English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The quantification of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land use and landuse change (eLUC) is essential to understand the drivers of the atmosphericCO2 increase and to inform climate change mitigation policy. Reportedvalues in synthesis reports are commonly derived from different approaches(observation-driven bookkeeping and process-modelling) but recent work hasemphasized that inconsistencies between methods may imply substantialdifferences in eLUC estimates. However, a consistent quantification islacking and no concise modelling protocol for the separation of primary andsecondary components of eLUC has been established. Here, we reviewdifferences of eLUC quantification methods and apply an Earth System Model(ESM) of Intermediate Complexity to quantify them. We find that the magnitudeof effects due to merely conceptual differences between ESM and offlinevegetation model-based quantifications is ~ 20 % for today. Under afuture business-as-usual scenario, differences tend to increase further dueto slowing land conversion rates and an increasing impact of alteredenvironmental conditions on land-atmosphere fluxes. We establish how coupledEarth System Models may be applied to separate secondary component fluxes ofeLUC arising from the replacement of potential C sinks/sources and the landuse feedback and show that secondary fluxes derived from offline vegetationmodels are conceptually and quantitatively not identical to either, nor theirsum. Therefore, we argue that synthesis studies should resort to the "leastcommon denominator" of different methods, following the bookkeeping approachwhere only primary land use emissions are quantified under the assumption ofconstant environmental boundary conditions

Quantifying differences in land use emission estimates implied by definition discrepancies