Simulated unintended biogeochemical effects of idealized land cover and land management changes
Authors: Guo Suqi , Havermann Felix , De Hertog Steven , Thiery Wim , Luo Fei , Manola Iris , Coumou Dim , Lejeune Quentin , Schleussner Carl-Friedrich , Pongratz Julia 
Published: March 2022

&lt;p&gt;Land management and anthropogenic land cover change (LMLCC) plays a key role in the global carbon budget. For example, approximately half of the terrestrial biomass has been removed by LMLCC to date. Conversely, large potentials for carbon dioxide removal are invoked when vegetation-based negative emission technologies such as afforestation are discussed. Previous studies on LMLCC effects on the carbon cycle focused on the direct effect of tree removal or regrowth on carbon fluxes. However, a suite of studies has shown that LMLCC has an important influence on climate via biogeophysical effects through changes in energy and water fluxes. This influence can reach far beyond the location of LMLCC, called the &quot;nonlocal effect&quot; of LMLCC on climate. This raises the question if LMLCC can also have non-negligible effects on the carbon cycle remote from the LMLCC location itself. Our study establishes the concept how to investigate strength and patterns of the unintended nonlocal side-effects of LMLCC on carbon stocks and fluxes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Therefore, we conducted three different fully-coupled atmosphere-ocean-land experiments of idealized global cropland expansion with and without cropland irrigation as well as global re-/afforestation starting from today's state over a 150-year period under present day solar and trace gas forcing. All experiments were simulated by three different earth system models (MPI-ESM, EC-EARTH and CESM) to additionally quantify inter-model uncertainty and potentially uncover specific model biases. Here only CESM and MPI-ESM results are presented. To separate the local and nonlocal effects we use a checkerboard approach of grid boxes with and without LMLCC as proposed by Winckler et al., 2017. That is, we separate the carbon stock changes due to LMLCC at the location of LMLCC (local effect) from those induced by climate change caused by remote LMLCC (nonlocal effect). The total effect is the sum of both, the local and nonlocal effect.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The results of MPI-ESM (CESM) show that the global nonlocal effect on vegetation carbon (cVeg) accounts for 6% (3%) and 4% (0.6%) of total cVeg changes for crop expansion and afforestation simulation, respectively. Additionally, applying irrigation to crop expansion strongly increases the nonlocal climate induced cVeg change by 52% (610%) of total cVeg change for MPI-ESM (CESM).&amp;#160; The nonlocal effect of regions with largest carbon changes exhibit partly much larger nonlocal/total ratio. For instance, the nonlocal cVeg change in the Congo basin after cropland expansion accounts for more than 30% of total cVeg change. Furthermore, in some regions, the nonlocal effect of cVeg can be opposite to the local effect, and may thus reduce the total effect of the LMLCC practice compared to what would be expected from the local effect alone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Overall, the results from MPI-ESM and CESM indicate that the nonlocal carbon effect is important in key regions and can even become globally important for the irrigation practices. In addition to local effects, these unintended nonlocal effects need to be considered when the impacts of a LMLCC practice on the entire carbon cycle (e.g., also with regard to a potential carbon dioxide removal method) will be assessed.&lt;/p&gt;