research papers land degradation

Special Report: Special Report on Climate Change and Land

Land degradation, coordinating lead authors.

• Lennart Olsson (Sweden)
• Humberto Barbosa (Brazil)

Lead Authors

• Suruchi Bhadwal (India)
• Annette Cowie (Australia)
• Kenel Delusca (Haiti)
• Dulce Flores-Renteria (Mexico)
• Kathleen Hermans (Germany)
• Esteban Jobbagy (Argentina)
• Werner Kurz (Canada)
• Diqiang Li (China)
• Denis Jean Sonwa (Cameroon)
• Lindsay Stringer (United Kingdom)

Contributing Authors:

• Timothy Crews (United States)
• Martin Dallimer (United Kingdom)
• Joris Eekhout (Netherlands)
• Karlheinz Erb (Italy)
• Eamon Haughey (Ireland)
• Richard Houghton (United States)
• Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal (Pakistan)
• Francis X. Johnson (Sweden)
• Woo-Kyun Lee (South Korea)
• John Morton (United Kingdom)
• Felipe Garcia Oliva (Mexico)
• Jan Petzold (Germany)
• Mohammad Rahimi (Iran)
• Florence Renou-Wilson (Ireland)
• Anna Tengberg (Sweden)
• Louis Verchot (Colombia, United States)
• Katharine Vincent (South Africa)

Review Editors

• José Manuel Moreno (Spain)
• Carolina Vera (Argentina)

Chapter Scientist:

• Aliyu Salisu Barau (Nigeria)

FAQ 4.1 | How do climate change and land degradation interact with land use?

Climate change, land degradation and land use are linked in a complex web of causality. One important impact of climate change on land degradation is that increasing global temperatures intensify the hydrological cycle, resulting in more intense rainfall, which is an important driver of soil erosion. This means that sustainable land management (SLM) becomes even more important with climate change. Land-use change in the form of clearing of forest for rangeland and cropland (e.g., for provision of bio-fuels), and cultivation of peat soils, is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from both biomass and soils. Many SLM practices (e.g., agroforestry, perennial crops, organic amendments, etc.) increase carbon content of soil and vegetation cover and hence provide both local and immediate adaptation benefits, combined with global mitigation benefits in the long term, while providing many social and economic co-benefits. Avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation has a large potential to mitigate climate change and help communities to adapt to climate change.

FAQ 4.2 | How does climate change affect land-related ecosystem services and biodiversity?

Climate change will affect land-related ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, resilience to extreme climate events, water yield, soil conservation, carbon storage, etc.) and biodiversity, both directly and indirectly. The direct impacts range from subtle reductions or enhancements of specific services, such as biological productivity, resulting from changes in temperature, temperature variability or rainfall, to complete disruption and elimination of services. Disruptions of ecosystem services can occur where climate change causes transitions from one biome to another, for example, forest to grassland as a result of changes in water balance or natural disturbance regimes. Climate change will result in range shifts and, in some cases, extinction of species. Climate change can also alter the mix of land-related ecosystem services, such as groundwater recharge, purification of water, and flood protection. While the net impacts are specific to time as well as ecosystem types and services, there is an asymmetry of risk such that overall impacts of climate change are expected to reduce ecosystem services. Indirect impacts of climate change on land-related ecosystem services include those that result from changes in human behaviour, including potential large-scale human migrations or the implementation of afforestation, reforestation or other changes in land management, which can have positive or negative outcomes on ecosystem services.

Executive Summary

Land degradation affects people and ecosystems throughout the planet and is both affected by climate change and contributes to it. In this report, land degradation is defined as a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity , ecological integrity, or value to humans. Forest degradation is land degradation that occurs in forest land. Deforestation is the conversion of forest to non-forest land and can result in land degradation. {4.1.3}

Land degradation adversely affects people’s livelihoods ( very high confidence ) and occurs over a quarter of the Earth’s ice-free land area ( medium confidence ). The majority of the 1.3 to 3.2 billion affected people ( low confidence ) are living in poverty in developing countries ( medium confidence ).

Land-use changes and unsustainable land management are direct human causes of land degradation ( very high confidence ), with agriculture being a dominant sector driving degradation ( very high confidence ). Soil loss from conventionally tilled land exceeds the rate of soil formation by >2 orders of magnitude ( medium confidence ). Land degradation affects humans in multiple ways, interacting with social, political, cultural and economic aspects, including markets, technology, inequality and demographic change ( very high confidence ). Land degradation impacts extend beyond the land surface itself, affecting marine and freshwater systems, as well as people and ecosystems far away from the local sites of degradation ( very high confidence ). {4.1.6, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.3, 4.6.1, 4.7, Table 4.1}

Climate change exacerbates the rate and magnitude of several ongoing land degradation processes and introduces new degradation patterns ( high confidence ). Human-induced global warming has already caused observed changes in two drivers of land degradation: increased frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation ( medium confidence ); and increased heat stress ( high confidence ). In some areas sea level rise has exacerbated coastal erosion ( medium confidence ). Global warming beyond present day will further exacerbate ongoing land degradation processes through increasing floods ( medium confidence ), drought frequency and severity ( medium confidence ), intensified cyclones ( medium confidence ), and sea level rise ( very high confidence ), with outcomes being modulated by land management ( very high confidence ). Permafrost thawing due to warming ( high confidence ), and coastal erosion due to sea level rise and impacts of changing storm paths ( low confidence ), are examples of land degradation affecting places where it has not typically been a problem. Erosion of coastal areas because of sea level rise will increase worldwide ( high confidence ). In cyclone prone areas, the combination of sea level rise and more intense cyclones will cause land degradation with serious consequences for people and livelihoods ( very high confidence ). {4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.9.6, Table 4.1}

Land degradation and climate change, both individually and in combination, have profound implications for natural resource-based livelihood systems and societal groups ( high confidence )

The number of people whose livelihood depends on degraded lands has been estimated to be about 1.5 billion worldwide ( very low confidence ). People in degraded areas who directly depend on natural resources for subsistence, food security and income, including women and youth with limited adaptation options, are especially vulnerable to land degradation and climate change ( high confidence ). Land degradation reduces land productivity and increases the workload of managing the land, affecting women disproportionally in some regions. Land degradation and climate change act as threat multipliers for already precarious livelihoods ( very high confidence ), leaving them highly sensitive to extreme climatic events, with consequences such as poverty and food insecurity ( high confidence ) and, in some cases, migration, conflict and loss of cultural heritage ( low confidence ). Changes in vegetation cover and distribution due to climate change increase the risk of land degradation in some areas ( medium confidence ). Climate change will have detrimental effects on livelihoods, habitats and infrastructure through increased rates of land degradation ( high confidence ) and from new degradation patterns ( low evidence, high agreement ). {4.1.6, 4.2.1, 4.7}

Land degradation is a driver of climate change through emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and reduced rates of carbon uptake ( very high confidence ). Since 1990, globally the forest area has decreased by 3% ( low confidence ) with net decreases in the tropics and net increases outside the tropics ( high confidence ). Lower carbon density in re-growing forests, compared to carbon stocks before deforestation, results in net emissions from land-use change ( very high confidence ). Forest management that reduces carbon stocks of forest land also leads to emissions, but global estimates of these emissions are uncertain. Cropland soils have lost 20–60% of their organic carbon content prior to cultivation, and soils under conventional agriculture continue to be a source of GHGs ( medium confidence ). Of the land degradation processes, deforestation, increasing wildfires, degradation of peat soils, and permafrost thawing contribute most to climate change through the release of GHGs and the reduction in land carbon sinks following deforestation ( high confidence ). Agricultural practices also emit non-CO 2 GHGs from soils and these emissions are exacerbated by climate change ( medium confidence ). Conversion of primary to managed forests, illegal logging and unsustainable forest management result in GHG emissions ( very high confidence ) and can have additional physical effects on the regional climate including those arising from albedo shifts ( medium confidence ). These interactions call for more integrative climate impact assessments. {4.2.2, 4.3, 4.5.4, 4.6}

Large-scale implementation of dedicated biomass production for bioenergy increases competition for land with potentially serious consequences for food security and land degradation ( high confidence) . Increasing the extent and intensity of biomass production, for example, through fertiliser additions, irrigation or monoculture energy plantations, can result in local land degradation. Poorly implemented intensification of land management contributes to land degradation (e.g., salinisation from irrigation) and disrupted livelihoods ( high confidence ). In areas where afforestation and reforestation occur on previously degraded lands, opportunities exist to restore and rehabilitate lands with potentially significant co-benefits ( high confidence ) that depend on whether restoration involves natural or plantation forests. The total area of degraded lands has been estimated at 10–60 Mkm 2 ( very low confidence ). The extent of degraded and marginal lands suitable for dedicated biomass production is highly uncertain and cannot be established without due consideration of current land use and land tenure. Increasing the area of dedicated energy crops can lead to land degradation elsewhere through indirect land-use change ( medium confidence ). Impacts of energy crops can be reduced through strategic integration with agricultural and forestry systems ( high confidence ) but the total quantity of biomass that can be produced through synergistic production systems is unknown. {4.1.6, 4.4.2, 4.5, 4.7.1, 4.8.1, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.9.3}

Reducing unsustainable use of traditional biomass reduces land degradation and emissions of CO 2 while providing social and economic co-benefits ( very high confidence ). Traditional biomass in the form of fuelwood, charcoal and agricultural residues remains a primary source of energy for more than one-third of the global population, leading to unsustainable use of biomass resources and forest degradation and contributing around 2% of global GHG emissions ( low confidence ). Enhanced forest protection, improved forest and agricultural management, fuel-switching and adoption of efficient cooking and heating appliances can promote more sustainable biomass use and reduce land degradation, with co-benefits of reduced GHG emissions, improved human health, and reduced workload especially for women and youth ( very high confidence ). {4.1.6, 4.5.4}

Land degradation can be avoided, reduced or reversed by implementing sustainable land management, restoration and rehabilitation practices that simultaneously provide many co-benefits, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change ( high confidence ). Sustainable land management involves a comprehensive array of technologies and enabling conditions, which have proven to address land degradation at multiple landscape scales, from local farms ( very high confidence ) to entire watersheds ( medium confidence ). Sustainable forest management can prevent deforestation, maintain and enhance carbon sinks and can contribute towards GHG emissions-reduction goals. Sustainable forest management generates socio-economic benefits, and provides fibre, timber and biomass to meet society’s growing needs. While sustainable forest management sustains high carbon sinks, the conversion from primary forests to sustainably managed forests can result in carbon emission during the transition and loss of biodiversity ( high confidence ). Conversely, in areas of degraded forests, sustainable forest management can increase carbon stocks and biodiversity ( medium confidence ). Carbon storage in long-lived wood products and reductions of emissions from use of wood products to substitute for emissions-intensive materials also contribute to mitigation objectives. {4.8, 4.9, Table 4.2}

Lack of action to address land degradation will increase emissions and reduce carbon sinks and is inconsistent with the emissions reductions required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. ( high confidence ). Better management of soils can offset 5–20% of current global anthropogenic GHG emissions ( medium confidence ). Measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation are available but economic, political, institutional, legal and socio-cultural barriers, including lack of access to resources and knowledge, restrict their uptake ( very high confidence ). Proven measures that facilitate implementation of practices that avoid, reduce, or reverse land degradation include tenure reform, tax incentives, payments for ecosystem services, participatory integrated land-use planning, farmer networks and rural advisory services. Delayed action increases the costs of addressing land degradation, and can lead to irreversible biophysical and human outcomes ( high confidence ). Early actions can generate both site-specific and immediate benefits to communities affected by land degradation, and contribute to long-term global benefits through climate change mitigation ( high confidence ). {4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.7.1, 4.8, Table 4.2}

Even with adequate implementation of measures to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation, there will be residual degradation in some situations ( high confidence ). Limits to adaptation are dynamic, site specific and determined through the interaction of biophysical changes with social and institutional conditions. Exceeding the limits of adaptation will trigger escalating losses or result in undesirable changes, such as forced migration, conflicts, or poverty. Examples of potential limits to adaptation due to climate-change-induced land degradation are coastal erosion (where land disappears, collapsing infrastructure and livelihoods due to thawing of permafrost), and extreme forms of soil erosion. {4.7, 4.8.5, 4.8.6, 4.9.6, 4.9.7, 4.9.8}

Land degradation is a serious and widespread problem, yet key uncertainties remain concerning its extent, severity, and linkages to climate change ( very high confidence ). Despite the difficulties of objectively measuring the extent and severity of land degradation, given its complex and value-based characteristics, land degradation represents – along with climate change – one of the biggest and most urgent challenges for humanity ( very high confidence ). The current global extent, severity and rates of land degradation are not well quantified. There is no single method by which land degradation can be measured objectively and consistently over large areas because it is such a complex and value-laden concept ( very high confidence ). However, many existing scientific and locally-based approaches, including the use of indigenous and local knowledge, can assess different aspects of land degradation or provide proxies. Remote sensing, corroborated by other data, can generate geographically explicit and globally consistent data that can be used as proxies over relevant time scales (several decades). Few studies have specifically addressed the impacts of proposed land-based negative emission technologies on land degradation. Much research has tried to understand how livelihoods and ecosystems are affected by a particular stressor – for example, drought, heat stress, or waterlogging. Important knowledge gaps remain in understanding how plants, habitats and ecosystems are affected by the cumulative and interacting impacts of several stressors, including potential new stressors resulting from large-scale implementation of negative emission technologies. {4.10}

Introduction

Scope of the chapter.

This chapter examines the scientific understanding of how climate change impacts land degradation, and vice versa, with a focus on non-drylands. Land degradation of drylands is covered in Chapter 3. After providing definitions and the context (Section 4.1) we proceed with a theoretical explanation of the different processes of land degradation and how they are related to climate and to climate change, where possible (Section 4.2). Two sections are devoted to a systematic assessment of the scientific literature on status and trend of land degradation (Section 4.3) and projections of land degradation (Section 4.4). Then follows a section where we assess the impacts of climate change mitigation options, bioenergy and land-based technologies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), on land degradation (Section 4.5). The ways in which land degradation can impact on climate and climate change are assessed in Section 4.6. The impacts of climate-related land degradation on human and natural systems are assessed in Section 4.7. The remainder of the chapter assesses land degradation mitigation options based on the concept of sustainable land management: avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation (Section 4.8), followed by a presentation of eight illustrative case studies of land degradation and remedies (Section 4.9). The chapter ends with a discussion of the most critical knowledge gaps and areas for further research (Section 4.10).

Perspectives of land degradation

Land degradation has accompanied humanity at least since the widespread adoption of agriculture during Neolithic time, some 10,000 to 7,500 years ago (Dotterweich 2013 2 ; Butzer 2005 3 ; Dotterweich 2008 4 ) and the associated population increase (Bocquet-Appel 2011 5 ). There are indications that the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) – particularly carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) – in the atmosphere already started to increase more than 3,000 years ago as a result of expanding agriculture, clearing of forests, and domestication of wild animals (Fuller et al. 2011 6 ; Kaplan et al. 2011 7 ; Vavrus et al. 2018 8 ; Ellis et al. 2013 9 ). While the development of agriculture (cropping and animal husbandry) underpinned the development of civilisations, political institutions and prosperity, farming practices led to conversion of forests and grasslands to farmland, and the heavy reliance on domesticated annual grasses for our food production meant that soils started to deteriorate through seasonal mechanical disturbances (Turner et al. 1990 10 ; Steffen et al. 2005 11 ; Ojima et al. 1994 12 ; Ellis et al. 2013 13 ). More recently, urbanisation has significantly altered ecosystems (Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 2). Since around 1850, about 35% of human-caused CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere has come from land as a combined effect of land degradation and land-use change (Foley et al. 2005 14 ) and about 38% of the Earth’s land area has been converted to agriculture (Foley et al. 2011 15 ). See Chapter 2 for more details.

Not all human impacts on land result in degradation according to the definition of land degradation used in this report (Section 4.1.3). There are many examples of long-term sustainably managed land around

the world (such as terraced agricultural systems and sustainably managed forests) although degradation and its management are the focus of this chapter. We also acknowledge that human use of land and ecosystems provides essential goods and services for society (Foley et al. 2005 16 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 17 ).

Land degradation was long subject to a polarised scientific debate between disciplines and perspectives in which social scientists often proposed that natural scientists exaggerated land degradation as a global problem (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987 18 ; Forsyth 1996 19 ; Lukas 2014 20 ; Zimmerer 1993 21 ). The elusiveness of the concept in combination with the difficulties of measuring and monitoring land degradation at global and regional scales by extrapolation and aggregation of empirical studies at local scales, such as the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation database (GLASOD) (Sonneveld and Dent 2009 22 ) contributed to conflicting views. The conflicting views were not confined to science only, but also caused tension between the scientific understanding of land degradation and policy (Andersson et al. 2011 23 ; Behnke and Mortimore 2016 24 ; Grainger 2009 25 ; Toulmin and Brock 2016 26 ). Another weakness of many land degradation studies is the exclusion of the views and experiences of the land users, whether farmers or forest-dependent communities (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987 27 ; Fairhead and Scoones 2005 28 ; Warren 2002 29 ; Andersson et al. 2011 30 ). More recently, the polarised views described above have been reconciled under the umbrella of Land Change Science, which has emerged as an interdisciplinary field aimed at examining the dynamics of land cover and land-use as a coupled human-environment system (Turner et al. 2007 31 ). A comprehensive discussion about concepts and different perspectives of land degradation was presented in Chapter 2 of the recent report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on land degradation (Montanarella et al. 2018 32 ).

In summary, agriculture and clearing of land for food and wood products have been the main drivers of land degradation for millennia ( high confidence ). This does not mean, however, that agriculture and forestry always cause land degradation ( high confidence ); sustainable management is possible but not always practised ( high confidence ). Reasons for this are primarily economic, political and social.

Definition of land degradation

To clarify the scope of this chapter, it is important to start by defining land itself. The Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) defines land as ‘the terrestrial portion of the biosphere that comprises the natural resources (soil, near surface air, vegetation and other biota, and water), the ecological processes, topography, and human settlements and infrastructure that operate within that system’ (Henry et al. 2018 33 , adapted from FAO 2007 34 ; UNCCD 1994 35 ).

Land degradation is defined in many different ways within the literature, with differing emphases on biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services (e.g., Montanarella et al. 2018 36 ). In this report, land degradation is defined as a negative trend in land condition, caused by direct or indirect human-induced processes including anthropogenic climate change, expressed as long-term reduction or loss of at least one of the following: biological productivity, ecological integrity or value to humans. This definition applies to forest and non-forest land: forest degradation is land degradation that occurs in forest land. Soil degradation refers to a subset of land degradation processes that directly affect soil.

The SRCCL definition is derived from the IPCC AR5 definition of desertification, which is in turn taken from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): ’Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas is a reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and integrity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest, and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns, such as (i) soil erosion caused by wind and/ or water; (ii) deterioration of the physical, chemical, biological, or economic properties of soil; and (iii) long-term loss of natural vegetation’ (UNCCD 1994 37 , Article 1).

For this report, the SRCCL definition is intended to complement the more detailed UNCCD definition above, expanding the scope to all regions, not just drylands, providing an operational definition that emphasises the relationship between land degradation and climate. Through its attention to the three aspects – biological productivity, ecological integrity and value to humans – the SRCCL definition is consistent with the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) concept, which aims to maintain or enhance the land-based natural capital, and the ecosystem services that flow from it (Cowie et al. 2018 38 ).

In the SRCCL definition of land degradation, changes in land condition resulting solely from natural processes (such as volcanic eruptions and tsunamis) are not considered land degradation, as these are not direct or indirect human-induced processes. Climate variability exacerbated by human-induced climate change can contribute to land degradation. Value to humans can be expressed in terms of ecosystem services or Nature’s Contributions to People.

The definition recognises the reality presented in the literature that land-use and land management decisions often result in trade-offs between time, space, ecosystem services, and stakeholder groups (e.g., Dallimer and Stringer 2018 39 ). The interpretation of a negative trend in land condition is somewhat subjective, especially where there is a trade-off between ecological integrity and value to humans. The definition also does not consider the magnitude of the negative trend or the possibility that a negative trend in one criterion may be an acceptable trade-off for a positive trend in another criterion. For example, reducing timber yields to safeguard biodiversity by leaving on site more wood that can provide habitat, or vice versa, is a trade-off that needs to be evaluated based on context (i.e. the broader landscape) and society’s priorities. Reduction of biological productivity or ecological integrity or value to humans can constitute degradation, but any one of these changes need not necessarily be considered degradation. Thus, a land-use change that reduces ecological integrity and enhances sustainable food production at a specific location is not necessarily degradation. Different stakeholder groups with different world views value ecosystem services differently. As Warren (2002) 40 explained: land degradation is contextual. Further, a decline in biomass carbon stock does not always signify degradation, such as when caused by periodic forest harvest. Even a decline in productivity may not equate to land degradation, such as when a high-intensity agricultural system is converted to a lower-input, more sustainable production system.

In the SRCCL definition, degradation is indicated by a negative trend in land condition during the period of interest, thus the baseline is the land condition at the start of this period. The concept of baseline is theoretically important but often practically difficult to implement for conceptual and methodological reasons (Herrick et al. 2019 41 ; Prince et al. 2018 42 ; also Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1). Especially in biomes characterised by seasonal and interannual variability, the baseline values of the indicators to be assessed should be determined by averaging data over a number of years prior to the commencement of the assessment period (Orr et al. 2017 43 ) (Section 4.2.4).

Forest degradation is land degradation in forest remaining forest. In contrast, deforestation refers to the conversion of forest to non-forest that involves a loss of tree cover and a change in land use. Internationally accepted definitions of forest (FAO 2015 44 ; UNFCCC 2006 45 ) include lands where tree cover has been lost temporarily, due to disturbance or harvest, with an expectation of forest regrowth. Such temporary loss of forest cover, therefore, is not deforestation.

Land degradation in previous IPCC reports

Several previous IPCC assessment reports include brief discussions of land degradation. In AR5 WGIII land degradation is one factor contributing to uncertainties of the mitigation potential of land-based ecosystems, particularly in terms of fluxes of soil carbon (Smith et al. 2014, p. 817). In AR5 WGI, soil carbon was discussed comprehensively but not in the context of land degradation, except forest degradation (Ciais et al. 2013 46 ) and permafrost degradation (Vaughan et al. 2013 47 ). Climate change impacts were discussed comprehensively in AR5 WGII, but land degradation was not prominent. Land-use and land-cover changes were treated comprehensively in terms of effects on the terrestrial carbon stocks and flows (Settele et al. 2015 48 ) but links to land degradation were, to a large extent, missing. Land degradation was discussed in relation to human security as one factor which, in combination with extreme weather events, has been proposed to contribute to human migration (Adger et al. 2014 49 ), an issue discussed more comprehensively in this chapter (Section 4.7.3). Drivers and processes of degradation by which land-based carbon is released to the atmosphere and/or the long-term reduction in the capacity of the land to remove atmospheric carbon and to store this in biomass and soil carbon, have been discussed in the methodological reports of IPCC (IPCC 2006 50 , 2014a 51 ) but less so in the assessment reports.

The Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (SR-LULUCF) (Watson et al. 2000 52 ) focused on the role of the biosphere in the global cycles of GHG. Land degradation was not addressed in a comprehensive way. Soil erosion was discussed as a process by which soil carbon is lost and the productivity of the land is reduced. Deposition of eroded soil carbon in marine sediments was also mentioned as a possible mechanism for permanent sequestration of terrestrial carbon (Watson et al. 2000, p. 194). The possible impacts of climate change on land productivity and degradation were not discussed comprehensively. Much of the report was about how to account for sources and sinks of terrestrial carbon under the Kyoto Protocol.

The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) (IPCC 2012 53 ) did not provide a definition of land degradation. Nevertheless, it addressed different aspects related to some types of land degradation in the context of weather and climate extreme events. From this perspective, it provided key information on both observed and projected changes in weather and climate (extremes) events that are relevant to extreme impacts on socio-economic systems and on the physical components of the environment, notably on permafrost in mountainous areas and coastal zones for different geographic regions, but few explicit links to land degradation. The report also presented the concept of sustainable land management as an effective risk-reduction tool.

Land degradation has been treated in several previous IPCC reports, but mainly as an aggregated concept associated with GHG emissions, or as an issue that can be addressed through adaptation and mitigation.

Sustainable land management (SLM) and sustainable forest management (SFM)

Sustainable land management (SLM) is defined as ‘the stewardship and use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions’ – adapted from World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT n.d.). Achieving the objective of ensuring that productive potential is maintained in the long term will require implementation of adaptive management and ‘triple loop learning’, that seeks to monitor outcomes, learn from experience and emerging new knowledge, modifying management accordingly (Rist et al. 2013 54 ).

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is defined as ‘the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems’ (Forest Europe 1993 55 ; Mackey et al. 2015 56 ). This SFM definition was developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and has since been adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Forest management that fails to meet these sustainability criteria can contribute to land degradation.

Land degradation can be reversed through restoration and rehabilitation. These terms are defined in the Glossary, along with other terms that are used but not explicitly defined in this section of

the report. While the definitions of SLM and SFM are very similar and could be merged, both are included to maintain the subtle differences in the existing definitions. SFM can be considered a subset of SLM – that is, SLM applied to forest land.

Climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome (Figure 4.1). Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts). To avoid, reduce or reverse degradation, land management activities can be selected to mitigate the impact of, and adapt to, climate change. In some cases, climate change impacts may result in increased productivity and carbon stocks, at least in the short term. For example, longer growing seasons due to climate warming can lead to higher forest productivity (Henttonen et al. 2017 57 ; Kauppi et al. 2014 58 ; Dragoni et al. 2011 59 ), but warming alone may not increase productivity where other factors such a water supply are limiting (Hember et al. 2017 60 ).

The types and intensity of human land-use and climate change impacts on lands affect their carbon stocks and their ability to operate as carbon sinks. In managed agricultural lands, degradation can result in reductions of soil organic carbon stocks, which also adversely affects land productivity and carbon sinks (Figure 4.1).

The transition from natural to managed forest landscapes usually results in an initial reduction of landscape-level carbon stocks. The magnitude of this reduction is a function of the differential in frequency of stand-replacing natural disturbances (e.g., wildfires) and harvest disturbances, as well as the age-dependence of these disturbances (Harmon et al. 1990 61 ; Kurz et al. 1998 62 ; Trofymow et al. 2008 63 ).

SFM applied at the landscape scale to existing unmanaged forests can first reduce average forest carbon stocks and subsequently increase the rate at which CO 2 is removed from the atmosphere, because net ecosystem production of forest stands is highest in intermediate stand ages (Kurz et al. 2013 64 ; Volkova et al. 2018 65 ; Tang et al. 2014 66 ). The net impact on the atmosphere depends on the magnitude of the reduction in carbon stocks, the fate of the harvested biomass (i.e. use in short – or long-lived products and for bioenergy, and therefore displacement of emissions associated with GHG-intensive building materials and fossil fuels), and the rate of regrowth. Thus, the impacts of SFM on one indicator (e.g., past reduction in carbon stocks in the forested landscape) can be negative, while those on another indicator (e.g., current forest productivity and rate of CO 2 removal from the atmosphere, avoided fossil fuel emissions) can be positive. Sustainably managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon density than unmanaged forest, but the younger forests can have a higher growth rate, and therefore contribute stronger carbon sinks than older forests (Trofymow et al. 2008 67 ; Volkova et al. 2018 68 ; Poorter et al. 2016 69 ).

Selective logging and thinning can maintain and enhance forest productivity and achieve co-benefits when conducted with due care for the residual stand and at intensity and frequency that does not exceed the rate of regrowth (Romero and Putz 2018 70 ). In contrast, unsustainable logging practices can lead to stand-level degradation. For example, degradation occurs when selective logging (high-grading) removes valuable large-diameter trees, leaving behind damaged, diseased, non-commercial or otherwise less productive trees, reducing carbon stocks and also adversely affecting subsequent forest recovery (Belair and Ducey 2018 71 ; Nyland 1992 72 ).

Conceptual figure illustrating that climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome. Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts), hence management needs to respond to climate impacts in order to avoid, reduce or reverse degradation. The types and […]

Conceptual figure illustrating that climate change impacts interact with land management to determine sustainable or degraded outcome. Climate change can exacerbate many degradation processes (Table 4.1) and introduce novel ones (e.g., permafrost thawing or biome shifts), hence management needs to respond to climate impacts in order to avoid, reduce or reverse degradation. The types and intensity of human land-use and climate change impacts on lands affect their carbon stocks and their ability to operate as carbon sinks. In managed agricultural lands, degradation typically results in reductions of soil organic carbon stocks, which also adversely affects land productivity and carbon sinks. In forest land, reduction in biomass carbon stocks alone is not necessarily an indication of a reduction in carbon sinks. Sustainably managed forest landscapes can have a lower biomass carbon density but the younger forests can have a higher growth rate, and therefore contribute stronger carbon sinks, than older forests. Ranges of carbon sinks in forest and agricultural lands are overlapping. In some cases, climate change impacts may result in increased productivity and carbon stocks, at least in the short term.

SFM is defined using several criteria (see above) and its implementation will typically involve trade-offs among these criteria. The conversion of primary forests to sustainably managed forest ecosystems increases relevant economic, social and other functions but often with adverse impacts on biodiversity (Barlow et al. 2007 73 ). In regions with infrequent or no stand-replacing natural disturbances, the timber yield per hectare harvested in managed secondary forests is typically lower than the yield per hectare from the first harvest in the primary forest (Romero and Putz 2018 74 ).

The sustainability of timber yield has been achieved in temperate and boreal forests where intensification of management has resulted in increased growing stocks and increased harvest rates in countries where forests had previously been overexploited (Henttonen et al. 2017 75 ; Kauppi et al. 2018 76 ). However, intensification of management to increase forest productivity can be associated with reductions in biodiversity. For example, when increased productivity is achieved by periodic thinning and removal of trees that would otherwise die due to competition, thinning reduces the amount of dead organic matter of snags and coarse woody debris that can provide habitat, and this loss reduces biodiversity (Spence 2001 77 ; Ehnström 2001 78 ) and forest carbon stocks (Russell et al. 2015 79 ; Kurz et al. 2013 80 ). Recognition of adverse biodiversity impacts of high-yield forestry is leading to modified management aimed at increasing habitat availability through, for example, variable retention logging and continuous cover management (Roberts et al. 2016 81 ) and through the re-introduction of fire disturbances in landscapes where fires have been suppressed (Allen et al. 2002 82 ). Biodiversity losses are also observed during the transition from primary to managed forests in tropical regions (Barlow et al. 2007 83 ) where tree species diversity can be very high – for example, in the Amazon region, about 16,000 tree species are estimated to exist (ter Steege et al. 2013 84 ).

Forest certification schemes have been used to document SFM outcomes (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003 85 ) by assessing a set of criteria and indicators (e.g., Lindenmayer et al. 2000 86 ). While many of the certified forests are found in temperate and boreal countries (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003 87 ; MacDicken et al. 2015 88 ), examples from the tropics also show that SFM can improve outcomes. For example, selective logging emits 6% of the tropical GHG annually and improved logging practices can reduce emissions by 44% while maintaining timber production (Ellis et al. 2019 89 ). In the Congo Basin, implementing reduced impact logging (RIL-C) practices can cut emissions in half without reducing the timber yield (Umunay et al. 2019 90 ). SFM adoption depends on the socio-economic and political context, and its improvement depends mainly on better reporting and verification (Siry et al. 2005 91 ).

The successful implementation of SFM requires well-established and functional governance, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms to eliminate deforestation, illegal logging, arson, and other activities that are inconsistent with SFM principles (Nasi et al. 2011 92 ). Moreover, following human and natural disturbances, forest regrowth must be ensured through reforestation, site rehabilitation activities or natural regeneration. Failure of forests to regrow following disturbances will lead to unsustainable outcomes and long-term reductions in forest area, forest cover, carbon density, forest productivity and land-based carbon sinks (Nasi et al. 2011 93 ).

Achieving all of the criteria of the definitions of SLM and SFM is an aspirational goal that will be made more challenging where climate change impacts, such as biome shifts and increased disturbances, are predicted to adversely affect future biodiversity and contribute to forest degradation (Warren et al. 2018 94 ). Land management to enhance land sinks will involve trade-offs that need to be assessed within their spatial, temporal and societal context.

The human dimension of land degradation and forest degradation

Studies of land and forest degradation are often biased towards biophysical aspects, both in terms of its processes, such as erosion or nutrient depletion, and its observed physical manifestations, such as gullying or low primary productivity. Land users’ own perceptions and knowledge about land conditions and degradation have often been neglected or ignored by both policymakers and scientists (Reed et al. 2007 95 ; Forsyth 1996 96 ; Andersson et al. 2011 97 ). A growing body of work is nevertheless beginning to focus on land degradation through the lens of local land users (Kessler and Stroosnijder 2006 98 ; Fairhead and Scoones 2005 99 ; Zimmerer 1993 100 ; Stocking et al. 2001 101 ) and the importance of local and indigenous knowledge within land management is starting to be appreciated (Montanarella et al. 2018 102 ). Climate change impacts directly and indirectly on the social reality, the land users, and the ecosystem, and vice versa. Land degradation can also have an impact on climate change (Section 4.6).

The use and management of land is highly gendered and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future (Kristjanson et al. 2017 103 ). Women often have less formal access to land than men and less influence over decisions about land, even if they carry out many of the land management tasks (Jerneck 2018a 104 ; Elmhirst 2011 105 ; Toulmin 2009 106 ; Peters 2004 107 ; Agarwal 1997 108 ; Jerneck 2018b 109 ). Many oft-cited general statements about women’s subordination in agriculture are difficult to substantiate, yet it is clear that gender inequality persists (Doss et al. 2015 110 ). Even if women’s access to land is changing formally (Kumar and Quisumbing 2015 111 ), the practical outcome is often limited due to several other factors related to both formal and informal institutional arrangements and values (Lavers 2017 112 ; Kristjanson et al. 2017 113 ; Djurfeldt et al. 2018 114 ). Women are also affected differently than men when it comes to climate change, having lower adaptive capacities due to factors such as prevailing land tenure frameworks, less access to other capital assets and dominant cultural practices (Vincent et al. 2014 115 ; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 116 ; Gabrielsson et al. 2013 117 ). This affects the options available to women to respond to both land degradation and climate change. Indeed, access to land and other assets (e.g., education and training) is key in shaping land-use and land management strategies (Liu et al. 2018b 118 ; Lambin et al. 2001 119 ). Young people are also often disadvantaged in terms of access to resources and decision-making power, even though they carry out much of the day-to-day work (Wilson et al. 2017 120 ; Kosec et al. 2018 121 ; Naamwintome and Bagson 2013 122 ).

Land rights differ between places and are dependent on the political-economic and legal context (Montanarella et al. 2018 123 ). This means that there is no universally applicable best arrangement. Agriculture in highly erosion-prone regions requires site-specific and long-lasting soil and water conservation measures, such as terraces (Section 4.8.1), which may benefit from secure private land rights (Tarfasa et al. 2018 124 ; Soule et al. 2000 125 ). Pastoral modes of production and community-based forest management systems are often dominated by, and benefit from, communal land tenure arrangements, which may conflict with agricultural/forestry modernisation policies implying private property rights (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 126 ; Benjaminsen and Lund 2003 127 ; Itkonen 2016 128 ; Owour et al. 2011 129 ; Gebara 2018 130 ).

Cultural ecosystem services, defined as the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 131 ) are closely linked to land and ecosystems, although often under-represented in the literature on ecosystem services (Tengberg et al. 2012 132 ; Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013 133 ). Climate change interacting with land conditions can impact on cultural aspects, such as sense of place and sense of belonging (Olsson et al. 2014 134 ).

Land degradation in the context of climate change

Land degradation results from a complex chain of causes making the clear distinction between direct and indirect drivers difficult. In the context of climate change, an additional complex aspect is brought by the reciprocal effects that both processes have on each other (i.e. climate change influencing land degradation and vice versa). In this chapter, we use the terms ‘processes’ and ‘drivers’ with the following meanings:

Processes of land degradation are those direct mechanisms by which land is degraded and are similar to the notion of ‘direct drivers’ in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 135 ). A comprehensive list of land degradation processes is presented in Table 4.1.

Drivers of land degradation are those indirect conditions which may drive processes of land degradation and are similar to the notion of ‘indirect drivers’ in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework. Examples of indirect drivers of land degradation are changes in land tenure or cash crop prices, which can trigger land-use or management shifts that affect land degradation.

An exact demarcation between processes and drivers is not possible. Drought and fires are described as drivers of land degradation in the next section but they can also be a process: for example, if repeated fires deplete seed sources, they can affect regeneration and succession of forest ecosystems. The responses to land degradation follow the logic of the LDN concept: avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation (Orr et al. 2017 136 ; Cowie et al. 2018 137 ).

In research on land degradation, climate and climate variability are often intrinsic factors. The role of climate change, however, is less articulated. Depending on what conceptual framework is used, climate change is understood either as a process or a driver of land degradation, and sometimes both.

Processes of land degradation

A large array of interactive physical, chemical, biological and human processes lead to what we define in this report as land degradation (Johnson and Lewis 2007 138 ). The biological productivity, ecological integrity (which encompasses both functional and structural attributes of ecosystems) or the human value (which includes any benefit that people get from the land) of a given territory can deteriorate as the result of processes triggered at scales that range from a single furrow (e.g., water erosion under cultivation) to the landscape level (e.g., salinisation through raising groundwater levels under irrigation). While pressures leading to land degradation are often exerted on specific components of the land systems (i.e., soils, water, biota), once degradation processes start, other components become affected through cascading and interactive effects. For example, different pressures and degradation processes can have convergent effects, as can be the case of overgrazing leading to wind erosion, landscape drainage resulting in wetland drying, and warming causing more frequent burning; all of which can independently lead to reductions of the soil organic matter (SOM) pools as a second-order process. Still, the reduction of organic matter pools is also a first-order process triggered directly by the effects of rising temperatures (Crowther et al. 2016 139 ) as well as other climate changes such as precipitation shifts (Viscarra Rossel et al. 2014 140 ). Beyond this complexity, a practical assessment of the major land degradation processes helps to reveal and categorise the multiple pathways in which climate change exerts a degradation pressure (Table 4.1).

Conversion of freshwater wetlands to agricultural land has historically been a common way of increasing the area of arable land. Despite the small areal extent – about 1% of the earth’s surface (Hu et al. 2017 141 ; Dixon et al. 2016 142 ) – freshwater wetlands provide a very large number of ecosystem services, such as groundwater replenishment, flood protection and nutrient retention, and are biodiversity hotspots (Reis et al. 2017 143 ; Darrah et al. 2019 144 ; Montanarella et al. 2018 145 ). The loss of wetlands since 1900 has been estimated at about 55% globally (Davidson 2014 146 ) ( low confidence ) and 35% since 1970 (Darrah et al. 2019 147 ) ( medium confidence ) which in many situations pose a problem for adaptation to climate change. Drainage causes loss of wetlands, which can be exacerbated by climate change, further reducing the capacity to adapt to climate change (Barnett et al. 2015 148 ; Colloff et al. 2016 149 ; Finlayson et al. 2017 150 ) ( high confidence ).

Types of land degradation processes

Land degradation processes can affect the soil, water or biotic components of the land as well as the reactions between them (Table 4.1). Across land degradation processes, those affecting the soil have received more attention. The most widespread and studied land degradation processes affecting soils are water and wind erosion, which have accompanied agriculture since its onset and are still dominant (Table 4.1). Degradation through erosion processes is not restricted to soil loss in detachment areas but includes impacts on transport and deposition areas as well (less commonly, deposition areas can have their soils improved by these inputs). Larger-scale degradation processes related to the whole continuum of soil erosion, transport and deposition include dune field expansion/ displacement, development of gully networks and the accumulation of sediments in natural and artificial water-bodies (siltation) (Poesen and Hooke 1997 151 ; Ravi et al. 2010 152 ). Long-distance sediment transport during erosion events can have remote effects on land systems, as documented for the fertilisation effect of African dust on the Amazon (Yu et al. 2015 153 ).

Coastal erosion represents a special case among erosional processes, with reports linking it to climate change. While human interventions in coastal areas (e.g., expansion of shrimp farms) and rivers (e.g., upstream dams cutting coastal sediment supply), and economic activities causing land subsidence (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 154 ; Allison et al. 2016 155 ) are dominant human drivers, storms and sea-level rise have already left a significant global imprint on coastal erosion (Mentaschi et al. 2018 156 ). Recent projections that take into account geomorphological and socioecological feedbacks suggest that coastal wetlands may not be reduced by sea level rise if their inland growth is accommodated with proper management actions (Schuerch et al. 2018 157 ).

Other physical degradation processes in which no material detachment and transport are involved include soil compaction, hardening, sealing and any other mechanism leading to the loss of porous space crucial for holding and exchanging air and water (Hamza and Anderson 2005 158 ). A very extreme case of degradation through pore volume loss, manifested at landscape or larger scales, is ground subsidence. Typically caused by the lowering of groundwater or oil levels, subsidence involves a sustained collapse of the ground

surface, which can lead to other degradation processes such as salinisation and permanent flooding. Chemical soil degradation processes include relatively simple changes, like nutrient depletion resulting from the imbalance of nutrient extraction on harvested products and fertilisation, and more complex ones, such as acidification and increasing metal toxicity. Acidification in croplands is increasingly driven by excessive nitrogen fertilisation and, to a lower extent, by the depletion of cation like calcium, potassium or magnesium through exports in harvested biomass (Guo et al. 2010 159 ). One of the most relevant chemical degradation processes of soils in the context of climate change is the depletion of its organic matter pool. Reduced in agricultural soils through the increase of respiration rates by tillage and the decline of below-ground plant biomass inputs, SOM pools have been diminished also by the direct effects of warming, not only in cultivated land, but also under natural vegetation (Bond-Lamberty et al. 2018 160 ). Debate persists, however, on whether in more humid and carbon-rich ecosystems the simultaneous stimulation of decomposition and productivity may result in the lack of effects on soil carbon (Crowther et al. 2016 161 ; van Gestel et al. 2018 162 ). In the case of forests, harvesting – particularly if it is exhaustive, as in the case of the use of residues for energy generation – can also lead to organic matter declines (Achat et al. 2015 163 ). Many other degradation processes (e.g., wildfire increase, salinisation) have negative effects on other pathways of soil degradation (e.g., reduced nutrient availability, metal toxicity). SOM can be considered a ‘hub’ of degradation processes and a critical link with the climate system (Minasny et al. 2017 164 ).

Land degradation processes can also start from alterations in the hydrological system that are particularly important in the context of climate change. Salinisation, although perceived and reported in soils, is typically triggered by water table-level rises, driving salts to the surface under dry to sub-humid climates (Schofield and Kirkby 2003 165 ). While salty soils occur naturally under these climates (primary salinity), human interventions have expanded their distribution, secondary salinity with irrigation without proper drainage being the predominant cause of salinisation (Rengasamy 2006 166 ). Yet, it has also taken place under non-irrigated conditions where vegetation changes (particularly dry forest clearing and cultivation) have reduced the magnitude and depth of soil water uptake, triggering water table rises towards the surface. Changes in evapotranspiration and rainfall regimes can exacerbate this process (Schofield and Kirkby 2003 167 ). Salinisation can also result from the intrusion of sea water into coastal areas, both as a result of sea level rise and ground subsidence (Colombani et al. 2016 168 ).

Recurring flood and waterlogging episodes (Bradshaw et al. 2007 169 ; Poff 2002 170 ), and the more chronic expansion of wetlands over dryland ecosystems, are mediated by the hydrological system, on occasions aided by geomorphological shifts as well (Kirwan et al. 2011 171 ). This is also the case for the drying of continental water bodies and wetlands, including the salinisation and drying of lakes and inland seas (Anderson et al. 2003 172 ; Micklin 2010 173 ; Herbert et al. 2015 174 ). In the context of climate change, the degradation of peatland ecosystems is particularly relevant given their very high carbon storage and their sensitivity to changes in soils, hydrology and/or vegetation (Leifeld and Menichetti 2018 175 ). Drainage for land-use conversion together with peat mining are major drivers of peatland degradation, yet other factors such as the extractive use of their natural vegetation and the interactive effects of water table levels and fires (both sensitive to climate change) are important (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a 176 ; Lilleskov et al. 2019 177 ).

The biotic components of the land can also be the focus of degradation processes. Vegetation clearing processes associated with land-use changes are not limited to deforestation but include other natural and seminatural ecosystems such as grasslands (the most cultivated biome on Earth), as well as dry steppes and shrublands, which give place to croplands, pastures, urbanisation or just barren land. This clearing process is associated with net carbon losses from the vegetation and soil pool. Not all biotic degradation processes involve biomass losses. Woody encroachment of open savannahs involves the expansion of woody plant cover and/or density over herbaceous areas and often limits the secondary productivity of rangelands (Asner et al. 2004 178 ; Anadon et al. 2014 179 ). These processes have accelerated since the mid-1800s over most continents (Van Auken 2009 180 ). Change in plant composition of natural or semi-natural ecosystems without any significant vegetation structural changes is another pathway of degradation affecting rangelands and forests. In rangelands, selective grazing and its interaction with climate variability and/or fire can push ecosystems to new compositions with lower forage value and a higher proportion of invasive species (Illius and O ́Connor 1999 181 ; Sasaki et al. 2007 182 ), in some cases with higher carbon sequestration potential, yet with very complex interactions between vegetation and soil carbon shifts (Piñeiro et al. 2010 183 ). In forests, extractive logging can be a pervasive cause of degradation, leading to long-term impoverishment and, in extreme cases, a full loss of the forest cover through its interaction with other agents such as fires (Foley et al. 2007 184 ) or progressive intensification of land use. Invasive alien species are another source of biological degradation. Their arrival into cultivated systems is constantly reshaping crop production strategies, making agriculture unviable on occasions. In natural and seminatural systems such as rangelands, invasive plant species not only threaten livestock production through diminished forage quality, poisoning and other deleterious effects, but have cascading effects on other processes such as altered fire regimes and water cycling (Brooks et al. 2004 185 ). In forests, invasions affect primary productivity and nutrient availability, change fire regimes, and alter species composition, resulting in long-term impacts on carbon pools and fluxes (Peltzer et al. 2010 186 ).

Other biotic components of ecosystems have been shown as a focus of degradation processes. Invertebrate invasions in continental waters can exacerbate other degradation processes such as eutrophication, which is the over-enrichment of nutrients, leading to excessive algal growth (Walsh et al. 2016a 187 ). Shifts in soil microbial and mesofaunal composition – which can be caused by pollution with pesticides or nitrogen deposition and by vegetation or disturbance regime shifts – alter many soil functions, including respiration rates and carbon release to the atmosphere (Hussain et al. 2009 188 ; Crowther et al. 2015 189 ). The role of the soil biota in modulating the effects of climate change on soil carbon has been recently demonstrated (Ratcliffe et al. 2017 190 ), highlighting the importance of this lesser-known component of the biota as a focal point of land degradation. Of special relevance as both indicators and agents of land degradation recovery are mycorrhiza, which are root-associated fungal organisms (Asmelash et al. 2016 191 ; Vasconcellos et al. 2016 192 ). In natural dry ecosystems, biological soil crusts composed of a broad range of organisms, including mosses, are a particularly sensitive focus for degradation (Field et al. 2010 193 ) with evidenced sensitivity to climate change (Reed et al. 2012 194 ).

Land degradation processes and climate change

While the subdivision of individual processes is challenged by their strong interconnectedness, it provides a useful setting to identify the most important ‘focal points’ of climate change pressures on land degradation. Among land degradation processes, those responding more directly to climate change pressures include all types of erosion and SOM declines (soil focus), salinisation, sodification and permafrost thawing (soil/water focus), waterlogging of dry ecosystems and drying of wet ecosystems (water focus), and a broad group of biologically-mediated processes like woody encroachment, biological invasions, pest outbreaks (biotic focus), together with biological soil crust destruction and increased burning (soil/biota focus) (Table 4.1). Processes like ground subsidence can be affected by climate change indirectly through sea level rise (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 195 ).

Even when climate change exerts a direct pressure on degradation processes, it can be a secondary driver subordinated to other overwhelming human pressures. Important exceptions are three processes in which climate change is a dominant global or regional pressure and the main driver of their current acceleration. These are: coastal erosion as affected by sea level rise and increased storm frequency/intensity ( high agreement, medium evidence ) (Johnson et al. 2015 196 ; Alongi 2015 197 ; Harley et al. 2017 198 ; Nicholls et al. 2016 199 ); permafrost thawing responding to warming ( high agreement, robust evidence ) (Liljedahl et al. 2016 200 ; Peng et al. 2016 201 ; Batir et al. 2017 202 ); and increased burning responding to warming and altered precipitation regimes ( high agreement, robust evidence ) (Jolly et al. 2015 203 ; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016 204 ; Taufik et al. 2017 205 ; Knorr et al. 2016 206 ). The previous assessment highlights the fact that climate change not only exacerbates many of the well-acknowledged ongoing land degradation processes of managed ecosystems (i.e., croplands and pastures), but becomes a dominant pressure that introduces novel degradation pathways in natural and seminatural ecosystems. Climate change has influenced species invasions and the degradation that they cause by enhancing the transport, colonisation, establishment, and ecological impact of the invasive species, and also by impairing their control practices ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) (Hellmann et al. 2008 207 ).

Major land degradation processes and their connections with climate change.

For each process a ‘focal point’ (soil, water, biota) on which degradation occurs in the first place is indicated, acknowledging that most processes propagate to other land components and cascade into or interact with some of the other processes listed below. The impact of climate change on each process is categorised based on the proximity (very direct = high, very indirect = low) and dominance (dominant = high, subordinate to other pressures = low) of effects. The major effects of climate change on each process are highlighted together with the predominant pressures from other drivers. Feedbacks of land degradation processes on climate change are categorised according to the intensity (very intense = high, subtle = low) of the chemical (GHG emissions or capture) or physical (energy and momentum exchange, aerosol emissions) effects. Warming effects are indicated in red and cooling effects in blue. Specific feedbacks on climate change are highlighted.

References in Table 4.1: (1) Bärring et al. 2003 1580 ; Munson et al. 2011 1581 ; Sheffield et al. 2012 1582 , (2) Nearing et al. 2004 1583 ; Shakesby 2011 1584 ; Panthou et al. 2014 1585 , (3) Johnson et al. 2015 1586 ; Alongi 2015 1587 ; Harley et al. 2017 1588 , (4) Bond-Lamberty et al. 2018 1589 ; Crowther et al. 2016 1590 ; van Gestel et al. 2018 1591 , (5) Colombani et al. 2016 1592 , (6) Schofield and Kirkby 2003 1593 ; Aragüés et al. 2015 1594 ; Benini et al. 2016 1595 , (7) Jobbágy et al. 2017 1596 , (8) Liljedahl et al. 2016 1597 ; Peng et al. 2016 1598 ; Batir et al. 2017 1599 , (9) Piovano et al. 2004 1600 ; Osland et al. 2016 1601 , (10) Burkett and Kusler 2000 1602 ; Nielsen and Brock 2009 1603 ; Johnson et al. 2015 1604 ; Green et al. 2017 1605 , (11) Panthou et al. 2014 1606 ; Arnell and Gosling 2016 1607 ; Vitousek et al. 2017 1608 , (12) Van Auken 2009 1609 ; Wigley et al. 2010 1610 , (13) Vincent et al. 2014 1611 ; Gonzalez et al. 2010 1612 ; Scheffers et al. 2016 1613 , (14) Pritchard 2011 1614 ; Ratcliffe et al. 2017 1615 , (15) Reed et al. 2012 1616 ; Maestre et al. 2013 1617 , (16) Hellmann et al. 2008 1618 ; Hulme 2017 1619 , (17) Pureswaran et al. 2015 1620 ; Cilas et al. 2016 1621 ; Macfadyen et al. 2018 1622 , (18) Jolly et al. 2015 1623 ; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016 1624 ; Taufik et al. 2017 1625 ; Knorr et al. 2016 1626 , (19) Davin et al. 2010 1627 ; Pinty et al. 2011 1628 , (20) Wang et al. 2017b 1629 ; Chappell et al. 2016 1630 , (21) Pendleton et al. 2012 1631 , (22) Oertel et al. 2016 1632 , (23) Houghton et al. 2012 1633 ; Eglin et al. 2010 1634 , (24) Schuur et al. 2015 1635 ; Christensen et al. 2004 1636 ; Walter Anthony et al. 2016 1637 ; Abbott et al. 2016 1638 , (25) Belnap, Walker, Munson & Gill, 2014 1639 ; Rutherford et al. 2017 1640 , (26) Page et al. 2002 1641 ; Pellegrini et al. 2018 1642 .

Drivers of land degradation

Drivers of land degradation and land improvement are many and they interact in multiple ways. Figure 4.2 illustrates how some of the most important drivers interact with the land users. It is important to keep in mind that natural and human factors can drive both degradation and improvement (Kiage 2013 208 ; Bisaro et al. 2014 209 ).

Schematic representation of the interactions between the human (H) and environmental (E) components of the land system showing decision-making and ecosystem services as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept […]

Schematic representation of the interactions between the human (H) and environmental (E) components of the land system showing decision-making and ecosystem services as the key linkages between the components (moderated by an effective system of local and scientific knowledge), and indicating how the rates of change and the way these linkages operate must be kept broadly in balance for functional coevolution of the components. Modified with permission from Stafford Smith et al. (2007) 1643 .

Land degradation is driven by the entire spectrum of factors, from very short and intensive events, such as individual rain storms of 10 minutes removing topsoil or initiating a gully or a landslide (Coppus and Imeson 2002 210 ; Morgan 2005b 211 ) to century-scale slow depletion of nutrients or loss of soil particles (Johnson and Lewis 2007, pp. 5–6). But, instead of focusing on absolute temporal variations, the drivers of land degradation can be assessed in relation to the rates of possible recovery. Unfortunately, this is impractical to do in a spatially explicit way because rates of soil formation are difficult to measure due to the slow rate, usually <5mm/century (Delgado and Gómez 2016 212 ). Studies suggest that erosion rates of conventionally tilled agricultural fields exceed the rate at which soil is generated by one to two orders of magnitude (Montgomery 2007a 213 ).

The landscape effects of gully erosion from one short intensive rainstorm can persist for decades and centuries (Showers 2005 214 ). Intensive agriculture under the Roman Empire in occupied territories in France is still leaving its marks and can be considered an example of irreversible land degradation (Dupouey et al. 2002 215 ).

The climate-change-related drivers of land degradation are gradual changes of temperature, precipitation and wind, as well as changes of the distribution and intensity of extreme events (Lin et al. 2017 216 ). Importantly, these drivers can act in two directions: land improvement and land degradation. Increasing CO 2 level in the atmosphere is a driver of land improvement, even if the net effect is modulated by other factors, such as the availability of nitrogen (Terrer et al. 2016 217 ) and water (Gerten et al. 2014 218 ; Settele et al. 2015 219 ; Girardin et al. 2016 220 ).

The gradual and planetary changes that can cause land degradation/ improvement have been studied by global integrated models and Earth observation technologies. Studies of global land suitability for agriculture suggest that climate change will increase the area suitable for agriculture by 2100 in the Northern high latitudes by 16% (Ramankutty et al. 2002 221 ) or 5.6 million km 2 (Zabel et al. 2014 222 ), while tropical regions will experience a loss (Ramankutty et al. 2002 223 ; Zabel et al. 2014 224 ).

Temporal and spatial patterns of tree mortality can be used as an indicator of climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. Episodic mortality of trees occurs naturally even without climate change, but more widespread spatio-temporal anomalies can be a sign of climate-induced degradation (Allen et al. 2010 225 ). In the absence of systematic data on tree mortality, a comprehensive meta-analysis of 150 published articles suggests that increasing tree mortality around the world can be attributed to increasing drought and heat stress in forests worldwide (Allen et al. 2010 226 ).

Other and more indirect drivers can be a wide range of factors such as demographic changes, technological change, changes of consumption patterns and dietary preferences, political and economic changes, and social changes (Mirzabaev et al. 2016 227 ). It is important to stress that there are no simple or direct relationships between underlying drivers and land degradation, such as poverty or high population density, that are necessarily causing land degradation (Lambin et al. 2001 228 ). However, drivers of land degradation need to be studied in the context of spatial, temporal, economic, environmental and cultural aspects (Warren 2002 229 ). Some analyses suggest an overall negative correlation between population density and land degradation (Bai et al. 2008 230 ) but we find many local examples of both positive and negative relationships (Brandt et al. 2018a, 2017 231 ). Even if there are correlations in one or the other direction, causality is not always the same.

Land degradation is inextricably linked to several climate variables, such as temperature, precipitation, wind, and seasonality. This means that there are many ways in which climate change and land degradation are linked. The linkages are better described as a web of causality rather than a set of cause–effect relationships.

Attribution in the case of land degradation

The question here is whether or not climate change can be attributed to land degradation and vice versa. Land degradation is a complex phenomenon often affected by multiple factors such as climatic (rainfall, temperature, and wind), abiotic ecological factors (e.g., soil characteristics and topography), type of land use (e.g., farming of various kinds, forestry, or protected area), and land management practices (e.g., tilling, crop rotation, and logging/thinning). Therefore, attribution of land degradation to climate change is extremely challenging. Because land degradation is highly dependent on land management, it is even possible that climate impacts would trigger land management changes reducing or reversing land degradation, sometimes called transformational adaptation (Kates et al. 2012 232 ). There is not much research on attributing land degradation explicitly to climate change, but there is more on climate change as a threat multiplier for land degradation. However, in some cases, it is possible to infer climate change impacts on land degradation, both theoretically and empirically. Section 4.2.3.1 outlines the potential direct linkages of climate change on land degradation based on current theoretical understanding of land degradation processes and drivers. Section 4.2.3.2 investigates possible indirect impacts on land degradation.

Direct linkages with climate change

The most important direct impacts of climate change on land degradation are the results of increasing temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and intensification of rainfall. These changes will, in various combinations, cause changes in erosion rates and the processes driving both increases and decreases of soil erosion. From an attribution point of view, it is important to note that projections of precipitation are, in general, more uncertain than projections of temperature changes (Murphy et al. 2004 233 ; Fischer and Knutti 2015 234 ; IPCC 2013a 235 ). Precipitation involves local processes of larger complexity than temperature, and projections are usually less robust than those for temperature (Giorgi and Lionello 2008 236 ; Pendergrass 2018 237 ).

Theoretically the intensification of the hydrological cycle as a result of human-induced climate change is well established (Guerreiro et al. 2018 238 ; Trenberth 1999 239 ; Pendergrass et al. 2017 240 ; Pendergrass and Knutti 2018 241 ) and also empirically observed (Blenkinsop et al. 2018 242 ; Burt et al. 2016a 243 ; Liu et al. 2009 244 ; Bindoff et al. 2013 245 ). AR5 WGI concluded that heavy precipitation events have increased in frequency, intensity, and/or amount since 1950 ( likely ) and that further changes in this direction are likely to very likely during the 21st century (IPCC 2013 246 ). The IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C concluded that human-induced global warming has already caused an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at the global scale (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 247 ). As an example, in central India, there has been a threefold increase in widespread extreme rain events during 1950–2015 which has influenced several land degradation processes, not least soil erosion (Burt et al. 2016b 248 ). In Europe and North America, where observation networks are dense and extend over a long time, it is likely that the frequency or intensity of heavy rainfall have increased (IPCC 2013b 1644 ). It is also expected that seasonal shifts and cycles such as monsoons and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) will further increase the intensity of rainfall events (IPCC 2013 249 ).

When rainfall regimes change, it is expected to drive changes in vegetation cover and composition, which may be a cause of land degradation in and of itself, as well as impacting on other aspects of land degradation. Vegetation cover, for example, is a key factor in determining soil loss through water (Nearing et al. 2005 250 ) and wind erosion (Shao 2008 251 ). Changing rainfall regimes also affect below-ground biological processes, such as fungi and bacteria (Meisner et al. 2018 252 ; Shuab et al. 2017 253 ; Asmelash et al. 2016 254 ).

Changing snow accumulation and snow melt alter volume and timing of hydrological flows in and from mountain areas (Brahney et al. 2017 255 ; Lutz et al. 2014 256 ), with potentially large impacts on downstream areas. Soil processes are also affected by changing snow conditions with partitioning between evaporation and streamflow and between subsurface flow and surface runoff (Barnhart et al. 2016 257 ). Rainfall intensity is a key climatic driver of soil erosion. Early modelling studies and theory suggest that light rainfall events will decrease while heavy rainfall events increase at about 7% per degree of warming (Liu et al. 2009 258 ; Trenberth 2011 259 ). Such changes result in increased intensity of rainfall, which increases the erosive power of rainfall (erosivity) and hence enhances the likelihood of water erosion. Increases in rainfall intensity can even exceed the rate of increase of atmospheric moisture content (Liu et al. 2009 260 ; Trenberth 2011 261 ). Erosivity is highly correlated to the product of total rainstorm energy and the maximum 30-minute rainfall intensity of the storm (Nearing et al. 2004 262 ) and increased erosivity will exacerbate water erosion substantially (Nearing et al. 2004 263 ). However, the effects will not be uniform, but highly variable across regions (Almagro et al. 2017 264 ; Mondal et al. 2016 265 ). Several empirical studies around the world have shown the increasing intensity of rainfall (IPCC 2013b 266 ; Ma et al. 2015 267 , 2017 268 ) and also suggest that this will be accentuated with future increased global warming (Cheng and AghaKouchak 2015 269 ; Burt et al. 2016b 270 ; O’Gorman 2015 271 ).

The very comprehensive database of direct measurements of water erosion presented by García-Ruiz et al. (2015) 272 contains 4377 entries (North America: 2776, Europe: 847, Asia: 259, Latin America: 237, Africa: 189, Australia and Pacific: 67), even though not all entries are complete (Figure 4.3).

Map of observed soil erosion rates in database of 4,377 entries by García-Ruiz et al. (2015). The map was published by Li and Fang (2016).

Map of observed soil erosion rates in database of 4,377 entries by García-Ruiz et al. (2015) 1645 . The map was published by Li and Fang (2016) 1646 .

An important finding from that database is that almost any erosion rate is possible under almost any climatic condition (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 273 ). Even if the results show few clear relationships between erosion and land conditions, the authors highlighted four observations (i) the highest erosion rates were found in relation to agricultural activities – even though moderate erosion rates were also found in agricultural settings, (ii) high erosion rates after forest fires were not observed (although the cases were few), (iii) land covered by shrubs showed generally low erosion rates, (iv) pasture land showed generally medium rates of erosion. Some important findings for the link between soil erosion and climate change can be noted from erosion measurements: erosion rates tend to increase with increasing mean annual rainfall, with a peak in the interval of 1000 to 1400 mm annual rainfall (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 274 ) ( low confidence ). However, such relationships are overshadowed by the fact that most rainfall events do not cause any erosion, instead erosion is caused by a few high-intensity rainfall events (Fischer et al. 2016 275 ; Zhu et al. 2019 276 ). Hence, mean annual rainfall is not a good predictor of erosion (Gonzalez-Hidalgo et al. 2012, 2009 277 ). In the context of climate change, it means that the tendency for rainfall patterns to change towards more intensive precipitation events is serious. Such patterns have already been observed widely, even in cases where the total rainfall is decreasing (Trenberth 2011 278 ). The findings generally confirm the strong consensus about the importance of vegetation cover as a protection against soil erosion, emphasising how extremely important land management is for controlling erosion.

In the Mediterranean region, the observed and expected decrease in annual rainfall due to climate change is accompanied by an increase of rainfall intensity, and hence erosivity (Capolongo et al. 2008 279 ). In tropical and sub-tropical regions, the on-site impacts of soil erosion dominate, and are manifested in very high rates of soil loss, in some cases exceeding 100 t ha–1 yr–1 (Tadesse 2001 280 ; García-Ruiz et al. 2015 281 ). In temperate regions, the off-site costs of soil erosion are often a greater concern, for example, siltation of dams and ponds, downslope damage to property, roads and other infrastructure (Boardman 2010). In cases where water erosion occurs, the downstream effects, such as siltation of dams, are often significant and severe in terms of environmental and economic damages (Kidane and Alemu 2015 282 ; Reinwarth et al. 2019 283 ; Quiñonero-Rubio et al. 2016 284 ; Adeogun et al. 2018 285 ; Ben Slimane et al. 2016 286 ).

The distribution of wet and dry spells also affects land degradation, although uncertainties remain depending on resolution of climate models used for prediction (Kendon et al. 2014 287 ). Changes in timing of rainfall events may have significant impacts on processes of soil erosion through changes in wetting and drying of soils (Lado et al. 2004 288 ).

Soil moisture content is affected by changes in evapotranspiration and evaporation, which may influence the partitioning of water into surface and subsurface runoff (Li and Fang 2016 289 ; Nearing et al. 2004 290 ). This portioning of rainfall can have a decisive effect on erosion (Stocking et al. 2001 291 ).

Wind erosion is a serious problem in agricultural regions, not only in drylands (Wagner 2013 292 ). Near-surface wind speeds over land areas have decreased in recent decades (McVicar and Roderick 2010 293 ), partly as a result of changing surface roughness (Vautard et al. 2010 294 ). Theoretically (Bakun 1990 295 ; Bakun et al. 2015 296 ) and empirically (Sydeman et al. 2014 297 ; England et al. 2014 298 ) average winds along coastal regions worldwide have increased with climate change ( medium evidence, high agreement ). Other studies of wind and wind erosion have not detected any long-term trend, suggesting that climate change has altered wind patterns outside drylands in a way that can significantly affect the risk of wind erosion (Pryor and Barthelmie 2010 299 ; Bärring et al. 2003 300 ). Therefore, the findings regarding wind erosion and climate change are inconclusive, partly due to inadequate measurements.

Global mean temperatures are rising worldwide, but particularly in the Arctic region ( high confidence ) (IPCC 2018a 301 ). Heat stress from extreme temperatures and heatwaves (multiple days of hot weather in a row) have increased markedly in some locations in the last three decades ( high confidence ), and are virtually certain to continue during the 21st century (Olsson et al. 2014a 302 ). The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C concluded that human-induced global warming has already caused more frequent heatwaves in most of land regions, and that climate models project robust differences between present-day and global warming up to 1.5°C and between 1.5°C and 2°C (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 303 ). Direct temperature effects on soils are of two kinds. Firstly, permafrost thawing leads to soil degradation in boreal and high-altitude regions (Yang et al. 2010 304 ; Jorgenson and Osterkamp 2005 305 ). Secondly, warming alters the cycling of nitrogen and carbon in soils, partly due to impacts on soil microbiota (Solly et al. 2017 306 ). There are many studies with particularly strong experimental evidence, but a full understanding of cause and effect is contextual and elusive (Conant et al. 2011a 307 ,b 308 ; Wu et al. 2011 309 ). This is discussed comprehensively in Chapter 2.

Climate change, including increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels, affects vegetation structure and function and hence conditions for land degradation. Exactly how vegetation responds to changes remains a research task. In a comparison of seven global vegetation models under four representative concentration pathways, Friend et al. (2014) 310 found that all models predicted increasing vegetation carbon storage, however, with substantial variation between models. An important insight compared with previous understanding is that structural dynamics of vegetation seems to play a more important role for carbon storage than vegetation production (Friend et al. 2014 311 ). The magnitude of CO 2 fertilisation of vegetation growth, and hence conditions for land degradation, is still uncertain (Holtum and Winter 2010 312 ), particularly in tropical rainforests (Yang et al. 2016 313 ). For more discussion on this topic, see Chapter 2 in this report.

In summary, rainfall changes attributed to human-induced climate change have already intensified drivers of land degradation ( robust evidence, high agreement ) but attributing land degradation to climate change is challenging because of the importance of land management ( medium evidence, high agreement ). Changes in climate variability modes, such as in monsoons and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, can also affect land degradation ( low evidence, low agreement ).

Indirect and complex linkages with climate change

Many important indirect linkages between land degradation and climate change occur via agriculture, particularly through changing outbreaks of pests (Rosenzweig et al. 2001 314 ; Porter et al. 1991 315 ; Thomson et al. 2010 316 ; Dhanush et al. 2015 317 ; Lamichhane et al. 2015 318 ), which is covered comprehensively in Chapter 5. More negative impacts have been observed than positive ones (IPCC 2014b 319 ). After 2050, the risk of yield loss increases as a result of climate change in combination with other drivers ( medium confidence ) and such risks will increase dramatically if global mean temperatures increase by about 4°C ( high confidence ) (Porter et al. 2014). The reduction (or plateauing) in yields in major production areas (Brisson et al. 2010 320 ; Lin and Huybers 2012 321 ; Grassini et al. 2013 322 ) may trigger cropland expansion elsewhere, either into natural ecosystems, marginal arable lands or intensification on already cultivated lands, with possible consequences for increasing land degradation.

Precipitation and temperature changes will trigger changes in land and crop management, such as changes in planting and harvest dates, type of crops, and type of cultivars, which may alter the conditions for soil erosion (Li and Fang 2016 323 ).

Much research has tried to understand how plants are affected by a particular stressor, for example, drought, heat, or waterlogging, including effects on below-ground processes. But less research has tried to understand how plants are affected by several simultaneous stressors – which of course is more realistic in the context of climate change (Mittler 2006 324 ; Kerns et al. 2016 325 ) and from a hazards point of view (Section 7.2.1). From an attribution point of view, such a complex web of causality is problematic if attribution is only done through statistically-significant correlation. It requires a combination of statistical links and theoretically informed causation, preferably integrated into a model. Some modelling studies have combined several stressors with geomorphologically explicit mechanisms – using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model – and realistic land-use scenarios, and found severe risks of increasing erosion from climate change (Mullan et al. 2012 326 ; Mullan 2013 327 ). Other studies have included various management options, such as changing planting and harvest dates (Zhang and Nearing 2005 328 ; Parajuli et al. 2016 329 ; Routschek et al. 2014 330 ; Nunes and Nearing 2011 331 ), type of cultivars (Garbrecht and Zhang 2015 332 ), and price of crops (Garbrecht et al. 2007 333 ; O’Neal et al. 2005 334 ) to investigate the complexity of how new climate regimes may alter soil erosion rates.

In summary, climate change increases the risk of land degradation, both in terms of likelihood and consequence, but the exact attribution to climate change is challenging due to several confounding factors. But since climate change exacerbates most degradation processes, it is clear that, unless land management is improved, climate change will result in increasing land degradation ( very high confidence ).

Approaches to assessing land degradation

In a review of different approaches and attempts to map global land degradation, Gibbs and Salmon (2015) 335 identified four main approaches to map the global extent of degraded lands: expert opinions (Oldeman and van Lynden 1998 336 ; Dregne 1998 337 ; Reed 2005 338 ; Bot et al. 2000 339 ); satellite observation of vegetation greenness – for example, remote sensing of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Plant Phenology Index (PPI) – (Yengoh et al. 2015 340 ; Bai et al. 2008c 341 ; Shi et al. 2017 342 ; Abdi et al. 2019 343 ; JRC 2018 344 ); biophysical models (biogeographical/ topological) (Cai et al. 2011b 345 ; Hickler et al. 2005 346 ; Steinkamp and Hickler 2015 347 ; Stoorvogel et al. 2017 348 ); and inventories of land use/ condition. Together they provide a relatively complete evaluation, but none on its own assesses the complexity of the process (Vogt et al. 2011 349 ; Gibbs and Salmon 2015 350 ). There is, however, a robust consensus that remote sensing and field-based methods are critical to assess and monitor land degradation, particularly over large areas (such as global, continental and sub-continental) although there are still knowledge gaps to be filled (Wessels et al. 2007 351 , 2004 352 ; Prince 2016 353 ; Ghazoul and Chazdon 2017 354 ) as well as the problem of baseline values (Section 4.1.3).

Remote sensing can provide meaningful proxies of land degradation in terms of severity, temporal development, and areal extent. These proxies of land degradation include several indexes that have been used to assess land conditions, and monitoring changes of land conditions – for example, extent of gullies, severe forms of rill and sheet erosion, and deflation. The presence of open-access, quality controlled and continuously updated global databases of remote sensing data is invaluable, and is the only method for consistent monitoring of large areas over several decades (Sedano et al. 2016 355 ; Brandt et al. 2018b 356 ; Turner 2014 357 ).The NDVI, as a proxy for Net Primary Production (NPP) (see Glossary), is one of the most commonly used methods to assess land degradation, since it indicates land cover, an important factor for soil protection. Although NDVI is not a direct measure of vegetation biomass, there is a close coupling between NDVI integrated over a season and in situ NPP ( high agreement, robust evidence ) (see Higginbottom et al. 2014 358 ; Andela et al. 2013 359 ; Wessels et al. 2012 360 ).

Distinction between land degradation/improvement and the effects of climate variation is an important and contentious issue (Murthy and Bagchi 2018 361 ; Ferner et al. 2018 362 ).There is no simple and straightforward way to disentangle these two effects. The interaction of different determinants of primary production is not well understood. A key barrier to this is a lack of understanding of the inherent interannual variability of vegetation (Huxman et al. 2004 363 ; Knapp and Smith 2001 364 ; Ruppert et al. 2012 365 ; Bai et al. 2008a 366 ; Jobbágy and Sala 2000 367 ). One possibility is to compare potential land productivity modelled by vegetation models and actual productivity measured by remote sensing (Seaquist et al. 2009 368 ; Hickler et al. 2005 369 ; van der Esch et al. 2017 370 ), but the difference in spatial resolution, typically 0.5 degrees for vegetation models compared to 0.25–0.5 km for remote sensing data, is hampering the approach. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) provides higher spatial resolution (up to 0.25 km), delivers data for the EVI, which is calculated in the same way as NDVI, and has showed a robust approach to estimate spatial patterns of global annual primary productivity (Shi et al. 2017 371 ; Testa et al. 2018 372 ).

Another approach to disentangle the effects of climate and land use/ management is to use the Rain Use Efficiency (RUE), defined as the biomass production per unit of rainfall, as an indicator (Le Houerou 1984 373 ; Prince et al. 1998 374 ; Fensholt et al. 2015 375 ). A variant of the RUE approach is the residual trend (RESTREND) of a NDVI time series, defined as the fraction of the difference between the observed NDVI and the NDVI predicted from climate data (Yengoh et al. 2015 376 ; John et al. 2016 377 ). These two metrics aim to estimate the NPP, rainfall and the time dimensions. They are simple transformations of the same three variables: RUE shows the NPP relationship with rainfall for individual years, while RESTREND is the interannual change of RUE; also, both consider that rainfall is the only variable that affects biomass production. They are legitimate metrics when used appropriately, but in many cases they involve oversimplifications and yield misleading results (Fensholt et al. 2015 378 ; Prince et al. 1998 379 ).

Furthermore, increases in NPP do not always indicate improvement in land condition/reversal of land degradation, since this does not account for changes in vegetation composition. It could, for example, result from conversion of native forest to plantation, or due to bush encroachment, which many consider to be a form of land degradation (Ward 2005 380 ). Also, NPP may be increased by irrigation, which can enhance productivity in the short to medium term while increasing risk of soil salinisation in the long term (Niedertscheider et al. 2016 381 ).

Recent progress and expanding time series of canopy characterisations based on passive microwave satellite sensors have offered rapid progress in regional and global descriptions of forest degradation and recovery trends (Tian et al. 2017 382 ). The most common proxy is vertical optical depth (VOD) and has already been used to describe global forest/savannah carbon stock shifts over two decades, highlighting strong continental contrasts (Liu et al. 2015a 383 ) and demonstrating the value of this approach to monitor forest degradation at large scales. Contrasting with NDVI, which is only sensitive to vegetation ‘greenness’, from which primary production can be modelled, VOD is also sensitive to water in woody parts of the vegetation and hence provides a view of vegetation dynamics that can be complementary to NDVI. As well as the NDVI, VOD also needs to be corrected to take into account the rainfall variation (Andela et al. 2013 384 ).

Even though remote sensing offers much potential, its application to land degradation and recovery remains challenging as structural changes often occur at scales below the detection capabilities of most remote-sensing technologies. Additionally, if the remote sensing is based on vegetation index data, other forms of land degradation, such as nutrient depletion, changes of soil physical or biological properties, loss of values for humans, among others, cannot be inferred directly by remote sensing. The combination of remotely sensed images and field-based approach can give improved estimates of carbon stocks and tree biodiversity (Imai et al. 2012 385 ; Fujiki et al. 2016 386 ).

Additionally, the majority of trend techniques employed would be capable of detecting only the most severe of degradation processes, and would therefore not be useful as a degradation early-warning system (Higginbottom et al. 2014 387 ; Wessels et al. 2012 388 ). However, additional analyses using higher-resolution imagery, such as the Landsat and SPOT satellites, would be well suited to providing further localised information on trends observed (Higginbottom et al. 2014 389 ). New approaches to assess land degradation using high spatial resolution are developing, but the need for time series makes progress slow. The use of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data has been shown to be advantageous for the estimation of soil surface characteristics, in particular, surface roughness and soil moisture (Gao et al. 2017 390 ; Bousbih et al. 2017 391 ), and detecting and quantifying selective logging (Lei et al. 2018 392 ). Continued research effort is required to enable full assessment of land degradation using remote sensing.

Computer simulation models can be used alone or combined with the remote sensing observations to assess land degradation. The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) can be used, to some extent, to predict the long-term average annual soil loss by water erosion. RUSLE has been constantly revisited to estimate soil loss based on the product of rainfall–runoff erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and steepness factor, conservation factor, and support practice parameter (Nampak et al. 2018 393 ). Inherent limitations of RUSLE include data-sparse regions, inability to account for soil loss from gully erosion or mass wasting events, and that it does not predict sediment pathways from hillslopes to water bodies (Benavidez et al. 2018 394 ). Since RUSLE models only provide gross erosion, the integration of a further module in the RUSLE scheme to estimate the sediment yield from the modelled hillslopes is needed. The spatially distributed sediment delivery model, WaTEM/SEDEM, has been widely tested in Europe (Borrelli et al. 2018 395 ). Wind erosion is another factor that needs to be taken into account in the modelling of soil erosion (Webb et al. 2017a 396 , 2016 397 ). Additional models need to be developed to include the limitations of the RUSLE models.

Regarding the field-based approach to assess land degradation, there are multiple indicators that reflect functional ecosystem processes linked to ecosystem services and thus to the value for humans. These indicators are a composite set of measurable attributes from different factors, such as climate, soil, vegetation, biomass, management, among others, that can be used together or separately to develop indexes to better assess land degradation (Allen et al. 2011 398 ; Kosmas et al. 2014 399 ).

Declines in vegetation cover, changes in vegetation structure, decline in mean species abundances, decline in habitat diversity, changes in abundance of specific indicator species, reduced vegetation health and productivity, and vegetation management intensity and use, are the most common indicators in the vegetation condition of forest and woodlands (Stocking et al. 2001 400 ; Wiesmair et al. 2017 401 ; Ghazoul and Chazdon 2017 402 ; Alkemade et al. 2009 403 ).

Several indicators of the soil quality (SOM, depth, structure, compaction, texture, pH, C:N ratio, aggregate size distribution and stability, microbial respiration, soil organic carbon, salinisation, among others) have been proposed (Schoenholtz et al. 2000 404 ) (Section 2.2). Among these, SOM directly and indirectly drives the majority of soil functions. Decreases in SOM can lead to a decrease in fertility and biodiversity, as well as a loss of soil structure, causing reductions in water-holding capacity, increased risk of erosion (both wind and water) and increased bulk density and hence soil compaction (Allen et al. 2011 405 ; Certini 2005 406 ; Conant et al. 2011a 407 ). Thus, indicators related with the quantity and quality of the SOM are necessary to identify land degradation (Pulido et al. 2017 408 ; Dumanski and Pieri 2000 409 ). The composition of the microbial community is very likely to be positive impacted by both climate change and land degradation processes (Evans and Wallenstein 2014 410 ; Wu et al. 2015 411 ; Classen et al. 2015 412 ), thus changes in microbial community composition can be very useful to rapidly reflect land degradation (e.g., forest degradation increased the bacterial alpha-diversity indexes) (Flores-Rentería et al. 2016 413 ; Zhou et al. 2018 414 ). These indicators might be used as a set of site-dependent indicators, and in a plant-soil system (Ehrenfeld et al. 2005 415 ).

Useful indicators of degradation and improvement include changes in ecological processes and disturbance regimes that regulate the flow of energy and materials and that control ecosystem dynamics under a climate change scenario. Proxies of dynamics include spatial and temporal turnover of species and habitats within ecosystems (Ghazoul et al. 2015 416 ; Bahamondez and Thompson 2016 417 ). Indicators in agricultural lands include crop yield decreases and difficulty in maintaining yields (Stocking et al. 2001 418 ). Indicators of landscape degradation/improvement in fragmented forest landscapes include the extent, size and distribution of remaining forest fragments, an increase in edge habitat, and loss of connectivity and ecological memory (Zahawi et al. 2015 419 ; Pardini et al. 2010 420 ).

In summary, as land degradation is such a complex and global process, there is no single method by which land degradation can be estimated objectively and consistently over large areas ( very high confidence ). However, many approaches exist that can be used to assess different aspects of land degradation or provide proxies of land degradation. Remote sensing, complemented by other kinds of data (i.e., field observations, inventories, expert opinions), is the only method that can generate geographically explicit and globally consistent data over time scales relevant for land degradation (several decades).

Status and current trends of land degradation

The scientific literature on land degradation often excludes forest degradation, yet here we attempt to assess both issues. Because of the different bodies of scientific literature, we assess land degradation and forest degradation under different sub-headings and, where possible, draw integrated conclusions.

Land degradation

There are no reliable global maps of the extent and severity of land degradation (Gibbs and Salmon 2015 421 ; Prince et al. 2018 422 ; van der Esch et al. 2017 423 ), despite the fact that land degradation is a severe problem (Turner et al. 2016 424 ). The reasons are both conceptual – that is, how land degradation is defined, using what baseline (Herrick et al. 2019 425 ) or over what time period – and methodological – that is, how it can be measured (Prince et al. 2018 426 ). Although there is a strong consensus that land degradation is a reduction in productivity of the land or soil, there are diverging views regarding the spatial and temporal scales at which land degradation occurs (Warren 2002 427 ), and how this can be quantified and mapped. Proceeding from the definition in this report, there are also diverging views concerning ecological integrity and the value to humans. A comprehensive treatment of the conceptual discussion about land degradation is provided by the recent report on land degradation from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Montanarella et al. 2018 428 ).

A review of different attempts to map global land degradation, based on expert opinion, satellite observations, biophysical models and a database of abandoned agricultural lands, suggested that between <10 Mkm2 to 60 Mkm2 (corresponding to 8–45% of the ice-free land area) have been degraded globally (Gibbs and Salmon, 2015 429 ) ( very low confidence ).

One often-used global assessment of land degradation uses trends in NDVI as a proxy for land degradation and improvement during the period 1983 to 2006 (Bai et al. 2008b 430 ,c 431 ) with an update to 2011 (Bai et al. 2015 432 ). These studies, based on very coarse resolution satellite data (NOAA AVHRR data with a resolution of 8 km), indicated that, between 22% and 24% of the global ice-free land area was subject to a downward trend, while about 16% showed an increasing trend. The study also suggested, contrary to earlier assessments (Middleton and Thomas 1997 433 ), that drylands were not among the most affected regions. Another study using a similar approach for the period 1981–2006 suggested that about 29% of the global land area is subject to ‘land degradation hotspots’, that is, areas with acute land degradation in need of particular attention. These hotspot areas were distributed over all agro-ecological regions and land cover types. Two different studies have tried to link land degradation, identified by NDVI as a proxy, and number of people affected: Le et al. (2016) 434 estimated that at least 3.2 billion people were affected, while Barbier and Hochard (2016 435 , 2018 436 ) estimated that 1.33 billion people were affected, of which 95% were living in developing countries.

Yet another study, using a similar approach and type of remote-sensing data, compared NDVI trends with biomass trends calculated by a global vegetation model over the period 1982–2010 and found that 17–36% of the land areas showed a negative NDVI trend, while a positive or neutral trend was predicted in modelled vegetation (Schut et al. 2015 437 ). The World Atlas of Desertification (3rd edition) includes a global map of land productivity change over the period 1999 to 2013, which is one useful proxy for land degradation (Cherlet et al. 2018 438 ). Over that period, about 20% of the global ice-free land area shows signs of declining or unstable productivity, whereas about 20% shows increasing productivity. The same report also summarised the productivity trends by land categories and found that most forest land showed increasing trends in productivity, while rangelands had more declining trends than increasing trends (Figure 4.4). These productivity assessments, however, do not distinguish between trends due to climate change and trends due to other factors. A recent analysis of ‘greening’ of the world using MODIS time series of NDVI 2000–2017, shows a striking increase in the greening over China and India. In China the greening is seen over forested areas, 42%, and cropland areas, in which 32% is increasing (Section 4.9.3). In India, the greening is almost entirely associated with cropland (82%) (Chen et al. 2019 439 ).

All these studies of vegetation trends show that there are regionally differentiated trends of either decreasing or increasing vegetation. When comparing vegetation trends with trends in climatic variables, Schut et al. (2015 440 ) found very few areas (1–2%) where an increase in vegetation trend was independent of the climate drivers, and that study suggested that positive vegetation trends are primarily caused by climatic factors.

In an attempt to go beyond the mapping of global vegetation trends for assessing land degradation, Borelli et al. (2017) 441 used a soil erosion model (RUSLE) and suggested that soil erosion is mainly caused in areas of cropland expansion, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. The method is controversial for conceptual reasons (i.e., the ability of the model to capture the most important erosion processes) and data limitations (i.e., the availability of relevant data at regional to global scales), and its validity for assessing erosion over large areas has been questioned by several studies (Baveye 2017 442 ; Evans and Boardman 2016a 443 ,b 444 ; Labrière et al. 2015 445 ).

An alternative to using remote sensing for assessing the state of land degradation is to compile field-based data from around the globe (Turner et al. 2016 446 ). In addition to the problems of definitions and baselines, this approach is also hampered by the lack of standardised methods used in the field. An assessment of the global severity of soil erosion in agriculture, based on 1673 measurements around the world (compiled from 201 peer-reviewed articles), indicated that the global net median rate of soil formation (i.e., formation minus erosion) is about 0.004 mm yr –1 (about 0.05 t ha –1 yr –1 ) compared with the median net rate of soil loss in agricultural fields, 1.52 mm yr –1 (about 18 t ha –1 yr –1 ) in tilled fields and 0.065 mm yr –1 (about 0.8 t ha–1 yr –1 ) in no-till fields (Montgomery 2007a 447 ). This means that the rate of soil erosion from agricultural fields is between 380 (conventional tilling) and 16 times (no-till) the natural rate of soil formation ( medium agreement, limited evidence ). These approximate figures are supported by another large meta-study including over 4000 sites around the world (see Figure 4.4) where the average soil loss from agricultural plots was about 21 t ha –1 yr –1 (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 448 ). Climate change, mainly through the intensification of rainfall, will further increase these rates unless land management is improved ( high agreement, medium evidence ).

Proportional global land productivity trends by land-cover/land-use class. (Cropland includes arable land, permanent crops and mixed classes with over 50% crops; grassland includes natural grassland and managed pasture land; rangelands include shrubland, herbaceous and sparsely vegetated areas; forest land includes all forest categories and mixed classes with tree cover greater than 40%.) Data source: Copernicus […]

Proportional global land productivity trends by land-cover/land-use class. (Cropland includes arable land, permanent crops and mixed classes with over 50% crops; grassland includes natural grassland and managed pasture land; rangelands include shrubland, herbaceous and sparsely vegetated areas; forest land includes all forest categories and mixed classes with tree cover greater than 40%.) Data source: Copernicus Global Land SPOT VGT, 1999–2013, adapted from (Cherlet et al. 2018 1647 ).

Soils contain about 1500 Gt of organic carbon (median across 28 different estimates presented by Scharlemann et al. (2014)), which is about 1.8 times more carbon than in the atmosphere (Ciais et al. 2013 449 ) and 2.3–3.3 times more than what is held in the terrestrial vegetation of the world (Ciais et al. 2013 450 ). Hence, land degradation, including land conversion leading to soil carbon losses, has the potential to impact on the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 substantially. When natural ecosystems are cultivated they lose soil carbon that accumulated over long time periods.The loss rate depends on the type of natural vegetation and how the soil is managed. Estimates of the magnitude of loss vary but figures between 20% and 59% have been reported in several meta studies (Poeplau and Don 2015 451 ; Wei et al. 2015 452 ; Li et al. 2012 453 ; Murty et al. 2002 454 ; Guo and Gifford 2002 455 ). The amount of soil carbon lost explicitly due to land degradation after conversion is hard to assess due to large variation in local conditions and management, see also Chapter 2.

From a climate change perspective, land degradation plays an important role in the dynamics of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ). N 2 O is produced by microbial activity in the soil and the dynamics are related to both management practices and weather conditions, while CH 4 dynamics are primarily determined by the amount of soil carbon and to what extent the soil is subject to waterlogging (Palm et al. 2014 456 ), see also Chapter 2.

Several attempts have been made to map the human footprint on the planet (Čuček et al. 2012 457 ; Venter et al. 2016 458 ) but, in some cases, they confuse human impact on the planet with degradation. From our definition it is clear that human impact (or pressure) is not synonymous with degradation, but information on the human footprint provides a useful mapping of potential non-climatic drivers of degradation.

In summary, there are no uncontested maps of the location, extent and severity of land degradation. Proxy estimates based on remote sensing of vegetation dynamics provide one important information source, but attribution of the observed changes in productivity to climate change, human activities, or other drivers is hard. Nevertheless, the different attempts to map the extent of global land degradation using remotely sensed proxies show some convergence and suggest that about a quarter of the ice-free land area is subject to some form of land degradation ( limited evidence, medium agreement ) affecting about 3.2 billion people ( low confidence ). Attempts to estimate the severity of land degradation through soil erosion estimates suggest that soil erosion is a serious form of land degradation in croplands closely associated with unsustainable land management in combination with climatic parameters, some of which are subject to climate change ( limited evidence, high agreement ). Climate change is one among several causal factors in the status and current trends of land degradation ( limited evidence, high agreement ).

Forest degradation

Quantifying degradation in forests has also proven difficult. Remote sensing based inventory methods can measure reductions in canopy cover or carbon stocks more easiliy than reductions in biological productivity, losses of ecological integrity or value to humans. However, the causes of reductions in canopy cover or carbon stocks can be many (Curtis et al. 2018 459 ), including natural disturbances (e.g., fires, insects and other forest pests), direct human activities (e.g., harvest, forest management) and indirect human impacts (such as climate change) and these may not reduce long-term biological productivity. In many boreal, some temperate and other forest types natural disturbances are common, and consequently these disturbance-adapted forest types are comprised of a mosaic of stands of different ages and stages of stand recovery following natural disturbances. In those managed forests where natural disturbances are uncommon or suppressed, harvesting is the primary determinant of forest age-class distributions.

Quantifying forest degradation as a reduction in productivity, carbon stocks or canopy cover also requires that an initial condition (or baseline) is established, against which this reduction is assessed (Section 4.1.4). In forest types with rare stand-replacing disturbances, the concept of ‘intact’ or ‘primary’ forest has been used to define the initial condition (Potapov et al. 2008 460 ) but applying a single metric can be problematic (Bernier et al. 2017 461 ). Moreover, forest types with

frequent stand-replacing disturbances, such as wildfires, or with natural disturbances that reduce carbon stocks, such as some insect outbreaks, experience over time a natural variability of carbon stocks or canopy density, making it more difficult to define the appropriate baseline carbon density or canopy cover against which to assess degradation. In these systems, forest degradation cannot be assessed at the stand level, but requires a landscape-level assessment that takes into consideration the stand age-class distribution of the landscape, which reflects natural and human disturbance regimes over past decades to centuries and also considers post-disturbance regrowth (van Wagner 1978 462 ; Volkova et al. 2018 463 ; Lorimer and White 2003 464 ).

The lack of a consistent definition of forest degradation also affects the ability to establish estimates of the rates or impacts of forest degradation because the drivers of degradation are not clearly defined (Sasaki and Putz 2009 465 ). Moreover, the literature at times confounds estimates of forest degradation and deforestation (i.e., the conversion of forest to non-forest land uses). Deforestation is a change in land use, while forest degradation is not, although severe forest degradation can ultimately lead to deforestation.

Based on empirical data provided by 46 countries, the drivers for deforestation (due to commercial agriculture) and forest degradation (due to timber extraction and logging) are similar in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Hosonuma et al. 2012 466 ). More recently, global forest disturbance over the period 2001–2015 was attributed to commodity-driven deforestation (27 ± 5%), forestry (26 ± 4%), shifting agriculture (24 ± 3%) and wildfire (23 ± 4%). The remaining 0.6 ± 0.3% was attributed to the expansion of urban centres (Curtis et al. 2018 467 ).

The trends of productivity shown by several remote-sensing studies (see previous section) are largely consistent with mapping of forest cover and change using a 34-year time series of coarse resolution satellite data (NOAA AVHRR) (Song et al. 2018 468 ). This study, based on a thematic classification of satellite data, suggests that (i) global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million km 2 between 1982 and 2016 (corresponding to +7.1%) but with regional differences that contribute a net loss in the tropics and a net gain at higher latitudes, and (ii) the fraction of bare ground decreased by 1.16 million km 2 (corresponding to –3.1%), mainly in agricultural regions of Asia (Song et al. 2018 469 ), see Figure 4.5. Other tree or land cover datasets show opposite global net trends (Li et al. 2018b 470 ), but high agreement in terms of net losses in the tropics and large net gains in the temperate and boreal zones (Li et al. 2018b 471 ; Song et al. 2018 472 ; Hansen et al. 2013 473 ). Differences across global estimates are further discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.1.2.3) and Chapter 2.

Diagrams showing latitudinal profiles of land cover change over the period 1982 to 2016 based on analysis of time-series of NOAA AVHRR imagery:a) tree canopy cover change (ΔTC); b) short vegetation cover change (ΔSV); c) bare ground cover change (ΔBG). Area statistics were calculated for every 1° of latitude (Song et al. 2018). Source of […]

Diagrams showing latitudinal profiles of land cover change over the period 1982 to 2016 based on analysis of time-series of NOAA AVHRR imagery:a) tree canopy cover change (ΔTC); b) short vegetation cover change (ΔSV); c) bare ground cover change (ΔBG). Area statistics were calculated for every 1° of latitude (Song et al. 2018 1648 ). Source of data: NOAA AVHRR.

The changes detected from 1982 to 2016 were primarily linked to direct human action, such as land-use changes (about 60% of the observed changes), but also to indirect effects, such as human-induced climate change (about 40% of the observed changes) (Song et al. 2018 474 ), a finding also supported by a more recent study (Chen et al. 2019 475 ). The climate-induced effects were clearly discernible in some regions, such as forest decline in the US Northwest due to increasing pest infestation and increasing fire frequency (Lesk et al. 2017 476 ; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016 477 ; Seidl et al. 2017 478 ), warming-induced

vegetation increase in the Arctic region, general greening in the Sahel probably as a result of increasing rainfall and atmospheric CO 2 , and advancing treelines in mountain regions (Song et al. 2018 479 ). Keenan et al. (2015) 480 and Sloan and Sayer (2015) 481 studied the 2015 Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (FAO 2016 482 ) and found that the total forest area from 1990 to 2015 declined by 3%, an estimate that is supported by a global remote-sensing assessment of forest area change that found a 2.8% decline between 1990–2010 (D’Annunzio et al. 2017 483 ; Lindquist and D’Annunzio 2016 484 ). The trend in deforestation is, however, contradicted between these two global assessments, with FAO (2016) suggesting that deforestation is slowing down, while the remote sensing assessments finds it to be accelerating (D’Annunzio et al. 2017 485 ). Recent estimates (Song et al. 2018 486 ) owing to semantic and methodological differences (see Chapter 1, Section 1.1.2.3) suggest that global tree cover has increased over the period 1982–2016, which contradicts the forest area dynamics assessed by FAO (2016) 487 and Lindquist and D’Annunzio (2016) 488 . The loss rate in tropical forest areas from 2010 to 2015 is 55,000 km 2 yr -1 . According to the FRA, the global natural forest area also declined from 39.61 Mkm 2 to 37.21 Mkm 2 during the period 1990 to 2015 (Keenan et al. 2015 489 ).

Since 1850, deforestation globally contributed 77% of the emissions from land-use and land-cover change while degradation contributed 10% (with the remainder originating from non-forest land uses) (Houghton and Nassikas 2018 490 ). That study also showed large temporal and regional differences with northern mid-latitude forests currently contributing to carbon sinks due to increasing forest area and forest management. However, the contribution to carbon emissions of degradation as percentage of total forest emissions (degradation and deforestation) are uncertain, with estimates varying from 25% (Pearson et al. 2017 491 ) to nearly 70% of carbon losses (Baccini et al. 2017 492 ). The 25% estimate refers to an analysis of 74 developing countries within tropical and subtropical regions covering 22 million km 2 for the period 2005–2010, while the 70% estimate refers to an analysis of the tropics for the period 2003–2014, but, by and large, the scope of these studies is the same. Pearson et al. (2017) 493 estimated annual gross emissions of 2.1 GtCO 2 , of which 53% were derived from timber harvest, 30% from woodfuel harvest and 17% from forest fire. Estimating gross emissions only, creates a distorted representation of human impacts on the land sector carbon cycle. While forest harvest for timber and fuelwood and land-use change (deforestation) contribute to gross emissions, to quantify impacts on the atmosphere, it is necessary to estimate net emissions, that is, the balance of gross emissions and gross removals of carbon from the atmosphere through forest regrowth (Chazdon et al. 2016a 494 ; Poorter et al. 2016 495 ; Sanquetta et al. 2018 496 ).

Current efforts to reduce atmospheric CO 2 concentrations can be supported by reductions in forest-related carbon emissions and increases in sinks, which requires that the net impact of forest management on the atmosphere be evaluated (Griscom et al. 2017 497 ). Forest management and the use of wood products in GHG mitigation strategies result in changes in forest ecosystem carbon stocks, changes in harvested wood product carbon stocks, and potential changes in emissions resulting from the use of wood products and forest biomass that substitute for other emissions-intensive materials such as concrete, steel and fossil fuels (Kurz et al. 2016 498 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 499 ; Nabuurs et al. 2007 500 ). The net impact of these changes on GHG emissions and removals, relative to a scenario without forest mitigation actions, needs to be quantified, (e.g., Werner et al. 2010 501 ; Smyth et al. 2014 502 ; Xu et al. 2018 503 ). Therefore, reductions in forest ecosystem carbon stocks alone are an incomplete estimator of the impacts of forest management on the atmosphere (Nabuurs et al. 2007 504 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 505 ; Kurz et al. 2016 506 ; Chen et al. 2018b 507 ). The impacts of forest management and the carbon storage in long-lived products and landfills vary greatly by region, however, because of the typically much shorter lifespan of wood products produced from tropical regions compared to temperate and boreal regions (Earles et al. 2012 508 ; Lewis et al. 2019 509 ; Iordan et al. 2018 510 ) (Section 4.8.4).

Assessments of forest degradation based on remote sensing of changes in canopy density or land cover, (e.g., Hansen et al. 2013 511 ; Pearson et al. 2017 512 ) quantify changes in above-ground biomass carbon stocks and require additional assumptions or model-based analyses to also quantify the impacts on other ecosystem carbon pools including below-ground biomass, litter, woody debris and soil carbon. Depending on the type of disturbance, changes in above-ground biomass may lead to decreases or increases in other carbon pools, for example, windthrow and insect-induced tree mortality may result in losses in above-ground biomass that are (initially) offset by corresponding increases in dead organic matter carbon pools (Yamanoi et al. 2015 513 ; Kurz et al. 2008 514 ), while deforestation will reduce the total ecosystem carbon pool (Houghton et al. 2012 515 ).

A global study of current vegetation carbon stocks (450 Gt C), relative to a hypothetical condition without land use (916 Gt C), attributed 42–47% of carbon stock reductions to land management effects without land-use change, while the remaining 53–58% of carbon stock reductions were attributed to deforestation and other land-use changes (Erb et al. 2018 516 ). While carbon stocks in European forests are lower than hypothetical values in the complete absence of human land use, forest area and carbon stocks have been increasing over recent decades (McGrath et al. 2015 517 ; Kauppi et al. 2018 518 ). Studies by Gingrich et al. (2015) 519 on the long-term trends in land use over nine European countries (Albania, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom) also show an increase in forest land and reduction in cropland and grazing land from the 19th century to the early 20th century. However, the extent to which human activities have affected the productive capacity of forest lands is poorly understood. Biomass Production Efficiency (BPE), i.e. the fraction of photosynthetic production used for biomass production, was significantly higher in managed forests (0.53) compared to natural forests (0.41) (and it was also higher in managed (0.63) compared to natural (0.44) grasslands) (Campioli et al. 2015 521 ). Managing lands for production may involve trade-offs. For example, a larger proportion of NPP in managed forests is allocated to biomass carbon storage, but lower allocation to fine roots is hypothesised to reduce soil carbon stocks in the long term (Noormets et al. 2015 522 ). Annual volume increment in Finnish forests has more than doubled over the last century, due to increased growing stock, improved forest management and environmental changes (Henttonen et al. 2017 523 ).

As economies evolve, the patterns of land-use and carbon stock changes associated with human expansion into forested areas often include a period of rapid decline of forest area and carbon stocks, recognition of the need for forest conservation and rehabilitation, and a transition to more sustainable land management that is often associated with increasing carbon stocks, (e.g., Birdsey et al. 2006 524 ). Developed and developing countries around the world are in various stages of forest transition (Kauppi et al. 2018 525 ; Meyfroidt and Lambin 2011 526 ). Thus, opportunities exist for SFM to contribute to atmospheric carbon targets through reduction of deforestation and degradation, forest conservation, forest restoration, intensification of management, and enhancements of carbon stocks in forests and harvested wood products (Griscom et al. 2017 527 ) ( medium evidence, medium agreement ).

Projections of land degradation in a changing climate

Land degradation will be affected by climate change in both direct and indirect ways, and land degradation will, to some extent, also feed back into the climate system. The direct impacts are those in which climate and land interact directly in time and space. Examples of direct impacts are when increasing rainfall intensity exacerbates soil erosion, or when prolonged droughts reduce the vegetation cover of the soil, making it more prone to erosion and nutrient depletion. The indirect impacts are those where climate change impacts and land degradation are separated in time and/or space. Examples of such impacts are when declining agricultural productivity due to climate change drives an intensification of agriculture elsewhere, which may cause land degradation. Land degradation, if sufficiently widespread, may also feed back into the climate system by reinforcing ongoing climate change.

Although climate change is exacerbating many land degradation processes ( high to very high confidence ), prediction of future land degradation is challenging because land management practices determine, to a very large extent, the state of the land. Scenarios of climate change in combination with land degradation models can provide useful knowledge on what kind and extent of land management will be necessary to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation.

Direct impacts on land degradation

There are two main levels of uncertainty in assessing the risks of future climate-change-induced land degradation. The first level, where uncertainties are comparatively low, involves changes of the degrading agent, such as erosive power of precipitation, heat stress from increasing temperature extremes (Hüve et al. 2011 528 ), water stress from droughts, and high surface wind speed. The second level of uncertainties, and where the uncertainties are much larger, relates to the above – and below-ground ecological changes as a result of changes in climate, such as rainfall, temperature, and increasing level of CO 2 . Vegetation cover is crucial to protect against erosion (Mullan et al. 2012 529 ; García-Ruiz et al. 2015 530 ).

Changes in rainfall patterns, such as distribution in time and space, and intensification of rainfall events will increase the risk of land degradation, both in terms of likelihood and consequences ( high agreement, medium evidence ). Climate-induced vegetation changes will increase the risk of land degradation in some areas (where vegetation cover will decline) ( medium confidence ). Landslides are a form of land degradation, induced by extreme rainfall events. There is a strong theoretical reason for increasing landslide activity due to intensification of rainfall, but so far, the empirical evidence that climate change has contributed to landslides is lacking (Crozier 2010 1649 ; Huggel et al. 2012 532 ; Gariano and Guzzetti 2016 533 ). Human disturbance may be a more important future trigger than climate change (Froude and Petley 2018 534 ).

Erosion of coastal areas as a result of sea level rise will increase worldwide ( very high confidence ). In cyclone-prone areas (such as the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and the Bay of Bengal) the combination of sea level rise and more intense cyclones (Walsh et al. 2016b 535 ) and, in some areas, land subsidence (Yang et al. 2019 536 ; Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018 537 ; Wang et al. 2018 538 ; Fuangswasdi et al. 2019 539 ; Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 540 ), will pose a serious risk to people and livelihoods ( very high confidence ), in some cases even exceeding limits to adaption (Sections 4.8.4.1, 4.9.6 and 4.9.8).

Changes in water erosion risk due to precipitation changes

The hydrological cycle is intensifying with increasing warming of the atmosphere. The intensification means that the number of heavy rainfall events is increasing, while the total number of rainfall events tends to decrease (Trenberth 2011 541 ; Li and Fang 2016 542 ; Kendon et al. 2014 543 ; Guerreiro et al. 2018 544 ; Burt et al. 2016a 545 ; Westra et al. 2014 546 ; Pendergrass and Knutti 2018 547 ) ( robust evidence, high agreement ). Modelling of the changes in land degradation that are a result of climate change alone is hard because of the importance of local contextual factors. As shown above, actual erosion rate is extremely dependent on local conditions, primarily vegetation cover and topography (García-Ruiz et al. 2015 548 ). Nevertheless, modelling of soil erosion risks has advanced substantially in recent decades, and such studies are indicative of future changes in the risk of soil erosion, while actual erosion rates will still primarily be determined by land management. In a review article, Li and Fang (2016) 549 summarised 205 representative modelling studies around the world where erosion models were used in combination with downscaled climate models to assess future (between 2030 to 2100) erosion rates. The meta-study by Li and Fang, where possible, considered climate change in terms of temperature increase and changing rainfall regimes and their impacts on vegetation and soils. Almost all of the sites had current soil loss rates above 1 t ha–1 (assumed to be the upper limit for acceptable soil erosion in Europe) and 136 out of 205 studies predicted increased soil erosion rates. The percentage increase in erosion rates varied between 1.2% to as much as over 1600%, whereas 49 out of 205 studies projected more than 50% increase. Projected soil erosion rates varied substantially between studies because the important of local factors, hence climate change impacts on soil erosion, should preferably be assessed at the local to regional scale, rather than the global (Li and Fang 2016 550 ).

Mesoscale convective systems (MCS), typically thunder storms, have increased markedly in the last three to four decades in the USA and Australia and they are projected to increase substantially (Prein et al. 2017 551 ). Using a climate model with the ability to represent MCS, Prein and colleagues were able to predict future increases in frequency, intensity and size of such weather systems. Findings include the 30% decrease in number of MCS of <40 mm h -1 , but a sharp increase of 380% in the number of extreme precipitation events of >90 mm h –1 over the North American continent. The combined effect of increasing precipitation intensity and increasing size of the weather systems implies that the total amount of precipitation from these weather systems is expected to increase by up to 80% (Prein et al. 2017 552 ), which will substantially increase the risk of land degradation in terms of landslides, extreme erosion events, flashfloods, and so on.

The potential impacts of climate change on soil erosion can be assessed by modelling the projected changes in particular variables of climate change known to cause erosion, such as erosivity of rainfall. A study of the conterminous United States based on three climate models and three scenarios (A2, A1B, and B1) found that rainfall erosivity will increase in all scenarios, even if there are large spatial differences – a strong increase in the north-east and north-west, and either weak or inconsistent trends in the south-west and mid-west (Segura et al. 2014 553 ).

In a study of how climate change will impact on future soil erosion processes in the Himalayas, Gupta and Kumar (2017) 554 estimated that soil erosion will increase by about 27% in the near term (2020s) and 22% in the medium term (2080s), with little difference between scenarios. A study from Northern Thailand estimated that erosivity will increase by 5% in the near term (2020s) and 14% in the medium term (2080s), which would result in a similar increase of soil erosion, all other factors being constant (Plangoen and Babel 2014 555 ). Observed rainfall erosivity has increased significantly in the lower Niger Basin (Nigeria) and is predicted to increase further based on statistical downscaling of four General Circulation Models (GCM) scenarios, with an estimated increase of 14%, 19% and 24% for the 2030s, 2050s, and 2070s respectively (Amanambu et al. 2019 556 ).

Many studies from around the world where statistical downscaling of GCM results have been used in combination with process-based erosion models show a consistent trend of increasing soil erosion.

Using a comparative approach, Serpa et al. (2015) 557 studied two Mediterranean catchments (one dry and one humid) using a spatially explicit hydrological model – soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) – in combination with land-use and climate scenarios for 2071–2100. Climate change projections showed, on the one hand, decreased rainfall and streamflow for both catchments, whereas sediment export decreased only for the humid catchment; projected land-use change, from traditional to more profitable, on the other hand, resulted in increase in streamflow. The combined effect of climate and land-use change resulted in reduced sediment export for the humid catchment (–29% for A1B; –22% for B1) and increased sediment export for the dry catchment (+222% for A1B; +5% for B1). Similar methods have been used elsewhere, also showing the dominant effect of land-use/land cover for runoff and soil erosion (Neupane and Kumar 2015 558 ).

A study of future erosion rates in Northern Ireland, using a spatially explicit erosion model in combination with downscaled climate projections (with and without sub-daily rainfall intensity changes), showed that erosion rates without land management changes would decrease by the 2020s, 2050s and 2100s, irrespective of changes in intensity, mainly as a result of a general decline in rainfall (Mullan et al. 2012 559 ). When land management scenarios were added to the modelling, the erosion rates started to vary dramatically for all three time periods, ranging from a decrease of 100% for no-till land use, to an increase of 3621% for row crops under annual tillage and sub-days intensity changes (Mullan et al. 2012 560 ). Again, it shows how crucial land management is for addressing soil erosion, and the important role of rainfall intensity changes.

There is a large body of literature based on modelling future land degradation due to soil erosion concluding that, in spite of the increasing trend of erosive power of rainfall, ( medium evidence, high agreement ) land degradation is primarily determined by land management ( very high confidence ).

Climate-induced vegetation changes, implications for land degradation

The spatial mosaic of vegetation is determined by three factors: the ability of species to reach a particular location, how species tolerate the environmental conditions at that location (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind, the topographic and soil conditions), and the interaction between species (including above/below ground species (Settele et al. 2015 562 ). Climate change is projected to alter the conditions and hence impact on the spatial mosaic of vegetation, which can be considered a form of land degradation. Warren et al. (2018) 563 estimated that only about 33% of globally important biodiversity conservation areas will remain intact if global mean temperature increases to 4.5°C, while twice that area (67%) will remain intact if warming is restricted to 2°C. According to AR5, the clearest link between climate change and ecosystem change is when temperature is the primary driver, with changes of Arctic tundra as a response to significant warming as the best example (Settele et al. 2015 564 ). Even though distinguishing climate-induced changes from land-use changes is challenging, Boit et al. (2016) 565 suggest that 5–6% of biomes in South America will undergo biome shifts until 2100, regardless of scenario, attributed to climate change. The projected biome shifts are primarily forests shifting to shrubland and dry forests becoming fragmented and isolated from more humid forests (Boit et al. 2016 566 ). Boreal forests are subject to unprecedented warming in terms of speed and amplitude (IPCC 2013b 567 ), with significant impacts on their regional distribution (Juday et al. 2015 568 ). Globally, tree lines are generally expanding northward and to higher elevations, or remaining stable, while a reduction in tree lines was rarely observed, and only where disturbances occurred (Harsch et al. 2009 569 ). There is limited evidence of a slow northward migration of the boreal forest in eastern North America (Gamache and Payette 2005 570 ). The thawing of permafrost may increase drought-induced tree mortality throughout the circumboreal zone (Gauthier et al. 2015 571 ).

Forests are a prime regulator of hydrological cycling, both fluxes of atmospheric moisture and precipitation, hence climate and forests are inextricably linked (Ellison et al. 2017 572 ; Keys et al. 2017 573 ). Forest management influences the storage and flow of water in forested

watersheds. In particular, harvesting, forest thinning and the construction of roads increase the likelihood of floods as an outcome of extreme climate events (Eisenbies et al. 2007 574 ). Water balance of at least partly forested landscapes is, to a large extent, controlled by forest ecosystems (Sheil and Murdiyarso 2009 575 ; Pokam et al. 2014 576 ). This includes surface runoff, as determined by evaporation and transpiration and soil conditions, and water flow routing (Eisenbies et al. 2007 577 ). Water-use efficiency (i.e., the ratio of water loss to biomass gain) is increasing with increased CO 2 levels (Keenan et al. 2013 578 ), hence transpiration is predicted to decrease which, in turn, will increase surface runoff (Schlesinger and Jasechko 2014 579 ). However, the interaction of several processes makes predictions challenging (Frank et al. 2015 580 ; Trahan and Schubert 2016 581 ). Surface runoff is an important agent in soil erosion.

Generally, removal of trees through harvesting or forest death (Anderegg et al. 2012 582 ) will reduce transpiration and hence increase the runoff during the growing season. Management-induced soil disturbance (such as skid trails and roads) will affect water flow routing to rivers and streams (Zhang et al. 2017 583 ; Luo et al. 2018 584 ; Eisenbies et al. 2007 585 ).

Climate change affects forests in both positive and negative ways (Trumbore et al. 2015 586 ; Price et al. 2013 587 ) and there will be regional and temporal differences in vegetation responses (Hember et al. 2017 1650 ; Midgley and Bond 2015 589 ). Several climate-change-related drivers interact in complex ways, such as warming, changes in precipitation and water balance, CO 2 fertilisation, and nutrient cycling, which makes projections of future net impacts challenging (Kurz et al. 2013 590 ; Price et al. 2013 591 ) (Section 2.3.1.2). In high latitudes, a warmer climate will extend the growing seasons. However, this could be constrained by summer drought (Holmberg et al. 2019 592 ), while increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 will increase water-use efficiency but not necessarily tree growth (Giguère-Croteau et al. 2019 593 ). Improving one growth-limiting factor will only enhance tree growth if other factors are not limiting (Norby et al. 2010 594 ; Trahan and Schubert 2016 595 ; Xie et al. 2016 596 ; Frank et al. 2015 597 ). Increasing forest productivity has been observed in most of Fennoscandia (Kauppi et al. 2014 598 ; Henttonen et al. 2017 599 ), Siberia and the northern reaches of North America as a response to a warming trend (Gauthier et al. 2015 600 ) but increased warming may also decrease forest productivity and increase risk of tree mortality and natural disturbances (Price et al. 2013 601 ; Girardin et al. 2016 602 ; Beck et al. 2011 603 ; Hember et al. 2016 604 ; Allen et al. 2011 605 ). The climatic conditions in high latitudes are changing at a magnitude faster than the ability of forests to adapt with detrimental, yet unpredictable, consequences (Gauthier et al. 2015 606 ).

Negative impacts dominate, however, and have already been documented (Lewis et al. 2004 607 ; Bonan et al. 2008 608 ; Beck et al. 2011 609 ) and are predicted to increase (Miles et al. 2004 610 ; Allen et al. 2010 611 ; Gauthier et al. 2015 612 ; Girardin et al. 2016 613 ; Trumbore et al. 2015 614 ). Several authors have emphasised a concern that tree mortality (forest dieback) will increase due to climate-induced physiological stress as well as interactions between physiological stress and other stressors, such as insect pests, diseases, and wildfires (Anderegg et al. 2012 615 ; Sturrock et al. 2011 616 ; Bentz et al. 2010 617 ; McDowell et al. 2011 618 ). Extreme events such as extreme heat and drought, storms, and floods also pose increased threats to forests in both high – and low-latitude forests (Lindner et al. 2010 619 ; Mokria et al. 2015 620 ). However, comparing observed forest dieback with modelled climate-induced damages did not show a general link between climate change and forest dieback (Steinkamp and Hickler 2015 621 ). Forests are subject to increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires which is projected to increase substantially with continued climate change (Price et al. 2013 622 ) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2, and Chapter 2). In the tropics, interaction between climate change, CO 2 and fire could lead to abrupt shifts between woodland – and grassland-dominated states in the future (Shanahan et al. 2016 623 ).

Within the tropics, much research has been devoted to understanding how climate change may alter regional suitability of various crops. For example, coffee is expected to be highly sensitive to both temperature and precipitation changes, both in terms of growth and yield, and in terms of increasing problems of pests (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015 624 ). Some studies conclude that the global area of coffee production will decrease by 50% (Bunn et al. 2015 625 ). Due to increased heat stress, the suitability of Arabica coffee is expected to deteriorate in Mesoamerica, while it can improve in high-altitude areas in South America. The general pattern is that the climatic suitability for Arabica coffee will deteriorate at low altitudes of the tropics as well as at the higher latitudes (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015 626 ). This means that climate change in and of itself can render unsustainable previously sustainable land-use and land management practices, and vice versa (Laderach et al. 2011 627 ).

Rangelands are projected to change in complex ways due to climate change. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 directly stimulate plant growth and can potentially compensate for negative effects from drying by increasing rain-use efficiency. But the positive effect of increasing CO 2 will be mediated by other environmental conditions, primarily water availability, but also nutrient cycling, fire regimes and invasive species. Studies over the North American rangelands suggest, for example, that warmer and dryer climatic conditions will reduce NPP in the southern Great Plains, the Southwest, and northern Mexico, but warmer and wetter conditions will increase NPP in the northern Plains and southern Canada (Polley et al. 2013 628 ).

Coastal erosion

Coastal erosion is expected to increase dramatically by sea level rise and, in some areas, in combination with increasing intensity of cyclones (highlighted in Section 4.9.6) and cyclone-induced coastal erosion. Coastal regions are also characterised by high population density, particularly in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam), whereas the highest population increase in coastal regions is projected in Africa (East Africa, Egypt, and West Africa) (Neumann et al. 2015 629 ). For coastal regions worldwide, and particularly in developing countries with high population density in low-lying coastal areas, limiting the warming to 1.5°C to 2.0°C will have major socio-economic benefits compared with higher temperature scenarios (IPCC 2018a 630 ; Nicholls et al. 2018 631 ). For more in-depth discussions on coastal process, please refer to Chapter 4 of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC SROCC).

Despite the uncertainty related to the responses of the large ice sheets of Greenland and west Antarctica, climate-change-induced sea level rise is largely accepted and represents one of the biggest threats faced by coastal communities and ecosystems (Nicholls et al. 2011 632 ; Cazenave and Cozannet 2014 633 ; DeConto and Pollard 2016 634 ; Mengel et al. 2016 635 ). With significant socio-economic effects, the physical impacts of projected sea level rise, notably coastal erosion, have received considerable scientific attention (Nicholls et al. 2011 636 ; Rahmstorf 2010 637 ; Hauer et al. 2016 638 ).

Rates of coastal erosion or recession will increase due to rising sea levels and, in some regions, also in combination with increasing oceans waves (Day and Hodges 2018 639 ; Thomson and Rogers 2014 640 ; McInnes et al. 2011 641 ; Mori et al. 2010 642 ), lack or absence of sea-ice (Savard et al. 2009 643 ; Thomson and Rogers 2014 644 ) thawing of permafrost (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 645 ), and changing cyclone paths (Tamarin-Brodsky and Kaspi 2017 646 ; Lin and Emanuel 2016a 647 ). The respective role of the different climate factors in the coastal erosion process will vary spatially. Some studies have shown that the role of sea level rise on the coastal erosion process can be less important than other climate factors, like wave heights, changes in the frequency of the storms, and the cryogenic processes (Ruggiero 2013 648 ; Savard et al. 2009 649 ). Therefore, in order to have a complete picture of the potential effects of sea level rise on rates of coastal erosion, it is crucial to consider the combined effects of the aforementioned climate controls and the geomorphology of the coast under study.

Coastal wetlands around the world are sensitive to sea level rise. Projections of the impacts on global coastlines are inconclusive, with some projections suggesting that 20% to 90% (depending on sea level rise scenario) of present day wetlands will disappear during the 21st century (Spencer et al. 2016 650 ). Another study, which included natural feedback processes and management responses, suggested that coastal wetlands may actually increase (Schuerch et al. 2018 651 ).

Low-lying coastal areas in the tropics are particularly subject to the combined effect of sea level rise and increasing intensity of tropical cyclones, conditions that, in many cases, pose limits to adaptation (Section 4.8.5.1).

Many large coastal deltas are subject to the additional stress of shrinking deltas as a consequence of the combined effect of reduced sediment loads from rivers due to damming and water use, and land subsidence resulting from extraction of ground water or natural gas, and aquaculture (Higgins et al. 2013 652 ; Tessler et al. 2016 653 ; Minderhoud et al. 2017 654 ; Tessler et al. 2015 655 ; Brown and Nicholls 2015 656 ; Szabo et al. 2016 657 ; Yang et al. 2019 658 ; Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018 659 ; Wang et al. 2018 660 ; Fuangswasdi et al. 2019 661 ). In some cases the rate of subsidence can outpace the rate of sea level rise by one order of magnitude (Minderhoud et al. 2017 662 ) or even two (Higgins et al. 2013 663 ). Recent findings from the Mississippi Delta raise the risk of a systematic underestimation of the rate of land subsidence in coastal deltas (Keogh and Törnqvist 2019 664 ).

In sum, from a land degradation point of view, low-lying coastal areas are particularly exposed to the nexus of climate change and increasing concentration of people (Elliott et al. 2014 665 ) ( robust evidence, high agreement ) and the situation will become particularly acute in delta areas shrinking from both reduced sediment loads and land subsidence ( robust evidence, high agreement ).

Indirect impacts on land degradation

Indirect impacts of climate change on land degradation are difficult to quantify because of the many conflating factors. The causes of land-use change are complex, combining physical, biological and socio-economic drivers (Lambin et al. 2001 666 ; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011 667 ). One such driver of land-use change is the degradation of agricultural land, which can result in a negative cycle of natural land being converted to agricultural land to sustain production levels. The intensive management of agricultural land can lead to a loss of soil function, negatively impacting on the many ecosystem services provided by soils, including maintenance of water quality and soil carbon sequestration (Smith et al. 2016a 668 ). The degradation of soil quality due to cropping is of particular concern in tropical regions, where it results in a loss of productive potential of the land, affecting regional food security and driving conversion of non-agricultural land, such as forestry, to agriculture (Lambin et al. 2003 669 ; Drescher et al. 2016 670 ; Van der Laan et al. 2017 671 ). Climate change will exacerbate these negative cycles unless sustainable land management practices are implemented.

Climate change impacts on agricultural productivity (see Chapter 5) will have implications for the intensity of land use and hence exacerbate the risk of increasing land degradation. There will be both localised effects (i.e., climate change impacts on productivity affecting land use in the same region) and teleconnections (i.e., climate change impacts and land-use changes that are spatially and temporally separate) (Wicke et al. 2012 672 ; Pielke et al. 2007 673 ). If global temperature increases beyond 3°C it will have negative yield impacts on all crops (Porter et al. 2014 674 ) which, in combination with a doubling of demands by 2050 (Tilman et al. 2011 675 ), and increasing competition for land from the expansion of negative emissions technologies (IPCC 2018a 676 ; Schleussner et al. 2016 677 ), will exert strong pressure on agricultural lands and food security.

In sum, reduced productivity of most agricultural crops will drive land-use changes worldwide ( robust evidence, medium agreement ), but predicting how this will impact on land degradation is challenging because of several conflating factors. Social change, such as widespread changes in dietary preferences, will have a huge impact on agriculture and hence land degradation ( medium evidence, high agreement ).

Impacts of bioenergy and technologies for CO2 removal (CDR) on land degradation

Potential scale of bioenergy and land-based cdr.

In addition to the traditional land-use drivers (e.g., population growth, agricultural expansion, forest management), a new driver will interact to increase competition for land throughout this century: the potential large-scale implementation of land-based technologies for CO 2 removal (CDR). Land-based CDR includes afforestation and reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), soil carbon management, biochar and enhanced weathering (Smith et al. 2015 678 ; Smith 2016 679 ).

Most scenarios, including two of the four pathways in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C (IPCC 2018a 680 ), compatible with stabilisation at 2°C involve substantial areas devoted to land-based CDR, specifically afforestation/reforestation and BECCS (Schleussner et al. 2016 681 ; Smith et al. 2016b 682 ; Mander et al. 2017 683 ). Even larger land areas are required in most scenarios aimed at keeping average global temperature increases to below 1.5°C, and scenarios that avoid BECCS also require large areas of energy crops in many cases (IPCC 2018b 684 ), although some options with strict demand-side management avoid this need (Grubler et al. 2018 685 ). Consequently, the addition of carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems to bioenergy facilities enhances mitigation benefits because it increases the carbon retention time and reduces emissions relative to bioenergy facilities without CCS. The IPCC SR15 states that, ‘When considering pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, the full set of scenarios shows a conversion of 0.5–11 Mkm 2 of pasture into 0–6 Mkm 2 for energy crops, a 2 Mkm 2  reduction to 9.5 Mkm 2  increase [in] forest, and a 4 Mkm 2  decrease to a 2.5 Mkm 2 increase in non-pasture agricultural land for food and feed crops by 2050 relative to 2010.’ (Rogelj et al. 2018, p. 145). For comparison, the global cropland area in 2010 was 15.9 Mkm 2 (Table 1.1), and Woods et al. (2015) 686 estimate that the area of abandoned and degraded land potentially available for energy crops (or afforestation/reforestation) exceeds 5 Mkm 2 . However, the area of available land has long been debated, as much marginal land is subject to customary land tenure and used informally, often by impoverished communities (Baka 2013 687 , 2014 688 ; Haberl et al. 2013 689 ; Young 1999 690 ). Thus, as noted in SR15, ‘The implementation of land-based mitigation options would require overcoming socio-economic, institutional, technological, financing and environmental barriers that differ across regions.’ (IPCC, 2018a 691 , p. 18).

The wide range of estimates reflects the large differences among the pathways, availability of land in various productivity classes, types of negative emission technology implemented, uncertainties in computer models, and social and economic barriers to implementation (Fuss et al. 2018 692 ; Nemet et al. 2018 693 ; Minx et al. 2018 694 ).

Risks of land degradation from expansion of bioenergy and land-based CDR

The large-scale implementation of high-intensity dedicated energy crops, and harvest of crop and forest residues for bioenergy, could contribute to increases in the area of degraded lands: intensive land management can result in nutrient depletion, over-fertilisation and soil acidification, salinisation (from irrigation without adequate drainage), wet ecosystems drying (from increased evapotranspiration), as well as novel erosion and compaction processes (from high-impact biomass harvesting disturbances) and other land degradation processes described in Section 4.2.1.

Global integrated assessment models used in the analysis of mitigation pathways vary in their approaches to modelling CDR (Bauer et al. 2018 695 ) and the outputs have large uncertainties due to their limited capability to consider site-specific details (Krause et al. 2018 696 ). Spatial resolutions vary from 11 world regions to 0.25 degrees gridcells (Bauer et al. 2018 697 ). While model projections identify potential areas for CDR implementation (Heck et al. 2018 698 ), the interaction with climate-change-induced biome shifts, available land and its vulnerability to degradation are unknown. The crop/forest types and management practices that will be implemented are also unknown, and will be influenced by local incentives and regulations. While it is therefore currently not possible to project the area at risk of degradation from the implementation of land-based CDR, there is a clear risk that expansion of energy crops at the scale anticipated could put significant strain on land systems, biosphere integrity, freshwater supply and biogeochemical flows (Heck et al. 2018 699 ). Similarly, extraction of biomass for energy from existing forests, particularly where stumps are utilised, can impact on soil health (de Jong et al. 2017 700 ). Reforestation and afforestation present a lower risk of land degradation and may in fact reverse degradation (Section 4.5.3) although potential adverse hydrological and biodiversity impacts will need to be managed (Caldwell et al. 2018 701 ; Brinkman et al. 2017 702 ). Soil carbon management can deliver negative emissions while reducing or reversing land degradation. Chapter 6 discusses the significance of context and management in determining environmental impacts of implementation of land-based options.

Potential contributions of land-based CDR to reducing and reversing land degradation

Although large-scale implementation of land-based CDR has significant potential risks, the need for negative emissions and the anticipated investments to implement such technologies can also create significant opportunities. Investments into land-based CDR can contribute to halting and reversing land degradation, to the restoration or rehabilitation of degraded and marginal lands (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016 703 ; Fritsche et al. 2017 704 ) and can contribute to the goals of LDN (Orr et al. 2017 705 ).

Estimates of the global area of degraded land range from less than 10 to 60 Mkm2 (Gibbs and Salmon 2015 706 ) (Section 4.3.1). Additionally, large areas are classified as marginal lands and may be suitable for the implementation of bioenergy and land-based CDR (Woods et al. 2015 707 ). The yield per hectare of marginal and degraded lands is lower than on fertile lands, and if CDR will be implemented on marginal and degraded lands, this will increase the area demand and costs per unit area of achieving negative emissions (Fritsche et al. 2017 708 ). The selection of lands suitable for CDR must be considered carefully to reduce conflicts with existing users, to assess the possible trade-offs in biodiversity contributions of the original and the CDR land uses, to quantify the impacts on water budgets, and to ensure sustainability of the CDR land use.

Land use and land condition prior to the implementation of CDR affect climate change benefits (Harper et al. 2018 709 ). Afforestation/ reforestation on degraded lands can increase carbon stocks in vegetation and soil, increase carbon sinks (Amichev et al. 2012 710 ), and deliver co-benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services, particularly if a diversity of local species are used. Afforestation and reforestation on native grasslands can reduce soil carbon stocks, although the loss is typically more than compensated by increases in biomass and dead organic matter carbon stocks (Bárcena et al. 2014 711 ; Li et al. 2012 712 ; Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015 713 ; Shi et al. 2013 714 ), and may impact on biodiversity (Li et al. 2012 715 ).

Strategic incorporation of energy crops into agricultural production systems, applying an integrated landscape management approach, can provide co-benefits for management of land degradation and other environmental objectives. For example, buffers of Miscanthus and other grasses can enhance soil carbon and reduce water pollution (Cacho et al. 2018 716 ; Odgaard et al. 2019 717 ), and strip-planting of short-rotation tree crops can reduce the water table where crops are affected by dryland salinity (Robinson et al. 2006 718 ). Shifting to perennial grain crops has the potential to combine food production with carbon sequestration at a higher rate than annual grain crops and avoid the trade-off between food production and climate change mitigation (Crews et al. 2018 719 ; de Olivera et al. 2018 720 ; Ryan et al. 2018 721 ) (Section 4.9.2).

Changes in land cover can affect surface reflectance, water balances and emissions of volatile organic compounds and thus the non-GHG impacts on the climate system from afforestation/reforestation or planting energy crops (Anderson et al. 2011 722 ; Bala et al. 2007 723 ; Betts 2000 724 ; Betts et al. 2007 725 ) (see Section 4.6 for further details). Some of these impacts reinforce the GHG mitigation benefits, while others offset the benefits, with strong local (slope, aspect) and regional (boreal vs. tropical biomes) differences in the outcomes (Li et al. 2015 726 ). Adverse effects on albedo from afforestation with evergreen conifers in boreal zones can be reduced through planting of broadleaf deciduous species (Astrup et al. 2018 727 ; Cai et al. 2011a 728 ; Anderson et al. 2011 729 ).

Combining CDR technologies may prove synergistic. Two soil management techniques with an explicit focus on increasing the soil carbon content rather than promoting soil conservation more broadly have been suggested: addition of biochar to agricultural soils (Section 4.9.5) and addition of ground silicate minerals to soils in order to take up atmospheric CO 2 through chemical weathering (Taylor et al. 2017 730 ; Haque et al. 2019 731 ; Beerling 2017 732 ; Strefler et al. 2018 733 ). The addition of biochar is comparatively well understood and also field tested at large scale, see Section 4.9.5 for a comprehensive discussion. The addition of silicate minerals to soils is still highly uncertain in terms of its potential (from 95 GtCO 2 yr –1 (Strefler et al. 2018) to only 2–4 GtCO 2 yr –1 (Fuss et al. 2018 734 )) and costs (Schlesinger and Amundson 2018 735 ).

Effectively addressing land degradation through implementation of bioenergy and land-based CDR will require site-specific local knowledge, matching of species with the local land, water balance, nutrient and climatic conditions, ongoing monitoring and, where necessary, adaptation of land management to ensure sustainability under global change (Fritsche et al. 2017 736 ). Effective land governance mechanisms including integrated land-use planning, along with strong sustainability standards could support deployment of energy crops and afforestation/reforestation at appropriate scales and geographical contexts (Fritsche et al. 2017 737 ). Capacity-building and technology transfer through the international cooperation mechanisms of the Paris Agreement could support such efforts. Modelling to inform policy development is most useful when undertaken with close interaction between model developers and other stakeholders including policymakers to ensure that models account for real world constraints (Dooley and Kartha 2018 738 ).

International initiatives to restore lands, such as the Bonn Challenge (Verdone and Seidl 2017 739 ) and the New York Declaration on Forests (Chazdon et al. 2017 740 ), and interventions undertaken for LDN and implementation of NDCs (see Glossary) can contribute to NET objectives. Such synergies may increase the financial resources available to meet multiple objectives (Section 4.8.4).

Traditional biomass provision and land degradation

Traditional biomass (fuelwood, charcoal, agricultural residues, animal dung) used for cooking and heating by some 2.8 billion people (38% of global population) in non-OECD countries accounts for more than half of all bioenergy used worldwide (IEA 2017 741 ; REN21 2018 742 ) (Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6). Cooking with traditional biomass has multiple negative impacts on human health, particularly for women, children and youth (Machisa et al. 2013 743 ; Sinha and Ray 2015 744 ; Price 2017 745 ; Mendum and Njenga 2018 746 ; Adefuye et al. 2007 747 ) and on household productivity, including high workloads for women and youth (Mendum and Njenga 2018 748 ; Brunner et al. 2018 749 ; Hou et al. 2018 750 ; Njenga et al. 2019 751 ). Traditional biomass is land-intensive due to reliance on open fires, inefficient stoves and overharvesting of woodfuel, contributing to land degradation, losses in biodiversity and reduced ecosystem services (IEA 2017 752 ; Bailis et al. 2015 753 ; Masera et al. 2015 754 ; Specht et al. 2015 755 ; Fritsche et al. 2017 756 ; Fuso Nerini et al. 2017 757 ). Traditional woodfuels account for 1.9–2.3% of global GHG emissions, particularly in ‘hotspots’ of land degradation and fuelwood depletion in eastern Africa and South Asia, such that one-third of traditional woodfuels globally are harvested unsustainably (Bailis et al. 2015 758 ). Scenarios to significantly reduce reliance on traditional biomass in developing countries present multiple co-benefits ( high evidence, high agreement ), including reduced emissions of black carbon, a short-lived climate forcer that also causes respiratory disease (Shindell et al. 2012 759 ).

A shift from traditional to modern bioenergy, especially in the African context, contributes to improved livelihoods and can reduce land degradation and impacts on ecosystem services (Smeets et al. 2012 760 ; Gasparatos et al. 2018 761 ; Mudombi et al. 2018 762 ). In Sub-Saharan Africa, most countries mention woodfuel in their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) but fail to identify transformational processes to make fuelwood a sustainable energy source compatible with improved forest management (Amugune et al. 2017 763 ). In some regions, especially in South and Southeast Asia, a scarcity of woody biomass may lead to excessive removal and use of agricultural wastes and residues, which contributes to poor soil quality and land degradation (Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009 764 ; Mateos et al. 2017 765 ).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, forest degradation is widely associated with charcoal production, although in some tropical areas rapid re-growth can offset forest losses (Hoffmann et al. 2017 766 ; McNicol et al. 2018 767 ). Overharvesting of wood for charcoal contributes to the high rate of deforestation in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is five times the world average, due in part to corruption and weak governance systems (Sulaiman et al. 2017 768 ). Charcoal may also be a by-product of forest clearing for agriculture, with charcoal sale providing immediate income when the land is cleared for food crops (Kiruki et al. 2017 769 ; Ndegwa et al. 2016 770 ). Besides loss of forest carbon stock, a further concern for climate change is methane and black carbon emissions from fuelwood burning and traditional charcoal-making processes (Bond et al. 2013 771 ; Patange et al. 2015 772 ; Sparrevik et al. 2015 773 ).

A fundamental difficulty in reducing environmental impacts associated with charcoal lies in the small-scale nature of much charcoal production in Sub-Saharan Africa, leading to challenges in regulating its production and trade, which is often informal, and in some cases illegal, but nevertheless widespread since charcoal is the most important urban cooking fuel (Zulu 2010 774 ; Zulu and Richardson 2013 775 ; Smith et al. 2015 776 ; World Bank 2009 777 ). Urbanisation combined with population growth has led to continuously increasing charcoal production. Low efficiency of traditional charcoal production results in a four-fold increase in raw woody biomass required and thus much greater biomass harvest (Hojas-Gascon et al. 2016 778 ; Smeets et al. 2012 779 ). With continuing urbanisation anticipated, increased charcoal production and use will probably contribute to increasing land pressures and increased land degradation, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa ( medium evidence, high agreement ).

Although it could be possible to source this biomass more sustainably, the ecosystem and health impacts of this increased demand for cooking fuel would be reduced through use of other renewable fuels or, in some cases, non-renewable fuels (LPG), as well as through improved efficiency in end-use and through better resource and supply chain management (Santos et al. 2017 780 ; Smeets et al. 2012 781 ; Hoffmann et al. 2017 782 ). Integrated response options such as agro-forestry (Chapter 6) and good governance mechanisms for forest and agricultural management (Chapter 7) can support the transition to sustainable energy for households and reduce the environmental impacts of traditional biomass.

Impacts of land degradation on climate

While Chapter 2 has its focus on land cover changes and their impacts on the climate system, this chapter focuses on the influences of individual land degradation processes on climate (see Table 4.1) which may or may not take place in association with land cover changes. The effects of land degradation on CO 2 and other GHGs as well as those on surface albedo and other physical controls of the global radiative balance are discussed.

Impact on greenhouse gases (GHGs)

Land degradation processes with direct impact on soil and terrestrial biota have great relevance in terms of CO 2 exchange with the atmosphere, given the magnitude and activity of these reservoirs in the global carbon cycle. As the most widespread form of soil degradation, erosion detaches the surface soil material, which typically hosts the highest organic carbon stocks, favouring the mineralisation and release as CO 2 . Yet complementary processes such as carbon burial may compensate for this effect, making soil erosion a long-term carbon sink ( low agreement, limited evidence ), (Wang et al. (2017b) 783 , but see also Chappell et al. (2016) 784 ). Precise estimation of the CO 2 released from eroded lands is challenged by the fact that only a fraction of the detached carbon is eventually lost to the atmosphere. It is important to acknowledge that a substantial fraction of the eroded material may preserve its organic carbon load in field conditions. Moreover, carbon sequestration may be favoured through the burial of both the deposited material and the surface of its hosting soil at the deposition location (Quinton et al. 2010 785 ). The cascading effects of erosion on other environmental processes at the affected sites can often cause net CO 2 emissions through their indirect influence on soil fertility, and the balance of organic carbon inputs and outputs, interacting with other non-erosive soil degradation processes (such as nutrient depletion, compaction and salinisation), which can lead to the same net carbon effects (see Table 4.1) (van de Koppel et al. 1997 786 ).

As natural and human-induced erosion can result in net carbon storage in very stable buried pools at the deposition locations, degradation in those locations has a high C-release potential. Coastal ecosystems such as mangrove forests, marshes and seagrasses are at typical deposition locations, and their degradation or replacement with other vegetation is resulting in a substantial carbon release (0.15 to 1.02 GtC yr –1 ) (Pendleton et al. 2012 787 ), which highlights the need for a spatially integrated assessment of land degradation impacts on climate that considers in-situ but also ex-situ emissions.

Cultivation and agricultural management of cultivated land are relevant in terms of global CO 2 land–atmosphere exchange (Section 4.8.1). Besides the initial pulse of CO 2 emissions associated with the onset of cultivation and associated vegetation clearing (Chapter 2), agricultural management practices can increase or reduce carbon losses to the atmosphere. Although global croplands are considered to be at a relatively neutral stage in the current decade (Houghton et al. 2012 788 ), this results from a highly uncertain balance between coexisting net losses and gains. Degradation losses of soil and biomass carbon appear to be compensated by gains from soil protection and restoration practices such as cover crops, conservation tillage and nutrient replenishment favouring organic matter build-up. Cover crops, increasingly used to improve soils, have the potential to sequester 0.12 GtC yr –1 on global croplands with a saturation time of more than 150 years (Poeplau and Don 2015 789 ). No-till practices (i.e., tillage elimination favouring crop residue retention in the soil surface) which were implemented to protect soils from erosion and reduce land preparation times, were also seen with optimism as a carbon sequestration option, which today is considered more modest globally and, in some systems, even less certain (VandenBygaart 2016 799 ; Cheesman et al. 2016 791 ; Powlson et al. 2014 792 ). Among soil fertility restoration practices, lime application for acidity correction, increasingly important in tropical regions, can generate a significant net CO 2 source in some soils (Bernoux et al. 2003 793 ; Desalegn et al. 2017 794 ).

Land degradation processes in seminatural ecosystems driven by unsustainable uses of their vegetation through logging or grazing lead to reduced plant cover and biomass stocks, causing net carbon releases from soils and plant stocks. Degradation by logging activities is particularly prevalent in developing tropical and subtropical regions, involving carbon releases that exceed by far the biomass of harvested products, including additional vegetation and soil sources that are estimated to reach 0.6 GtC yr –1 (Pearson et al. 2014, 2017 795 ). Excessive grazing pressures pose a more complex picture with variable magnitudes and even signs of carbon exchanges. A general trend of higher carbon losses in humid overgrazed rangelands suggests a high potential for carbon sequestration following the rehabilitation of those systems (Conant and Paustian 2002 796 ) with a global potential sequestration of 0.045 GtC yr -1 . A special case of degradation in rangelands is the process leading to the woody encroachment of grass-dominated systems, which can be responsible for declining animal production but high carbon sequestration rates (Asner et al. 2003 797 ; Maestre et al. 2009 798 ).

Fire regime shifts in wild and seminatural ecosystems can become a degradation process in itself, with high impact on net carbon emission and with underlying interactive human and natural drivers such as burning policies (Van Wilgen et al. 2004 1651 ), biological invasions (Brooks et al. 2009 800 ), and plant pest/disease spread (Kulakowski et al. 2003 801 ). Some of these interactive processes affecting unmanaged forests have resulted in massive carbon release, highlighting how degradation feedbacks on climate are not restricted to intensively used land but can affect wild ecosystems as well (Kurz et al. 2008 802 ).

Agricultural land and wetlands represent the dominant source of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Chen et al. 2018d 803 ). In agricultural land, the expansion of rice cultivation (increasing CH 4 sources), ruminant stocks and manure disposal (increasing CH 4 , N 2 O and NH 3 fluxes) and nitrogen over-fertilisation combined with soil acidification (increasing N 2 O fluxes) are introducing the major impacts ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) and their associated emissions appear to be exacerbated by global warming ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) (Oertel et al. 2016 804 ).

As the major sources of global N 2 O emissions, over-fertilisation and manure disposal are not only increasing in-situ sources but also stimulating those along the pathway of dissolved inorganic nitrogen transport all the way from draining waters to the ocean ( high agreement, medium evidence ). Current budgets of anthropogenically fixed nitrogen on the Earth System (Tian et al. 2015 805 ; Schaefer et al. 2016 806 ; Wang et al. 2017a 807 ) suggest that N 2 O release from terrestrial soils and wetlands accounts for 10–15% of the emissions, yet many further release fluxes along the hydrological pathway remain uncertain, with emissions from oceanic ‘dead-zones’ being a major aspect of concern (Schlesinger 2009; Rabalais et al. 2014 808 ).

Environmental degradation processes focused on the hydrological system, which are typically manifested at the landscape scale, include both drying (as in drained wetlands or lowlands) and wetting trends (as in waterlogged and flooded plains). Drying of wetlands reduces CH 4 emissions (Turetsky et al. 2014 812 ) but favours pulses of organic matter mineralisation linked to high N 2 O release (Morse and Bernhardt 2013 813 ; Norton et al. 2011 814 ). The net warming balance of these two effects is not resolved and may be strongly variable across different types of wetlands. In the case of flooding of non-wetland soils, a suppression of CO 2 release is typically overcompensated in terms of net greenhouse impact by enhanced CH 4 fluxes that stem from the lack of aeration but are aided by the direct effect of extreme wetting on the solubilisation and transport of organic substrates (McNicol and Silver 2014 815 ). Both wetlands rewetting/restoration and artificial wetland creation can increase CH 4 release (Altor and Mitsch 2006 816 ; Fenner et al. 2011 817 ). Permafrost thawing is another major source of CH 4 release, with substantial long-term contributions to the atmosphere that are starting to be globally quantified (Christensen et al. 2004 818 ; Schuur et al. 2015 819 ; Walter Anthony et al. 2016 820 ).

Physical impacts

Among the physical effects of land degradation, surface albedo changes are those with the most evident impact on the net global radiative balance and net climate warming/cooling. Degradation processes affecting wild and semi-natural ecosystems, such as fire regime changes, woody encroachment, logging and overgrazing, can trigger strong albedo changes before significant biogeochemical shifts take place. In most cases these two types of effects have opposite signs in terms of net radiative forcing, making their joint assessment critical for understanding climate feedbacks (Bright et al. 2015 821 ).

In the case of forest degradation or deforestation, the albedo impacts are highly dependent on the latitudinal/climatic belt to which they belong. In boreal forests, the removal or degradation of the tree cover increases albedo (net cooling effect) ( medium evidence, high agreement ) as the reflective snow cover becomes exposed, which can exceed the net radiative effect of the associated carbon release to the atmosphere (Davin et al. 2010 822 ; Pinty et al. 2011 823 ). On the other hand, progressive greening of boreal and temperate forests has contributed to net albedo declines ( medium agreement, medium evidence ) (Planque et al. 2017 824 ; Li et al. 2018a 825 ). In the northern treeless vegetation belt (tundra), shrub encroachment leads to the opposite effect as the emergence of plant structures above the snow cover level reduce winter-time albedo (Sturm 2005 826 ).

The extent to which albedo shifts can compensate for carbon storage shifts at the global level has not been estimated. A significant but partial compensation takes place in temperate and subtropical dry ecosystems in which radiation levels are higher and carbon stocks smaller compared to their more humid counterparts ( medium agreement, medium evidence ). In cleared dry woodlands, half of the net global warming effect of net carbon release has been compensated by albedo increase (Houspanossian et al. 2013 827 ), whereas in afforested dry rangelands, albedo declines cancelled one-fifth of the net carbon sequestration (Rotenberg and Yakir 2010 828 ). Other important cases in which albedo effects impose a partial compensation of carbon exchanges are the vegetation shifts associated with wildfires, as shown for the savannahs, shrublands and grasslands of Sub-Saharan Africa (Dintwe et al. 2017 829 ). Besides the net global effects discussed above, albedo shifts can play a significant role in local climate ( high agreement, medium evidence ), as exemplified by the effect of no-till agriculture reducing local heat extremes in European landscapes (Davin et al. 2014 830 ) and the effects of woody encroachment causing precipitation rises in the North American Great Plains (Ge and Zou 2013 831 ). Modelling efforts that integrate ground data from deforested areas worldwide accounting for both physical and biogeochemical effects, indicate that massive global deforestation would have a net warming impact (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015 832 ) at both local and global levels with highlight non-linear effects of forest loss on climate variables.

Beyond the albedo effects presented above, other physical impacts of land degradation on the atmosphere can contribute to global and regional climate change. Of particular relevance, globally and continentally, are the net cooling effects of dust emissions ( low agreement, medium evidence ) (Lau and Kim (2007) 833 , but see also Huang et al. (2014) 834 ). Anthropogenic emission of mineral particles from degrading land appear to have a similar radiative impact than all other anthropogenic aerosols (Sokolik and Toon 1996 835 ). Dust emissions may explain regional climate anomalies through reinforcing feedbacks, as suggested for the amplification of the intensity, extent and duration of the low precipitation anomaly of the North American Dust Bowl in the 1930s (Cook et al. 2009 836 ). Another source of physical effects on climate are surface roughness changes which, by affecting atmospheric drag, can alter cloud formation and precipitation (low agreement, low evidence), as suggested by modelling studies showing how the massive deployment of solar panels in the Sahara could increase rainfall in the Sahel (Li et al. 2018c 837 ), or how woody encroachment in the Arctic tundra could reduce cloudiness and raise temperature (Cho et al. 2018 838 ). The complex physical effects of deforestation, as explored through modelling, converge into general net regional precipitation declines, tropical temperature increases and boreal temperature declines, while net global effects are less certain (Perugini et al. 2017 839 ). Integrating all the physical effects of land degradation and its recovery or reversal is still a challenge, yet modelling attempts suggest that, over the last three decades, the slow but persistent net global greening caused by the average increase of leaf area in the land has caused a net cooling of the Earth, mainly through the rise in evapotranspiration (Zeng et al. 2017 840 ) ( low confidence ).

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on poverty and livelihoods

Unravelling the impacts of climate-related land degradation on poverty and livelihoods is highly challenging. This complexity is due to the interplay of multiple social, political, cultural and economic factors, such as markets, technology, inequality, population growth, (Barbier and Hochard 2018 841 ) each of which interact and shape the ways in which social-ecological systems respond (Morton 2007 842 ). We find limited evidence attributing the impacts of climate-related land degradation to poverty and livelihoods, with climate often not distinguished from any other driver of land degradation. Climate is nevertheless frequently noted as a risk multiplier for both land degradation and poverty ( high agreement, robust evidence ) and is one of many stressors people live with, respond to and adapt to in their daily lives (Reid and Vogel 2006 843 ). Climate change is considered to exacerbate land degradation and potentially accelerate it due to heat stress, drought, changes to evapotranspiration rates and biodiversity, as well as a result of changes to environmental conditions that allow new pests and diseases to thrive (Reed and Stringer 2016 844 ). In general terms, the climate (and climate change) can increase human and ecological communities’ sensitivity to land degradation. Land degradation then leaves livelihoods more sensitive to the impacts of climate change and extreme climatic events ( high agreement, robust evidence ). If human and ecological communities exposed to climate change and land degradation are sensitive and cannot adapt, they can be considered vulnerable to it; if they are sensitive and can adapt, they can be considered resilient (Reed and Stringer 2016 845 ). The impacts of land degradation will vary under a changing climate, both spatially and temporally, leading some communities and ecosystems to be more vulnerable or more resilient than others under different scenarios. Even within communities, groups such as women and youth are often more vulnerable than others.

Relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty

This section sets out the relationships between land degradation and poverty, and climate change and poverty, leading to inferences about the three-way links between them. Poverty is multidimensional and includes a lack of access to the whole range of capital assets that can be used to pursue a livelihood. Livelihoods constitute the capabilities, assets and activities that are necessary to make a living (Chambers and Conway 1992 846 ; Olsson et al. 2014b 847 ).

The literature shows high agreement in terms of speculation that there are potential links between land degradation and poverty. However, studies have not provided robust quantitative assessments of the extent and incidence of poverty within populations affected by land degradation (Barbier and Hochard 2016 848 ). Some researchers, for example, Nachtergaele et al. (2011) 849 estimate that 1.5 billion people were dependent upon degraded land to support their livelihoods in 2007, while >42% of the world’s poor population inhabit degraded areas. However, there is overall low confidence in the evidence base, a lack of studies that look beyond the past and present, and the literature calls for more in-depth research to be undertaken on these issues (Gerber et al. 2014 850 ). Recent work by Barbier and Hochard (2018) 851 points to biophysical constraints such as poor soils and limited rainfall, which interact to limit land productivity, suggesting that those farming in climatically less-favourable agricultural areas are challenged by poverty. Studies such as those by Coomes et al. (2011) 852 , focusing on an area in the Amazon, highlight the importance of the initial conditions of land holding in the dominant (shifting) cultivation system in terms of long-term effects on household poverty and future forest cover, showing that initial land tenure and socio-economic aspects can make some areas less favourable too.

Much of the qualitative literature is focused on understanding the livelihood and poverty impacts of degradation through a focus on subsistence agriculture, where farms are small, under traditional or informal tenure and where exposure to environmental (including climate) risks is high (Morton 2007 853 ). In these situations, poorer people lack access to assets (financial, social, human, natural and physical) and in the absence of appropriate institutional supports and social protection, this leaves them sensitive and unable to adapt, so a vicious cycle of poverty and degradation can ensue. To further illustrate the complexity, livelihood assessments often focus on a single snapshot in time. Livelihoods are dynamic and people alter their livelihood activities and strategies depending on the internal and external stressors to which they are responding (O’Brien et al. 2004 854 ). When certain livelihood activities and strategies are no longer tenable as a result of land degradation (and may push people into poverty), land degradation can have further effects on issues such as migration (Lee 2009 855 ), as people adapt by moving (Section 4.7.3); and may result in conflict (Section 4.7.3), as different groups within society compete for scarce resources, sometimes through non-peaceful actions. Both migration and conflict can lead to land-use changes elsewhere that further fuel climate change through increased emissions.

Similar challenges as for understanding land degradation–poverty linkages are experienced in unravelling the relationship between climate change and poverty. A particular issue in examining climate change–poverty links relates to the common use of aggregate economic statistics like GDP, as the assets and income of the poor constitute a minor proportion of national wealth (Hallegatte et al. 2018 856 ). Aggregate quantitative measures also fail to capture the distributions of costs and benefits from climate change. Furthermore, people fall into and out of poverty, with climate change being one of many factors affecting these dynamics, through its impacts on livelihoods. Much of the literature on climate change and poverty tends to look backward rather than forward (Skoufias et al. 2011 857 ), providing a snapshot of current or past relationships (for example, Dell et al. (2009) 858 who examine the relationship between temperature and income (GDP) using cross-sectional data from countries in the Americas). Yet, simulations of future climate change impacts on income or poverty are largely lacking.

Noting the limited evidence that exists that explicitly focuses on the relationship between land degradation, climate change and poverty, Barbier and Hochard (2018b) 859 suggest that those people living in less-favoured agricultural areas face a poverty–environment trap that can result in increased land degradation under climate change conditions. The emergent relationships between land degradation, climate change and poverty are shown in Figure 4.6 (see also Figure 6.1).

Schematic representation of links between climate change, land management and socio-economic conditions.

The poor have access to few productive assets – so land, and the natural resource base more widely, plays a key role in supporting the livelihoods of the poor. It is, however, hard to make generalisations about how important income derived from the natural resource base is for rural livelihoods in the developing world (Angelsen et al. 2014 860 ). Studies focusing on forest resources have shown that approximately one quarter of the total rural household income in developing countries stems from forests, with forest-based income shares being tentatively higher for low-income households (Vedeld et al. 2007 861 ; Angelsen et al. 2014 862 ). Different groups use land in different ways within their overall livelihood portfolios and are, therefore, at different levels of exposure and sensitivity to climate shocks and stresses. The literature nevertheless displays high evidence and high agreement that those populations whose livelihoods are more sensitive to climate change and land degradation are often more dependent on environmental assets, and these people are often the poorest members of society. There is further high evidence and high agreement that both climate change and land degradation can affect livelihoods and poverty through their threat multiplier effect. Research in Bellona, in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (Reenberg et al. 2008 863 ) examined event-driven impacts on livelihoods, taking into account weather events as one of many drivers of land degradation and links to broader land use and land cover changes that have taken place. Geographical locations experiencing land degradation are often the same locations that are directly affected by poverty, and also by extreme events linked to climate change and variability.

Much of the assessment presented above has considered place-based analyses examining the relationships between poverty, land degradation and climate change in the locations in which these outcomes have occurred. Altieri and Nicholls (2017) 864 note that, due to the globalised nature of markets and consumption systems, the impacts of changes in crop yields linked to climate-related land degradation (manifest as lower yields) will be far reaching, beyond the sites and livelihoods experiencing degradation. Despite these teleconnections, farmers living in poverty in developing countries will be especially vulnerable due to their exposure, dependence on the environment for income and limited options to engage in other ways to make a living (Rosenzweig and Hillel 1998 865 ). In identifying ways in which these interlinkages can be addressed, Scherr (2000) 866 observes that key actions that can jointly address poverty and environmental improvement often seek to increase access to natural resources, enhance the productivity of the natural resource assets of the poor, and engage stakeholders in addressing public natural resource management issues. In this regard, it is increasingly recognised that those suffering from, and being vulnerable to, land degradation and

poverty need to have a voice and play a role in the development of solutions, especially where the natural resources and livelihood activities they depend on are further threatened by climate change.

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on food security

How and where we grow food, compared to where and when we need to consume it, is at the crux of issues surrounding land degradation, climate change and food security, especially because more than 75% of the global land surface (excluding Antarctica) faces rain-fed crop production constraints (Fischer et al. 2009 867 ), see also Chapter 5. Taken separately, knowledge on land degradation processes and human-induced climate change has attained a great level of maturity. However, their combined effects on food security, notably food supply, remain underappreciated (Webb et al. 2017b 868 ), and quantitative information is lacking. Just a few studies have shown how the interactive effects of the aforementioned challenging, interrelated phenomena can impact on crop productivity and hence food security and quality (Karami et al. 2009 869 ; Allen et al. 2001 870 ; Högy and Fangmeier 2008 871 ) ( low evidence ). Along with socio-economic drivers, climate change accelerates land degradation due to its influence on land-use systems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 872 ; UNCCD 2017 873 ), potentially leading to a decline in agri-food system productivity, particularly on the supply side. Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation patterns are expected to have impacts on soil quality, including nutrient availability and assimilation (St.Clair and Lynch 2010 874 ). Those climate-related changes are expected to have net negative impacts on agricultural productivity, particularly in tropical regions, though the magnitude of impacts depends on the models used. Anticipated supply-side issues linked to land and climate relate to biocapacity factors (including e.g., whether there is enough water to support agriculture); production factors (e.g., chemical pollution of soil and water resources or lack of soil nutrients) and distribution issues (e.g., decreased availability of and/or accessibility to the necessary diversity of quality food where and when it is needed) (Stringer et al. 2011 875 ). Climate-sensitive transport infrastructure is also problematic for food security (Islam et al. 2017), and can lead to increased food waste, while poor siting of roads and transport links can lead to soil erosion and forest loss (Xiao et al. 2017 877 ), further feeding back into climate change.

Over the past decades, crop models have been useful tools for assessing and understanding climate change impacts on crop productivity and food security (White et al. 2011 878 ; Rosenzweig et al. 2014 879 ). Yet, the interactive effects of soil parameters and climate change on crop yields and food security remain limited, with low evidence of how they play out in different economic and climate settings (e.g., Sundström et al. 2014 880 ). Similarly, there have been few meta-analyses focusing on the adaptive capacity of land-use practices such as conservation agriculture in light of climate stress (see e.g., Steward et al. 2018 881 ), as well as low evidence quantifying the role of wild foods and forests (and, by extension, forest degradation) in both the global food basket and in supporting household-scale food security (Bharucha and Pretty 2010 882 ; Hickey et al. 2016 883 ).

To be sustainable, any initiative aimed at addressing food security – encompassing supply, diversity and quality – must take into consideration the interactive effects between climate and land degradation in a context of other socio-economic stressors. Such socio-economic factors are especially important if we look at demand-side issues too, which include lack of purchasing power, large-scale speculation on global food markets, leading to exponential price rises (Tadesse et al. 2014 884 ), competition in appropriation of supplies and changes to per capita food consumption (Stringer et al. 2011 885 ) (Chapter 5). Lack of food security, combined with lack of livelihood options, is often an important manifestation of vulnerability, and can act as a key trigger for people to migrate. In this way, migration becomes an adaptation strategy.

Impacts of climate-related land degradation on migration and conflict

Land degradation may trigger competition for scarce natural resources, potentially leading to migration and/or conflict, though, even with medium evidence, there is low agreement in the literature. Linkages between land degradation and migration occur within a larger context of multi-scale interaction of environmental and non-environmental drivers and processes, including resettlement projects, searches for education and/or income, land shortages, political turmoil, and family-related reasons (McLeman 2017 886 ; Hermans and Ide 2019 887 ). The complex contribution of climate to migration and conflict hampers retrieving any level of confidence on climate-migration and climate-conflict linkages, therefore constituting a major knowledge gap (Cramer et al. 2014 888 ; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2018 889 ).

There is low evidence on the causal linkages between climate change, land degradation processes (other than desertification) and migration. Existing studies on land degradation and migration – particularly in drylands – largely focus on the effect of rainfall variability and drought, and show how migration serves as adaptation strategy (Piguet et al. 2018 890 ; McLeman 2017 891 ; Chapter 3). For example, in the Ethiopian highlands, severe topsoil erosion and forest degradation is a major environmental stressor which is amplified by recurring droughts, with migration being an important household adaptation strategy (Morrissey 2013 892 ). In the humid tropics, land degradation, mainly as a consequence of deforestation, has been a reported reason for people leaving their homes during the Amazonian colonisation (Hecht 1983 894 ) but was also observed more recently, for example in Guatemala, where soil degradation was one of the most frequently cited migration pushes (López-Carr 2012 895 ) and Kenya, where households respond to low soil quality by sending temporary migrants for additional income generation (Gray 2011 896 ). In contrast, in the Andean highlands and the Pacific coastal plain, migration increased with land quality, probably because revenues from additional agricultural production was invested in costly forms of migration (Gray and Bilsborrow 2013 897 ). These mixed results illustrate the complex, non-linear relationship of land degradation–migration linkages and suggest that explaining land degradationand migration linkages requires considering a broad range of socio-ecological conditions (McLeman 2017 898 ).

In addition to people moving away from an area due to ‘lost’ livelihood activities, climate-related land degradation can also reduce the availability of livelihood safety nets – environmental assets that people use during times of shocks or stress. For example, Barbier (2000) 899 notes that wetlands in north-east Nigeria around Hadejia–Jama’are floodplain provide dry season pastures for seminomadic herders, agricultural surpluses for Kano and Borno states, groundwater recharge of the Chad formation aquifer and ‘insurance’ resources in times of drought. The floodplain also supports many migratory bird species. As climate change and land degradation combine, delivery of these multiple services can be undermined, particularly as droughts become more widespread, reducing the utility of this wetland environment as a safety net for people and wildlife alike.

Early studies conducted in Africa hint at a significant causal link between land degradation and violent conflict (Homer-Dixon et al. 1993 900 ). For example, Percival and Homer-Dixon (1995) 901 identified land degradation as one of the drivers of the crisis in Rwanda in the early 1990s, which allowed radical forces to stoke ethnic rivalries. With respect to the Darfur conflict, some scholars and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded that land degradation, together with other environmental stressors, constitute a major security threat for the Sudanese people (Byers and Dragojlovic 2004 902 ; Sachs 2007 903 ; UNEP 2007 904 ). Recent studies show low agreement, suggesting that climate change can increase the likelihood of civil violence if certain economic, political and social factors, including low development and weak governance mechanisms, are present (Scheffran et al. 2012 905 ; Benjaminsen et al. 2012 906 ). In contrast, Raleigh and Urdal (2007) 907 found in a global study that land degradation is a weak predictor for armed conflict. As such, studies addressing possible linkages between climate change – a key driver of land degradation – and the risks of conflict have yielded contradictory results, and it remains largely unclear whether land degradation resulting from climate change leads to conflict or cooperation (Salehyan 2008 908 ; Solomon et al. 2018 909 ).

Land degradation–conflict linkages can be bi-directional. Research suggests that households experiencing natural resource degradation often engage in migration for securing livelihoods (Kreamer 2012 910 ), which potentially triggers land degradation at the destination, leading to conflict there (Kassa et al. 2017 911 ). While this indeed holds true for some cases, it may not for others, given the complexity of processes, contexts and drivers. Where conflict and violence do ensue, it is often as a result of a lack of appreciation for the cultural practices of others.

4.8 Addressing land degradation in the context of climate change

Land degradation in the form of soil carbon loss is estimated to have been ongoing for at least 12,000 years, but increased exponentially in the last 200 years (Sanderman et al. 2017 912 ). Before the advent of modern sources of nutrients, it was imperative for farmers to maintain and improve soil fertility through the prevention of runoff and erosion, and management of nutrients through vegetation residues and manure. Many ancient farming systems were sustainable for hundreds and even thousands of years, such as raised-field agriculture in Mexico (Crews and Gliessman 1991 913 ), tropical forest gardens in Southeast Asia and Central America (Ross 2011 914 ; Torquebiau 1992 915 ; Turner and Sabloff 2012 916 ), terraced agriculture in East Africa, Central America, Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean basin (Turner and Sabloff 2012 917 ; Preti and Romano 2014 918 ; Widgren and Sutton 2004 919 ; Håkansson and Widgren 2007 920 ; Davies and Moore 2016 921 ; Davies 2015 922 ), and integrated rice–fish cultivation in East Asia (Frei and Becker 2005 923 ).

Such long-term sustainable farming systems evolved in very different times and geographical contexts, but they share many common features, such as: the combination of species and structural diversity in time and space (horizontally and vertically) in order to optimise the use of available land; recycling of nutrients through biodiversity of plants, animals and microbes; harnessing the full range of site-specific micro-environments (e.g., wet and dry soils); biological interdependencies which help suppression of pests; reliance on mainly local resources; reliance on local varieties of crops, and sometimes incorporation of wild plants and animals; the systems are often labour and knowledge intensive (Rudel et al. 2016 924 ; Beets 1990 925 ; Netting 1993 926 ; Altieri and Koohafkan 2008 927 ). Such farming systems have stood the test of time and can provide important knowledge for adapting farming systems to climate change (Koohafkann and Altieri 2011 928 ).

In modern agriculture, the importance of maintaining the biological productivity and ecological integrity of farmland has not been a necessity in the same way as in pre-modern agriculture because nutrients and water have been supplied externally. The extreme land degradation in the US Midwest during the Dust Bowl period in the 1930s became an important wake-up call for agriculture and agricultural research and development, from which we can still learn much in order to adapt to ongoing and future climate change (McLeman et al. 2014 929 ; Baveye et al. 2011 930 ; McLeman and Smit 2006 931 ).

SLM is a unifying framework for addressing land degradation and can be defined as the stewardship and use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, to meet changing human needs, while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions. It is a comprehensive approach comprising technologies combined with social, economic and political enabling conditions (Nkonya et al. 2011 932 ). It is important to stress that farming systems are informed by both scientific and local/traditional knowledge. The power of SLM in small-scale diverse farming was demonstrated effectively in Nicaragua after the severe cyclone Mitch in 1998 (Holt-Giménez 2002 933 ). Pairwise analysis of 880 fields with and without implementation of SLM practices showed that the SLM fields systematically fared better than the fields without SLM in terms of more topsoil remaining, higher field moisture, more vegetation, less erosion and lower economic losses after the cyclone. Furthermore, the difference between fields with and without SLM increased with increasing levels of storm intensity, slope gradient, and age of SLM (Holt-Giménez 2002 934 ).

When addressing land degradation through SLM and other approaches, it is important to consider feedbacks that impact on climate change. Table 4.2 shows some of the most important land degradation issues, their potential solutions, and their impacts on climate change. This table provides a link between the comprehensive lists of land degradation processes (Table 4.1) and land management solutions.

Interaction of human and climate drivers can exacerbate desertification and land degradation.

Climate change exacerbates the rate and magnitude of several ongoing land degradation and desertification processes. Human drivers of land degradation and desertification include expanding agriculture, agricultural practices and forest management. In turn, land degradation and desertification are also drivers of climate change through GHG emissions, reduced rates of carbon uptake, and reduced capacity of ecosystems to act as carbon sinks into the future. Impacts on climate change are either warming (in red) or cooling (in blue).

4.8.1 Actions on the ground to address land degradation

Concrete actions on the ground to address land degradation are primarily focused on soil and water conservation. In the context of adaptation to climate change, actions relevant for addressing land degradation are sometimes framed as ecosystem-based adaptation (Scarano 2017 935 ) or Nature-Based Solutions (Nesshöver et al. 2017 936 ), and in an agricultural context, agroecology (see Glossary) provides an important frame. The site-specific biophysical and social conditions, including local and indigenous knowledge, are important for successful implementation of concrete actions.

Responses to land degradation generally take the form of agronomic measures (methods related to managing the vegetation cover), soil management (methods related to tillage, nutrient supply), and mechanical methods (methods resulting in durable changes to the landscape) (Morgan 2005a 937 ). Measures may be combined to reinforce benefits to land quality, as well as improving carbon sequestration that supports climate change mitigation. Some measures offer adaptation options and other co-benefits, such as agroforestry, involving planting fruit trees that can support food security in the face of climate change impacts (Reed and Stringer 2016 938 ), or application of compost or biochar that enhances soil water-holding capacity, so increases resilience to drought.

There are important differences in terms of labour and capital requirements for different technologies, and also implications for land tenure arrangements. Agronomic measures and soil management require generally little extra capital input and comprise activities repeated annually, so have no particular implication for land tenure arrangements. Mechanical methods require substantial upfront investments in terms of capital and labour, resulting in long-lasting structural change, requiring more secure land tenure arrangements (Mekuriaw et al. 2018 939 ). Agroforestry is a particularly important strategy for SLM in the context of climate change because of the large potential to sequester carbon in plants and soil and enhance resilience of agricultural systems (Zomer et al. 2016 940 ).

Implementation of SLM practices has been shown to increase the productivity of land (Branca et al. 2013 941 ) and to provide good economic returns on investment in many different settings around the world (Mirzabaev et al. 2015 942 ). Giger et al. (2018) 943 showed, in a meta study of 363 SLM projects over the period 1990 to 2012, that 73% of the projects were perceived to have a positive or at least neutral cost-benefit ratio in the short term, and 97% were perceived to have a positive or very positive cost-benefit ratio in the long term ( robust evidence, high agreement ). Despite the positive effects, uptake is far from universal. Local factors, both biophysical conditions (e.g., soils,

drainage, and topography) and socio-economic conditions (e.g., land tenure, economic status, and land fragmentation) play decisive roles in the interest in, capacity to undertake, and successful implementation of SLM practices (Teshome et al. 2016 944 ; Vogl et al. 2017 945 ; Tesfaye et al. 2016 946 ; Cerdà et al. 2018 947 ; Adimassu et al. 2016 948 ). From a landscape perspective, SLM can generate benefits, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, for entire watersheds, but challenges remain regarding coordinated and consistent implementation ( medium evidence, medium agreement ) (Kerr et al. 2016 949 ; Wang et al. 2016a 950 ).

4.8.1.1 Agronomic and soil management measures

Rebuilding soil carbon is an important goal of SLM, particularly in the context of climate change (Rumpel et al. 2018 951 ). The two most important reasons why agricultural soils have lost 20–60% of the soil carbon they contained under natural ecosystem conditions are the frequent disturbance through tillage and harvesting, and the change from deep- rooted perennial plants to shallow-rooted annual plants (Crews and Rumsey 2017 952 ). Practices that build soil carbon are those that increase organic matter input to soil, or reduce decomposition of SOM.

Agronomic practices can alter the carbon balance significantly, by increasing organic inputs from litter and roots into the soil. Practices include retention of residues, use of locally adapted varieties, inter-cropping, crop rotations, and green manure crops that replace the bare field fallow during winter and are eventually ploughed before sowing the next main crop (Henry et al. 2018 953 ). Cover crops (green manure crops and catch crops that are grown between the main cropping seasons) can increase soil carbon stock by between 0.22 and 0.4 t C ha –1 yr –1 (Poeplau and Don 2015 954 ; Kaye and Quemada 2017 955 ).

Reduced tillage (or no-tillage) is an important strategy for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss by wind and water (Van Pelt et al. 2017 956 ; Panagos et al. 2015 957 ; Borrelli et al. 2016 958 ). But the evidence that no-till agriculture also sequesters carbon is not compelling (VandenBygaart 2016 959 ). Soil sampling of only the upper 30 cm can give biased results, suggesting that soils under no-till practices have higher carbon content than soils under conventional tillage (Baker et al. 2007 960 ; Ogle et al. 2012 961 ; Fargione et al. 2018 962 ; VandenBygaart 2016 963 ).

Changing from annual to perennial crops can increase soil carbon content (Culman et al. 2013 964 ; Sainju et al. 2017 965 ). A perennial grain crop (intermediate wheatgrass) was, on average, over four years a net carbon sink of about 13.5 tCO 2 ha –1 yr –1 (de Oliveira et al. 2018 966 ). Sprunger et al. (2018) 967 compared an annual winter wheat crop with a perennial grain crop (intermediate wheatgrass) and found that the perennial grain root biomass was 15 times larger than winter wheat, however, there was no significant difference in soil carbon pools after the four-year experiment. Exactly how much, and over what time period, carbon can be sequestered through changing from annual to perennial crops depends on the degree of soil carbon depletion and other local biophysical factors (Section 4.9.2).

Integrated soil fertility management is a sustainable approach to nutrient management that uses a combination of chemical and organic amendments (manure, compost, biosolids, biochar), rhizobial nitrogen fixation, and liming materials to address soil chemical constraints (Henry et al. 2018 968 ). In pasture systems, management of grazing pressure, fertilisation, diverse species including legumes and perennial grasses can reduce erosion and enhance soil carbon (Conant et al. 2017 969 ).

Mechanical soil and water conservation

In hilly and mountainous terrain, terracing is an ancient but still practised soil conservation method worldwide (Preti and Romano 2014 970 ) in climatic zones from arid to humid tropics (Balbo 2017 981 ). By reducing the slope gradient of hillsides, terraces provide flat surfaces. Deep, loose soils that increase infiltration, reduce erosion and thus sediment transport. They also decrease the hydrological connectivity and thus reduce hillside runoff (Preti et al. 2018 972 ; Wei et al. 2016 973 ; Arnáez et al. 2015 974 ; Chen et al. 2017 975 ). In terms of climate change, terraces are a form of adaptation that helps in cases where rainfall is increasing or intensifying (by reducing slope gradient and the hydrological connectivity), and where rainfall is decreasing (by increasing infiltration and reducing runoff) ( robust evidence, high agreement ). There are several challenges, however, to continued maintenance and construction of new terraces, such as the high costs in terms of labour and/or capital (Arnáez et al. 2015 976 ) and disappearing local knowledge for maintaining and constructing new terraces (Chen et al. 2017 977 ). The propensity of farmers to invest in mechanical soil conservation methods varies with land tenure; farmers with secure tenure arrangements are more willing to invest in durable practices such as terraces (Lovo 2016 978 ; Sklenicka et al. 2015 979 ; Haregeweyn et al. 2015 980 ). Where the slope is less severe, erosion can be controlled by contour banks, and the keyline approach (Duncan 2016 1652 ; Stevens et al. 2015 982 ) to soil and water conservation.

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is defined as a collective name for land-use systems in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, etc.) are grown in association with herbaceous plants (crops, pastures) and/or livestock in a spatial arrangement, a rotation, or both, and in which there are both ecological and economic interactions between the tree and non-tree components of the system (Young, 1995, p. 11 983 ). At least since the 1980s, agroforestry has been widely touted as an ideal land management practice in areas vulnerable to climate variations and subject to soil erosion. Agroforestry holds the promise of improving soil and climatic conditions, while generating income from wood energy, timber and non-timber products – sometimes presented as a synergy of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (Mbow et al. 2014 984 ).

There is strong scientific consensus that a combination of forestry with agricultural crops and/or livestock, agroforestry systems can provide additional ecosystem services when compared with monoculture crop systems (Waldron et al. 2017 985 ; Sonwa et al. 2011 986 , 2014 987 , 2017 988 ; Charles et al. 2013 989 ). Agroforestry can enable sustainable intensification by allowing continuous production on the same unit of land with higher productivity without the need to use shifting agriculture systems to maintain crop yields (Nath et al. 2016 990 ). This is especially relevant where there is a regional requirement to find a balance between the demand for increased agricultural production and the protection of adjacent natural ecosystems such as primary and secondary forests (Mbow et al. 2014 991 ). For example, the use of agroforestry for perennial crops such as coffee and cocoa is increasingly promoted as offering a route to sustainable farming, with important climate change adaptation and mitigation co-benefits (Sonwa et al. 2001 992 ; Kroeger et al. 2017 993 ). Reported co-benefits of agroforestry in cocoa production include increased carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, improved water and nutrient use efficiency and the creation of a favourable micro-climate for crop production (Sonwa et al. 2017 994 ; Chia et al. 2016 995 ). Importantly, the maintenance of soil fertility using agroforestry has the potential to reduce the practice of shifting agriculture (of cocoa) which results in deforestation (Gockowski and Sonwa 2011 996 ). However, positive interactions within these systems can be ecosystem and/or species specific, but co-benefits such as increased resilience to extreme climate events, or improved soil fertility are not always observed (Blaser et al. 2017 997 ; Abdulai et al. 2018 998 ). These contrasting outcomes indicate the importance of field-scale research programmes to inform agroforestry system design, species selection and management practices (Sonwa et al. 2014 999 ).

Despite the many proven benefits, adoption of agroforestry has been low and slow (Toth et al. 2017 1000 ; Pattanayak et al. 2003 1001 ; Jerneck and Olsson 2014 1002 ). There are several reasons for the slow uptake, but the perception of risks and the time lag between adoption and realisation of benefits are often important (Pattanayak et al. 2003 1003 ; Mercer 2004 1004 ; Jerneck and Olsson 2013 1005 ).

An important question for agroforestry is whether it supports poverty alleviation, or if it favours comparatively affluent households. Experiences from India suggest that the overall adoption is low, with a differential between rich and poor households. Brockington el al. (2016) 1006 , studied agroforestry adoption over many years in South India and found that, overall, only 18% of the households adopted agroforestry. However, among the relatively rich households who adopted agroforestry, 97% were still practising it after six to eight years, and some had expanded their operations. Similar results were obtained in Western Kenya, where food-secure households were much more willing to adopt agroforestry than food-insecure households (Jerneck and Olsson 2013 1007 , 2014). Other experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa illustrate the difficulties (such as local institutional support) of having a continued engagement of communities in agroforestry (Noordin et al. 2001 1008 ; Matata et al. 2013 1009 ; Meijer et al. 2015 1010 ).

Crop–livestock interaction as an approach to managing land degradation

The integration of crop and livestock production into ‘mixed farming’ for smallholders in developing countries became an influential model, particularly for Africa, in the early 1990s (Pritchard et al. 1992 1011 ; McIntire et al. 1992 1012 ). Crop–livestock integration under this model was seen as founded on three pillars: improved use of manure for crop fertility management; expanded use of animal traction (draught animals); and promotion of cultivated fodder crops. For Asia, emphasis was placed on draught power for land preparation, manure for soil fertility enhancement, and fodder production as an entry point for cultivation of legumes (Devendra and Thomas 2002 1013 ). Mixed farming was seen as an evolutionary process to expand food production in the face of population increase, promote improvements in income and welfare, and protect the environment. The process could be further facilitated and steered by research, agricultural advisory services and policy (Pritchard et al. 1992 1014 ; McIntire et al. 1992 1015 ; Devendra 2002 1016 ).

Scoones and Wolmer (2002) 1017 place this model in historical context, including concern about population pressure on resources and the view that mobile pastoralism was environmentally damaging. The latter view had already been critiqued by developing understandings of pastoralism, mobility and communal tenure of grazing lands (e.g., Behnke 1994 1018 ; Ellis 1994 1019 ). They set out a much more differentiated picture of crop–livestock interactions, which can take place either within a single-farm household, or between crop and livestock producers, in which case they will be mediated by formal and informal institutions governing the allocation of land, labour and capital, with the interactions evolving through multiple place-specific pathways (Ramisch et al. 2002 1020 ; Scoones and Wolmer 2002 1021 ). Promoting a diversity of approaches to crop–livestock interactions does not imply that the integrated model necessarily leads to land degradation, but increases the space for institutional support to local innovation (Scoones and Wolmer 2002 1022 ).

However, specific managerial and technological practices that link crop and livestock production will remain an important part of the repertoire of on-farm adaptation and mitigation. Howden and coauthors (Howden et al. 2007 1023 ) note the importance of innovation within existing integrated systems, including use of adapted forage crops. Rivera-Ferre et al. (2016) 1024 list as adaptation strategies with high potential for grazing systems, mixed crop–livestock systems or both: crop–livestock integration in general; soil management, including composting; enclosure and corralling of animals; improved storage of feed. Most of these are seen as having significant co-benefits for mitigation, and improved management of manure is seen as a mitigation measure with adaptation co-benefits.

Local and indigenous knowledge for addressing land degradation

In practice, responses are anchored in scientific research, as well as local, indigenous and traditional knowledge and know-how. For example, studies in the Philippines by Camacho et al. (2016) 25 examine how traditional integrated watershed management by indigenous people sustain regulating services vital to agricultural productivity, while delivering co-benefits in the form of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience at a landscape scale. Although responses can be site specific and sustainable at a local scale, the multi-scale interplay of drivers and pressures can nevertheless cause practices that have been sustainable for centuries to become less so. Siahaya et al. (2016) 1026 explore the traditional knowledge that has informed rice cultivation in the uplands of East Borneo, grounded in sophisticated shifting cultivation methods ( gilir balik ) which have been passed on for generations (more than 200 years) in order to maintain local food production. Gilir balik involves temporary cultivation of plots, after which, abandonment takes place as the land user moves to another plot, leaving the natural (forest) vegetation to return. This approach is considered sustainable if it has the support of other subsistence strategies, adapts to and integrates with the local context, and if the carrying capacity of the system is not surpassed (Siahaya et al. 2016 1027 ). Often gilir balik cultivation involves intercropping of rice with bananas, cassava and other food crops. Once the abandoned plot has been left to recover such that soil fertility is restored, clearance takes place again and the plot is reused for cultivation. Rice cultivation in this way plays an important role in forest management, with several different types of succession forest being found in the study by Siahaya et al. (2016). Nevertheless, interplay of these practices with other pressures (large-scale land acquisitions for oil palm plantation, logging and mining), risk their future sustainability. Use of fire is critical in processes of land clearance, so there are also trade-offs for climate change mitigation, which have been sparsely assessed.

Interest appears to be growing in understanding how indigenous and local knowledge inform land users’ responses to degradation, as scientists engage farmers as experts in processes of knowledge co-production and co-innovation (Oliver et al. 2012 1028 ; Bitzer and Bijman 2015 1029 ). This can help to introduce, implement, adapt and promote the use of locally appropriate responses (Schwilch et al. 2011 1030 ). Indeed, studies strongly agree on the importance of engaging local populations in both sustainable land and forest management. Meta-analyses in tropical regions that examined both forests in protected areas and community-managed forests suggest that deforestation rates are lower, with less variation in deforestation rates presenting in community-managed forests compared to protected forests (Porter-Bolland et al. 2012 1031 ). This suggests that consideration of the social and economic needs of local human populations is vital in preventing forest degradation (Ward et al. 2018 1032 ). However, while disciplines such as ethnopedology seek to record and understand how local people perceive, classify and use soil, and draw on that information to inform its management (Barrera-Bassols and Zinck 2003 1033 ), links with climate change and its impacts (perceived and actual) are not generally considered.

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation and increasing afforestation

Improved stewardship of forests through reduction or avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks can all contribute to land-based natural climate solutions (Angelsen et al. 2018 1034 ; Sonwa et al. 2011 1035 ; Griscom et al. 2017 1036 ). While estimates of annual emissions from tropical deforestation and forest degradation range widely from 0.5 to 3.5 GtC yr –1 (Baccini et al. 2017 1037 ; Houghton et al. 2012 1038 ; Mitchard 2018 1039 ; see also Chapter 2), they all indicate the large potential to reduce annual emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Recent estimates of forest extent for Africa in 1900 may result in downward adjustments of historic deforestation and degradation emission estimates (Aleman et al. 2018 1040 ). Emissions from forest degradation in non-Annex I countries have declined marginally from 1.1 GtCO 2 yr –1 in 2001–2010 to 1 GtCO 2 yr –1 in 2011–2015, but the relative emissions from degradation compared to deforestation have increased from a quarter to a third (Federici et al. 2015 1041 ). Forest sector activities in developing countries were estimated to represent a technical mitigation potential in 2030 of 9 GtCO 2 (Miles et al. 2015). This was partitioned into reduction of deforestation (3.5 GtCO 2 ), reduction in degradation and forest management (1.7 GtCO 2 ) and afforestation and reforestation (3.8 GtCO 2 ). The economic mitigation potential will be lower than the technical potential (Miles et al. 2015 1042 ).

Natural regeneration of second-growth forests enhances carbon sinks in the global carbon budget (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016 1043 ). In Latin America, Chazdon et al. (2016) 1044 estimated that, in 2008, second-growth forests (up to 60 years old) covered 2.4 Mkm 2 of land (28.1% of the total study area). Over 40 years, these lands can potentially accumulate 8.5 GtC in above-ground biomass via low-cost natural regeneration or assisted regeneration, corresponding to a total CO 2 sequestration of 31.1 GtCO 2 (Chazdon et al. 2016b). While above-ground biomass carbon stocks are estimated to be declining in the tropics, they are increasing globally due to increasing stocks in temperate and boreal forests (Liu et al. 2015b), consistent with the observations of a global land sector carbon sink (Le Quéré et al. 2013 1045 ; Keenan et al. 2017 1046 ; Pan et al. 2011).

Moving from technical mitigation potentials (Miles et al. 2015 1047 ) to real reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation required transformational changes (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2018 1048 ). This transformation can be facilitated by two enabling conditions: the presence of already initiated policy change; or the scarcity of forest resources combined with an absence of any effective forestry framework and policies. These authors and others (Angelsen et al. 2018 1049 ) found that the presence of powerful transformational coalitions of domestic pro-REDD+ (the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) political actors combined with strong ownership and leadership, regulations and law enforcement, and performance-based funding, can provide a strong incentive for achieving REDD+ goals.

Implementing schemes such as REDD+ and various projects related to the voluntary carbon market is often regarded as a no-regrets investment (Seymour and Angelsen 2012 1050 ) but the social and ecological implications (including those identified in the Cancun Safeguards) must be carefully considered for REDD+ projects to be socially and ecologically sustainable (Jagger et al. 2015 1051 ). In 2018, 34 countries have submitted a REDD+ forest reference level and/ or forest reference emission level to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Of these REDD+ reference levels, 95% included the activity ‘reducing deforestation’ while 34% included the activity ‘reducing forest degradation’ (FAO 2018). Five countries submitted REDD+ results in the technical annex to their Biennial Update Report totalling an emission reduction of 6.3 GtCO 2 between 2006 and 2015 (FAO 2018).

Afforestation is another mitigation activity that increases carbon sequestration (Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1). Yet, it requires careful consideration about where to plant trees to achieve potential climatic benefits, given an altering of local albedo and turbulent energy fluxes and increasing night-time land surface temperatures (Peng et al. 2014 1052 ). A recent hydro-climatic modelling effort has shown that forest cover can account for about 40% of the observed decrease in annual runoff (Buendia et al. 2016 1053 ). A meta-analysis of afforestation in Northern Europe (Bárcena et al. 2014 1054 ) concluded that significant soil organic carbon sequestration in Northern Europe occurs after afforestation of croplands but not grasslands. Additional sequestration occurs in forest floors and biomass carbon stocks. Successful programmes of large-scale afforestation activities in South Korea and China are discussed in-depth in a special case study (Section 4.9.3).

The potential outcome of efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in Indonesia through a 2011 moratorium on concessions to convert primary forests to either timber or palm oil uses was evaluated against rates of emissions over the period 2000 to 2010. The study concluded that less than 7% of emissions would have been avoided had the moratorium been implemented in 2000 because it only curtailed emissions due to a subset of drivers of deforestation and degradation (Busch et al. 2015 1055 ).

In terms of ecological integrity of tropical forests, the policy focus on carbon storage and tree cover can be problematic if it leaves out other aspects of forests ecosystems, such as biodiversity – and particularly fauna (Panfil and Harvey 2016 1056 ; Peres et al. 2016 1057 ; Hinsley et al. 2015 1058 ). Other concerns of forest-based projects under the voluntary carbon market are potential negative socio-economic side effects (Edstedt and Carton 2018 1059 ; Carton and Andersson 2017 1060 ; Osborne 2011 1061 ; Scheidel and Work 2018 1062 ; Richards and Lyons 2016 1063 ; Borras and Franco 2018 1064 ; Paladino and Fiske 2017 1065 ) and leakage (particularly at the subnational scale), that is, when interventions to reduce deforestation or degradation at one site displace pressures and increase emissions elsewhere (Atmadja and Verchot 2012 1066 ; Phelps et al. 2010 1067 ; Lund et al. 2017 1068 ; Balooni and Lund 2014 1069 ).

Maintaining and increasing forest area, in particular native forests rather than monoculture and short-rotation plantations, contributes to the maintenance of global forest carbon stocks (Lewis et al. 2019 1070 ) ( robust evidence, high agreement ).

Sustainable forest management (SFM) and CO2 removal (CDR) technologies

While reducing deforestation and forest degradation may directly help to meet mitigation goals, SFM aimed at providing timber, fibre, biomass and non-timber resources can provide long-term livelihood for communities, reduce the risk of forest conversion to non-forest uses (settlement, crops, etc.), and maintain land productivity, thus reducing the risks of land degradation (Putz et al. 2012 1071 ; Gideon Neba et al. 2014 1072 ; Sufo Kankeu et al. 2016 1073 ; Nitcheu Tchiadje et al. 2016 1074 ; Rossi et al. 2017 1075 ).

Developing SFM strategies aimed at contributing towards negative emissions throughout this century requires an understanding of forest management impacts on ecosystem carbon stocks (including soils), carbon sinks, carbon fluxes in harvested wood, carbon storage in harvested wood products, including landfills and the emission reductions achieved through the use of wood products and bioenergy (Nabuurs et al. 2007 1076 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 1077 ; Kurz et al. 2016 1078 ; Law et al. 2018 1079 ; Nabuurs et al. 2017 1080 ). Transitions from natural to managed forest landscapes can involve a reduction in forest carbon stocks, the magnitude of which depends on the initial landscape conditions, the harvest rotation length relative to the frequency and intensity of natural disturbances, and on the age-dependence of managed and natural disturbances (Harmon et al. 1990 1081 ; Kurz et al. 1998 1082 ). Initial landscape conditions, in particular the age-class distribution and therefore carbon stocks of the landscape, strongly affect the mitigation potential of forest management options (Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2013 1083 ; Kilpeläinen et al. 2017 1084 ). Landscapes with predominantly mature forests may experience larger reductions in carbon stocks during the transition to managed landscapes (Harmon et al. 1990 1085 ; Kurz et al. 1998 1086 ; Lewis et al. 2019 1087 ). In landscapes with predominantly young or recently disturbed forests, SFM can enhance carbon stocks (Henttonen et al. 2017 1088 ).

Forest growth rates, net primary productivity, and net ecosystem productivity are age-dependent, with maximum rates of CO 2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere occurring in young to medium-aged forests and declining thereafter (Tang et al. 2014 1089 ). In boreal forest ecosystem, estimation of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes indicate that old growth stands are typically small carbon sinks or carbon sources (Gao et al. 2018 1090 ; Taylor et al. 2014 1091 ; Hadden and Grelle 2016 1092 ). In tropical forests, carbon uptake rates in the first 20 years of forest recovery were 11 times higher than uptake rates in old-growth forests (Poorter et al. 2016 1093 ). Age-dependent increases in forest carbon stocks and declines in forest carbon sinks mean that landscapes with older forests have accumulated more carbon but their sink strength is diminishing, while landscapes with younger forests contain less carbon but they are removing CO 2 from the atmosphere at a much higher rate (Volkova et al. 2017 1094 ; Poorter et al. 2016 1095 ). The rates of CDR are not just age-related but also controlled by many biophysical factors and human activities (Bernal et al. 2018 1096 ). In ecosystems with uneven-aged, multispecies forests, the relationships between carbon stocks and sinks are more difficult and expensive to quantify.

Whether or not forest harvest and use of biomass is contributing to net reductions of atmospheric carbon depends on carbon losses during and following harvest, rates of forest regrowth, and the use of harvested wood and carbon retention in long-lived or short-lived products, as well as the emission reductions achieved through the substitution of emissions-intensive products with wood products (Lemprière et al. 2013 1097 ; Lundmark et al. 2014 1098 ; Xu et al. 2018b 1099 ; Olguin et al. 2018 1100 ; Dugan et al. 2018 1101 ; Chen et al. 2018b 1102 ; Pingoud et al. 2018 1103 ; Seidl et al. 2007 1104 ). Studies that ignore changes in forest carbon stocks (such as some lifecycle analyses that assume no impacts of harvest on forest carbon stocks), ignore changes in wood product pools (Mackey et al. 2013 1105 ) or assume long-term steady state (Pingoud et al. 2018 1106 ), or ignore changes in emissions from substitution benefits (Mackey et al. 2013 1107 ; Lewis et al. 2019 1108 ) will arrive at diverging conclusions about the benefits of SFM. Moreover, assessments of climate benefits of any mitigation action must also consider the time dynamics of atmospheric impacts, as some actions will have immediate benefits (e.g., avoided deforestation), while others may not achieve net atmospheric benefits for decades or centuries. For example, the climate benefits of woody biomass use for bioenergy depend on several factors, such as the source and alternate fate of the biomass, the energy type it substitutes, and the rates of regrowth of the harvested forest (Laganière et al. 2017 1109 ; Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2014 1110 ; Smyth et al. 2017 1111 ). Conversion of primary forests in regions of very low stand-replacing disturbances to short-rotation plantations where the harvested wood is used for short-lived products with low displacement factors will increase emissions. In general, greater mitigation benefits are achieved if harvested wood products are used for products with long carbon retention time and high displacement factors.

With increasing forest age, carbon sinks in forests will diminish until harvest or natural disturbances, such as wildfire, remove biomass carbon or release it to the atmosphere (Seidl et al. 2017 1112 ). While individual trees can accumulate carbon for centuries (Köhl et al. 2017 1113 ), stand-level carbon accumulation rates depend on both tree growth and tree mortality rates (Hember et al. 2016 1114 ; Lewis et al. 2004 1115 ). SFM, including harvest and forest regeneration, can help maintain active carbon sinks by maintaining a forest age-class distribution that includes a share of young, actively growing stands (Volkova et al. 2018 1116 ; Nabuurs et al. 2017 1117 ). The use of the harvested carbon in either long-lived wood products (e.g., for construction), short-lived wood products (e.g., pulp and paper), or biofuels affects the net carbon balance of the forest sector (Lemprière et al. 2013 1118 ; Matthews et al. 2018 1119 ). The use of these wood products can further contribute to GHG emission-reduction goals by avoiding the emissions from the products with higher embodied emissions that have been displaced (Nabuurs et al. 2007 1120 ; Lemprière et al. 2013 1121 ). In 2007 the IPCC concluded that ‘[i]n the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit’ (Nabuurs et al. 2007 1122 ). The apparent trade-offs between maximising forest carbon stocks and maximising ecosystem carbon sinks are at the origin of ongoing debates about optimum management strategies to achieve negative emissions (Keith et al. 2014 1123 ; Kurz et al. 2016 1124 ; Lundmark et al. 2014 1125 ). SFM, including the intensification of carbon-focused management strategies, can make long-term contributions towards negative emissions if the sustainability of management is assured through appropriate governance, monitoring and enforcement. As specified in the definition of SFM, other criteria such as biodiversity must also be considered when assessing mitigation outcomes (Lecina-Diaz et al. 2018 1126 ). Moreover, the impacts of changes in management on albedo and other non-GHG factors also need to be considered (Luyssaert et al. 2018 1127 ) (Chapter 2). The contribution of SFM for negative emissions is strongly affected by the use of the wood products derived from forest harvest and the time horizon over which the carbon balance is assessed. SFM needs to anticipate the impacts of climate change on future tree growth, mortality and disturbances when designing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies (Valade et al. 2017 1128 ; Seidl et al. 2017 1129 ).

Policy responses to land degradation

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, recognised land degradation as a major challenge to sustainable development, and led to the establishment of the UNCCD, which specifically addressed land degradation in the drylands. The UNCCD emphasises sustainable land use to link poverty reduction on one hand and environmental protection on the other. The two other ‘Rio Conventions’ emerging from the UNCED – the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – focus on climate change and biodiversity, respectively. The land has been recognised as an aspect of common interest to the three conventions, and SLM is proposed as a unifying theme for current global efforts on combating land degradation, climate change and loss of biodiversity, as well as facilitating land-based adaptation to climate change and sustainable development.

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funds developing countries to undertake activities that meet the goals of the conventions and deliver global environmental benefits. Since 2002, the GEF has invested in projects that support SLM through its Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy, to address land degradation within and beyond the drylands.

Under the UNFCCC, parties have devised National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) that identify medium- and long-term adaptation needs. Parties have also developed their climate change mitigation plans, presented as NDCs. These programmes have the potential of assisting the promotion of SLM. It is understood that the root causes of land degradation and successful adaptation will not be realised until holistic solutions to land management are explored. SLM can help address root causes of low productivity, land degradation, loss of income-generating capacity, as well as contribute to the amelioration of the adverse effects of climate change.

The ‘4 per 1000’ (4p1000) initiative (Soussana et al. 2019 1130 ) launched by France during the UNFCCC COP21 in 2015 aims at capturing CO 2 from the atmosphere through changes to agricultural and forestry practices at a rate that would increase the carbon content of soils by 0.4% per year (Rumpel et al. 2018 1131 ). If global soil carbon content increases at this rate in the top 30–40 cm, the annual increase in atmospheric CO 2 would be stopped (Dignac et al. 2017 1132 ). This is an illustration of how extremely important soils are for addressing climate change. The initiative is based on eight steps: stop carbon loss (priority #1 is peat soils); promote carbon uptake; monitor, report and verify impacts; deploy technology for tracking soil carbon; test strategies for implementation and upscaling; involve communities; coordinate policies; and provide support (Rumpel et al. 2018 1133 ). Questions remain, however, about the extent that the 4p1000 is achievable as a universal goal (van Groenigen et al. 2017 1134 ; Poulton et al. 2018 1135 ; Schlesinger and Amundson 2018 1136 ).

LDN was introduced by the UNCCD at Rio +20, and adopted at UNCCD COP12 (UNCCD 2016a 1137 ). LDN is defined as ‘a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems’(Cowie et al. 2018 1138 ). Pursuit of LDN requires effort to avoid further net loss of the land-based natural capital relative to a reference state, or baseline. LDN encourages a dual-pronged effort involving SLM to reduce the risk of land degradation, combined with efforts in land restoration and rehabilitation, to maintain or enhance land-based natural capital, and its associated ecosystem services (Orr et al. 2017 1139 ; Cowie et al. 2018 1140 ). Planning for LDN involves projecting the expected cumulative impacts of land-use and land management decisions, then counterbalancing anticipated losses with measures to achieve equivalent gains, within individual land types (where land type is defined by land potential). Under the LDN framework developed by UNCCD, three primary indicators are used to assess whether LDN is achieved by 2030: land cover change; net primary productivity; and soil organic carbon (Cowie et al. 2018 1141 ; Sims et al. 2019 1142 ). Achieving LDN therefore requires integrated landscape management that seeks to optimise land use to meet multiple objectives (ecosystem health, food security, human well-being) (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016 1143 ). The response hierarchy of Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation articulates the priorities in planning LDN interventions. LDN provides the impetus for widespread adoption of SLM and efforts to restore or rehabilitate land. Through its focus, LDN ultimately provides tremendous potential for mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change by halting and reversing land degradation and transforming land from a carbon source to a sink. There are strong synergies between the concept of LDN and the NDCs of many countries, with linkages to national climate plans. LDN is also closely related to many Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the areas of poverty, food security, environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources (UNCCD 2016b 1144 ). The GEF is supporting countries to set LDN targets and implement their LDN plans through its land degradation focal area, which encourages application of integrated landscape approaches to managing land degradation (GEF 2018 1145 ).

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations in 2015, comprises 17 SDGs. Goal 15 is of direct relevance to land degradation, with the objective to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Target 15.3 specifically addresses LDN. Other goals that are relevant for land degradation include Goal 2 (Zero hunger), Goal 3 (Good health and well-being), Goal 7 (Affordable and clean energy), Goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), and Goal 12 (Responsible production and consumption). Sustainable management of land resources underpins the SDGs related to hunger, climate change and environment. Further goals of a cross-cutting nature include 1 (No poverty), 6 (Clean water and sanitation) and 13 (Climate action). It remains to be seen how these interconnections are dealt with in practice.

With a focus on biodiversity, IPBES published a comprehensive assessment of land degradation in 2018 (Montanarella et al. 2018 1146 ). The IPBES report, together with this report focusing on climate change, may contribute to creating a synergy between the two main global challenges for addressing land degradation in order to help achieve the targets of SDG 15 (protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss).

Market-based mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the UNFCCC and the voluntary carbon market provide incentives to enhance carbon sinks on the land through afforestation and reforestation. Implications for local land use and food security have been raised as a concern and need to be assessed (Edstedt and Carton 2018 1147 ; Olsson et al. 2014b 1148 ). Many projects aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradations (not to be confused with the national REDD+ programmes in accordance with the UNFCCC Warsaw Framework) are being planned and implemented to primarily target countries with high forest cover and high deforestation rates. Some parameters of incentivising emissions reduction, quality of forest governance, conservation priorities, local rights and tenure frameworks, and sub-national project potential are being looked into, with often very mixed results (Newton et al. 2016 1149 ; Gebara and Agrawal 2017 1150 ).

Besides international public initiatives, some actors in the private sector are increasingly aware of the negative environmental impacts of some global value chains producing food, fibre, and energy products (Lambin et al. 2018 1151 ; van der Ven and Cashore 2018 1152 ; van der Ven et al. 2018 1153 ; Lyons-White and Knight 2018 1154 ). While improvements are underway in many supply chains, measures implemented so far are often insufficient to be effective in reducing or stopping deforestation and forest degradation (Lambin et al. 2018 1155 ). The GEF is investing in actions to reduce deforestation in commodity supply chains through its Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration Impact Program (GEF 2018 1156 ).

Limits to adaptation

SLM can be deployed as a powerful adaptation strategy in most instances of climate change impacts on natural and social systems, yet there are limits to adaptation (Klein et al. 2014 1157 ; Dow, Berhout and Preston 2013 1158 ). Such limits are dynamic and interact with social and institutional conditions (Barnett et al. 2015 1159 ; Filho and Nalau 2018 1160 ). Exceeding adaptation limits will trigger escalating losses or require undesirable transformational change, such as forced migration. The rate of change in relation to the rate of possible adaptation is crucial (Dow et al. 2013 1161 ). How limits to adaptation are defined, and how they can be measured, is contextual and contested. Limits must be assessed in relation to the ultimate goals of adaptation, which is subject to diverse and differential values (Dow et al. 2013 1162 ; Adger et al. 2009 1163 ). A particularly sensitive issue is whether migration is accepted as adaptation or not (Black et al. 2011 1164 ; Tacoli 2009 1165 ; Bardsley and Hugo 2010 1166 ). If migration were understood and accepted as a form of successful adaptation, it would change the limits to adaptation by reducing, or even avoiding, future humanitarian crises caused by climate extremes (Adger et al. 2009 1167 ; Upadhyay et al. 2017 1168 ; Nalau et al. 2018 1169 ).

In the context of land degradation, potential limits to adaptation exist if land degradation becomes so severe and irreversible that livelihoods cannot be maintained, and if migration is either not acceptable or not possible. Examples are coastal erosion where land disappears (Gharbaoui and Blocher 2016 1170 ; Luetz 2018 1171 ), collapsing livelihoods due to thawing of permafrost (Landauer and Juhola 2019 1172 ), and extreme forms of soil erosion, (e.g., landslides (Van der Geest and Schindler 2016 1173 ) and gully erosion leading to badlands (Poesen et al. 2003 1174 )).

Resilience and thresholds

Resilience refers to the capacity of interconnected social, economic and ecological systems, such as farming systems, to absorb disturbance (e.g., drought, conflict, market collapse), and respond or reorganise, to maintain their essential function, identity and structure. Resilience can be described as ‘coping capacity’. The disturbance may be a shock – sudden events such as a flood or disease epidemic – or it may be a trend that develops slowly, like a drought or market shift. The shocks and trends anticipated to occur due to climate change are expected to exacerbate risk of land degradation. Therefore, assessing and enhancing resilience to climate change is a critical component of designing SLM strategies.

Resilience as an analytical lens is particularly strong in ecology and related research on natural resource management (Folke et al. 2010 1175 ; Quinlan et al. 2016 1176 ) while, in the social sciences, the relevance of resilience for studying social and ecological interactions is contested

(Cote and Nightingale 2012 1177 ; Olsson et al. 2015 1178 ; Cretney 2014 1179 ; Béné et al. 2012 1180 ; Joseph 2013 1181 ). In the case of adaptation to climate change (and particularly regarding limits to adaptation), a crucial ambiguity of resilience is the question of whether resilience is a normative concept (i.e., resilience is good or bad) or a descriptive characteristic of a system (i.e., neither good nor bad). Previous IPCC reports have defined resilience as a normative (positive) attribute (see AR5 Glossary), while the wider scientific literature is divided on this (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015 1182 ; Strunz 2012 1183 ; Brown 2014 1184 ; Grimm and Calabrese 2011 1185 ; Thorén and Olsson 2018 1186 ). For example, is outmigration from a disaster-prone area considered a successful adaptation (high resilience) or a collapse of the livelihood system (lack of resilience) (Thorén and Olsson 2018 1187 )? In this report, resilience is considered a positive attribute when it maintains capacity for adaptation, learning and/or transformation.

Furthermore, ‘resilience’ and the related terms ‘adaptation’ and ‘transformation’ are defined and used differently by different communities (Quinlan et al. 2016 1188 ). The relationship and hierarchy of resilience with respect to vulnerability and adaptive capacity are also debated, with different perspectives between disaster management and global change communities, (e.g., Cutter et al. 2008 1189 ). Nevertheless, these differences in usage need not inhibit the application of ‘resilience thinking’ in managing land degradation; researchers using these terms, despite variation in definitions, apply the same fundamental concepts to inform management of human-environment systems, to maintain or improve the resource base, and sustain livelihoods.

Applying resilience concepts involves viewing the land as a component of an interlinked social-ecological system; identifying key relationships that determine system function and vulnerabilities of the system; identifying thresholds or tipping points beyond which the system transitions to an undesirable state; and devising management strategies to steer away from thresholds of potential concern, thus facilitating healthy systems and sustainable production (Walker et al. 2009 1190 ).

A threshold is a non-linearity between a controlling variable and system function, such that a small change in the variable causes the system to shift to an alternative state. Bestelmeyer et al. (2015) 1191 and Prince et al. (2018) 1192 illustrate this concept in the context of land degradation. Studies have identified various biophysical and socio-economic thresholds in different land-use systems. For example, 50% ground cover (living and dead plant material and biological crusts) is a recognised threshold for dryland grazing systems (e.g., Tighe et al. 2012 1193 ); below this threshold, the infiltration rate declines, risk of erosion causing loss of topsoil increases, a switch from perennial to annual grass species occurs and there is a consequential sharp decline in productivity. This shift to a lower-productivity state cannot be reversed without significant human intervention. Similarly, the combined pressure of water limitations and frequent fire can lead to transition from closed forest to savannah or grassland: if fire is too frequent, trees do not reach reproductive maturity and post-fire regeneration will fail; likewise, reduced rainfall/increased drought prevents successful forest regeneration (Reyer et al. 2015 1194 ; Thompson et al. 2009 1195 ) (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2).

In managing land degradation, it is important to assess the resilience of the existing system, and the proposed management interventions. If the existing system is in an undesirable state or considered unviable under expected climate trends, it may be desirable to promote adaptation or even transformation to a different system that is more resilient to future changes. For example, in an irrigation district where water shortages are predicted, measures could be implemented to improve water use efficiency, for example, by establishing drip irrigation systems for water delivery, although transformation to pastoralism or mixed dryland cropping/livestock production may be more sustainable in the longer term, at least for part of the area. Application of SLM practices, especially those focused on ecological functions (e.g., agroecology, ecosystem-based approaches, regenerative agriculture, organic farming), can be effective in building resilience of agro-ecosystems (Henry et al. 2018). Similarly, the resilience of managed forests can be enhanced by SFM that protects or enhances biodiversity, including assisted migration of tree species within their current range limit (Winder et al. 2011 1197 ; Pedlar et al. 2012 1198 ) or increasing species diversity in plantation forests (Felton et al. 2010 1199 ; Liu et al. 2018a 1200 ). The essential features of a resilience approach to management of land degradation under climate change are described by O’Connell et al. (2016) 1201 and Simonsen et al. (2014) 1202 .

Consideration of resilience can enhance effectiveness of interventions to reduce or reverse land degradation ( medium agreement, limited evidence ). This approach will increase the likelihood that SLM/SFM and land restoration/rehabilitation interventions achieve long-term environmental and social benefits. Thus, consideration of resilience concepts can enhance the capacity of land systems to cope with climate change and resist land degradation, and assist land-use systems to adapt to climate change.

Barriers to implementation of sustainable land management (SLM)

There is a growing recognition that addressing barriers and designing solutions to complex environmental problems, such as land degradation, requires awareness of the larger system into which the problems and solutions are embedded (Laniak et al. 2013 1203 ). An ecosystem approach to sustainable land management (SLM) based on an understanding of land degradation processes has been recommended to separate multiple drivers, pressures and impacts (Kassam et al. 2013 1204 ), but large uncertainty in model projections of future climate, and associated ecosystem processes (IPCC 2013a 1205 ) pose additional challenges to the implementation of SLM. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many SLM practices, including technologies and approaches, are available that can increase yields and contribute to closing the yield gap between actual and potential crop or pasture yield, while also enhancing resilience to climate change (Yengoh and Ardö 2014 1206 ; WOCAT n.d.). However, there are often systemic barriers to adoption and scaling up of SLM practices, especially in developing countries.

Uitto (2016) 1207 identified areas that the GEF, the financial mechanism of the UNCCD, UNFCCC and other multilateral environmental agreements, can address to solve global environmental problems. These include: removal of barriers related to knowledge and information; strategies for implementation of technologies and approaches; and institutional capacity. Strengthening these areas would drive transformational change, leading to behavioural change and broader adoption of sustainable environmental practices. Detailed analysis of barriers as well as strategies, methods and approaches to scale up SLM have been undertaken for GEF programmes in Africa, China and globally (Tengberg and Valencia 2018 1208 ; Liniger et al. 2011 1209 ; Tengberg et al. 2016 1210 ). A number of interconnected barriers and bottlenecks to the scaling up of SLM have been identified in this context and are related to:

• limited access to knowledge and information, including new SLM technologies and problem-solving capacities
• weak enabling environment, including the policy, institutional and legal framework for SLM, and land tenure and property rights
• inadequate learning and adaptive knowledge management in the project cycle, including monitoring and evaluation of impacts
• limited access to finance for scaling up, including public and private funding, innovative business models for SLM technologies and financial mechanisms and incentives, such as payment for ecosystem services (PES), insurance and micro-credit schemes(see also Shames et al. 2014).Adoption of innovations and new technologies are increasingly analysed using the transition theory framework (Geels 2002 1211 ), the starting point being the recognition that many global environmental problems cannot be solved by technological change alone, but require more far-reaching change of social-ecological systems. Using transition theory makes it possible to analyse how adoption and implementation follow the four stages of sociotechnical transitions,

from predevelopment of technologies and approaches at the niche level, take-off and acceleration, to regime shift and stabilisation at the landscape level. According to a recent review of sustainability transitions in developing countries (Wieczorek 2018 1212 ), three internal niche processes are important, including the formation of networks that support and nurture innovation, the learning process, and the articulation of expectations to guide the learning process. While technologies are important, institutional and political aspects form the major barriers to transition and upscaling. In developing and transition economies, informal institutions play a pivotal role, and transnational linkages are also important, such as global value chains. In these countries, it is therefore more difficult to establish fully coherent regimes or groups of individuals who share expectations, beliefs or behaviour, as there is a high level of uncertainty about rules and social networks or dominance of informal institutions, which creates barriers to change. This uncertainty is further exacerbated by climate change. Landscape forces comprise a set of slow-changing factors, such as broad cultural and normative values, long-term economic effects such as urbanisation, and shocks such as war and crises that can lead to change.

A study on SLM in the Kenyan highlands using transition theory concluded that barriers to adoption of SLM included high poverty levels, a low-input/low-output farming system with limited potential to generate income, diminishing land sizes, and low involvement of the youth in farming activities. Coupled with a poor coordination of government policies for agriculture and forestry, these barriers created negative feedbacks in the SLM transition process. Other factors to consider include gender issues and lack of secure land tenure. Scaling up of SLM technologies would require collaboration of diverse stakeholders across multiple scales, a more supportive policy environment and substantial resource mobilisation (Mutoko et al. 2014 1213 ). Tengberg and Valencia (2018) 1214 analysed the findings from a review of the GEF’s integrated natural resources management portfolio of projects using the transition theory framework (Figure 4.7).

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002), adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018).

The transition from SLM niche adoption to regime shift and landscape development. Figure draws inspiration from Geels (2002) 1653 , adapted from Tengberg and Valencia (2018) 1654 .

They concluded that to remove barriers to SLM, an agricultural innovations systems approach that supports co-production of knowledge with multiple stakeholders, institutional innovations, a focus on value chains and strengthening of social capital to facilitate shared learning and collaboration could accelerate the scaling up of sustainable technologies and practices from the niche to the landscape level. Policy integration and establishment of financial mechanisms and incentives could contribute to overcoming barriers to a regime shift. The new SLM regime could, in turn, be stabilised and sustained at the landscape level by multi-stakeholder knowledge platforms and strategic partnerships. However, transitions to more sustainable regimes and practices are often challenged by lock-in mechanisms in the current system (Lawhon and Murphy 2012 1215 ) such as economies of scale, investments already made in equipment, infrastructure and competencies, lobbying, shared beliefs, and practices, that could hamper wider adoption of SLM.

Adaptive, multi-level and participatory governance of social-ecological systems is considered important for regime shifts and transitions to take place (Wieczorek 2018 1216 ) and essential to secure the capacity of environmental assets to support societal development over longer time periods (Folke et al. 2005 1217 ). There is also recognition that effective environmental policies and programmes need to be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the biophysical, social, and economic components and processes of a system, their complex interactions, and how they respond to different changes (Kelly (Letcher) et al. 2013). But blueprint policies will not work, due to the wide diversity of rules and informal institutions used across sectors and regions of the world, especially in traditional societies (Ostrom 2009 1218 ).

The most effective way of removing barriers to funding of SLM has been mainstreaming of SLM objectives and priorities into relevant policy and development frameworks, and combining SLM best practices with economic incentives for land users. As the short-term costs for establishing and maintaining SLM measures are generally high and constitute a barrier to adoption, land users may need to be compensated for generation of longer-term public goods, such as ecosystem services. Cost-benefit analyses can be conducted on SLM interventions to facilitate such compensations (Liniger et al. 2011 1219 ; Nkonya et al. 2016 1220 ; Tengberg et al. 2016 1221 ). The landscape approach is a means to reconcile competing demands on the land and remove barriers to implementation of SLM (e.g., Sayer et al. 2013 1222 ; Bürgi et al. 2017 1223 ). It involves an increased focus on participatory governance, development of new SLM business models, and innovative funding schemes, including insurance (Shames et al. 2014 1224 ). The LDN Fund takes a landscape approach and raises private finance for SLM and promotes market-based instruments, such as PES, certification and carbon trading, that can support scaling up of SLM to improve local livelihoods, sequester carbon and enhance the resilience to climate change (Baumber et al. 2019 1225 ).

Case studies

Climate change impacts on land degradation can be avoided, reduced or even reversed, but need to be addressed in a context-sensitive manner. Many of the responses described in this section can also provide synergies of adaptation and mitigation. In this section we provide more in-depth analysis of a number of salient aspects of how land degradation and climate change interact. Table 4.3 is a synthesis of how of these case studies relate to climate change and other broader issues in terms of co-benefits.

Synthesis of how the case studies interact with climate change and a broader set of co-benefits.

Urban green infrastructure

Over half of the world’s population now lives in towns and cities, a proportion that is predicted to increase to about 70% by the middle of the century (United Nations 2015 1226 ). Rapid urbanisation is a severe threat to land and the provision of ecosystem services (Seto et al. 2012 1227 ). However, as cities expand, the avoidance of land degradation, or the maintenance/enhancement of ecosystem services is rarely considered in planning processes. Instead, economic development and the need for space for construction is prioritised, which can result in substantial pollution of air and water sources, the degradation of existing agricultural areas and indigenous, natural or semi-natural ecosystems both within and outside of urban areas. For instance, urban areas are characterised by extensive impervious surfaces. Degraded, sealed soils beneath these surfaces do not provide the same quality of water retention as intact soils. Urban landscapes comprising 50–90% impervious surfaces can therefore result in 40–83% of rainfall becoming surface water runoff (Pataki et al. 2011 1228 ). With rainfall intensity predicted to increase in many parts of the world under climate change (Royal Society 2016 1229 ), increased water runoff is going to get worse. Urbanisation, land degradation and climate change are therefore strongly interlinked, suggesting the need for common solutions (Reed and Stringer 2016 1230 ).

There is now a large body of research and application demonstrating the importance of retaining urban green infrastructure (UGI) for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (DG Environment News Alert Service, 2012; Wentworth, 2017 1231 ) as an important tool to mitigate and adapt to climate change. UGI can be defined as all green elements within a city, including, but not limited to, retained indigenous ecosystems, parks, public greenspaces, green corridors, street trees, urban forests, urban agriculture, green roofs/walls and private domestic gardens (Tzoulas et al. 2007 1232 ). The definition is usually extended to include ‘blue’ infrastructure, such as rivers, lakes, bioswales and other water drainage features. The related concept of Nature-Based Solutions (defined as: living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by and using nature, which are designed to address various societal challenges in a resource-efficient and adaptable manner and to provide simultaneously economic, social, and environmental benefits ) has gained considerable traction within the European Commission as one approach to mainstreaming the importance of UGI (Maes and Jacobs 2017 1233 ; European Union 2015 1234 ).

Through retaining existing vegetation and ecosystems, revegetating previous developed land or integrating vegetation into buildings in the form of green walls and roofs, UGI can play a direct role in mitigating climate change through carbon sequestration. However, compared to overall carbon emissions from cities, effects will be small. Given that UGI necessarily involves the retention and management of non-sealed surfaces, co-benefits for land degradation (e.g., soil compaction avoidance, reduced water runoff, carbon storage and vegetation productivity (Davies et al. 2011 1235 ; Edmondson et al. 2011 1236 , 2014 1237 ; Yao et al. 2015 1238 ) will also be apparent. Although not currently a priority, its role in mitigating land degradation could be substantial. For instance, appropriately managed innovative urban agricultural production systems, such as vertical farms, could have the potential to meet some of the food needs of cities and reduce the production (and therefore degradation) pressure on agricultural land in rural areas, although thus far this is unproven (for a recent review, see Wilhelm and Smith 2018).

The importance of UGI as part of a climate change adaptation approach has received greater attention and application (Gill et al. 2007 1239 ; Fryd et al. 2011 1240 ; Demuzere et al. 2014 1241 ; Sussams et al. 2015 1242 ). The EU’s Adapting to Climate Change white paper emphasises the ‘crucial role in adaptation in providing essential resources for social and economic purposes under extreme climate conditions’ (CEC, 2009, p. 9). Increasing vegetation cover, planting street trees and maintaining/expanding public parks reduces temperatures (Cavan et al. 2014 1243 ; Di Leo et al. 2016 1244 ; Feyisa et al. 2014 1245 ; Tonosaki and Kawai 2014 1246 ; Zölch et al. 2016 1247 ). Further, the appropriate design and spatial distribution of greenspaces within cities can help to alter urban climates to improve human health and comfort (e.g., Brown and Nicholls 2015 1248 ; Klemm et al. 2015 1249 ). The use of green walls and roofs can also reduce energy use in buildings (e.g., Coma et al. 2017 1250 ). Similarly, natural flood management and ecosystem-based approaches of providing space for water, renaturalising rivers and reducing surface runoff through the presence of permeable surfaces and vegetated features (including walls and roofs) can manage flood risks, impacts and vulnerability (e.g., Gill et al. 2007 1251 ; Munang et al. 2013 1252 ). Access to UGI in times of environmental stresses and shock can provide safety nets for people, and so can be an important adaptation mechanism, both to climate change (Potschin et al. 2016 1253 ) and land degradation.

Most examples of UGI implementation as a climate change adaptation strategy have centred on its role in water management for flood risk reduction. The importance for land degradation is either not stated, or not prioritised. In Beira, Mozambique, the government is using UGI to mitigate increased flood risks predicted to occur under climate change and urbanisation, which will be done by improving the natural water capacity of the Chiveve River. As part of the UGI approach, mangrove habitats have been restored, and future phases include developing new multi-functional urban green spaces along the river (World Bank 2016 1254 ). The retention of green spaces within the city will have the added benefit of halting further degradation in those areas. Elsewhere, planning mechanisms promote the retention and expansion of green areas within cities to ensure ecosystem service delivery, which directly halts land degradation, but are largely viewed and justified in the context of climate change adaptation and mitigation. For instance, the Berlin Landscape Programme includes five plans, one of which covers adapting to climate change through the recognition of the role of UGI (Green Surge 2016 1255 ). Major climate-related challenges facing Durban, South Africa, include sea level rise, urban heat island, water runoff and conservation (Roberts and O’Donoghue 2013 1256 ). Now considered a global leader in climate adaptation planning (Roberts 2010 1257 ), Durban’s Climate Change Adaptation plan includes the retention and maintenance of natural ecosystems, in particular those that are important for mitigating flooding, coastal erosion, water pollution, wetland siltation and climate change (eThekwini Municipal Council 2014 1258 ).

Perennial grains and soil organic carbon (SOC)

The severe ecological perturbation that is inherent in the conversion of native perennial vegetation to annual crops, and the subsequent high frequency of perturbation required to maintain annual crops, results in at least four forms of soil degradation that will be exacerbated by the effects of climate change (Crews et al. 2016 1259 ). First, soil erosion is a very serious consequence of annual cropping, with median losses exceeding rates of formation by one to two orders of magnitude in conventionally plowed agroecosystems, and while erosion is reduced with conservation tillage, median losses still exceed formation by several fold (Montgomery 2007 1260 ). More severe storm intensity associated with climate change is expected to cause even greater losses to wind and water erosion (Nearing et al. 2004 1261 ). Second, the periods of time in which live roots are reduced or altogether absent from soils in annual cropping systems allow for substantial losses of nitrogen from fertilised croplands, averaging 50% globally (Ladha et al. 2005 1262 ). This low retention of nitrogen is also expected to worsen with more intense weather events (Bowles et al. 2018 1263 ). A third impact of annual cropping is the degradation of soil structure caused by tillage, which can reduce infiltration of precipitation, and increase surface runoff. It is predicted that the percentage of precipitation that infiltrates into agricultural soils will decrease further under climate-change scenarios (Basche and DeLonge 2017 1264 ; Wuest et al. 2006 1265 ). The fourth form of soil degradation that results from annual cropping is the reduction of soil organic matter (SOM), a topic of particular relevance to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Undegraded cropland soils can theoretically hold far more SOM (which is about 58% carbon) than they currently do (Soussana et al. 2006 1266 ). We know this deficiency because, with few exceptions, comparisons between cropland soils and those of proximate mature native ecosystems commonly show a 40–75% decline in soil carbon attributable to agricultural practices. What happens when native ecosystems are converted to agriculture that induces such significant losses of SOM? Wind and water erosion commonly results in preferential removal of light organic matter fractions that can accumulate on or near the soil surface (Lal 2003 1267 ). In addition to the effects of erosion, the fundamental practices of growing annual food and fibre crops alters both inputs and outputs of organic matter from most agroecosystems, resulting in net reductions in soil carbon equilibria (Soussana et al. 2006 1268 ; McLauchlan 2006 1269 ; Crews et al. 2016 1270 ). Native vegetation of almost all terrestrial ecosystems is dominated by perennial plants, and the below-ground carbon allocation of these perennials is a key variable in determining formation rates of stable soil organic carbon (SOC) (Jastrow et al. 2007 1271 ; Schmidt et al. 2011 1272 ). When perennial vegetation is replaced by annual crops, inputs of root-associated carbon (roots, exudates, mycorrhizae) decline substantially. For example, perennial grassland species allocate around 67% of productivity to roots, whereas annual crops allocate between 13–30% (Saugier 2001 1273 ; Johnson et al. 2006 1274 ).

At the same time, inputs of SOC are reduced in annual cropping systems, and losses are increased because of tillage, compared to native perennial vegetation. Tillage breaks apart soil aggregates which, among other functions, are thought to inhibit soil bacteria, fungi and other microbes from consuming and decomposing SOM (Grandy and Neff 2008 1275 ). Aggregates reduce microbial access to organic matter by restricting physical access to mineral-stabilised organic compounds as well as reducing oxygen availability (Cotrufo et al. 2015 1276 ; Lehmann and Kleber 2015 1277 ). When soil aggregates are broken open with tillage in the conversion of native ecosystems to agriculture, microbial consumption of SOC and subsequent respiration of CO 2 increase dramatically, reducing soil carbon stocks (Grandy and Robertson 2006 1278 ; Grandy and Neff 2008 1279 ).

Many management approaches are being evaluated to reduce soil degradation in general, especially by increasing mineral-protected forms of SOC in the world’s croplands (Paustian et al. 2016 1280 ). The menu of approaches being investigated focuses either on increasing below-ground carbon inputs, usually through increases in total crop productivity, or by decreasing microbial activity, usually through reduced soil disturbance (Crews and Rumsey 2017 1281 ). However, the basic biogeochemistry of terrestrial ecosystems managed for production of annual crops presents serious challenges to achieving the standing stocks of SOC accumulated by native ecosystems that preceded agriculture. A novel new approach that is just starting to receive significant attention is the development of perennial cereal, legume and oilseed crops (Glover et al. 2010 1282 ; Baker 2017 1283 ).

There are two basic strategies that plant breeders and geneticists are using to develop new perennial grain crop species. The first involves making wide hybrid crosses between existing elite lines of annual crops, such as wheat, sorghum and rice, with related wild perennial species in order to introgress perennialism into the genome of the annual (Cox et al. 2018 1284 ; Huang et al. 2018 1285 ; Hayes et al. 2018 1286 ). The other approach is de novo domestication of wild perennial species that have crop-like traits of interest (DeHaan et al. 2016 1287 ; DeHaan and Van Tassel 2014 1288 ). New perennial crop species undergoing de novo domestication include intermediate wheatgrass, a relative of wheat that produces grain known as Kernza (DeHaan et al. 2018 1289 ; Cattani and Asselin 2018 1290 ) and Silphium integrifolium , an oilseed crop in the sunflower family (Van Tassel et al. 2017 1291 ). Other grain crops receiving attention for perennialisation include pigeon pea, barley, buckwheat and maize (Batello et al. 2014 1292 ; Chen et al. 2018c 1293 ) and a number of legume species (Schlautman et al. 2018 1294 ). In most cases, the seed yields of perennial grain crops under development are well below those of elite modern grain varieties. During the period that it will take for intensive breeding efforts to close the yield and other trait gaps between annual and perennial grains, perennial proto-crops may be used for purposes other than grain, including forage production (Ryan et al. 2018 1295 ). Perennial rice stands out as a high-yielding exception, as its yields matched those of elite local varieties in the Yunnan Province for six growing seasons over three years (Huang et al. 2018 1296 ).

In a perennial agroecosystem, the biogeochemical controls on SOC accumulation shift dramatically, and begin to resemble the controls that govern native ecosystems (Crews et al. 2016 1297 ). When erosion is reduced or halted, and crop allocation to roots increases by 100–200%, and when soil aggregates are not disturbed thus reducing microbial respiration, SOC levels are expected to increase (Crews and Rumsey 2017 1298 ). Deep roots growing year round are also effective at increasing nitrogen retention (Culman et al. 2013 1299 ; Jungers et al. 2019 1300 ). Substantial increases in SOC have been measured where croplands that had historically been planted to annual grains were converted to perennial grasses, such as in the US Conservation Reserve Program or in plantings of second-generation perennial biofuel crops. Two studies have assessed carbon accumulation in soils when croplands were converted to the perennial grain Kernza. In one, researchers found no differences in soil labile (permanganate-oxidisable) carbon after four years of cropping to perennial Kernza versus annual wheat in a sandy textured soil. Given that coarse textured soils do not offer the same physicochemical protection against microbial attack as many finer textured soils, these results are not surprising, but these results do underscore how variable the rates of carbon accumulation can be (Jastrow et al. 2007 1301 ). In the second study, researchers assessed the carbon balance of a Kernza field in Kansas, USA over 4.5 years using eddy covariance observations (de Oliveira et al. 2018). They found that the net carbon accumulation rate of about 1500 gC m –2 yr –1 in the first year of the study corresponding to the biomass of Kernza, increasing to about 300 gC m –2 yr –1 in the final year, where CO 2 respiration losses from the decomposition of roots and SOM approached new carbon inputs from photosynthesis. Based on measurements of soil carbon accumulation in restored grasslands in this part of the USA, the net carbon accumulation in stable organic matter under a perennial grain crop might be expected to sequester 30–50 gC m –2 yr –1 (Post and Kwon 2000 1302 ) until a new equilibrium is reached. Sugar cane, a highly productive perennial, has been shown to accumulate a mean of 187 gC m–2 yr –1 in Brazil (La Scala Júnior et al. 2012 1303 ).

Reduced soil erosion, increased nitrogen retention, greater water uptake efficiency and enhanced carbon sequestration represent improved ecosystem functions, made possible in part by deep and extensive root systems of perennial crops (Figure 4.8).

Comparison of root systems between the newly domesticated intermediate wheatgrass (left) and annual wheat (right). Photo: Copyright © Jim Richardson.

When compared to annual grains like wheat, single species stands of deep-rooted perennial grains such as Kernza are expected to reduce soil erosion, increase nitrogen retention, achieve greater water uptake efficiency and enhance carbon sequestration (Crews et al. 2018 1304 ) (Figure 4.8). An even higher degree of ecosystem services can, at least theoretically, be achieved by strategically combining different functional groups of crops such as a cereal and a nitrogen-fixing legume (Soussana and Lemaire 2014 1305 ). Not only is there evidence from plant-diversity experiments that communities with higher species richness sustain higher concentrations of SOC (Hungate et al. 2017 1306 ; Sprunger and Robertson 2018 1307 ; Chen, S. 2018 1308 ; Yang et al. 2019 1309 ), but other valuable ecosystem services such as pest suppression, lower GHG emissions, and greater nutrient retention may be enhanced (Schnitzer et al. 2011 1310 ; Culman et al. 2013 1311 ).

Similar to perennial forage crops such as alfalfa, perennial grain crops are expected to have a definite productive lifespan, probably in the range of three to 10 years. A key area of research on perennial grains cropping systems is to minimise losses of SOC during conversion of one stand of perennial grains to another. Recent work demonstrates that no-till conversion of a mature perennial grassland to another perennial crop will experience several years of high net CO 2 emissions as decomposition of copious crop residues exceed ecosystem uptake of carbon by the new crop (Abraha et al. 2018 1312 ). Most, if not all, of this lost carbon will be recaptured in the replacement crop. It is not known whether mineral-stabilised carbon that is protected in soil aggregates is vulnerable to loss in perennial crop succession.

Perennial grains hold promises of agricultural practices, which can significantly reduce soil erosion and nutrient leakage while sequestering carbon. When cultivated in mixes with N-fixing species (legumes) such polycultures also reduce the need for external inputs of nitrogen – a large source of GHG from conventional agriculture.

Reversing land degradation through reforestation

South korea case study on reforestation success.

In the first half of the 20th century, forests in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) were severely degraded and deforested during foreign occupations and the Korean War. Unsustainable harvest for timber and fuelwood resulted in severely degraded landscapes, heavy soil erosion and large areas denuded of vegetation cover. Recognising that South Korea’s economic health would depend on a healthy environment, South Korea established a national forest service (1967) and embarked on the first phase of a 10-year reforestation programme in 1973 (Forest Development Program), which was followed by subsequent reforestation programmes that ended in 1987, after 2.4 Mha of forests were restored (Figure 4.9).

Example of severely degraded hills in South Korea and stages of forest restoration. The top two photos are taken in the early 1970s, before and after restoration, the third photo about five years after restoration, and the bottom photo was taken about 20 years after restoration. Many examples of such restoration success exist throughout South […]

Example of severely degraded hills in South Korea and stages of forest restoration. The top two photos are taken in the early 1970s, before and after restoration, the third photo about five years after restoration, and the bottom photo was taken about 20 years after restoration. Many examples of such restoration success exist throughout South Korea. (Photos: Copyright © Korea Forest Service)

As a consequence of reforestation, forest volume increased from 11.3 m 3 ha–1 in 1973 to 125.6 m 3 ha–1 in 2010 and 150.2 m 3 ha–1 in 2016 (Korea Forest Service 2017 1313 ). Increases in forest volume had significant co-benefits such as increasing water yield by 43% and reducing soil losses by 87% from 1971 to 2010 (Kim et al. 2017 1314 ).

The forest carbon density in South Korea has increased from 5–7 MgC ha–1 in the period 1955–1973 to more than 30 MgC ha –1 in the late 1990s (Choi et al. 2002 1315 ). Estimates of carbon uptake rates in the late 1990s were 12 TgC yr –1 (Choi et al. 2002 1316 ). For the period 1954 to 2012, carbon uptake was 8.3 TgC yr –1 (Lee et al. 2014 1317 ), lower than other estimates because reforestation programmes did not start until 1973. Net ecosystem production in South Korea was 10.55 ± 1.09 TgC yr −1 in the 1980s, 10.47 ± 7.28 Tg C yr −1 in the 1990s, and 6.32 ± 5.02 Tg C yr −1 in the 2000s, showing a gradual decline as average forest age increased (Cui et al. 2014 1318 ). The estimated past and projected future increase in the carbon content of South Korea’s forest area during 1992–2034 was 11.8 TgC yr –1 (Kim et al. 2016 1319 ).

During the period of forest restoration, South Korea also promoted inter-agency cooperation and coordination, especially between the energy and forest sectors, to replace firewood with fossil fuels, and to reduce demand for firewood to help forest recovery (Bae et al. 2012 1320 ). As experience with forest restoration programmes has increased, emphasis has shifted from fuelwood plantations, often with exotic species and hybrid varieties to planting more native species and encouraging natural regeneration (Kim and Zsuffa 1994 1321 ; Lee et al. 2015 1322 ). Avoiding monocultures in reforestation programmes can reduce susceptibility to pests (Kim and Zsuffa 1994 1323 ). Other important factors in the success of the reforestation programme were that private landowners were heavily involved in initial efforts (both corporate entities and smallholders) and that the reforestation programme was made part of the national economic development programme (Lamb 2014 1324 ).

The net present value and the cost-benefit ratio of the reforestation programme were 54.3 billion and 5.84 billion USD in 2010, respectively. The breakeven point of the reforestation investment appeared within two decades. Substantial benefits of the reforestation programme included disaster risk reduction and carbon sequestration (Lee et al. 2018a 1325 ).

In summary, the reforestation programme was a comprehensive technical and social initiative that restored forest ecosystems, enhanced the economic performance of rural regions, contributed to disaster risk reduction, and enhanced carbon sequestration (Kim et al. 2017 1326 ; Lee et al. 2018a 1327 ; UNDP 2017 1328 ).

The success of the reforestation programme in South Korea and the associated significant carbon sink indicate a high mitigation potential that might be contributed by a potential future reforestation programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) (Lee et al. 2018b 1329 ).

China case study on reforestation success

The dramatic decline in the quantity and quality of natural forests in China resulted in land degradation, such as soil erosion, floods, droughts, carbon emission, and damage to wildlife habitat (Liu and Diamond 2008 1330 ). In response to failures of previous forestry and land policies, the severe droughts in 1997, and the massive floods in 1998, the central government decided to implement a series of land degradation control policies, including the National Forest Protection Program (NFPP), Grain for Green or the Conversion of Cropland to Forests and Grassland Program (GFGP) (Liu et al. 2008 1331 ; Yin 2009 1332 ; Tengberg et al. 2016 1333 ; Zhang et al. 2000 1334 ). The NFPP aimed to completely ban logging of natural forests in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers as well as in Hainan Province by 2000 and to substantially reduce logging in other places (Xu et al. 2006 1335 ). In 2011, NFPP was renewed for the 10-year second phase, which also added another 11 counties around Danjiangkou Reservoir in Hubei and Henan Provinces, the water source for the middle route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (Liu et al. 2013 1336 ). Furthermore, the NFPP afforested 31 Mha by 2010 through aerial seeding, artificial planting, and mountain closure (i.e., prohibition of human activities such as fuelwood collection and lifestock grazing) (Xu et al. 2006 1337 ). China banned commercial logging in all natural forests by the end of 2016, which imposed logging bans and harvesting reductions in 68.2 Mha of forest land – including 56.4 Mha of natural forest (approximately 53% of China’s total natural forests).

GFGP became the most ambitious of China’s ecological restoration efforts, with more than 45 billion USD devoted to its implementation since 1990 (Kolinjivadi and Sunderland 2012 1338 ) The programme involves the conversion of farmland on slopes of 15–25° or greater to forest or grassland (Bennett 2008 1339 ). The pilot programme started in three provinces – Sichuan, Shaanxi and Gansu – in 1999 (Liu and Diamond 2008 1340 ). After its initial success, it was extended to 17 provinces by 2000 and finally to all provinces by 2002, including the headwaters of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers (Liu et al. 2008).

NFPP and GFGP have dramatically improved China’s land conditions and ecosystem services, and thus have mitigated the unprecedented land degradation in China (Liu et al. 2013 1341 ; Liu et al. 2002 1342 ; Long et al. 2006 1343 ; Xu et al. 2006 1344 ). NFPP protected 107 Mha forest area and increased forest area by 10 Mha between 2000 and 2010. For the second phase (2011–2020), the NFPP plans to increase forest cover by a further 5.2 Mha, capture 416 million tons of carbon, provide 648,500 forestry jobs, further reduce land degradation, and enhance biodiversity (Liu et al. 2013 1345 ). During 2000–2007, sediment concentration in the Yellow River had declined by 38%. In the Yellow River basin, it was estimated that surface runoff would be reduced by 450 million m3 from 2000 to 2020, which is equivalent to 0.76% of the total surface water resources (Jia et al. 2006). GFGP had cumulatively increased vegetative cover by 25 Mha, with 8.8 Mha of cropland being converted to forest and grassland, 14.3 Mha barren land being afforested, and 2.0 Mha of forest regeneration from mountain closure. Forest cover within the GFGP region has increased 2% during the first eight years (Liu et al. 2008 1346 ). In Guizhou Province, GFGP plots had 35–53% less loss of phosphorus than non-GFGP plots (Liu et al. 2002 1347 ). In Wuqi County of Shaanxi Province, the Chaigou Watershed had 48% and 55% higher soil moisture and moisture-holding capacity in GFGP plots than in non-GFGP plots, respectively (Liu et al. 2002 1348 ). According to reports on China’s first national ecosystem assessment (2000–2010), for carbon sequestration and soil retention, coefficients for the GFGP targeting forest restoration and NFPP are positive and statistically significant. For sand fixation, GFGP targeting grassland restoration is positive and statistically significant. Remote sensing observations confirm that vegetation cover increased and bare soil declined in China over the period 2001 to 2015 (Qiu et al. 2017 1349 ). But, where afforestation is sustained by drip irrigation from groundwater, questions about plantation sustainability arise (Chen et al. 2018a 1350 ). Moreover, greater gains in biodiversity could be achieved by promoting mixed forests over monocultures (Hua et al. 2016 1351 ).

NFPP-related activities received a total commitment of 93.7 billion yuan (about 14 billion USD at 2018 exchange rate) between 1998 and 2009. Most of the money was used to offset economic losses of forest enterprises caused by the transformation from logging to tree plantations and forest management (Liu et al. 2008 1352 ). By 2009, the cumulative total investment through the NFPP and GFGP exceeded 50 billion USD2009 and directly involved more than 120 million farmers in 32 million households in the GFGP alone (Liu et al. 2013 1353 ). All programmes reduce or reverse land degradation and improve human well-being. Thus, a coupled human and natural systems perspective (Liu et al. 2008 1354 ) would be helpful to understand the complexity of policies and their impacts, and to establish long-term management mechanisms to improve the livelihood of participants in these programmes and other land management policies in China and many other parts of the world.

Degradation and management of peat soils

Globally, peatlands cover 3–4% of the Earth’s land area (about 430 Mha) (Xu et al. 2018a 1355 ) and store 26–44% of estimated global SOC (Moore 2002 1356 ). They are most abundant in high northern latitudes, covering large areas in North America, Russia and Europe. At lower latitudes, the largest areas of tropical peatlands are located in Indonesia, the Congo Basin and the Amazon Basin in the form of peat swamp forests (Gumbricht et al. 2017 1357 ; Xu et al. 2018a 1358 ). It is estimated that, while 80–85% of the global peatland areas is still largely in a natural state, they are such carbon-dense ecosystems that degraded peatlands (0.3% of the terrestrial land) are responsible for a disproportional 5% of global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions – that is, an annual addition of 0.9–3 GtCO 2 to the atmosphere (Dommain et al. 2012 1359 ; IPCC 2014c 1360 ).

Peatland degradation is not well quantified globally, but regionally peatland degradation can involve a large percentage of the areas. Land-use change and degradation in tropical peatlands have primarily been quantified in Southeast Asia, where drainage and conversion to plantation crops is the dominant transition (Miettinen et al. 2016 1361 ). Degradation of peat swamps in Peru is also a growing concern and one pilot survey showed that more than 70% of the peat swamps were degraded in one region surveyed (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a 1362 ). Around 65,000 km2 or 10% of the European peatland area has been lost and 44% of the remaining European peatlands are degraded (Joosten, H., Tanneberger 2017 1363 ). Large areas of fens have been entirely ‘lost’ or greatly reduced in thickness due to peat wastage (Lamers et al. 2015 1364 ).

The main drivers of the acceleration of peatland degradation in the 20th century were associated with drainage for agriculture, peat extraction and afforestation related activities (burning, over-grazing, fertilisation) with a variable scale and severity of impact depending on existing resources in the various countries (O’Driscoll et al. 2018 1365 ; Cobb, A.R. et al. Dommain et al. 2018 1366 ; Lamers et al. 2015 1367 ). New drivers include urban development, wind farm construction (Smith et al. 2012 1368 ), hydroelectric development, tar sands mining and recreational uses (Joosten and Tanneberger 2017 1369 ). Anthropogenic pressures are now affecting peatlands in previously geographically isolated areas with consequences for global environmental concerns and impacts on local livelihoods (Dargie et al. 2017 1370 ; Lawson et al. 2015 1371 ; Butler et al. 2009 1372 ).

Drained and managed peatlands are GHG-emission hotspots (Swails et al. 2018 1373 ; Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a, 2017b 1374 ; Roman-Cuesta et al. 2016 1375 ). In most cases, lowering of the water table leads to direct and indirect CO 2 and N 2 O emissions to the atmosphere, with rates dependent on a range of factors, including the groundwater level and the water content of surface peat layers, nutrient content, temperature, and vegetation communities. The exception is nutrient-limited boreal peatlands (Minkkinen et al. 2018 1376 ; Ojanen et al. 2014 1377 ). Drainage also increases erosion and dissolved organic carbon loss, removing stored carbon into streams as dissolved and particulate organic carbon, which ultimately returns to the atmosphere (Moore et al. 2013 1378 ; Evans et al. 2016 1379 ).

In tropical peatlands, oil palm is the most widespread plantation crop and, on average, it emits around 40 tCO 2 ha –1 yr –1 ; Acacia plantations for pulpwood are the second most widespread plantation crop and emit around 73 tCO 2 ha –1 yr –1 (Drösler et al. 2013 1380 ). Other land uses typically emit less than 37 tCO 2 ha -1 yr -1 . Total emissions from peatland drainage in the region are estimated to be between 0.07 and 1.1 GtCO 2 yr –1 (Houghton and Nassikas 2017 1381 ; Frolking et al. 2011 1382 ). Land-use change also affects the fluxes of N 2 O and CH 4 . Undisturbed tropical peatlands emit about 0.8 MtCH 4 yr -1 and 0.002 MtN 2 O yr -1 , while disturbed peatlands emit 0.1 MtCH 4 yr –1 and 0.2 MtN 2 O–N yr –1 (Frolking et al. 2011 1383 ). These N 2 O emissions are probably low, as new findings show that emissions from fertilised oil palm can exceed 20 kgN 2 O–N ha –1 yr –1 (Oktarita et al. 2017 1384 ).

In the temperate and boreal zones, peatland drainage often leads to emissions in the order of 0.9 to 9.5 tCO 2 ha –1 y –1 in forestry plantations and 21 to 29 tCO 2 ha –1 y –1 in grasslands and croplands. Nutrient-poor sites often continue to be CO 2 sinks for long periods (e.g., 50 years) following drainage and, in some cases, sinks for atmospheric CH 4 , even when drainage ditch emissions are considered (Minkkinen et al. 2018 1385 ; Ojanen et al. 2014 1386 ). Undisturbed boreal and temperate peatlands emit about 30 MtCH 4 yr -1 and 0.02 MtN 2 O–N yr -1 , while disturbed peatlands emit 0.1 MtCH 4 yr –1 and 0.2 MtN 2 O–N yr –1 (Frolking et al. 2011 1387 ).

Fire emissions from tropical peatlands are only a serious issue in Southeast Asia, where they are responsible for 634 (66–4070) MtCO 2 yr –1 (van der Werf et al. 2017 1388 ). Much of the variability is linked with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which produces drought conditions in this region. Anomalously active fire seasons have also been observed in non-drought years and this has been attributed to the increasing effect of high temperatures that dry vegetation out during short dry spells in otherwise normal rainfall years (Fernandes et al. 2017 1389 ; Gaveau et al. 2014 1390 ). Fires have significant societal impacts; for example, the 2015 fires caused more than 100,000 additional deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and this event was more than twice as deadly as the 2006 El Niño event (Koplitz et al. 2016 1391 ).

Peatland degradation in other parts of the world differs from Asia. In Africa, for large peat deposits like those found in the Cuvette Centrale in the Congo Basin or in the Okavango inland delta, the principle threat is changing rainfall regimes due to climate variability and change (Weinzierl et al. 2016 1392 ; Dargie et al. 2017 1393 ). Expansion of agriculture is not yet a major factor in these regions. In the Western Amazon, extraction of non-timber forest products like the fruits of Mauritia flexuosa (moriche palm) and Suri worms are major sources of degradation that lead to losses of carbon stocks (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017a 1394 ).

The effects of peatland degradation on livelihoods have not been systematically characterised. In places where plantation crops are driving the conversion of peat swamps, the financial benefits can be considerable. One study in Indonesia found that the net present value of an oil palm plantation is between 3,835 and 9,630 USD per ha to land owners (Butler et al. 2009 1395 ). High financial returns are creating incentives for the expansion of smallholder production in peatlands. Smallholder plantations extend over 22% of the peatlands in insular Southeast Asia compared to 27% for industrial plantations (Miettinen et al. 2016 1396 ). In places where income is generated from extraction of marketable products, ecosystem degradation probably has a negative effect on livelihoods. For example, the sale of fruits of M. flexuosa in some parts of the western Amazon constitutes as much as 80% of the winter income of many rural households, but information on trade values and value chains of M. flexuosa is still sparse (Sousa et al. 2018 1397 ; Virapongse et al. 2017 1398 ).

There is little experience with peatland restoration in the tropics. Experience from northern latitudes suggests that extensive damage and changes in hydrological conditions mean that restoration in many cases is unachievable (Andersen et al. 2017 1399 ). In the case of Southeast Asia, where peatlands form as raised bogs, drainage leads to collapse of the dome, and this collapse cannot be reversed by rewetting. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to develop solutions, or at least partial solutions in Southeast Asia, for example, by the Indonesian Peatland Restoration Agency. The first step is to restore the hydrological regime in drained peatlands, but so far experiences with canal blocking and reflooding of the peat have been only partially successful (Ritzema et al. 2014 1400 ). Market incentives with certification through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil have also not been particularly successful as many concessions seek certification only after significant environmental degradation has occurred (Carlson et al. 2017 1401 ). Certification had no discernible effect on forest loss or fire detection in peatlands in Indonesia. To date there is no documentation of restoration methods or successes in many other parts of the tropics. However, in situations where degradation does not involve drainage, ecological restoration may be possible. In South America, for example, there is growing interest in restoration of palm swamps, and as experiences are gained it will be important to document success factors to inform successive efforts (Virapongse et al. 2017 1402 ).

In higher latitudes where degraded peatlands have been drained, the most effective option to reduce losses from these large organic carbon stocks is to change hydrological conditions and increase soil moisture and surface wetness (Regina et al. 2015 1403 ). Long-term GHG monitoring in boreal sites has demonstrated that rewetting and restoration noticeably reduce emissions compared to degraded drained sites and can restore the carbon sink function when vegetation is re-established (Wilson et al. 2016 1404 ; IPCC 2014a 1405 ; Nugent et al. 2018 1406 ) although, restored ecosystems may not yet be as resilient as their undisturbed counterparts (Wilson et al. 2016 1407 ). Several studies have demonstrated the co-benefits of rewetting specific degraded peatlands for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, (Parry et al. 2014 1408 ; Ramchunder et al. 2012 1409 ; Renou-Wilson et al. 2018 1410 ) and other ecosystem services, such as improvement of water storage and quality (Martin-Ortega et al. 2014 1411 ) with beneficial consequences for human well-being (Bonn et al. 2016 1412 ; Parry et al. 2014 1413 ).

Biochar is organic matter that is carbonised by heating in an oxygen-limited environment, and used as a soil amendment. The properties of biochar vary widely, dependent on the feedstock and the conditions of production. Biochar could make a significant contribution to mitigating both land degradation and climate change, simultaneously.

Role of biochar in climate change mitigation

Biochar is relatively resistant to decomposition compared with fresh organic matter or compost, so represents a long-term carbon store ( very high confidence ). Biochars produced at higher temperature (>450°C) and from woody material have greater stability than those produced at lower temperature (300–450°C), and from manures ( very high confidence ) (Singh et al. 2012 1414 ; Wang et al. 2016b 1415 ). Biochar stability is influenced by soil properties: biochar carbon can be further stabilised by interaction with clay minerals and native SOM ( medium evidence ) (Fang et al. 2015 1416 ). Biochar stability is estimated to range from decades to thousands of years, for different biochars in different applications (Singh et al. 2015 1417 ; Wang et al. 2016 1418 ). Biochar stability decreases as ambient temperature increases ( limited evidence ) (Fang et al. 2017 1419 ).

Biochar can enhance soil carbon stocks through ‘negative priming’, in which rhizodeposits are stabilised through sorption of labile carbon on biochar, and formation of biochar-organo-mineral complexes (Weng et al. 2015 1420 , 2017 1421 , 2018 1422 ; Wang et al. 2016b). Conversely, some studies show increased turnover of native soil carbon (‘positive priming’) due to enhanced soil microbial activity induced by biochar. In clayey soils, positive priming is minor and short-lived compared to negative priming effects, which dominate in the medium to long term (Singh and Cowie 2014 1421 ; Wang et al. 2016b 1422 ). Negative priming has been observed particularly in loamy grassland soil (Ventura et al. 2015 1423 ) and clay-dominated soils, whereas positive priming is reported in sandy soils (Wang et al. 2016b 1424 ) and those with low carbon content (Ding et al. 2018 1425 ).

Biochar can provide additional climate-change mitigation by decreasing nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from soil, due in part to decreased substrate availability for denitrifying organisms, related to the molar H/C ratio of the biochar (Cayuela et al. 2015 1426 ). However, this impact varies widely: meta-analyses found an average decrease in N 2 O emissions from soil of 30–54%, (Cayuela et al. 2015 1427 ; Borchard et al. 2019 1428 ; Moore 2002 1429 ), although another study found no significant reduction in field conditions when weighted by the inverse of the number of observations per site (Verhoeven et al. 2017 1430 ). Biochar has been observed to reduce methane emissions from flooded soils, such as rice paddies, though, as for N 2 O, results vary between studies and increases have also been observed (He et al. 2017 1431 ; Kammann et al. 2017 1432 ). Biochar has also been found to reduce methane uptake by dryland soils, though the effect is small in absolute terms (Jeffery et al. 2016 1433 ).

Additional climate benefits of biochar can arise through: reduced nitrogen fertiliser requirements, due to reduced losses of nitrogen through leaching and/or volatilisation (Singh et al. 2010 1434 ) and enhanced biological nitrogen fixation (Van Zwieten et al. 2015 1435 ); increased yields of crop, forage, vegetable and tree species (Biederman and Harpole 2013 1436 ), particularly in sandy soils and acidic tropical soils (Simon et al. 2017 1437 ); avoided GHG emissions from manure that would otherwise be stockpiled, crop residues that would be burned or processing residues that would be landfilled; and reduced GHG emissions from compost when biochar is added (Agyarko-Mintah et al. 2017 1438 ; Wu et al. 2017a 1439 ).

Climate benefits of biochar could be substantially reduced through reduction in albedo if biochar is surface-applied at high rates to light-coloured soils (Genesio et al. 2012 1440 ; Bozzi et al. 2015 1441 ; Woolf et al. 2010 1442 ), or if black carbon dust is released (Genesio et al. 2016 1443 ). Pelletising or granulating biochar, and applying below the soil surface or incorporating into the soil, minimises the release of black carbon dust and reduces the effect on albedo (Woolf et al. 2010 1444 ).

Biochar is a potential ‘negative emissions’ technology: the thermochemical conversion of biomass to biochar slows mineralisation of the biomass, delivering long-term carbon storage; gases released during pyrolysis can be combusted for heat or power, displacing fossil energy sources, and could be captured and sequestered if linked with infrastructure for CCS (Smith 2016 1445 ). Studies of the lifecycle climate change impacts of biochar systems generally show emissions reduction in the range 0.4 –1.2 tCO 2 e t –1 (dry) feedstock (Cowie et al. 2015 1446 ). Use of biomass for biochar can deliver greater benefits than use for bioenergy, if applied in a context where it delivers agronomic benefits and/or reduces non-CO 2 GHG emissions (Ji et al. 2018 1447 ; Woolf et al. 2010 1448 , 2018; Xuetal.2019).A global analysis of technical potential, in which biomass supply constraints were applied to protect against food insecurity, loss of habitat and land degradation, estimated technical potential abatement of 3.7–6.6 GtCO 2 e yr –1 (including 2.6–4.6 GtCO 2 e yr –1 carbon stabilisation), with theoretical potential to reduce total emissions over the course of a century by 240–475 GtCO 2 e (Woolf et al. 2010). Fuss et al. (2018) propose a range of 0.5–2 GtCO 2 e per year as the sustainable potential for negative emissions through biochar. Mitigation potential of biochar is reviewed in Chapter 2.

Role of biochar in management of land degradation

Biochars generally have high porosity, high surface area and surface-active properties that lead to high absorptive and adsorptive capacity, especially after interaction in soil (Joseph et al. 2010 1450 ). As a result of these properties, biochar could contribute to avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation through the following documented benefits:

• Improved nutrient use efficiency due to reduced leaching of nitrate and ammonium (e.g., Haider et al. 2017 1451 ) and increased availability of phosphorus in soils with high phosphorus fixation capacity (Liu et al. 2018c 1452 ), potentially reducing nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser requirements.
• Management of heavy metals and organic pollutants: through reduced bioavailability of toxic elements (O’Connor et al. 2018 1453 ; Peng et al. 2018 1454 ), by reducing availability, through immobilisation due to increased pH and redox effects (Rizwan et al. 2016 1455 ) and adsorption on biochar surfaces (Zhang et al. 2013 1456 ) thus providing a means of remediating contaminated soils, and enabling their utilisation for food production.
• Stimulation of beneficial soil organisms, including earthworms and mycorrhizal fungi (Thies et al. 2015 1457 ).
• Improved porosity and water-holding capacity (Quin et al. 2014 1458 ), particularly in sandy soils (Omondi et al. 2016 1459 ), enhancing microbial function during drought (Paetsch et al. 2018 1460 ).
• Amelioration of soil acidification, through application of biochars with high pH and acid-neutralising capacity (Chan et al. 2008 1461 ; Van Zwieten et al. 2010 1462 ).

Biochar systems can deliver a range of other co-benefits, including destruction of pathogens and weed propagules, avoidance of landfill, improved handling and transport of wastes such as sewage sludge, management of biomass residues such as environmental weeds and urban greenwaste, reduction of odours and management of nutrients from intensive livestock facilities, reduction in environmental nitrogen pollution and protection of waterways. As a compost additive, biochar has been found to reduce leaching and volatilisation of nutrients, increasing nutrient retention through absorption and adsorption processes (Joseph et al. 2018 1463 ).

While many studies report positive responses, some studies have found negative or zero impacts on soil properties or plant response (e.g., Kuppusamy et al. 2016 1464 ). The risk that biochar may enhance polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in soil or sediments has been raised (Quilliam et al. 2013 1465 ; Ojeda et al. 2016 1466 ), but bioavailability of PAH in biochar has been shown to be very low (Hilber et al. 2017 1467 ) Pyrolysis of biomass leads to losses of volatile nutrients, especially nitrogen. While availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in biochar is lower than in fresh biomass, (Xu et al. 2016 1468 ) the impact of biochar on plant uptake is determined by the interactions between biochar, soil minerals and activity of microorganisms (e.g., Vanek and Lehmann 2015 1655 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 1469 ). To avoid negative responses, it is important to select biochar formulations to address known soil constraints, and to apply biochar prior to planting (Nguyen et al. 2017 1470 ). Nutrient enrichment improves the performance of biochar from low nutrient feedstocks (Joseph et al. 2013 1471 ). While there are many reports of biochar reducing disease or pest incidence, there are also reports of nil or negative effects (Bonanomi et al. 2015 1472 ). Biochar may induce systemic disease resistance (e.g., Elad et al. 2011 1473 ), though Viger et al. (2015) 1474 reported down-regulation of plant defence genes, suggesting increased susceptibility to insect and pathogen attack. Disease suppression where biochar is applied is associated with increased microbial diversity and metabolic potential of the rhizosphere microbiome (Kolton et al. 2017 1475 ). Differences in properties related to feedstock (Bonanomi et al. 2018 1476 ) and differential response to biochar dose, with lower rates more effective (Frenkel et al. 2017 1477 ), contribute to variable disease responses.

The constraints on biochar adoption include: the high cost and limited availability due to limited large-scale production; limited amount of unutilised biomass; and competition for land for growing biomass. While early biochar research tended to use high rates of application (10 t ha –1 or more) subsequent studies have shown that biochar can be effective at lower rates, especially when combined with chemical or organic fertilisers (Joseph et al. 2013 1478 ). Biochar can be produced at many scales and levels of engineering sophistication, from simple cone kilns and cookstoves to large industrial-scale units processing several tonnes of biomass per hour (Lehmann and Joseph 2015 1479 ). Substantial technological development has occurred recently, though large-scale deployment is limited to date.

Governance of biochar is required to manage climate, human health and contamination risks associated with biochar production in poorly designed or operated facilities that release methane or particulates (Downie et al. 2012 1480 ; Buss et al. 2015 1481 ), to ensure quality control of biochar products, and to ensure that biomass is sourced sustainably and is uncontaminated. Measures could include labelling standards, sustainability certification schemes and regulation of biochar production and use. Governance mechanisms should be tailored to context, commensurate with risks of adverse outcomes.

In summary, application of biochar to soil can improve soil chemical, physical and biological attributes, enhancing productivity and resilience to climate change, while also delivering climate-change mitigation through carbon sequestration and reduction in GHG emissions ( medium agreement, robust evidence ). However, responses to biochar depend on the biochar’s properties, which are in turn dependent on feedstock and biochar production conditions, and the soil and crop to which it is applied. Negative or nil results have been recorded.Agronomic and methane-reduction benefits appear greatest in tropical regions, where acidic soils predominate and suboptimal rates of lime and fertiliser are common, while carbon stabilisation is greater in temperate regions. Biochar is most effective when applied in low volumes to the most responsive soils and when properties are matched to the specific soil constraints and plant needs. Biochar is thus a practice that has potential to address land degradation and climate change simultaneously, while also supporting sustainable development. The potential of biochar is limited by the availability of biomass for its production. Biochar production and use requires regulation and standardisation to manage risks ( strong agreement ).

Management of land degradation induced by tropical cyclones

Tropical cyclones are normal disturbances that natural ecosystems have been affected by and recovered from for millennia. Climate models mostly predict decreasing frequency of tropical cyclones, but dramatically increasing intensity of the strongest storms, as well as increasing rainfall rates (Bacmeister et al. 2018 1482 ; Walsh et al. 2016b 1483 ). Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity complicate both the detection and attribution of tropical cyclones to climate change (Lin and Emanuel 2016b). Yet, the force of high-intensity cyclones has increased and is expected to escalate further due to global climate change ( medium agreement, robust evidence ) (Knutson et al. 2010 1484 ; Bender et al. 2010 1485 ; Vecchi et al. 2008 1486 ; Bhatia et al. 2018 1487 ; Tu et al. 2018 1488 ; Sobel et al. 2016 1489 ). Tropical cyclone paths are also shifting towards the poles, increasing the area subject to tropical cyclones (Sharmila and Walsh 2018 1490 ; Lin and Emanuel 2016b 1491 ). Climate change alone will affect the hydrology of individual wetland ecosystems, mostly through changes in precipitation and temperature regimes with great global variability (Erwin 2009 1492 ). Over the last seven decades, the speed at which tropical cyclones move has decreased significantly, as expected from theory, exacerbating the damage on local communities from increasing rainfall amounts and high wind speed (Kossin 2018 1493 ). Tropical cyclones will accelerate changes in coastal forest structure and composition. The heterogeneity of land degradation at coasts that are affected by tropical cyclones can be further enhanced by the interaction of its components (for example, rainfall, wind speed, and direction) with topographic and biological factors (for example, species susceptibility) (Luke et al. 2016 1494 ).

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are particularly affected by land degradation induced by tropical cyclones; recent examples are Matthew (2016) in the Caribbean, and Pam (2015) and Winston (2016) in the Pacific (Klöck and Nunn 2019 1495 ; Handmer and Nalau 2019 1496 ). Even if the Pacific Ocean has experienced cyclones of unprecedented intensity in recent years, their geomorphological effects may not be unprecedented (Terry and Lau 2018 1497 ).

Cyclone impacts on coastal areas is not restricted to SIDS, but a problem for all low-lying coastal areas (Petzold and Magnan 2019 1498 ). The Sundarbans, one of the world’s largest coastal wetlands, covers about one million hectares between Bangladesh and India. Large areas of the Sundarbans mangroves have been converted into paddy fields over the past two centuries and, more recently, into shrimp farms (Ghosh et al. 2015 1499 ). In 2009, cyclone Aila caused incremental stresses on the socio-economic conditions of the Sundarbans coastal communities through rendering huge areas of land unproductive for a long time (Abdullah et al. 2016 1500 ). The impact of Aila was widespread throughout the Sundarbans mangroves, showing changes between the pre- and post-cyclonic period of 20–50% in the enhanced vegetation index (Dutta et al. 2015 1501 ), although the magnitude of the effects of the Sundarbans mangroves derived from climate change is not yet defined (Payo et al. 2016 1502 ; Loucks et al. 2010 1503 ; Gopal and Chauhan 2006 1504 ; Ghosh et al. 2015 1505 ; Chaudhuri et al. 2015 1506 ). There is high agreement that the joint effect of climate change and land degradation will be very negative for the area, strongly affecting the environmental services provided by these forests, including the extinction of large mammal species (Loucks et al. 2010 1507 ). The changes in vegetation are mainly due to inundation and erosion (Payo et al. 2016 1508 ).

Tropical cyclone Nargis unexpectedly hit the Ayeyarwady River delta (Myanmar) in 2008 with unprecedented and catastrophic damages to livelihoods, destruction of forests and erosion of fields (Fritz et al. 2009 1509 ) as well as eroding the shoreline 148 m compared with the long-term average (1974–2015) of 0.62 m yr -1 . This is an example of the disastrous effects that changing cyclone paths can have on areas previously not affected by cyclones (Fritz et al. 2010 1510 ).

Management of coastal wetlands

Tropical cyclones mainly, but not exclusively, affect coastal regions, threatening maintenance of the associated ecosystems, mangroves, wetlands, seagrasses, and so on. These areas not only provide food, water and shelter for fish, birds and other wildlife, but also provide important ecosystem services such as water-quality improvement, flood abatement and carbon sequestration (Meng et al. 2017 1511 ).

Despite their importance, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most heavily damaged of natural ecosystems worldwide. Starting in the 1990s, wetland restoration and re-creation became a ‘hotspot’ in the ecological research fields (Zedler 2000 1512 ). Coastal wetland restoration and preservation is an extremely cost-effective strategy for society, for example, the preservation of coastal wetlands in the USA provides storm protection services, with a cost of 23.2 billion USD yr –1 (Costanza et al. 2008 1513 ).

There is a high agreement with medium evidence that the success of wetland restoration depends mainly on the flow of the water through the system, the degree to which re-flooding occurs, disturbance regimes, and the control of invasive species (Burlakova et al. 2009 1514 ; López-Rosas et al. 2013 1515 ). The implementation of the Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation protocol (López-Portillo et al. 2017 1516 ) that includes monitoring and reporting tasks, has been proven to deliver successful rehabilitation of wetland ecosystem services.

Figure 4.10

Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland based on original site conditions. (modified from bosire et al. 2008.).

Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland based on original site conditions. (Modified from Bosire et al. 2008. 1656 )

Saltwater intrusion

Current environmental changes, including climate change, have caused sea levels to rise worldwide, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions (Fasullo and Nerem 2018 1517 ). Combined with scarcity of water in river channels, such rises have been instrumental in the intrusion of highly saline seawater inland, posing a threat to coastal areas and an emerging challenge to land managers and policymakers. Assessing the extent of salinisation due to sea water intrusion at a global scale nevertheless remains challenging. Wicke et al. (2011) 1518 suggest that across the world, approximately 1.1 Gha of land is affected by salt, with 14% of this categorised as forest, wetland or some other form of protected area. Seawater intrusion is generally caused by (i) increased tidal activity, storm surges, cyclones and sea storms due to changing climate, (ii) heavy groundwater extraction or land-use changes as a result of changes in precipitation, and droughts/floods, (iii) coastal erosion as a result of destruction of mangrove forests and wetlands, (iv) construction of vast irrigation canals and drainage networks leading to low river discharge in the deltaic region; and (v) sea level rise contaminating nearby freshwater aquifers as a result of subsurface intrusion (Uddameri et al. 2014 1519 ).

The Indus Delta, located in the south-eastern coast of Pakistan near Karachi in the North Arabian Sea, is one of the six largest estuaries in the world, spanning an area of 600,000 ha. The Indus delta is a clear example of seawater intrusion and land degradation due to local as well as up-country climatic and environmental conditions (Rasul et al. 2012 1520 ). Salinisation and waterlogging in the up-country areas including provinces of Punjab and Sindh is, however, caused by the irrigation network and over-irrigation (Qureshi 2011 1521 ).

Such degradation takes the form of high soil salinity, inundation and waterlogging, erosion and freshwater contamination. The interannual variability of precipitation with flooding conditions in some years and drought conditions in others has caused variable river flows and sediment runoff below Kotri Barrage (about 200 km upstream of the Indus delta). This has affected hydrological processes in the lower reaches of the river and the delta, contributing to the degradation (Rasul et al. 2012 1657 ).

Over 480,000 ha of fertile land is now affected by sea water intrusion, wherein eight coastal subdivisions of the districts of Badin and Thatta are mostly affected (Chandio et al. 2011 1658 ). A very high intrusion rate of 0.179 ± 0.0315 km yr -1 , based on the analysis of satellite data, was observed in the Indus delta during the 10 years between 2004 and 2015 (Kalhoro et al. 2016 1522 ). The area of agricultural crops under cultivation has been declining, with economic losses of millions of USD (IUCN 2003 1523 ). Crop yields have reduced due to soil salinity, in some places failing entirely. Soil salinity varies seasonally, depending largely on the river discharge: during the wet season (August 2014), salinity (0.18 mg L –1 ) reached 24 km upstream, while during the dry season (May 2013), it reached 84 km upstream (Kalhoro et al. 2016 1524 ). The freshwater aquifers have also been contaminated with sea water, rendering them unfit for drinking or irrigation purposes. Lack of clean drinking water and sanitation causes widespread diseases, of which diarrhoea is most common (IUCN 2003 1525 ).

Lake Urmia in northwest Iran, the second-largest saltwater lake in the world and the habitat for endemic Iranian brine shrimp, Artemia urmiana , has also been affected by salty water intrusion. During a 17- year period between 1998 and 2014, human disruption, including agriculture and years of dam building affected the natural flow of freshwater as well as salty sea water in the surrounding area of Lake Urmia. Water quality has also been adversely affected, with salinity fluctuating over time, but in recent years reaching a maximum of 340 g L –1 (similar to levels in the Dead Sea). This has rendered the underground water unfit for drinking and agricultural purposes and risky to human health and livelihoods. Adverse impacts of global climate change as well as direct human impacts have caused changes in land use, overuse of underground water resources and construction of dams over rivers, which resulted in the drying-up of the lake in large part. This condition created sand, dust and salt storms in the region which affected many sectors including agriculture, water resources, rangelands, forests and health, and generally presented desertification conditions around the lake (Karbassi et al. 2010 1526 ; Marjani and Jamali 2014 1527 ; Shadkam et al. 2016 1528 ).

Rapid irrigation expansion in the basin has, however, indirectly contributed to inflow reduction. Annual inflow to Lake Urmia has dropped by 48% in recent years. About three-fifths of this change was caused by climate change and two-fifths by water resource development and agriculture (Karbassi et al. 2010 1529 ; Marjani and Jamali 2014 1530 ; Shadkam et al. 2016 1531 ).

In the drylands of Mexico, intensive production of irrigated wheat and cotton using groundwater (Halvorson et al. 2003 1532 ) resulted in sea water intrusion into the aquifers of La Costa de Hermosillo, a coastal agricultural valley at the centre of Sonora Desert in Northwestern Mexico. Production of these crops in 1954 was on 64,000 ha of cultivated area, increasing to 132,516 ha in 1970, but decreasing to 66,044 ha in 2009 as a result of saline intrusion from the Gulf of California (Romo-Leon et al. 2014 1533 ). In 2003, only 15% of the cultivated area was under production, with around 80,000 ha abandoned due to soil salinisation whereas in 2009, around 40,000 ha was abandoned (Halvorson et al. 2003 1534 ; Romo-Leon et al. 2014 1535 ). Salinisation of agricultural soils could be exacerbated by climate change, as Northwestern Mexico is projected to be warmer and drier under climate change scenarios (IPCC 2013a 1536 ).

In other countries, intrusion of seawater is exacerbated by destruction of mangrove forests. Mangroves are important coastal ecosystems that provide spawning bed for fish, timber for building, and livelihoods to dependent communities. They also act as barriers against coastal erosion, storm surges, tropical cyclones and tsunamis (Kalhoro et al. 2017 1537 ) and are among the most carbon-rich stocks on Earth (Atwood et al. 2017 1538 ). They nevertheless face a variety of threats: climatic (storm surges, tidal activities, high temperatures) and human (coastal developments, pollution, deforestation, conversion to aquaculture, rice culture, oil palm plantation), leading to declines in their areas. In Pakistan, using remote sensing, the mangrove forest cover in the Indus delta decreased from 260,000 ha in 1980s to 160,000 ha in 1990 (Chandio et al. 2011 1539 ). Based on remotely sensed data, a sharp decline in the mangrove area was also found in the arid coastal region of Hormozgan province in southern Iran during 1972, 1987 and 1997 (Etemadi et al. 2016 1540 ). Myanmar has the highest rate (about 1% yr –1 ) of mangrove deforestation in the world (Atwood et al. 2017). Regarding global loss of carbon stored in the mangrove due to deforestation, four countries exhibited high levels of loss: Indonesia (3410 GgCO 2 yr –1 ), Malaysia (1288 GgCO 2 yr –1 ), US (206 GgCO 2 yr –1 ) and Brazil (186 GgCO 2 yr –1 ). Only in Bangladesh and Guinea Bissau was there no decline in the mangrove area from 2000 to 2012 (Atwood et al. 2017 1541 ).

Frequency and intensity of average tropical cyclones will continue to increase (Knutson et al. 2015 1543 ) and global sea level will continue to rise. The IPCC (2013) 1544 projected with medium confidence that the sea level in the Asia Pacific region will rise from 0.4 to 0.6 m, depending on the emission pathway, by the end of this century. Adaptation measures are urgently required to protect the world’s coastal areas from further degradation due to saline intrusion. A viable policy framework is needed to ensure that the environmental flows to deltas in order to repulse the intruding seawater.

Avoiding coastal maladaptation

Coastal degradation – for example, beach erosion, coastal squeeze, and coastal biodiversity loss – as a result of rising sea levels is a major concern for low lying coasts and small islands ( high confidence ). The contribution of climate change to increased coastal degradation has been well documented in AR5 (Nurse et al. 2014 1545 ; Wong et al. 2014 1546 ) and is further discussed in Section 4.4.1.3 as well as in the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). However, coastal degradation can also be indirectly induced by climate change as the result of adaptation measures that involve changes to the coastal environment, for example, coastal protection measures against increased flooding and erosion due to sea level rise, and storm surges transforming the natural coast to a ‘stabilised’ coastline (Cooper and Pile 2014 1547 ; French 2001 1548 ). Every kind of adaptation response option is context-dependent, and, in fact, sea walls play an important role for adaptation in many places. Nonetheless, there are observed cases where the construction of sea walls can be considered ‘maladaptation’ (Barnett and O’Neill 2010 1549 ; Magnan et al. 2016 1659 ) by leading to increased coastal degradation, such as in the case of small islands where, due to limitations of space, coastal retreat is less of an option than in continental coastal zones. There is emerging literature on the implementation of alternative coastal protection measures and mechanisms on small islands to avoid coastal degradation induced by sea walls (e.g., Mycoo and Chadwick 2012; Sovacool 2012 1551 ).

In many cases, increased rates of coastal erosion due to the construction of sea walls are the result of the negligence of local coastal morphological dynamics and natural variability as well as the interplay of environmental and anthropogenic drivers of coastal change ( medium evidence, high agreement ). Sea walls in response to coastal erosion may be ill-suited for extreme wave heights under cyclone impacts and can lead to coastal degradation by keeping overflowing sea water from flowing back into the sea, and therefore affect the coastal vegetation through saltwater intrusion, as observed in Tuvalu (Government of Tuvalu 2006 1552 ; Wairiu 2017 1553 ). Similarly, in Kiribati, poor construction of sea walls has resulted in increased erosion and inundation of reclaimed land (Donner 2012 1554 ; Donner and Webber 2014 1555 ). In the Comoros and Tuvalu, sea walls have been constructed from climate change adaptation funds and ‘often by international development organisations seeking to leave tangible evidence of their investments’ (Marino and Lazrus 2015 1556 , p. 344). In these cases, they have even increased coastal erosion, due to poor planning and the negligence of other causes of coastal degradation, such as sand mining (Marino and Lazrus 2015; Betzold and Mohamed 2017 1557 ; Ratter et al. 2016 1558 ). On the Bahamas, the installation of sea walls as a response to coastal erosion in areas with high wave action has led to the contrary effect and has even increased sand loss in those areas (Sealey 2006 1559 ). The reduction of natural buffer zones – such as beaches and dunes – due to vertical structures, such as sea walls, increased the impacts of tropical cyclones on Reunion Island (Duvat et al. 2016 1560 ). Such a process of ‘coastal squeeze’ (Pontee 2013 1561 ) also results in the reduction of intertidal habitat zones, such as wetlands and marshes (Zhu et al. 2010 1562 ). Coastal degradation resulting from the construction of sea walls, however, is not only observed in SIDS, as described above, but also on islands in the Global North, for example, the North Atlantic (Muir et al. 2014 1563 ; Young et al. 2014 1564 ; Cooper and Pile 2014 1565 ; Bush 2004 1566 ).

The adverse effects of coastal protection measures may be avoided by the consideration of local social-ecological dynamics, including critical study of the diverse drivers of ongoing shoreline changes, and the appropriate implementation of locally adequate coastal protection options (French 200 1567 1; Duvat 2013 1568 ). Critical elements for avoiding maladaptation include profound knowledge of local tidal regimes, availability of relative sea level rise scenarios and projections for extreme water levels. Moreover, the downdrift effects of sea walls need to be considered, since undefended coasts may be exposed to increased erosion (Zhu et al. 2010 1569 ). In some cases, it may be possible to keep intact and restore natural buffer zones as an alternative to the construction of hard engineering solutions. Otherwise, changes in land use, building codes, or even coastal realignment can be an option in order to protect and avoid the loss of the buffer function of beaches (Duvat et al. 2016 1570 ; Cooper and Pile 2014 1571 ). Examples in Barbados show that combinations of hard and soft coastal protection approaches can be sustainable and reduce the risk of coastal ecosystem degradation while keeping the desired level of protection for coastal users (Mycoo and Chadwick 2012 1572 ). Nature-based solutions and approaches such as ‘building with nature’ (Slobbe et al. 2013 1573 ) may allow for more sustainable coastal protection mechanisms and avoid coastal degradation. Examples from the Maldives, several Pacific islands and the North Atlantic show the importance of the involvement of local communities in coastal adaptation projects, considering local skills, capacities, as well as demographic and socio-political dynamics, in order to ensure the proper monitoring and maintenance of coastal adaptation measures (Sovacool 2012 1574 ; Muir et al. 2014 1575 ; Young et al. 2014 1576 ; Buggy and McNamara 2016 1577 ; Petzold 2016 1578 ).

Knowledge gaps and key uncertainties

The co-benefits of improved land management, such as mitigation of climate change, increased climate resilience of agriculture, and impacts on rural areas/societies are well known in theory, but there is a lack of a coherent and systematic global inventory of such integrated efforts. Both successes and failures are important to document systematically.

Efforts to reduce climate change through land-demanding mitigation actions aimed at removing atmospheric carbon, such as afforestation, reforestation, bioenergy crops, intensification of land management and plantation forestry can adversely affect land conditions and lead to degradation. However, they may also lead to avoidance, reduction and reversal of degradation. Regionally differentiated, socially and ecologically appropriate SLM strategies need to be identified, implemented, monitored and the results communicated widely to ensure climate effective outcomes.

Impacts of new technologies on land degradation and their social and economic ramifications need more research.

Improved quantification of the global extent, severity and rates of land degradation by combining remote sensing with a systematic use of ancillary data is a priority. The current attempts need better scientific underpinning and appropriate funding.

Land degradation is defined using multiple criteria but the definition does not provide thresholds or the magnitude of acceptable change. In practice, human interactions with land will result in a variety of changes; some may contribute positively to one criterion while adversely affecting another. Research is required on the magnitude of impacts and the resulting trade-offs. Given the urgent need to remove carbon from the atmosphere and to reduce climate change impacts, it is important to reach agreement on what level of reduction in one criterion (biological productivity, ecological integrity) may be acceptable for a given increase in another criterion (ecological integrity, biological productivity).

Attribution of land degradation to the underlying drivers is a challenge because it is a complex web of causality rather than a simple cause–effect relationship. Also, diverging views on land degradation in relation to other challenges is hampering such efforts.

A more systematic treatment of the views and experiences of land users would be useful in land degradation studies.

Much research has tried to understand how social and ecological systems are affected by a particular stressor, for example, drought, heat, or waterlogging. But less research has tried to understand how such systems are affected by several simultaneous stressors – which is more realistic in the context of climate change (Mittler 2006 1 ).

More realistic modelling of carbon dynamics, including better appreciation of below-ground biota, would help us to better quantify the role of soils and soil management for soil carbon sequestration.

• Mittler, R., 2006: Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci., 11, 15–19, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2005.11.002. ↩
• Dotterweich, M., 2013: The history of human-induced soil erosion: Geomorphic legacies, early descriptions and research, and the development of soil conservation – A global synopsis. Geomorphology, 201, 1–34, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2013.07.021. ↩
• Butzer, K.W., 2005: Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: Cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion. J. Archaeol. Sci., 32, 1773–1800, doi:10.1016/J.JAS.2005.06.001. ↩
• Dotterweich, M., 2008: The history of soil erosion and fluvial deposits in small catchments of central Europe: Deciphering the long-term interaction between humans and the environment – A review. Geomorphology, 101, 192–208, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2008.05.023. ↩
• Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., 2011: When the world’s population took off: The springboard of the Neolithic Demographic Transition. Science, 333, 560–561, doi:10.1126/science.1208880. ↩
• Fuller, D.Q. et al. 2011: The contribution of rice agriculture and livestock pastoralism to prehistoric methane levels. The Holocene, 21, 743–759, doi:10.1177/0959683611398052. ↩
• Kaplan, J.O. et al. 2011: Holocene carbon emissions as a result of anthropogenic land cover change. The Holocene, 21, 775–791, doi:10.1177/0959683610386983. ↩
• Vavrus, S.J., F. He, J.E. Kutzbach, W.F. Ruddiman, and P.C. Tzedakis, 2018: Glacial inception in marine isotope stage 19: An orbital analog for a natural holocene climate. Sci. Rep., 8, 10213, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28419-5. ↩
• Ellis, E.C. et al. 2013: Used planet: a global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 110, 7978–7985, doi:10.1073/pnas.1217241110. ↩
• Turner, B.L. (Billie L., W.C. Clark, R.W. Kates, J.F. Richards, T. Mathews, Jessica, and W.B. Meyer, eds.,) 1990: The Earth as transformed by human action: global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press with Clark University, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, 713 pp. ↩
• Steffen, W.L. et al. 2005: Global Change and The Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 336 pp. ↩
• Ojima, D.S., K.A. Galvin, and B.L. Turner, 1994: The global impact of land-use change. Bioscience, 44, 300–304, doi:10.2307/1312379. ↩
• Foley, J.A. et al. 2005: Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574, doi:10.1126/science.1111772. ↩
• Foley, J.A. et al. 2011: Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342, doi:10.1038/nature10452. ↩
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 155 pp. ↩
• Blaikie, P.M., and H.C. Brookfield, 1987: Land degradation and society. [P.M. Blaikie and H.C. Brookfield, (eds.)]. Methuen, Milton Park, Abingdon, UK, 222 pp. ↩
• Forsyth, T., 1996: Science, myth and knowledge: Testing himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand. Geoforum, 27, 375–392, doi:10.1016/S0016-7185(96)00020-6. ↩
• Lukas, M.C., 2014: Eroding battlefields: Land degradation in Java reconsidered. Geoforum, 56, 87–100, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2014.06.010. ↩
• Zimmerer, K.S., 1993: Soil erosion and social (dis)courses in Cochabamba, Bolivia: Perceiving the nature of environmental degradation. Econ. Geogr., 69, 312, doi:10.2307/143453. ↩
• Sonneveld, B.G.J.S., and D.L. Dent, 2009: How good is GLASOD? J. Environ. Manage., 90, 274–283, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2007.09.008. ↩
• Anderson, R.G. et al. 2011: Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 174–182, doi:10.1890/090179. ↩
• Behnke, R., and M. Mortimore, 2016: Introduction: The End of Desertification? Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–34. ↩
• Grainger, A., 2009: The role of science in implementing international environmental agreements: The case of desertification. L. Degrad. Dev., 20, 410–430, doi:10.1002/ldr.898. ↩
• Toulmin, C. and K. Brock, 2016: Desertification in the Sahel: Local Practice Meets Global Narrative. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 37–63. ↩
• Fairhead, J., and I. Scoones, 2005: Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: Critical perspectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land use policy, 22, 33–41, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2003.08.004. ↩
• Warren, A., 2002: Land degradation is contextual. L. Degrad. Dev., 13, 449–459, doi:10.1002/ldr.532. ↩
• Turner, B.L., E.F. Lambin, and A. Reenberg, 2007: The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 20666–20671, doi:10.1073/pnas.0704119104. ↩
• Montanarella, L., R. Scholes and A. Brainich, 2018: The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3237392. ↩
• Henry, B., B. Murphy, and A. Cowie, 2018: Sustainable Land Management for Environmental Benefits and Food Security. A synthesis report for the GEF. Washington DC, USA, 127 pp. ↩
• FAO, 2007: Land Evaluation: Towards a Revised Framework. Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 6. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 124 pp. ↩
• UNCCD, 1994: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. United Nations General Assembly, New York City, 54 p. ↩
• Cowie, A.L. et al. 2018: Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy, 79, 25–35. ↩
• Dallimer, M., and L.C. Stringer, 2018: Informing investments in land degradation neutrality efforts: A triage approach to decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy, 89, 198–205, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.004. ↩
• Herrick, J.E. et al. 2019: A strategy for defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments. Ecol. Indic., 97, 225–230, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.06.065. ↩
• Prince, S. et al. 2018: Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem fundtions. The IPBES Assessment Report On Land Degradation And Restoration, [L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, and A. Brainich, (eds.)]. Bonn, Germany, pp. 221–338. ↩
• Orr, B.J. et al. 2017: Scientific Conceptual Framework For Land Degradation Neutrality. A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. 136 pp. ↩
• FAO, 2015: FRA 2015 Terms and Definitions. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, Rome, Italy, 1–81 pp. ↩
• UNFCCC, 2006: Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany, 103 pp. ↩
• Ciais, P. et al. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [J. Stocker, T.F. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 467–570. ↩
• Vaughan, D.G. et al. 2013: Observations: Cryosphere. 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, p. 317. ↩
• Settele, J. et al. 2015: Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 271–360. ↩
• Adger, N.W. et al. 2014: Human Security. In: Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, [C.B. Field and V.R. Barros, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 755–791. ↩
• IPCC, 2006: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – A Primer. [Eggleston H.S., K. Miwa, N. Srivastava, and K. Tanabe (eds.)]. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IGES, Japan, 20 pp. ↩
• IPCC, 2014a: 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. [Blain, D. Boer, R., Eggleston S., Gonzalez, S., Hiraishi, T., Irving, W., Krug, T., Krusche, A., Mpeta, E.J., Penman, J., Pipatti, R., Sturgiss, R., Tanabe, K., Towprayoon, S.], IPCC Geneva, 354 pp. ↩
• Watson, R.T. et al. (eds.) 2000: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 370 pp. ↩
• IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 582 pp. ↩
• Rist, L., A. Felton, L. Samuelsson, C. Sandström, and O. Rosvall, 2013: A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecol. Soc., 18, doi:10.5751/ES-06183-180463. ↩
• Forest Europe, 1993: Resolution H1: General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe. Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 16–17 June 1993, Helsinki. 5 pp. ↩
• Mackey, B. et al. 2015: Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conserv. Lett., 8, 139–147, doi:10.1111/conl.12120. ↩
• Henttonen, H.M., P. Nöjd, and H. Mäkinen, 2017: Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish forests during 1971–2010 – An analysis based on national forest inventory. For. Ecol. Manage., 386, 22–36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044. ↩
• Kauppi, P.E., M. Posch, and P. Pirinen, 2014: Large impacts of climatic warming on growth of boreal forests since 1960. PLoS One, 9, 1–6, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111340. ↩
• Dragoni, D. et al. 2011: Evidence of increased net ecosystem productivity associated with a longer vegetated season in a deciduous forest in south-central Indiana, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 886–897, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02281.x. ↩
• Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017: Increasing net ecosystem biomass production of Canada’s boreal and temperate forests despite decline in dry climates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 31, 134–158, doi:10.1002/2016GB005459. ↩
• Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin, 1990: Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science, 247, 699–702. ↩
• Kurz, W.A., S.J. Beukema, and M.J. Apps, 1998: Carbon budget implications of the transition from natural to managed disturbance regimes in forest landscapes. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 2, 405–421, doi:10.1023/b:miti.0000004486.62808.29. ↩
• Trofymow, J.A., G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz, 2008: Derivation of a spatially explicit 86-year retrospective carbon budget for a landscape undergoing conversion from old-growth to managed forests on Vancouver Island, BC. For. Ecol. Manage., 256, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.056. ↩
• Kurz, W.A. et al. 2013: Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest – A synthesis. Environ. Rev., 21, 260–292, doi:10.1139/er-2013-0041. ↩
• Volkova, L. et al. 2018: Importance of disturbance history on net primary productivity in the world’s most productive forests and implications for the global carbon cycle. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 4293–4303, doi:10.1111/gcb.14309. ↩
• Tang, J., S. Luyssaert, A.D. Richardson, W. Kutsch, and I.A. Janssens, 2014: Steeper declines in forest photosynthesis than respiration explain age-driven decreases in forest growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 8856–8860, doi:10.1073/pnas.1320761111. ↩
• Poorter, L. et al. 2016: Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature, 530, 211–214. ↩
• Romero, C. and F.E. Putz, 2018: Theory-of-change development for the evaluation of forest stewardship council certification of sustained timber yields from natural forests in Indonesia. Forests, 9, doi:10.3390/f9090547. ↩
• Belair, E.P., and M.J. Ducey, 2018: Patterns in forest harvesting in New England and New York: Using FIA data to evaluate silvicultural outcomes. J. For., 116, 273–282, doi:10.1093/jofore/fvx019. ↩
• Nyland, R.D., 1992: Exploitation and greed in eastern hardwood forests. J. For., 90, 33–37, doi:10.1093/jof/90.1.33. ↩
• Barlow, J. et al. 2007: Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 18555–18560, doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104. ↩
• Kauppi, P.E., V. Sandström, and A. Lipponen, 2018: Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLoS One, 13, e0196248, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196248. ↩
• Spence, J.R., 2001: The new boreal forestry: Adjusting timber management to accommodate biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol., 16, 591–593, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02335-7. ↩
• Ehnström, B., 2001: Leaving dead wood for insects in boreal forests – suggestions for the future. Scand. J. For. Res., 16, 91–98, doi:10.1080/028275801300090681. ↩
• Russell, M.B. et al. 2015: Quantifying carbon stores and decomposition in dead wood: A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 350, 107–128, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.033. ↩
• Roberts, M.W., A.W. D’Amato, C.C. Kern, and B.J. Palik, 2016: Long-term impacts of variable retention harvesting on ground-layer plant communities in Pinus resinosa forests. J. Appl. Ecol., 53, 1106–1116, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12656. ↩
• Allen, C.D. et al. 2002: Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecol. Appl., 12, 1418–1433, doi:10.2307/3099981. ↩
• ter Steege, H. et al. 2013: Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora. Science 342, 1243092–1243092, doi:10.1126/science.1243092. ↩
• Rametsteiner, E. and M. Simula, 2003: Forest certification – An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J. Environ. Manage., 67, 87–98, doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3. ↩
• Lindenmayer,  D.B.,  C.R. Margules, and  D.B. Botkin, 2000: Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv. Biol., 14, 941–950, doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x. ↩
• MacDicken, K.G. et al. 2015: Global progress toward sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 47–56, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.02.005. ↩
• Ellis, P.W. et al. 2019: Reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 438, 255–266, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2019.02.004. ↩
• Umunay, P.M., T.G. Gregoire, T. Gopalakrishna, P.W. Ellis, and F.E. Putz, 2019: Selective logging emissions and potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo Basin. For. Ecol. Manage., 437, 360–371, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.01.049. ↩
• Siry, J.P., F.W. Cubbage, and M.R. Ahmed, 2005: Sustainable forest management: Global trends and opportunities. For. Policy Econ., 7, 551–561, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003. ↩
• Nasi, R., F.E. Putz, P. Pacheco, S. Wunder, and S. Anta, 2011: Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+. Forests, 2, 200–217, doi:10.3390/f2010200. ↩
• Warren, R., J. Price, J. VanDerWal, S. Cornelius, and H. Sohl, 2018: The implications of the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change for globally significant biodiversity areas. Clim. Change, 147, 395–409, doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2158-6. ↩
• Reed, M.S., A.J. Dougill, and M.J. Taylor, 2007: Integrating local and scientific knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. L. Degrad. Dev., 18, 249–268, doi:10.1002/ldr.777. ↩
• Andersson, E., S. Brogaard, and L. Olsson, 2011: The political ecology of land degradation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 36, 295–319, doi:10.1146/ annurev-environ-033110-092827. ↩
• Kessler, C.A. and L. Stroosnijder, 2006: Land degradation assessment by farmers in Bolivian mountain valleys. L. Degrad. Dev., 17, 235–248, doi:10.1002/ldr.699. ↩
• Stocking, M.A., N. Murnaghan, and N. Murnaghan, 2001: A Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Routledge, London, UK, 169 p. ↩
• Kristjanson, P. et al. 2017: Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 15, 482–500, doi:10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411. ↩
• Jerneck, A., 2018a: What about gender in climate change? Twelve feminist lessons from development. Sustainability, 10, 627, doi:10.3390/su10030627. ↩
• Elmhirst, R., 2011: Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum, 42, 129–132, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.006. ↩
• Toulmin, C., 2009: Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of local institutions. Land use policy, 26, 10–19, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2008.07.006. ↩
• Peters, P.E., 2004: Inequality and social conflict over land in Africa. J. Agrar. Chang., 4, 269–314, doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2004.00080.x. ↩
• Agarwal, B., 1997: Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev. Change, 28, 1–44, doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00033. ↩
• Jerneck, A., 2018b: Taking gender seriously in climate change adaptation and sustainability science research: views from feminist debates and sub-Saharan small-scale agriculture. Sustain. Sci., 13, 403–416, doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0464-y. ↩
• Doss, C., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold, 2015: Gender inequalities in ownership and control of land in Africa: Myth and reality. Agric. Econ., 46, 403–434, doi:10.1111/agec.12171. ↩
• Kumar, N. and A.R. Quisumbing, 2015: Policy reform toward gender equality in Ethiopia: Little by little the egg begins to walk. World Dev., 67, 406–423, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2014.10.029. ↩
• Lavers, T., 2017: Land registration and gender equality in Ethiopia: How state-society relations influence the enforcement of institutional change. 
J. Agrar. Chang., 17, 188–207, doi:10.1111/joac.12138. ↩
• Djurfeldt, A.A., E. Hillbom, W.O. Mulwafu, P. Mvula, and G. Djurfeldt, 2018: “The family farms together, the decisions, however are made by the man” – Matrilineal land tenure systems, welfare and decision making in rural Malawi. Land use policy, 70, 601–610, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.048. ↩
• Vincent, K.E., P. Tschakert, J. Barnett, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, and A. Woodward, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on Gender and Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 105–107. ↩
• Antwi-Agyei, P., A.J. Dougill, and L.C. Stringer, 2015: Impacts of land tenure arrangements on the adaptive capacity of marginalized groups: The case of Ghana’s Ejura Sekyedumase and Bongo districts. Land use policy, 49, 203–212, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.08.007. ↩
• Gabrielsson, S., S. Brogaard, and A. Jerneck, 2013: Living without buffers – illustrating climate vulnerability in the Lake Victoria basin. Sustain. Sci., 8, 143–157, doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0191-3. ↩
• Liu, T., R. Bruins, and M. Heberling, 2018b: Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis. Sustainability, 10, 432, doi:10.3390/su10020432. ↩
• Lambin, E.F. et al. 2001: The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Chang., 11, 261–269, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3. ↩
• Wilson, G.A. et al. 2017: Social memory and the resilience of communities affected by land degradation. L. Degrad. Dev., 28, 383–400, doi:10.1002/ldr.2669. ↩
• Kosec, K., H. Ghebru, B. Holtemeyer, V. Mueller, and E. Schmidt, 2018: The effect of land access on youth employment and migration decisions: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 100, 931–954, doi:10.1093/ajae/aax087. ↩
• Naamwintome, B.A. and E. Bagson, 2013: Youth in agriculture: Prospects and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana. Net J. Agric. Sci., 1, 60–68. ↩
• Tarfasa, S. et al. 2018: Modeling smallholder farmers’ preferences for soil management measures: A case study from South Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ., 145, 410–419, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.027. ↩
• Soule, M.J., A. Tegene, and K.D. Wiebe, 2000: Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 82, 993–1005, doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00097. ↩
• Benjaminsen, T.A., and C. Lund, 2003: Securing Land Rights in Africa. Frank Cass Publishers, London, UK, 175 pp. ↩
• Itkonen, P., 2016: Land rights as the prerequisite for Sámi culture: Skolt Sámi’s changing relation to nature in Finland. In: Indigenous Rights in Modern Landscapes, Elenius, L., Allard, C. and Sandström, C. (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK, 94–105. ↩
• Owour, B., W. Mauta, and S. Eriksen, 2011: Sustainable adaptation and human security: Interactions between pastoral and agropastoral groups in dryland Kenya. Clim. Dev., 3, 42–58, doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0063. ↩
• Gebara, M.F., 2018: Tenure reforms in indigenous lands: Decentralized forest management or illegalism? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 32, 60–67, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2018.04.008. ↩
• Tengberg, A., S. Fredholm, I. Eliasson, I. Knez, K.Saltzman, and O. Wetterberg, 2012: Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst. Serv., 2, 14–26. ↩
• Hernández-Morcillo, M., T. Plieninger, and C. Bieling, 2013: An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic., 29, 434–444, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2013.01.013. ↩
• Olsson, L. et al. 2014a: Cross-Chapter Box on Heat Stress and Heat Waves. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 109–111. ↩
• Johnson, D.L. and L.A. Lewis, 2007: Land degradation: Creation and destruction. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 303 pp. ↩
• Crowther, T.W. et al. 2016: Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature, 540, 104–108, doi:10.1038/nature20150. ↩
• Viscarra Rossel, R.A., R. Webster, E.N. Bui, and J.A. Baldock, 2014: Baseline map of organic carbon in Australian soil to support national carbon accounting and monitoring under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2953–2970, doi:10.1111/gcb.12569. ↩
• Hu, S., Z. Niu, Y. Chen, L. Li, and H. Zhang, 2017: Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Sci. Total Environ., 586, 319–327, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.001. ↩
• Dixon, M.J.R. et al. 2016: Tracking global change in ecosystem area: The Wetland Extent Trends index. Biol. Conserv., 193, 27–35, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.023. ↩
• Reis, V. et al. 2017: A global assessment of inland wetland conservation status. Bioscience, 67, 523–533, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix045. ↩
• Darrah, S.E. et al. 2019: Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic., 99, 294–298, doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.12.032. ↩
• Davidson, N.C., 2014: How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res., 65, 934, doi:10.1071/MF14173. ↩
• Barnett, J. et al. 2015: From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc., 20, art5, doi:10.5751/ES-07698-200305. ↩
• Colloff, M.J. et al. 2016: Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate change. Ecol. Appl., 26, 1003–1017, doi:10.1890/15-0848. ↩
• Finlayson, C.M. et al. 2017: Policy considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate. Mar. Freshw. Res., 68, 1803, doi:10.1071/MF16244. ↩
• Poesen, J.W.A. and J.M. Hooke, 1997: Erosion, flooding and channel management in Mediterranean environments of southern Europe. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 21, 157–199, doi:10.1177/030913339702100201. ↩
• Ravi, S., D.D. Breshears, T.E. Huxman, and P. D’Odorico, 2010: Land degradation in drylands: Interactions among hydrologic–aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics. Geomorphology, 116, 236–245, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.11.023. ↩
• Yu, H. et al. 2015: The fertilizing role of African dust in the Amazon rainforest: A first multiyear assessment based on data from Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1984–1991, doi:10.1002/2015GL063040. ↩
• Keogh, M.E., and T.E. Törnqvist, 2019: Measuring rates of present-day relative sea-level rise in low-elevation coastal zones: A critical evaluation. Ocean Sci., 15, 61–73, doi:10.5194/os-15-61-2019. ↩
• Allison, M. et al. 2016: Global risks and research priorities for coastal subsidence. Eos Earth and Space Science News, (Washington. DC)., 97, doi:org/10.1029/2016EO055013. ↩
• Mentaschi, L., M.I. Vousdoukas, J.-F. Pekel, E. Voukouvalas, and L. Feyen, 2018: Global long-term observations of coastal erosion and accretion. Sci. Rep., 8, 12876, doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30904-w. ↩
• Schuerch, M. et al. 2018: Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature, 561, 231–234, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0476-5. ↩
• Hamza, M.A., and W.K. Anderson, 2005: Soil compaction in cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res., 82, 121–145, doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009. ↩
• Guo, J.H. et al. 2010: Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 327, 1008–1010, doi:10.1126/science.1182570. ↩
• Bond-Lamberty, B., V.L. Bailey, M. Chen, C.M. Gough, and R. Vargas, 2018: Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature, 560, 80–83, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x. ↩
• van Gestel, N. et al. 2018: Predicting soil carbon loss with warming. Nature, 554, E4–E5, doi:10.1038/nature25745. ↩
• Achat, D.L., M. Fortin, G. Landmann, B. Ringeval, and L. Augusto, 2015: Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Sci. Rep., 5, 15991, doi:10.1038/srep15991. ↩
• Minasny, B. et al. 2017: Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292, 59–86, doi:10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2017.01.002. ↩
• Schofield, R.V. and M.J. Kirkby, 2003: Application of salinization indicators and initial development of potential global soil salinization scenario under climatic change. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17, doi:10.1029/2002GB001935. ↩
• Rengasamy, P., 2006: World salinization with emphasis on Australia. J. Exp. Bot., 57, 1017–1023, doi:10.1093/jxb/erj108. ↩
• Colombani, N., A. Osti, G. Volta, and M. Mastrocicco, 2016: Impact of climate change on salinization of coastal water resources. Water Resour. Manag., 30, 2483–2496, doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1292-z. ↩
• Bradshaw, C.J.A., N.S. Sodhi, K.S.-H. Peh, and B.W. Brook, 2007: Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob. Chang. Biol., 13, 2379–2395, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x. ↩
• Poff, N.L., 2002: Ecological response to and management of increased flooding caused by climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 360, 1497–1510, doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1012. ↩
• Kirwan, M.L., A.B. Murray, J.P. Donnelly, and D.R. Corbett, 2011: Rapid wetland expansion during European settlement and its implication for marsh survival under modern sediment delivery rates. Geology, 39, 507–510, doi:10.1130/G31789.1. ↩
• Anderson, R.L., D.R. Foster, and G. Motzkin, 2003: Integrating lateral expansion into models of peatland development in temperate New England. J. Ecol., 91, 68–76, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00740.x. ↩
• Micklin, P., 2010: The past, present, and future Aral Sea. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag., 15, 193–213, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1770.2010.00437.x. ↩
• Herbert, E.R. et al. 2015: A global perspective on wetland salinization: Ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. Ecosphere, 6, art206, doi:10.1890/ES14-00534.1. ↩
• Leifeld, J., and L. Menichetti, 2018: The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat. Commun., 9, 1071, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6. ↩
• Hergoualc’h, K., V.H. Gutiérrez-vélez, M. Menton, and L. V Verchot, 2017a: Forest ecology and management characterizing degradation of palm swamp peatlands from space and on the ground: An exploratory study in the Peruvian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage., 393, 63–73, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.016. ↩
• Lilleskov, E. et al. 2019: Is Indonesian peatland loss a cautionary tale for Peru? A two-country comparison of the magnitude and causes of tropical peatland degradation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 24, 591–623, doi:10.1007/s11027-018-9790-3. ↩
• Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, and A.T. Harris, 2004: Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 29, 261–299, doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142. ↩
• Van Auken, O.W., 2009: Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North American grasslands. J. Environ. Manage., 90, 2931–2942, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023. ↩
• Illius, A.W., O’Connor, T.G., 1999. On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to arid and semiarid grazing systems. Ecological Applications 9(3), 798–813, doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0798:OTRONC]2.0.CO;2. ↩
• Sasaki, T., T. Okayasu, U. Jamsran, and K. Takeuchi, 2007: Threshold changes in vegetation along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands. J. Ecol., 96(1), 145–154, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01315.x. ↩
• Piñeiro, G., J.M. Paruelo, M. Oesterheld, and E.G. Jobbágy, 2010: Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 63, 109–119, doi:10.2111/08-255.1. ↩
• Foley, J. et al. 2007, Amazonia Revealed: Forest Degradation And Loss Of Ecosystem Goods And Services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 25–32, doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[25:ARFDAL]2.0.CO;2 ↩
• Brooks, M.L. et al. 2004: Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience, 54, 677–688, doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0677:eoiapo]2.0.co;2. ↩
• Peltzer, D.A., R.B. Allen, G.M. Lovett, D. Whitehead, and D.A. Wardle, 2010: Effects of biological invasions on forest carbon sequestration. Glob. Chang. Biol., 16, 732–746, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02038.x. ↩
• Walsh, J.R., S.R. Carpenter, and M.J. Vander Zanden, 2016a: Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 4081–4085, doi:10.1073/pnas.1600366113. ↩
• Hussain, S., T. Siddique, M. Saleem, M. Arshad, and A. Khalid, 2009: Impact of pesticides on soil microbial diversity, enzymes, and biochemical reactions. Adv. Agron., 102, 159–200, doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(09)01005-0. ↩
• Crowther, T.W. et al. 2015: Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 7033–7038, doi:10.1073/pnas.1502956112. ↩
• Ratcliffe, S. et al. 2017: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. Ecol. Lett., 20, 1414–1426, doi:10.1111/ele.12849. ↩
• Asmelash, F., T. Bekele, and E. Birhane, 2016: The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the restoration of degraded lands. Front. Microbiol., 7, 1095, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.01095. ↩
• Vasconcellos, R.L.F., J.A. Bonfim, D. Baretta, and E.J.B.N. Cardoso, 2016: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and glomalin-related soil protein as potential indicators of soil quality in a recuperation gradient of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 325–334, doi:10.1002/ldr.2228. ↩
• Field, J.P. et al. 2010: The ecology of dust. Front. Ecol. Environ., 8, 423–430, doi:10.1890/090050. ↩
• Reed, S.C. et al. 2012: Changes to dryland rainfall result in rapid moss mortality and altered soil fertility. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 752–755, doi:10.1038/nclimate1596. ↩
• Johnson, J.M. et al. 2015: Recent shifts in coastline change and shoreline stabilization linked to storm climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 40, 569–585, doi:10.1002/esp.3650. ↩
• Alongi, D.M., 2015: The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 30–39, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x. ↩
• Harley, M.D. et al. 2017: Extreme coastal erosion enhanced by anomalous extratropical storm wave direction. Sci. Rep., 7, 6033, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05792-1. ↩
• Nicholls, R.J., C. Woodroffe, and V. Burkett, 2016: Chapter 20 – Coastline degradation as an indicator of global change. Clim. Chang., 309–324, doi:10.1016/B978–0-444–63524-2.00020-8. ↩
• Liljedahl, A.K. et al. 2016: Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology. Nat. Geosci., 9, 312–318, doi:10.1038/ngeo2674. ↩
• Peng, X. et al. 2016: Response of changes in seasonal soil freeze/thaw state to climate change from 1950 to 2010 across China. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 121, 1984–2000, doi:10.1002/2016JF003876. ↩
• Batir, J.F., M.J. Hornbach, and D.D. Blackwell, 2017: Ten years of measurements and modeling of soil temperature changes and their effects on permafrost in Northwestern Alaska. Glob. Planet. Change, 148, 55–71, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2016.11.009. ↩
• Jolly, W.M. et al. 2015: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun., 6, 7537, doi:10.1038/ncomms8537. ↩
• Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, 11770–11775, doi:10.1073/pnas.1607171113. ↩
• Taufik, M. et al. 2017: Amplification of wildfire area burnt by hydrological drought in the humid tropics. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 428–431, doi:10.1038/nclimate3280. ↩
• Knorr, W., L. Jiang, and A. Arneth, 2016: Climate, CO2 and human population impacts on global wildfire emissions. Biogeosciences, 13, 267–282, doi:10.5194/bg-13-267-2016. ↩
• Hellmann, J.J., J.E. Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, and J.S. Dukes, 2008: Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv. Biol., 22, 534–543, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x. ↩
• Kiage, L.M., 2013: Perspectives on the assumed causes of land degradation in the rangelands of Sub-Saharan Africa. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 37, 664–684, doi:10.1177/0309133313492543. ↩
• Bisaro, A., M. Kirk, P. Zdruli, and W. Zimmermann, 2014: Global drivers setting desertification research priorities: Insights from a stakeholder consultation forum. L. Degrad. Dev., 25, 5–16, doi:10.1002/ldr.2220. ↩
• Coppus, R., and A.C. Imeson, 2002: Extreme events controlling erosion and sediment transport in a semi-arid sub-andean valley. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 27, 1365–1375, doi:10.1002/esp.435. ↩
• Morgan, R.P.C., and Royston P.C., 2005b: Soil Erosion And Conservation. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Harlow, Essex, UK, 198 pp. ↩
• Delgado, A., and J.A. Gómez, 2016: The Soil. Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties. Principles of Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 15–26. ↩
• Montgomery, D.R., 2007a: Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(33), 13268–13272, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104. ↩
• Showers, K.B., 2005: Imperial Gullies: Soil Erosion and Conservation in Lesotho. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA, 346 pp. ↩
• Dupouey, J.L., E. Dambrine, J.D. Laffite, and C. Moares, 2002: Irreversible impact of past land use on forest soils and biodiversity. Ecology, 83, 2978–2984, doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2978:IIOPLU]2.0.CO;2. ↩
• Lin, K.-C. et al. 2017: Impacts of increasing typhoons on the structure and function of a subtropical forest: Reflections of a changing climate. Sci. Rep., 7, 4911, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05288-y. ↩
• Terrer, C., S. Vicca, B.A. Hungate, R.P. Phillips, and I.C. Prentice, 2016: Mycorrhizal association as a primary control of the CO2 fertilization effect. Science, 353, 72–74, doi:10.1126/science.aaf4610. ↩
• Gerten, D., R. Betts, and P. Döll, 2014: Cross-Chapter Box on the Active Role of Vegetation in Altering Water Flows Under Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, pp. 157–161. ↩
• Girardin, M.P. et al. 2016: No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 113, E8406–E8414, doi:10.1073/pnas.1610156113. ↩
• Ramankutty, N., J.A. Foley, J. Norman, and K. McSweeney, 2002: The global distribution of cultivable lands: Current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 11, 377–392, doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00294.x. ↩
• Zabel, F., B. Putzenlechner, and W. Mauser, 2014: Global agricultural land resources – a high resolution suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change conditions. PLoS One, 9, e107522, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107522. ↩
• Allen, C.D. et al. 2010: A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 660–684, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.09.001. ↩
• Mirzabaev, A., E. Nkonya, J. Goedecke, T. Johnson, and W. Anderson, 2016: Global Drivers of Land Degradation and Improvement. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 167–195. ↩
• Bai, Y. et al. 2008a: Primary production and rain use efficiency across a precipitation gradient on the mongolia plateau. Ecology, 89, 2140–2153, doi:10.1890/07-0992.1. ↩
• Brandt, M. et al. 2017: Human population growth offsets climate-driven increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 0081, doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0081. ↩
• Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109, 7156–7161, doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109. ↩
• Murphy, J.M. et al. 2004: Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature, 430, 768–772, doi:10.1038/nature02771. ↩
• Fischer, E.M., and R. Knutti, 2015: Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 5, 560–564, doi:10.1038/nclimate2617. ↩
• IPCC, 2013a: Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections. 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, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1313–1390 pp. ↩
• Giorgi, F., and P. Lionello, 2008: Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob. Planet. Change, 63, 90–104, doi:10.1016/J.GLOPLACHA.2007.09.005. ↩
• Pendergrass, A.G., 2018: What precipitation is extreme? Science, 360, 1072–1073, doi:10.1126/science.aat1871. ↩
• Guerreiro, S.B. et al. 2018: Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 803–807, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0245-3. ↩
• Trenberth, K.E., 1999: Conceptual Framework for Changes of Extremes of the Hydrological Cycle With Climate Change. Weather and Climate Extremes, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 327–339. ↩
• Pendergrass, A.G., R. Knutti, F. Lehner, C. Deser, and B.M. Sanderson, 2017: Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep., 7, 17966, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17966-y. ↩
• Pendergrass, A.G. and R. Knutti, 2018: The uneven nature of daily precipitation and its change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11,980–11,988, doi:10.1029/2018GL080298. ↩
• Blenkinsop, S. et al. 2018: The INTENSE project: using observations and models to understand the past, present and future of sub-daily rainfall extremes. Adv. Sci. Res., 15, 117–126, doi:10.5194/asr-15-117-2018. ↩
• Burt, T., J. Boardman, I. Foster, and N. Howden, 2016a: More rain, less soil: long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 41, 563–566, doi:10.1002/esp.3868. ↩
• Liu, S.C., C. Fu, C.-J. Shiu, J.-P. Chen, and F. Wu, 2009: Temperature dependence of global precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17702, doi:10.1029/2009GL040218. ↩
• Bindoff, N.L., P.A. Stott, K.M. AchutaRao, M.R. Allen, N. Gillett, D. Gutzler, K. Hansingo, G. Hegerl, Y. Hu, S. Jain, I.I. Mokhov, J. Overland, J. Perlwitz, R. Sebbari and X. Zhang, 2013: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional. 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, [T.F. Stocker et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige, UK and New York, USA, pp. 867–940. ↩
• Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2018: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press. ↩
• IPCC, 2013b: Summary for Policy Makers. 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, UK and New York, USA, p. 1535. ↩
• Nearing, M.A. et al. 2005: Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. CATENA, 61, 131–154, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.03.007. ↩
• Shao, Y., 2008: Physics and Modelling Of Wind Erosion. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 452 pp. ↩
• Meisner, A., S. Jacquiod, B.L. Snoek, F.C. ten Hooven, and W.H. van der Putten, 2018: Drought legacy effects on the composition of soil fungal and prokaryote communities. Front. Microbiol., 9, 294, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.00294. ↩
• Shuab, R., R. Lone, J. Ahmad, and Z.A. Reshi, 2017: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: A Potential Tool for Restoration of Degraded Land. Mycorrhiza – Nutrient Uptake, Biocontrol, Ecorestoration, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 415–434. ↩
• Brahney, J., F. Weber, V. Foord, J. Janmaat, and P.J. Curtis, 2017: Evidence for a climate-driven hydrologic regime shift in the Canadian Columbia Basin. Can. Water Resour. J. / Rev. Can. des ressources hydriques, 42, 179–192, doi:10.1080/07011784.2016.1268933. ↩
• Lutz, A.F., W.W. Immerzeel, A.B. Shrestha, and M.F.P. Bierkens, 2014: Consistent increase in high Asia’s runoff due to increasing glacier melt and precipitation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 587–592, doi:10.1038/nclimate2237. ↩
• Barnhart, T.B. et al. 2016: Snowmelt rate dictates streamflow. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 8006–8016, doi:10.1002/2016GL069690. ↩
• Trenberth, K.E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, doi:10.2307/24872346. ↩
• Nearing, M.A., F.F. Pruski, and M.R. O’Neal, 2004: Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv., 59, 43–50. ↩
• Almagro, A., P.T.S. Oliveira, M.A. Nearing, and S. Hagemann, 2017: Projected climate change impacts in rainfall erosivity over Brazil. Sci. Rep., 7, 8130, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08298-y. ↩
• Mondal, A., D. Khare, and S. Kundu, 2016: Change in rainfall erosivity in the past and future due to climate change in the central part of India. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., 4, 186–194, doi:10.1016/J.ISWCR.2016.08.004. ↩
• Ma, S. et al. 2015: Observed changes in the distributions of daily precipitation frequency and amount over China from 1960 to 2013. J. Clim., 28, 6960–6978, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0011.1. ↩
• Ma, S. et al. 2017: Detectable anthropogenic shift toward heavy precipitation over eastern China. J. Clim., 30, 1381–1396, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0311.1. ↩
• Cheng, L., and A. AghaKouchak, 2015: Nonstationary precipitation intensity-duration-frequency curves for infrastructure design in a changing climate. Sci. Rep., 4, 7093, doi:10.1038/srep07093. ↩
• O’Gorman, P.A., 2015: Precipitation extremes under climate change. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 49–59, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0009-3. ↩
• García-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2015: A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology, 239, 160–173, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.03.008. ↩
• Fischer, F. et al. 2016: Spatio-temporal variability of erosivity estimated from highly resolved and adjusted radar rain data (RADOLAN). Agric. For. Meteorol., 223, 72–80, doi:10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2016.03.024. ↩
• Zhu, Q. et al. 2019: Estimation of event-based rainfall erosivity from radar after wildfire. L. Degrad. Dev., 30, 33–48, doi:10.1002/ldr.3146. ↩
• Gonzalez-Hidalgo, J.C., M. de Luis, and R.J. Batalla, 2009: Effects of the largest daily events on total soil erosion by rainwater. An analysis of the USLE database. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 34, 2070–2077, doi:10.1002/ esp.1892. ↩
• Capolongo, D., N. Diodato, C.M. Mannaerts, M. Piccarreta, and R.O. Strobl, 2008: Analyzing temporal changes in climate erosivity using a simplified rainfall erosivity model in Basilicata (southern Italy). J. Hydrol., 356, 119–130, doi:10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2008.04.002. ↩
• Tadesse, G., 2001: Land degradation: A challenge to Ethiopia. Environ. Manage., 27, 815–824, doi:10.1007/s002670010190. ↩
• Kidane, D. and B. Alemu, 2015: The effect of upstream land use practices on soil erosion and sedimentation in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag., 4, 55–68. ↩
• Reinwarth, B., R. Petersen, and J. Baade, 2019: Inferring mean rates of sediment yield and catchment erosion from reservoir siltation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa: An uncertainty assessment. Geomorphology, 324, 1–13, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2018.09.007. ↩
• Quiñonero-Rubio, J.M., E. Nadeu, C. Boix-Fayos, and J. de Vente, 2016: Evaluation of the effectiveness of forest restoration and check-dams to reduce catchment sediment yield. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 1018–1031, doi:10.1002/ldr.2331. ↩
• Adeogun, A.G., B.A. Ibitoye, A.W. Salami, and G.T. Ihagh, 2018: Sustainable management of erosion prone areas of upper watershed of Kainji hydropower dam, Nigeria. J. King Saud Univ. – Eng. Sci., doi:10.1016/J.JKSUES.2018.05.001. ↩
• Ben Slimane, A. et al. 2016: Relative contribution of rill/interrill and gully/channel erosion to small reservoir siltation in mediterranean environments. L. Degrad. Dev., 27, 785–797, doi:10.1002/ldr.2387. ↩
• Kendon, E.J. et al. 2014: Heavier summer downpours with climate change revealed by weather forecast resolution model. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 570–576, doi:10.1038/nclimate2258. ↩
• Lado, M., M. Ben-Hur, and I. Shainberg, 2004: Soil wetting and texture effects on aggregate stability, seal formation, and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68, 1992, doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.1992. ↩
• Li, Z., and H. Fang, 2016: Impacts of climate change on water erosion: A review. Earth-Science Rev., 163, 94–117, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2016.10.004. ↩
• Wagner, L.E., 2013: A history of Wind Erosion Prediction Models in the United States Department of Agriculture: The Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS). Aeolian Res., 10, 9–24, doi:10.1016/J.AEOLIA.2012.10.001. ↩
• McVicar, T.R. and M.L. Roderick, 2010: Winds of change. Nat. Geosci., 3, 747–748, doi:10.1038/ngeo1002. ↩
• Vautard, R., J. Cattiaux, P. Yiou, J.-N. Thépaut, and P. Ciais, 2010: Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness. Nat. Geosci., 3, 756–761, doi:10.1038/ngeo979. ↩
• Bakun, A., 1990: Global climate change and intensification of coastal ocean upwelling. Science, 247, 198–201, doi:10.1126/science.247.4939.198. ↩
• Bakun, A. et al. 2015: Anticipated effects of climate change on coastal upwelling ecosystems. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports, 1, 85–93, doi:10.1007/s40641-015-0008-4. ↩
• Sydeman, W.J. et al. 2014: Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems. Science, 345, 77–80, doi:10.1126/science.1251635. ↩
• England, M.H. et al. 2014: Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 222–227, doi:10.1038/nclimate2106. ↩
• Pryor, S.C., and R.J. Barthelmie, 2010: Climate change impacts on wind energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 14, 430–437, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2009.07.028. ↩
• Bärring, L., P. Jönsson, J.O. Mattsson, and R. Åhman, 2003: Wind erosion on arable land in Scania, Sweden and the relation to the wind climate: A review. CATENA, 52, 173–190, doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00013-4. ↩
• IPCC, 2018a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In press. ↩
• Yang, M., F.E. Nelson, N.I. Shiklomanov, D. Guo, and G. Wan, 2010: Permafrost degradation and its environmental effects on the Tibetan Plateau: A review of recent research. Earth-Science Rev., 103, 31–44, doi:10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2010.07.002. ↩
• Jorgenson, M.T. and T.E. Osterkamp, 2005: Response of boreal ecosystems to varying modes of permafrost degradation. Can. J. For. Res., 35, 2100–2111, doi:10.1139/x05-153. ↩
• Solly, E.F. et al. 2017: Experimental soil warming shifts the fungal community composition at the alpine treeline. New Phytol., 215, 766–778, doi:10.1111/nph.14603. ↩
• Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011a: Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 3392–3404, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x. ↩
• Conant, R.T., S.M. Ogle, E.A. Paul, and K. Paustian, 2011b: Measuring and monitoring soil organic carbon stocks in agricultural lands for climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 169–173, doi:10.1890/090153. ↩
• Wu, Z., P. Dijkstra, G.W. Koch, J. Peñuelas, and B.A. Hungate, 2011: Responses of terrestrial ecosystems to temperature and precipitation change: A meta-analysis of experimental manipulation. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 927–942, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02302.x. ↩
• Friend, A.D. et al. 2014: Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 111, 3280–3285, doi:10.1073/pnas.1222477110. ↩
• Holtum, J.A.M., and K. Winter, 2010: Elevated CO2 and forest vegetation: More a water issue than a carbon issue? Funct. Plant Biol., 37, 694, doi:10.1071/FP10001. ↩
• Yang, Y., R.J. Donohue, T.R. McVicar, M.L. Roderick, and H.E. Beck, 2016: Long-term CO2 fertilization increases vegetation productivity and has little effect on hydrological partitioning in tropical rainforests. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 121, 2125–2140, doi:10.1002/2016JG003475. ↩
• Rosenzweig, C., A. Iglesias, X.B. Yang, P.R. Epstein, and E. Chivian, 2001: Climate change and extreme weather events; implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Glob. Chang. Hum. Heal., 2, 90–104, doi:10.1023/A:1015086831467. ↩
• Porter, J.H., M.L. Parry, and T.R. Carter, 1991: The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agric. For. Meteorol., 57, 221–240, doi:10.1016/0168-1923(91)90088-8. ↩
• Thomson, L.J., S. Macfadyen, and A.A. Hoffmann, 2010: Predicting the effects of climate change on natural enemies of agricultural pests. Biol. Control, 52, 296–306, doi:10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2009.01.022. ↩
• Dhanush, D. et al. 2015: Impact of climate change on African agriculture: focus on pests and diseases. CCAFS Info Note, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4 pp. ↩
• Lamichhane, J.R. et al. 2015: Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 443–459, doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0275-9. ↩
• IPCC, 2014b: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., pp. 1–34. ↩
• Brisson, N. et al. 2010: Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. F. Crop. Res., 119, 201–212, doi:10.1016/J.FCR.2010.07.012. ↩
• Lin, M., and P. Huybers, 2012: Reckoning wheat yield trends. Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 024016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024016. ↩
• Grassini, P., K.M. Eskridge, and K.G. Cassman, 2013: Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends. Nat. Commun., 4, 2918, doi:10.1038/ncomms3918. ↩
• Kerns, B.K., J.B. Kim, J.D. Kline, and M.A. Day, 2016: US exposure to multiple landscape stressors and climate change. Reg. Environ. Chang., 16, 2129–2140, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-0934-2. ↩
• Mullan, D., D. Favis-Mortlock, and R. Fealy, 2012: Addressing key limitations associated with modelling soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol., 156, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.004. ↩
• Mullan, D., 2013: Soil erosion under the impacts of future climate change: Assessing the statistical significance of future changes and the potential on-site and off-site problems. CATENA, 109, 234–246, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2013.03.007. ↩
• Zhang, X.C. and M.A. Nearing, 2005: Impact of climate change on soil erosion, runoff, and wheat productivity in central Oklahoma. CATENA, 61, 185–195, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2005.03.009. ↩
• Parajuli, P.B., P. Jayakody, G.F. Sassenrath, and Y. Ouyang, 2016: Assessing the impacts of climate change and tillage practices on stream flow, crop and sediment yields from the Mississippi River Basin. Agric. Water Manag., 168, 112–124, doi:10.1016/J.AGWAT.2016.02.005. ↩

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 02 October 2023

Land degradation and migration

• Kathleen Hermans   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8475-9019 1 ,
• Daniel Müller   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8988-0718 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• David O’Byrne 4 ,
• Lennart Olsson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8353-1074 4 &
• Lindsay C. Stringer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0017-1654 5  

Nature Sustainability volume  6 ,  pages 1503–1505 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1015 Accesses

2 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Social sciences

Land degradation threatens livelihoods with the potential to displace vulnerable groups, yet its impacts on migration are poorly understood as environmental migration research mainly focuses on the impacts of climate change on migration. We argue that addressing this gap is vital as land degradation poses risks for sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Olsson, L. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 4 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

Montanarella, L. et al. (eds) The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2018).

Mirzabaev, A. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 3 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

Migration and the Environment Discussion Note MC/INF/288 (IOM, 2007).

Piguet, E. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 13 , e746 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Cattaneo, C. et al. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13 , 189–206 (2019).

Cundill, G. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 69 , 102315 (2021).

Black, R. & Collyer, M. Forced Migr. Rev. 45 , 52–56 (2014).

Google Scholar  

Hermans, K. & McLeman, R. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 50 , 236–244 (2021).

McLeman, R. Migration and Land Degradation: Recent Experience and Future Trends Working Paper 1st edn (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017).

Groth, J. et al. Ecosyst. People 17 , 128–147 (2021).

Call, M. & Gray, C. Popul. Environ. 41 , 507–528 (2020).

Sanfo, S. et al. Weather Clim. Soc. 9 , 823–837 (2017).

López-Carr, D. et al. Sustainability 15 , 9400 (2023).

Neumann, K. et al. Appl. Geogr. 56 , 116–126 (2015).

López-Carr, D. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 , 045603 (2012).

Zickgraf, C. Reg. Environ. Change 21 , 126 (2021).

de Haas, H. Comp. Migr. Stud. 9 , 8 (2021).

Xie, Z. et al. Remote Sens. Environ. 232 , 111317 (2019).

Kelly, C. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 , 085003 (2022).

Xie, H. et al. Land 9 , 28 (2020).

Olsson, L. et al. Earths Future 10 , e2021EF002258 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

D.O’B. and L.O. acknowledge support from UNEP/GEF Project 9825 ‘Large Scale Assessment of Land Degradation to Guide Future Investments in Sustainable Land Management in the Great Green Wall Countries’, and European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme. Project: ‘Linking Climate Change, Habitability and Social Tipping Points: Scenarios for Climate Migration’ (HABITABLE), grant agreement number 869395. This article contributes to the objectives of the Global Land Programme ( https://glp.earth ).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Halle (Saale), Germany

Kathleen Hermans & Daniel Müller

Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Daniel Müller

Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund, Sweden

David O’Byrne & Lennart Olsson

University of York, York, UK

Lindsay C. Stringer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

K.H., D.M., L.O., D.O’B. and L.C.S. contributed to the conceptualization. K.H. led the writing and revisions. All authors contributed to the writing and revisions and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen Hermans .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Sustainability thanks Diana Hummel and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hermans, K., Müller, D., O’Byrne, D. et al. Land degradation and migration. Nat Sustain 6 , 1503–1505 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01231-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01231-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Rural migration under climate and land systems change.

• Jonathan Salerno
• Andrea E. Gaughan
• Lori Hunter

Nature Sustainability (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Rural land degradation assessment through remote sensing: current technologies, models, and applications.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 3.1. overall status and trends, 3.2. technologies, 3.3. current domains and indexes, 3.3.1. desertification, land, and soil degradation indexes, 3.3.2. environmentally sensitive area index and sdg 15.3.1 indicator, 3.4. models and methods, 3.4.1. risk models, 3.4.2. monitoring models, npp-based models, land use land cover change model, usle and rusle model, vegetation-based models, multiple-indexes models, 3.4.3. driving factors detection models, 3.4.4. prediction models, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• AbdelRahman, M.A.E. An Overview of Land Degradation, Desertification and Sustainable Land Management Using GIS and Remote Sensing Applications. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 2023 , 34 , 767–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UNCCD. Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa ; UN: Bonn, Germany, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivera-Marin, D.; Dash, J.; Ogutu, B. The Use of Remote Sensing for Desertification Studies: A Review. J. Arid. Environ. 2022 , 206 , 104829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krasilnikov, P.; Makarov, O.; Alyabina, I.; Nachtergaele, F. Assessing Soil Degradation in Northern Eurasia. Geoderma Reg. 2016 , 7 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montanarella, L.; Badraoui, M.; Chude, V.; Costa, I.d.S.B.; Mamo, T.; Yemefack, M.; Aulang, M.S.; Yagi, K.; Hong, S.Y.; Vijarnsorn, P.; et al. Status of the World’s Soil Resources: Main Report ; FAO: Rome, Italy; ITPS: Rome, Italy, 2015; ISBN 978-92-5-109004-6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R.; et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-59726-040-4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sengani, D.; Ramoelo, A.; Archer, E. A Review of Fusion Framework Using Optical Sensors and Synthetic Aperture Radar Imagery to Detect and Map Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management in the Semi-Arid Regions. Geocarto Int. 2023 , 38 , 2278325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hermans, K.; McLeman, R. Climate Change, Drought, Land Degradation and Migration: Exploring the Linkages. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021 , 50 , 236–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prăvălie, R.; Borrelli, P.; Panagos, P.; Ballabio, C.; Lugato, E.; Chappell, A.; Miguez-Macho, G.; Maggi, F.; Peng, J.; Niculiță, M.; et al. A Unifying Modelling of Multiple Land Degradation Pathways in Europe. Nat. Commun. 2024 , 15 , 3862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrari, G.; Ai, P.; Alengebawy, A.; Marinello, F.; Pezzuolo, A. An assessment of nitrogen loading and biogas production from Italian livestock: A multilevel and spatial analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 317 , 128388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• SDG Indicator Metadata. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/Sdgs/Metadata/Files/Metadata-15-03-01.Pdf (accessed on 18 June 2024).
• Mbow, C.; Brandt, M.; Ouedraogo, I.; De Leeuw, J.; Marshall, M. What Four Decades of Earth Observation Tell Us about Land Degradation in the Sahel? Remote Sens. 2015 , 7 , 4048–4067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dubovyk, O. The Role of Remote Sensing in Land Degradation Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2017 , 50 , 601–613. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Lv, T. A Bibliometric Analysis on Land Degradation: Current Status, Development, and Future Directions. Land 2020 , 9 , 28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costa, D.P.; Herrmann, S.M.; Vasconcelos, R.N.; Duverger, S.G.; Franca Rocha, W.J.S.; Cambuí, E.C.B.; Lobão, J.S.B.; Santos, E.M.R.; Ferreira-Ferreira, J.; Oliveira, M.; et al. Bibliometric Analysis of Land Degradation Studies in Drylands Using Remote Sensing Data: A 40-Year Review. Land 2023 , 12 , 1721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erdanaev, E.; Kappas, M.W.; Pulatov, A.; Klinge, M. Short Review of Climate and Land Use Change Impact on Land Degradation in Tashkent Province. Int. J. Geoinform. 2015 , 11 , 39–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-bukhari, A.; Hallett, S.; Brewer, T. A Review of Potential Methods for Monitoring Rangeland Degradation in Libya. Pastoralism 2018 , 8 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shang, J. Review of Remote Sensing Applications in Grassland Monitoring. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 2903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, Y. Review of Desert Mobility Assessment and Desertification Monitoring Based on Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 4412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, S.; Wang, T.; Kang, W.; David, M. Several Challenges in Monitoring and Assessing Desertification. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015 , 73 , 7561–7570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albalawi, E.K.; Kumar, L. Using Remote Sensing Technology to Detect, Model and Map Desertification: A Review. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013 , 11 , 791–797. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prince, S.D. Challenges for Remote Sensing of the Sustainable Development Goal SDG 15.3.1 Productivity Indicator. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019 , 234 , 111428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Zhen, J.; Hu, W.; Chen, S.; Lizaga, I.; Zeraatpisheh, M.; Yang, X. Remote Sensing of Soil Degradation: Progress and Perspective. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2023 , 11 , 429–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chabrillat, S.; Ben-Dor, E.; Cierniewski, J.; Gomez, C.; Schmid, T.; Van Wesemael, B. Imaging Spectroscopy for Soil Mapping and Monitoring. Surv. Geophys. 2019 , 40 , 361–399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sepuru, T.K.; Dube, T. An Appraisal on the Progress of Remote Sensing Applications in Soil Erosion Mapping and Monitoring. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2018 , 9 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simula, M.; Mansur, E. Forest Degradation: A Global Challenge Needing Local Response. Unasylva 2011 , 62 , 3–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Penman, J. Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types ; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC: Bracknell, UK, 2003; ISBN 978-4-88788-004-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao, Y.; Skutsch, M.; Paneque-Gálvez, J.; Ghilardi, A. Remote Sensing of Forest Degradation: A Review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020 , 15 , 103001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, D.; Wang, X.; Hua, T.; Jiao, L.; Geng, X. Baseline and Status of Desertification in Central Asia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022 , 33 , 771–784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, Z.; Li, S.; Fang, H. Explicitly Identifying the Desertification Change in CMREC Area Based on Multisource Remote Data. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 3170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Y.; Han, Y.; Zhang, Y. Land Desertification and Its Influencing Factors in Kazakhstan. J. Arid. Environ. 2020 , 180 , 104203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belhadj, A.; Boulghobra, N.; Demnati Allache, F. Multi-Temporal Landsat Imagery and MSAVI Index for Monitoring Rangeland Degradation in Arid Ecosystem, Case Study of Biskra (Southeast Algeria). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023 , 195 , 656. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhao, Y.; Yang, S.; Liu, L.; Jia, X.; Han, L.; Yuan, X.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, P. Variations and Driving Mechanisms of Desertification in the Southeast Section of the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Zone. Sci. Total Environ. 2023 , 887 , 164004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nzuza, P.; Ramoelo, A.; Odindi, J.; Kahinda, J.M.; Madonsela, S. Predicting Land Degradation Using Sentinel-2 and Environmental Variables in the Lepellane Catchment of the Greater Sekhukhune District, South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2021 , 124 , 102931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nascimento, C.M.; De Sousa Mendes, W.; Quiñonez Silvero, N.E.; Poppiel, R.R.; Sayão, V.M.; Dotto, A.C.; Valadares Dos Santos, N.; Accorsi Amorim, M.T.; Demattê, J.A.M. Soil Degradation Index Developed by Multitemporal Remote Sensing Images, Climate Variables, Terrain and Soil Atributes. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 277 , 111316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guo, B.; Wei, C.; Yu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Meng, C.; Cai, Y. The Dominant Influencing Factors of Desertification Changes in the Source Region of Yellow River: Climate Change or Human Activity? Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 813 , 152512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yadav, B.; Malav, L.C.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Kumawat, C.; Patra, A.; Patel, A.; Jangir, A.; Nogiya, M.; Meena, R.L.; Moharana, P.C.; et al. Modeling and Assessment of Land Degradation Vulnerability in Arid Ecosystem of Rajasthan Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Geospatial Techniques. Land 2022 , 12 , 106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oroud, I.M.; Alghababsheh, A. Assessing Land Degradation and Its Drivers across the Rainfed Areas in Jordan during the Past Two Decades Using Physical and Biophysical Satellite Metrics. Environ. Process. 2023 , 10 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, J.; Du, X.; Zhang, W.; Liu, J.; Li, G.; Guo, J. Analysis of Spatial-Temporal Changes and Driving Forces of Desertification in the Mu Us Sandy Land from 1991 to 2021. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 10399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lamaamri, M.; Lghabi, N.; Ghazi, A.; El Harchaoui, N.; Adnan, M.S.G.; Shakiul Islam, M. Evaluation of Desertification in the Middle Moulouya Basin (North-East Morocco) Using Sentinel-2 Images and Spectral Index Techniques. Earth Syst. Environ. 2023 , 7 , 473–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Z.; Lei, S.; Bian, Z.; Huang, J.; Zhang, Y. Study of the Desertification Index Based on the Albedo-MSAVI Feature Space for Semi-Arid Steppe Region. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019 , 78 , 232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, H.; Wang, R.; Li, H.; Diao, B.; Zheng, H.; Guo, L.; Liu, L.; Liu, J. The Changes of Desertification and Its Driving Factors in the Gonghe Basin of North China over the Past 10 Years. Land 2023 , 12 , 998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, Y.; Wang, S.; Zhao, M.; Zhou, L. Monitoring of Land Desertification Changes in Urat Front Banner from 2010 to 2020 Based on Remote Sensing Data. Water 2022 , 14 , 1777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Z.; Gao, X.; Lei, J.; Meng, X.; Zhou, N. Analysis of Spatiotemporal Changes and Driving Factors of Desertification in the Africa Sahel. CATENA 2022 , 213 , 106213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zongfan, B.; Ling, H.; Xuhai, J.; Ming, L.; Liangzhi, L.; Huiqun, L.; Jiaxin, L. Spatiotemporal Evolution of Desertification Based on Integrated Remote Sensing Indices in Duolun County, Inner Mongolia. Ecol. Inform. 2022 , 70 , 101750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lamqadem, A.; Saber, H.; Pradhan, B. Quantitative Assessment of Desertification in an Arid Oasis Using Remote Sensing Data and Spectral Index Techniques. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 1862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, H.; Wang, J.; Cheng, K.; Li, G.; Ochir, A.; Davaasuren, D.; Chonokhuu, S. Desertification Information Extraction Based on Feature Space Combinations on the Mongolian Plateau. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 1614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, W.; Guo, Z.; Shi, P.; Zhou, L.; Wang, X.; Li, Z.; Pang, S.; Xie, B. Spatiotemporal Changes of Land Desertification Sensitivity in Northwest China from 2000 to 2017. J. Geogr. Sci. 2021 , 31 , 46–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Yan, Y.; Zhang, X.; Niu, J.; Svenning, J.-C. Ecological Restoration Is the Dominant Driver of the Recent Reversal of Desertification in the Mu Us Desert (China). J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 268 , 122241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joseph, O.; Gbenga, A.E.; Langyit, D.G. Desertification Risk Analysis and Assessment in Northern Nigeria. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2018 , 11 , 70–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yue, Y.; Li, M.; Zhu, A.; Ye, X.; Mao, R.; Wan, J.; Dong, J. Land Degradation Monitoring in the Ordos Plateau of China Using an Expert Knowledge and BP-ANN-Based Approach. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 1174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Z.; Xie, Y.; Guo, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Xi, G.; Ma, C.; Duan, H. Is Land Degradation Worsening in Northern China? Quantitative Evidence and Enlightenment from Satellites. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023 , 34 , 1662–1680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Biswas, A. Land Degradation and Development Processes and Their Response to Climate Change and Human Activity in China from 1982 to 2015. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 3516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ewunetu, A.; Simane, B.; Teferi, E.; Zaitchik, B.F. Mapping and Quantifying Comprehensive Land Degradation Status Using Spatial Multicriteria Evaluation Technique in the Headwaters Area of Upper Blue Nile River. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 2244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romshoo, S.A.; Amin, M.; Sastry, K.L.N.; Parmar, M. Integration of Social, Economic and Environmental Factors in GIS for Land Degradation Vulnerability Assessment in the Pir Panjal Himalaya, Kashmir, India. Appl. Geogr. 2020 , 125 , 102307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Shi, Z.; Xing, Z.; Wang, M.; Wang, M. Dynamic Evaluation of Cropland Degradation Risk by Combining Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing and Geographical Data in the Black Soil Region of Jilin Province, China. Appl. Geogr. 2023 , 154 , 102920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuang, Q.; Yuan, Q.; Han, J.; Leng, R.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, K.; Lin, S.; Ren, P. A Remote Sensing Monitoring Method for Alpine Grasslands Desertification in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. J. Mt. Sci. 2020 , 17 , 1423–1437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wang, Z.; An, R.; Li, J. Comprehensive Research on Remote Sensing Monitoring of Grassland Degradation: A Case Study in the Three-River Source Region, China. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 1845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Niu, J.; Buyantuev, A.; Zhang, Q.; Dong, J.; Kang, S.; Zhang, J. Understanding Grassland Degradation and Restoration from the Perspective of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Xilin River Basin in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wijitkosum, S. Factor Influencing Land Degradation Sensitivity and Desertification in a Drought Prone Watershed in Thailand. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2021 , 9 , 217–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kolios, S.; Mitrakos, S.; Stylios, C. Detection of Areas Susceptible to Land Degradation in Cyprus Using Remote Sensed Data and Environmental Quality Indices. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018 , 29 , 2338–2350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Symeonakis, E.; Karathanasis, N.; Koukoulas, S.; Panagopoulos, G. Monitoring Sensitivity to Land Degradation and Desertification with the Environmentally Sensitive Area Index: The Case of Lesvos Island. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016 , 27 , 1562–1573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kosmas, C.; Kirkby, M.J.; Geeson, N. The Medalus Project: Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use: Manual on Key Indicators of Desertification and Mapping Environmentally Sensitive Areas to Desertification ; Directorate-General Science, Research and Development: Brussels, Belgium, 1999; ISBN 978-92-828-6349-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohamed, E.S. Spatial Assessment of Desertification in North Sinai Using Modified MEDLAUS Model. Arab. J. Geosci. 2013 , 6 , 4647–4659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Imbrenda, V.; D’emilio, M.; Lanfredi, M.; Macchiato, M.; Ragosta, M.; Simoniello, T. Indicators for the Estimation of Vulnerability to Land Degradation Derived from Soil Compaction and Vegetation Cover. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2014 , 65 , 907–923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, B.; Chen, X. Sensitivity Assessment of Land Desertification in China Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 2674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• García, C.L.; Raviolo, E.; Teich, I.; Gonzalez, H.; Harari, N.; Caza, P.; Diaz-González, A.M.; Henao-Henao, J.P.; Calles López, J. LDN Decision Support System Ecuador 2022 ; Zenodo: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akinyemi, F.O.; Ghazaryan, G.; Dubovyk, O. Assessing UN Indicators of Land Degradation Neutrality and Proportion of Degraded Land for Botswana Using Remote Sensing Based National Level Metrics. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021 , 32 , 158–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrara, A.; Kosmas, C.; Salvati, L.; Padula, A.; Mancino, G.; Nolè, A. Updating the MEDALUS-ESA Framework for Worldwide Land Degradation and Desertification Assessment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020 , 31 , 1593–1607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gabriele, M.; Brumana, R.; Previtali, M.; Cazzani, A. A Combined GIS and Remote Sensing Approach for Monitoring Climate Change-Related Land Degradation to Support Landscape Preservation and Planning Tools: The Basilicata Case Study. Appl. Geomat. 2023 , 15 , 497–532. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiani-Harchegani, M.; Sadeghi, S.H. Practicing Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Approach in the Shazand Watershed, Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 698 , 134319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, L.; Jia, K.; Liu, X.; Li, J.; Xia, M. Assessment of Land Degradation in Inner Mongolia between 2000 and 2020 Based on Remote Sensing Data. Geogr. Sustain. 2023 , 4 , 100–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xoxo, S.; Mantel, S.; De Vos, A.; Mahlaba, B.; Le Maître, D.; Tanner, J. Towards SDG 15.3: The Biome Context as the Appropriate Degradation Monitoring Dimension. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022 , 136 , 400–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cherif, I.; Kolintziki, E.; Alexandridis, T.K. Monitoring of Land Degradation in Greece and Tunisia Using Trends.Earth with a Focus on Cereal Croplands. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 1766. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cherif, K.; Yahia, N.; Bilal, B.; Bilal, B. Erosion Potential Model-Based ANN-MLP for the Spatiotemporal Modeling of Soil Erosion in Wadi Saida Watershed. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2023 , 9 , 3095–3117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ebrahimzadeh, S.; Motagh, M.; Mahboub, V.; Mirdar Harijani, F. An Improved RUSLE/SDR Model for the Evaluation of Soil Erosion. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018 , 77 , 454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Efthimiou, N.; Likoudi, E.; Panagoulia, D.; Karavitis, C. Assessment of Soil Susceptibility to Erosion Using the EPM and RUSLE Models: The Case of Venetikos River Catchment. Glob. NEST J. 2016 , 18 , 164–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandakh, N.; Tsogtbaatar, J.; Dash, D.; Khudulmur, S. Spatial Assessment of Soil Wind Erosion Using WEQ Approach in Mongolia. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016 , 26 , 473–483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, W.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, G.; Guo, F.; Li, Z.; Liu, B. Multi-Scale LBP Texture Feature Learning Network for Remote Sensing Interpretation of Land Desertification. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 3486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kestel, F.; Wulf, M.; Funk, R. Spatiotemporal Variability of the Potential Wind Erosion Risk in Southern Africa between 2005 and 2019. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023 , 34 , 2945–2960. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baumgertel, A.; Lukić, S.; Belanović Simić, S.; Kadović, R. Identifying Areas Sensitive to Wind Erosion—A Case Study of the AP Vojvodina (Serbia). Appl. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 5106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, G.; Sun, R.; Jing, Y.; Xiong, M.; Li, J.; Chen, L. Global Assessment of Wind Erosion Based on a Spatially Distributed RWEQ Model. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2022 , 46 , 28–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masoudi, M.; Vahedi, M.; Cerdà, A. Risk Assessment of Land Degradation (RALDE) Model. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021 , 32 , 2861–2874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masoudi, M.; Elhaeesahar, M.; Cerdà, A. Risk Assessment of Land Degradation (RALDE) in Khuzestan Province, Iran. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2021 , 54 , 1228–1240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AbdelRahman, M.A.E.; Metwalli, M.R.; Gao, M.; Toscano, F.; Fiorentino, C.; Scopa, A.; D’Antonio, P. Determining the Extent of Soil Degradation Processes Using Trend Analyses at a Regional Multispectral Scale. Land 2023 , 12 , 855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Guan, Q.; Du, Q.; Ni, F.; Mi, J.; Luo, H.; Shao, W. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Desertification and Its Driving Mechanism in Hexi Region. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022 , 33 , 3539–3556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, B.; Li, Z.; Gao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, Z.; Song, Z.; Qin, P.; Tian, X. Identification and Assessment of the Factors Driving Vegetation Degradation/Regeneration in Drylands Using Synthetic High Spatiotemporal Remote Sensing Data—A Case Study in Zhenglanqi, Inner Mongolia, China. Ecol. Indic. 2019 , 107 , 105614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Y.; Guo, Z.; Wang, Y.-C. Spatial Patterns and Driving Forces of Land Change in Tibetan-Inhabited Three Rivers Headwaters Region, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2019 , 16 , 207–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fensholt, R.; Rasmussen, K.; Kaspersen, P.; Huber, S.; Horion, S.; Swinnen, E. Assessing Land Degradation/Recovery in the African Sahel from Long-Term Earth Observation Based Primary Productivity and Precipitation Relationships. Remote Sens. 2013 , 5 , 664–686. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, H.; Liu, X.; Ding, C.; Huang, F. Phenology-Based Residual Trend Analysis of MODIS-NDVI Time Series for Assessing Human-Induced Land Degradation. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 3676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdel-Kader, F.H. Assessment and Monitoring of Land Degradation in the Northwest Coast Region, Egypt Using Earth Observations Data. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2019 , 22 , 165–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falaki, M.A.; Ahmed, H.T.; Akpu, B. Predictive Modeling of Desertification in Jibia Local Government Area of Katsina State, Nigeria. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2020 , 23 , 363–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prokop, P. Remote Sensing of Severely Degraded Land: Detection of Long-Term Land-Use Changes Using High-Resolution Satellite Images on the Meghalaya Plateau, Northeast India. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2020 , 20 , 100432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AbdelRahman, M.A.E.; Natarajan, A.; Hegde, R.; Prakash, S.S. Assessment of Land Degradation Using Comprehensive Geostatistical Approach and Remote Sensing Data in GIS-Model Builder. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2019 , 22 , 323–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cerretelli, S.; Poggio, L.; Gimona, A.; Yakob, G.; Boke, S.; Habte, M.; Coull, M.; Peressotti, A.; Black, H. Spatial Assessment of Land Degradation through Key Ecosystem Services: The Role of Globally Available Data. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 628–629 , 539–555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Šarapatka, B.; Bednář, M.; Netopil, P. Multilevel Soil Degradation Analysis Focusing on Soil Erosion as a Basis for Agrarian Landscape Optimization. Soil Water Res. 2018 , 13 , 119–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vieira, R.M.D.S.P.; Tomasella, J.; Barbosa, A.A.; Polizel, S.P.; Ometto, J.P.H.B.; Santos, F.C.; Ferreira, Y.D.C.; Toledo, P.M.D. Land Degradation Mapping in the MATOPIBA Region (Brazil) Using Remote Sensing Data and Decision-Tree Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 782 , 146900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lian, J.; Zhao, X.; Li, X.; Zhang, T.; Wang, S.; Luo, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Feng, J. Detecting Sustainability of Desertification Reversion: Vegetation Trend Analysis in Part of the Agro-Pastoral Transitional Zone in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghebrezgabher, M.G.; Yang, T.; Yang, X.; Wang, C. Assessment of Desertification in Eritrea: Land Degradation Based on Landsat Images. J. Arid Land 2019 , 11 , 319–331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rukhovich, D.I.; Koroleva, P.V.; Rukhovich, D.D.; Kalinina, N.V. The Use of Deep Machine Learning for the Automated Selection of Remote Sensing Data for the Determination of Areas of Arable Land Degradation Processes Distribution. Remote Sens. 2021 , 13 , 155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fokeng, R.M.; Fogwe, Z.N. Landsat NDVI-Based Vegetation Degradation Dynamics and Its Response to Rainfall Variability and Anthropogenic Stressors in Southern Bui Plateau, Cameroon. Geosyst. Geoenviron. 2022 , 1 , 100075. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, X.; Gao, X.; Li, S.; Li, S.; Lei, J. Monitoring Desertification in Mongolia Based on Landsat Images and Google Earth Engine from 1990 to 2020. Ecol. Indic. 2021 , 129 , 107908. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nascimento, C.M.; Demattê, J.A.M.; Mello, F.A.O.; Rosas, J.T.F.; Tayebi, M.; Bellinaso, H.; Greschuk, L.T.; Albarracín, H.S.R.; Ostovari, Y. Soil Degradation Detected by Temporal Satellite Image in São Paulo State, Brazil. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 2022 , 120 , 104036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Fu, S.; Zhou, N. NDVI-Based Assessment of Land Degradation Trends in Balochistan, Pakistan, and Analysis of the Drivers. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 2388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hauke, J.; Kossowski, T. Comparison of Values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients on the Same Sets of Data. Quaest. Geogr. 2011 , 30 , 87–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aldabbagh, Y.A.N.; Shafri, H.Z.M.; Mansor, S.; Ismail, M.H. Desertification Prediction with an Integrated 3D Convolutional Neural Network and Cellular Automata in Al-Muthanna, Iraq. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022 , 194 , 715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jahantab, Z.; Ale Sheik, A.A.; Boloorani, A.D.; Teimouri, H. Spatial-Temporal Modeling Of Land-Vegetation Degradation, Using Weighted Overlay Index Model. A Case Study On Nineveh Province, Iraq. Eur. J. Geogr. 2017 , 8 , 118–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao, Q.; Yu, L.; Du, Z.; Peng, D.; Hao, P.; Zhang, Y.; Gong, P. An Overview of the Applications of Earth Observation Satellite Data: Impacts and Future Trends. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 1863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gargiulo, M.; Dell’Aglio, D.A.G.; Iodice, A.; Riccio, D.; Ruello, G. Integration of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data for Land Cover Mapping Using W-Net. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 2969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tempa, K.; Ilunga, M.; Agarwal, A. Tashi Utilizing Sentinel-2 Satellite Imagery for LULC and NDVI Change Dynamics for Gelephu, Bhutan. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 1578. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Makhamreh, Z.M. Land Degradation Vulnerability Assessment Based on Land Use Changes and FAO Suitability Analysis in Jordan. Span. J. Soil Sci. 2019 , 9 , 3900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gadal, S.; Gbetkom, P.G.; Mfondoum, A.H.N. Characterization of Soil Degradation from the Cameroonians Shores of Lake Chad Combining Spectral Indexes and Statistics Analysis. SN Comput. Sci. 2023 , 4 , 237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dengiz, O.; Demirağ Turan, İ. Soil Quality Assessment for Desertification Based on Multi-Indicators with the Best-Worst Method in a Semi-Arid Ecosystem. J. Arid Land 2023 , 15 , 779–796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bär, V.; Akinyemi, F.O.; Ifejika Speranza, C. Land Cover Degradation in the Reference and Monitoring Periods of the SDG Land Degradation Neutrality Indicator for Switzerland. Ecol. Indic. 2023 , 151 , 110252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sudmanns, M.; Tiede, D.; Augustin, H.; Lang, S. Assessing Global Sentinel-2 Coverage Dynamics and Data Availability for Operational Earth Observation (EO) Applications Using the EO-Compass. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2020 , 13 , 768–784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kovács, I.P.; Bugya, T.; Czigány, S.; Defilippi, M.; Lóczy, D.; Riccardi, P.; Ronczyk, L.; Pasquali, P. How to Avoid False Interpretations of Sentinel-1A TOPSAR Interferometric Data in Landslide Mapping? A Case Study: Recent Landslides in Transdanubia, Hungary. Nat. Hazards 2019 , 96 , 693–712. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holtgrave, A.-K.; Röder, N.; Ackermann, A.; Erasmi, S.; Kleinschmit, B. Comparing Sentinel-1 and -2 Data and Indices for Agricultural Land Use Monitoring. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 2919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guzinski, R.; Nieto, H.; Sanchez, J.M.; Lopez-Urrea, R.; Boujnah, D.M.; Boulet, G. Utility of Copernicus-Based Inputs for Actual Evapotranspiration Modeling in Support of Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2021 , 14 , 11466–11484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guzinski, R.; Nieto, H.; Ramo Sánchez, R.; Sánchez, J.M.; Jomaa, I.; Zitouna-Chebbi, R.; Roupsard, O.; López-Urrea, R. Improving Field-Scale Crop Actual Evapotranspiration Monitoring with Sentinel-3, Sentinel-2, and Landsat Data Fusion. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2023 , 125 , 103587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schucknecht, A.; Erasmi, S.; Niemeyer, I.; Matschullat, J. Assessing Vegetation Variability and Trends in North-Eastern Brazil Using AVHRR and MODIS NDVI Time Series. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2013 , 46 , 40–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sterk, G.; Stoorvogel, J.J. Desertification–Scientific Versus Political Realities. Land 2020 , 9 , 156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, Q.B.; Tamene, L.; Vlek, P.L.G. Multi-Pronged Assessment of Land Degradation in West Africa to Assess the Importance of Atmospheric Fertilization in Masking the Processes Involved. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2012 , 92–93 , 71–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Jong, R.; De Bruin, S.; Schaepman, M.; Dent, D. Quantitative Mapping of Global Land Degradation Using Earth Observations. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011 , 32 , 6823–6853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Higginbottom, T.; Symeonakis, E. Assessing Land Degradation and Desertification Using Vegetation Index Data: Current Frameworks and Future Directions. Remote Sens. 2014 , 6 , 9552–9575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, B.; Li, Z.; Gao, Z.; Guo, Z.; Wang, B.; Hu, X.; Bai, L. Grassland Degradation and Restoration Monitoring and Driving Forces Analysis Based on Long Time-Series Remote Sensing Data in Xilin Gol League. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017 , 37 , 219–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dardel, C.; Kergoat, L.; Hiernaux, P.; Grippa, M.; Mougin, E.; Ciais, P.; Nguyen, C.-C. Rain-Use-Efficiency: What It Tells Us about the Conflicting Sahel Greening and Sahelian Paradox. Remote Sens. 2014 , 6 , 3446–3474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

D’Acunto, F.; Marinello, F.; Pezzuolo, A. Rural Land Degradation Assessment through Remote Sensing: Current Technologies, Models, and Applications. Remote Sens. 2024 , 16 , 3059. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163059

D’Acunto F, Marinello F, Pezzuolo A. Rural Land Degradation Assessment through Remote Sensing: Current Technologies, Models, and Applications. Remote Sensing . 2024; 16(16):3059. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163059

D’Acunto, Federica, Francesco Marinello, and Andrea Pezzuolo. 2024. "Rural Land Degradation Assessment through Remote Sensing: Current Technologies, Models, and Applications" Remote Sensing 16, no. 16: 3059. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16163059

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Land Degradation

• December 2020
• In book: Oxford Handbook on Comparative Environmental Law 2019 (pp.1)

• The University of Sydney

• University of New England (Australia)

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 46, 2021, review article, open access, restoring degraded lands.

• Almut Arneth 1,2 , Lennart Olsson 3 , Annette Cowie 4,5 , Karl-Heinz Erb 6 , Margot Hurlbert 7 , Werner A. Kurz 8 , Alisher Mirzabaev 9 , and Mark D.A. Rounsevell 1,2,10
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; email: [email protected] [email protected] 2 Institute of Geography and Geo-ecology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany 3 Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden; email: [email protected] 4 New South Wales (NSW) Department of Primary Industries Armidale Livestock Industries Centre, Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia; email: [email protected] 5 School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia 6 Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1070 Vienna, Austria; email: [email protected] 7 Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan S7N 5B8, Canada; email: [email protected] 8 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia V8Z 1M5, Canada; email: [email protected] 9 Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany; email: [email protected] 10 School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, United Kingdom
• Vol. 46:569-599 (Volume publication date October 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809
• First published as a Review in Advance on August 20, 2021
• Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Land degradation continues to be an enormous challenge to human societies, reducing food security, emitting greenhouse gases and aerosols, driving the loss of biodiversity, polluting water, and undermining a wide range of ecosystem services beyond food supply and water and climate regulation. Climate change will exacerbate several degradation processes. Investment in diverse restoration efforts, including sustainable agricultural and forest land management, as well as land set aside for conservation wherever possible, will generate co-benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation and morebroadly for human and societal well-being and the economy. This review highlights the magnitude of the degradation problem and some of the key challenges for ecological restoration. There are biophysical as well as societal limits to restoration. Better integrating policies to jointly address poverty, land degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions and removals is fundamental to reducing many existing barriers and contributing to climate-resilient sustainable development.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• 1.  Arneth A , Denton F , Agus F , Elbehri A , Erb K et al. 2019 . Framing and context. 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 PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 77– 129 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 2.  IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2019 . The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 3.  Olsson L , Barbosa H , Bhadwal S , Cowie A , Delusca K et al. 2019 . Land degradation. 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 PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 345– 436 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 4.  Mirzabaev A , Wu J , Evans J , García-Oliva F , Hussein IAG et al. 2019 . Desertification. 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 PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 249– 343 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 5.  Altieri AH , Harrison SB , Seemann J , Collin R , Diaz RJ , Knowlton N 2017 . Tropical dead zones and mass mortalities on coral reefs. PNAS 114 : 3660– 65 [Google Scholar]
• 6.  Haberl H , Erb K-H , Krausmann F. 2014 . Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 : 363– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 7.  Mottet A , de Haan C , Falcucci A , Tempio G , Opio C , Gerber PJ. 2017 . Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Secur. 14 : 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 8.  FAO. (United Nations Food and Agric. Organ.) 2020 . Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report Rome. Rep., FAO https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• 9.  Erb K-H , Kastner T , Plutzar C , Bais ALS , Carvalhais N et al. 2018 . Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553 : 73– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 10.  Marzen M , Iserloh T , de Lima J , Fister W , Ries JB. 2017 . Impact of severe rain storms on soil erosion: experimental evaluation of wind-driven rain and its implications for natural hazard management. Sci. Total Environ. 590 : 502– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 11.  IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2018 . The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 12.  Anderegg WRL , Trugman AT , Badgley G , Anderson CM , Bartuska A et al. 2020 . Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368 : eaaz7005 [Google Scholar]
• 13.  Hember RA , Kurz WA , Girardin MP. 2019 . Tree ring reconstructions of stemwood biomass indicate increases in the growth rate of black spruce trees across boreal forests of Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124 : 2460– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 14.  Trant A , Higgs E , Starzomski BM. 2020 . A century of high elevation ecosystem change in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Sci. Rep. 10 : 9698 [Google Scholar]
• 15.  Bullock EL , Woodcock CE , Souza C , Olofsson P. 2020 . Satellite-based estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon. Glob. Change Biol. 26 : 2956– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 16.  Matricardi EAT , Skole DL , Costa OB , Pedlowski MA , Samek JH , Miguel EP 2020 . Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369 : 1378– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 17.  Maxwell SL , Evans T , Watson JEM , Morel A , Grantham H et al. 2019 . Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626%. Sci. Adv. 5 : eaax2546 [Google Scholar]
• 18.  Pugh TAM , Lindeskog M , Smith B , Poulter B , Arneth A et al. 2019 . Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. PNAS 116 : 4382– 87 [Google Scholar]
• 19.  Mayer M , Prescott CE , Abaker WEA , Augusto L , Cecillon L et al. 2020 . Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: a knowledge synthesis. Forest Ecol. Manag. 466 : 118127 [Google Scholar]
• 20.  Thorn S , Seibold S , Leverkus AB , Michler T , Müller J et al. 2020 . The living dead: acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18 : 505– 12 [Google Scholar]
• 21.  Meyfroidt P , Lambin EF. 2011 . Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36 : 343– 71 [Google Scholar]
• 22.  Koutroulis A. 2018 . Dryland changes under different levels of global warming. Sci. Total Environ. 655 : 482– 511 [Google Scholar]
• 23.  Prăvălie R. 2016 . Drylands extent and environmental issues. A global approach. Earth-Sci. Rev. 161 : 259– 78 [Google Scholar]
• 24.  FAO (United Nations Food Agric. Organ.) 2016 . Trees, Forests and Land Use in Drylands: The First Global Assessment—Preliminary Findings Rome: FAO [Google Scholar]
• 25.  Brandt M , Tucker CJ , Kariryaa A , Rasmussen K , Abel C et al. 2020 . An unexpectedly large count of trees in the West African Sahara and Sahel. Nature 587 : 78– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 26.  Murphy BP , Andersen AN , Parr CL. 2016 . The underestimated biodiversity of tropical grassy biomes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371 : 20150319 [Google Scholar]
• 27.  Carbutt C , Henwood WD , Gilfedder LA. 2017 . Global plight of native temperate grasslands: going, going, gone?. Biodivers. Conserv. 26 : 2911– 32 [Google Scholar]
• 28.  van Oijen M , Bellocchi G , Hoglind M. 2018 . Effects of climate change on grassland biodiversity and productivity: the need for a diversity of models. Agronomy 8 : 14 [Google Scholar]
• 29.  Brandt M , Mbow C , Diouf A , Verger A , Samimi C , Fensholt R. 2014 . Ground and satellite-based evidence of the biophysical mechanisms behind the greening Sahel. Glob. Change Biol. 21 : 1610– 20 [Google Scholar]
• 30.  Rishmawi K , Prince S 2016 . Environmental and anthropogenic degradation of vegetation in the Sahel from 1982 to 2006. Remote Sens . 8 : 948 [Google Scholar]
• 31.  Lehman CER , Parr CL. 2016 . Tropical grassy biomes: linking ecology, human use and conservation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371 : 20160329 [Google Scholar]
• 32.  Morton J. 2010 . Why should governmentality matter for the study of pastoral development?. Nomad. Peoples 14 : 6– 30 [Google Scholar]
• 33.  Ramankutty N , Evan AT , Monfreda C , Foley JA. 2008 . Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22 : GB1003 [Google Scholar]
• 34.  Gossner MM , Lewinsohn TM , Kahl T , Grassein F , Boch S et al. 2016 . Land-use intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities. Nature 540 : 266– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 35.  Shin Y-J , Arneth A , Roy-Chaudhury R , Midgley G , Boafo Y et al. 2019 . Plausible futures of nature, its contributions to people and their good quality of life. The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ipbes_global_assessment_chapter_4_unedited_31may.pdf [Google Scholar]
• 36.  Gang C , Zhou W , Chen Y , Wang Z , Sun Z et al. 2014 . Quantitative assessment of the contributions of climate change and human activities on global grassland degradation. Environ. Earth Sci. 72 : 4273– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 37.  McSherry ME , Ritchie ME. 2013 . Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19 : 1347– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 38.  Smith P. 2014 . Do grasslands act as a perpetual sink for carbon?. Glob. Change Biol. 20 : 2708– 11 [Google Scholar]
• 39.  Sanderman J , Hengl T , Fiske GJ 2017 . Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. PNAS 114 : 9575– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 40.  Bossio DA , Cook-Patton SC , Ellis PW , Fargione J , Sanderman J et al. 2020 . The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nat. Sustain. 3 : 391– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 41.  Humphreys J , Brye KR , Rector C , Gbur EE. 2019 . Methane emissions from rice across a soil organic matter gradient in Alfisols of Arkansas, USA. Geoderma Reg . 16 : e00200 [Google Scholar]
• 42.  da Silva Cardoso A , Quintana BG , Janusckiewicz ER , de Figueiredo Brito L , da Silva Morgado E et al. 2019 . How do methane rates vary with soil moisture and compaction, N compound and rate, and dung addition in a tropical soil?. Int. J. Biometeorol. 63 : 1533– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 43.  Tian H , Yang J , Xu R , Lu C , Canadell JG et al. 2019 . Global soil nitrous oxide emissions since the preindustrial era estimated by an ensemble of terrestrial biosphere models: magnitude, attribution, and uncertainty. Glob. Change Biol. 25 : 640– 59 [Google Scholar]
• 44.  Kayranli B , Scholz M , Mustafa A , Hedmark Å. 2010 . Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater wetlands: a critical review. Wetlands 30 : 111– 24 [Google Scholar]
• 45.  Page SE , Baird AJ. 2016 . Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 : 35– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 46.  Tootchi A , Jost A , Ducharne A. 2019 . Multi-source global wetland maps combining surface water imagery and groundwater constraints. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11 : 189– 220 [Google Scholar]
• 47.  Prince S , Von Maltitz G , Zhang F , Byrne K , Driscoll C et al. 2018 . Status and trends of land degradation and restoration and associated changes in biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.), 315– 426 Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 48.  Darrah SE , Shennan-Farpón Y , Loh J , Davidson NC , Finlayson CM et al. 2019 . Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic. 99 : 294– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 49.  Colloff MJ , Lavorel S , Wise RM , Dunlop M , Overton IC , Williams KJ. 2016 . Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate change. Ecol. Appl. 26 : 1003– 17 [Google Scholar]
• 50.  Nisbet EG , Manning MR , Dlugokencky EJ , Fisher RE , Lowry D et al. 2019 . Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the 4 years 2014–2017: implications for the Paris Agreement. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33 : 318– 42 [Google Scholar]
• 51.  Mikaloff Fletcher SE , Schaefer H 2019 . Rising methane: a new climate challenge. Science 364 : 932– 33 [Google Scholar]
• 52.  Oh Y , Zhuang Q , Liu L , Welp LR , Lau MCY et al. 2020 . Reduced net methane emissions due to microbial methane oxidation in a warmer Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 10 : 317– 21 [Google Scholar]
• 53.  Hemes KS , Chamberlain SD , Eichelmann E , Anthony T , Valach A et al. 2019 . Assessing the carbon and climate benefit of restoring degraded agricultural peat soils to managed wetlands. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 268 : 202– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 54.  Meli P , Benayas J , Balvanera P , Martinez-Ramos M. 2014 . Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 9 : e93507 [Google Scholar]
• 55.  Hogeboom RJ , de Bruin D , Schyns JF , Krol MS , Hoekstra AY. 2020 . Capping human water footprints in the world's river basins. Earths Future 8 : e2019EF001363 [Google Scholar]
• 56.  Bogardi JJ , Fekete BM , Vorosmarty CJ. 2013 . Planetary boundaries revisited: a view through the ‘water lens. ’. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 : 581– 89 [Google Scholar]
• 57.  Grill G , Lehner B , Thieme M , Geenen B , Tickner D et al. 2019 . Mapping the world's free-flowing rivers. Nature 569 : 215– 21 [Google Scholar]
• 58.  Sabater S , Bregoli F , Acuna V , Barcelo D , Elosegi A et al. 2018 . Effects of human-driven water stress on river ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 8 : 11462 [Google Scholar]
• 59.  Zarfl C , Berlekamp J , He F , Jähnig SC , Darwall W , Tockner K. 2019 . Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna. Sci. Rep. 9 : 18531 [Google Scholar]
• 60.  Zhu ZC , Piao SL , Myneni RB , Huang MT , Zeng ZZ et al. 2016 . Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 6 : 791– 95 [Google Scholar]
• 61.  Liu YY , Yang Y , Wang Q , Khalifa M , Zhang ZY et al. 2019 . Assessing the dynamics of grassland net primary productivity in response to climate change at the global scale. Chinese Geogr. Sci. 29 : 725– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 62.  Le Quéré C , Andrew RM , Friedlingstein P , Sitch S , Hauck J et al. 2018 . Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10 : 2141– 94 [Google Scholar]
• 63.  Smith P , Calvin K , Nkem J , Campbell D , Cherubini F et al. 2019 . Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?. Glob. Change Biol. 26 : 1532– 75 [Google Scholar]
• 64.  Wilhite D , Pulwarty RS. 2017 . Drought and Water Crises, Integrating Science, Management, and Policy Boca Raton: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
• 65.  Mo K , Lettenmaier D. 2015 . Heat wave flash droughts in decline. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42 : 2823– 29 [Google Scholar]
• 66.  Stroosnijder L. 2009 . Modifying land management in order to improve efficiency of rainwater use in the African highlands. Soil Tillage Res . 103 : 247– 56 [Google Scholar]
• 67.  Jia G , Shevliakova E , Artaxo P , De Noblet-Ducoudré N , Houghton R et al. 2019 . Land–climate interactions. 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 PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 131– 247 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 68.  Zheng J , Yingzhuo Y , Zhang X , Hao Z. 2018 . Variation of extreme drought and flood in North China revealed by document-based seasonal precipitation reconstruction for the past 300 years. Clim. Past 14 : 1135– 45 [Google Scholar]
• 69.  Ziese M , Schneider U , Meyer-Christoffer A , Schamm K , Vido J et al. 2014 . The GPCC Drought Index—a new, combined and gridded global drought index. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 6 : 285– 95 [Google Scholar]
• 70.  Byers E , Gidden M , Leclère D , Balkovič J , Burek P et al. 2018 . Global exposure and vulnerability to multi-sector development and climate change hotspots. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 : 5 [Google Scholar]
• 71.  Hurlbert M , Krishnaswamy J , Davin E , Johnson FX , Mena CF et al. 2019 . Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development. 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 PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner et al. 673– 800 Geneva: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change [Google Scholar]
• 72.  Shrestha S , Hoang NAT , Shrestha PK , Bhatta B. 2018 . Climate change impact on groundwater recharge and suggested adaptation strategies for selected Asian cities. APN Sci. Bull. 8 : 1 https://doi.org/10.30852/sb.2018.499 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• 73.  Clarke H , Evans JP. 2018 . Exploring the future change space for fire weather in southeast Australia. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 136 : 513– 27 [Google Scholar]
• 74.  Williams AP , Allen CD , Millar CI , Swetnam TW , Michaelsen J et al. 2010 . Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States. PNAS 107 : 21289– 94 [Google Scholar]
• 75.  McLauchlan KK , Higuera PE , Miesel J , Rogers BM , Schweitzer J et al. 2020 . Fire as a fundamental ecological process: research advances and frontiers. J. Ecol. 108 : 2047– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 76.  Ward M , Tulloch AIT , Radford JQ , Williams BA , Reside AE et al. 2020 . Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 : 1321– 26 [Google Scholar]
• 77.  Halofsky JE , Peterson DL , Harvey BJ. 2020 . Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecol 16 : 4 [Google Scholar]
• 78.  Kukavskaya EA , Buryak LV , Shvetsov EG , Conard SG , Kalenskaya OP. 2016 . The impact of increasing fire frequency on forest transformations in southern Siberia. Forest Ecol. Manag. 382 : 225– 35 [Google Scholar]
• 79.  Seidl R , Thom D , Kautz M , Martin-Benito D , Peltoniemi M et al. 2017 . Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 : 395– 402 [Google Scholar]
• 80.  Pellegrini AFA , Hobbie SE , Reich PB , Jumpponen A , Brookshire ENJ et al. 2020 . Repeated fire shifts carbon and nitrogen cycling by changing plant inputs and soil decomposition across ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 90 : e01409 [Google Scholar]
• 81.  Knorr K , Jiang L , Arneth A. 2016 . Climate, CO 2 , and demographic impacts on global wildfire emissions. Biogeosciences 13 : 267– 82 [Google Scholar]
• 82.  Donat MG , Lowry AL , Alexander LV , O'Gorman PA , Maher N. 2016 . More extreme precipitation in the world's dry and wet regions. Nat. Clim. Change 6 : 508– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 83.  Van Der Bolt B , Van Nes EH , Bathiany S , Vollebregt ME , Scheffer M. 2018 . Climate reddening increases the chance of critical transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 8 : 478– 84 [Google Scholar]
• 84.  Wang Z-H , Li S-X. 2019 . Nitrate N loss by leaching and surface runoff in agricultural land: a global issue (a review). Advances in Agronomy , Vol. 156 DL Sparks 159– 217 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
• 85.  Withers P , Neal C , Jarvie H , Doody D. 2014 . Agriculture and eutrophication: Where do we go from here?. Sustainability 6 : 5853– 75 [Google Scholar]
• 86.  Eekhout JP , De Vente J. 2020 . How soil erosion model conceptualization affects soil loss projections under climate change. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 44 : 212– 32 [Google Scholar]
• 87.  Lee C-Y , Camargo SJ , Sobel AH , Tippett MK. 2020 . Statistical–dynamical downscaling projections of tropical cyclone activity in a warming climate: two diverging genesis scenarios. J. Clim. 33 : 4815– 34 [Google Scholar]
• 88.  Patricola CM , Wehner MF. 2018 . Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events. Nature 563 : 339– 46 [Google Scholar]
• 89.  Marsooli R , Lin N , Emanuel K , Feng K. 2019 . Climate change exacerbates hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in spatially varying patterns. Nat. Commun. 10 : 3785 [Google Scholar]
• 90.  Aksha SK , Juran L , Resler LM. 2018 . Spatial and temporal analysis of natural hazard mortality in Nepal. Environ. Hazards 17 : 163– 79 [Google Scholar]
• 91.  IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2018 . Global Warming of 1.5°C Geneva: IPCC [Google Scholar]
• 92.  Hanssen SV , Daioglou V , Steinmann ZJN , Doelman JC , Van Vuuren DP , Huijbregts MAJ. 2020 . The climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Nat. Clim. Change 10 : 1023– 29 [Google Scholar]
• 93.  Gregg JS , Izaurralde RC. 2010 . Effect of crop residue harvest on long-term crop yield, soil erosion and nutrient balance: trade-offs for a sustainable bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels 1 : 69– 83 [Google Scholar]
• 94.  Liska AJ , Yang H , Milner M , Goddard S , Blanco-Canqui H et al. 2014 . Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO 2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4 : 398– 401 [Google Scholar]
• 95.  Hof C , Voskamp A , Biber MF , Böhning-Gaese K , Engelhardt EK et al. 2018 . Bioenergy cropland expansion may offset positive effects of climate change mitigation for global vertebrate diversity. PNAS 115 : 13294– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 96.  Fuss S , Lamb WF , Callaghan MW , Hilaire J , Creutzig F et al. 2018 . Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 : 063002 [Google Scholar]
• 97.  Girardello M , Santangeli A , Mori E , Chapman A , Fattorini S et al. 2019 . Global synergies and trade-offs between multiple dimensions of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sci. Rep. 9 : 5636 [Google Scholar]
• 98.  Strassburg BBN , Beyer HL , Crouzeilles R , Iribarrem A , Barros P et al. 2019 . Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 : 62– 70 [Google Scholar]
• 99.  Palomo I , Dujardin Y , Midler E , Robin M , Sanz MJ , Pascual U 2019 . Modeling trade-offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD plus funds. PNAS 116 : 22645– 50 [Google Scholar]
• 100.  Nilsson C , Riis T , Sarneel J , Svavarsdóttir K. 2018 . Ecological restoration as a means of managing inland flood hazards. BioScience 68 : 89– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 101.  Morecroft MD , Duffield S , Harley M , Pearce-Higgins JW , Stevens N et al. 2019 . Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 366 : eaaw9256 [Google Scholar]
• 102.  Donatti CI , Harvey CA , Hole D , Panfil SN , Schurman H. 2020 . Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation. Clim. Change 158 : 413– 33 [Google Scholar]
• 103.  Seddon N , Chausson A , Berry P , Girardin CAJ , Smith A , Turner B. 2020 . Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 : 20190120 [Google Scholar]
• 104.  Rhodes CJ. 2017 . The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Sci. Prog. 100 : 80– 129 [Google Scholar]
• 105.  Montgomery DR. 2017 . Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life New York: WW Norton & Co. [Google Scholar]
• 106.  Kassam A , Friedrich T , Derpsch R. 2019 . Global spread of conservation agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 76 : 29– 51 [Google Scholar]
• 107.  Davis SC , Boddey RM , Alves BJR , Cowie AL , George BH et al. 2013 . Management swing potential for bioenergy crops. GCB Bioenergy 5 : 623– 38 [Google Scholar]
• 108.  Witters N , Van Slycken S , Ruttens A , Adriaensen K , Meers E et al. 2009 . Short-rotation coppice of willow for phytoremediation of a metal-contaminated agricultural area: a sustainability assessment. BioEnergy Res 2 : 144– 52 [Google Scholar]
• 109.  Immerzeel DJ , Verweij PA , van der Hilst F , Faaij APC. 2014 . Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy 6 : 189– 209 [Google Scholar]
• 110.  De Stefano A , Jacobson MG. 2018 . Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Syst 92 : 285– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 111.  Wilson MH , Lovell ST. 2016 . Agroforestry—the next step in sustainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability 8 : 574 [Google Scholar]
• 112.  Churkina G , Organschi A , Reyer CPO , Ruff A , Vinke K et al. 2020 . Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3 : 269– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 113.  Veldman JW , Overbeck GE , Negreiros D , Mahy G , Le Stradic S et al. 2015 . Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 65 : 1011– 18 [Google Scholar]
• 114.  Abreu RCR , Hoffmann WA , Vasconcelos HL , Pilon NA , Rossatto DR , Durigan G. 2017 . The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna. Sci. Adv. 3 : e1701284 [Google Scholar]
• 115.  Brundu G , Richardson DM 2016 . Planted forests and invasive alien trees in Europe: a code for managing existing and future plantings to mitigate the risk of negative impacts from invasions. NeoBiota 30 : 5– 47 [Google Scholar]
• 116.  Wilson SJ , Schelhas J , Grau R , Nanni AS , Sloan S. 2017 . Forest ecosystem-service transitions: the ecological dimensions of the forest transition. Ecol. Soc. 22 : 38 [Google Scholar]
• 117.  Aerts R , Honnay O. 2011 . Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC Ecol 11 : 29 [Google Scholar]
• 118.  Liang JJ , Crowther TW , Picard N , Wiser S , Zhou M et al. 2016 . Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354 : aaf8957 [Google Scholar]
• 119.  Crouzeilles R , Curran M , Ferreira MS , Lindenmayer DB , Grelle CEV , Benayas JMR. 2016 . A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat. Commun. 7 : 11666 [Google Scholar]
• 120.  Cross SL , Bateman PW , Cross AT. 2020 . Restoration goals: Why are fauna still overlooked in the process of recovering functioning ecosystems and what can be done about it?. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 21 : 4– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 121.  Jouquet P , Blanchart E , Capowiez Y. 2014 . Utilization of earthworms and termites for the restoration of ecosystem functioning. Appl. Soil Ecol. 73 : 34– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 122.  Schmitz OJ , Wilmers CC , Leroux SJ , Doughty CE , Atwood TB et al. 2018 . Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle. Science 362 : eaar3213 [Google Scholar]
• 123.  Kimmerer R 2011 . Restoration and reciprocity: the contributions of traditional ecological knowledge. Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration . Society for Ecological Restoration , ed . D Egan, EE Hjerpe, J Abrams 257– 76 Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• 124.  Nkonya E , Mirzabaev A , von Braun J 2016 . Economics of land degradation and improvement: an introduction and overview. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement — A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development E Nkonya, A Mirzabaev, J von Braun 1– 14 Cham, Switz: Springer Int. Publ. [Google Scholar]
• 125.  Mentis M. 2020 . Environmental rehabilitation of damaged land. Forest Ecosyst 7 : 19 [Google Scholar]
• 126.  Giger M , Liniger H , Sauter C , Schwilch G. 2018 . Economic benefits and costs of sustainable land management technologies: an analysis of WOCAT's global data. Land Degrad. Dev. 29 : 962– 74 [Google Scholar]
• 127.  Lambin E , Meyfroidt P , Rueda X , Blackman A , Börner J et al. 2014 . Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28 : 129– 40 [Google Scholar]
• 128.  Reed MS , Stringer LC , Dougill AJ , Perkins JS , Atlhopheng JR et al. 2015 . Reorienting land degradation towards sustainable land management: linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem services in rangeland systems. J. Environ. Manag. 151 : 472– 85 [Google Scholar]
• 129.  Scown MW , Brady MV , Nicholas KA. 2020 . Billions in misspent EU agricultural subsidies could support the Sustainable Development Goals. One Earth 3 : 237– 50 [Google Scholar]
• 130.  Wolff S , Schrammeijer EA , Schulp C , Verburg PH. 2018 . Meeting global land restoration and protection targets: What would the world look like in 2050?. Glob. Environ. Change 52 : 259– 72 [Google Scholar]
• 131.  Metzger JP , Esler K , Krug C , Arias M , Tambosi L et al. 2017 . Best practice for the use of scenarios for restoration planning. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29 : 14– 25 [Google Scholar]
• 132.  Folke C. 2016 . Resilience (Republished). Ecol . Soc 21 : 44 [Google Scholar]
• 133.  Acosta LA , Virk A , Kumar R , Sharma S , Ikeda T et al. 2018 . Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors. The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Asia and the Pacific M Karki, SS Sellamuttu, W Suzuki, S Okayasu 429– 536 Bonn, Ger: IPBES Secr. [Google Scholar]
• 134.  George C , Reed MG. 2015 . Operationalising just sustainability: towards a model for place-based governance. Local Environ 22 : 1105– 23 [Google Scholar]
• 135.  Parlee CE , Wiber MG. 2018 . Using conflict over risk management in the marine environment to strengthen measures of governance. Ecol. Soc. 23 : 5 [Google Scholar]
• 136.  Cowie AL , Orr BJ , Castillo Sanchez VM , Chasek P , Crossman ND et al. 2018 . Land in balance: the scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality. Environ. Sci. Policy 79 : 25– 35 [Google Scholar]
• 137.  Fagan ME , Reid JL , Holland MB , Drew JG , Zahawi RA. 2020 . How feasible are global forest restoration commitments?. Conserv. Lett. 13 : e12700 [Google Scholar]
• 138.  Seddon N , Sengupta S , García-Espinosa M , Hauler I , Herr D , Rizvi AR. 2019 . Nature-Based Solutions in Nationally Determined Contributions: Synthesis and Recommendations for Enhancing Climate Ambition and Action by 2020 Gland, Switz./Oxford: Int. Union Conserv. Nat., Univ. Oxford [Google Scholar]
• 139.  Metzger MJ , Dick J , Gardner A , Bellamy C , Blackstock K et al. 2019 . Knowledge sharing, problem solving and professional development in a Scottish Ecosystem Services Community of Practice. Reg. Environ . Change 19 : 2275– 86 [Google Scholar]
• 140.  Eakin H , York A , Aggarwal R , Waters S , Welch J et al. 2016 . Cognitive and institutional influences on farmers’ adaptive capacity: insights into barriers and opportunities for transformative change in central Arizona. Reg. Environ. Change 16 : 801– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 141.  Wreford A , Ignaciuk A , Gruere G. 2017 . Overcoming barriers to the adoption of climate-friendly practices in agriculture . Pap. 101 Food, Agric. Fish., Org. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Paris: [Google Scholar]
• 142.  Barnett J , Evans LS , Gross C , Kiem AS , Kingsford RT et al. 2015 . From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc . 20 : 5 [Google Scholar]
• 143.  Dow K , Berkhout F , Preston BL , Klein RJT , Midgley G , Shaw MR. 2013 . Limits to adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3 : 305– 7 [Google Scholar]
• 144.  Arneth A , Shin Y-J , Leadley P , Rondinini C , Bukvareva E et al. 2020 . Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. PNAS 117 : 30882– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 145.  Kwakkel JH , Haasnoot M , Walker WE. 2016 . Comparing Robust Decision-Making and Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environ. Model. Software 86 : 168– 83 [Google Scholar]
• 146.  Otto IM , Wiedermann M , Cremades R , Donges JF , Auer C , Lucht W. 2020 . Human agency in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Econ. 167 : 106463 [Google Scholar]
• 147.  Pörtner HO , Scholes RJ , Agard J , Archer E , Arneth A et al. 2021 . Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change Rep., IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platf. Biodivers. Ecosyst. Serv.) Bonn, Ger: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659158 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• 148.  Bullock JM , Aronson J , Newton AC , Pywell RF , Rey-Benayas JM. 2011 . Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 : 541– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 149.  Kollmann J , Meyer ST , Bateman R , Conradi T , Gossner MM et al. 2016 . Integrating ecosystem functions into restoration ecology—recent advances and future directions. Restor. Ecol. 24 : 722– 30 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, adaptive governance of social-ecological systems, dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions, climate change and food systems, wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability, global water pollution and human health, adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework, i ndustrial s ymbiosis : literature and taxonomy, environmental governance, c arbon d ioxide e missions from the g lobal c ement i ndustry 1, global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review, related articles from annual reviews.

• Open access
• Published: 25 April 2019

Assessment of land degradation and implications on agricultural land in Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt

• W. A. M. Abdel Kawy 1 &
• Kh. M. Darwish   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8197-3511 2  

Bulletin of the National Research Centre volume  43 , Article number:  70 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

5714 Accesses

6 Citations

Metrics details

Land degradation considers as a phenomena or more that decrease the current and/or the potential soil capability to produce goods. It signifies a regression from a higher to lower state, owing to descend in land capability, productivity, and decline of biodiversity. This study is an attempt to address the complexity of land degradation issue, particularly in the targeted farming irrigated fields, Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt. It aims to assess and observe degradation hazard through satellite image analyze, model trends of degradation, and generate a change detection hazard map for the investigated area.

The maximum likelihood supervised classification tool and post classification change detection technique were implemented for monitoring changes in land qualities. Land degradation indicator data layers were summarized into the metrological data, ground truth, vegetation cover, and the applied land management practices. The Modified Global Assessment of Soil Degradation GLASOD model was adapted to model land degradation, specify its action in term of degradation degree, relative extent, severity level, and causative factors. Land degradation processes were evaluated in the delineated mapping units. The result indicated that the studied areas are considered as quite unstable in term of ecosystem due to active degradation resulting from aridity phenomena, soil properties, and improper farm management.

The most active land degradation processes are assessment of salinization, waterlogging, alkalization, and soil compaction.

Introduction

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) recognizes land degradation as one of the most noticeable environmental concerns of recent times (UNCCD 1994 , 2002 ). According to Baylis et al. 2012 and UNCCD 2013 , they reported the sequences as a result of land degradation processes; nearly 40–75% of the world’s agricultural land’s productivity is reduced.

Land degradation is often described as substantial decrease in the biological productivity of land system, due to natural events exaggerated by anthropogenic activities (Johnson and Lewis 2007 ). Land degradation in dry land is often termed as desertification (Dregn 2002 ). Most forms of land degradation are man-made problems. Although there are some physical environmental factors involved, but misuse is an important factor. Poor land management with the intensification of agriculture practices accelerates the rate of land degradation (Wim and El-Hadji 2002 ). Food supply situation will be worse in the future, if the current tendency of land degradation did not change drastically. In Egypt, land resources degradation is the main limitation to the agricultural sector development, where the ratio between land resources and population rate is the most critical problem currently. In arid and semi-arid conditions, the salinization and/or alkalization as subsequent of water logging are the major land degradation processes in irrigated agriculture fields (Ayoub 1991 ; Dwivedi et al. 1999 ; El-Kassas 1999 ).

Normally, inter-relationship between land degradation and socioeconomic activities is a multi-layered and complex issue. Several multi-disciplinary approaches integrated with multiple data sources and methodologies to study the implications of land degradation are need of the hour. Monitoring and assessment of regional land degradation or restoration of land is very important so as to understand the dynamic trend of land degradation or restoration, providing better scientific prevention and environmental control (Sun et al. 2017 ). To address the gaining issue and a systematic understanding of the changes magnitude in land degradation at the temporal and regional scales, remote sensing and geographical information system (GIS) have been selected as the best utilities.

In the area under investigation, the current research aims to highlight various land degradation processes using a GIS platform and remote sensing (RS) data. Asses human-induced land degradation and evaluate loss of soil productivity, which is considered as a degradation factor meaningful to desertification caused by land mismanagement and human influence. Detection of land use/cover change technique that is used to monitor agricultural land among dates 1967–2017. The evaluation of soil capability lost.

Regionally, Qalubiya is one of the largest governorates, which is located in the eastern side of the River Nile. Officially, Qalubiya includes eight districts, and its capital town is called Banha. Mostly, the major activity is cultivation, where there is some existence of industrial zones. The area under investigation incorporates a surface area of approximately 224,363 ac (90.8 ha). It is bounded between 30° 06′ 11″ and 30° 36′ 36″ North and 31° 03′ 20″ and 31° 35′ 32″ East Fig.  1 . According to the Egyptian Meteorological Authority ( 2016 ), the study area falls in the arid zone, where the soil temperature regime could be defined as thermic and moisture regime is torric (Soil survey staff 2014 ).

Location of the study area

Geologically, the area belongs to the late Pleistocene that represented by deposits of the neonile broke into Egypt, often in the earlier part of this age and by the deposits too that was accumulated during the recessional phases of the river. Through its history, the neonile in this massif has been continuously lowering its course at a rate of 1 m/1000 years (Said 1993 ).

Material and methods

Landform mapping.

Collection of data sources includes soil map of Egypt (ASRT 1982 ), topographic-sheets (scale 1:25,000), and a Landsat-8 satellite image was used to cover the study area, which was acquired in August, 2016, with a path (176) and row (39) from the (USGS) Geologic Survey archive ( http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ ) (Fig.  2 ). As an image preprocessing analysis, the image was calibrated to radiance using the inputs of image type, acquisition date, and time, then it was stretched using linear 2%, smoothly filtered, and their histograms were matched (Lillesand and Kiefer 2007 ). Atmospheric correction was done, then images were mosaicked and geometrically rectified using ENVI 5.1 software (ITT 2009 ). High spatial resolution satellite data are needed for delineation of landform features, so the spatial resolution of Landsat-8 image was enhanced through merging process of the higher spatial resolution panchromatic data (band 8). This process is applied and resulting in multi-spectral data with high spatial resolution (14.25 m). The geomorphology layer was generated by the integration of contour lines extracted from the digital elevation data DEM that derived from topo sheets integrated with SRTM 1 arc second data and the enhanced Landsat-8 image using ENVI 5.1 software (Dobos et al. 2002 ). Physiographic map of the study area has been produced using physiographic analysis, then map legend was established according to Zink and Valenzuala ( 1990 ).

Landsat-8 image of the investigated area (FCC bands 7,5,3)

A total of 15 soil profiles were taken to represent different mapping units. The ground truth data, field survey, soil profile morphological and pedological investigations, and analytical data reveal the main characteristics of different land form map units.

Laboratory analysis

The field-collected representative soil samples were analyzed according to US Soil Survey Staff ( 2014 ). The collected soil samples and auger observations were first air dried, then ground gently, and sieved through 2-mm sieve, where the main physical and chemical properties were determined based on the laboratory routine analysis procedures (Richard 1954 ; Page et al. 1982 ). Soil classification and taxonomy was done using Soil survey staff ( 2014 ). Worth to mention that the soil correlation between the physiographic and taxonomic units were designed in order to identify the major soil sets of the studied area, after Elberson and Catalan ( 1987 ). ArcGIS 10.3 was the main GIS platform used in this study.

Land degradation status

The conceptual framework applied to the work is based on a comparison study between the data extracted from the soil survey of El-Qalyubia governorate report RISW ( 1967 ), and the more recent ground truth data been done in 2017. In regard to the pedoloical, topography features, and climatic factors that are defined and described according to FAO/UNEP ( 1978 , 1979 ) methodology for assessing soil degradation, the natural vulnerability for each soil profile was evaluated and confirmed with the physiographic units. The rating used is presented in Tables  1 and 2 ) and the soil degradation classed and rates are shown in Table  3 . The status of soil degradation is an expression of the process severity. The severity of the processes is characterized by the degree in which the soil degraded and by the relative extent of the degraded area with in a delineated physiographic unit.

The degradation degree, relative extent, severity level, and causative factors were defined and modeled by using the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) approach (UNEP 1991 ) as follows:

Degree of soil degradation: the criteria used to determine the degree of degradation is illustrated in Table  4 .

Relative extent of the degradation type: due to the mapping complication of separating areas of soil degradation individually, it was possible to estimate the relative extent of each type of soil degradation within the map unit. The following five categories are recognized:

▪ Infrequent: up to 5% of the unit is affected.

▪ 2-Common: 6–10% of the unit is affected.

▪ 3-Frequent: 11–25% of the unit is affected.

▪ 4-Very frequent: 26–50% of the unit is affected.

▪ 5-Dominate over: 50% of the unit is affected.

The severity level of soil degradation: the severity level is indicated by combination of the degree and relative extent as shown in Table  5 .

Causative factors: causative factors of the different land degradation types were identified in the field and also collected from the available technical reports.

Physiographic and soil map

Physiographic map of the investigated area has been generated using physiographic analysis (Zinck and Valenzuala 1990 ) by combining Landsat 8 satellite image and Digital Elevation Model DEM derived from topographic maps in integration with the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission SRTM data. According to the soil profile morphological description, sample analysis, and classification, soils were classified into two main orders (Aridisols and Entisols) and ten great groups were identified as shown in Fig.  3 and Table  6 . The obtained physiography map revealed that the island is occupied 0.59% of the investigated area, while the sub-island 1.12% and the levee 1.44%. The over flow mantle is occupied 14.26, the over flow basin 27.17%, the decantation basin 48.34%, the turtle backs 0.27%, and the sequence of river terraces form 6.81%.

Physiography and soil map of Qalyubia Governorate

According to the soil taxonomy classification (Soil Survey Staff 2014 ), studied soils could be classified as:

▪ I, Typic Torripsamment (cons.)—SI, Typic Torripsamment (cons.)

▪ L, Typic Torripsamment (cons.)—O.M, Typic Torrifluvent (cons.)

▪ O.M, Typic Paleargids (Assoc.)—O.B, Vertic Torrifluvent (cons.)

▪ O.B, Typic Natrargids (Assoc.)—D.B, Typic Torrifluvent (Cons.)

▪ T.B, Typic Torripsamment (Assoc.)—T, Vertic Torrifluvent (Cons.)

The physiographic and soil map legend of the investigated area is shown in Table  6 .

Land degradation assessment

Natural vulnerability.

Vulnerability means the potential to be harmed. Natural vulnerability encompasses the conditions determined by physical, social-economic, and environmental processes that increase the susceptibility of a land to the impact of natural hazards (UNISDR 2009 ). In principle, the agricultural land in Egypt is characterized by being among the most intensive agricultural use systems; it may reach three crop rotations a year according to the Egyptian crop calendar followed. These have contributed to the excessive cultivation of land, with the consequence of poor crop production. This misuse practice has not only negative effect on areas of the fertile land but also decrease the overall agro-exports from vegetables and fruits and hence add a lot of burden on the Egyptian economy.

The natural vulnerability and its relative extent percentage of different mapping units in the area under investigation are illustrated in Table  7 and Fig.  4 . The obtained data elucidated that soil of the map units (I, SI, L, O.M, T.B, and T) have a physical degradation ranging from moderate to high risk. In turn, the physical high risk degradation type is related to high content of silt fraction and low percentage of soil organic matter. Nevertheless, soils of (O.B and D.B) have a slight physical degradation related to low content of silt and high percentage of organic matter. In addition, the map units (I, SI, L, O.M, T.B, and T) exposed a chemical degradation risk ranging from slight to moderate. Moreover, units (O.B and D.B) exhibit a high chemical degradation risk due to high evapotranspiration value compared with the actual received amount of precipitation and irrigation water. The relative extent percentage (%) of the natural vulnerability classes are presented in Table  8 .

Natural vulnerability map

Human-induced land degradation

Definitely, human-induced land degradation is an actual increasing problem. Growth of population, agricultural pressure, unsustainable management of natural resources, as well as increasing amounts of harmful chemicals added to the environment all lead to severe land degradation. This phenomenon has to be considered from different prospective, e.g., agrarian, economic, cultural, and social conditions. The GLASOD approach is a first attempt to generate real maps on the status of human-induced land degradation (UNEP 1991 ).

The human-induced land degradation in the studied areas were assessed throughout the identification of rate, degree, relative extent, causative factors, and severity level of each type of land degradation (water logging, compaction, salinization, and alkalization) for the different mapping units as follow.

Land degradation rate

The rate of land degradation was estimated though a tabular comparison of the main land characteristics in (1967) and (2017) (Table  9 ). The degradation rate for each mapping unit was classified to slight as shown in Table  10 . The data revealed that the rate of salinization, alkalization, and compaction are slight. The annual increase of the soil electrical conductivity (ECe), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), and bulk density were reached to (0.1 dS/m), (0.2%), and (0.01 g/cm 3 ) respectively. In the study area, the rate of water logging is slight to moderate as the maximum increase of water table is (1.7 cm/year).

Degree of land degradation

The measured values of ECe, ESP, bulk density and water table depth are presented in range between (4.00–11.23 dS/m), (9.6–19.8%), (1.123–1.46 g/cm3), and (65–125 cm) in the order already mentioned. The hazards of land degradation types differ from low to moderate.

Relative extent of land degradation

The relative extent percentage of each type of human induced land degradation was estimated based upon the correlation between land physiography and soils in the various mapping units as illustrated in Table  11 .

Interpretation and identification of degraded areas by analysis of satellite image data and modeling are considered initial steps to address land degradation issues in Qalyubia Governorate. The GLASOD model adapted for this research is competent in terms of its flexibility; it allows for modification to accommodate indicators of land degradation.

Causative factors of human-induced land degradation

In the area under investigation, the main causative factors of human-induced land degradation types are mentioned in Table  12 and Fig.  5 . Taken into account the environmental factors and processes that would occur without human interference, the soil degradation is resulted when soils are not properly managed, misused, or inefficient utilized. The main types of human-induced land degradation are salinization, alkalization, soil compaction, and water logging; these types are affected as follow:

Salinization and alkalization: the human-induced salinization and alkalization could result from three causes. First, it can be the result of poor management of irrigation schemes. A high salt content of the irrigation water or too little attention given to the drainage status of irrigated field that can easily lead to rapid salinization and/or alkalization problems. This type of salt accumulation mainly occurs under arid and semi-arid condition. Second, salinization and/or alkalization will occur if sea water or fossil saline ground water bodies intrude onto agricultural lands and intrude the groundwater reserves and reservoirs of good quality. This sometimes happens in the coastal regions with an excessive use of groundwater, but can also occur in closed basin with aquifers of different salt content. Worth to mention that a third type happens where human activities lead to an increase in evapo-transpiration of soil moisture in land of high salt-containing parent materials or with saline ground water. In the study area of Qalyubia governorate, the causes of soil salinization could be due to the interactions of various factors: limited available supply of irrigation water, shallow groundwater table, water salinity, poor drainage conditions, parent material, topography, poor management, and climatic factors (high temperature, high evaporation rate, and humidity action) (Fig.  5 ). These factors were captured in questionnaires administered during the field study.

Compaction: this mainly occurs in the soils with a low physical structural stability, under the improper human activities. In the studied areas, soil compaction resulted from inexpedient management and improperly timed use of heavy machinery, misapply of irrigation, absence of conservative measurements, shortage of the fallow period, and an excessive application of harmful chemical fertilizers. This is a major observed degradation characteristic in the study area, which in return would decrease the yield and compact the soil, making it difficult to till the land. As the soil becomes compacted, aeration becomes limited; hence, such lands become less suitable for farming.

Water logging: human intervention in the natural drainage systems by the misuse of irrigation water quality may lead to flooding especially in heavy clay soils. Over irrigation, inefficient drainage system, and destruction of subsurface drainage networks (in some parts) are the main causes of water logging in the considered areas.

Land degradation causative factors over the study area

Severity level

The severity level of land degradation is indicated by a combination of the degradation degree and relative extent of degradation types (Table  13 ).

Status of land degradation

The obtained data of degradation rate, degree, extent, causative factors, and the severity levels in the different mapping units of the studied area are shown in Table  14 and Fig.  6 .

Status of land degradation over Qalyubia governorate

Agricultural land experience rapid changes due to natural and manmade factors. Monitoring these changes is essential for sustainable planning, resource management, and updating geospatial information systems. In general, the agricultural soils in Qalyubia governorate are characterized by quite good soil productivity. Soil units of the study area have a low degradation rate for different types of human-induced factors due to the less change in land characteristics in the last 50 years. This is obtained from monitoring changes in land characteristics during the time period of 1967 and 2017. The integration of remote sensing data and GIS utilities would provide a more precise information on observing the nature and spatial distribution of land use/cover changes and in elaborating the degradation degree. In regard to the present values of soil depth, bulk density, electric conductivity ECe, and exchangeable sodium percentage ESP, the soil units are threatening by a low to moderate degree of water logging, compaction, salinity, and alkalinity as a result of active degradation processes. The moderate values of these types are due to the over irrigation system applied, poor management of irrigation scheme, improper use of heavy machinery, absence of conservation measurements, excessive farm application of harmful chemical fertilizers, and other cultural factors. The severity level of the different degradation types in the targeted soils are indicated as low to very high level. Mitigation of soil sealing by use of diverse media would assist in increase people’s awareness of the seriousness of land degradation and implications on agricultural land.

ASRT (1982) Soil map of Egypt, final report. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), Cairo

Google Scholar  

Ayoub AT (1991) An assessment of human induced soil degradation in Africa. U.N. environmental program, Nairobi, Kenya, Second Soil Sci. conf, Cairo

Baylis K, Jolejole M, Lipper L (2012) Land degradation’s implications on agricultural value of production in Ethiopia: a look inside the bowl. Presentation Papers at the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguacu

Dobos E, Norman B, Bruee W, Luca M, Chris J, Erika M (2002) The use of DEM and satellite images for regional scale soil database. Proceedings of the 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok

Dregn HE (2002) Land degradation in the drylands. Arid Land Res Manag 16(2):99–132

Article   Google Scholar  

Dwivedi RS, Sreenivas K, Ramana KV (1999) Inventory of salt affected soils and water-logged areas: a remote sensing approach. Int J Remote Sens 20(8):1589–1599

Egyptian Meteorological Authority. Climatic Atlas of Egypt. Published report, Ministry of Transport, Arab Republic of Egypt: 2016

Elberson GWW, Catalan R (1987) Portable computer in physiographic soil survey. Proc. Intemat soil Sci., Cong, Homburg

El-Kassas M (1999) Desertification and land degradation in arid regions. Alla, El-Morfa, Kuwait (Arabic), p 258

FAO/UNEP. Methodology for assessing soil degradation. 2527, Rome, Italy; 1978

FAO/UNEP (1979) A Provisional methodology for degradation assessment. FAO, Rome, p 48

ITT. ITT corporation ENVI 5.1 software. 1133 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, NY 10604, USA; 2009

Johnson DL, Lewis LA (2007) Land degradation: creation and destruction. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, DM, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford.

Lillesand TM, Kiefer RW (2007) Remote sensing and image interpretation, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, p 820 Academic

Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (1982) Methods of soil analysis (part 2)—chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. Amer. Soc. of Agron, Madison

Richard LA. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. U.S. Dept. of Agric. HandBook, 1954, No. 60

RISW (1967) Soil survey of El-Kaluibiea Governorate. Report No. 155, Research Institute of Soils and Water (RISW), Cairo

Said R (1993) The river Nile geology and hydrology and utilization. Britain, Pergamon Press, Oxford, p 320

Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th edn. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC

Sun B, Li Z, Gao Z, Guo Z, Wang B, Hu X, Bai L (2017) Grassland degradation and restoration monitoring and driving forces analysis based on long time-series remote sensing data in XilinGol league. Acta Ecol Sin 37(4):219–228

UNCCD (1994) United Nations convention to combat desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa. UN, Paris

UNCCD, (2002) Global Alarm: Dust and Sandstorms from the World’s Drylands, Asia Regional Coordinating Unit, Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD–CRIC1), Bangkok.

UNCCD (2013) Economic and Social impacts of desertification, land degradation and drought. White Paper I. UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, prepared with the contributions of an international group of scientists. Available from: http://2sc.unccd.int (accessed 26 March 2013.), ISBN 978-92-95043-66-4, Bonn, Germany.

UNEP Staff. Global assessment of soil degradation, UNEP UN GLASOG Project: 1991

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) (2009) UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. UN/ISDR, Geneva

US Soil Survey Staff. Soil survey field and laboratory methods manual. Soil survey investigations report no. 51, version 2.0.; 2014. R. Burt and Soil survey staff (ed.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Wim G, El-Hadji M (2002) Causes, general extent and physical consequence of land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub humid areas. Forest conservation and natural resources, forest dept. FAO, Rome

Zink JA, Valenzuala (1990) Soil geographic database: structure and application examples. ITC J. vol. 3. ITC, Enschede

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The funding resources mainly come through the contribution of both soil and water departments in the Faculty of Agric., Cairo Uni., in cooperation with the Land and Water Technologies Dept., Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications, Borg Al-Arab city.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. All figures, maps, and tables generated during this study are included in this published article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Soils Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

W. A. M. Abdel Kawy

Land and Water Technologies Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications (SRTA-City), Borg Al-Arab, Alexandria, Egypt

Kh. M. Darwish

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contribute to the conception, design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data; the creation of new software used in the work; and have drafted the work or substantively revised it. Both authors have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study). Both authors have agreed to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kh. M. Darwish .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kawy, W.A.M.A., Darwish, K.M. Assessment of land degradation and implications on agricultural land in Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt. Bull Natl Res Cent 43 , 70 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0102-1

Download citation

Received : 08 January 2019

Accepted : 25 March 2019

Published : 25 April 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0102-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Land degradation
• Degradation hazard
• Land qualities
• Qalyubia governorate

Advertisement

High-temperature oxidation behavior and degradation mechanism of chromium-coated zirconium alloy cladding: a review

• Review Paper
• Published: 05 September 2024

Cite this article

• Bei-Qi Wang 1 ,
• Xin-Yin Zhang 2 ,
• Shi-Jie Wang 1 ,
• Cong-Yi Li 3 ,
• Hui-Long Yang 1 ,
• Ran-Ran Su 1 &
• Tong Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-5805-8093 1  

Accident-tolerant fuels (ATF) have been extensively studied to reduce the production rate and total amount of heat and hydrogen generated from high-temperature steam oxidation during severe accidents. Chromium-coated zirconium alloy cladding has become one of the most promising candidates for ATF because of its excellent corrosion and oxidation resistance. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the research progress on oxidation behaviors and degradation mechanisms in chromium-coated zirconium alloy cladding under high-temperature conditions. Potential techniques to strengthen the oxidation resistance are highlighted and compared. Finally, challenges and opportunities for various future directions are addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 61 ]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier. b Mass gain during the transient test of Cr-coated and uncoated zirconium alloys in steam flow at 500–1200 ℃ with different coating thicknesses. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 62 ]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier. c Manufacturing processing. Oxidation kinetics curves of uncoated, 4 μm, and 4.5 μm Cr-coated E110 alloy in the steam environment at 900 ℃. d Initial microstructure. Mass gain of the samples with different microstructures during isothermal oxidation at 900 ℃. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 63 ]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier

Reproduced with permission from Refs. [ 61 ], [ 66 ], [ 72 ], [ 75 ], [ 78 ]. Copyright 2023, 2022, 2023, 2019, 2020, Elsevier. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 67 ]. Copyright 2022, Wiley

Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 64 ]. Copyright 2021, Elsevier. b Isothermal test in the air. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 73 ]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier

Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 87 ]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier

Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 61 ]. Copyright 2023, Elsevier. a2 Thickness of Cr–Zr diffusion layer of Cr-coated Zr-4 specimens after high-temperature oxidation. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 76 ]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier. b1 The thickness of the Cr–Zr diffusion layer with various manufacturing processes and times at 1200 ℃; b2 the relationship between the thickness of the Cr–Zr diffusion layer and oxidation time at 1300 ℃

Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 50 ]. Copyright 2020, Elsevier. b , c The macro morphology of some blisters formed on the surface of Cr-coated Zr alloy after the steam oxidation test at 1400 ℃ for 5  min [ 45 ]. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [ 45 ]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier

Similar content being viewed by others

An Overview of Mechanisms of the Degradation of Promising ATF Cladding Materials During Oxidation at High Temperatures

Behavior of Modified Zirconium-Alloy Fuel-Element Cladding Under Irradiation

Data availability.

Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Terrani K. Accident tolerant fuel cladding development: Promise, status, and challenges. J Nucl Mater. 2018;501:13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.12.043 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chen S, He X, Yuan C. Recent studies on potential accident-tolerant fuel-cladding systems in light water reactors. Nucl Sci Tech. 2020;31(3):30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-020-0741-9 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Kurata M. Research and development methodology for practical use of accident tolerant fuel in light water reactors. Nucl Eng Technol. 2016;48(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.12.004 .

Nishimura T, Hoshi H, Hotta A. Current research and development activities on fission products and hydrogen risk after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Nucl Eng Technol. 2015;47(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2014.12.002 .

Kurpaska L, Favergeon J, Grosseau-Poussard J, Lahoche L, Moulin G. In-situ stress analysis of the Zr/ZrO 2 system as studied by Raman spectroscopy and deflection test in monofacial oxidation techniques. Appl Surf Sci. 2016;385:106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.05.074 .

Kurpaska L, Favergeon J, Lahoche L, El-Marssi M, Grosseau P, Moulin G, Roelandt J. Raman spectroscopy analysis of air grown oxide scale developed on pure zirconium substrate. J Nucl Mater. 2015;466:460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.06.005 .

Saji G. Root cause study on hydrogen generation and explosion through radiation-induced electrolysis in the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Nucl Eng Des. 2016;307:64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.01.039 .

Kim H, Kim I, Jung Y, Park D, Park J, Choi B, Lee Y. Out-of-pile performance of surface-modified Zr cladding for accident tolerant fuel in LWRs. J Nucl Mater. 2018;510:93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.07.061 .

Hózer Z, Novotny T, Perez-Feró E, Horváth M, Csordás A, Szabó P, Illés L, Schyns M, Delville R, Kim D, Kim W, Martin. Development of new cladding types for nuclear fuel. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing. Balatonkenese, Hungary, 2020;903(1): 012004.

Wagih M, Spencer B, Hales J, Shirvan K. Fuel performance of chromium-coated zirconium alloy and silicon carbide accident tolerant fuel claddings. Ann Nucl Energy. 2018;120:304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.06.001 .

Pint B, Terrani K, Yamamoto Y, Snead L. Material selection for accident tolerant fuel cladding. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions E. 2015;2(3):190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40553-015-0056-7 .

Chen H, Wang X, Zhang R. Application and development progress of Cr-based surface coatings in nuclear fuel element: I selection, preparation, and characteristics of coating materials. Coatings. 2020;10(9):808. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10090808 .

Huang J, Zou S, Xiao W, Liu X, Chen H, Tang D, Deng H, Zhou X, Lei M. Microstructural, mechanical properties and high temperature oxidation of Cr, Al-coated Zr-4 alloy. Nuclear Materials and Energy. 2020;25: 100810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2020.100810 .

Zhou T, Gao X, Chen H, Zhang R, Shang L, Zhang G, Cai Z. The high-temperature oxidation and mechanical properties of the Cr/Zr and CrN/Zr coating. Surf Topogr Metrol Prop. 2022;10(3): 035028. https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672X/ac8e1f .

Zhang J, Liu R, Jian Y, Wan F, Wang Y. Degradation mechanism of SiC f /SiC composites after long-time water vapor and oxygen corrosion at 1300 ℃. Corros Sci. 2022;197: 110099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110099 .

Park D, Jung Y, Kim H, Park J, Koo Y. Oxidation behavior of silicon carbide at 1200 ℃ in both air and water–vapor-rich environments. Corros Sci. 2014;88:416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2014.07.052 .

Deck C, Jacobsen G, Sheeder J, Gutierrez O, Zhang J, Stone J, Khalifa H, Back C. Characterization of SiC–SiC composites for accident tolerant fuel cladding. J Nucl Mater. 2015;466:667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.08.020 .

Kim D, Lee H, Park J, Park J, Kim W. Effect of dissolved hydrogen on the corrosion behavior of chemically vapor deposited SiC in a simulated pressurized water reactor environment. Corros Sci. 2015;98:304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2015.05.031 .

Lai HS, Jiang X, Zhong Y, Du P, Guo J, Huang Q. Using tube specimen to investigate the creep behavior of FeCrAl fuel cladding tubes. Eng Fract Mech. 2023;284:109253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109253 .

Pint B. Performance of FeCrAl for accident-tolerant fuel cladding in high-temperature steam. Corros Rev. 2017;35(3):167. https://doi.org/10.1515/corrrev-2016-0067 .

Jin D, Ni N, Guo Y, Zou Z, Wang X, Guo F, Zhao X, Xiao P. Corrosion of the bonding at FeCrAl/Zr alloy interfaces in steam. J Nucl Mater. 2018;508:411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.05.071 .

Field KG, Briggs SA, Sridharan K, Howard RH, Yamamoto Y. Mechanical properties of neutron-irradiated model and commercial FeCrAl alloys. J Nucl Mater. 2017;489:118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.03.038 .

Field K, Yamamoto Y, Pint B, Gussev M, Terrani K. Accident tolerant FeCrAl fuel cladding: current status towards commercialization. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems – Water Reactors. Oregon, USA. 2019

Yeom H, Maier B, Johnson G, Dabney T, Walters J, Sridharan K. Development of cold spray process for oxidation-resistant FeCrAl and Mo diffusion barrier coatings on optimized ZIRLO™. J Nucl Mater. 2018;507:306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.05.014 .

Dryepondt S, Unocic K, Hoelzer D, Massey C, Pint B. Development of low-Cr ODS FeCrAl alloys for accident-tolerant fuel cladding. J Nucl Mater. 2018;501:59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.12.035 .

Yueh K, Terrani K. Silicon carbide composite for light water reactor fuel assembly applications. J Nucl Mater. 2014;448(1):380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.12.004 .

Baney R, Tulenko J, Butt D. An innovative ceramic corrosion protection system for zircaloy cladding. Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida (US); 2003.

Google Scholar  

Al-Olayyan Y, Fuchs G, Baney R, Tulenko J. The effect of Zircaloy-4 substrate surface condition on the adhesion strength and corrosion of SiC coatings. J Nucl Mater. 2005;346(2):109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2005.05.016 .

Zhong W, Mouche P, Han X, Heuser B, Mandapaka K, Was G. Performance of iron–chromium–aluminum alloy surface coatings on Zircaloy 2 under high-temperature steam and normal BWR operating conditions. J Nucl Mater. 2016;470:327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.11.037 .

Terrani K, Parish C, Shin D, Pint B. Protection of zirconium by alumina- and chromia-forming iron alloys under high-temperature steam exposure. J Nucl Mater. 2013;438(1–3):64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.03.006 .

Ko J, Kim J, Min H, Kim Y, Yoon Y. Review of manufacturing technologies for coated accident tolerant fuel cladding. J Nucl Mater. 2022;561: 153562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2022.153562 .

Seshadri A, Shirvan K. Quenching heat transfer analysis of accident tolerant coated fuel cladding. Nucl Eng Des. 2018;338:5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.07.020 .

Shirvan K, Seshadri A, Dave A. Experimental investigation of cold-spray Cr-coated cladding during normal and accident conditions. Topfuel. Seattle, United States, 2019.

Brachet J, Le Saux M, Bischoff J, Palancher H, Chosson R, Pouillier E, Guilbert T, Urvoy S, Nony G, Vandenberghe T, Lequien A, Miton C, Bossis P. Evaluation of equivalent cladding reacted parameters of Cr-coated claddings oxidized in steam at 1200 ℃ in relation with oxygen diffusion/partitioning and post-quench ductility. J Nucl Mater. 2020;533: 152106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152106 .

Bischoff J, Vauglin C, Delafoy C, Barberis P, Perche D, Guerin B, Vassault J, Brachet J. Development of Cr-coated zirconium alloy cladding for enhanced accident tolerance. Topfuel 2016 - Light Water Reactor (LWR) Fuel Performance Meeting. Boise, United States, 2016.

Kane K, Stack P, Mouche P, Pillai R, Pint B. Steam oxidation of chromium corrosion barrier coatings for SiC-based accident tolerant fuel cladding. J Nucl Mater. 2021;543: 152561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152561 .

Yook H, Shirvan K, Phillips B, Lee Y. Post-LOCA ductility of Cr-coated cladding and its embrittlement limit. J Nucl Mater. 2022;558: 153354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153354 .

Wang Y, Zhou W, Wen Q, Ruan X, Luo F, Bai G, Qing Y, Zhu D, Huang Z, Zhang Y, Liu T, Li R. Behavior of plasma sprayed Cr coatings and FeCrAl coatings on Zr fuel cladding under loss-of-coolant accident conditions. Surf Coat Technol. 2018;344:141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.03.016 .

Park D, Kim H, Jung Y, Park J, Yang J, Koo Y. Behavior of an improved Zr fuel cladding with oxidation resistant coating under loss-of-coolant accident conditions. J Nucl Mater. 2016;482:75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2016.10.021 .

Dumerval M, Houmaire Q, Brachet J, Palancher H, Bischoff J, Pouillier E. Light Water Reactor (LWR) Fuel Performance Meeting. Prague: Czech Republic; 2018. 

Chalupová A, Krejčí J, Cvrček L, Ševeček M, Rozkošnỳ V, Přibyl A, Halodová P, Gávelová P. Coated cladding behavior during high-temperature transients. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings: vol 24. Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic, 2019.7.

Bell S, Graening T, Evans A, Kelly P, Pint B, Kane K. Burst and oxidation behavior of Cr-coated Zirlo during simulated LOCA testing. J Nucl Mater. 2022;564: 153679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2022.153679 .

Kane K, Bell S, Capps N, Garrison B, Shapovalov K, Jacobsen G, Deck C, Graening T, Koyanagi T, Massey C. The response of accident tolerant fuel cladding to LOCA burst testing: A comparative study of leading concepts. J Nucl Mater. 2022;574: 154152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2022.154152 .

Tang C, Stueber M, Seifert H, Steinbrueck M. Protective coatings on zirconium-based alloys as accident-tolerant fuel (ATF) claddings. Corros Rev. 2017;35(3):141. https://doi.org/10.1515/corrrev-2017-0010 .

Yang J, Steinbrück M, Tang C, Große M, Liu J, Zhang J, Yun D, Wang S. Review on chromium coated zirconium alloy accident tolerant fuel cladding. J Alloy Compd. 2022;895: 162450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.162450 .

Geelhood K, Luscher W. Degradation and failure phenomena of accident tolerant fuel concepts: FeCrAl Alloy Cladding. Tech. Rep. PNNL-30445, 2020.

Young D. High temperature oxidation and corrosion of metals. Hamilton: Elsevier, 2008.

Arifin S, Hamid M, Berahim A, Ani M. Effects of water vapor on protectiveness of Cr 2 O 3 scale at 1073 K. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, 2017;290:012085.

Park D, Jung Y, Park J, Choi B, Lee Y, Kim I, Kim H. High temperature oxidation behavior of Cr layer coated on Zr fuel cladding using arc ion plating technique. Korea: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting. Jeju; 2019.

Brachet J, Rouesne E, Ribis J, Guilbert T, Urvoy S, Nony G, Toffolon M, Le S, Chaabane N, Palancher H, David A, Bischoff J, Augereau J, Pouillier E. High temperature steam oxidation of chromium-coated zirconium-based alloys: Kinetics and process. Corros Sci. 2020;167: 108537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2020.108537 .

Opila E, Jacobson N, Myers D, Copland E. Predicting oxide stability in high-temperature water vapor. JOM. 2006;58(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-006-0063-3 .

Royer L, Ledoux X, Mathieu S, Steinmetz P. On the oxidation and nitridation of chromium at 1300 ℃. Oxid Met. 2010;74(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11085-010-9198-2 .

Deng J, Geng D, Sun Q, Song Z, Sun J. Steam oxidation of Cr-coated zirconium alloy claddings at 1200 ℃: Kinetics transition and failure mechanism of Cr coatings. J Nucl Mater. 2023;586: 154684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154684 .

Ma H, Yan J, Zhao Y, Liu T, Ren Q, Liao Y, Zuo J, Liu G, Yao M. Oxidation behavior of Cr-coated zirconium alloy cladding in high-temperature steam above 1200 ℃. npj Materials Degradation. 2021;5(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41529-021-00155-8 .

Wang X, Guan H, Liao Y, Zhu M, Xu C, Jin X, Liao B, Xue W, Zhang Y, Bai G, Wang R. Enhancement of high temperature steam oxidation resistance of Zr–1Nb alloy with ZrO 2 /Cr bilayer coating. Corros Sci. 2021;187: 109494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2021.109494 .

Sawarn T, Banerjee S, Samanta A, Rath B, Kumar S. Study of oxide and α-Zr(O) growth kinetics from high temperature steam oxidation of Zircaloy-4 cladding. J Nucl Mater. 2015;467:820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.10.012 .

Moorehead M, Yu Z, Borrel L, Hu J, Cai Z, Couet A. Comprehensive investigation of the role of Nb on the oxidation kinetics of Zr-Nb alloys. Corros Sci. 2019;155:173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.04.017 .

Narukawa T, Amaya M. Oxidation behavior of high-burnup advanced fuel cladding tubes in high-temperature steam. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2019;56(7):650. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2019.1613268 .

Chung HM, Thomas GR. High-temperature oxidation of Zircaloy in hydrogen-steam mixtures. West Conshohocken: ASTM International. 1982.

Brachet J, Idarraga T, Flem M, Saux M, Vandenberghe V, Urvoy S, Rouesne E, Guilbert T, Toffolon M, Tupin M, Phalippou C, Lomello F, Schuster F, Billard A, Velisa G, Ducros C, Sanchette F. Early studies on Cr-Coated Zircaloy-4 as enhanced accident tolerant nuclear fuel claddings for light water reactors. J Nucl Mater. 2019;517:268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.02.018 .

Xiao W, Liu S, Huang J, Zou S, Yu H, Zhang L, He L, Zhang K. Oxidation behavior of Cr-coated Zr-4 alloy prepared by multi-arc ion plating at 1000–1200 ℃. J Nucl Mater. 2023;575: 154254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154254 .

Kashkarov E, Sidelev D, Syrtanov M, Tang C, Steinbrück M. Oxidation kinetics of Cr-coated zirconium alloy: Effect of coating thickness and microstructure. Corros Sci. 2020;175: 108883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2020.108883 .

Kashkarov E, Sidelev D, Pushilina N, Yang J, Tang C, Steinbrueck M. Influence of coating parameters on oxidation behavior of Cr-coated zirconium alloy for accident tolerant fuel claddings. Corros Sci. 2022;203: 110359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110359 .

Liu J, Tang C, Steinbrück M, Yang J, Stegmaier U, Große M, Yun D, Seifert HJ. Transient experiments on oxidation and degradation of Cr-coated Zircaloy in steam up to 1600 ℃. Corros Sci. 2021;192: 109805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2021.109805 .

Han X, Xue J, Peng S, Zhang H. An interesting oxidation phenomenon of Cr coatings on Zry-4 substrates in high temperature steam environment. Corros Sci. 2019;156:117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.05.017 .

Wang D, Zhong R, Zhang Y, Chen P, Lan Y, Yu J, Su G, Qiu S, Tian W. Isothermal experiments on steam oxidation of magnetron-sputtered chromium-coated zirconium alloy cladding at 1200 ℃. Corros Sci. 2022;206: 110544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110544 .

Xiang Y, Yang H, Chen Q, Peng X, Zhang R, Wei T, Liu C, Chen H. Long-term high-temperature steam oxidation behavior of Cr-coated Zircaloy-4 alloy for accident tolerant fuel. Mater Corros. 2022;73(12):2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/maco.202213307 .

Tang C, Grosse M, Steinbrueck M, Shirvan K. Oxidation and quench behavior of cold spraying Cr-coated zircaloy fuel cladding under severe accident scenarios. TopFuel 2019, Seattle, United States, 2019. 22.

Kim H, Kim I, Jung Y, Park D, Park J, Koo Y. Adhesion property and high-temperature oxidation behavior of Cr-coated Zircaloy-4 cladding tube prepared by 3D laser coating. J Nucl Mater. 2015;465:531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.06.030 .

Kim H, Kim I, Jung Y, Park D, Park J, Koo Y. Charlotte High-temperature oxidation behavior of Cr-coated zirconium alloy. TopFuel 2013. Charlotte, 2013. 846.

Kim H, Kim I, Jung Y, Park D, Park J, Park J, Koo Y. Oxidation behavior and mechanical property of Cr-coated zirconium cladding prepared by 3D laser coating. Proceedings of the 2014 Water Reactor Fuel Performance Meeting (WRFPM 2014), Sendai, Japan. 2014.

Ma J, Tan J, Zhou Y, Meng C, Wang H, Yang W, He X. Influence of a Mo interlayer on the oxidation behavior of a Cr coating on a Zr alloy substrate. Corros Sci. 2023;218: 111192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2023.111192 .

Li Q, Wang Y, Du P, Song P, Zhang R, Li Z, Lu J. Oxidation properties and microstructure of a chromium coating on zircaloy-4 fuel cladding material applied by atmospheric plasma spraying. J Nucl Mater. 2022;560: 153496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153496 .

Jiang J, Du M, Pan Z, Yuan M, Ma X, Wang B. Effects of oxidation and inter-diffusion on the fracture mechanisms of Cr-coated Zry-4 alloys: An in situ three-point bending study. Mater Des. 2021;212: 110168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110168 .

Wei T, Zhang R, Yang H, Liu H, Qiu S, Wang Y, Du P, He K, Hu X, Dong C. Microstructure, corrosion resistance and oxidation behavior of Cr-coatings on Zircaloy-4 prepared by vacuum arc plasma deposition. Corros Sci. 2019;158: 108077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.06.029 .

Huang J, Zou S, Xiao W, Yang C, Yu H, Zhang L, Zhang K. Microstructural evolution of Cr-coated Zr-4 alloy prepared by multi-arc ion plating during high temperature oxidation. J Nucl Mater. 2022;562: 153616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2022.153616 .

Yeom H, Maier B, Johnson G, Dabney T, Lenling M, Sridharan K. High temperature oxidation and microstructural evolution of cold spray chromium coatings on Zircaloy-4 in steam environments. J Nucl Mater. 2019;526: 151737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.151737 .

Han X, Chen C, Tan Y, Feng W, Peng S, Zhang H. A systematic study of the oxidation behavior of Cr coatings on Zry4 substrates in high temperature steam environment. Corros Sci. 2020;174: 108826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2020.108826 .

Hu X, Dong C, Wang Q, Chen B, Yang H, Wei T, Zhang R, Gu W, Chen D. High-temperature oxidation of thick Cr coating prepared by arc deposition for accident tolerant fuel claddings. J Nucl Mater. 2019;519:145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.01.039 .

Liu J, Steinbrück M, Große M, Stegmaier U, Tang C, Yun D, Yang J, Cui Y, Seifert H. Systematic investigations on the coating degradation mechanism during the steam oxidation of Cr-coated Zry-4 at 1200 ℃. Corros Sci. 2022;202: 110310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110310 .

Gurgen A, Shirvan K. Estimation of coping time in pressurized water reactors for near term accident tolerant fuel claddings. Nucl Eng Des. 2018;337:38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.06.020 .

Wang Y, Wang L, Shang L, Bai G, Li J, Xue F, Gong W. Fiber texture-dependent oxidation behaviour of Cr-coated zirconium alloy in high temperature steam. Corros Sci. 2022;205: 110449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110449 .

Chen Q, Liu C, Zhang R, Yang H, Wei T, Wang Y, Li Z, He L, Wang J, Wang L, Long J, Chang H. Microstructure and high-temperature steam oxidation properties of thick Cr coatings prepared by magnetron sputtering for accident tolerant fuel claddings: The role of bias in the deposition process. Corros Sci. 2020;165: 108378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108378 .

He X, Tian Z, Shi B, Xu X, Meng C, Dang W, Tan J, Ma X. Effect of gas pressure and bias potential on oxidation resistance of Cr coatings. Ann Nucl Energy. 2019;132:243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2019.04.038 .

Guillou S, Cabet C, Desgranges C, Marchetti L, Wouters Y. Influence of hydrogen and water vapour on the kinetics of chromium oxide Growth at high temperature. Oxid Met. 2011;76(3):193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11085-011-9246-6 .

Wu S, Wang D, Zhang Y, Okamoto K, Pellegrini M, Tian W, Qiu S, Su G. Model development for oxidation and degradation behavior of accident tolerant Cr coating on Zr alloy cladding under high temperature steam atmosphere. J Nucl Mater. 2024;589: 154836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154836 .

Kim D, Steinbrück M, Grosse M, Tang C, Lee Y. Eutectic reaction and oxidation behavior of Cr-coated Zircaloy-4 accident-tolerant fuel cladding under various heating rates. J Nucl Mater. 2023;583: 154538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154538 .

Bischoff J, Delafoy C, Vauglin C, Barberis P, Roubeyrie C, Perche D, Duthoo D, Schuster F, Brachet J, Schweitzer E, Nimishakavi K. AREVA NP’s enhanced accident-tolerant fuel developments: Focus on Cr-coated M5 cladding. Nucl Eng Technol. 2018;50(2):223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.12.004 .

Krejčí J, Kabátová J, Manoch F, Kočí J, Cvrček L, Málek J, Krum S, Šutta P, Bublíková P, Halodová P, Namburi H, Ševeček M. Development and testing of multicomponent fuel cladding with enhanced accidental performance. Nucl Eng Technol. 2020;52(3):597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.08.015 .

Stuckert J, Steinbrueck M, Kalilainen J, Lind T, Birchley J. Experimental and modelling results of the QUENCH-18 bundle experiment on air ingress, cladding melting and aerosol release. Nucl Eng Des. 2021;379: 111267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2021.111267 .

Li Q, Song P, Zhang R, Li Z, Wang Y, Du P, Lu J. Oxidation behavior and Cr–Zr diffusion of Cr coatings prepared by atmospheric plasma spraying on zircaloy-4 cladding in steam at 1300 ℃. Corros Sci. 2022;203: 110378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110378 .

Idarraga-Trujillo I, Flem M, Brachet J, Le Saux M, Hamon D, Muller S, Vandenberghe V, Tupin M, Papin E, Billard A, Monsifrot F, Schuster F. Assessment at CEA of coated nuclear fuel cladding for LWRs with increasing margins in LOCA and beyond LOCA conditions. LWR Fuel Performance Meeting, Top Fuel. Charlotte. USA: North Carolina; 2013.

Brachet J, Lorrette C, Michaux A, Sauder C, Idarraga-Trujillo I, Le Saux M, Flem M, Schuster F, Billard A, Monsifrot E, Torres E, Rebillat F, Bischoff J, Ambard A. CEA studies on advanced nuclear fuel claddings for enhanced Accident Tolerant LWRs Fuel (LOCA and beyond LOCA conditions). Proceedings of the Fontevraud, Avignon France, 2014.

Johnson C, Ruud J, Bruce R, Wortman D. Relationships between residual stress, microstructure and mechanical properties of electron beam–physical vapor deposition thermal barrier coatings. Surf Coat Technol. 1998;108–109:80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0257-8972(98)00668-9 .

Evans H, Lobb R. Conditions for the initiation of oxide-scale cracking and spallation. Corros Sci. 1984;24(3):209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-938X(84)90051-9 .

Caplan D, Harvey A, Cohen M. Oxidation of chromium at 890–1200 ℃. Corros Sci. 1963;3(3):161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-938X(63)80086-4 .

Nicholls J. Designing oxidation-resistant coatings. JOM. 2000;52(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-000-0112-2 .

Birks N, Meier G, Pettit F. Introduction to the high temperature oxidation of metals. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

Book   Google Scholar  

Pilling N, Bedworth R. The oxidation of metals at high temperatures. The Journal of the Institute of Metals. 1923;29:529.

Huntz A. Stresses in NiO, Cr 2 O 3 and Al 2 O 3 oxide scales. Mater Sci Eng, A. 1995;201(1):211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-5093(94)09747-X .

Liu J, Cui Z, Hao Z, Ma D, Lu J, Cui Y, Li C, Liu W, Xie S, Hu P, Huang P, Bai G, Yun D. Steam oxidation of Cr-coated Sn-containing Zircaloy solid rod at 1000 ℃. Corros Sci. 2021;190: 109682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2021.109682 .

Maier B, Yeom H, Johnson G, Dabney T, Walters J, Romero J, Shah H, Xu P, Sridharan K. Development of cold spray coatings for accident-tolerant fuel cladding in light water reactors. JOM. 2018;70(2):198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-017-2643-9 .

Yang J, Stegmaier U, Tang C, Steinbrück M, Große M, Wang S, Seifert H. High temperature Cr–Zr interaction of two types of Cr-coated Zr alloys in inert gas environment. J Nucl Mater. 2021;547: 152806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.152806 .

Lillerud K, Kofstad P. On high temperature oxidation of chromium: I. Oxidation of annealed, thermally etched chromium at 800–1100 ℃. J Electrochem Soc. 1980;127(11): 2397. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2129478

Meschter P, Opila E, Jacobson N. Water vapor–mediated volatilization of high-temperature materials. Annu Rev Mater Res. 2013;43(1):559. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-071312-121636 .

Ruan J, Pei Y, Fang D. Residual stress analysis in the oxide scale/metal substrate system due to oxidation growth strain and creep deformation. Acta Mech. 2012;223(12):2597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-012-0739-4 .

Jiang J, Ma X, Wang B. Stress analysis of the thermal barrier coating system near a cooling hole considering the free-edge effect. Ceram Int. 2020;46(1):331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.08.267 .

Jiang J, Zhai H, Gong P, Zhang W, He X, Ma X, Wang B. In-situ study on the tensile behavior of Cr-coated zircaloy for accident tolerant fuel claddings. Surf Coat Technol. 2020;394: 125747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.125747 .

Ma H, Zhao Y, Liu Y, Zhu J, Yan J, Liu T, Ren Q, Liao Y, Liu G, Lin X, Yao M. Self-healing behavior of Cr-coated Zr alloy cladding in high temperature steam oxidation process. J Nucl Mater. 2022;558: 153327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153327 .

Schuster F, Lomello F, Billard A, Velisa G, Monsifrot E, Bischoff J, Ambard A, Brachet J, Lesaux M, Leflem M, Urvoy S, Rouesne E, Guilbert T, Cobac C, Lahogue F, Rousselot J, Tupin M, Billaud P, Hossepied C. On-going studies at CEA on chromium coated zirconium based nuclear fuel claddings for enhanced accident tolerant LWRS fuel. TopFuel 2015 - Reactor Fuel Performance Meeting. Zurich, Switzerland, 2015.

Evans A, Hutchinson J. On the mechanics of delamination and spalling in compressed films. Int J Solids Struct. 1984;20(5):455. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(84)90012-X .

Jiang J, Wang D, Du M, Ma X, Wang C, He X. Interdiffusion behavior between Cr and Zr and its effect on the microcracking behavior in the Cr-coated Zr-4 alloy. Nucl Sci Tech. 2021;32(12):134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00977-w .

Ribis J, Wu A, Brachet J, Barcelo F, Arnal B. Atomic-scale interface structure of a Cr-coated Zircaloy-4 material. J Mater Sci. 2018;53:9879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2333-1 .

Arias D, Abriata J. The Cr−Zr (Chromium-Zirconium) system. Bulletin of Alloy Phase Diagrams. 1986;7(3):237. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02868997 .

Li B, Yang H, Holmes R, Cui L, Kano S, Abe H. Experimental kinetic study of interdiffusion behavior and intermetallic compound Zr (Fe, Cr) 2 formation at the Cr/Zry4 interface under elevated temperatures. J Nucl Mater. 2023;584: 154595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154595 .

Bhanumurthy K, Krauss W, Konys J. Solid-state diffusion reaction and formation of intermetallic phases in the Fe-Al System. Fus Sci Technol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.13182/FST13-651 .

Jindal V, Srivastava V, Das A, Ghosh R. Reactive diffusion in the roll bonded iron–aluminum system. Mater Lett. 2006;60(13):1758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2005.12.013 .

Li B, Yang H, Holmes R, Cui L, Kano S, Abe H. Thermal stability of the Cr-coated zirconium alloy microstructure prepared by pulsed laser deposition. Tungsten. 2023;6:333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42864-023-00235-z .

Okamoto H, Massalski T. ASM International. OH, USA: Materials Park; 1990.

Tillmann W, Khalil O, Abdulgader M. Porosity characterization and its effect on thermal properties of APS-sprayed alumina coatings. Coatings. 2019;9(10):601. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings9100601 .

Kim J, Ha T, Kim I, Kim H. Microstructure and oxidation behavior of CrAl laser-coated zircaloy-4 alloy. Metals. 2017;7(2):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/met7020059 .

Ackermann O, Garg S, Rauh E. High-temperature phase diagram for the system Zr. J Am Ceram Soc. 1977;60(7–8):341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1977.tb15557.x .

Andersson J. Thermodynamic properties of chromium. Int J Thermophys. 1985;6(4):411. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00500271 .

Brachet J, Guilbert T, Lesaux M, Rousselot J, Nony G, Toffolon-Masclet C, Schuster F, Palancher H, Bischoff J, Augereau J, Pouillier E. Behavior of Cr-coated M5 claddings during and after high temperature steam oxidation from 800 ℃ up to 1500 ℃. Topfuel 2018. Prague Czech. 2018. Republic.

Steinbrück M, Stegmaier U, Große M, Czerniak L, Lahoda E, Daum R, Yueh K. High-temperature oxidation and quenching of chromium-coated zirconium alloy ATF cladding tubes with and w/o pre-damage. J Nucl Mater. 2022;559: 153470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153470 .

Krejčí J, Ševeček M, Kabátová J, Manoch F, Kočí J, Cvrček L, Málek J, Krum S, Šutta P, Bublíková P, Experimental behavior of chromium-based coatings. TopFuel, Prague, Czech Republic. 2018, A0233.

Chen Q, Xiang Y, Li Z, He H, Zhong Y, Zhu C, Liu N, Yang Y, Liao J, Chang H, Liu C, Yang J. Microstructure evolution and adhesion properties of thick Cr coatings under different thermal shock temperatures. Surf Coat Technol. 2021;417: 127224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127224 .

Yang H, Shen J, Matsukawa Y, Satoh Y, Kano S, Zhao Z, Li Y, Li F, Abe H. Effects of alloying elements (Sn, Nb, Cr, and Mo) on the microstructure and mechanical properties of zirconium alloys. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2015;52:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2014.996622 .

Li G, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Li H, Wang X, Zheng M, Li Y. High temperature anti-oxidation behavior and mechanical property of radio frequency magnetron sputtered Cr coating. Metals. 2020;10(11):1509. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10111509 .

Su H, Wu X, Wu L, Zhao S, Zhong Y, Ning Z, Liu N, Yang J. Effect of Nb content on microstructure, mechanical property, high-temperature corrosion and oxidation resistance of CrNb coatings for accident tolerant fuel cladding. Int J Refract Metal Hard Mater. 2023;110: 106010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2022.106010 .

Meng C, Yang L, Wu Y, Tan J, Dang W, He X, Ma X. Study of the oxidation behavior of CrN coating on Zr alloy in air. J Nucl Mater. 2019;515:354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.01.006 .

Ma J, Meng C, Wang H, He X. Effect of Al content on the high-temperature oxidation resistance and structure of CrAl coatings. Coatings. 2021;11(12):1434. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11121434 .

Lin J, Zhang N, Sproul W, Moore J. A comparison of the oxidation behavior of CrN films deposited using continuous dc, pulsed dc and modulated pulsed power magnetron sputtering. Surf Coat Technol. 2012;206(14):3283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.01.033 .

Kashkarov E, Afornu B, Sidelev D, Krinitcyn M, Gouws V, Lider A. Recent advances in protective coatings for accident tolerant Zr-based fuel claddings. Coatings. 2021;11(5):557. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11050557 .

Syrtanov M, Kashkarov E, Abdulmenova A, Sidelev D. High-temperature oxidation of Zr1Nb zirconium alloy with protective Cr/Mo coating. Surf Coat Technol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128459 .

Syrtanov M, Kashkarov E, Abdulmenova A, Gusev K, Sidelev D. High-temperature steam oxidation of accident-tolerant Cr/Mo-Coated Zr Alloy at 1200–1400 ℃. Coatings. 2023;13(1):191. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13010191 .

Baek J, Park K, Jeong Y. Oxidation kinetics of Zircaloy-4 and Zr–1Nb–1Sn–0.1Fe at temperatures of 700–1200 ℃. J Nucl Mater. 2004;335(3): 443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.08.007 .

Lee C, Sohn D. Enhanced high-temperature oxidation resistance of a zirconium alloy cladding by high-temperature preformed oxide on the cladding. Corros Sci. 2018;131:116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2017.11.019 .

Kawasaki S, Furuta T, Suzuki M. Oxidation of zircaloy-4 under high temperature steam atmosphere and its effect on ductility of cladding. J Nucl Sci Technol. 1978;15(8):589. https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.1978.9735555 .

Brachet J, Vandenberghe-Maillot V, Portier L, Gilbon D, Lesbros A, Waeckel N, Mardon J. Hydrogen content, preoxidation, and cooling scenario effects on post-quench microstructure and mechanical properties of Zircaloy-4 and M5 alloys in LOCA conditions. J ASTM Int. 2008;5(5):1. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP48132S .

Mazères B, Desgranges C, Toffolon-Masclet C, Monceau D. Experimental study and numerical simulation of high temperature (1100–1250 ℃) oxidation of prior-oxidized zirconium alloy. Corros Sci. 2016;103:10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2015.10.018 .

Guilbert S, Lacote P, Montigny G, Duriez C, Desquines J, Grandjean C. Effect of pre-oxide on Zircaloy-4 high temperature steam oxidation and post-quench mechanical properties. 17th International Symposium on Zirconium in the Nuclear Industry: ASTM International. Conshohocken. 2013.

Liu H, Feng Y, Yao Y, Li B, Wang R, Shi X, Li P, Shu J, Huang F, Huang Q, Ge F. Effect of the 345℃ and 16.5 MPa autoclave corrosion on the oxidation behavior of Cr-coated zirconium claddings in the high-temperature steam. Corros Sci. 2021;189:109608.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2021.109608 .

Dorcheh A, Schütze M, Galetz M. Factors affecting isothermal oxidation of pure chromium in air. Corros Sci. 2018;130:261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2017.11.006 .

Jiang J, Ma X, Wang B. Positive or negative role of preoxidation in the crack arresting of Cr coating for accident tolerant fuel cladding. Corros Sci. 2021;193: 109870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2021.109870 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the LingChuang Research Project of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC-LCKY-202242)

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

Yi Li, Bei-Qi Wang, Shi-Jie Wang, Hui-Long Yang, Ran-Ran Su & Tong Liu

College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA

Xin-Yin Zhang

Global Institute of Future Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tong Liu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Li, Y., Wang, BQ., Zhang, XY. et al. High-temperature oxidation behavior and degradation mechanism of chromium-coated zirconium alloy cladding: a review. Tungsten (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42864-024-00289-7

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2023

Revised : 20 December 2023

Accepted : 22 December 2023

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42864-024-00289-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Accident-tolerant fuel
• Chromium coating
• Zirconium alloy cladding
• High-temperature oxidation behavior
• Degradation mechanism
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research