Balancing food production with climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Amazon
Balancing food production with climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Amazon
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166681
复制
发表时间：
2023-09-08
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Liu，Jianguo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
da Silva，Ramon Felipe Bicudo;Millington，James D. A.;Liu，Jianguo
减缓气候变化和保护生物多样性是本世纪需要有效开展的两项主要环境行动，同时还要确保不断增长的全球人口的粮食供应。这三个问题通过土地管理系统密切相关。因此，位于生物多样性热点地区并具有固碳潜力的全球主要粮食生产区面临着这些宝贵的陆地生态系统服务之间的权衡。巴西的马托格罗索州就是这样一个地区，在那里，被非法用于农业的私人土地可以恢复为自然植被-这可能有利于减缓气候变化和保护生物多样性，但可能对粮食生产产生负面影响。为了应对这一挑战，在这项研究中，我们使用了一种多标准关系建模方法，该方法考虑了碳储量、生物多样性保护的优先领域以及粮食生产的机会，以制定土地分配方案，旨在平衡生态系统恢复的利弊。结果表明，强迫土地所有者恢复他们的个人土地损害了整个亚马逊生物群落的“绿色土地市场”的潜力，在这个市场中，粮食生产能力较低的私人土地所有者（例如，与市场和基础设施联系较少的土著人民（即土著人民）将受益于恢复方案，这些方案补偿他们将环境恢复纳入其经济活动，而不是冒着巨大的经济风险生产更多的粮食。我们还强调，战略性生态系统恢复可以在生物多样性和碳方面取得更大的收益，同时降低恢复行动的成本，并将对农业的影响降至最低。像我们这样的分析展示了如何通过生态系统恢复同时解决气候缓解和生物多样性保护的土地分配方案，同时最大限度地减少对粮食生产的可能影响，以推动世界走向可持续的未来。
Climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation are two major environmental actions that need to be effectively performed this century, alongside ensuring food supply for a growing global human population. These three issues are highly interlinked through land management systems. Thus, major global food production regions located in biodiversity hotpots and with potential for carbon sequestration face trade-offs between these valuable land-based ecosystem services. The state of Mato Grosso in Brazil is one such region, where private lands that have been illegally used for agriculture could be restored to natural vegetation – with potential benefits for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation, although with potentially negative effects on food production. To address this challenge, in this study we used a multicriteria nexus modeling approach that considers carbon stocks, priority areas for biodiversity conservation, and the opportunity for food production, to develop scenarios of land allocation that aim to balance the benefits and drawbacks of ecosystem restoration. Results show that forcing landowners to restore their individual lands compromises the potential for a “green land market” throughout the Amazon biome in which private landowners with lower food production capacities (e.g., less connected to markets and infrastructure) would benefit from restoration programs that compensate them for the inclusion of environmental restoration among their economic activities, instead of taking large economic risks to produce more food. We additionally highlight that strategic ecosystem restoration can achieve higher gains in biodiversity and carbon with lower costs of restoration actions and with minimal impacts on agriculture. Analyses like ours demonstrate how scenarios of land allocation that simultaneously address climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation through ecosystem restoration, while also minimizing possible impacts on food production, can be sought to move the world towards a sustainable future.