Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas


Terrestrial ecosystems regulate climate through both biogeochemical (greenhouse-gas regulation) and biophysical (regulation of water and energy) mechanisms1,2. However, policies aimed at climate protection through land management, including REDD+ (where REDD is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation)3 and bioenergy sustainability standards4, account only for biogeochemical mechanisms. By ignoring biophysical processes, which sometimes offset biogeochemical effects5,6, policies risk promoting suboptimal solutions1,2,4,7,8,9,10. Here, we quantify how biogeochemical11 and biophysical processes combine to shape the climate regulation values of 18 natural and agricultural ecoregions across the Americas. Natural ecosystems generally had higher climate regulation values than agroecosystems, largely driven by differences in biogeochemical services. Biophysical contributions ranged from minimal to dominant. They were highly variable in space, and their relative importance varied with the spatio-temporal scale of analysis. Our findings reinforce the importance of protecting tropical forests7,10,12,13, show that northern forests have a relatively small net effect on climate5,10,13, and indicate that climatic effects of bioenergy production may be more positive when biophysical processes are considered14,15. Ensuring effective climate protection through land management requires consideration of combined biogeochemical and biophysical processes7,8. Our climate regulation value index serves as one potential approach to quantify the full climate services of terrestrial ecosystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Biogeochemical and biophysical climate services (relative to a bare-ground baseline) of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas.
Figure 2: Spatial variation in biophysical climate services of ecosystems (relative to a bare-ground baseline).
Figure 3: Dependence of climate-regulation services on the temporal scale of analysis.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chapin, F. I., Randerson, J., McGuire, A., Foley, J. & Field, C. Changing feedbacks in the climate–biosphere system. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 313–320 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. UNFCCC Report on the Conference of the Parties on its Thirteenth Session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Thirteenth Session 8–10 (United Nations, 2008).

  4. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Snyder, P. K. & DeLucia, E. H. Do biofuels life cycle analyses accurately quantify the climate impacts of biofuels-related land use change? Illinois Law Rev. 2011, 589–622 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Betts, R. A. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Costa, M. H. & Foley, J. A. Combined effects of deforestation and doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the climate of Amazonia. J. Clim. 13, 18–34 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson, R. B. et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044006 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pielke, R. A. et al. The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: Relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 360, 1705–1719 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Betts, R. Implications of land ecosystem–atmosphere interactions for strategies for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Tellus B 59, 602–615 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Arora, V. K. & Montenegro, A. Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nature Geosci. 4, 514–518 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. & DeLucia, E. H. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 425–438 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gullison, R. E. et al. Tropical forests and climate policy. Science 316, 985–986 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Betts, R. A. Climate science: Afforestation cools more or less. Nature Geosci. 4, 504–505 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Loarie, S. R., Lobell, D. B., Asner, G. P., Mu, Q. & Field, C. B. Direct impacts on local climate of sugar-cane expansion in Brazil. Nature Clim. Change 1, 105–109 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Georgescu, M., Lobell, D. B. & Field, C. B. Direct climate effects of perennial bioenergy crops in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4307–4312 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Feddema, J. J. et al. The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Science 310, 1674–1678 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Albani, M., Medvigy, D., Hurtt, G. C. & Moorcroft, P. R. The contributions of land-use change, CO2 fertilization, and climate variability to the Eastern US carbon sink. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2370–2390 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Herzog, T. World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 WRI Working Paper (2009); available at

  20. IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds. Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  21. West, P. C., Narisma, G. T., Barford, C. C., Kucharik, C. J. & Foley, J. A. An alternative approach for quantifying climate regulation by ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 126–133 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Snyder, P. K., Delire, C. & Foley, J. A. Evaluating the influence of different vegetation biomes on the global climate. Clim. Dynam. 23, 279–302 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Twine, T. E., Kucharik, C. J. & Foley, J. A. Effects of land cover change on the energy and water balance of the Mississippi river basin. J. Hydrometeorol. 5, 640–655 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Searchinger, T. et al. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238–1240 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Foley, J. A., Levis, S., Prentice, I. C., Pollard, D. & Thompson, S. L. Coupling dynamic models of climate and vegetation. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 561–579 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kucharik, C. J. Evaluation of a process-based agro-ecosystem model (Agro-IBIS) across the US Corn Belt: Simulations of the interannual variability in maize yield. Earth Interact. 7, 1–33 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vanloocke, A., Bernacchi, C. J. & Twine, T. E. The impacts of Miscanthus ×giganteus production on the Midwest US hydrologic cycle. GCB Bioenergy 2, 180–191 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cuadra, S. V. et al. A biophysical model of sugarcane growth. GCB Bioenergy 4, 36–48 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kucharik, C. J. et al. Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 795–825 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Marland, G. et al. The climatic impacts of land surface change and carbon management, and the implications for climate-change mitigation policy. Clim. Policy 3, 149–157 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was funded by the Energy Biosciences Institute and the BP Energy Sustainability Challenge Program. The authors acknowledge A. VanLoocke for his contributions to modelling biophysical factors for grasslands and crops.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



K.J.A-T., P.K.S. and E.H.D. conceived the experiment; K.J.A-T., P.K.S., T.E.T., M.H.C. and S.V.C. contributed models; K.J.A-T. compiled biogeochemical data and calculated GHGVs; P.K.S., T.E.T. and S.V.C. ran IBIS/AgroIBIS simulations; K.J.A-T. and P.K.S. analysed data and prepared figures; K.J.A-T. wrote the paper; all authors commented on the analysis and presentation of the data and revised the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evan H. DeLucia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson-Teixeira, K., Snyder, P., Twine, T. et al. Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nature Clim Change 2, 177–181 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing