4.8 Article

Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 367, 期 6479, 页码 787-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.aay5958

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC] [242658, 647038]
  2. Juan de la Cierva Formacion grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [FJCI-2015-26782]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana [CIDEGENT/2018/041]
  4. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  5. Synthesis Centre for Biodiversity Sciences (sDiv) of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv)
  6. Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions of the Horizon 2020 Framework Program [H2020-MSCA-IF-2016, 702057]
  7. Spanish Government under a Ramon y Cajal contract [RYC-2016-20604]
  8. AgreenSkills+ fellowship program
  9. EU's Seventh Framework Programme [FP7-609398, FRQNT-2017-NC-198009]
  10. NSERC Discovery [2016-05716]
  11. government of Canada
  12. ERC Advanced Grant [694368]
  13. Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft [RI 1815/16-1]
  14. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA19030500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aridity, which is increasing worldwide because of climate change, affects the structure and functioning of dryland ecosystems. Whether aridification leads to gradual (versus abrupt) and systemic (versus specific) ecosystem changes is largely unknown. We investigated how 20 structural and functional ecosystem attributes respond to aridity in global drylands. Aridification led to systemic and abrupt changes in multiple ecosystem attributes. These changes occurred sequentially in three phases characterized by abrupt decays in plant productivity, soil fertility, and plant cover and richness at aridity values of 0.54, 0.7, and 0.8, respectively. More than 20% of the terrestrial surface will cross one or several of these thresholds by 2100, which calls for immediate actions to minimize the negative impacts of aridification on essential ecosystem services for the more than 2 billion people living in drylands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据