Agriculture and forest land use change in the continental United States: Are there tipping points?

Angelo C Gurgel, John Reilly, Elodie Blanc
Author Information
  1. Angelo C Gurgel: Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, E19-411, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA.
  2. John Reilly: Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, E19-411, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA.
  3. Elodie Blanc: Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, E19-411, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA.

Abstract

Land use in the United States (US) is driven by multiple forces operating at the global level, such as income and population growth, yield and productivity improvement, trade policy, climate change, and changing diets. Future land use has implications for biodiversity, run-off, carbon storage, ecosystem values, agriculture, and the broader economy. We investigate those forces and their implications from a multisector, multisystem dynamics (MSD) perspective focused on understanding dynamics and resilience in complex interdependent systems. Historical trends show slight increases in grassland and natural forest areas and decreases in cropland. We project these trends to intensify under higher pressures for agriculture land and reduce under lower pressures, with no evidence of tipping points toward larger agricultural land abandonment or deforestation. However, US sectoral output and trade, fertilizer use, NO and CH emissions from agriculture activities, and CO emissions from land use changes are substantially impacted under land use forcing scenarios.

Keywords

References

  1. Ecol Appl. 2012 Apr;22(3):1036-49 [PMID: 22645830]
  2. Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7728):519-525 [PMID: 30305731]
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Feb 26;110 Suppl 1:3673-80 [PMID: 22706645]
  4. Science. 2005 Jul 22;309(5734):570-4 [PMID: 16040698]
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 May 20;111(20):7492-7 [PMID: 24799685]
  6. Nat Commun. 2019 May 15;10(1):2166 [PMID: 31092816]
  7. Science. 2009 Jun 19;324(5934):1519-20 [PMID: 19541981]
  8. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 19;8(6):e66428 [PMID: 23840465]
  9. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Jun 5;46(11):5672-9 [PMID: 22533690]
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Mar 11;111(10):3709-14 [PMID: 24567375]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun 18;110(25):10324-9 [PMID: 23733940]
  12. Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):518-22 [PMID: 25383533]
  13. Science. 2009 Dec 4;326(5958):1397-9 [PMID: 19933101]
  14. J Environ Qual. 2006 Jul 06;35(4):1461-9 [PMID: 16825466]
  15. Nat Commun. 2019 May 15;10(1):2171 [PMID: 31092831]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0uselandagricultureUnitedUSforcestradechangeimplicationsdynamicstrendsforestpressurestippingagriculturalemissionsLandStatesdrivenmultipleoperatinggloballevelincomepopulationgrowthyieldproductivityimprovementpolicyclimatechangingdietsFuturebiodiversityrun-offcarbonstorageecosystemvaluesbroadereconomyinvestigatemultisectormultisystemMSDperspectivefocusedunderstandingresiliencecomplexinterdependentsystemsHistoricalshowslightincreasesgrasslandnaturalareasdecreasescroplandprojectintensifyhigherreducelowerevidencepointstowardlargerabandonmentdeforestationHoweversectoraloutputfertilizerNOCHactivitiesCOchangessubstantiallyimpactedforcingscenariosAgriculturecontinentalStates:points?agriculturaleconomicsscienceearthsciences

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)