| 1. |
- Robroek, Björn J. M., et al.
(author)
-
Taxonomic and functional turnover are decoupled in European peat bogs
- 2017
-
In: Nature Communications. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2041-1723. ; 8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In peatland ecosystems, plant communities mediate a globally significant carbon store. The effects of global environmental change on plant assemblages are expected to be a factor in determining how ecosystem functions such as carbon uptake will respond. Using vegetation data from 56 Sphagnum-dominated peat bogs across Europe, we show that in these ecosystems plant species aggregate into two major clusters that are each defined by shared response to environmental conditions. Across environmental gradients, we find significant taxonomic turnover in both clusters. However, functional identity and functional redundancy of the community as a whole remain unchanged. This strongly suggests that in peat bogs, species turnover across environmental gradients is restricted to functionally similar species. Our results demonstrate that plant taxonomic and functional turnover are decoupled, which may allow these peat bogs to maintain ecosystem functioning when subject to future environmental change.
|
|
| 2. |
- Johansson, Daniel, 1975, et al.
(author)
-
Multi - model analyses of the economic and energy implications for China and India in a post-Kyoto climate regime
- 2012
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This paper presents a modeling comparison project on how the2°C climate target could affect economic and energy systems development in China and India. The analysis uses a framework that harmonizes baseline developments and soft-links seven national and global models being either economy wide (CGE models) or energy system models. The analysis is based on a global greenhouse gas emission pathway that aims at a radiative forcing of 2.9 W/m2 in 2100 and with a policy regime based on convergence of per capita CO2 emissions with emissions trading. Economic and energy implications for China and India vary across models. Decreased energy intensity is the most important abatement approach in the CGE models, while decreased carbon intensity is most important in the energy system models. Reliance on Coal without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is significantly reduced in most models, while CCS is a central abatement technology in energy system models, as is renewable and nuclear energy. Concerning economic impacts China bears in general a higher cost than India, as China benefits less from emissions trading. Costs are also affected by changes in fossil fuel prices, currency appreciation from capital inflow from carbon trading and timing of emission reductions.
|
|
| 3. |
- Johansson, Daniel, 1975, et al.
(author)
-
Multi-model comparison of the economic and energy implications for China and India in an international climate regime
- 2015
-
In: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1381-2386 .- 1573-1596. ; 20:8, s. 1335-1359
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper presents a modeling comparison on how stabilization of global climate change at about 2 °C above the pre-industrial level could affect economic and energy systems development in China and India. Seven General Equilibrium (CGE) and energy system models on either the global or national scale are soft-linked and harmonized with respect to population and economic assumptions. We simulate a climate regime, based on long-term convergence of per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, starting from the emission pledges presented in the Copenhagen Accord to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and allowing full emissions trading between countries. Under the climate regime, Indian emission allowances are allowed to grow more than the Chinese allowances, due to the per capita convergence rule and the higher population growth in India. Economic and energy implications not only differ among the two countries, but also across model types. Decreased energy intensity is the most important abatement approach in the CGE models, while decreased carbon intensity is most important in the energy system models. The reduction in carbon intensity is mostly achieved through deployment of carbon capture and storage, renewable energy sources and nuclear energy. The economic impacts are generally higher in China than in India, due to higher 2010–2050 cumulative abatement in China and the fact that India can offset more of its abatement cost though international emission trading.
|
|
| 4. |
- Maury, O., et al.
(author)
-
From shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) to oceanic system pathways (OSPs) : Building policy-relevant scenarios for global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries
- 2017
-
In: Global Environmental Change. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-3780 .- 1872-9495. ; 45, s. 203-216
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- There is an urgent need for developing policy-relevant future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This paper is a milestone toward this aim focusing on open ocean fisheries. We develop five contrasting Oceanic System Pathways (OSPs), based on the existing five archetypal worlds of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) developed for climate change research (e.g., Nakicenovic et al., 2014 and Riahi et al., 2016). First, we specify the boundaries of the oceanic social-ecological system under focus. Second, the two major driving forces of oceanic social-ecological systems are identified in each of three domains, viz., economy, management and governance. For each OSP (OSP1 sustainability first, OSP2 conventional trends, OSP3 dislocation, OSP4 global elite and inequality, OSP5 high tech and market), a storyline is outlined describing the evolution of the driving forces with the corresponding SSP. Finally, we compare the different pathways of oceanic social-ecological systems by projecting them in the two-dimensional spaces defined by the driving forces, in each of the economy, management and governance domains. We expect that the OSPs will serve as a common basis for future model based scenario studies in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
|
|
