Land-use change as a central regulator of carbon budgets and ecosystem productivity in a changing climate

Author info »

Introduction

Description

Deforestation, particularly in tropical and boreal forests, is a major driver of carbon emissions. Forest conversion to cropland or pasture releases large quantities of stored carbon from biomass and soils into the atmosphere. Tree removal reduces photosynthetic capacity, limiting carbon uptake, while soil disturbance accelerates decomposition and CO₂ release. The loss of forest canopy also alters microclimates, hydrological cycles and soil moisture, further impacting productivity and carbon retention. Afforestation and reforestation initiatives can partially offset carbon losses by restoring forest cover and enhancing net primary productivity. Trees act as carbon sinks, sequestering CO₂ in woody biomass, leaves and roots (Gallant AL, et al. 2014). The rate of carbon accumulation depends on species selection, planting density, soil quality and climate conditions. Mixed-species plantations and restoration of native vegetation often provide greater carbon storage and ecosystem resilience compared to monocultures.

Agricultural expansion and intensification influence carbon dynamics through tillage, fertilizer use and crop selection. Conventional tillage increases soil respiration and organic matter loss, while reduced-tillage and conservation agriculture promote carbon retention (Guo X, et al. 2023). Crop rotations, cover crops and agroforestry enhance soil fertility, water retention and ecosystem productivity, creating opportunities to mitigate LUC-driven carbon emissions while sustaining food production. Urban expansion converts vegetated landscapes into impervious surfaces, reducing carbon sequestration and altering local microclimates. Urban soils store less carbon than natural ecosystems and vegetation removal diminishes primary productivity. Urban green infrastructure, including parks, street trees and green roofs, can partially compensate by sequestering carbon, moderating temperatures and improving ecosystem service provision. Land-use change modifies the global carbon budget by altering carbon fluxes between the biosphere and atmosphere. Deforestation and soil degradation increase atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, enhancing greenhouse warming (Porcar-Castell A, et al. 2014). Conversely, carbon sequestration through afforestation and sustainable land management can mitigate climate change. These feedbacks are amplified by climate-sensitive processes such as fire regimes, droughts and pest outbreaks, which further influence carbon storage and ecosystem productivity.

Soil represents a major carbon reservoir and LUC significantly affects soil carbon stocks and turnover rates. Conversion of forests to agriculture reduces organic carbon content, while urbanization often leads to compaction and reduced microbial activity. Restoration practices, including afforestation, cover cropping and organic amendments, increase soil carbon sequestration and improve soil health, supporting ecosystem productivity. Soil microbial communities mediate decomposition, nutrient cycling and carbon stabilization. Land-use change disrupts microbial diversity and function, altering carbon mineralization rates. Restoration and conservation practices that maintain microbial diversity enhance soil fertility, carbon sequestration and resilience to environmental stress. Biodiversity influences ecosystem productivity and carbon dynamics. Diverse plant communities exhibit complementary resource use, stabilizing productivity and enhancing carbon sequestration (Houghton RA, et al. 1999). LUC often reduces biodiversity, weakening ecosystem function and resilience. Restoration of native species and maintenance of habitat heterogeneity promote both biodiversity and carbon storage, creating synergistic benefits for climate mitigation and ecosystem services.

Conclusion

Acknowledgement

Conflict of Interest

References

1. Houghton, R. A., Hackler, J. L., Lawrence, K. T. (1999). The US carbon budget: Contributions from land-use change. Science285:574-578.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

2. Gallant, A. L., Euliss Jr, N. H., Browning, Z. (2014). Mapping large-area landscape suitability for honey bees to assess the influence of land-use change on sustainability of national pollination services. PLoS One9:e99268.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

3. Guo, X., Arshad, M. U., Zhao, Y., Gong, Y., Li, H. (2023). Effects of climate change and grazing intensity on grassland productivity-A case study of Inner Mongolia, China. Heliyon9.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

4. Porcar-Castell, A., Tyystjärvi, E., Atherton, J., Van der Tol, C., Flexas, J., Pfündel, E. E., Berry, J. A. (2014). Linking chlorophyll a fluorescence to photosynthesis for remote sensing applications: Mechanisms and challenges. Journal of Experimental Botany65:4065-4095.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

5. Houghton, R. A., Hackler, J. L., Lawrence, K. T. (1999). The US carbon budget: Contributions from land-use change. Science285:574-578.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at