Cited by 118Forest Management and PolicySoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsClimate Change Policy and Economics

Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal

Open access
Smith, Lydia J., Torn, Margaret S.·2013·Climatic Change

Abstract

Terrestrial biological atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (BCDR) through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECS), afforestation/reforestation, and forest and soil management is a family of proposed climate change mitigation strategies. Very high sequestration potentials for these strategies have been reported, but there has been no systematic analysis of the potential ecological limits to and environmental impacts of implementation at the scale relevant to climate change mitigation. In this analysis, we identified site-specific aspects of land, water, nutrients, and habitat that will affect local project-scale carbon sequestration and ecological impacts. Using this framework, we estimated global-scale land and resource requirements for BCDR, implemented at a rate of 1 Pg C y −1 . We estimate that removing 1 Pg C y −1 via tropical afforestation would require at least 7 × 10 6 ha y −1 of land, 0.09 Tg y −1 of nitrogen, and 0.2 Tg y −1 of phosphorous, and would increase evapotranspiration from those lands by almost 50 %. Switchgrass BECS would require at least 2 × 10 8 ha of land (20 times U.S. area currently under bioethanol production) and 20 Tg y −1 of nitrogen (20 % of global fertilizer nitrogen production), consuming 4 × 10 12 m 3 y −1 of water. While BCDR promises some direct (climate) and ancillary (restoration, habitat protection) benefits, Pg C-scale implementation may be constrained by ecological factors, and may compromise the ultimate goals of climate change mitigation.

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 · 10.1007/s10584-012-0682-3

Cites

106 of 106 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Brown S, Dushku A, Pearson T, Shoch D, Winsten J, Sweet S, Kadyszewski J (2004) Carbon supply from changes in management of forest, range, and agricultural lands of California. Winrock International for California Energy Commission 144
  2. De Klein C, Novoa R, Ogle S, Smith K, Rochette P, Wirth T (2006) Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. pp 1-25
  3. Kauppi P, Sedjo R, Apps M, Cerri C, Fujimori T, Janzen H, Krankina O, Makundi W, Marland G, Masera O, Nabuurs G, Razali W, Ravindranath RH (2001) Technological and economic potential of options to enhance, maintain, and manage biological carbon reservoirs and geo-engineering. In: Climate change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 301-343

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, L. J., & Torn, M. S.
Affiliations
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Torn, Margaret S.
Venue
Climatic Change
Published
2013-02-06
Volume
118
Issue
1
Pages
89-103
ISSN
  • 0165-0009 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1480
OpenAlex
W2081128850
Cited by
118
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Climatic Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (-AC02-05CH11231, Contract No. DE-AC02-05-CH11231, 05CH11231, No. DE-AC02-05-CH11231, DE AC02 05CH11231, DE-AC02-)
  • Office of Science (No. DE-AC02- 05-CH11231, DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02, 05CH11231, Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231)
  • Biological and Environmental Research (05CH11231, No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02 − 05CH11231, Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, afforestation, switchgrass, nitrogen fertilization, phosphorus utilization, water consumption, evapotranspiration, land requirements, soil carbon sequestration, ecological limits, climate change mitigation

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