Tobias Seydewitz, Prajal Pradhan, David M. Landholm, Juergen P. Kropp
{"title":"热带地区森林砍伐的驱动因素及其对碳储量和生态系统服务的影响","authors":"Tobias Seydewitz, Prajal Pradhan, David M. Landholm, Juergen P. Kropp","doi":"10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Globally, deforestation produces anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing substantially to climate change. Forest cover changes also have large impacts on ecosystem services. Deforestation is the dominant type of land cover change in tropical regions, and this land cover change relates to distinct causes recognized as direct deforestation drivers. Understanding these drivers requires a significant effort. Further, GHG emissions due to deforestation are quantified only in terms of biomass removal, while linking emissions from soil organic carbon (SOC) loss to deforestation is lacking. A closer picture of associated ecosystem service changes due to deforestation is also needed. We analyze for 2001–2010: (1) the magnitudes of deforestation drivers, (2) the related carbon loss, and (3) the ecosystem service value change. On the global scale, agriculture (90.3%) is the primary deforestation driver, where grassland expansion contributed the most (37.5%). The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and spatial distribution on the continental scale. The total carbon loss by biomass removal and SOC loss accounted for 8797 Mt C and 1185 Mt C, respectively. Furthermore, tropical deforestation caused the ESV loss of 408 billion Int.$ year<span>\\(^{-1}\\)</span>, while the resulting land cover has the ESV of 345 billion Int.$ year<span>\\(^{-1}\\)</span>. Our findings highlight that agriculture substantially contributes to global carbon loss and ecosystem service loss due to deforestation. The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and distribution for different continents. Further, we highlight the danger of putting a monetary value on nature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100099,"journal":{"name":"Anthropocene Science","volume":"2 1","pages":"81 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deforestation Drivers Across the Tropics and Their Impacts on Carbon Stocks and Ecosystem Services\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Seydewitz, Prajal Pradhan, David M. Landholm, Juergen P. Kropp\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Globally, deforestation produces anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing substantially to climate change. Forest cover changes also have large impacts on ecosystem services. Deforestation is the dominant type of land cover change in tropical regions, and this land cover change relates to distinct causes recognized as direct deforestation drivers. Understanding these drivers requires a significant effort. Further, GHG emissions due to deforestation are quantified only in terms of biomass removal, while linking emissions from soil organic carbon (SOC) loss to deforestation is lacking. A closer picture of associated ecosystem service changes due to deforestation is also needed. We analyze for 2001–2010: (1) the magnitudes of deforestation drivers, (2) the related carbon loss, and (3) the ecosystem service value change. On the global scale, agriculture (90.3%) is the primary deforestation driver, where grassland expansion contributed the most (37.5%). The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and spatial distribution on the continental scale. The total carbon loss by biomass removal and SOC loss accounted for 8797 Mt C and 1185 Mt C, respectively. Furthermore, tropical deforestation caused the ESV loss of 408 billion Int.$ year<span>\\\\(^{-1}\\\\)</span>, while the resulting land cover has the ESV of 345 billion Int.$ year<span>\\\\(^{-1}\\\\)</span>. Our findings highlight that agriculture substantially contributes to global carbon loss and ecosystem service loss due to deforestation. The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and distribution for different continents. Further, we highlight the danger of putting a monetary value on nature.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropocene Science\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"81 - 92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropocene Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropocene Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
在全球范围内,森林砍伐产生人为温室气体(GHG)排放,大大加剧了气候变化。森林覆盖变化对生态系统服务也有很大影响。森林砍伐是热带地区土地覆盖变化的主要类型,这种土地覆盖变化与被认为是森林砍伐直接驱动因素的不同原因有关。理解这些驱动因素需要付出巨大的努力。此外,森林砍伐造成的温室气体排放仅以生物量去除来量化,而缺乏将土壤有机碳(SOC)损失的排放与森林砍伐联系起来。还需要更详细地了解森林砍伐造成的相关生态系统服务变化。我们分析了2001-2010年森林砍伐驱动力的大小,相关的碳损失,以及生态系统服务价值的变化。在全球范围内,农业(90.3%) is the primary deforestation driver, where grassland expansion contributed the most (37.5%). The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and spatial distribution on the continental scale. The total carbon loss by biomass removal and SOC loss accounted for 8797 Mt C and 1185 Mt C, respectively. Furthermore, tropical deforestation caused the ESV loss of 408 billion Int.$ year\(^{-1}\), while the resulting land cover has the ESV of 345 billion Int.$ year\(^{-1}\). Our findings highlight that agriculture substantially contributes to global carbon loss and ecosystem service loss due to deforestation. The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and distribution for different continents. Further, we highlight the danger of putting a monetary value on nature.
Deforestation Drivers Across the Tropics and Their Impacts on Carbon Stocks and Ecosystem Services
Globally, deforestation produces anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing substantially to climate change. Forest cover changes also have large impacts on ecosystem services. Deforestation is the dominant type of land cover change in tropical regions, and this land cover change relates to distinct causes recognized as direct deforestation drivers. Understanding these drivers requires a significant effort. Further, GHG emissions due to deforestation are quantified only in terms of biomass removal, while linking emissions from soil organic carbon (SOC) loss to deforestation is lacking. A closer picture of associated ecosystem service changes due to deforestation is also needed. We analyze for 2001–2010: (1) the magnitudes of deforestation drivers, (2) the related carbon loss, and (3) the ecosystem service value change. On the global scale, agriculture (90.3%) is the primary deforestation driver, where grassland expansion contributed the most (37.5%). The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and spatial distribution on the continental scale. The total carbon loss by biomass removal and SOC loss accounted for 8797 Mt C and 1185 Mt C, respectively. Furthermore, tropical deforestation caused the ESV loss of 408 billion Int.$ year\(^{-1}\), while the resulting land cover has the ESV of 345 billion Int.$ year\(^{-1}\). Our findings highlight that agriculture substantially contributes to global carbon loss and ecosystem service loss due to deforestation. The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and distribution for different continents. Further, we highlight the danger of putting a monetary value on nature.