ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020
Comparing the impact of future cropland expansion on global biodiversity and carbon storage across models and scenarios.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reversing the great degradation of nature by reducing factors related to cropland expansion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Spatiotemporal cropland dynamics and sustainable pathways in the Yangtze river economic belt.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Nonnegligible cascading impacts of global urban expansion on net primary productivity.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Projected patterns of land uses in Africa under a warming climate.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Drivers and implications of alternative routes to fuels decarbonization in net-zero energy systems.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Enhanced food system efficiency is the key to China's 2060 carbon neutrality target.Nature food · 2023Article
- Global inventory of suitable, cultivable and available cropland under different scenarios and policies.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Land-use change is a direct driver of biodiversity and carbon storage loss. Projections of future land use often include notable expansion of cropland areas in response to changes in climate and food demand, although there are large uncertainties in results between models and scenarios. This study examines these uncertainties by comparing three different socio-economic scenarios (SSP1-3) across three models (IMAGE, GLOBIOM and PLUMv2). It assesses the impacts on biodiversity metrics and direct carbon loss from biomass and soil as a direct consequence of cropland expansion. Results show substantial variation between models and scenarios, with little overlap across all nine projections. Although SSP1 projects the least impact, there are still significant impacts projected. IMAGE and GLOBIOM project the greatest impact across carbon storage and biodiversity metrics due to both extent and location of cropland expansion. Furthermore, for all the biodiversity and carbon metrics used, there is a greater proportion of variance explained by the model used. This demonstrates the importance of improving the accuracy of land-based models. Incorporating effects of land-use change in biodiversity impact assessments would also help better prioritize future protection of biodiverse and carbon-rich areas. This article is part of the theme issue 'Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.