1. Luyssaert S, Jammet M, Stoy PC, Estel S, Pongratz J, Ceschia E, et al. Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;4(5):389–93. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pongratz J, Dolman H, Don A, Erb KH, Fuchs R, Herold M, et al. Models meet data: Challenges and opportunities in implementing land management in Earth system models. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(4):1470–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

  4. Jia G,  Shevliakova E,  Artaxo P,  De  Noblet-Ducoudré N,  Houghton R,  House J,  Kitajima K,  Lennard C, A Popp, Sirin A, Sukumar R, Verchot L. Land–climate interactions. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas  fluxes  in  terrestrial  ecosystems  [P.R.  Shukla,  J.  Skea,  E.  Calvo  Buendia,  V.  Masson-Delmotte,  H.-O.  Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M, Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. 2019.

  5. Duveiller G, Caporaso L, Abad-Viñas R, Perugini L, Grassi G, Arneth A et al. Local biophysical effects of land use and land cover change: towards an assessment tool for policy makers. Land Use Policy. 2020;91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104382

  6. Bonan G. Climate change and terrestrial ecosystem modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlson KM, Gerber JS, Mueller ND, Herrero M, MacDonald GK, Brauman KA, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;7(1):63–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3158.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hong C, Burney JA, Pongratz J, Nabel J, Mueller ND, Jackson RB, et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature. 2021;589(7843):554–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03138-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ciais P, Sabine C, Bala G, Bopp L, Brovkin V, Canadell J et al. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

  10. Friedlingstein P, O’Sullivan M, Jones MW, Andrew RM, Hauck J, Olsen A, et al. Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth Sys Sci Data. 2020;12(4):3269–340. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tian H, Xu R, Canadell JG, Thompson RL, Winiwarter W, Suntharalingam P, et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature. 2020;586(7828):248–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Saunois M, Stavert AR, Poulter B, Bousquet P, Canadell JG, Jackson RB, et al. The global methane Budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2020;12(3):1561–623. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bright RM, Davin E, O’Halloran T, Pongratz J, Zhao K, Cescatti A. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7(4):296–302. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Duveiller G, Hooker J, Cescatti A. The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02810-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Winckler J, Reick CH, Pongratz J. Robust identification of local biogeophysical effects of land-cover change in a global climate model. J Clim. 2017;30(3):1159–76. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0067.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gulev SK, P. W. Thorne, J. Ahn, F. J. Dentener, C. M. Domingues, S. Gerland, D. Gong, D. S. Kaufman, H. C. Nnamchi, J. Quaas, J. A. Rivera, S. Sathyendranath, S. L. Smith, B. Trewin, K. von Shuckmann, R. S. Vose. Changing State of the Climate System. In: Masson-Delmotte V, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou, editor. Climate change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge University Press. In Press; 2021.

  17. Canadell Josep G. JG, P. M. S. Monteiro, M. H. Costa, L. Cotrim da Cunha, P. M. Cox, A. V. Eliseev, S. Henson, M. Ishii, S. Jaccard, C. Koven, A. Lohila, P. K. Patra, S. Piao, J. Rogelj, S. Syampungani, S. Zaehle, K. Zickfeld. Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. In: Masson-Delmotte V, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou, editor. Climate change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge University Press. In Press; 2021.

  18. Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA, Senior CA, Stevens B, Stouffer RJ, et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9(5):1937–58. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature. 2011;478(7369):337–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11645–50. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mori AS, Dee LE, Gonzalez A, Ohashi H, Cowles J, Wright AJ, et al. Biodiversity–productivity relationships are key to nature-based climate solutions. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(6):543–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01062-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Petrescu AMR, Peters GP, Janssens-Maenhout G, Ciais P, Tubiello FN, Grassi G, et al. European anthropogenic AFOLU greenhouse gas emissions: a review and benchmark data. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2020;12(2):961–1001. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-961-2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pongratz J, Reick CH, Houghton RA, House JI. Terminology as a key uncertainty in net land use and land cover change carbon flux estimates. Earth Syst Dyn. 2014;5(1):177–95. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-177-2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawrence DM, Hurtt GC, Arneth A, Brovkin V, Calvin KV, Jones AD, et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9(9):2973–98. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Obermeier WA, Nabel JEMS, Loughran T, Hartung K, Bastos A, Havermann F, et al. Modelled land use and land cover change emissions – a spatio-temporal comparison of different approaches. Earth Syst Dyn. 2021;12(2):635–70. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tian H, Yang J, Lu C, Xu R, Canadell JG, Jackson RB, et al. The Global N2O Model Intercomparison Project. Bull Am Meteor Soc. 2018;99(6):1231–51. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-17-0212.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Blyth EM, Arora VK, Clark DB, Dadson SJ, De Kauwe MG, Lawrence DM, et al. Advances in land surface modelling. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2021;7(2):45–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00171-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gasser T, Crepin L, Quilcaille Y, Houghton RA, Ciais P, Obersteiner M. Historical CO2 emissions from land use and land cover change and their uncertainty. Biogeosciences. 2020;17(15):4075–101. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4075-2020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hansis E, Davis SJ, Pongratz J. Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2015;29(8):1230–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gb004997.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Houghton RA, Nassikas AA. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2017;31(3):456–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gb005546.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis SJ, Burney JA, Pongratz J, Caldeira K. Methods for attributing land-use emissions to products. Carbon Management. 2014;5(2):233–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2014.913867.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson RL, Lassaletta L, Patra PK, Wilson C, Wells KC, Gressent A, et al. Acceleration of global N2O emissions derived from atmosphericseen from two decades of atmospheric inversion. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(12):993–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0613-7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fujita R, Morimoto S, Maksyutov S, Kim HS, Arshinov M, Brailsford G et al. Global and regional CH4 emissions for 1995–2013 derived from atmospheric CH4, δ13 C-CH4, and δD-CH4 observations and a chemical transport model. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2020; 125(14). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032903

  34. Palmer PI, Feng L, Baker D, Chevallier F, Bosch H, Somkuti P. Net carbon emissions from African biosphere dominate pan-tropical atmospheric CO2 signal. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3344. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11097-w.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Arora VK, Katavouta A, Williams RG, Jones CD, Brovkin V, Friedlingstein P, et al. Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences. 2020;17(16):4173–222. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pitman AJ, de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Cruz FT, Davin EL, Bonan GB, Brovkin V et al. Uncertainties in climate responses to past land cover change: first results from the LUCID intercomparison study. Geophys Res Lett. 2009; 36(14). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009gl039076

  37. Boysen LR, Brovkin V, Arora VK, Cadule P, de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Kato E, et al. Global and regional effects of land-use change on climate in 21st century simulations with interactive carbon cycle. Earth Syst Dyn. 2014;5(2):309–19. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-309-2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lejeune Q, Seneviratne SI, Davin EL. Historical land-cover change impacts on climate: comparative assessment of LUCID and CMIP5 multimodel experiments. J Clim. 2017;30(4):1439–59. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-16-0213.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Brovkin V, Boysen L, Arora VK, Boisier JP, Cadule P, Chini L, et al. Effect of anthropogenic land-use and land-cover changes on climate and land carbon storage in CMIP5 projections for the twenty-first century. J Clim. 2013;26(18):6859–81. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00623.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kumar S, Dirmeyer PA, Merwade V, DelSole T, Adams JM, Niyogi D. Land use/cover change impacts in CMIP5 climate simulations: a new methodology and 21st century challenges. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2013;118(12):6337–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Malyshev S, Shevliakova E, Stouffer RJ, Pacala SW. Contrasting local versus regional effects of land-use-change-induced heterogeneity on historical climate: analysis with the GFDL Earth system model. J Clim. 2015;28(13):5448–69. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00586.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen L, Dirmeyer PA. Reconciling the disagreement between observed and simulated temperature responses to deforestation. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):202. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14017-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Devaraju N, de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Quesada B, Bala G. Quantifying the relative importance of direct and indirect biophysical effects of deforestation on surface temperature and teleconnections. J Clim. 2018;31(10):3811–29. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0563.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Juang J-Y, Katul G, Siqueira M, Stoy P, Novick K. Separating the effects of albedo from eco-physiological changes on surface temperature along a successional chronosequence in the southeastern United States. Geophys Res Lett. 2007; 34(21) https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl031296

  45. Chen L, Dirmeyer PA. Adapting observationally based metrics of biogeophysical feedbacks from land cover/land use change to climate modeling. Environ Res Lett. 2016; 11(3) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034002

  46. Winckler J, Reick CH, Bright RM, Pongratz J. Importance of surface roughness for the local biogeophysical effects of deforestation. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2019;124(15):8605–18. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd030127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Davin EL, de Noblet-Ducoudré N. Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: radiative versus nonradiative processes. J Clim. 2010;23(1):97–112. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jcli3102.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fan L, Wigneron JP, Ciais P, Chave J, Brandt M, Fensholt R, et al. Satellite-observed pantropical carbon dynamics. Nat Plants. 2019;5(9):944–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0478-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Tagesson T, Schurgers G, Horion S, Ciais P, Tian F, Brandt M, et al. Recent divergence in the contributions of tropical and boreal forests to the terrestrial carbon sink. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4(2):202–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1090-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Harris NL, Gibbs DA, Baccini A, Birdsey RA, de Bruin S, Farina M, et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(3):234–40. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Baccini A, Walker W, Carvalho L, Farina M, Sulla-Menashe D, Houghton RA. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science. 2017;358(6360):230–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Maxwell SL, Evans T, Watson JEM, Morel A, Grantham H, Duncan A, et al. Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626. Sci Adv. 2019;5(10):eaax2546. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax2546.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Qin Y, Xiao X, Wigneron J-P, Ciais P, Brandt M, Fan L, et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(5):442–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01026-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang Q, Zhou F, Shang Z, Ciais P, Winiwarter W, Jackson RB, et al. Data-driven estimates of global nitrous oxide emissions from croplands. Natl Sci Rev. 2019;7(2):441–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz087.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared  by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T,d Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan. 2006.

  56. FAO. From reference levels to results reporting: REDD+ under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2019.

  57. Tubiello FN, Conchedda G, Wanner N, Federici S, Rossi S, Grassi G. Carbon emissions and removals from forests: new estimates, 1990–2020. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2021;13(4):1681–91. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-1681-2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A, Fitton N, Smith P. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ Res Lett. 2013; 8(1) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009

  59. Li Y, Zhao M, Motesharrei S, Mu Q, Kalnay E, Li S. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6603. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Alkama R, Cescatti A. Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science. 2016;351(6273):600–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac8083.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Tyukavina A, Baccini A, Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Stehman SV, Houghton RA et al. Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropical forests from 2000 to 2012. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10(7) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/074002

  62. Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S, Lefsky M, Mitchard ET, Salas W, et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(24):9899–904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019576108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Federici S, Grassi G, Harris N, Lee D, Neeff T, Penman J et al. GHG fluxes from forests - an assessment of national GHG estimates and independent research in the context of the Paris Agreement. 2017.

  64. Xu Q, Man A, Fredrickson M, Hou Z, Pitkänen J, Wing B, et al. Quantification of uncertainty in aboveground biomass estimates derived from small-footprint airborne LiDAR. Remote Sens Environ. 2018;216:514–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yanai R, Wayson C, Lee D, Espejo A, Campbell JL, Green MB, et al. Improving uncertainty in forest carbon accounting for REDD+ mitigation efforts. Environ Res Lett. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb96f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Bullock EL, Woodcock CE, Souza C Jr, Olofsson P. Satellite-based estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(5):2956–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Matricardi EAT, Skole DL, Costa OB, Pedlowski MA, Samek JH, Miguel EP. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science. 2020;369(6509):1378–82. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Gao Y, Skutsch M, Paneque-Gálvez J, Ghilardi A. Remote sensing of forest degradation: a review. Environ Res Lett. 2020; 15(10) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abaad7

  69. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science. 2013;342(6160):850–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. INPE. PRODES (Deforestation). 2021. http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/app/map/deforestation?hl=pt-br.

  71. Almeida C, Maurano L, Valeriano D, Camara G, Vinhas L, Gomes A et al. Methodology for forest monitoring used in PRODES and DETER projects. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). 2021.

  72. Tyukavina A, Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Stehman SV, Smith-Rodriguez K, Okpa C, et al. Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal Amazon, 2000–2013. Sci Adv. 2017;3(4):e1601047. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pearson TRH, Brown S, Casarim FM. Carbon emissions from tropical forest degradation caused by logging. Environ Res Lett. 2014; 9(3) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034017

  74. Longo M, Keller M, dos-Santos MN, Leitold V, Pinagé ER, Baccini A, et al. Aboveground biomass variability across intact and degraded forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2016;30(11):1639–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gb005465.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Rappaport DI, Morton DC, Longo M, Keller M, Dubayah R, dos-Santos MN. Quantifying long-term changes in carbon stocks and forest structure from Amazon forest degradation. Environ Res Lett. 2018; 13(6) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac331

  76. Xu L, Saatchi SS, Yang Y, Yu Y, Pongratz J, Bloom AA et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(27) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe9829

  77. Cook-Patton SC, Leavitt SM, Gibbs D, Harris NL, Lister K, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature. 2020;585(7826):545–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Humphrey V, Berg A, Ciais P, Gentine P, Jung M, Reichstein M, et al. Soil moisture-atmosphere feedback dominates land carbon uptake variability. Nature. 2021;592(7852):65–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03325-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Friedlingstein P, Jones MW, O’Sullivan M, Andrew RM, Bakker DCE, Hauck J, et al. Global carbon budget 2021. Earth Syst Sci Data Discuss. 2021;2021:1–191. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Bayer AD, Fuchs R, Mey R, Krause A, Verburg PH, Anthoni P, et al. Diverging land-use projections cause large variability in their impacts on ecosystems and related indicators for ecosystem services. Earth Syst Dyn. 2021;12(1):327–51. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-327-2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Popp A, Calvin K, Fujimori S, Havlik P, Humpenöder F, Stehfest E, et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob Environ Chang. 2017;42:331–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hurtt GC, Chini L, Sahajpal R, Frolking S, Bodirsky BL, Calvin K, et al. Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci Model Dev. 2020;13(11):5425–64. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Yu Z, Lu C, Tian H, Canadell JG. Largely underestimated carbon emission from land use and land cover change in the conterminous United States. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25(11):3741–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Winkler K, Fuchs R, Rounsevell M, Herold M. Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):2501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. FAO. FAOSTAT Statistical Database, domain Land Use. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL. 2021.

  86. FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2020: terms and definitions. Rome, Italy: Forest Resources Assessment Programme. 2020

  87. Rosan TM, Klein Goldewijk K, Ganzenmüller R, O’Sullivan M, Pongratz J, Mercado LM, et al. A multi-data assessment of land use and land cover emissions from Brazil during 2000–2019. Environ Res Lett. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac08c3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Chini L, Hurtt G, Sahajpal R, Frolking S, Klein Goldewijk K, Sitch S, et al. Land-use harmonization datasets for annual global carbon budgets. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2021;13(8):4175–89. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4175-2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Di Vittorio AV, Mao J, Shi X, Chini L, Hurtt G, Collins WD. Quantifying the effects of historical land cover conversion uncertainty on global carbon and climate estimates. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45(2):974–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl075124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Hartung K, Bastos A, Chini L, Ganzenmüller R, Havermann F, 1640 Hurtt GC, et al. Bookkeeping estimates of the net land-use change flux – a sensitivity study with the CMIP6 land-use dataset. Earth Syst Dynam. 2021;12:763–82. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-763-2021

  91. Arneth A, Sitch S, Pongratz J, Stocker BD, Ciais P, Poulter B, et al. Historical carbon dioxide emissions caused by land-use changes are possibly larger than assumed. Nat Geosci. 2017;10(2):79–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2882.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Prestele R, Arneth A, Bondeau A, de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Pugh TAM, Sitch S, et al. Current challenges of implementing anthropogenic land-use and land-cover change in models contributing to climate change assessments. Earth Syst Dyn. 2017;8(2):369–86. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-369-2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Yang H, Ciais P, Santoro M, Huang Y, Li W, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of forest above-ground biomass from dynamic global vegetation models with spatially explicit remotely sensed observation-based estimates. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(7):3997–4012. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Fisher RA, Koven CD. Perspectives on the future of land surface models and the challenges of representing complex terrestrial systems. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2020;12(4) https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001453

  95. Goll DS, Brovkin V, Liski J, Raddatz T, Thum T, Todd-Brown KEO. Strong dependence of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land cover change on initial land cover and soil carbon parametrization. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2015;29(9):1511–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gb004988.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Bastos A, Hartung K, Nützel TB, Nabel JEMS, Houghton RA, Pongratz J. Comparison of uncertainties in land-use change fluxes from bookkeeping model parameterization. Earth Syst Dynam. 2021;12:745–62. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-745-2021

  97. Li W, Ciais P, Peng S, Yue C, Wang Y, Thurner M, et al. Land-use and land-cover change carbon emissions between 1901 and 2012 constrained by biomass observations. Biogeosciences. 2017;14(22):5053–67. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5053-2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Lienert S, Joos F. A Bayesian ensemble data assimilation to constrain model parameters and land-use carbon emissions. Biogeosciences. 2018;15(9):2909–30. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2909-2018.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Fisher RA, Koven CD, Anderegg WRL, Christoffersen BO, Dietze MC, Farrior CE, et al. Vegetation demographics in Earth system models: a review of progress and priorities. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(1):35–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Pelletier J, Ramankutty N, Potvin C. Diagnosing the uncertainty and detectability of emission reductions for REDD + under current capabilities: an example for Panama. Environ Res Lett. 2011; 6(2) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024005

  101. FAO. FAOSTAT Statistical Database, domain Climate Change: Emissions Totals. 2020. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT

  102. Grassi G, House J, Kurz WA, Cescatti A, Houghton RA, Peters GP, et al. Reconciling global-model estimates and country reporting of anthropogenic forest CO2 sinks. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(10):914–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0283-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Grassi G, Stehfest E, Rogelj J, van Vuuren D, Cescatti A, House J, et al. Critical adjustment of land mitigation pathways for assessing countries’ climate progress. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(5):425–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01033-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Fritz S, See L, Carlson T, Haklay M, Oliver JL, Fraisl D, et al. Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain. 2019;2(10):922–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0390-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill BC, Fujimori S, et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob Environ Chang. 2017;42:153–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Nabel JEMS, Naudts K, Pongratz J. Accounting for forest age in the tile-based dynamic global vegetation model JSBACH4 (4.20p7; git feature/forests) – a land surface model for the ICON-ESM. Geosci Model Dev. 2020;13(1):185–200. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-185-2020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Peng B, Guan K, Chen M, Lawrence DM, Pokhrel Y, Suyker A, et al. Improving maize growth processes in the community land model: implementation and evaluation. Agric For Meteorol. 2018;250–251:64–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Peng B, Guan K, Tang J, Ainsworth EA, Asseng S, Bernacchi CJ, et al. Towards a multiscale crop modelling framework for climate change adaptation assessment. Nat Plants. 2020;6(4):338–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0625-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Yokohata T, Kinoshita T, Sakurai G, Pokhrel Y, Ito A, Okada M, et al. MIROC-INTEG-LAND version 1: a global biogeochemical land surface model with human water management, crop growth, and land-use change. Geosci Model Dev. 2020;13(10):4713–47. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4713-2020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Collier N, Hoffman FM, Lawrence DM, Keppel-Aleks G, Koven CD, Riley WJ, et al. The International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) system: design, theory, and implementation. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2018;10(11):2731–54. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ms001354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sitch S, Friedlingstein P, Gruber N, Jones SD, Murray-Tortarolo G, Ahlström A, et al. Recent trends and drivers of regional sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Biogeosciences. 2015;12(3):653–79. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-653-2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Minx JC, Lamb WF, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Crippa M, Döbbeling N, et al. A comprehensive and synthetic dataset for global, regional, and national greenhouse gas emissions by sector 1970–2018 with an extension to 2019. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2021;13(11):5213–52. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Erb KH, Kastner T, Plutzar C, Bais ALS, Carvalhais N, Fetzel T, et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature. 2018;553(7686):73–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25138.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Loughran TF, Boysen L, Bastos A, Hartung K, Havermann F, Li H et al. Past and future climate variability uncertainties in the global carbon budget using the MPI grand ensemble. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2021;35:e2021GB007019. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GB007019.

  115. Yue C, Ciais P, Houghton RA, Nassikas AA. Contribution of land use to the interannual variability of the land carbon cycle. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16953-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Ito A, Hajima T, Lawrence DM, Brovkin V, Delire C, Guenet B et al. Soil carbon sequestration simulated in CMIP6-LUMIP models: implications for climatic mitigation. Environ Res Lett. 2020; 15(12) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc912

  117. Deng L, Zhu G-Y, Tang Z-S. Shangguan Z-P Global patterns of the effects of land-use changes on soil carbon stocks. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2016;5:127–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Marques A, Martins IS, Kastner T, Plutzar C, Theurl MC, Eisenmenger N, et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3(4):628–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. van der Werf GR, Randerson JT, Giglio L, van Leeuwen TT, Chen Y, Rogers BM, et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2017;9(2):697–720. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Conchedda G, Tubiello FN. Drainage of organic soils and GHG emissions: validation with country data. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2020;12(4):3113–37. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3113-2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Joosten H. The Global Peatland CO2 Picture: peatland status and drainage related emissions in all countries of the world. 2010

  122. Qiu C, Ciais P, Zhu D, Guenet B, Peng S, Petrescu AMR et al. Large historical carbon emissions from cultivated northern peatlands. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(23) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf1332

  123. Houghton RA. Interactions between land-use change and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2018;4(2):115–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0099-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Battye W, Aneja VP, Schlesinger WH. Is nitrogen the next carbon? Earth’s Future. 2017;5(9):894–904. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ef000592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Tubiello FN. Greenhouse gas emissions due to agriculture. In: Ferranti P, Berry EM, Anderson JR, editors. Encyclopedia of food security and sustainability. Oxford: Elsevier; 2019. p. 196–205.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  126. Scheer C, Fuchs K, Pelster DE, Butterbach-Bahl K. Estimating global terrestrial denitrification from measured N2O:(N2O + N2) product ratios. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2020;47:72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Tian H, Yang J, Xu R, Lu C, Canadell JG, Davidson EA, et al. Global soil nitrous oxide emissions since the preindustrial era estimated by an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models: magnitude, attribution, and uncertainty. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25(2):640–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Chang J, Peng S, Ciais P, Saunois M, Dangal SRS, Herrero M, et al. Revisiting enteric methane emissions from domestic ruminants and their delta(13)CCH4 source signature. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3420. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11066-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Janssens-Maenhout G, Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Muntean M, Schaaf E, Dentener F, et al. EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2019;11(3):959–1002. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-959-2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Lal R, Smith P, Jungkunst HF, Mitsch WJ, Lehmann J, Nair PKR, et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J Soil Water Conserv. 2018;73(6):145A-A152. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Arneth A, Denton F, Agus F, Elbehri A, Erb K, Osman Elasha B et al. Framing and context. In: P.R. Shukla JS, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, editor. Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 2019

  132. Bastin JF, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, Routh D, et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science. 2019;365(6448):76–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Delzeit R, Pongratz J, Schneider JM, Schuenemann F, Mauser W, Zabel F. Forest restoration: expanding agriculture. Science. 2019;366(6463):316–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz0705.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Verchot LV, Muys B. Land area eligible for afforestation and reforestation within the clean development mechanism: a global analysis of the impact of forest definition. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2007;13(3):219–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9087-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Buendia EC, Guendehou S, Limmeechokchai B, Pipatti R, Rojas Y, Sturgiss R et al. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2019

  136. Skidmore AK, Wang T, de Bie K, Pilesjo P. Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”. Science. 2019;366(6469) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz0111

  137. Sonntag S, Pongratz J, Reick CH, Schmidt H. Reforestation in a high-CO2 world-Higher mitigation potential than expected, lower adaptation potential than hoped for. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43(12):6546–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl068824.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Martin-Benito D, Peltoniemi M, Vacchiano G, et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. McDowell NG, Allen CD, Anderson-Teixeira K, Aukema BH, Bond-Lamberty B, Chini L et al. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science. 2020;368(6494) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9463

  140. Jones CD, Ciais P, Davis SJ, Friedlingstein P, Gasser T, Peters GP et al. Simulating the earth system response to negative emissions. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(9) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095012

  141. Koch A, Brierley C, Lewis SL. Effects of Earth system feedbacks on the potential mitigation of large-scale tropical forest restoration. Biogeosciences. 2021;18(8):2627–47. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2627-2021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Borner A, Knohl A, Hessenmoller D, Law BE, et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature. 2008;455(7210):213–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07276.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Knohl A, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J. Reply to: Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature. 2021;591(7851):E24–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03267-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Jiang M, Medlyn BE, Drake JE, Duursma RA, Anderson IC, Barton CVM, et al. The fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature. 2020;580(7802):227–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2128-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Kreidenweis U, Humpenöder F, Stevanović M, Bodirsky BL, Kriegler E, Lotze-Campen H et al. Afforestation to mitigate climate change: impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(8) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001

  146. Windisch MG, Davin EL, Seneviratne SI. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(10):867–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01161-z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Roe S, Streck C, Obersteiner M, Frank S, Griscom B, Drouet L, et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nature Clim Change. 2019;9(11):817–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Boisier J-P, Pitman A, Bonan GB, Brovkin V, Cruz F, et al. Determining robust impacts of land-use-induced land cover changes on surface climate over North America and Eurasia: results from the first set of LUCID experiments. J Clim. 2012;25(9):3261–81. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-11-00338.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Winckler J, Lejeune Q, Reick CH, Pongratz J. Nonlocal effects dominate the global mean surface temperature response to the biogeophysical effects of deforestation. Geophys Res Lett. 2019;46(2):745–55. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018gl080211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Winckler J, Reick CH, Luyssaert S, Cescatti A, Stoy PC, Lejeune Q, et al. Different response of surface temperature and air temperature to deforestation in climate models. Earth Syst Dyn. 2019;10(3):473–84. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-473-2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Boysen LR, Brovkin V, Pongratz J, Lawrence DM, Lawrence P, Vuichard N, et al. Global climate response to idealized deforestation in CMIP6 models. Biogeosciences. 2020;17(22):5615–38. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Lejeune Q, Davin EL, Gudmundsson L, Winckler J, Seneviratne SI. Historical deforestation locally increased the intensity of hot days in northern mid-latitudes. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(5):386–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0131-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Davin EL, Rechid D, Breil M, Cardoso RM, Coppola E, Hoffmann P, et al. Biogeophysical impacts of forestation in Europe: first results from the LUCAS (Land Use and Climate Across Scales) regional climate model intercomparison. Earth Syst Dyn. 2020;11(1):183–200. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-183-2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Duveiller G, Forzieri G, Robertson E, Li W, Georgievski G, Lawrence P, et al. Biophysics and vegetation cover change: a process-based evaluation framework for confronting land surface models with satellite observations. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2018;10(3):1265–79. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Betts RA. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature. 2000;408(6809):187–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/35041545.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. Pongratz J, Reick CH, Raddatz T, Caldeira K, Claussen M. Past land use decisions have increased mitigation potential of reforestation. Geophys Res Lett. 2011;38(15) https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gl047848

  157. Meier R, Schwaab J, Seneviratne SI, Sprenger M, Lewis E, Davin EL. Empirical estimate of forestation-induced precipitation changes in Europe. Nat Geosci. 2021;14(7):473–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00773-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Khanna J, Medvigy D, Fueglistaler S, Walko R. Regional dry-season climate changes due to three decades of Amazonian deforestation. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7(3):200–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Spracklen DV, Garcia-Carreras L. The impact of Amazonian deforestation on Amazon basin rainfall. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42(21):9546–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl066063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Lovejoy TE, Nobre C. Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Sci Adv. 2019;5(12):eaba2949. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Douville H, K. Raghavan, J. Renwick, R. P. Allan, P. A. Arias, M. Barlow, R. Cerezo-Mota, A. Cherchi, T. Y. Gan, J. Gergis, D. Jiang, A. Khan, W. Pokam Mba, D. Rosenfeld, J. Tierney, O. Zolina. Water Cycle Changes. In: Masson-Delmotte V, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou, editor. Climate change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge University Press. In Press; 2021.

  162. Devaraju N, Bala G, Modak A. Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: remote versus local effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(11):3257–62. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423439112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Erb KH, Luyssaert S, Meyfroidt P, Pongratz J, Don A, Kloster S, et al. Land management: data availability and process understanding for global change studies. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23(2):512–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Thiery W, Davin EL, Lawrence DM, Hirsch AL, Hauser M, Seneviratne SI. Present-day irrigation mitigates heat extremes. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2017;122(3):1403–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Thiery W, Visser AJ, Fischer EM, Hauser M, Hirsch AL, Lawrence DM, et al. Warming of hot extremes alleviated by expanding irrigation. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14075-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. de Vrese P, Stacke T. Irrigation and hydrometeorological extremes. Clim Dyn. 2020;55(5–6):1521–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05337-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. de Vrese P, Hagemann S, Claussen M. Asian irrigation, African rain: remote impacts of irrigation. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43(8):3737–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl068146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Schwaab J, Davin EL, Bebi P, Duguay-Tetzlaff A, Waser LT, Haeni M, et al. Increasing the broad-leaved tree fraction in European forests mitigates hot temperature extremes. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71055-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Naudts K, Chen Y, McGrath MJ, Ryder J, Valade A, Otto J, et al. Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science. 2016;351(6273):597–600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad7270.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. Pitman AJ, Avila FB, Abramowitz G, Wang YP, Phipps SJ, de Noblet-Ducoudré N. Importance of background climate in determining impact of land-cover change on regional climate. Nat Clim Chang. 2011;1(9):472–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1294.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Winckler J, Reick CH, Pongratz J. Why does the locally induced temperature response to land cover change differ across scenarios? Geophys Res Lett. 2017;44(8):3833–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl072519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Li Y, De Noblet-Ducoudré N, Davin EL, Motesharrei S, Zeng N, Li S, et al. The role of spatial scale and background climate in the latitudinal temperature response to deforestation. Earth Syst Dyn. 2016;7(1):167–81. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-167-2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Chen C, Park T, Wang X, Piao S, Xu B, Chaturvedi RK, et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:122–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Lu F, Hu H, Sun W, Zhu J, Liu G, Zhou W, et al. Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(16):4039–44. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700294115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  175. Piao S, Wang X, Wang K, Li X, Bastos A, Canadell JG, et al. Interannual variation of terrestrial carbon cycle: issues and perspectives. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(1):300–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Hirsch AL, Guillod BP, Seneviratne SI, Beyerle U, Boysen LR, Brovkin V, et al. Biogeophysical impacts of land-use change on climate extremes in low-emission scenarios: results from HAPPI-Land. Earth’s Future. 2018;6(3):396–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000744.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  177. Hantson S, Knorr W, Schurgers G, Pugh TAM, Arneth A. Global isoprene and monoterpene emissions under changing climate, vegetation, CO2 and land use. Atmos Environ. 2017;155:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.02.010.

  178. Andrews T, Betts RA, Booth BBB, Jones CD, Jones GS. Effective radiative forcing from historical land use change. Clim Dyn. 2016;48(11–12):3489–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3280-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Heald CL, Spracklen DV. Land use change impacts on air quality and climate. Chem Rev. 2015;115(10):4476–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr500446g.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  180. Claussen M, Brovkin V, Ganopolski A. Biogeophysical versus biogeochemical feedbacks of large-scale land cover change. Geophys Res Lett. 2001;28(6):1011–4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000gl012471.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  181. Quesada B, Arneth A, de Noblet-Ducoudré N. Atmospheric, radiative, and hydrologic effects of future land use and land cover changes: a global and multimodel climate picture. J Geophys Res Atmo. 2017;122(10):5113–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Lee X, Goulden ML, Hollinger DY, Barr A, Black TA, Bohrer G, et al. Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher latitudes. Nature. 2011;479(7373):384–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10588.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  183. Frank S, Havlík P, Stehfest E, van Meijl H, Witzke P, Pérez-Domínguez I, et al. Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target. Nat Clim Change. 2018;9(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  184. Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K, Thakrar SK, Tilman D, Lynch J, et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees C climate change targets. Science. 2020;370(6517):705–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  185. Seneviratne SI, Phipps SJ, Pitman AJ, Hirsch AL, Davin EL, Donat MG, et al. Land radiative management as contributor to regional-scale climate adaptation and mitigation. Nat Geosci. 2018;11(2):88–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0057-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  186. Pitman AJ, Lorenz R. Scale dependence of the simulated impact of Amazonian deforestation on regional climate. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11(9) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094025

  187. Cohn AS, Bhattarai N, Campolo J, Crompton O, Dralle D, Duncan J, et al. Forest loss in Brazil increases maximum temperatures within 50 km. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14(8):084047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab31fb.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Roy SB. Mesoscale vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks in Amazonia. J Geophys Res. 2009;114(D20) https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd012001

  189. Bauer P, Stevens B, Hazeleger W. A digital twin of Earth for the green transition. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(2):80–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00986-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. van Vuuren DP, Batlle Bayer L, Chuwah C, Ganzeveld L, Hazeleger W, van den Hurk B et al. A comprehensive view on climate change: coupling of earth system and integrated assessment models. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7(2) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024012

  191. Thornton PE, Calvin K, Jones AD, Di Vittorio AV, Bond-Lamberty B, Chini L, et al. Biospheric feedback effects in a synchronously coupled model of human and Earth systems. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7(7):496–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  192. Alexander P, Rabin S, Anthoni P, Henry R, Pugh TAM, Rounsevell MDA, et al. Adaptation of global land use and management intensity to changes in climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(7):2791–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Müller-Hansen F, Schlüter M, Mäs M, Donges JF, Kolb JJ, Thonicke K, et al. Towards representing human behavior and decision making in Earth system models – an overview of techniques and approaches. Earth Syst Dyn. 2017;8(4):977–1007. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-977-2017.

    Article  Google Scholar