The control of the production of ozone-depleting substances through the Montreal Protocol means that the stratospheric ozone layer is recovering1 and that consequent increases in harmful surface ultraviolet radiation are being avoided2,3. The Montreal Protocol has co-benefits for climate change mitigation, because ozone-depleting substances are potent greenhouse gases4,5,6,7. The avoided ultraviolet radiation and climate change also have co-benefits for plants and their capacity to store carbon through photosynthesis8, but this has not previously been investigated. Here, using a modelling framework that couples ozone depletion, climate change, damage to plants by ultraviolet radiation and the carbon cycle, we explore the benefits of avoided increases in ultraviolet radiation and changes in climate on the terrestrial biosphere and its capacity as a carbon sink. Considering a range of strengths for the effect of ultraviolet radiation on plant growth8,9,10,11,12, we estimate that there could have been 325–690 billion tonnes less carbon held in plants and soils by the end of this century (2080–2099) without the Montreal Protocol (as compared to climate projections with controls on ozone-depleting substances). This change could have resulted in an additional 115–235 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which might have led to additional warming of global-mean surface temperature by 0.50–1.0 degrees. Our findings suggest that the Montreal Protocol may also be helping to mitigate climate change through avoided decreases in the land carbon sink.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All relevant JULES and NIWA–UKCA model output and input data have been archived (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4733883).
The JULES code for these simulations is available on the Met Office Science Repository System (MOSRS; https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/jules; registration required) in revision 15798. Simulations were run using the Rose suite u-bb620, also available through MOSRS. The NIWA–UKCA CCM is based on the HadGEM3 climate model, which is available under licence. Please contact O.M. (firstname.lastname@example.org) for details.
World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018. Report No. 58 (Global Ozone and Research Monitoring Project, 2018).
van Dijk, A. et al. Skin cancer risks avoided by the Montreal Protocol—worldwide modeling integrating coupled climate‐chemistry models with a risk model for UV. Photochem. Photobiol. 89, 234–246 (2013).
McKenzie, R. et al. Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with ‘World Avoided’ calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Sci. Rep. 9, 12332 (2019).
Ramanathan, V. Greenhouse effect due to chlorofluorocarbons: climatic implications. Science 190, 50–52 (1975).
Morgenstern, O. et al. The world avoided by the Montreal Protocol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L16811 (2008).
Newman, P. A. et al. What would have happened to the ozone layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated? Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 2113–2128 (2009).
Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E. & Marsh, D. R. ‘World avoided’ simulations with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D23303 (2012).
Ballaré, C. L., Caldwell, M. M., Flint, S. D., Robinson, S. A. & Bornman, J. F. Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial ecosystems. Patterns, mechanisms, and interactions with climate change. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 10, 226–241 (2011).
Newsham, K. K. & Robinson, S. A. Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 2574–2589 (2009).
Li, F.-R., Peng, S.-L., Chen, B.-M. & Hou, Y.-P. A meta-analysis of the responses of woody and herbaceous plants to elevated ultraviolet-B radiation. Acta Oecol. 36, 1–9 (2010).
Searles, P. S., Flint, S. D. & Caldwell, M. M. A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion. Oecologia 127, 1–10 (2001).
Fu, G. & Shen, Z.-X. Effects of enhanced UV-B radiation on plant physiology and growth on the Tibetan Plateau: a meta-analysis. Acta Physiol. Plant. 39, 85 (2017).
Lucas, R. M. et al. Human health in relation to exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation under changing stratospheric ozone and climate. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 18, 641–680 (2019).
Bornman, J. F. et al. Linkages between stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate change and their implications for terrestrial ecosystems. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 18, 681–716 (2019).
Williamson, C. E. et al. The interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change on aquatic ecosystems. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 18, 717–746 (2019).
Molina, M. J. & Rowland, F. S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 249, 810–812 (1974).
Solomon, S., Garcia, R. R., Rowland, F. S. & Wuebbles, D. J. On the depletion of Antarctic ozone. Nature 321, 755–758 (1986).
Solomon, S. Stratospheric ozone depletion: a review of concepts and history. Rev. Geophys. 37, 275–316 (1999).
Velders, G. J. M., Andersen, S. O., Daniel, J. S., Fahey, D. W. & McFarland, M. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4814–4819 (2007).
Prather, M., Midgley, P., Rowland, F. S. & Stolarski, R. The ozone layer: the road not taken. Nature 381, 551–554 (1996).
Wu, Y., Polvani, L. M. & Seager, R. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting Earth’s hydroclimate. J. Clim. 26, 4049–4068 (2013).
Polvani, L. M., Camargo, S. J. & Garcia, R. R. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in mitigating the potential intensity of tropical cyclones. J. Clim. 29, 2275–2289 (2016).
Previdi, M. & Polvani, L. M. Impact of the Montreal Protocol on Antarctic surface mass balance and implications for global sea level rise. J. Clim. 30, 7247–7253 (2017).
Chipperfield, M. P. et al. Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol. Nat. Commun. 6, 7233 (2015).
Newman, P. A. & McKenzie, R. UV impacts avoided by the Montreal Protocol. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 10, 1152–1160 (2011).
Neugart, S. & Schreiner, M. UVB and UVA as eustressors in horticultural and agricultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 234, 370–381 (2018).
Fiscus, E. L. & Booker, F. L. Is increased UV-B a threat to crop photosynthesis and productivity? Photosynth. Res. 43, 81–92 (1995).
Morgenstern, O. et al. Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI). Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 639–671 (2017).
Best, M. J. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description–part 1: energy and water fluxes. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 677–699 (2011).
Clark, D. B. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description–part 2: carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 701–722 (2011).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change 109, 5–31 (2011).
Barlow, J. et al. The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559, 517–526 (2018).
Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013-The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A. & Totterdell, I. J. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408, 184–187 (2000); erratum 408, 750 (2000).
Heimann, M. & Reichstein, M. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature 451, 289–292 (2008).
Caldwell, M. M. in Photophysiology, Current Topics in Photobiology and Photochemistry Vol. VI (ed. Giese, A. C.) 131–177 (Academic Press, 1971).
Caldwell, M. M., Camp, L. B., Warner, C. W. & Flint, S. D. in Stratospheric Ozone Reduction, Solar Ultraviolet Radiation and Plant Life Vol. 8 (eds Worrest, R. C. & Caldwell, M. M.) 87–111 (Springer, 1986).
Calbó, J., Pagès, D. & González, J. Empirical studies of cloud effects on UV radiation: a review. Rev. Geophys. 43, RG2002 (2005).
Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system models. J. Clim. 26, 5289–5314 (2013).
Williamson, C. E. et al. Solar ultraviolet radiation in a changing climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 434–441 (2014).
Rigby, M. et al. Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations. Nature 569, 546–550 (2019).
Tilmes, S., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Gettelman, A. & Rasch, P. J. Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D12305 (2009).
NASA. Ozone Watch https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html (2019).
Morgenstern, O. et al. Evaluation of the new UKCA climate-composition model – part 1: the stratosphere. Geosci. Model Dev. 2, 43–57 (2009).
Hewitt, H. T. et al. Design and implementation of the infrastructure of HadGEM3: the next-generation Met Office climate modelling system. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 223–253 (2011).
World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. Report No. 52 (Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, 2011).
Morgenstern, O. et al. Ozone sensitivity to varying greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances in CCMI-1 simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 1091–1114 (2018).
Edwards, J. M. & Slingo, A. Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I: choosing a configuration for a large-scale model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 122, 689–719 (1996).
Forster, P. M. et al. Evaluation of radiation scheme performance within chemistry climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 116, D10302 (2011).
Lauer, A. & Hamilton, K. Simulating clouds with global climate models: a comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data. J. Clim. 26, 3823–3845 (2013).
Dee, D. P. et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 553–597 (2011).
Flint, S. D. & Caldwell, M. M. A biological spectral weighting function for ozone depletion research with higher plants. Physiol. Plant. 117, 137–144 (2003).
Kotilainen, T., Lindfors, A., Tegelberg, R. & Aphalo, P. J. How realistically does outdoor UV-B supplementation with lamps reflect ozone depletion: an assessment of enhancement errors. Photochem. Photobiol. 87, 174–183 (2011).
Flint, S. D., Ryel, R. J. & Caldwell, M. M. Ecosystem UV-B experiments in terrestrial communities: a review of recent findings and methodologies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 120, 177–189 (2003).
Poulter, B. et al. Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency’s Land Cover Climate Change Initiative. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2315–2328 (2015).
Harper, A. B. et al. Improved representation of plant functional types and physiology in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES v4.2) using plant trait information. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2415–2440 (2016).
Harper, A. B. et al. Vegetation distribution and terrestrial carbon cycle in a carbon cycle configuration of JULES4.6 with new plant functional types. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2857–2873 (2018).
Huntingford, C. & Cox, P. M. An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations. Clim. Dyn. 16, 575–586 (2000).
Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Change 109, 213–241 (2011).
Huntingford, C. et al. Using a GCM analogue model to investigate the potential for Amazonian forest dieback. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 177–185 (2004).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).
P.J.Y. was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (grant EP/R01860X/1), the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/R004927/1) and the Faculty of Science and Technology at Lancaster University. A.B.H. acknowledges funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (Fellowship EP/N030141/1) and the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/P019951/1). C.H. acknowledges a UK National Capability grant given to the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. O.M. was supported by the NZ Government’s Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) through the NIWA programme CACV. L.D.O. is supported by the NASA Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction programme. S.M. and R.R.G. are supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the US National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement number 1852977. We acknowledge the contribution of New Zealand’s national high-performance computing facilities to the results of this research, provided by the NZ eScience Infrastructure (NeSI) and funded jointly by NeSI’s collaborator institutions and through the NZ Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment’s Research Infrastructure Programme.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Pedro J. Aphalo, Benjamin Felzer, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
a–c, NPP time series data from JULES, as per Fig. 2a, but for 30°–60° N (a), 30° S–30° N (b) and 55°–30° S (c).
About this article
Cite this article
Young, P.J., Harper, A.B., Huntingford, C. et al. The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature 596, 384–388 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03737-3