Cited by 52Climate variability and modelsLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesForest Management and Policy

Quantifying the relative importance of land cover change from climate and land use in the representative concentration pathways

Open access
Davies‐Barnard, T., Valdes, P. J., Singarayer, J. S., Wiltshire, A. J., Jones, C. D.·2015·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

Climate change is projected to cause substantial alterations in vegetation distribution, but these have been given little attention in comparison to land use in the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios. Here we assess the climate‐induced land cover changes (CILCC) in the RCPs and compare them to land use land cover change (LULCC). To do this, we use an ensemble of simulations with and without LULCC in Earth System Model HadGEM2‐ES (Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model 2) ‐ for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5. We find that climate change causes an expansion poleward of vegetation that affects more land area than LULCC in all of the RCPs considered here. The terrestrial carbon changes from CILCC are also larger than for LULCC. When considering only forest, the LULCC is larger, but the CILCC is highly variable with the overall radiative forcing of the scenario. The CILCC forest increase compensates 90% of the global anthropogenic deforestation by 2100 in RCP8.5 but just 3% in RCP2.6. Overall, bigger land cover changes tend to originate from LULCC in the shorter term or lower radiative forcing scenarios and from CILCC in the longer term and higher radiative forcing scenarios. The extent to which CILCC could compensate for LULCC raises difficult questions regarding global forest and biodiversity offsetting, especially at different time scales. This research shows the importance of considering the relative size of CILCC to LULCC, especially with regard to the ecological effects of the different RCPs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2014gb004949

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Both RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 include substantial land-use change emissions, which are largely offset by climate-induced forest regrowth.

    “While both scenarios include substantial LUC emissions, these are largely offset by climate-induced forest regrowth 43 .”

    From Amazon dieback beyond the 21st century under high-emission scenarios by Earth System models (2025) · cites this paper as [43]

    In the Discussion and Conclusions (lines 379–381), the paper says climate-induced forest increase partially offsets the reduced carbon sink from land-use change; it also reports that climate-induced land-cover change offsets 91% of anthropogenic deforestation in RCP8.5 (lines 398–401). These findings support an offset in RCP8.5, but do not establish that land-use-change emissions themselves are largely offset. The paper does not address SSP5-8.5, so it cannot support the claim for both scenarios. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davies‐Barnard, T., Valdes, P. J., Singarayer, J. S., Wiltshire, A. J., & Jones, C. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Met Office (GB)
Corresponding author
Davies‐Barnard, T.
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2015-06
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
842-853
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W2170908720
Cited by
52
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Joint DECC/DEFRA Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Program (GA01101)
  • Natural Environment Research Council Dtg (NE/J500033/1)
  • European Commission's Seventh Framework Program (282672)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
land use and land cover change, RCP scenarios, terrestrial carbon, forest expansion, anthropogenic deforestation, radiative forcing, HadGEM2-ES, climate change scenarios, biodiversity offsetting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review