Marijn van der Velde

Climate extremes and the carbon cycle

The terrestrial biosphere is a key component of the global carbon cycle and its carbon balance is strongly influenced by climate. Continuing environmental changes are thought to increase global terrestrial carbon uptake. But evidence is mounting that climate extremes such as droughts or storms can lead to a decrease in regional ecosystem carbon stocks and therefore have the potential to negate an expected increase in terrestrial carbon uptake. Here we explore the mechanisms and impacts of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle, and propose a pathway to improve our understanding of present and future impacts of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon budget.

Human-induced nitrogen–phosphorus imbalances alter natural and managed ecosystems across the globe

The availability of carbon from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and of nitrogen from various human-induced inputs to ecosystems is continuously increasing; however, these increases are not paralleled by a similar increase in phosphorus inputs. The inexorable change in the stoichiometry of carbon and nitrogen relative to phosphorus has no equivalent in Earths history. Here we report the profound and yet uncertain consequences of the human imprint on the phosphorus cycle and nitrogen:phosphorus stoichiometry for the structure, functioning and diversity of terrestrial and aquatic organisms and ecosystems. A mass balance approach is used to show that limited phosphorus and nitrogen availability are likely to jointly reduce future carbon storage by natural ecosystems during this century. Further, if phosphorus fertilizers cannot be made increasingly accessible, the crop yields projections of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment imply an increase of the nutrient deficit in developing regions.

Effects of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: concepts, processes and potential future impacts

Extreme droughts, heat waves, frosts, precipitation, wind storms and other climate extremes may impact the structure, composition and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems, and thus carbon cycling and its feedbacks to the climate system. Yet, the interconnected avenues through which climate extremes drive ecological and physiological processes and alter the carbon balance are poorly understood. Here, we review the literature on carbon cycle relevant responses of ecosystems to extreme climatic events. Given that impacts of climate extremes are considered disturbances, we assume the respective general disturbance-induced mechanisms and processes to also operate in an extreme context. The paucity of well-defined studies currently renders a quantitative meta-analysis impossible, but permits us to develop a deductive framework for identifying the main mechanisms (and coupling thereof) through which climate extremes may act on the carbon cycle. We find that ecosystem responses can exceed the duration of the climate impacts via lagged effects on the carbon cycle. The expected regional impacts of future climate extremes will depend on changes in the probability and severity of their occurrence, on the compound effects and timing of different climate extremes, and on the vulnerability of each land-cover type modulated by management. Although processes and sensitivities differ among biomes, based on expert opinion, we expect forests to exhibit the largest net effect of extremes due to their large carbon pools and fluxes, potentially large indirect and lagged impacts, and long recovery time to regain previous stocks. At the global scale, we presume that droughts have the strongest and most widespread effects on terrestrial carbon cycling. Comparing impacts of climate extremes identified via remote sensing vs. ground-based observational case studies reveals that many regions in the (sub-)tropics are understudied. Hence, regional investigations are needed to allow a global upscaling of the impacts of climate extremes on global carbon–climate feedbacks.

Mapping global cropland and field size

A new 1 km global IIASA-IFPRI cropland percentage map for the baseline year 2005 has been developed which integrates a number of individual cropland maps at global to regional to national scales. The individual map products include existing global land cover maps such as GlobCover 2005 and MODIS v.5, regional maps such as AFRICOVER and national maps from mapping agencies and other organizations. The different products are ranked at the national level using crowdsourced data from Geo-Wiki to create a map that reflects the likelihood of cropland. Calibration with national and subnational crop statistics was then undertaken to distribute the cropland within each country and subnational unit. The new IIASA-IFPRI cropland product has been validated using very high-resolution satellite imagery via Geo-Wiki and has an overall accuracy of 82.4%. It has also been compared with the EarthStat cropland product and shows a lower root mean square error on an independent data set collected from Geo-Wiki. The first ever global field size map was produced at the same resolution as the IIASA-IFPRI cropland map based on interpolation of field size data collected via a Geo-Wiki crowdsourcing campaign. A validation exercise of the global field size map revealed satisfactory agreement with control data, particularly given the relatively modest size of the field size data set used to create the map. Both are critical inputs to global agricultural monitoring in the frame of GEOGLAM and will serve the global land modelling and integrated assessment community, in particular for improving land use models that require baseline cropland information. These products are freely available for downloading from the http://cropland.geo-wiki.org website.

Highlighting continued uncertainty in global land cover maps for the user community

In the last 10 years a number of new global datasets have been created and new, more sophisticated algorithms have been designed to classify land cover. GlobCover and MODIS v.5 are the most recent global land cover products available, where GlobCover (300 m) has the finest spatial resolution of other comparable products such as MODIS v.5 (500 m) and GLC-2000 (1 km). This letter shows that the thematic accuracy in the cropland domain has decreased when comparing these two latest products. This disagreement is also evident spatially when examining maps of cropland and forest disagreement between GLC-2000, MODIS and GlobCover. The analysis highlights the continued uncertainty surrounding these products, with a combined forest and cropland disagreement of 893 Mha (GlobCover versus MODIS v.5). This letter suggests that data sharing efforts and the provision of more in situ data for training, calibration and validation are very important conditions for improving future global land cover products.

Comparing the Quality of Crowdsourced Data Contributed by Expert and Non-Experts

There is currently a lack of in-situ environmental data for the calibration and validation of remotely sensed products and for the development and verification of models. Crowdsourcing is increasingly being seen as one potentially powerful way of increasing the supply of in-situ data but there are a number of concerns over the subsequent use of the data, in particular over data quality. This paper examined crowdsourced data from the Geo-Wiki crowdsourcing tool for land cover validation to determine whether there were significant differences in quality between the answers provided by experts and non-experts in the domain of remote sensing and therefore the extent to which crowdsourced data describing human impact and land cover can be used in further scientific research. The results showed that there was little difference between experts and non-experts in identifying human impact although results varied by land cover while experts were better than non-experts in identifying the land cover type. This suggests the need to create training materials with more examples in those areas where difficulties in identification were encountered, and to offer some method for contributors to reflect on the information they contribute, perhaps by feeding back the evaluations of their contributed data or by making additional training materials available. Accuracies were also found to be higher when the volunteers were more consistent in their responses at a given location and when they indicated higher confidence, which suggests that these additional pieces of information could be used in the development of robust measures of quality in the future.

Using control data to determine the reliability of volunteered geographic information about land cover

There is much interest in using volunteered geographic information (VGI) in formal scientific analyses. This analysis uses VGI describing land cover that was captured using a web-based interface, linked to Google Earth. A number of control points, for which the land cover had been determined by experts allowed measures of the reliability of each volunteer in relation to each land cover class to be calculated. Geographically weighted kernels were used to estimate surfaces of volunteered land cover information accuracy and then to develop spatially distributed correspondences between the volunteer land cover class and land cover from 3 contemporary global datasets (GLC-2000, GlobCover and MODIS v.5). Specifically, a geographically weighted approach calculated local confusion matrices (correspondences) at each location in a central African study area and generated spatial distributions of users, producers, portmanteau, and partial portmanteau accuracies. These were used to evaluate the global datasets and to infer which of them was ‘best’ at describing Tree cover at each location in the study area. The resulting maps show where specific global datasets are recommended for analyses requiring Tree cover information. The methods presented in this research suggest that some of the concerns about the quality of VGI can be addressed through careful data collection, the use of control points to evaluate volunteer performance and spatially explicit analyses. A research agenda for the use and analysis of VGI about land cover is outlined.

Downgrading Recent Estimates of Land Available for Biofuel Production

Recent estimates of additional land available for bioenergy production range from 320 to 1411 million ha. These estimates were generated from four scenarios regarding the types of land suitable for bioenergy production using coarse-resolution inputs of soil productivity, slope, climate, and land cover. In this paper, these maps of land availability were assessed using high-resolution satellite imagery. Samples from these maps were selected and crowdsourcing of Google Earth images was used to determine the type of land cover and the degree of human impact. Based on this sample, a set of rules was formulated to downward adjust the original estimates for each of the four scenarios that were previously used to generate the maps of land availability for bioenergy production. The adjusted land availability estimates range from 56 to 1035 million ha depending upon the scenario and the ruleset used when the sample is corrected for bias. Large forest areas not intended for biofuel production purposes were present in all scenarios. However, these numbers should not be considered as definitive estimates but should be used to highlight the uncertainty in attempting to quantify land availability for biofuel production when using coarse-resolution inputs with implications for further policy development.

The Need for Improved Maps of Global Cropland

Food security is a key global concern. By 2050, the global population will exceed 9 billion, and a 50% increase in annual agricultural output will be required to keep up with demand. There are significant additional pressures on existing agricultural land through increased competition from the biofuel sector and the need to elevate feed production, which is being driven by higher levels of meat consumption in low- and middle-income countries.

Uncertainty in soil data can outweigh climate impact signals in global crop yield simulations.

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) are increasingly used for agro-environmental assessments and estimates of climate change impacts on food production. Recently, the influence of climate data and weather variability on GGCM outcomes has come under detailed scrutiny, unlike the influence of soil data. Here we compare yield variability caused by the soil type selected for GGCM simulations to weather-induced yield variability. Without fertilizer application, soil-type-related yield variability generally outweighs the simulated inter-annual variability in yield due to weather. Increasing applications of fertilizer and irrigation reduce this variability until it is practically negligible. Importantly, estimated climate change effects on yield can be either negative or positive depending on the chosen soil type. Soils thus have the capacity to either buffer or amplify these impacts. Our findings call for improvements in soil data available for crop modelling and more explicit accounting for soil variability in GGCM simulations.