Impact of climate change on soil erosion – A high-resolution projection on catchment scale until 2100 in Saxony/Germany. CATENA, 121, 99–109, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2014.04.019.
  330. Nunes, J.P., and M.A. Nearing, 2011: Modelling Impacts of Climate Change: Case studies using the new generation of erosion models. Handbook of Erosion Modelling, [R.P.C. Morgan and M.A. Nearing, (eds.)]. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, UK, p. 400.
  331. Garbrecht, J.D., and X.C. Zhang, 2015: Soil erosion from winter wheat cropland under climate change in central Oklahoma. Appl. Eng. Agric., 31, 439–454, doi:10.13031/aea.31.10998.
  332. Garbrecht, J.D., J.L. Steiner, and A. Cox, Craig, 2007: The times they are changing: Soil and water conservation in the 21st century. Hydrol. Process., 21, 2677–2679.
  333. O’Neal, M.R., M.A. Nearing, R.C. Vining, J. Southworth, and R.A. Pfeifer, 2005: Climate change impacts on soil erosion in Midwest United States with changes in crop management. CATENA, 61, 165–184, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2005.03.003.
  334. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  335. Oldeman, L.R. and G.W.J. van Lynden, 1998: Revisiting the Glasod Methodology. Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation [R. Lal, W.H. Blum, C. Valentine, and B.A. Stewart, (eds.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington D.C., 423–440.
  336. Dregne, H.E., 1998: Desertification Assessment. In: Methods for Assessment Of Soil Degradation, [Lal, R., (ed.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington DC, pp. 441–458.
  337. Reed, M.S., 2005: Participatory Rangeland Monitoring and Management in the Kalahari, Botswana. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 267 pp.
  338. Bot, A., F. Nachtergaele, and A. Young, 2000: Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels. Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 114 pp.
  339. Yengoh, G.T., D. Dent, L. Olsson, A. Tengberg, and C.J. Tucker, 2015: Use of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Assess Land Degradation at Multiple Scales: Current Status, Future Trends, and Practical Considerations. Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, 110 pp.
  340. Bai, Z.G., D.L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M.E. Schaepman, 2008c: Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manag., 24, 223–234, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00169.x.
  341. Shi, H. et al. 2017: Assessing the ability of MODIS EVI to estimate terrestrial ecosystem gross primary production of multiple land cover types. Ecol. Indic., 72, 153–164, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2016.08.022.
  342. Abdi, A.M. et al. 2019: First assessment of the plant phenology index (PPI) for estimating gross primary productivity in African semi-arid ecosystems. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 78, 249–260, doi:10.1016/J.JAG.2019.01.018.
  343. JRC, 2018: World Atlas of Desertification. [Cherlet, M., Hutchinson, C., Reynolds, J., Hill, J., Sommer, S., von Maltitz, G. (Eds.)] Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018. 237 pp. doi: 10.2760/06292.
  344. Cai, X., X. Zhang, and D. Wang, 2011b: Land availability for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 334–339, doi:10.1021/es103338e.
  345. Hickler, T. et al. 2005: Precipitation controls Sahel greening trend. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21415, doi:10.1029/2005GL024370.
  346. Steinkamp, J. and T. Hickler, 2015: Is drought-induced forest dieback globally increasing? J. Ecol., 103, 31–43, doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12335.
  347. Stoorvogel, J.J., M. Bakkenes, A.J.A.M. Temme, N.H. Batjes, and B.J.E. ten Brink, 2017: S-World: A global soil map for environmental modelling. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 22–33, doi:10.1002/ldr.2656.
  348. Vogt, J.V. et al. 2011: Monitoring and assessment of land degradation and desertification: Towards new conceptual and integrated approaches. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 150–165, doi:10.1002/ldr.1075.
  349. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  350. Wessels, K.J. et al. 2007: Can human-induced land degradation be distinguished from the effects of rainfall variability? A case study in South Africa. J. Arid Environ., 68, 271–297, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.05.015.
  351. Wessels, K., S. Prince, P. Frost, and D. van Zyl, 2004: Assessing the effects of human-induced land degradation in the former homelands of northern South Africa with a 1 km AVHRR NDVI time-series. Remote Sens. Environ., 91, 47–67, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2004.02.005.
  352. Prince, S.D., 2016: Where Does Desertification Occur? Mapping Dryland Degradation at Regional to Global Scales. The End of Desertification, [R. Behnke and M. Mortimore, (eds.)]. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Gernmany, pp. 225–263.
  353. Ghazoul, J., and R. Chazdon, 2017: Degradation and recovery in changing forest landscapes: A multiscale conceptual framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 42, 161–188, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ.
  354. Sedano, F. et al. 2016: The impact of charcoal production on forest degradation: A case study in Tete, Mozambique. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 094020, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094020.
  355. Brandt, M. et al. 2018b: Satellite passive microwaves reveal recent climate-induced carbon losses in African drylands. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 827–835, doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0530-6.
  356. Turetsky, M.R. et al. 2014: A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2183–2197, doi:10.1111/gcb.12580.
  357. Turner, W., 2014: Conservation. Sensing biodiversity. Science, 346, 301–302, doi:10.1126/science.1256014.
  358. Andela, N. et al. 2013:. Global changes in dryland vegetation dynamics (1988–2008) assessed by satellite remote sensing: Comparing a new passive microwave vegetation density record with reflective greenness data. Biogeosciences, 10, 6657–6676, doi.org/10.5194/bg-10–6657–2013,  2013.
  359. Wessels, K.J., F. van den Bergh, and R.J. Scholes, 2012: Limits to detectability of land degradation by trend analysis of vegetation index data. Remote Sens. Environ., 125, 10–22, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.022.
  360. Murthy, K. and S. Bagchi, 2018: Spatial patterns of long-term vegetation greening and browning are consistent across multiple scales: Implications for monitoring land degradation. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 2485–2495, doi:10.1002/ldr.3019.
  361. Ferner, J., S. Schmidtlein, R.T. Guuroh, J. Lopatin, and A. Linstädter, 2018: Disentangling effects of climate and land-use change on West African drylands’ forage supply. Glob. Environ. Chang., 53, 24–38, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.08.007.
  362. Huxman, T.E. et al. 2004: Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency. Nature, 429, 651–654, doi:10.1038/nature02561.
  363. Knapp, A.K. and M.D. Smith, 2001: Variation among biomes in temporal dynamics of aboveground primary production. Science, 291, 481–484, doi:10.1126/science.291.5503.481.
  364. Ruppert, J.C. et al. 2012: Meta-analysis of ANPP and rain-use efficiency confirms indicative value for degradation and supports non-linear response along precipitation gradients in drylands. J. Veg. Sci., 23, 1035–1050, doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01420.x.
  365. Bai, Y. et al. 2008a: Primary production and rain use efficiency across a precipitation gradient on the mongolia plateau. Ecology, 89, 2140–2153, doi:10.1890/07-0992.1.
  366. Jobbágy, E.G. and O.E. Sala, 2000: Controls of grass and shrub aboveground production in the Patagonian steppe. Ecol. Appl., 10, 541–549, doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0541:COGASA]2.0.CO;2.
  367. Seaquist, J.W., T. Hickler, L. Eklundh, J. Ardö, and B.W. Heumann, 2009: Disentangling the effects of climate and people on Sahel vegetation dynamics. Biogeosciences, 6, 469–477, doi:10.5194/bg-6-469-2009.
  368. Hickler, T. et al. 2005: Precipitation controls Sahel greening trend. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21415, doi:10.1029/2005GL024370.
  369. van der Esch, S. et al. 2017: Exploring future changes in land use and land condition and the impacts on food, water, climate change and biodiversity: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands, 116 pp.
  370. Shi, H. et al. 2017: Assessing the ability of MODIS EVI to estimate terrestrial ecosystem gross primary production of multiple land cover types. Ecol. Indic., 72, 153–164, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2016.08.022.
  371. Testa, S., K. Soudani, L. Boschetti, and E. Borgogno Mondino, 2018: MODIS-derived EVI, NDVI and WDRVI time series to estimate phenological metrics in French deciduous forests. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 64, 132–144, doi:10.1016/j.jag.2017.08.006.
  372. Le Houerou, H.N., 1984: Rain use efficiency: a unifying concept in arid-land ecology. J. Arid Environ., 7, 213–247.
  373. Prince, S.D., E.B. De Colstoun, and L.L. Kravitz, 1998: Evidence from rain-use efficiencies does not indicate extensive Sahelian desertification. Glob. Chang. Biol., 4, 359–374, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00158.x.
  374. Fensholt, R. et al. 2015: Assessing Drivers of Vegetation Changes in Drylands from Time Series of Earth Observation Data. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 183–202.
  375. Yengoh, G.T., D. Dent, L. Olsson, A. Tengberg, and C.J. Tucker, 2015: Use of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Assess Land Degradation at Multiple Scales: Current Status, Future Trends, and Practical Considerations. Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, 110 pp.
  376. John, R. et al. 2016: Differentiating anthropogenic modification and precipitation-driven change on vegetation productivity on the Mongolian Plateau. Landsc. Ecol., 31, 547–566, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0261-x.
  377. Fensholt, R. et al. 2015: Assessing Drivers of Vegetation Changes in Drylands from Time Series of Earth Observation Data. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 183–202.
  378. Prince, S.D., E.B. De Colstoun, and L.L. Kravitz, 1998: Evidence from rain-use efficiencies does not indicate extensive Sahelian desertification. Glob. Chang. Biol., 4, 359–374, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00158.x.
  379. Ward, D., 2005: Do we understand the causes of bush encroachment in African savannas? African J. Range Forage Sci., 22, 101–105, doi:10.2989/10220110509485867.
  380. Niedertscheider, M. et al. 2016: Mapping and analysing cropland use intensity from a NPP perspective. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 014008, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014008.
  381. Tian, F., M. Brandt, Y.Y. Liu, K. Rasmussen, and R. Fensholt, 2017: Mapping gains and losses in woody vegetation across global tropical drylands. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 1748–1760, doi:10.1111/gcb.13464.
  382. Liu, Y.Y. et al. 2015: Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 470–474, doi:10.1038/nclimate2581.
  383. Andela, N. et al. 2013:. Global changes in dryland vegetation dynamics (1988–2008) assessed by satellite remote sensing: Comparing a new passive microwave vegetation density record with reflective greenness data. Biogeosciences, 10, 6657–6676, doi.org/10.5194/bg-10–6657–2013,  2013.
  384. Imai, N. et al. 2012: Effects of selective logging on tree species diversity and composition of Bornean tropical rain forests at different spatial scales. Plant Ecol., 213, 1413–1424, doi:10.1007/s11258-012-0100-y.
  385. Fujiki, S. et al. 2016: Large-scale mapping of tree-community composition as a surrogate of forest degradation in Bornean tropical rain forests. Land, 5, 45, doi:10.3390/land5040045.
  386. Higginbottom, T., E. Symeonakis, T.P. Higginbottom, and E. Symeonakis, 2014: Assessing land degradation and desertification using vegetation index data: current frameworks and future directions. Remote Sens., 6, 9552–9575, doi:10.3390/rs6109552.
  387. Wessels, K.J., F. van den Bergh, and R.J. Scholes, 2012: Limits to detectability of land degradation by trend analysis of vegetation index data. Remote Sens. Environ., 125, 10–22, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.022.
  388. Higginbottom, T., E. Symeonakis, T.P. Higginbottom, and E. Symeonakis, 2014: Assessing land degradation and desertification using vegetation index data: current frameworks and future directions. Remote Sens., 6, 9552–9575, doi:10.3390/rs6109552.
  389. Gao, Q. et al. 2017: Synergetic Use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data for soil moisture mapping at 100 m resolution. Sensors, 17, 1966, doi:10.3390/s17091966.
  390. Bousbih, S. et al. 2017: Potential of Sentinel-1 radar data for the assessment of soil and cereal cover parameters. Sensors, 17, 2617, doi:10.3390/s17112617.
  391. Lei, Y. et al. 2018: Quantification of selective logging in tropical forest with spaceborne SAR interferometry. Remote Sens. Environ., 211, 167–183, doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2018.04.009.
  392. Nampak, H., B. Pradhan, H. Mojaddadi Rizeei, and H.-J. Park, 2018: Assessment of land cover and land use change impact on soil loss in a tropical catchment by using multitemporal SPOT-5 satellite images and Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation model. L. Degrad. Dev., 29(10), 3440–3455, doi:10.1002/ldr.3112.
  393. Benavidez, R., B. Jackson, D. Maxwell, and K. Norton, 2018: A review of the (Revised) Universal Soil Loss Equation (R/USLE): with a view to increasing its global applicability and improving soil loss estimates. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 6059–6086, doi:10.5194/hess-22-6059-2018.
  394. Borrelli, P. et al. 2018: A step towards a holistic assessment of soil degradation in Europe: Coupling on-site erosion with sediment transfer and carbon fluxes. Environ. Res., 161, 291–298, doi:10.1016/J.ENVRES.2017.11.009.
  395. Webb, N.P. et al. 2017a: Enhancing wind erosion monitoring and assessment for U.S. rangelands. Rangelands, 39, 85–96, doi:10.1016/J. RALA.2017.04.001.
  396. Webb, N.P. et al. 2016: The National Wind Erosion Research Network: Building a standardized long-term data resource for aeolian research, modeling and land management. Aeolian Res., 22, 23–36, doi:10.1016/J. AEOLIA.2016.05.005.
  397. Allen, D.E., B.P. Singh, and R.C. Dalal, 2011: Soil Health Indicators Under Climate Change: A Review of Current Knowledge. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 25–45.
  398. Kosmas, C. et al. 2014: Evaluation and selection of indicators for land degradation and desertification monitoring: Methodological approach. Environ. Manage., 54, 951–970, doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0109-6.
  399. Stocking, M.A., N. Murnaghan, and N. Murnaghan, 2001: A Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Routledge, London, UK, 169 p.
  400. Wiesmair, M., A. Otte, and R. Waldhardt, 2017: Relationships between plant diversity, vegetation cover, and site conditions: Implications for grassland conservation in the Greater Caucasus. Biodivers. Conserv., 26, 273–291, doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1240-5.
  401. Ghazoul, J., and R. Chazdon, 2017: Degradation and recovery in changing forest landscapes: A multiscale conceptual framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 42, 161–188, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ.
  402. Alkemade, R. et al. 2009: GLOBIO3: A framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems, 12, 374–390, doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5.
  403. Schoenholtz, S., H.V. Miegroet, and J. Burger, 2000: A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: Challenges and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manage., 138, 335–356, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00423-0.
  404. Allen, D.E., B.P. Singh, and R.C. Dalal, 2011: Soil Health Indicators Under Climate Change: A Review of Current Knowledge. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 25–45.
  405. Certini, G., 2005: Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia, 143, 1–10, doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8.
  406. Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011a: Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 3392–3404, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x.
  407. Pulido, M., S. Schnabel, J.F.L. Contador, J. Lozano-Parra, and Á. Gómez-Gutiérrez, 2017: Selecting indicators for assessing soil quality and degradation in rangelands of Extremadura (SW Spain). Ecol. Indic., 74, 49–61, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2016.11.016.
  408. Dumanski, J., and C. Pieri, 2000: Land quality indicators: Research plan. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 81, 93–102, doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00183-3.
  409. Evans, S.E., and M.D. Wallenstein, 2014: Climate change alters ecological strategies of soil bacteria. Ecol. Lett., 17, 155–164, doi:10.1111/ele.12206.
  410. Wu, J. et al. 2015: Temperature sensitivity of soil bacterial community along contrasting warming gradient. Appl. Soil Ecol., 94, 40–48, doi:10.1016/J.APSOIL.2015.04.018.
  411. Classen, A.T. et al. 2015: Direct and indirect effects of climate change on soil microbial and soil microbial-plant interactions: What lies ahead? Ecosphere, 6, art130, doi:10.1890/ES15-00217.1.
  412. Flores-Rentería, D., A. Rincón, F. Valladares, and J. Curiel Yuste, 2016: Agricultural matrix affects differently the alpha and beta structural and functional diversity of soil microbial communities in a fragmented Mediterranean holm oak forest. Soil Biol. Biochem., 92, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.015.
  413. Zhou, Z., C. Wang, and Y. Luo, 2018: Effects of forest degradation on microbial communities and soil carbon cycling: A global meta-analysis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 27, 110–124, doi:10.1111/geb.12663.
  414. Ehrenfeld, J.G., B. Ravit, and K. Elgersma, 2005: Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 75–115, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144212.
  415. Ghazoul, J., Z. Burivalova, J. Garcia-Ulloa, and L.A. King, 2015: Conceptualizing forest degradation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 30, 622–632, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.001.
  416. Bahamondez, C., and I.D. Thompson, 2016: Determining forest degradation, ecosystem state and resilience using a standard stand stocking measurement diagram: Theory into practice. Forestry, 89, 290–300, doi:10.1093/forestry/cpv052.
  417. Stocking, M.A., N. Murnaghan, and N. Murnaghan, 2001: A Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Routledge, London, UK, 169 p.
  418. Zahawi, R.A., G. Duran, and U. Kormann, 2015: Sixty-seven years of land-use change in Southern Costa Rica. PLoS One, 10, e0143554, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143554.
  419. Pardini, R., A. de A. Bueno, T.A. Gardner, P.I. Prado, and J.P. Metzger, 2010: Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: Regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS One, 5, e13666, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013666.
  420. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  421. Prince, S. et al. 2018: Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem fundtions. The IPBES Assessment Report On Land Degradation And Restoration, [L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, (eds.)]. Bonn, Germany, pp. 221–338.
  422. van der Esch, S. et al. 2017: Exploring future changes in land use and land condition and the impacts on food, water, climate change and biodiversity: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands, 116 pp.
  423. Turner, K.G. et al. 2016: A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol. Modell., 319, 190–207, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2015.07.017.
  424. Herrick, J.E. et al. 2019: A strategy for defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments. Ecol. Indic., 97, 225–230, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.06.065.
  425. Prince, S. et al. 2018: Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem fundtions. The IPBES Assessment Report On Land Degradation And Restoration, [L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, (eds.)]. Bonn, Germany, pp. 221–338.
  426. Warren, A., 2002: Land degradation is contextual. L. Degrad. Dev., 13, 449–459, doi:10.1002/ldr.532.
  427. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  428. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  429. Bai, Z.G. et al. 2015: A longer, closer, look at land degradation. Agric. Dev., 24, 3–9.
  430. Bai, Z.G., D.L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M.E. Schaepman, 2008c: Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manag., 24, 223–234, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00169.x.
  431. Bai, Z.G. et al. 2015: A longer, closer, look at land degradation. Agric. Dev., 24, 3–9.
  432. Middleton, N.J. and D.S. Thomas, 1997: World Atlas of Desertification. Arnold, London, 181 pp.
  433. Le, Q.B., E. Nkonya and A. Mirzabaev, 2016: Biomass Productivity-Based Mapping of Global Land Degradation Hotspots. In: Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development [E. Nkonya, A. Mirzabaev, and J. Von Braun, (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 55–84.
  434. Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2016: Does land degradation increase poverty in developing countries? PLoS One, 11, e0152973, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152973.
  435. Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2018: Land degradation and poverty. Nat. Sustain., 1, 623–631, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0155-4.
  436. Schut, A.G.T., E. Ivits, J.G. Conijn, B. ten Brink, and R. Fensholt, 2015: Trends in global vegetation activity and climatic drivers indicate a decoupled response to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0138013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138013.
  437. Cherlet, M. et al. 2018: World Atlas of Desertification. 3rd edition. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxemburg, 248 pp.
  438. Chen, J. et al. 2018a: Prospects for the sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) on the Mongolian plateau: Five critical issues. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 123004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaf27b.
  439. Schut, A.G.T., E. Ivits, J.G. Conijn, B. ten Brink, and R. Fensholt, 2015: Trends in global vegetation activity and climatic drivers indicate a decoupled response to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0138013, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138013.
  440. Borrelli, P. et al. 2017: An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun., 8, 2013, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7.
  441. Baveye, P.C., 2017: Quantification of ecosystem services: Beyond all the “guesstimates”, how do we get real data? Ecosyst. Serv., 24, 47–49, doi:10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.02.006.
  442. Evans, R., and J. Boardman, 2016a: A reply to panagos et al. 2016. (Environ. Sci. Policy 59, 2016, 53–57). Environ. Sci. Policy, 60, 63–68, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.03.004.
  443. Evans, R., and J. Boardman, 2016b: The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Panagos P. et al. 2015 Environmental Science & Policy 54, 438–447—A response. Environ. Sci. Policy, 58, 11–15, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.013.
  444. Labrière, N., B. Locatelli, Y. Laumonier, V. Freycon, and M. Bernoux, 2015: Soil erosion in the humid tropics: A systematic quantitative review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 203, 127–139, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.01.027.
  445. Turner, K.G. et al. 2016: A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol. Modell., 319, 190–207, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2015.07.017.
  446. Montgomery, D.R., 2007a: Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13268–13272, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104.
  447. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  448. Ciais, P. et al. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [J. Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 467–570.
  449. Ciais, P. et al. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [J. Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 467–570.
  450. Poeplau, C., and A. Don, 2015: Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 200, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2014.10.024.
  451. Wei, X., M. Shao, W. Gale, and L. Li, 2015: Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests to agricultural land. Sci. Rep., 4, 4062, doi:10.1038/srep04062.
  452. Li, Y. et al. 2015: Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun., 6, doi:10.1038/ncomms7603.
  453. Murty, D., M.U.F. Kirschbaum, R.E. Mcmurtrie, and H. Mcgilvray, 2002: Does conversion of forest to agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Glob. Chang. Biol., 8, 105–123, doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00459.x.
  454. Guo, L.B., and R.M. Gifford, 2002: Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 8, 345–360, doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x.
  455. Palm, C., H. Blanco-Canqui, F. DeClerck, L. Gatere, and P. Grace, 2014: Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 187, 87–105, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2013.10.010.
  456. Čuček, L., J.J. Klemeš, and Z. Kravanja, 2012: A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod., 34, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2012.02.036.
  457. Venter, O. et al. 2016: Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun., 7, 12558, doi:10.1038/ncomms12558.
  458. Curtis, P.G., C.M. Slay, N.L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M.C. Hansen, 2018: Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361, 1108–1111, doi:10.1126/science.aau3445.
  459. Potapov, P. et al. 2008: Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes by remote sensing. Ecol. Soc., 13, art51, doi:10.5751/ES-02670-130251.
  460. Bernier, P.Y. et al. 2017: Moving beyond the concept of “primary forest” as a metric of forest environment quality. Ecol. Appl., 27, 349–354, doi:10.1002/eap.1477.
  461. van Wagner, C.E., 1978: Age-class distribution and the forest fire cycle. Can. J. For. Res., 8, 220–227, doi:10.1139/x78-034.
  462. Volkova, L. et al. 2018: Importance of disturbance history on net primary productivity in the world’s most productive forests and implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 4293–4303, doi:10.1111/gcb.14309.
  463. Lorimer, C.G. and A.S. White, 2003: Scale and frequency of natural disturbances in the northeastern US: Implications for early successional forest habitats and regional age distributions. For. Ecol. Manage., 185, 41–64, doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00245-7.
  464. Sasaki, N., and F.E. Putz, 2009: Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global climate change agreements. Conserv. Lett., 2, 226–232, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00067.x.
  465. Hosonuma, N. et al. 2012: An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 044009, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009.
  466. Curtis, P.G., C.M. Slay, N.L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M.C. Hansen, 2018: Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361, 1108–1111, doi:10.1126/science.aau3445.
  467. Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
  468. Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
  469. Li, W. et al. 2018b: Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015). Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 219–234, doi:10.5194/essd-10-219-2018.
  470. Li, W. et al. 2018b: Gross and net land cover changes in the main plant functional types derived from the annual ESA CCI land cover maps (1992–2015). Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 219–234, doi:10.5194/essd-10-219-2018.
  471. Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
  472. Hansen, M.C. et al. 2013: High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342, 850–853.
  473. Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
  474. Chen, C. et al. 2019: China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain., 2, 122–129, doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7.
  475. Lesk, C., E. Coffel, A.W. D’Amato, K. Dodds, and R. Horton, 2017: Threats to North American forests from southern pine beetle with warming winters. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 713–717, doi:10.1038/nclimate3375.
  476. Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 11770–11775, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113.
  477. Seidl, R. et al. 2017: Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 395–402, doi:10.1038/nclimate3303.
  478. Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
  479. Keenan, R.J. et al. 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014.
  480. Sloan, S. and J.A. Sayer, 2015: Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 134–145, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.013.
  481. FAO, 2016: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 : How Are The World’s Forests Changing? K. MacDicken, Ö. Jonsson, L. Pina, and S. Maulo, Eds. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 44 pp.
  482. D’Annunzio, R., E.J. Lindquist, and K.G. MacDicken, 2017: Global Forest Land­Use Change from 1990 to 2010: An Update to a Global Remote Sensing Survey Of Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy., 6 pp.
  483. Lindquist, E.J. and R. D’Annunzio, 2016: Assessing global forest land-use change by object-based image analysis. Remote Sens., 8, doi:10.3390/rs8080678.
  484. D’Annunzio, R., E.J. Lindquist, and K.G. MacDicken, 2017: Global Forest Land­Use Change from 1990 to 2010: An Update to a Global Remote Sensing Survey Of Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy., 6 pp.
  485. Song, X.-P. et al. 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560, 639–643, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
  486. FAO, 2016: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 : How Are The World’s Forests Changing? K. MacDicken, Ö. Jonsson, L. Pina, and S. Maulo, Eds. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 44 pp.
  487. Lindquist, E.J. and R. D’Annunzio, 2016: Assessing global forest land-use change by object-based image analysis. Remote Sens., 8, doi:10.3390/rs8080678.
  488. Keenan, R.J. et al. 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014.
  489. Houghton, R.A. and A.A. Nassikas, 2018: Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 350–359, doi:10.1111/gcb.13876.
  490. Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown, L. Murray, and G. Sidman, 2017: Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag., 12, 3, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2.
  491. Baccini, A. et al. 2017: Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358, 230–234, doi:10.1126/science.aam5962.
  492. Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown, L. Murray, and G. Sidman, 2017: Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag., 12, 3, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2.
  493. Chazdon, R.L. et al. 2016a: Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv., 2, e1501639–e1501639, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501639.
  494. Poorter, L. et al. 2016: Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530, 211–214.
  495. Sanquetta, C.R. et al. 2018: Dynamics of carbon and CO2 removals by Brazilian forest plantations during 1990–2016. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0106-4.
  496. Griscom, B.W. et al. 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  497. Kurz, W.A., C. Smyth, and T. Lemprière, 2016: Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: Principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva, 67, 61–67.
  498. Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039.
  499. Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541–584.
  500. Werner, F., R. Taverna, P. Hofer, E. Thürig, and E. Kaufmann, 2010: National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: A model-based assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy, 13, 72–85, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.10.004.
  501. Smyth, C.E. et al., 2014: Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences, 11, 3515–3529, doi:10.5194/bg-11-3515-2014.
  502. Xu, Z., C.E. Smyth, T.C. Lemprière, G.J. Rampley, and W.A. Kurz, 2018: Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: Biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 23, 257–290, doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7.
  503. Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541–584.
  504. Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039.
  505. Kurz, W.A., C. Smyth, and T. Lemprière, 2016: Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: Principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva, 67, 61–67.
  506. Chen, J., M.T. Ter-Mikaelian, P.Q. Ng, and S.J. Colombo, 2018b: Ontario’s managed forests and harvested wood products contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation from 2020 to 2100. For. Chron., 43, 269–282, doi:10.5558/tfc2018-040.
  507. Earles, J.M., S. Yeh, and K.E. Skog, 2012: Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 682–685, doi:10.1038/nclimate1535.
  508. Lewis, S.L., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch, 2019: Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568, 25–28.
  509. Iordan, C.M., X. Hu, A. Arvesen, P. Kauppi, and F. Cherubini, 2018: Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: Historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0101-9.
  510. Hansen, M.C. et al. 2013: High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342, 850–853.
  511. Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown, L. Murray, and G. Sidman, 2017: Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag., 12, 3, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2.
  512. Yamanoi, K., Y. Mizoguchi, and H. Utsugi, 2015: Effects of a windthrow disturbance on the carbon balance of a broadleaf deciduous forest in Hokkaido, Japan. Biogeosciences, 12, 6837–6851, doi:10.5194/bg-12-6837-2015.
  513. Kurz, W.A. et al. 2008: Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature, 452, 987–990, doi:10.1038/nature06777.
  514. Houghton, R.A. et al. 2012: Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences, 9, 5125–5142, doi:10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012.
  515. Erb, K.-H.H. et al. 2018: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature, 553, 73–76, doi:10.1038/nature25138.
  516. McGrath, M.J. et al. 2015: Reconstructing European forest management 
from 1600 to 2010. Biogeosciences, 12, 4291–4316, doi:10.5194/bg-12-4291-2015.
  517. Kauppi, P.E., V. Sandström, and A. Lipponen, 2018: Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS One, 13, e0196248, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196248.
  518. Gingrich, S. et al. 2015: Exploring long-term trends in land use change and aboveground human appropriation of net primary production in nine European countries. Land use policy, 47, 426–438, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.04.027.
  519. McGrath, M.J. et al. 2015: Reconstructing European forest management 
from 1600 to 2010. Biogeosciences, 12, 4291–4316, doi:10.5194/bg-12-4291-2015.
  520. Campioli, M. et al. 2015: Biomass production efficiency controlled by management in temperate and boreal ecosystems. Nat. Geosci., 8, 843–846, doi:10.1038/ngeo2553.
  521. Noormets, A. et al. 2015: Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: A review and hypothesis. For. Ecol. Manage., 355, 124–140, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.019.
  522. Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044.
  523. Birdsey, R., K. Pregitzer, and A. Lucier, 2006: Forest carbon management in the United States. J. Environ. Qual., 35, 1461, doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0162.
  524. Kauppi, P.E., V. Sandström, and A. Lipponen, 2018: Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS One, 13, e0196248, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196248.
  525. Meyfroidt, P. and E.F. Lambin, 2011: Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation. Ann. Rev. Env. Res., 36, 343–371 pp.
  526. Griscom, B.W. et al. 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  527. Hüve, K., I. Bichele, B. Rasulov, and Ü. Niinemets, 2011: When it is too hot for photosynthesis: Heat-induced instability of photosynthesis in relation to respiratory burst, cell permeability changes and H2O2 formation. Plant. Cell Environ., 34, 113–126, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02229.x.
  528. Mullan, D., D. Favis-Mortlock, and R. Fealy, 2012: Addressing key limitations associated with modelling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol., 156, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004.
  529. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  530. Crozier, M.J., 2010: Deciphering the effect of climate change on landslide activity: A review. Geomorphology, 124, 260–267, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2010.04.009.
  531. Huggel, C., J.J. Clague, and O. Korup, 2012: Is climate change responsible for changing landslide activity in high mountains? Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 37, 77–91, doi:10.1002/esp.2223.
  532. Gariano, S.L., and F. Guzzetti, 2016: Landslides in a changing climate. Earth-Science Rev., 162, 227–252, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.08.011.
  533. Froude, M.J., and D.N. Petley, 2018: Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2161–2181, doi:10.5194/nhess-18-2161-2018.
  534. Walsh, K.J.E. et al. 2016b: Tropical cyclones and climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 65–89, doi:10.1002/wcc.371.
  535. Yang, J. et al. 2019: Deformation of the aquifer system under groundwater level fluctuations and its implication for land subsidence control in the Tianjin coastal region. Environ. Monit. Assess., 191, 162, doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7296-4.
  536. Shirzaei, M. and R. Bürgmann, 2018: Global climate change and local land subsidence exacerbate inundation risk to the San Francisco Bay Area. Sci. Adv., 4, eaap9234, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aap9234.
  537. Wang, J., S. Yi, M. Li, L. Wang, and C. Song, 2018: Effects of sea level rise, land subsidence, bathymetric change and typhoon tracks on storm flooding in the coastal areas of Shanghai. Sci. Total Environ., 621, 228–234, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.11.224.
  538. Fuangswasdi, A., S. Worakijthamrong, and S.D. Shah, 2019: Addressing Subsidence in Bangkok, Thailand and Houston, Texas: Scientific Comparisons and Data-Driven Groundwater Policies for Coastal Land-Surface Subsidence. IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018 – Volume 5, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 51–60.
  539. Keogh, M.E., and T.E. Törnqvist, 2019: Measuring rates of present-day relative sea-level rise in low-elevation coastal zones: A critical evaluation. Ocean Sci., 15, 61–73, doi:10.5194/os-15-61-2019.
  540. Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346
  541. Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004.
  542. Kendon, E.J. et al. 2014: Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 570–576, doi:10.1038/nclimate2258.
  543. Guerreiro, S.B. et al. 2018: Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 803–807, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0245-3.
  544. Burt, T., J. Boardman, I. Foster, and N. Howden, 2016a: More rain, less soil: long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 41, 563–566, doi:10.1002/esp.3868.
  545. Westra, S. et al. 2014: Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall. Rev. Geophys., 52, 522–555, doi:10.1002/2014RG000464.
  546. Pendergrass, A.G., 2018: What precipitation is extreme? Science, 360, 1072–1073, doi:10.1126/science.aat1871.
  547. García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008.
  548. Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004.
  549. Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004.
  550. Prein, A.F. et al. 2017: Increased rainfall volume from future convective storms in the US. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 880–884, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0007-7.
  551. Prein, A.F. et al. 2017: Increased rainfall volume from future convective storms in the US. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 880–884, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0007-7.
  552. Segura, C., G. Sun, S. McNulty, and Y. Zhang, 2014: Potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion vulnerability across the conterminous United States. J. Soil Water Conserv., 69, 171–181, doi:10.2489/jswc.69.2.171.
  553. Gupta, S., and S. Kumar, 2017: Simulating climate change impact on soil erosion using RUSLE model − A case study in a watershed of mid-Himalayan landscape. J. Earth Syst. Sci., 126, 43, doi:10.1007/s12040-017-0823-1.
  554. Plangoen, P. and M.S. Babel, 2014: Projected rainfall erosivity changes under future climate in the Upper Nan Watershed, Thailand. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change, 5.
  555. Amanambu, A.C. et al. 2019: Spatio-temporal variation in rainfall-runoff erosivity due to climate change in the Lower Niger Basin, West Africa. CATENA, 172, 324–334, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2018.09.003.
  556. Serpa, D. et al. 2015: Impacts of climate and land use changes on the hydrological and erosion processes of two contrasting Mediterranean catchments. Sci. Total Environ., 538, 64–77, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.08.033.
  557. Neupane, R.P., and S. Kumar, 2015: Estimating the effects of potential climate and land use changes on hydrologic processes of a large agriculture dominated watershed. J. Hydrol., 529, 418–429, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2015.07.050.
  558. Mullan, D., D. Favis-Mortlock, and R. Fealy, 2012: Addressing key limitations associated with modelling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol., 156, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004.
  559. Mullan, D., D. Favis-Mortlock, and R. Fealy, 2012: Addressing key limitations associated with modelling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol., 156, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004.
  560. Ward, C., L. Stringer, and G. Holmes, 2018: Changing governance, changing inequalities: Protected area co-management and access to forest ecosystem services – a Madagascar case study. Ecosyst. Serv., 30, 137–148, doi:10.1016/J.ECOSER.2018.01.014.
  561. Settele, J. et al. 2015: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–360.
  562. Warren, R., J. Price, J. VanDerWal, S. Cornelius, and H. Sohl, 2018: The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas. Clim. Change, 147, 395–409, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6.
  563. Settele, J. et al. 2015: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–360.
  564. Boit, A. et al. 2016: Large-scale impact of climate change vs. land-use change on future biome shifts in Latin America. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 3689–3701, doi:10.1111/gcb.13355.
  565. Boit, A. et al. 2016: Large-scale impact of climate change vs. land-use change on future biome shifts in Latin America. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 3689–3701, doi:10.1111/gcb.13355.
  566. IPCC, 2013b: Summary for Policy Makers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, p. 1535.
  567. Juday, G.P., C. Alix, and T.A. Grant, 2015: Spatial coherence and change of opposite white spruce temperature sensitivities on floodplains in Alaska confirms early-stage boreal biome shift. For. Ecol. Manage., 350, 46–61, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.04.016.
  568. Harsch, M.A., P.E. Hulme, M.S. McGlone, and R.P. Duncan, 2009: Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecol. Lett., 12, 1040–1049, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01355.x.
  569. Gamache, I., and S. Payette, 2005: Latitudinal response of subarctic tree lines to recent climate change in eastern Canada. J. Biogeogr., 32, 849–862.
  570. Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko, 2015: Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 349, 819–822, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092.
  571. Ellison, D. et al. 2017: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 43, 51–61, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.01.002.
  572. Keys, P.W., L. Wang-Erlandsson, L.J. Gordon, V. Galaz, and J. Ebbesson, 2017: Approaching moisture recycling governance. Glob. Environ. Chang., 45, 15–23, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.04.007.
  573. Eisenbies, M.H., W.M. Aust, J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams, 2007: Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians – A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 242, 77–98, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.051.
  574. Sheil, D. and D. Murdiyarso, 2009: How forests attract rain: An examination of a new hypothesis. Bioscience, 59, 341–347, doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.12.
  575. Pokam, W.M. et al. 2014: Identification of processes driving low-level westerlies in West Equatorial Africa. J. Clim., 27, 4245–4262, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00490.1.
  576. Eisenbies, M.H., W.M. Aust, J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams, 2007: Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians – A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 242, 77–98, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.051.
  577. Keenan, T.F. et al. 2013: Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature, 499, 324–327, doi:10.1038/nature12291.
  578. Schlesinger, W.H. and S. Jasechko, 2014: Transpiration in the global water cycle. Agric. For. Meteorol., 189–190, 115–117, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2014.01.011.
  579. Frank, D.C. et al. 2015: Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 579–583, doi:10.1038/nclimate2614.
  580. Trahan, M.W. and B.A. Schubert, 2016: Temperature-induced water stress in high-latitude forests in response to natural and anthropogenic warming. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 782–791, doi:10.1111/gcb.13121.
  581. Anderegg, W.R.L., J.A. Berry, and C.B. Field, 2012: Linking definitions, mechanisms, and modeling of drought-induced tree death. Trends Plant Sci., 17, 693–700, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2012.09.006.
  582. Zhang, M. et al. 2017: A global review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: Importance of scale, climate, forest type and hydrological regime. J. Hydrol., 546, 44–59, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2016.12.040.
  583. Luo, P. et al. 2018: Impact of forest maintenance on water shortages: Hydrologic modeling and effects of climate change. Sci. Total Environ., 615, 1355–1363, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.09.044.
  584. Eisenbies, M.H., W.M. Aust, J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams, 2007: Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians – A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 242, 77–98, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.051.
  585. Trumbore, S., P. Brando, and H. Hartmann, 2015: Forest health and global change. Science, 349, 814–818, doi:10.1126/science.aac6759.
  586. Price, D.T. et al. 2013: Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’ s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 21, 322–365, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0042.
  587. Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017: Increasing net ecosystem biomass production of Canada’s boreal and temperate forests despite decline in dry climates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 31, 134–158, doi:10.1002/2016GB005459.
  588. Midgley, G.F. and W.J. Bond, 2015: Future of African terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems under anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 823–829, doi:10.1038/nclimate2753.
  589. Kurz, W.A. et al. 2013: Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest – A synthesis. Environ. Rev., 21, 260–292, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0041.
  590. Price, D.T. et al. 2013: Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’ s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 21, 322–365, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0042.
  591. Holmberg, M. et al. 2019: Ecosystem services related to carbon cycling – modeling present and future impacts in boreal forests. Front. Plant Sci., 10.
  592. Giguère-Croteau, C. et al. 2019: North America’s oldest boreal trees are more efficient water users due to increased CO2, but do not grow faster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116, 2749–2754, doi:10.1073/pnas.1816686116.
  593. Norby, R.J., J.M. Warren, C.M. Iversen, B.E. Medlyn, and R.E. McMurtrie, 2010: CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 19368–19373, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006463107.
  594. Trahan, M.W. and B.A. Schubert, 2016: Temperature-induced water stress in high-latitude forests in response to natural and anthropogenic warming. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 782–791, doi:10.1111/gcb.13121.
  595. Xie, J. et al. 2016: Ten-year variability in ecosystem water use efficiency in an oak-dominated temperate forest under a warming climate. Agric. For. Meteorol., 218–219, 209–217, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2015.12.059.
  596. Frank, D.C. et al. 2015: Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 579–583, doi:10.1038/nclimate2614.
  597. Kauppi, P.E., M. Posch, and P. Pirinen, 2014: Large impacts of climatic warming on growth of boreal forests since 1960. PLoS One, 9, 1–6, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111340.
  598. Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044.
  599. Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko, 2015: Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 349, 819–822, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092.
  600. Price, D.T. et al. 2013: Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’ s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 21, 322–365, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0042.
  601. Girardin, M.P. et al. 2016: No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, E8406–E8414, doi:10.1073/pnas.1610156113.
  602. Beck, P.S.A. et al. 2011: Changes in forest productivity across Alaska consistent with biome shift. Ecol. Lett., 14, 373–379, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01598.x.
  603. Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2016: Relationships between individual-tree mortality and water-balance variables indicate positive trends in water stress-induced tree mortality across North America. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 1691–1710, doi:10.1111/gcb.13428.
  604. Allen, D.E., B.P. Singh, and R.C. Dalal, 2011: Soil Health Indicators Under Climate Change: A Review of Current Knowledge. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 25–45.
  605. Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko, 2015: Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 349, 819–822, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092.
  606. Lewis, S.L., Y. Malhi, and O.L. Phillips, 2004: Fingerprinting the impacts of global change on tropical forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 359, 437–462, doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1432.
  607. Bonan, G.B. et al. 2008: Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science, 320, 1444–1449, doi:10.1126/science.1155121.
  608. Beck, P.S.A. et al. 2011: Changes in forest productivity across Alaska consistent with biome shift. Ecol. Lett., 14, 373–379, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01598.x.
  609. Miles, L. et al. 2015: Mitigation Potential from Forest-Related Activities and Incentives for Enhanced Action in Developing Countries. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 44–50 pp.
  610. Allen, C.D. et al. 2010: A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 660–684, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.001.
  611. Gauthier, S., P. Bernier, T. Kuuluvainen, A.Z. Shvidenko, and D.G. Schepaschenko, 2015: Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 349, 819–822, doi:10.1126/science.aaa9092.
  612. Girardin, M.P. et al. 2016: No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, E8406–E8414, doi:10.1073/pnas.1610156113.
  613. Trumbore, S., P. Brando, and H. Hartmann, 2015: Forest health and global change. Science, 349, 814–818, doi:10.1126/science.aac6759.
  614. Anderegg, W.R.L., J.A. Berry, and C.B. Field, 2012: Linking definitions, mechanisms, and modeling of drought-induced tree death. Trends Plant Sci., 17, 693–700, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2012.09.006.
  615. Sturrock, R.N. et al. 2011: Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathol., 60, 133–149, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02406.x.
  616. Bentz, B.J. et al. 2010: Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. Bioscience, 60, 602–613, doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6.
  617. McDowell, N.G. et al. 2011: The interdependence of mechanisms underlying climate-driven vegetation mortality. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 523–532, doi:10.1016/J.TREE.2011.06.003.
  618. Lindner, M. et al. 2010: Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 698–709, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.023.
  619. Mokria, M., A. Gebrekirstos, E. Aynekulu, and A. Bräuning, 2015: Tree dieback affects climate change mitigation potential of a dry afromontane forest in northern Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manage., 344, 73–83, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.008.
  620. Steinkamp, J. and T. Hickler, 2015: Is drought-induced forest dieback globally increasing? J. Ecol., 103, 31–43, doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12335.
  621. Price, D.T. et al. 2013: Anticipating the consequences of climate change for Canada’ s boreal forest ecosystems. Environ. Rev., 21, 322–365, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0042.
  622. Shanahan, T.M. et al. 2016: CO2 and fire influence tropical ecosystem stability in response to climate change. Sci. Rep., 6, 29587, doi:10.1038/srep29587.
  623. Ovalle-Rivera, O., P. Läderach, C. Bunn, M. Obersteiner, and G. Schroth, 2015: Projected shifts in coffea arabica suitability among major global producing regions due to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0124155, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155.
  624. Bunn, C., P. Läderach, O. Ovalle Rivera, and D. Kirschke, 2015: A bitter cup: Climate change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Clim. Change, 129, 89–101, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1306-x.
  625. Ovalle-Rivera, O., P. Läderach, C. Bunn, M. Obersteiner, and G. Schroth, 2015: Projected shifts in coffea arabica suitability among major global producing regions due to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0124155, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155.
  626. Laderach, P. et al. 2011: Predicted Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Supply Chains. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 703–723.
  627. Polley, H.W. et al. 2013: Climate change and North American rangelands: Trends, projections, and implications. Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 66, 493–511, doi:10.2111/REM-D-12-00068.1.
  628. Neumann, B., A.T. Vafeidis, J. Zimmermann, and R.J. Nicholls, 2015: Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding – A global assessment. PLoS One, 10, e0118571, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118571.
  629. IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  630. Nicholls, R.J. et al. 2018: Stabilization of global temperature at 1.5°C and 2.0°C: Implications for coastal areas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Eng. Sci., 376, 20160448, doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0448.
  631. Nicholls, R.J. et al. 2011: Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a “beyond 4°C world” in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 369, 161–181, doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0291.
  632. Cazenave, A., and G. Le Cozannet, 2014: Sea level rise and its coastal impacts. Earth’s Futur., 2, 15–34, doi:10.1002/2013EF000188.
  633. DeConto, R.M., and D. Pollard, 2016: Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature, 531, 591–597, doi:10.1038/nature17145.
  634. Mengel, M. et al. 2016: Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 2597–2602, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1500515113.
  635. Nicholls, R.J. et al. 2011: Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a “beyond 4°C world” in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 369, 161–181, doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0291.
  636. Rahmstorf, S., 2010: A new view on sea level rise. Nat. Reports Clim. Chang., 44–45, doi:10.1038/climate.2010.29.
  637. Hauer, M.E., J.M. Evans, and D.R. Mishra, 2016: Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 691–695, doi:10.1038/nclimate2961.
  638. Day, J.J., and K.I. Hodges, 2018: Growing land-sea temperature contrast and the intensification of arctic cyclones. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 3673–3681, doi:10.1029/2018GL077587.
  639. Thomson, J. and W.E. Rogers, 2014: Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 3136–3140, doi:10.1002/2014GL059983.
  640. McInnes, K.L., T.A. Erwin, and J.M. Bathols, 2011: Global Climate Model projected changes in 10m wind speed and direction due to anthropogenic climate change. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 325–333, doi:10.1002/asl.341.
  641. Mori, N., T. Yasuda, H. Mase, T. Tom, and Y. Oku, 2010: Projection of extreme wave climate change under global warming. Hydrol. Res. Lett., 4, 15–19, doi:10.3178/hrl.4.15.
  642. Savard, J.-P., P. Bernatchez, F. Morneau, and F. Saucier, 2009: Vulnérabilité des communautés côtières de l’est du Québec aux impacts des changements climatiques. La Houille Blanche, 59–66, doi:10.1051/lhb/2009015.
  643. Thomson, J. and W.E. Rogers, 2014: Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 3136–3140, doi:10.1002/2014GL059983.
  644. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  645. Tamarin-Brodsky, T., and Y. Kaspi, 2017: Enhanced poleward propagation of storms under climate change. Nat. Geosci., 10, 908–913, doi:10.1038/s41561-017-0001-8.
  646. Lin, N., and K. Emanuel, 2016a: Grey swan tropical cyclones. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 106–111, doi:10.1038/nclimate2777.
  647. Ruggiero, P., 2013: Is the intensifying wave climate of the u.s. pacific northwest increasing flooding and erosion risk faster than sea-level rise? J. Waterw. Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 139, 88–97, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000172.
  648. Savard, J.-P., P. Bernatchez, F. Morneau, and F. Saucier, 2009: Vulnérabilité des communautés côtières de l’est du Québec aux impacts des changements climatiques. La Houille Blanche, 59–66, doi:10.1051/lhb/2009015.
  649. Spencer, T. et al. 2016: Global coastal wetland change under sea-level rise and related stresses: The DIVA Wetland Change Model. Glob. Planet. Change, 139, 15–30, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2015.12.018.
  650. Schuerch, M. et al. 2018: Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature, 561, 231–234, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0476-5.
  651. Higgins, S., I. Overeem, A. Tanaka, and J.P.M. Syvitski, 2013: Land subsidence at aquaculture facilities in the Yellow River delta, China. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3898–3902, doi:10.1002/grl.50758.
  652. Tessler, Z.D., C.J. Vörösmarty, M. Grossberg, I. Gladkova, and H. Aizenman, 2016: A global empirical typology of anthropogenic drivers of environmental change in deltas. Sustain. Sci., 11, 525–537, doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0357-5.
  653. Minderhoud, P.S.J. et al. 2017: Impacts of 25 years of groundwater extraction on subsidence in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 064006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7146.
  654. Tessler, Z.D. et al. 2015: Environmental science. Profiling risk and sustainability in coastal deltas of the world. Science, 349, 638–643, doi:10.1126/science.aab3574.
  655. Brown, S., and R.J. Nicholls, 2015: Subsidence and human influences in mega deltas: The case of the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna. Sci. Total Environ., 527–528, 362–374, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.04.124.
  656. Szabo, S. et al. 2016: Population dynamics, delta vulnerability and environmental change: Comparison of the Mekong, Ganges–Brahmaputra and Amazon delta regions. Sustain. Sci., 11, 539–554, doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0372-6.
  657. Yang, J. et al. 2019: Deformation of the aquifer system under groundwater level fluctuations and its implication for land subsidence control in the Tianjin coastal region. Environ. Monit. Assess., 191, 162, doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7296-4.
  658. Shirzaei, M. and R. Bürgmann, 2018: Global climate change and local land subsidence exacerbate inundation risk to the San Francisco Bay Area. Sci. Adv., 4, eaap9234, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aap9234.
  659. Wang, J., S. Yi, M. Li, L. Wang, and C. Song, 2018: Effects of sea level rise, land subsidence, bathymetric change and typhoon tracks on storm flooding in the coastal areas of Shanghai. Sci. Total Environ., 621, 228–234, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.11.224.
  660. Fuangswasdi, A., S. Worakijthamrong, and S.D. Shah, 2019: Addressing Subsidence in Bangkok, Thailand and Houston, Texas: Scientific Comparisons and Data-Driven Groundwater Policies for Coastal Land-Surface Subsidence. IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco, California, 2018 – Volume 5, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 51–60.
  661. Minderhoud, P.S.J. et al. 2017: Impacts of 25 years of groundwater extraction on subsidence in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 064006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7146.
  662. Higgins, S., I. Overeem, A. Tanaka, and J.P.M. Syvitski, 2013: Land subsidence at aquaculture facilities in the Yellow River delta, China. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3898–3902, doi:10.1002/grl.50758.
  663. Keogh, M.E., and T.E. Törnqvist, 2019: Measuring rates of present-day relative sea-level rise in low-elevation coastal zones: A critical evaluation. Ocean Sci., 15, 61–73, doi:10.5194/os-15-61-2019.
  664. Elliott, M., N.D. Cutts, and A. Trono, 2014: A typology of marine and estuarine hazards and risks as vectors of change: A review for vulnerable coasts and their management. Ocean Coast. Manag., 93, 88–99, doi:10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2014.03.014.
  665. Lambin, E.F. et al. 2001: The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang., 11, 261–269, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3.
  666. Lambin, E.F. and P. Meyfroidt, 2011: Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 3465–3472, doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108.
  667. Smith, P. et al. 2016a: Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1008–1028, doi:10.1111/gcb.13068.
  668. Lambin, E.F., H.J. Geist, and E. Lepers, 2003: Dynamics of land – use and land – cover change in tropical regions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 28, 205–241, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459.
  669. Drescher, J. et al. 2016: Ecological and socio-economic functions across tropical land use systems after rainforest conversion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 371, 20150275, doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0275.
  670. Van der Laan, C., B. Wicke, P.A. Verweij, and A.P.C. Faaij, 2017: Mitigation of unwanted direct and indirect land-use change – an integrated approach illustrated for palm oil, pulpwood, rubber and rice production in North and East Kalimantan, Indonesia. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 429–444, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12353.
  671. Wicke, B., P. Verweij, H. van Meijl, D.P. van Vuuren, and A.P. Faaij, 2012: Indirect land use change: Review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels, 3, 87–100, doi:10.4155/bfs.11.154.
  672. Pielke, R.A. et al. 2007: An overview of regional land-use and land-cover impacts on rainfall. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol., 59, 587–601, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00251.x.
  673. Porter, J. et al. 2014: In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA, pp. 485–533.
  674. Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B.L. Befort, 2011: Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 20260–20264, doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108.
  675. IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  676. Schleussner, C.-F. et al. 2016: Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 827–835, doi:10.1038/nclimate3096.
  677. Smith, H.E., F. Eigenbrod, D. Kafumbata, M.D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg, 2015: Criminals by necessity: The risky life of charcoal transporters in Malawi. For. Trees Livelihoods, 24, 259–274, doi:10.1080/14728028.2015.1062808.
  678. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178.
  679. IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  680. Schleussner, C.-F. et al. 2016: Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 827–835, doi:10.1038/nclimate3096.
  681. Smith, P. et al. 2016b: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/nclimate2870.
  682. Mander, S., K. Anderson, A. Larkin, C. Gough, and N. Vaughan, 2017: The role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage in meeting the climate mitigation challenge: A whole system perspective. Energy Procedia, 114, 6036–6043, doi:10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.03.1739.
  683. IPCC, 2018b: Global Warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  684. Grubler, A. et al. 2018: A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy, 3, 515–527, doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6.
  685. Woods, J. et al. 2015: Land and Bioenergy. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps – Scope Bioenergy, [G.M. Souza, R.L. Victoria, C.A. Joly, and L.M. Verdade, (eds.)]. SCOPE, Paris, 258–300.
  686. Baka, J., 2013: The political construction of wasteland: Governmentality, land acquisition and social inequality in South India. Dev. Change, 44, 409–428, doi:10.1111/dech.12018.
  687. Baka, J., 2014: What wastelands? A critique of biofuel policy discourse in South India. Geoforum, 54, 315–323, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2013.08.007.
  688. Haberl, H. et al. 2013: Bioenergy: How much can we expect for 2050? Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 031004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031004.
  689. Young, A., 1999: Is there really spare land? A critique of estimates of available cultivable land in developing countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1, 3–18, doi:10.1023/A:1010055012699.
  690. IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  691. Fuss, S. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2 : Costs, potentials and side effects, Environmental Research Letters 13, no. 6 (2018): 063002, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  692. Nemet, G.F. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4.
  693. Minx, J.C. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b.
  694. Bauer, N. et al. 2018: Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: Overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison. Clim. Change, 1–16, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y.
  695. Krause, A. et al. 2018: Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 3025–3038, doi:10.1111/gcb.14144.
  696. Bauer, N. et al. 2018: Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: Overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison. Clim. Change, 1–16, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y.
  697. Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.
  698. Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.
  699. de Jong, J., C. Akselsson, G. Egnell, S. Löfgren, and B.A. Olsson, 2017: Realizing the energy potential of forest biomass in Sweden – How much is environmentally sustainable? For. Ecol. Manage., 383, 3–16, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2016.06.028.
  700. Caldwell, P.V. et al. 2018: Woody bioenergy crop selection can have large effects on water yield: A southeastern United States case study. Biomass and Bioenergy, 117, 180–189, doi:10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2018.07.021.
  701. Brinkman, E.P., R. Postma, W.H. van der Putten, and A.J. Termorshuizen, 2017: Influence of Growing Eucalyptus Trees for Biomass on Soil Quality. 1–39.
  702. Chazdon, R.L., and M. Uriarte, 2016: Natural regeneration in the context of large-scale forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Biotropica, 48, 709–715, doi:10.1111/btp.12409.
  703. Fritsche, U.R. et al. 2017: Energy and Land Use. Working Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook, Darmstadt, Germany, 61 pp.
  704. Orr, B.J. et al. 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework For Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. 136 pp.
  705. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  706. Woods, J. et al. 2015: Land and Bioenergy. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps – Scope Bioenergy, [G.M. Souza, R.L. Victoria, C.A. Joly, and L.M. Verdade, (eds.)]. SCOPE, Paris, 258–300.
  707. Fritsche, U.R. et al. 2017: Energy and Land Use. Working Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook, Darmstadt, Germany, 61 pp.
  708. Harper, A.B. et al. 2018: Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun., 9, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z.
  709. Amichev, B.Y., W.A. Kurz, C. Smyth, and K.C.J. Van Rees, 2012: The carbon implications of large-scale afforestation of agriculturally marginal land with short-rotation willow in Saskatchewan. GCB Bioenergy, 4, doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01110.x.
  710. Bárcena, T.G. et al. 2014: Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2393–2405, doi:10.1111/gcb.12576.
  711. Li, D., S. Niu, and Y. Luo, 2012: Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: A meta-analysis. New Phytol., 195, 172–181, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04150.x.
  712. Ovalle-Rivera, O., P. Läderach, C. Bunn, M. Obersteiner, and G. Schroth, 2015: Projected shifts in coffea arabica suitability among major global producing regions due to climate change. PLoS One, 10, e0124155, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155.
  713. Shi, S., W. Zhang, P. Zhang, Y. Yu, and F. Ding, 2013: A synthesis of change in deep soil organic carbon stores with afforestation of agricultural soils. For. Ecol. Manage., 296, 53–63, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.01.026.
  714. Li, D., S. Niu, and Y. Luo, 2012: Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: A meta-analysis. New Phytol., 195, 172–181, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04150.x.
  715. Cacho, J.F., M.C. Negri, C.R. Zumpf, and P. Campbell, 2018: Introducing perennial biomass crops into agricultural landscapes to address water quality challenges and provide other environmental services. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., 7, e275, doi:10.1002/wene.275.
  716. Odgaard, M.V., M.T. Knudsen, J.E. Hermansen, and T. Dalgaard, 2019: Targeted grassland production – A Danish case study on multiple benefits from converting cereal to grasslands for green biorefinery. J. Clean. Prod., 223, 917–927, doi:10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.03.072.
  717. Robinson, N., R.J. Harper, and K.R.J. Smettem, 2006: Soil water depletion by Eucalyptus spp. integrated into dryland agricultural systems. Plant Soil, 286, 141–151, doi:10.1007/s11104-006-9032-4.
  718. Crews, T., W. Carton, and L. Olsson, 2018: Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Glob. Sustain., 1, e11, doi: 10.1017/sus.2018.11.
  719. de Oliveira, G., N.A. Brunsell, C.E. Sutherlin, T.E. Crews, and L.R. DeHaan, 2018: Energy, water and carbon exchange over a perennial Kernza wheatgrass crop. Agric. For. Meteorol., 249, 120–137, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.11.022.
  720. Ryan, M.R. et al. 2018: Managing for multifunctionality in perennial grain crops. Bioscience, 68, 294–304, doi:10.1093/biosci/biy014.
  721. Anderson, R.G. et al. 2011: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179.
  722. Bala, G. et al. 2007: Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 6550–6555, doi:10.1073/pnas.0608998104.
  723. Betts, R.A., 2000: Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature, 408, 187–190, doi:10.1038/35041545.
  724. Betts, R.A. et al. 2007: Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide. Nature, 448, 1037–1041, doi:10.1038/nature06045.
  725. Li, Y. et al. 2015: Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun., 6, doi:10.1038/ncomms7603.
  726. Astrup, R., P.Y. Bernier, H. Genet, D.A. Lutz, and R.M. Bright, 2018: A sensible climate solution for the boreal forest. Nat. Clim. Chang., doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0043-3.
  727. Cai, T., D.T. Price, A.L. Orchansky, and B.R. Thomas, 2011a: Carbon, water, and energy exchanges of a hybrid poplar plantation during the first five years following planting. Ecosystems, 14, 658–671, doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9436-8.
  728. Anderson, R.G. et al. 2011: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179.
  729. Taylor, L.L., D.J. Beerling, S. Quegan, and S.A. Banwart, 2017: Simulating carbon capture by enhanced weathering with croplands: An overview of key processes highlighting areas of future model development. Biol. Lett., 13, 20160868, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2016.0868.
  730. Haque, F., R.M. Santos, A. Dutta, M. Thimmanagari, and Y.W. Chiang, 2019: Co-benefits of wollastonite weathering in agriculture: CO2 sequestration and promoted plant growth. ACS Omega, 4, 1425–1433, doi:10.1021/acsomega.8b02477.
  731. Beerling, D.J., 2017: Enhanced rock weathering: Biological climate change mitigation with co-benefits for food security? Biol. Lett., 13, 20170149, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0149.
  732. Strefler, J., T. Amann, N. Bauer, E. Kriegler, and J. Hartmann, 2018: Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 034010, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c4.
  733. Fuss, S. et al. 2018: Negative emissions – Part 2 : Costs, potentials and side effects, Environmental Research Letters 13, no. 6 (2018): 063002, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  734. Schlesinger, W.H. and R. Amundson, 2018: Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Chang. Biol., 25, gcb.14478, doi:10.1111/gcb.14478.
  735. Fritsche, U.R. et al. 2017: Energy and Land Use. Working Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook, Darmstadt, Germany, 61 pp.
  736. Fritsche, U.R. et al. 2017: Energy and Land Use. Working Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook, Darmstadt, Germany, 61 pp.
  737. Dooley, K., and S. Kartha, 2018: Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 18, 79–98, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9.
  738. Verdone, M. and A. Seidl, 2017: Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol., 25, 903–911, doi:10.1111/rec.12512.
  739. Chazdon, R.L. et al. 2017: A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conserv. Lett., 10, 125–132, doi:10.1111/conl.12220.
  740. IEA, 2017: World Energy Outlook 2017. International Energy Agency, Paris. 763 pp.
  741. REN21, 2018: Renewables 2018: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy for the 21st Century Policy Network, Paris, France, 325 pp.
  742. Machisa, M., J. Wichmann, and P.S. Nyasulu, 2013: Biomass fuel use for household cooking in Swaziland: Is there an association with anaemia and stunting in children aged 6–36 months? Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg., 107, 535–544, doi:10.1093/trstmh/trt055.
  743. Sinha, D. and M.R. Ray, 2015: Health Effects of Indoor Air Pollution Due to Cooking with Biomass Fuel. Humana Press, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 267–302.
  744. Price, R., 2017: “Clean” Cooking Energy in Uganda – Technologies, Impacts, and Key Barriers and Enablers to Market Acceleration. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
  745. Mendum, R. and M. Njenga, 2018: Recovering bioenergy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Gender Dimensions, Lessons and Challenges. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 1–83.
  746. Adefuye, B.O. et al. 2007: Practice and perception of biomass fuel use and its health effects among residents in a sub urban area of southern Nigeria: A qualitative study. Niger. Hosp. Pract., 22, 48–54.
  747. Mendum, R. and M. Njenga, 2018: Recovering bioenergy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Gender Dimensions, Lessons and Challenges. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 1–83.
  748. Brunner, K.-M., S. Mandl, and H. Thomson, 2018: Energy Poverty: Energy equity in a world of high demand and low supply. In: The Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society, [D.J. Davidson and M. Gross, (eds.)]. Oxford University Press, New York, United States, pp. 297–316.
  749. Hou, B., H. Liao, and J. Huang, 2018: Household cooking fuel choice and economic poverty: Evidence from a nationwide survey in China. Energy Build., 166, 319–329, doi:10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.02.012.
  750. Njenga, M. et al. 2019: Innovative biomass cooking approaches for sub-Saharan Africa. African J. Food, Agric. Nutr. Dev., 19, 14066–14087.
  751. IEA, 2017: World Energy Outlook 2017. International Energy Agency, Paris. 763 pp.
  752. Bailis, R., R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and O. Masera, 2015: The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 266–272, doi:10.1038/nclimate2491.
  753. Masera, O.R., R. Bailis, R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and I. Ruiz-Mercado, 2015: Environmental burden of traditional bioenergy use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 40, 121–150, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021318.
  754. Specht, M.J., S.R.R. Pinto, U.P. Albuquerque, M. Tabarelli, and F.P.L. Melo, 2015: Burning biodiversity: Fuelwood harvesting causes forest degradation in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 3, 200–209, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.002.
  755. Fritsche, U.R. et al. 2017: Energy and Land Use. Working Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook, Darmstadt, Germany, 61 pp.
  756. Fuso Nerini, F., C. Ray, and Y. Boulkaid, 2017: The cost of cooking a meal. The case of Nyeri County, Kenya. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 65007, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6fd0.
  757. Bailis, R., R. Drigo, A. Ghilardi, and O. Masera, 2015: The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 266–272, doi:10.1038/nclimate2491.
  758. Shindell, D. et al. 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science, 335, 183 LP-189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026.
  759. Smeets, E., F.X. Johnson, and G. Ballard-Tremeer, 2012: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy in Africa. Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa, [R. Janssen and D. Rutz, (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 3–12.
  760. Gasparatos, A. et al. 2018: Survey of local impacts of biofuel crop production and adoption of ethanol stoves in southern Africa. Sci. data, 5, 180186, doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.186.
  761. Mudombi, S. et al. 2018: Multi-dimensional poverty effects around operational biofuel projects in Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. Biomass and Bioenergy, 114, 41–54, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.09.003.
  762. Amugune, I., P. Cerutti, H. Baral, S. Leonard, and C. Martius, 2017: Small flame but no fire: Wood fuel in the (Intended) Nationally Determined Contributions of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Amugune, I., Cerutti, P.O., Baral, H., Leonard, S., Martius, C., Working Paper 232, [Center for International Forestry Research] Bogor, Indonesia, 35 pp.
  763. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal, 2009: Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 28, 139–163, doi:10.1080/07352680902776507.
  764. Mateos, E., J.M. Edeso, and L. Ormaetxea, 2017: Soil erosion and forests biomass as energy resource in the basin of the Oka River in Biscay, Northern Spain. Forests, 8, 258, doi:10.3390/f8070258.
  765. Hoffmann, H.K., K. Sander, M. Brüntrup, and S. Sieber, 2017: Applying the water-energy-food nexus to the charcoal value chain. Front. Environ. Sci., 5, 84.
  766. McNicol, I.M., C.M. Ryan, and E.T.A. Mitchard, 2018: Carbon losses from deforestation and widespread degradation offset by extensive growth in African woodlands. Nat. Commun., 9, 3045, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05386-z.
  767. Sulaiman, C., A.S. Abdul-Rahim, H.O. Mohd-Shahwahid, and L. Chin, 2017: Wood fuel consumption, institutional quality, and forest degradation in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from a dynamic panel framework. Ecol. Indic., 74, 414–419, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.045.
  768. Kiruki, H.M., E.H. van der Zanden, Ž. Malek, and P.H. Verburg, 2017: Land cover change and woodland degradation in a charcoal producing semi-arid area in Kenya. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 472–481, doi:10.1002/ldr.2545.
  769. Ndegwa, G.M., U. Nehren, F. Grüninger, M. Iiyama, and D. Anhuf, 2016: Charcoal production through selective logging leads to degradation of dry woodlands: A case study from Mutomo District, Kenya. J. Arid Land, 8, 618–631, doi:10.1007/s40333-016-0124-6.
  770. Bond, T.C. et al. 2013: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171.
  771. Patange, O.S. et al. 2015: Reductions in indoor black carbon concentrations from improved biomass stoves in rural India. Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 4749–4756, doi:10.1021/es506208x.
  772. Sparrevik, M., C. Adam, V. Martinsen, Jubaedah, and G. Cornelissen, 2015: Emissions of gases and particles from charcoal/biochar production in rural areas using medium-sized traditional and improved “retort” kilns. Biomass and Bioenergy, 72, 65–73, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.11.016.
  773. Zulu, L.C., 2010: The forbidden fuel: Charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply dynamics, community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy Policy, 38, 3717–3730, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.050.
  774. Zulu, L.C. and R.B. Richardson, 2013: Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev., 17, 127–137, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007.
  775. Smith, H.E., F. Eigenbrod, D. Kafumbata, M.D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg, 2015: Criminals by necessity: The risky life of charcoal transporters in Malawi. For. Trees Livelihoods, 24, 259–274, doi:10.1080/14728028.2015.1062808.
  776. World Bank, 2009: Environmental Crisis or Sustainable Development Opportunity? Transforming the Charcoal Sector in Tanzania. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 72 pp.
  777. Hojas-Gascon, L. et al. 2016: Urbanization and Forest Degradation In East Africa: A Case Study Around Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Beijing, pp. 7293–7295.
  778. Smeets, E., F.X. Johnson, and G. Ballard-Tremeer, 2012: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy in Africa. Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa, [R. Janssen and D. Rutz, (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 3–12.
  779. Santos, M.J., S.C. Dekker, V. Daioglou, M.C. Braakhekke, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2017: Modeling the effects of future growing demand for charcoal in the tropics. Front. Environ. Sci., 5, 28.
  780. Smeets, E., F.X. Johnson, and G. Ballard-Tremeer, 2012: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy in Africa. Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa, [R. Janssen and D. Rutz, (eds.)]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 3–12.
  781. Hoffmann, H.K., K. Sander, M. Brüntrup, and S. Sieber, 2017: Applying the water-energy-food nexus to the charcoal value chain. Front. Environ. Sci., 5, 84.
  782. Wang, Z. et al. 2017b: Human-induced erosion has offset one-third of carbon emissions from land cover change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 345–349, doi:10.1038/nclimate3263.
  783. Chappell, A., J. Baldock, and J. Sanderman, 2016: The global significance of omitting soil erosion from soil organic carbon cycling schemes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 187–191, doi:10.1038/nclimate2829.
  784. Quinton, J.N. et al. 2010: The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci., 3, 311–314, doi:10.1038/ngeo838.
  785. van de Koppel, J., M. Rietkerk, and F.J. Weissing, 1997: Catastrophic vegetation shifts and soil degradation in terrestrial grazing systems. Trends Ecol. Evol., 12, 352–356, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01133-6.
  786. Pendleton, L. et al. 2012: Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One, 7, e43542, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043542.
  787. Houghton, R.A. et al. 2012: Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences, 9, 5125–5142, doi:10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012.
  788. Poeplau, C., and A. Don, 2015: Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 200, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2014.10.024.
  789. VandenBygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, 98–99, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.09.013.
  790. Cheesman, S., C. Thierfelder, N.S. Eash, G.T. Kassie, and E. Frossard, 2016: Soil carbon stocks in conservation agriculture systems of Southern Africa. Soil Tillage Res., 156, 99–109, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2015.09.018.
  791. Powlson, D.S. et al. 2014: Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 678–683, doi:10.1038/nclimate2292.
  792. Bernoux, M., B. Volkoff, M. da C.S. Carvalho, and C.C. Cerri, 2003: CO2 emissions from liming of agricultural soils in Brazil. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, n/a-n/a, doi:10.1029/2001GB001848.
  793. Desalegn, T., Alemu, G., Adella, A., & Debele, T. (2017). Effect of lime and phosphorus fertilizer on acid soils and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Experimental Agriculture, 53(3), 432–444., doi:10.1017/S0014479716000491.
  794. Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown, L. Murray, and G. Sidman, 2017: Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag., 12, 3, doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2.
  795. Conant, R.T., and K. Paustian, 2002: Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 90–1-90–99, doi:10.1029/2001GB001661.
  796. Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, and A.T. Harris, 2004: Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 261–299, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142.
  797. Maestre, F.T. et al. 2009: Shrub encroachment can reverse desertification in semi-arid Mediterranean grasslands. Ecol. Lett., 12, 930–941, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01352.x.
  798. VandenBygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, 98–99, doi:10.1016/J. AGEE.2015.09.013.
  799. Brooks, M.L. et al. 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience, 54, 677–688, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0677:eoiapo]2.0.co;2.
  800. Kulakowski, D., T.T. Veblen, and P. Bebi, 2003: Effects of fire and spruce beetle outbreak legacies on the disturbance regime of a subalpine forest in Colorado. J. Biogeogr., 30, 1445–1456, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00912.x.
  801. Kurz, W.A. et al. 2008: Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature, 452, 987–990, doi:10.1038/nature06777.
  802. Chen, Z. et al. 2018d: Source partitioning of methane emissions and its seasonality in the U.S. Midwest. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 123, 646–659, doi:10.1002/2017JG004356.
  803. Oertel, C., J. Matschullat, K. Zurba, F. Zimmermann, and S. Erasmi, 2016: Greenhouse gas emissions from soils – A review. Chemie der Erde – Geochemistry, 76, 327–352, doi:10.1016/J.CHEMER.2016.04.002.
  804. Tian, H. et al. 2015: North American terrestrial CO2 uptake largely offset by CH4 and N2O emissions: toward a full accounting of the greenhouse gas budget. Clim. Change, 129, 413–426, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1072-9.
  805. Schaefer, H. et al. 2016: A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH. Science, 352, 80–84, doi:10.1126/science.aad2705.
  806. Wang, W. et al. 2017a: Relationships between the potential production of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O and soil concentrations of C, N and P across 26 paddy fields in southeastern China. Atmos. Environ., 164, 458–467, doi:10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2017.06.023.
  807. Schleussner, C.-F. et al. 2016: Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 827–835, doi:10.1038/nclimate3096.
  808. Wang, W. et al. 2017a: Relationships between the potential production of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O and soil concentrations of C, N and P across 26 paddy fields in southeastern China. Atmos. Environ., 164, 458–467, doi:10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2017.06.023.
  809. Schlesinger, W.H., 2009: On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 203 LP-208.
  810. Rabalais, N.N. et al. 2014: Eutrophication-driven deoxygenation in the Coastal Ocean. Oceanography, 27, 172–183, doi:10.2307/24862133.
  811. Turetsky, M.R. et al. 2014: A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2183–2197, doi:10.1111/gcb.12580.
  812. Morse, J.L. and E.S. Bernhardt, 2013: Using15N tracers to estimate N2O and N2 emissions from nitrification and denitrification in coastal plain wetlands under contrasting land-uses. Soil Biol. Biochem., 55, 635–643, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.025.
  813. Norton, J.B. et al. 2011: Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in upper montane riparian meadows. Ecosystems, 14, 1217–1231, doi:10.1007/s10021-
011-9477-z.
  814. McNicol, G. and W.L. Silver, 2014: Separate effects of flooding and anaerobiosis on soil greenhouse gas emissions and redox sensitive biogeochemistry. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 119, 557–566, doi:10.1002/2013JG002433.
  815. Altor, A.E. and W.J. Mitsch, 2006: Methane flux from created riparian marshes: Relationship to intermittent versus continuous inundation and emergent macrophytes. Ecol. Eng., 28, 224–234, doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.06.006.
  816. Fenner, N. et al. 2011: Decomposition ‘hotspots’ in a rewetted peatland: Implications for water quality and carbon cycling. Hydrobiologia, 674, 51–66, doi:10.1007/s10750-011-0733-1.
  817. Christensen, T.R. et al. 2004: Thawing sub-arctic permafrost: Effects on vegetation and methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L04501, doi:10.1029/2003GL018680.
  818. Schuur, E.A.G. et al. 2015: Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature, 520, 171–179, doi:10.1038/nature14338.
  819. Walter Anthony, K. et al. 2016: Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. Nat. Geosci., 9, 679–682, doi:10.1038/ngeo2795.
  820. Bright, R.M., K. Zhao, R.B. Jackson, and F. Cherubini, 2015: Quantifying surface albedo and other direct biogeophysical climate forcings of forestry activities. Glob. Chang. Biol., 21, 3246–3266, doi:10.1111/gcb.12951.
  821. Davin, E.L., N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, E.L. Davin, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2010: Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: Radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim., 23, 97–112, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3102.1.
  822. Pinty, B. et al. 2011: Snowy backgrounds enhance the absorption of visible light in forest canopies. Geoph. Res. Lett. 38(6), 1–5 doi:10.1029/2010GL046417.
  823. Planque, C., D. Carrer, and J.-L. Roujean, 2017: Analysis of MODIS albedo changes over steady woody covers in France during the period of 2001–2013. Remote Sens. Environ., 191, 13–29, doi:10.1016/J.RSE.2016.12.019.
  824. Li, Q., M. Ma, X. Wu, and H. Yang, 2018a: Snow cover and vegetation-induced decrease in global albedo from 2002 to 2016. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123, 124–138, doi:10.1002/2017JD027010.
  825. Sturm, M., 2005: Changing snow and shrub conditions affect albedo with global implications. J. Geophys. Res., 110, G01004, doi:10.1029/2005JG000013.
  826. Houspanossian, J., M. Nosetto, and E.G. Jobbágy, 2013: Radiation budget changes with dry forest clearing in temperate Argentina. Glob. Chang. Biol., 19, 1211–1222, doi:10.1111/gcb.12121.
  827. Rotenberg, E. and D. Yakir, 2010: Contribution of semi-arid forests to the climate system. Science, 327, 451–454, doi:10.1126/science.1179998.
  828. Dintwe, K., G.S. Okin, and Y. Xue, 2017: Fire-induced albedo change and surface radiative forcing in sub-Saharan Africa savanna ecosystems: Implications for the energy balance. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 122, 6186–6201, doi:10.1002/2016JD026318.
  829. Davin, E.L., S.I. Seneviratne, P. Ciais, A. Olioso, and T. Wang, 2014: Preferential cooling of hot extremes from cropland albedo management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 9757–9761, doi:10.1073/pnas.1317323111.
  830. Ge, J., and C. Zou, 2013: Impacts of woody plant encroachment on regional climate in the southern Great Plains of the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 9093–9104, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50634.
  831. Lawrence, D. and K. Vandecar, 2015: Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 27–36, doi:10.1038/nclimate2430.
  832. Lau, K.M. and K.M. Kim, 2007: Cooling of the Atlantic by Saharan dust. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, n/a-n/a, doi:10.1029/2007GL031538.
  833. Huang, J., T. Wang, W. Wang, Z. Li, and H. Yan, 2014: Climate effects of dust aerosols over East Asian arid and semiarid regions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 11,398–11,416, doi:10.1002/2014JD021796.
  834. Sokolik, I.N. and O.B. Toon, 1996: Direct radiative forcing by anthropogenic airborne mineral aerosols. Nature, 381, 681–683, doi:10.1038/381681a0.
  835. Li, Y. et al. 2018c: Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation. Science, 361, 1019–1022, doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.AAR5629.
  836. Cho, M.-H. et al. 2018: Vegetation-cloud feedbacks to future vegetation changes in the Arctic regions. Clim. Dyn., 50, 3745–3755, doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3840-5.
  837. Perugini, L. et al. 2017: Biophysical effects on temperature and precipitation due to land cover change. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 053002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6b3f.
  838. Zeng, Z. et al. 2017: Climate mitigation from vegetation biophysical feedbacks during the past three decades. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 432–436, doi:10.1038/nclimate3299.
  839. Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2018: Land degradation and poverty. Nat. Sustain., 1, 623–631, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0155-4.
  840. Morton, J.F., 2007: The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 19680–19685, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701855104.
  841. Reid, P. and C. Vogel, 2006: Living and responding to multiple stressors in South Africa – Glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal. Glob. Environ. Chang., 16, 195–206, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2006.01.003.
  842. Reed, M.S., and L. Stringer, 2016: Land Degradation, Desertification and Climate Change: Anticipating, Assessing and Adapting to Future Change. New York, NY: Routledge,178 pp.
  843. Reed, M.S., and L. Stringer, 2016: Land Degradation, Desertification and Climate Change: Anticipating, Assessing and Adapting to Future Change. New York, NY: Routledge,178 pp.
  844. Chambers, R., and G. Conway, 1992: Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK,, 42 pp.
  845. Olsson, L. et al. 2014b: Livelihoods and Poverty. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, pp. 793–832.
  846. Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2016: Does land degradation increase poverty in developing countries? PLoS One, 11, e0152973, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152973.
  847. Nachtergaele, F.O. et al. 2011: Global Land Degradation Information System (GLADIS) Version 1.0. An Information database for Land Degradation Assessment at Global Level. LADA Technical Report 17. Rome, Italy, pp. 1–110.
  848. Gerber, N., E. Nkonya, and J. von Braun, 2014: Land Degradation, Poverty and Marginality. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 181–202.
  849. Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2018: Land degradation and poverty. Nat. Sustain., 1, 623–631, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0155-4.
  850. Coomes, O.T., Y. Takasaki, and J.M. Rhemtulla, 2011: Land-use poverty traps identified in shifting cultivation systems shape long-term tropical forest cover. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 13925–13930, doi:10.1073/PNAS.1012973108.
  851. Morton, J.F., 2007: The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 19680–19685, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701855104.
  852. O’Brien, K. et al. 2004: Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: Climate change and globalization in India. Glob. Environ. Chang., 14, 303–313, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2004.01.001.
  853. Lee, H.-L., 2009: The impact of climate change on global food supply and demand, food prices, and land use. Paddy Water Environ., 7, 321–331, doi:10.1007/s10333-009-0181-y.
  854. Hallegatte, S., M. Fay, and E.B. Barbier, 2018: Poverty and climate change: Introduction. Environ. Dev. Econ., 23, 217–233, doi:10.1017/S1355770X18000141.
  855. Skoufias, E., M. Rabassa, and S. Olivieri, 2011: The Poverty Impacts Of Climate Change: A Review of the Evidence. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 38 pp.doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-5622.
  856. Dell, M., B.F. Jones, and B.A. Olken, 2009: Temperature and income: Reconciling new cross-sectional and panel estimates. Am. Econ. Rev., 99, 198–204, doi:10.1257/aer.99.2.198.
  857. Barbier, E.B. and J.P. Hochard, 2018: Land degradation and poverty. Nat. Sustain., 1, 623–631, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0155-4.
  858. Angelsen, A. et al. 2014: Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Dev., 64, S12–S28, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.03.006.
  859. Vedeld, P., A. Angelsen, J. Bojö, E. Sjaastad, and G. Kobugabe Berg, 2007: Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. For. Policy Econ., 9, 869–879, doi:10.1016/J.FORPOL.2006.05.008.
  860. Angelsen, A. et al. 2014: Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Dev., 64, S12–S28, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.03.006.
  861. Reenberg, A., T. Birch-Thomsen, O. Mertz, B. Fog, and S. Christiansen, 2008: Adaptation of human coping strategies in a small island society in the SW Pacific—50 years of change in the coupled human-environment system on Bellona, Solomon Islands. Hum. Ecol., 36, 807–819, doi:10.1007/s10745-008-9199-9.
  862. Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls, 2017: The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Clim. Change, 140, 33–45, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y.
  863. Rosenzweig, C. and D. Hillel, 1998: Climate change and the global harvest: Potential impacts of the greenhouse effect on agriculture. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 324 pp.
  864. Scherr, S.J., 2000: A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy, 25, 479–498, doi:10.1016/S0306-9192(00)00022-1.
  865. Fischer, G., M. Shah, H. van Velthuizen, and F. Nachtergaele, 2009: Agro-ecological Zones Assessment. Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences – Volume III: Land Use Planning, Eolss Publishers Co., Oxford, UK, pp. 61–81.
  866. Webb, N.P. et al. 2017b: Land degradation and climate change: Building climate resilience in agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 450–459, doi:10.1002/fee.1530.
  867. Karami, M., M. Afyuni, A.H. Khoshgoftarmanesh, A. Papritz, and R. Schulin, 2009: Grain zinc, iron, and copper concentrations of wheat grown in central Iran and their relationships with soil and climate variables. J. Agric. Food Chem., 57, 10876–10882, doi:10.1021/jf902074f.
  868. Allen, H.M., J.K. Pumpa, and G.D. Batten, 2001: Effect of frost on the quality of samples of Janz wheat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 41, 641, doi:10.1071/EA00187.
  869. Högy, P. and A. Fangmeier, 2008: Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on grain quality of wheat. J. Cereal Sci., 48, 580–591, doi:10.1016/J.JCS.2008.01.006.
  870. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 155 pp.
  871. UNCCD, 2017: The Global Land Outlook. 1st ed. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  872. St.Clair, S.B. and J.P. Lynch, 2010: The opening of Pandora’s Box: Climate change impacts on soil fertility and crop nutrition in developing countries. Plant Soil, 335, 101–115, doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0328-z.
  873. Stringer, L.C. et al. 2011: Combating land degradation and desertification and enhancing food security: Towards integrated solutions. Ann. Arid Zone, 50, 1–23.
  874. Islam, M.S., A.T. Wong, M.S. Islam, and A.T. Wong, 2017: Climate change and food in/security: A critical nexus. Environments, 4, 38, doi:10.3390/environments4020038.
  875. Xiao, L. et al. 2017: The indirect roles of roads in soil erosion evolution in Jiangxi Province, China: A large scale perspective. Sustainability, 9, 129, doi:10.3390/su9010129.
  876. White, J.W., G. Hoogenboom, B.A. Kimball, and G.W. Wall, 2011: Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. F. Crop. Res., 124, 357–368, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2011.07.001.
  877. Rosenzweig, C. et al. 2014: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 3268–3273, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222463110.
  878. Sundström, J.F. et al. 2014: Future threats to agricultural food production posed by environmental degradation, climate change, and animal and plant diseases – a risk analysis in three economic and climate settings. Food Secur., 6, 201–215, doi:10.1007/s12571-014-0331-y.
  879. Steward, P.R. et al. 2018: The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environments: A meta-regression of yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 251, 194–202, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2017.09.019.
  880. Bharucha, Z., and J. Pretty, 2010: The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 365, 2913–2926, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0123.
  881. Hickey, G.M., M. Pouliot, C. Smith-Hall, S. Wunder, and M.R. Nielsen, 2016: Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. Food Policy, 62, 122–132, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2016.06.001.
  882. Tadesse, G., B. Algieri, M. Kalkuhl, and J. von Braun, 2014: Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and volatility. Food Policy, 47, 117–128, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2013.08.014.
  883. Stringer, L.C. et al. 2011: Combating land degradation and desertification and enhancing food security: Towards integrated solutions. Ann. Arid Zone, 50, 1–23.
  884. McLeman, R., 2017: Migration and Land Degradation: Recent Experience and Future Trends. Working paper for the Global Land Outlook, 1st edition. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 45 pp.
  885. Hermans, K., and T. Ide, 2019: Advancing Research on Climate Change, Conflict and Migration. Die Erde, 150(1), 40–44, doi:10.12854/erde-2019-411.
  886. Cramer, W. et al. 2014: Detection and attribution of observed impacts. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in [Field, C.B. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, 979–1037.
  887. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press.
  888. Piguet, E., R. Kaenzig, and J. Guélat, 2018: The uneven geography of research on “environmental migration.” Popul. Environ., 1–27, doi:10.1007/s11111-018-0296-4.
  889. McLeman, R., 2017: Migration and Land Degradation: Recent Experience and Future Trends. Working paper for the Global Land Outlook, 1st edition. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 45 pp.
  890. Morrissey, J.W., 2013: Understanding the relationship between environmental change and migration: The development of an effects framework based on the case of northern Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang., 23, 1501–1510, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.07.021.
  891. Morse, J.L. and E.S. Bernhardt, 2013: Using15N tracers to estimate N2O and N2 emissions from nitrification and denitrification in coastal plain wetlands under contrasting land-uses. Soil Biol. Biochem., 55, 635–643, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.025.
  892. Hecht, and S.B., 1983: Cattle Ranching in the eastern Amazon: Environmental and Social Implications. In: The Dilemma of Amazonian Development, [Moran, E.F. (ed.)]. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 155–188.
  893. López-Carr, D., 2012: Agro-ecological drivers of rural out-migration to the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 045603, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045603.
  894. Gray, C.L., 2011: Soil quality and human migration in Kenya and Uganda. Glob. Environ. Chang., 21, 421–430, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2011.02.004.
  895. Gray, C., and R. Bilsborrow, 2013: Environmental influences on human migration in rural Ecuador. Demography, 50, 1217–1241, doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0192-y.
  896. McLeman, R., 2017: Migration and Land Degradation: Recent Experience and Future Trends. Working paper for the Global Land Outlook, 1st edition. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 45 pp.
  897. Barbier, E.B., 2000: Valuing the environment as input: Review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Ecol. Econ., 35, 47–61, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00167-1.
  898. Homer-Dixon, T.F., J.H. Boutwell, and G.W. Rathjens, 1993: Environmental change and violent conflict. Sci. Am., 268, 38–45, doi:10.2307/24941373.
  899. Percival, V. and T. Homer-Dixon, 1995: Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: The Case of Rwanda. J. Env. Dev., 5(3), 270–291, doi: 10.1177/107049659600500302.
  900. Byers, M., and N. Dragojlovic, 2004: Darfur: A climate change-induced humanitarian crisis? Hum. Secur. Bull., October 2004, 16–18.
  901. Sachs, J.D., 2007: Poverty and environmental stress fuel Darfur crisis. Nature, 449, 24–24, doi:10.1038/449024a.
  902. UNEP, 2007: Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 358 pp.
  903. Scheffran, J., M. Brzoska, J. Kominek, P.M. Link, and J. Schilling, 2012: Disentangling the climate-conflict nexus: Empirical and theoretical assessment of vulnerabilities and pathways. Rev. Eur. Stud., 4, 1.
  904. Benjaminsen, T.A., K. Alinon, H. Buhaug, and J.T. Buseth, 2012: Does climate change drive land-use conflicts in the Sahel? J. Peace Res., 49, 97–111, doi:10.1177/0022343311427343.
  905. Raleigh, C. and H. Urdal, 2007: Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict. Polit. Geogr., 26, 674–694, doi:10.1016/J.POLGEO.2007.06.005.
  906. Salehyan, I., 2008: From climate change to conflict? No consensus yet. J. Peace Res., 45, 315–326, doi:10.1177/0022343308088812.
  907. Solomon, N. et al. 2018: Environmental impacts and causes of conflict in the Horn of Africa: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 177, 284–290, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2017.11.016.
  908. Kreamer, D.K., 2012: The past, present, and future of water conflict and international security. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 149, 87–95, doi:10.1111/j.1936-704X.2012.03130.x.
  909. Kassa, H., S. Dondeyne, J. Poesen, A. Frankl, and J. Nyssen, 2017: Transition from forest-based to cereal-based agricultural systems: A review of the drivers of land use change and degradation in Southwest Ethiopia. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 431–449, doi:10.1002/ldr.2575.
  910. Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G.J. Fiske, 2017: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114, 9575–9580, doi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114.
  911. Crews, T.E., and S.R. Gliessman, 1991: Raised field agriculture in Tlaxcala, Mexico: An ecosystem perspective on maintenance of soil fertility. Am. J. Altern. Agric., 6, 9, doi:10.1017/S088918930000374X.
  912. Ross, N.J., 2011: Modern tree species composition reflects ancient Maya “forest gardens” in northwest Belize. Ecol. Appl., 21, 75–84, doi:10.1890/09-0662.1.
  913. Torquebiau, E., 1992: Are tropical agroforestry home gardens sustainable? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 41, 189–207, doi:10.1016/0167-8809(92)90109-O.
  914. Turner, B.L. and J.A. Sabloff, 2012: Classic Period collapse of the Central Maya Lowlands: Insights about human–environment relationships for sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 13908–13914, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210106109.
  915. Turner, B.L. and J.A. Sabloff, 2012: Classic Period collapse of the Central Maya Lowlands: Insights about human–environment relationships for sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 13908–13914, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210106109.
  916. Preti, F. and N. Romano, 2014: Terraced landscapes: From an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene, 6, 10–25, doi:10.1016/J.ANCENE.2014.03.002.
  917. Widgren, M., and J.E.G. Sutton, 2004: Islands of intensive agriculture in Eastern Africa: Past & present. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA, 160 pp.
  918. Håkansson, N.T., and M. Widgren, 2007: Labour and landscapes: The political economy of landesque capital in nineteenth century Tanganyika. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B, Hum. Geogr., 89, 233–248, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00251.x.
  919. Davies, M.I.J. and H.L. Moore, 2016: Landscape, time and cultural resilience: A brief history of agriculture in Pokot and Marakwet, Kenya. J. East. African Stud., 10, 67–87, doi:10.1080/17531055.2015.1134417.
  920. Davies, M.I.J. and H.L. Moore, 2016: Landscape, time and cultural resilience: A brief history of agriculture in Pokot and Marakwet, Kenya. J. East. African Stud., 10, 67–87, doi:10.1080/17531055.2015.1134417.
  921. Frei, M., and K. Becker, 2005: Integrated rice-fish culture: Coupled production saves resources. Nat. Resour. Forum, 29, 135–143, doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2005.00122.x.
  922. Rudel, T. et al. 2016: Do smallholder, mixed crop-livestock livelihoods encourage sustainable agricultural practices? A meta-analysis. Land, 5, 6, doi:10.3390/land5010006.
  923. Beets, W.C., 1990: Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics: A handbook of sustainable agricultural development. Agbe Publishing, Alkmaar, The Netherlands, 754 pp.
  924. Netting, R.M., 1993: Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 389 pp.
  925. Altieri, M.A. and P. Koohafkan, 2008: Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities. Penang, Malaysia, 72 pp.
  926. Koohafkann, P., and M.A. Altieri, 2011: Agricultural Heritage Systems: A legacy for the Future. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 49 pp.
  927. McLeman, R.A. et al. 2014: What we learned from the Dust Bowl: Lessons in science, policy, and adaptation. Popul. Environ., 35, 417–440, doi:10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z.
  928. Baveye, P.C. et al. 2011: From dust bowl to dust bowl: Soils are still very much a frontier of science. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 75, 2037, doi:10.2136/sssaj2011.0145.
  929. McLeman, R. and B. Smit, 2006: Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim. Change, 76, 31–53, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-9000-7.
  930. Nkonya, E., M. Winslow, M.S. Reed, M. Mortimore, and A. Mirzabaev, 2011: Monitoring and assessing the influence of social, economic and policy factors on sustainable land management in drylands. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 240–247, doi:10.1002/ldr.1048.
  931. Holt-Giménez, E., 2002: Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 93, 87–105, doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00006-3.
  932. Holt-Giménez, E., 2002: Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 93, 87–105, doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00006-3.
  933. Scarano, F.R., 2017: Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: concept, scalability and a role for conservation science. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv., 15, 65–73, doi:10.1016/J.PECON.2017.05.003.
  934. Nesshöver, C. et al. 2017: The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ., 579, 1215–1227, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2016.11.106.
  935. Morgan, R.P.C., 2005a: Soil Erosion and Conservation. 3rd ed. Blackwell Science Ltd, Malden, USA.
  936. Reed, M.S., and L. Stringer, 2016: Land Degradation, Desertification and Climate Change: Anticipating, Assessing and Adapting to Future Change. New York, NY: Routledge,178 pp.
  937. Mekuriaw, A., A. Heinimann, G. Zeleke, and H. Hurni, 2018: Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 6, 23–30, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2017.12.006.
  938. Zomer, R.J. et al. 2016: Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep., 6, 29987, doi:10.1038/srep29987.
  939. Branca, G., L. Lipper, N. McCarthy, and M.C. Jolejole, 2013: Food security, climate change, and sustainable land management. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 33, 635–650, doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0133-1.
  940. Mirzabaev, A., E. Nkonya, and J. von Braun, 2015: Economics of sustainable land management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 15, 9–19, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2015.07.004.
  941. Giger, M., H. Liniger, C. Sauter, and G. Schwilch, 2018: Economic benefits and costs of sustainable land management technologies: An analysis of WOCAT’s global data. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 962–974, doi:10.1002/ldr.2429.
  942. Teshome, A., J. de Graaff, C. Ritsema, and M. Kassie, 2016: Farmers’ perceptions about the influence of land quality, land fragmentation and tenure systems on sustainable land management in the north western Ethiopian highlands. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 884–898, doi:10.1002/ldr.2298.
  943. Vogl, A.L. et al. 2017: Valuing investments in sustainable land management in the Upper Tana River basin, Kenya. J. Environ. Manage., 195, 78–91, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.10.013.
  944. Tesfaye, A., R. Brouwer, P. van der Zaag, and W. Negatu, 2016: Assessing the costs and benefits of improved land management practices in three watershed areas in Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 4, 20–29, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2016.01.003.
  945. Cerdà, A., J. Rodrigo-Comino, A. Giménez-Morera, and S.D. Keesstra, 2018: Hydrological and erosional impact and farmer’s perception on catch crops and weeds in citrus organic farming in Canyoles river watershed, Eastern Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 258, 49–58, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2018.02.015.
  946. Adimassu, Z., S. Langan, and R. Johnston, 2016: Understanding determinants of farmers’ investments in sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia: review and synthesis. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 18, 1005–1023, doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9683-5.
  947. Kerr, J.M., J.V. DePinto, D. McGrath, S.P. Sowa, and S.M. Swinton, 2016: Sustainable management of Great Lakes watersheds dominated by agricultural land use. J. Great Lakes Res., 42, 1252–1259, doi:10.1016/J.JGLR.2016.10.001.
  948. Wang, G. et al. 2016a: Integrated watershed management: Evolution, development and emerging trends. J. For. Res., 27, 967–994, doi:10.1007/s11676-016-0293-3.
  949. Rumpel, C. et al. 2018: Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature, 564, 32–34, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4.
  950. Crews, T.E., and B.E. Rumsey, 2017: What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: A review. Sustain., 9, 1–18, doi:10.3390/su9040578.
  951. Henry, B., B. Murphy, and A. Cowie, 2018: Sustainable Land Management for Environmental Benefits and Food Security. A synthesis report for the GEF. Washington DC, USA, 127 pp.
  952. Poeplau, C., and A. Don, 2015: Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 200, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2014.10.024.
  953. Kaye, J.P., and M. Quemada, 2017: Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 4, doi:10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x.
  954. Van Pelt, R.S. et al. 2017: The reduction of partitioned wind and water erosion by conservation agriculture. CATENA, 148, 160–167, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2016.07.004.
  955. Panagos, P. et al. 2015: Estimating the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land use policy, 48, 38–50, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.05.021.
  956. Borrelli, P. et al. 2016: Effect of good agricultural and environmental conditions on erosion and soil organic carbon balance: A national case study. Land use policy, 50, 408–421, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.09.033.
  957. VandenBygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, 98–99, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.09.013.
  958. Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, and T.J. Griffis, 2007: Tillage and soil carbon sequestration: What do we really know? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 118, 1–5, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2006.05.014.
  959. Ogle, S.M., A. Swan, and K. Paustian, 2012: No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 149, 37–49, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2011.12.010.
  960. Fargione, J.E. et al. 2018: Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv., 4, eaat1869, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869.
  961. VandenBygaart, A.J., 2016: The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, 98–99, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2015.09.013.
  962. Culman, S.W., S.S. Snapp, M. Ollenburger, B. Basso, and L.R. DeHaan, 2013: Soil and water quality rapidly responds to the perennial grain Kernza wheatgrass. Agron. J., 105, 735–744, doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0273.
  963. Sainju, U.M., B.L. Allen, A.W. Lenssen, and R.P. Ghimire, 2017: Root biomass, root/shoot ratio, and soil water content under perennial grasses with different nitrogen rates. F. Crop. Res., 210, 183–191, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2017.05.029.
  964. de Oliveira, G., N.A. Brunsell, C.E. Sutherlin, T.E. Crews, and L.R. DeHaan, 2018: Energy, water and carbon exchange over a perennial Kernza wheatgrass crop. Agric. For. Meteorol., 249, 120–137, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.11.022.
  965. Sprunger, C.D., S.W. Culman, G.P. Robertson, and S.S. Snapp, 2018: Perennial grain on a Midwest Alfisol shows no sign of early soil carbon gain. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 33, 360–372, doi:10.1017/S1742170517000138.
  966. Henry, B., B. Murphy, and A. Cowie, 2018: Sustainable Land Management for Environmental Benefits and Food Security. A synthesis report for the GEF. Washington DC, USA, 127 pp.
  967. Conant, R.T., C.E.P. Cerri, B.B. Osborne, and K. Paustian, 2017: Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecol. Appl., 27, 662–668, doi:10.1002/eap.1473.
  968. Preti, F. and N. Romano, 2014: Terraced landscapes: From an old best practice to a potential hazard for soil degradation due to land abandonment. Anthropocene, 6, 10–25, doi:10.1016/J.ANCENE.2014.03.002.
  969. Balbo, A.L., 2017: Terrace landscapes. Editorial to the special issue. J. Environ. Manage., 202, 495–499, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2017.02.001.
  970. Preti, F. et al. 2018: Conceptualization of water flow pathways in agricultural terraced landscapes. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 651–662, doi:10.1002/ldr.2764.
  971. Wei, W. et al. 2016: Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-Science Rev., 159, 388–403, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.06.010.
  972. Arnáez, J., N. Lana-Renault, T. Lasanta, P. Ruiz-Flaño, and J. Castroviejo, 2015: Effects of farming terraces on hydrological and geomorphological processes. A review. CATENA, 128, 122–134, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2015.01.021.
  973. Chen, D., W. Wei, and L. Chen, 2017: Effects of terracing practices on water erosion control in China: A meta-analysis. Earth-Science Rev., 173, 109–121, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2017.08.007.
  974. Arnáez, J., N. Lana-Renault, T. Lasanta, P. Ruiz-Flaño, and J. Castroviejo, 2015: Effects of farming terraces on hydrological and geomorphological processes. A review. CATENA, 128, 122–134, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2015.01.021.
  975. Chen, D., W. Wei, and L. Chen, 2017: Effects of terracing practices on water erosion control in China: A meta-analysis. Earth-Science Rev., 173, 109–121, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2017.08.007.
  976. Lovo, S., 2016: Tenure insecurity and investment in soil conservation. Evidence from Malawi. World Dev., 78, 219–229, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.10.023.
  977. Sklenicka, P. et al. 2015: Owner or tenant: Who adopts better soil conservation practices? Land use policy, 47, 253–261, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.04.017.
  978. Haregeweyn, N. et al. 2015: Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 39, 750–774, doi:10.1177/0309133315598725.
  979. Duncan, T., 2016: Case Study: Taranaki farm regenerative agriculture. Pathways to integrated ecological farming. L. Restor., 2016, 271–287, doi:10.1016/B978–0-12–801231-4.00022-7.
  980. Stevens, P., T. Roberts, and S. Lucas, 2015: Life on Mars: Using Micro-topographic Relief to Secure Soil, Water and Biocapacity. Engineers Australia, Barton ACT, Australia, pp. 505–519.
  981. Young, A., 1995: Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 194 pp.
  982. Mbow, C., P. Smith, D. Skole, L. Duguma, and M. Bustamante, 2014: Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, 8–14, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002.
  983. Waldron, A. et al. 2017: Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other sustainable development goals. Trop. Conserv. Sci., 10, 194008291772066, doi:10.1177/1940082917720667.
  984. Sonwa, D.J., S. Walker, R. Nasi, and M. Kanninen, 2011: Potential synergies of the main current forestry efforts and climate change mitigation in Central Africa. Sustain. Sci., 6, 59–67, doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0119-8.
  985. Sonwa, D.J., S.F. Weise, G. Schroth, M.J.J. Janssens, and Howard-Yana Shapiro, 2014: Plant diversity management in cocoa agroforestry systems in West and Central Africa – effects of markets and household needs. Agrofor. Syst., 88, 1021–1034, doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9714-5.
  986. Sonwa, D.J., S.F. Weise, B.A. Nkongmeneck, M. Tchatat, and M.J.J. Janssens, 2017: Structure and composition of cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of Southern Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst., 91, 451–470, doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9942-y.
  987. Charles, R.L., P.K.T. Munushi, and E.F. Nzunda, 2013: Agroforestry as adaptation strategy under climate change in Mwanga District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Int. J. Environ. Prot., 3, 29–38.
  988. Nath, T.K., M. Jashimuddin, M. Kamrul Hasan, M. Shahjahan, and J. Pretty, 2016: The sustainable intensification of agroforestry in shifting cultivation areas of Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst., 90, 405–416, doi:10.1007/s10457-015-9863-1.
  989. Mbow, C., P. Smith, D. Skole, L. Duguma, and M. Bustamante, 2014: Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, 8–14, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002.
  990. Sonwa, F. et al. 2001: The Role of Cocoa Agroforests in Rural and Community Forestry in Southern Cameroon. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK, 1–10 pp.
  991. Kroeger, A. et al. 2017: Forest – and Climate-Smart Cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, Aligning Stakeholders to Support Smallholders in Deforestation-Free Cocoa. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 57 pp.
  992. Sonwa, D.J., S.F. Weise, B.A. Nkongmeneck, M. Tchatat, and M.J.J. Janssens, 2017: Structure and composition of cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of Southern Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst., 91, 451–470, doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9942-y.
  993. Chia, E. et al. 2016: Exploring opportunities for promoting synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation in forest carbon initiatives. Forests, 7, 24, doi:10.3390/f7010024.
  994. Gockowski, J., and D. Sonwa, 2011: Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on CO2 emissions, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea rain forest of West Africa. Environ. Manage., 48, 307–321, doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9602-3.
  995. Blaser, W.J., J. Oppong, E. Yeboah, and J. Six, 2017: Shade trees have limited benefits for soil fertility in cocoa agroforests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 243, 83–91, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2017.04.007.
  996. Abdulai, I. et al. 2018: Cocoa agroforestry is less resilient to sub-optimal and extreme climate than cocoa in full sun. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 273–286, doi:10.1111/gcb.13885.
  997. Sonwa, D.J., S.F. Weise, G. Schroth, M.J.J. Janssens, and Howard-Yana Shapiro, 2014: Plant diversity management in cocoa agroforestry systems in West and Central Africa – effects of markets and household needs. Agrofor. Syst., 88, 1021–1034, doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9714-5.
  998. Toth, G.G., P.K. Ramachandran Nair, M. Jacobson, Y. Widyaningsih, and C.P. Duffy, 2017: Malawi’s energy needs and agroforestry: Adoption potential of woodlots. Hum. Ecol., 45, 735–746, doi:10.1007/s10745-017-9944-z.
  999. Pattanayak, S.K., D. Evan Mercer, E. Sills, and J.-C. Yang, 2003: Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor. Syst., 57, 173–186, doi:10.1023/A:1024809108210.
  1000. Jerneck, A. and L. Olsson, 2014: Food first! Theorising assets and actors in agroforestry: Risk evaders, opportunity seekers and ‘the food imperative’ in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 12, 1–22, doi:10.1080/14735903.2012.751714.
  1001. Pattanayak, S.K., D. Evan Mercer, E. Sills, and J.-C. Yang, 2003: Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor. Syst., 57, 173–186, doi:10.1023/A:1024809108210.
  1002. Mercer, D.E., 2004: Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agrofor. Syst., 61–62, 311–328, doi:10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007.85754.70.
  1003. Jerneck, A. and L. Olsson, 2013: More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: Insights from narrative walks in Kenya. J. Rural Stud., 32, 114–125, doi:10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2013.04.004.
  1004. Brockington, J.D., I.M. Harris, and R.M. Brook, 2016: Beyond the project cycle: A medium-term evaluation of agroforestry adoption and diffusion in a south Indian village. Agrofor. Syst., 90, 489–508, doi:10.1007/s10457-015-9872-0.
  1005. Jerneck, A. and L. Olsson, 2013: More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: Insights from narrative walks in Kenya. J. Rural Stud., 32, 114–125, doi:10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2013.04.004.
  1006. Noordin, Q., A. Niang, B. Jama, and M. Nyasimi, 2001: Scaling up adoption and impact of agroforestry technologies: Experiences from western Kenya. Dev. Pract., 11, 509–523, doi:10.1080/09614520120066783.
  1007. Matata, P.Z., L.W. Masolwa, S. Ruvuga, and F.M. Bagarama, 2013: Dissemination pathways for scaling-up agroforestry technologies in western Tanzania. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev., 5, 31–36.
  1008. Meijer, S.S., D. Catacutan, O.C. Ajayi, G.W. Sileshi, and M. Nieuwenhuis, 2015: The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 13, 40–54, doi:10.1080/14735903.2014.912493.
  1009. Pritchard, W.R. et al. 1992: Assessment of Animal Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Morrilton: Winrock International, Washington D.C., 169 p.
  1010. McIntire, J., D. (Daniel) Bourzat, and P.L. Pingali, 1992: Crop-livestock interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 246 pp.
  1011. Devendra, C., 2002: Crop–animal systems in Asia: Implications for research. Agric. Syst., 71, 169–177, doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00042-7.
  1012. Pritchard, W.R. et al. 1992: Assessment of Animal Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Morrilton: Winrock International, Washington D.C., 169 p.
  1013. McIntire, J., D. (Daniel) Bourzat, and P.L. Pingali, 1992: Crop-livestock interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 246 pp.
  1014. Devendra, C., 2002: Crop–animal systems in Asia: Implications for research. Agric. Syst., 71, 169–177, doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00042-7.
  1015. Ramisch, J., J. Keeley, I. Scoones, and W. Wolmer, 2002: Crop-Livestock policy in Africa: What is to be done? In: Pathways of change in Africa: crops, livestock & livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia & Zimbabwe, [I. Scoones and W. Wolmer, (eds.)], James Currey Ltd., Oxford, pp. 183–210.
  1016. Behnke, R., 1994: Natural resource management in pastoral Africa. Dev. Policy Rev., 12, 5–28, doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.1994.tb00053.x.
  1017. Ellis, J.E., 1994: Climate variability and complex ecosystem dynamics: Implications for pastoral development. In: Living with uncertainty: New directions in pastoral development in Africa, [Scoones, I. (ed.)]. Internmediate Technology Publications, London, UK, pp. 37–46.
  1018. Ramisch, J., J. Keeley, I. Scoones, and W. Wolmer, 2002: Crop-Livestock policy in Africa: What is to be done? In: Pathways of change in Africa: crops, livestock & livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia & Zimbabwe, [I. Scoones and W. Wolmer, (eds.)], James Currey Ltd., Oxford, pp. 183–210.
  1019. Scoones, I. and W. Wolmer, 2002: Pathways of Change: Crop-Livestock Integration in Africa. Pathways of Change In Africa: Crops, Livestock & Livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia & Zimbabwe, [I. Scoones and W. Wolmer, (eds.)]. James Currey Ltd. Oxford, 236 p.
  1020. Scoones, I. and W. Wolmer, 2002: Pathways of Change: Crop-Livestock Integration in Africa. Pathways of Change In Africa: Crops, Livestock & Livelihoods in Mali, Ethiopia & Zimbabwe, [I. Scoones and W. Wolmer, (eds.)]. James Currey Ltd. Oxford, 236 p.
  1021. Howden, S.M. et al. 2007: Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 19691–19696, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701890104.
  1022. Rivera-Ferre, M.G. et al. 2016: Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: Mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 869–892, doi:10.1002/wcc.421.
  1023. Camacho, L.D., D.T. Gevaña, Antonio P. Carandang, and S.C. Camacho, 2016: Indigenous knowledge and practices for the sustainable management of Ifugao forests in Cordillera, Philippines. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 12, 5–13, doi:10.1080/21513732.2015.1124453.
  1024. Siahaya, M.E., T.R. Hutauruk, H.S.E.S. Aponno, J.W. Hatulesila, and A.B. Mardhanie, 2016: Traditional ecological knowledge on shifting cultivation and forest management in East Borneo, Indonesia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 12, 14–23, doi:10.1080/21513732.2016.1169559.
  1025. Siahaya, M.E., T.R. Hutauruk, H.S.E.S. Aponno, J.W. Hatulesila, and A.B. Mardhanie, 2016: Traditional ecological knowledge on shifting cultivation and forest management in East Borneo, Indonesia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag., 12, 14–23, doi:10.1080/21513732.2016.1169559.
  1026. Oliver, D.M. et al. 2012: Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data: Farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems. Environ. Model. Softw., 36, 76–85, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2011.09.013.
  1027. Bitzer, V., and J. Bijman, 2015: From innovation to co-innovation? An exploration of African agrifood chains. Br. Food J., 117, 2182–2199, doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0403.
  1028. Schwilch, G. et al. 2011: Experiences in monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management. L. Degrad. Dev., 22, 214–225, doi:10.1002/ldr.1040.
  1029. Porter-Bolland, L. et al. 2012: Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manage., 268, 6–17, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2011.05.034.
  1030. Ward, C., L. Stringer, and G. Holmes, 2018: Changing governance, changing inequalities: Protected area co-management and access to forest ecosystem services – a Madagascar case study. Ecosyst. Serv., 30, 137–148, doi:10.1016/J.ECOSER.2018.01.014.
  1031. Barrera-Bassols, N., and J.A. Zinck, 2003: Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geoderma, 111, 171–195, doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00263-X.
  1032. Angelsen, A. et al. 2018: Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),, Bonn, Germany, 229 p.
  1033. Sonwa, D.J., S. Walker, R. Nasi, and M. Kanninen, 2011: Potential synergies of the main current forestry efforts and climate change mitigation in Central Africa. Sustain. Sci., 6, 59–67, doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0119-8.
  1034. Griscom, B.W. et al. 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  1035. Baccini, A. et al. 2017: Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358, 230–234, doi:10.1126/science.aam5962.
  1036. Houghton, R.A. et al. 2012: Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences, 9, 5125–5142, doi:10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012.
  1037. Mitchard, E.T.A., 2018: The tropical forest carbon cycle and climate change. Nature, 559, 527–534, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0300-2.
  1038. Aleman, J.C., M.A. Jarzyna, and A.C. Staver, 2018: Forest extent and deforestation in tropical Africa since. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 26–33, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0406-1.
  1039. Federici, S., F.N. Tubiello, M. Salvatore, H. Jacobs, and J. Schmidhuber, 2015: Forest ecology and management new estimates of CO2 forest emissions and removals: 1990 – 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 89–98, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.022.
  1040. Miles, L. et al. 2015: Mitigation Potential from Forest-Related Activities and Incentives for Enhanced Action in Developing Countries. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 44–50 pp.
  1041. Chazdon, R.L., and M. Uriarte, 2016: Natural regeneration in the context of large-scale forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Biotropica, 48, 709–715, doi:10.1111/btp.12409.
  1042. Chazdon, R.L., and M. Uriarte, 2016: Natural regeneration in the context of large-scale forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Biotropica, 48, 709–715, doi:10.1111/btp.12409.
  1043. Le Quéré, C. et al. 2013: The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 165–185, doi:10.5194/essd-5-165-2013.
  1044. Keenan, T.F. et al. 2017: Corrigendum: Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun., 8, 16137, doi:10.1038/ncomms16137.
  1045. Miles, L. et al. 2015: Mitigation Potential from Forest-Related Activities and Incentives for Enhanced Action in Developing Countries. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 44–50 pp.
  1046. Korhonen-Kurki, K. et al. 2018: What drives policy change for REDD+? A qualitative comparative analysis of the interplay between institutional and policy arena factors. Clim. Policy, 1–14, doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.
1507897.
  1047. Angelsen, A. et al. 2018: Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),, Bonn, Germany, 229 p.
  1048. Seymour, F. and A. Angelsen, 2012: Summary and Conclusions: REDD+ without regrets. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, 317–334.
  1049. Jagger, P. et al. 2015: REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. In: Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, [Angelsen, L., Brockhaus, A., Sunderlin, M., Verchot, W.D. (eds.)]. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 301–316.
  1050. Peng, S.-S. et al. 2014: Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 2915–2919, doi:10.1073/pnas.1315126111.
  1051. Buendia, C., R.J. Batalla, S. Sabater, A. Palau, and R. Marcé, 2016: Runoff trends driven by climate and afforestation in a Pyrenean Basin. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 823–838, doi:10.1002/ldr.2384.
  1052. Bárcena, T.G. et al. 2014: Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2393–2405, doi:10.1111/gcb.12576.
  1053. Busch, J. et al. 2015: Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 1328–1333, doi:10.7910/DVN/28615.
  1054. Panfil, S.N. and C.A. Harvey, 2016: REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: A review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conserv. Lett., 9, 143–150, doi:10.1111/conl.12188.
  1055. Peres, C.A., T. Emilio, J. Schietti, S.J.M. Desmoulière, and T. Levi, 2016: Dispersal limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 892–897, doi:10.1073/pnas.1516525113.
  1056. Hinsley, A., A. Entwistle, and D.V. Pio, 2015: Does the long-term success of REDD+ also depend on biodiversity? Oryx, 49, 216–221, doi:10.1017/S0030605314000507.
  1057. Edstedt, K., and W. Carton, 2018: The benefits that (only) capital can see? Resource access and degradation in industrial carbon forestry, lessons from the CDM in Uganda. Geoforum, 97, 315–323, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2018.09.030.
  1058. Carton, W., and E. Andersson, 2017: Where forest carbon meets its maker: Forestry-based offsetting as the subsumption of nature. Soc. Nat. Resour., 30, 829–843, doi:10.1080/08941920.2017.1284291.
  1059. Osborne, T.M., 2011: Carbon forestry and agrarian change: Access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. J. Peasant Stud., 38, 859–883, doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.611281.
  1060. Scheidel, A. and C. Work, 2018: Forest plantations and climate change discourses: New powers of ‘green’ grabbing in Cambodia. Land use policy, 77, 9–18, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.04.057.
  1061. Richards, C. and K. Lyons, 2016: The new corporate enclosures: Plantation forestry, carbon markets and the limits of financialised solutions to the climate crisis. Land use policy, 56, 209–216, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.05.013.
  1062. Borras, S.M., and J.C. Franco, 2018: The challenge of locating land-based climate change mitigation and adaptation politics within a social justice perspective: Towards an idea of agrarian climate justice. Third World Q., 39, 1308–1325, doi:10.1080/01436597.2018.1460592.
  1063. Paladino, S., and S.J. Fiske, 2017: The Carbon Fix: Forest Carbon, Social Justice, and Environmental Governance. Routledge, New York, United States, 320 pp.
  1064. Atmadja, S., and L. Verchot, 2012: A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 17, 311–336, doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9328-4.
  1065. Phelps, J., E.L. Webb, and A. Agrawal, 2010: Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science, 328, 312–313, doi:10.1126/science.1187774.
  1066. Lund, J.F., E. Sungusia, M.B. Mabele, and A. Scheba, 2017: Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Dev., 89, 124–139, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.08.005.
  1067. Balooni, K., and J.F. Lund, 2014: Forest rights: The hard currency of REDD+. Conserv. Lett., 7, 278–284, doi:10.1111/conl.12067.
  1068. Lewis, S.L., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch, 2019: Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568, 25–28.
  1069. Putz, F.E. et al. 2012: Sustaining conservation values in selectively logged tropical forests: The attained and the attainable. Conserv. Lett., 5, 296–303, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00242.x.
  1070. Gideon Neba, S., M. Kanninen, R. Eba’a Atyi, and D.J. Sonwa, 2014: Assessment and prediction of above-ground biomass in selectively logged forest concessions using field measurements and remote sensing data: Case study in South East Cameroon. For. Ecol. Manage., 329, 177–185, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2014.06.018.
  1071. Sufo Kankeu, R., D.J. Sonwa, R. Eba’a Atyi, and N.M. Moankang Nkal, 2016: Quantifying post logging biomass loss using satellite images and ground measurements in Southeast Cameroon. J. For. Res., 27, 1415–1426, doi:10.1007/s11676-016-0277-3.
  1072. Nitcheu Tchiadje, S., D.J. Sonwa, B.-A. Nkongmeneck, L. Cerbonney, and R. Sufo Kankeu, 2016: Preliminary estimation of carbon stock in a logging concession with a forest management plan in East Cameroon. J. Sustain. For., 35, 355–368, doi:10.1080/10549811.2016.1190757.
  1073. Rossi, V. et al. 2017: Could REDD+ mechanisms induce logging companies to reduce forest degradation in Central Africa? J. For. Econ., 29, 107–117, doi:10.1016/J.JFE.2017.10.001.
  1074. Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541–584.
  1075. Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039.
  1076. Kurz, W.A., C. Smyth, and T. Lemprière, 2016: Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: Principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva, 67, 61–67.
  1077. Law, B.E. et al. 2018: Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 3663–3668, doi:10.1073/pnas.1720064115.
  1078. Nabuurs, G.J. et al. 2017: By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests, 8, 1–14, doi:10.3390/f8120484.
  1079. Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin, 1990: Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science, 247, 699–702.
  1080. Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps, 1998: Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 2, 405–421, doi:10.1023/b:miti.0000004486.62808.29.
  1081. Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., S.J. Colombo, and J. Chen, 2013: Effects of harvesting on spatial and temporal diversity of carbon stocks in a boreal forest landscape. Ecol. Evol., 3, 3738–3750, doi:10.1002/ece3.751.
  1082. Kilpeläinen, A. et al. 2017: Effects of initial age structure of managed Norway spruce forest area on net climate impact of using forest biomass for energy. Bioenergy Res., 10, 499–508, doi:10.1007/s12155-017-9821-z.
  1083. Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin, 1990: Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science, 247, 699–702.
  1084. Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps, 1998: Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 2, 405–421, doi:10.1023/b:miti.0000004486.62808.29.
  1085. Lewis, S.L., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch, 2019: Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568, 25–28.
  1086. Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044.
  1087. Tang, J., S. Luyssaert, A.D. Richardson, W. Kutsch, and I.A. Janssens, 2014: Steeper declines in forest photosynthesis than respiration explain age-driven decreases in forest growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 8856–8860, doi:10.1073/pnas.1320761111.
  1088. Gao, B. et al. 2018: Carbon storage declines in old boreal forests irrespective of succession pathway. Ecosystems, 21, 1–15, doi:10.1007/s10021-017- 0210-4.
  1089. Taylor, A.R., M. Seedre, B.W. Brassard, and H.Y.H. Chen, 2014: Decline in net ecosystem productivity following canopy transition to late-succession forests. Ecosystems, 17, 778–791, doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9759-3.
  1090. Hadden, D., and A. Grelle, 2016: Changing temperature response of respiration turns boreal forest from carbon sink into carbon source. Agric. For. Meteorol., 223, 30–38, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.020.
  1091. Poorter, L. et al. 2016: Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530, 211–214.
  1092. Volkova, L., H. Bi, J. Hilton, and C.J. Weston, 2017: Impact of mechanical thinning on forest carbon, fuel hazard and simulated fire behaviour in Eucalyptus delegatensis forest of south-eastern Australia. For. Ecol. Manage., 405, 92–100, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.032.
  1093. Poorter, L. et al. 2016: Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530, 211–214.
  1094. Bernal, B., L.T. Murray, and T.R.H. Pearson, 2018: Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8.
  1095. Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039.
  1096. Lundmark, T. et al. 2014: Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests, 5, 557–578, doi:10.3390/f5040557.
  1097. Xu, Z., C.E. Smyth, T.C. Lemprière, G.J. Rampley, and W.A. Kurz, 2018: Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: Biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 23, 257–290, doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7.
  1098. Olguin, M. et al. 2018: Applying a systems approach to assess carbon emission reductions from climate change mitigation in Mexico’s forest sector. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa03.
  1099. Dugan, A.J. et al. 2018: A systems approach to assess climate change mitigation options in landscapes of the United States forest sector. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0100-x.
  1100. Chen, J., M.T. Ter-Mikaelian, P.Q. Ng, and S.J. Colombo, 2018b: Ontario’s managed forests and harvested wood products contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation from 2020 to 2100. For. Chron., 43, 269–282, doi:10.5558/tfc2018-040.
  1101. Pingoud, K., T. Ekholm, R. Sievänen, S. Huuskonen, and J. Hynynen, 2018: Trade-offs between forest carbon stocks and harvests in a steady state – A multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ. Manage., 210, 96–103, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.076.
  1102. Seidl, R., W. Rammer, D. Jäger, W.S. Currie, and M.J. Lexer, 2007: Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. For. Ecol. Manage., 248, 64–79, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.035.
  1103. Mackey, B. et al. 2013: Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 552–557, doi:10.1038/nclimate1804.
  1104. Pingoud, K., T. Ekholm, R. Sievänen, S. Huuskonen, and J. Hynynen, 2018: Trade-offs between forest carbon stocks and harvests in a steady state – A multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ. Manage., 210, 96–103, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.076.
  1105. Mackey, B. et al. 2013: Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 552–557, doi:10.1038/nclimate1804.
  1106. Lewis, S.L., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch, 2019: Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568, 25–28.
  1107. Laganière, J., D. Paré, E. Thiffault, and P.Y. Bernier, 2017: Range and uncertainties in estimating delays in greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy sourced from Canadian forests. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 358–369, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12327.
  1108. Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., S.J. Colombo, and J. Chen, 2014: The burning question: Does forest bioenergy reduce carbon emissions? A review of common misconceptions about forest carbon accounting. J. For., 113, 57–68, doi:10.5849/jof.14-016.
  1109. Smyth, C., W.A. Kurz, G. Rampley, T.C. Lemprière, and O. Schwab, 2017: Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 817–832, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12387.
  1110. Seidl, R. et al. 2017: Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 395–402, doi:10.1038/nclimate3303.
  1111. Köhl, M., P.R. Neupane, and N. Lotfiomran, 2017: The impact of tree age on biomass growth and carbon accumulation capacity: A retrospective analysis using tree ring data of three tropical tree species grown in natural forests of Suriname. PLoS One, 12, e0181187, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181187.
  1112. Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2016: Relationships between individual-tree mortality and water-balance variables indicate positive trends in water stress-induced tree mortality across North America. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 1691–1710, doi:10.1111/gcb.13428.
  1113. Lewis, S.L., Y. Malhi, and O.L. Phillips, 2004: Fingerprinting the impacts of global change on tropical forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 359, 437–462, doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1432.
  1114. Volkova, L. et al. 2018: Importance of disturbance history on net primary productivity in the world’s most productive forests and implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 4293–4303, doi:10.1111/gcb.14309.
  1115. Nabuurs, G.J. et al. 2017: By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests, 8, 1–14, doi:10.3390/f8120484.
  1116. Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039.
  1117. Matthews, R., G. Hogan, and E. Mackie, 2018: Carbon impacts of biomass consumed in the EU. Res. Agency For. Comm., 61.
  1118. Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541–584.
  1119. Lemprière, T.C. et al. 2013: Canadian boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Environ. Rev., 21, 293–321, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0039.
  1120. Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke, E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina, W.A. Kurz, M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H. Ravindranath, M.J. Sanz Sanchez, X. Zhang, 2007: In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 541–584.
  1121. Keith, H. et al. 2014: Managing temperate forests for carbon storage: Impacts of logging versus forest protection on carbon stocks. Ecosphere, 5, art75, doi:10.1890/ES14-00051.1.
  1122. Kurz, W.A., C. Smyth, and T. Lemprière, 2016: Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: Principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva, 67, 61–67.
  1123. Lundmark, T. et al. 2014: Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests, 5, 557–578, doi:10.3390/f5040557.
  1124. Lecina-Diaz, J. et al. 2018: The positive carbon stocks-biodiversity relationship in forests: Co-occurrence and drivers across five subclimates. Ecol. Appl., 28, 1481–1493, doi:10.1002/eap.1749.
  1125. Luyssaert, S. et al. 2018: Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature, 562, 259–262, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0577-1.
  1126. Valade, A., V. Bellassen, C. Magand, and S. Luyssaert, 2017: Sustaining the sequestration efficiency of the European forest sector. For. Ecol. Manage., 405, 44–55, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.009.
  1127. Seidl, R. et al. 2017: Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 395–402, doi:10.1038/nclimate3303.
  1128. Soussana, J.-F. et al. 2019: Matching policy and science: Rationale for the 
‘4 per 1000 – soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res., 188, 3–15, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2017.12.002.
  1129. Rumpel, C. et al. 2018: Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature, 564, 32–34, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4.
  1130. Dignac, M.-F. et al. 2017: Increasing soil carbon storage: Mechanisms, effects of agricultural practices and proxies. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 37, 14, doi:10.1007/s13593-017-0421-2.
  1131. Rumpel, C. et al. 2018: Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature, 564, 32–34, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4.
  1132. van Groenigen, J.W. et al. 2017: Sequestering soil organic carbon: A nitrogen dilemma. Environ. Sci. Technol., 51, 4738–4739, doi:10.1021/acs. est.7b01427.
  1133. Poulton, P., J. Johnston, A. Macdonald, R. White, and D. Powlson, 2018: Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 2563–2584, doi:10.1111/gcb.14066.
  1134. Schlesinger, W.H. and R. Amundson, 2018: Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Chang. Biol., 25, gcb.14478, doi:10.1111/gcb.14478.
  1135. UNCCD, 2016a: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twelfth Session, held in Ankara from 12 to 23 October 2015. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany,
  1136. Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35.
  1137. Orr, B.J. et al. 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework For Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. 136 pp.
  1138. Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35.
  1139. Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35.
  1140. Sims, N.C. et al. 2019: Developing good practice guidance for estimating land degradation in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Sci. Policy, 92, 349–355, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2018.10.014.
  1141. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., Maginnis, S., 2016: Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland, xiii + 97 pp.
  1142. UNCCD, 2016b: Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting – A Technical Guide. Land Degradation Neutrality Target Setting Programme. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany.
  1143. GEF, 2018: GEF-7 Replenishment, Programming Directions. Global Environment Facility (GEF), Washington DC,, 155 pp.
  1144. Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392.
  1145. Edstedt, K., and W. Carton, 2018: The benefits that (only) capital can see? Resource access and degradation in industrial carbon forestry, lessons from the CDM in Uganda. Geoforum, 97, 315–323, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2018.09.030.
  1146. Olsson, L. et al. 2014b: Livelihoods and Poverty. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, pp. 793–832.
  1147. Newton, P., J. A Oldekop, G. Brodnig, B.K. Karna, and A. Agrawal, 2016: Carbon, biodiversity, and livelihoods in forest commons: Synergies, trade-offs, and implications for REDD+. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 044017, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044017.
  1148. Gebara, M., and A. Agrawal, 2017: Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: practical implications of the REDD+ discourse. Forests, 8, 66, doi:10.3390/f8030066.
  1149. Lambin, E.F. et al. 2018: The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 109–116, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1.
  1150. van der Ven, H. and B. Cashore, 2018: Forest certification: The challenge of measuring impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 32, 104–111, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.06.001.
  1151. an der Ven, H., C. Rothacker, and B. Cashore, 2018: Do eco-labels prevent deforestation? Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa sectors. Glob. Environ. Chang., 52, 141–151, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.07.002.
  1152. Lyons-White, J. and A.T. Knight, 2018: Palm oil supply chain complexity impedes implementation of corporate no-deforestation commitments. Glob. Environ. Chang., 50, 303–313, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2018.04.012.
  1153. Lambin, E.F. et al. 2018: The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 109–116, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1.
  1154. GEF, 2018: GEF-7 Replenishment, Programming Directions. Global Environment Facility (GEF), Washington DC,, 155 pp.
  1155. Klein, R.J.T. et al. 2014: Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 899–943.
  1156. Dow, K., F. Berkhout, and B.L. Preston, 2013a: Limits to adaptation to climate change: A risk approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 384–391, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.07.005.
  1157. Barnett, J. et al. 2015: From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc., 20, art5, doi:10.5751/ES-07698-200305.
  1158. Filho, W.L., and J. Nalau, (eds.) 2018: Limits to Climate Change Adaptation. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–410 pp.
  1159. Dow, K., F. Berkhout, and B.L. Preston, 2013a: Limits to adaptation to climate change: A risk approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 384–391, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.07.005.
  1160. Dow, K., F. Berkhout, and B.L. Preston, 2013a: Limits to adaptation to climate change: A risk approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 384–391, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.07.005.
  1161. Adger, W.N. et al. 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Change, 93, 335–354, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
  1162. Black, R., S.R.G. Bennett, S.M. Thomas, and J.R. Beddington, 2011: Climate change: Migration as adaptation. Nat. 2011 4787370.
  1163. Tacoli, C., 2009: Crisis or adaptation? Migration and climate change in a context of high mobility. Environ. Urban., 21, 513–525, doi:10.1177/0956247809342182.
  1164. Bardsley, D.K., and G.J. Hugo, 2010: Migration and climate change: examining thresholds of change to guide effective adaptation decision-making. Popul. Environ., 32, 238–262, doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0126-9.
  1165. Adger, W.N. et al. 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Change, 93, 335–354, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
  1166. Upadhyay, H., D. Mohan, and D. Mohan, 2017: Migrating to adapt? Climate Change, Vulnerability and Migration, Routledge India, pp. 43–58.
  1167. Nalau, J., J. Handmer, J. Nalau, and J. Handmer, 2018: Improving development outcomes and reducing disaster risk through planned community relocation. Sustainability, 10, 3545, doi:10.3390/su10103545.
  1168. Gharbaoui, D., and J. Blocher, 2016: The Reason Land Matters: Relocation as Adaptation to Climate Change in Fiji Islands. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 149–173.
  1169. Luetz, J., 2018: Climate Change and Migrationin Bangladesh: Empirically Derived Lessons and Opportunities for Policy Makers and Practitioners. In: Limits to Climate Change Adaptation [W.L. Filho and J. Nalau (eds.)]. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, Heidelberg, 59–105.
  1170. Landauer, M. and S. Juhola, 2019: Loss and Damage in the Rapidly Changing Arctic. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 425–447.
  1171. Van der Geest, K., and M. Schindler, 2016: Case Study Report: Loss And Damage From a Catastrophic Landslide in Sindhupalchok District, Nepal. Report No.1. United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Bonn, Germany, 1–96 pp.
  1172. Poesen, J., J. Nachtergaele, G. Verstraeten, and C. Valentin, 2003: Gully erosion and environmental change: Importance and research needs. CATENA, 50, 91–133, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00143-1.
  1173. Folke, C. et al. 2010: Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc., 15.
  1174. Quinlan, A.E., M. Berbés-Blázquez, L.J. Haider, and G.D. Peterson, 2016: Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 677–687, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12550.
  1175. Cote, M., and A.J. Nightingale, 2012: Resilience thinking meets social theory. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 36, 475–489, doi:10.1177/0309132511425708.
  1176. Olsson, L., A. Jerneck, H. Thoren, J. Persson, and D. O’Byrne, 2015: Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Sci. Adv., 1, e1400217–e1400217, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400217.
  1177. Cretney, R., 2014: Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-ecological resilience. Geogr. Compass, 8, 627–640, doi:10.1111/gec3.12154.
  1178. Béné, C., R.G. Wood, A. Newsham, and M. Davies, 2012: Resilience: New utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes. IDS Work. Pap., 2012, 1–61, doi:10.1111/j.2040-0209.2012.00405.x.
  1179. Joseph, J., 2013: Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Resilience, 1, 38–52, doi:10.1080/21693293.2013.765741.
  1180. Weichselgartner, J., and I. Kelman, 2015: Geographies of resilience. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 39, 249–267, doi:10.1177/0309132513518834.
  1181. Strunz, S., 2012: Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to the concept of resilience. Ecol. Econ., 76, 112–118, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2012.02.012.
  1182. Brown, K., 2014: Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience? Prog. Hum. Geogr., 38, 107–117, doi:10.1177/0309132513498837.
  1183. Grimm, V., and J.M. Calabrese, 2011: What Is Resilience? A Short Introduction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 3–13.
  1184. Thorén, H., and L. Olsson, 2018: Is resilience a normative concept? Resilience, 6, 112–128, doi:10.1080/21693293.2017.1406842.
  1185. Thorén, H., and L. Olsson, 2018: Is resilience a normative concept? Resilience, 6, 112–128, doi:10.1080/21693293.2017.1406842.
  1186. Quinlan, A.E., M. Berbés-Blázquez, L.J. Haider, and G.D. Peterson, 2016: Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 677–687, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12550.
  1187. Cutter, S.L. et al. 2008: A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang., 18, 598–606, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2008.07.013.
  1188. Prince, S. et al. 2018: Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem fundtions. The IPBES Assessment Report On Land Degradation And Restoration, [L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, (eds.)]. Bonn, Germany, pp. 221–338.
  1189. Tighe, M., C. Muñoz-Robles, N. Reid, B. Wilson, and S. V Briggs, 2012: Hydrological thresholds of soil surface properties identified using conditional inference tree analysis. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 37, 620–632, doi:10.1002/esp.3191.
  1190. Reyer, C.P.O. et al. 2015: Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: Approaches and challenges. J. Ecol., 103, 5–15, doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12337.
  1191. Thompson, I., B. Mackey, S. McNulty, and A. Mosseler, 2009: Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series, Vol. 43 of, 67.
  1192. Henry, B., B. Murphy, and A. Cowie, 2018: Sustainable Land Management for Environmental Benefits and Food Security. A synthesis report for the GEF. Washington DC, USA, 127 pp.
  1193. Winder, R., E. Nelson, and T. Beardmore, 2011: Ecological implications for assisted migration in Canadian forests. For. Chron., 87, 731–744, doi:10.5558/tfc2011-090.
  1194. Pedlar, J.H. et al. 2012: Placing forestry in the assisted migration debate. Bioscience, 62, 835–842, doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.10.
  1195. Felton, A., M. Lindbladh, J. Brunet, and Ö. Fritz, 2010: Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For. Ecol. Manage., 260, 939–947, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.011.
  1196. Liu, C.L.C., O. Kuchma, and K.V. Krutovsky, 2018a: Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Glob. Ecol. Conserv., 15, e00419, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00419.
  1197. O’Connell, D. et al. 2016: Designing projects in a rapidly changing world: Guidelines for embedding resilience, adaptation and transformation into sustainable development projects.C Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C.
  1198. Simonsen, S.H. et al. 2014: Applying resilience thinking: Seven principles for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Stockholm Resilience Centre, 20 p.
  1199. Laniak, G.F. et al. 2013: Integrated environmental modeling: A vision and roadmap for the future. Environ. Model. Softw., 39, 3–23, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.006.
  1200. Kassam, A. et al. 2013: Sustainable soil management is more than what and how crops are grown. In: Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems, [R. Lal and B.A. Stewart, (eds.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl, USA, 337–400.
  1201. IPCC, 2013a: Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1313–1390 pp.
  1202. Yengoh, G.T., and J. Ardö, 2014: Crop Yield Gaps in Cameroon. Ambio, 43, 175–190, doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0428-0.
  1203. Uitto, J.I., 2016: Evaluating the environment as a global public good. Evaluation, 22, 108–115, doi:10.1177/1356389015623135.
  1204. Tengberg, A., and S. Valencia, 2018: Integrated approaches to natural resources management – Theory and practice. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 1845–1857, doi:10.1002/ldr.2946.
  1205. Liniger, H.P., M. Studer, R.C. Hauert, and M. Gurtner, 2011: Sustainable Land Management in Practice. Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 13 pp.
  1206. Tengberg, A., F. Radstake, K. Zhang, and B. Dunn, 2016: Scaling up of sustainable land management in the Western People’s Republic of China: Evaluation of a 10-year partnership. L. Degrad. Dev., 27(2), 134–144, doi:10.1002/ldr.2270.
  1207. Geels, F.W., 2002: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy, 31, 1257–1274, doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
  1208. Wieczorek, A.J., 2018: Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy, 84, 204–216, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2017.08.008.
  1209. Mutoko, M.C., C.A. Shisanya, and L. Hein, 2014: Fostering technological transition to sustainable land management through stakeholder collaboration in the western highlands of Kenya. Land use policy, 41, 110–120, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2014.05.005.
  1210. Tengberg, A., and S. Valencia, 2018: Integrated approaches to natural resources management – Theory and practice. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 1845–1857, doi:10.1002/ldr.2946.
  1211. Lawhon, M. and J.T. Murphy, 2012: Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 36, 354–378, doi:10.1177/0309132511427960.
  1212. Wieczorek, A.J., 2018: Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy, 84, 204–216, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2017.08.008.
  1213. Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg, 2005: Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441–473, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
  1214. Ostrom, E., 2009: A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422, doi:10.1126/science.1172133.
  1215. Liniger, H.P., M. Studer, R.C. Hauert, and M. Gurtner, 2011: Sustainable Land Management in Practice. Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 13 pp.
  1216. Nkonya, E., A. Mirzabaev, and J. von Braun, 2016: Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. E. Nkonya, A. Mirzabaev, and J. Von Braun (Eds.) Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, 695 pp.
  1217. Tengberg, A., F. Radstake, K. Zhang, and B. Dunn, 2016: Scaling up of sustainable land management in the Western People’s Republic of China: Evaluation of a 10-year partnership. L. Degrad. Dev., 27(2), 134–144, doi:10.1002/ldr.2270.
  1218. Sayer, J. et al. 2013: Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 8349–8356, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110.
  1219. Bürgi, M. et al. 2017: Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the gap between theory and application. Sustainability, 9, 1371, doi:10.3390/su9081371.
  1220. Shames, S., M. Hill Clarvis, and G. Kissinger, 2014: Financing Strategies for Integrated Landscape Investment. EcoAgriculture Partners, Washington DC, USA, 1–60 pp.
  1221. Baumber, A., E. Berry, and G. Metternicht, 2019: Synergies between land degradation neutrality goals and existing market-based instruments. Environ. Sci. Policy, 94, 174–181, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.01.012.
  1222. United Nations, 2015: World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, NewYork, 517 pp.
  1223. Seto, K.C. et al. 2012: Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109, 7687–7692, doi:10.1073/pnas.1117622109.
  1224. Pataki, D.E. et al. 2011: Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 27–36, doi:10.1890/090220.
  1225. Royal Society, 2016: Resilience to Extreme Weather. The Royal Society, London, 124 pp.
  1226. Reed, M.S., and L. Stringer, 2016: Land Degradation, Desertification and Climate Change: Anticipating, Assessing and Adapting to Future Change. New York, NY: Routledge,178 pp.
  1227. Wentworth, J., 2017: Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services. POSTbrief from UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology London, UK, 26 pp.
  1228. Tzoulas, K. et al. 2007: Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan., 81, 167–178, doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2007.02.001.
  1229. Maes, J., and S. Jacobs, 2017: Nature-based solutions for europe’s sustainable development. Conserv. Lett., doi:10.1111/conl.12216.
  1230. European Union, 2015: Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Nature-Based Solut. Re-Naturing Cities, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels, Belgium, 74 pp. doi:10.2777/765301.
  1231. Davies, Z.G., J.L. Edmondson, A. Heinemeyer, J.R. Leake, and K.J. Gaston, 2011: Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 1125–1134, doi:10.1111/ Chapter 4 Land degradation 410 j.1365-2664.2011.02021.x.
  1232. Edmondson, J.L., Z.G. Davies, S.A. McCormack, K.J. Gaston, and J.R. Leake, 2011: Are soils in urban ecosystems compacted? A citywide analysis. Biol. Lett., 7(5), 771–774, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0260.
  1233. Edmondson, J.L., Z.G. Davies, S.A. McCormack, K.J. Gaston, and J.R. Leake, 2014: Land-cover effects on soil organic carbon stocks in a European city. Sci. Total Environ., 472, 444–453, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.025.
  1234. Yao, L., L. Chen, W. Wei, and R. Sun, 2015: Potential reduction in urban runoff by green spaces in Beijing: A scenario analysis. Urban For. Urban Green., 14(2), 300–308, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.014.
  1235. Gill, S., J. Handley, A. Ennos, and S. Pauleit, 2007: Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ., 33, 115–133, doi:10.2148/benv.33.1.115.
  1236. Fryd, O., S. Pauleit, and O. Bühler, 2011: The role of urban green space and trees in relation to climate change. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour., 6, 1–18, doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20116053.
  1237. Demuzere, M. et al. 2014: Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manage., 146, 107–115, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2014.07.025.
  1238. Sussams, L.W., W.R. Sheate, and R.P. Eales, 2015: Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? J. Environ. Manage., 147, 184–193, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2014.09.003.
  1239. Cavan, G. et al. 2014: Urban morphological determinants of temperature regulating ecosystem services in two African cities. Ecol. Indic., 42, 43–57, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2014.01.025.
  1240. Di Leo, N., F.J. Escobedo, and M. Dubbeling, 2016: The role of urban green infrastructure in mitigating land surface temperature in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 18, 373–392, doi:10.1007/s10668- 015-9653-y.
  1241. Feyisa, G.L., K. Dons, and H. Meilby, 2014: Efficiency of parks in mitigating urban heat island effect: An example from Addis Ababa. Landsc. Urban Plan., 123, 87–95, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.008.
  1242. Tonosaki K, Kawai S, T.K., 2014: Cooling Potential of Urban Green Spaces in Summer. Designing Low Carbon Societies in Landscapes. [Nakagoshi N, Mabuhay AJ. (eds.)]. Springer, Tokyo, pp. 15–34.
  1243. Zölch, T., J. Maderspacher, C. Wamsler, and S. Pauleit, 2016: Using green infrastructure for urban climate-proofing: An evaluation of heat mitigation measures at the micro-scale. Urban For. Urban Green., 20, 305–316, doi:10.1016/J.UFUG.2016.09.011.
  1244. Brown, S., and R.J. Nicholls, 2015: Subsidence and human influences in mega deltas: The case of the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna. Sci. Total Environ., 527–528, 362–374, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.04.124.
  1245. Klemm, W., B.G. Heusinkveld, S. Lenzholzer, and B. van Hove, 2015: Street greenery and its physical and psychological impact on thermal comfort. Landsc. Urban Plan., 138, 87–98, doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2015.02.009.
  1246. Coma, J. et al. 2017: Vertical greenery systems for energy savings in buildings: A comparative study between green walls and green facades. Build. Environ., 111, 228–237, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.014.
  1247. Gill, S., J. Handley, A. Ennos, and S. Pauleit, 2007: Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ., 33, 115–133, doi:10.2148/benv.33.1.115.
  1248. Munang, R., I. Thiaw, K. Alverson, and Z. Han, 2013: The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 5, 47–52, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.02.002.
  1249. Potschin, M., R.H. 2016: Routledge Handbook Of Ecosystem Services. [Roy H. . Haines-Young, R. Fish, and R.K. Turner, (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK, 629 pp.
  1250. World Bank, 2016: The Role of Green Infrastructure Solutions in Urban Flood Risk Management. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 18 pp.
  1251. Green Surge, 2016: Advancing Approaches And Strategies For UGI Planning And Implementation. Green Surge Report D5.2, Brussels, 204 pp.
  1252. Roberts, D. and S. O’Donoghue, 2013: Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Urban., 25, 299–319, doi:10.1177/0956247813500904.
  1253. Roberts, D., 2010: Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Urban. 22(2), 397–413, doi:10.1177/0956247810379948.
  1254. eThekwini Municipal Council, 2014: The Durban Climate Change Strategy. Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (EPCPD) and the Energy Office (EO) of eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa. 54 pp.
  1255. Crews, T.E. et al. 2016: Going where no grains have gone before: From early to mid-succession. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 223, 223–238, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.012.
  1256. Montgomery, D.R., 2007a: Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13268–13272, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104.
  1257. Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50.
  1258. Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, T.J. Krupnik, J. Six, and C. van Kessel, 2005: Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects and prospects. Adv. Agron., 87, 85–156, doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87003-8.
  1259. Bowles, T.M. et al. 2018: Addressing agricultural nitrogen losses in a changing climate. Nat. Sustain., 1, 399–408, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0106-0.
  1260. Basche, A., and M. DeLonge, 2017: The impact of continuous living cover on soil hydrologic properties: A meta-analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 81, 1179, doi:10.2136/sssaj2017.03.0077.
  1261. Wuest, S.B., J.D. Williams, and H.T. Gollany, 2006: Tillage and perennial grass effects on ponded infiltration for seven semi-arid loess soils. J. Soil Water Conserv., 61, 218–223.
  1262. Soussana, J.-F. et al. 2006: Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manag., 20, 219–230, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2004.tb00362.x.
  1263. Lal, R., 2003: Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ. Int., 29, 437–450, doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00192-7.
  1264. Soussana, J.-F. et al. 2006: Carbon cycling and sequestration opportunities in temperate grasslands. Soil Use Manag., 20, 219–230, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2004.tb00362.x.
  1265. McLauchlan, K., 2006: The nature and longevity of agricultural impacts on soil carbon and nutrients: A review. Ecosystems, 9, 1364–1382, doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0135-1.
  1266. Crews, T.E. et al. 2016: Going where no grains have gone before: From early to mid-succession. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 223, 223–238, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.012.
  1267. Jastrow, J.D., J.E. Amonette, and V.L. Bailey, 2007: Mechanisms controlling soil carbon turnover and their potential application for enhancing carbon sequestration. Clim. Change, 80, 5–23, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9178-3.
  1268. Schmidt, M.W.I. et al. 2011: Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478, 49–56, doi:10.1038/nature10386.
  1269. Saugier, B., 2001: Estimations of Global Terrestrial Productivity: Converging Toward a Single Number? Terrestrial Global Productivity, [J. Roy, (ed.)]. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, CA, USA, pp. 543–556.
  1270. Johnson, J.M.-F., R.R. Allmaras, and D.C. Reicosky, 2006: Estimating source carbon from crop residues, roots and rhizodeposits using the National Grain-Yield database. Agron. J., 98, 622, doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0179.
  1271. Grandy, A.S., and J.C. Neff, 2008: Molecular C dynamics downstream: The biochemical decomposition sequence and its impact on soil organic matter structure and function. Sci. Total Environ., 404, 297–307, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.11.013.
  1272. Cotrufo, M.F. et al. 2015: Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat. Geosci., 8, 776–779, doi:10.1038/ngeo2520.
  1273. Lehmann, J. and M. Kleber, 2015: The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528, 60, doi:10.1038/nature16069.
  1274. Grandy, A.S., and G.P. Robertson, 2006: Aggregation and organic matter protection following tillage of a previously uncultivated soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70, 1398, doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0313.
  1275. Grandy, A.S., and J.C. Neff, 2008: Molecular C dynamics downstream: The biochemical decomposition sequence and its impact on soil organic matter structure and function. Sci. Total Environ., 404, 297–307, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.11.013.
  1276. Paustian, K. et al. 2016: Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532, 49–57, doi:10.1038/nature17174.
  1277. Crews, T.E., and B.E. Rumsey, 2017: What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: A review. Sustain., 9, 1–18, doi:10.3390/su9040578.
  1278. Glover, J.D. et al. 2010: Harvested perennial grasslands provide ecological benchmarks for agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 137, 3–12, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.001.
  1279. Baker, B., 2017: Can modern agriculture be sustainable? Bioscience, 67, 325–331, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix018.
  1280. Cox, S., P. Nabukalu, A. Paterson, W. Kong, and S. Nakasagga, 2018: Development of Perennial Grain Sorghum. Sustainability, 10, 172, doi:10.3390/su10010172.
  1281. Huang, G. et al. 2018: Performance, economics and potential impact of perennial rice PR23 relative to annual rice cultivars at multiple locations in Yunnan Province of China. Sustainability, 10, 1086, doi:10.3390/su10041086.
  1282. Hayes, R. et al. 2018: The performance of early-generation perennial winter cereals at 21 sites across four continents. Sustainability, 10, 1124, doi:10.3390/su10041124.
  1283. DeHaan, L.R. et al. 2016: A pipeline strategy for grain crop domestication. Crop Sci., 56, 917–930, doi:10.2135/cropsci2015.06.0356.
  1284. DeHaan, L.R., and D.L. Van Tassel, 2014: Useful insights from evolutionary biology for developing perennial grain crops. Am. J. Bot., 101, 1801–1819, doi:10.3732/ajb.1400084.
  1285. DeHaan, L., M. Christians, J. Crain, and J. Poland, 2018: Development and evolution of an intermediate wheatgrass domestication program. Sustainability, 10, 1499, doi:10.3390/su10051499.
  1286. Cattani, D., and S. Asselin, 2018: Has selection for grain yield altered intermediate wheatgrass? Sustainability, 10, 688, doi:10.3390/su10030688.
  1287. Van Tassel, D.L. et al. 2017: Accelerating silphium domestication: An opportunity to develop new crop ideotypes and breeding strategies informed by multiple disciplines. Crop Sci., 57, 1274–1284, doi:10.2135/ cropsci2016.10.0834.
  1288. Batello, C. et al. 2014: Perennial Crops for Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy, 390 p.
  1289. Chen, S. et al. 2018: Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 4027–4032, doi:10.1073/ pnas.1700298114.
  1290. Schlautman, B., S. Barriball, C. Ciotir, S. Herron, and A. Miller, 2018: Perennial grain legume domestication phase I: Criteria for candidate species selection. Sustainability, 10, 730, doi:10.3390/su10030730.
  1291. Ryan, M.R. et al. 2018: Managing for multifunctionality in perennial grain crops. Bioscience, 68, 294–304, doi:10.1093/biosci/biy014.
  1292. Huang, G. et al. 2018: Performance, economics and potential impact of perennial rice PR23 relative to annual rice cultivars at multiple locations in Yunnan Province of China. Sustainability, 10, 1086, doi:10.3390/su10041086.
  1293. Crews, T.E. et al. 2016: Going where no grains have gone before: From early to mid-succession. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 223, 223–238, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.012.
  1294. Crews, T.E., and B.E. Rumsey, 2017: What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: A review. Sustain., 9, 1–18, doi:10.3390/su9040578.
  1295. Culman, S.W., S.S. Snapp, M. Ollenburger, B. Basso, and L.R. DeHaan, 2013: Soil and water quality rapidly responds to the perennial grain Kernza wheatgrass. Agron. J., 105, 735–744, doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0273.
  1296. Jastrow, J.D., J.E. Amonette, and V.L. Bailey, 2007: Mechanisms controlling soil carbon turnover and their potential application for enhancing carbon sequestration. Clim. Change, 80, 5–23, doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9178-3.
  1297. Post, W.M. and K.C. Kwon, 2000: Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: Processes and potential. Glob. Chang. Biol., 6, 317–327, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x.
  1298. La Scala Júnior, N., E. De Figueiredo, and A. Panosso, 2012: A review on soil carbon accumulation due to the management change of major Brazilian agricultural activities. Brazilian J. Biol., 72, 775–785, doi:10.1590/S1519- 69842012000400012.
  1299. Crews, T., W. Carton, and L. Olsson, 2018: Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Glob. Sustain., 1, e11, doi: 10.1017/sus.2018.11.
  1300. Soussana, J.-F. and G. Lemaire, 2014: Coupling carbon and nitrogen cycles for environmentally sustainable intensification of grasslands and crop-livestock systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 190, 9–17, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2013.10.012.
  1301. Hungate, B.A. et al. 2017: The economic value of grassland species for carbon storage. Sci. Adv., 3, e1601880, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601880.
  1302. Sprunger, C.D., S.W. Culman, G.P. Robertson, and S.S. Snapp, 2018: Perennial grain on a Midwest Alfisol shows no sign of early soil carbon gain. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 33, 360–372, doi:10.1017/S1742170517000138.
  1303. Chen, J. et al. 2018a: Prospects for the sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) on the Mongolian plateau: Five critical issues. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 123004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaf27b.
  1304. Yang, J. et al. 2019: Deformation of the aquifer system under groundwater level fluctuations and its implication for land subsidence control in the Tianjin coastal region. Environ. Monit. Assess., 191, 162, doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7296-4.
  1305. Schnitzer, S.A. et al. 2011: Soil microbes drive the classic plant diversity–productivity pattern. Ecology, 92, 296–303.
  1306. Culman, S.W., S.S. Snapp, M. Ollenburger, B. Basso, and L.R. DeHaan, 2013: Soil and water quality rapidly responds to the perennial grain Kernza wheatgrass. Agron. J., 105, 735–744, doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0273.
  1307. Abraha, M., S.K. Hamilton, J. Chen, and G.P. Robertson, 2018: Ecosystem carbon exchange on conversion of Conservation Reserve Program grasslands to annual and perennial cropping systems. Agric. For. Meteorol., 253–254, 151–160, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2018.02.016.
  1308. Korea Forest Service, 2017: Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Korea Forest Service, Ed. Deajeon, Korea.
  1309. Kim, G.S. et al. 2017: Effect of national-scale afforestation on forest water supply and soil loss in South Korea, 1971–2010. Sustainability, 9, 1017, doi:10.3390/su9061017.
  1310. Choi, S.-D., K. Lee, and Y.-S. Chang, 2002: Large rate of uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by planted forest biomass in Korea. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 1089, doi:10.1029/2002GB001914.
  1311. Choi, S.-D., K. Lee, and Y.-S. Chang, 2002: Large rate of uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by planted forest biomass in Korea. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 1089, doi:10.1029/2002GB001914.
  1312. Lee, J. et al. 2014: Estimating the carbon dynamics of South Korean forests from 1954 to 2012. Biogeosciences, 11, 4637–4650, doi:10.5194/bg-11-4637-2014.
  1313. Cui, G. et al. 2014: Estimation of forest carbon budget from land cover change in South and North Korea between 1981 and 2010. J. Plant Biol., 57, 225–238, doi:10.1007/s12374-014-0165-3.
  1314. Kim, M. et al. 2016: Estimating carbon dynamics in forest carbon pools under IPCC standards in South Korea using CBM-CFS3. iForest – Biogeosciences For., 10, 83–92, doi:10.3832/ifor2040-009.
  1315. Bae, J.S., R.W. Joo, Y.-S. Kim, and Y.S. Kim Yeon-Su., 2012: Forest transition in South Korea: Reality, path and drivers. Land use policy, 29, 198–207, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.007.
  1316. Kim, K.H. and L. Zsuffa, 1994: Reforestation of South Korea: The history and analysis of a unique case in forest tree improvement and forestry. 
For. Chron., 70, 58–64, doi:10.5558/tfc70058-1.
  1317. Lee, D.K., P.S. Park, and Y.D. Park, 2015: Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation in the Republic of Korea. In: Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests [J.A. Stanturf, (ed.)]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 230–245.
  1318. Kim, K.H. and L. Zsuffa, 1994: Reforestation of South Korea: The history and analysis of a unique case in forest tree improvement and forestry. 
For. Chron., 70, 58–64, doi:10.5558/tfc70058-1.
  1319. Lamb, D., 2014: Large-scale Forest Restoration. Routledge, London, UK, 302 pp.
  1320. Lee, J. et al. 2018a: Economic viability of the national-scale forestation program: The case of success in the Republic of Korea. Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 40–46, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.001.
  1321. Kim, G.S. et al. 2017: Effect of national-scale afforestation on forest water supply and soil loss in South Korea, 1971–2010. Sustainability, 9, 1017, doi:10.3390/su9061017.
  1322. Lee, J. et al. 2018a: Economic viability of the national-scale forestation program: The case of success in the Republic of Korea. Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 40–46, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.001.
  1323. UNDP, 2017: Valuation of Reforestation in Terms of Disaster Risk Reduction: A Technical Study From the Republic of Korea. Sustainable Development Goals Policy Brief Series No. 1, United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA, 80 pp.
  1324. Lee, S.G. et al. 2018b: Restoration plan for degraded forest in the democratic people’s republic of Korea considering suitable tree species and spatial distribution. Sustain., 10, 856, doi:10.3390/su10030856.
  1325. Liu, J., and J. Diamond, 2008: Science and government: Revolutionizing China’s environmental protection. Science, doi:10.1126/science.1150416.
  1326. Liu, J., and J. Diamond, 2008: Science and government: Revolutionizing China’s environmental protection. Science, doi:10.1126/science.1150416.
  1327. Yin, R., 2009: An Integrated Assessment of China’s Ecological Restoration Programs. Springer, NewYork, USA, 254 pp.
  1328. Tengberg, A., F. Radstake, K. Zhang, and B. Dunn, 2016: Scaling up of sustainable land management in the Western People’s Republic of China: Evaluation of a 10-year partnership. L. Degrad. Dev., 27(2), 134–144, doi:10.1002/ldr.2270.
  1329. Zhang, P. et al. 2000: China’s forest policy for the 21st century. Science, doi:10.1126/science.288.5474.2135.
  1330. Xu, J., R. Yin, Z. Li, and C. Liu, 2006: China’s ecological rehabilitation: Unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol. Econ., doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.008.
  1331. Liu, J.Z., W. Ouyang, W. Yang, and S.L. Xu, 2013: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, S.A. Levin, Academic Press, Waltham, MA, ed. 2. 372–384.
  1332. Xu, J., R. Yin, Z. Li, and C. Liu, 2006: China’s ecological rehabilitation: Unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol. Econ., doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.008.
  1333. Kolinjivadi, V.K. and T. Sunderland, 2012: A review of two payment schemes for watershed services from China and Vietnam: The interface of government control and PES theory. Ecol. Soc., 17(4), doi:10.5751/ES-05057-170410.
  1334. Bennett, M.T., 2008: China’s sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecol. Econ., 65(4), 699–711 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.017.
  1335. Liu, J., and J. Diamond, 2008: Science and government: Revolutionizing China’s environmental protection. Science, doi:10.1126/science.1150416.
  1336. Liu, J.Z., W. Ouyang, W. Yang, and S.L. Xu, 2013: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, S.A. Levin, Academic Press, Waltham, MA, ed. 2. 372–384.
  1337. Liu, F. et al. 2002: Role of Grain to Green Program in reducing loss of phosphorus from yellow soil in hilly areas. J. Soil Water Conserv. 16, 20–23.
  1338. Long, H.L. et al. 2006: Land use and soil erosion in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: Some socio-economic considerations on China’s Grain-for-Green Programme. L. Degrad. Dev., 17(6), 589–603, doi:10.1002/ldr.736.
  1339. Xu, J., R. Yin, Z. Li, and C. Liu, 2006: China’s ecological rehabilitation: Unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol. Econ., doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.008.
  1340. Liu, J.Z., W. Ouyang, W. Yang, and S.L. Xu, 2013: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, S.A. Levin, Academic Press, Waltham, MA, ed. 2. 372–384.
  1341. Liu, J., and J. Diamond, 2008: Science and government: Revolutionizing China’s environmental protection. Science, doi:10.1126/science.1150416.
  1342. Liu, F. et al. 2002: Role of Grain to Green Program in reducing loss of phosphorus from yellow soil in hilly areas. J. Soil Water Conserv. 16, 20