Science1 publisherNot yet confirmed elsewhere2 min readPublished
Grasslands stripped of plant diversity absorb about 15% less CO2 by 2050 in a PIK-Kiel model
Grasslands with strongly reduced plant diversity would take up about 15% less CO2 by 2050, a PIK and Kiel University model in PNAS projects. The comparison pits kept diversity against a deliberately extreme loss, so it measures what the plant mix is worth to carbon uptake under warming.
The Scientist · Science desk

What happened
- With warming held below 2 degrees C, low-diversity grasslands take up about 11 billion tonnes less CO2 a year in 2050, comparable to losing an Arctic tundra's area of average grassland.
- Many tropical and subtropical grasslands show the widest gaps, taking up as much as 50% less CO2 when diversity is cut, even in the below-2-degree scenario.
- The team ran a global vegetation model under two climate scenarios, warming below 2 degrees C and around 4 degrees C, comparing maintained against strongly reduced diversity.
- Where diversity is reduced, the model also projects smaller stocks of carbon held in grassland soils.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint Meeting the below-2-degree goal does not on its own protect grassland uptake in this model, so climate targets and the upkeep of plant mixes have to be pursued as separate efforts.
- exposure Livestock-dependent households are exposed, since Wirth says diversity loss also shrinks forage for grazing animals and can threaten livelihoods built on grazing.
- decision Farm policy now has a modelled case for paying farmers to keep existing plant mixes; Taube says that support would help grazing livelihoods, particularly in the Global South.
The model's case for diversity is substitution. "Climate change could reduce the productivity of plants that at the moment dominate pastures and meadows. But if plant diversity is maintained, other plants that cope better with climate impacts have the chance to become more prominent and stem the decline," said Stephen Wirth, the PIK researcher who led the study [8]. Local experiments had already shown that plant diversity supports grassland productivity. This study takes that finding to a global vegetation model [7]. The study was not designed to estimate how much diversity real grasslands will actually lose by 2050 [6].
The two global figures can be checked against each other. If the 15% and the 11 billion tonnes describe the same below-2-degree run, diverse grasslands would be taking up roughly 73 billion tonnes of CO2 a year in 2050, since 11 divided by 0.15 is about 73 [14]. That is a flow into plants through photosynthesis [4]. The thing this doesn't tell you is how much of the shortfall would otherwise have ended up stored. Storage would show up in the soil, and the account of the study reports only that soil carbon stocks are lower under reduced diversity [5]. It does not include figures for the 4 degree run [6].
The global average also combines regions that move in opposite directions. "In some regions, remaining plants can compensate for the loss of other plant types, and productivity may even increase. Globally, however, the benefits of maintaining diversity prevail in both climate scenarios," said Susanne Rolinski, a PIK co-author [10]. The authors caution that the model simplifies plant traits and interactions, so the exact magnitude of the effects is uncertain [11].
I think the sign of the result is sturdier than its size. The benefit of diversity holds globally under both warming scenarios [10]. The 15% and the 50% depend on how well a simplified model lets one plant type stand in for another [11].
The authors' recommendation is about grazing. "To maintain grassland productivity under climate change, we need management practices that preserve existing diversity over the long term and prevent overgrazing," said Friedhelm Taube, a Kiel University co-author [12].
What to watch
- Figures in the full PNAS paper for the 4 degree run and for soil carbon, to see whether the diversity benefit grows with warming and how much carbon it keeps stored.
- Field measurements from tropical and subtropical grasslands testing whether gaps near 50% appear outside the model.
- Model runs using realistic, less extreme diversity loss, which would turn this comparison of extremes into a projection.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence45
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+15
- Incentives
- Insufficient
- Confidence50
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
The study, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Kiel University (CAU), was published in PNAS.
- [2]
A substantial loss of plant diversity could mean grasslands worldwide absorb around 15% less CO2 through photosynthesis by midcentury compared with a scenario in which diversity is maintained.
- [3]
In many tropical and subtropical regions, grasslands with strongly reduced diversity take up as much as 50% less CO2 in 2050 than those where diversity is maintained, a decline that appears even in the scenario where warming stays below 2C.
- [4]
Under below-2C warming, grasslands with strongly reduced diversity take up around 11 billion tonnes less CO2 per year through photosynthesis in 2050 than grasslands where diversity is maintained, comparable to losing an area of average-productivity grassland roughly the size of the Arctic tundra.
- [5]
The model projects lower soil carbon stocks where plant diversity is reduced.
- [6]
The researchers used a global vegetation model to compare grasslands with maintained versus strongly reduced plant diversity, assumed an extreme loss of diversity to investigate its potential consequences, and examined two climate scenarios: warming below 2C and around 4C.
- [7]
Local experiments have previously shown that plant diversity supports grassland productivity; this study built on that work using a global vegetation model.
- [8]
"Climate change could reduce the productivity of plants that at the moment dominate pastures and meadows. But if plant diversity is maintained, other plants that cope better with climate impacts have the chance to become more prominent and stem the decline," said Stephen Wirth, PIK researcher and lead author.
- [9]
"It's not just about the lower rates of photosynthesis, but losing plant diversity also reduces forage supply for grazing animals, which in turn can threaten the livelihoods of people who depend on livestock grazing. Soils also store less carbon and contribute less to limiting global warming," Wirth said.
- [10]
"In some regions, remaining plants can compensate for the loss of other plant types, and productivity may even increase. Globally, however, the benefits of maintaining diversity prevail in both climate scenarios," said Susanne Rolinski, PIK researcher and co-author.
- [11]
The researchers caution that the exact magnitude of the effects remains uncertain because the model simplifies plant traits and interactions.
- [12]
"To maintain grassland productivity under climate change, we need management practices that preserve existing diversity over the long term and prevent overgrazing," said Friedhelm Taube, Kiel University researcher and co-author.
- [13]
"Agricultural policy should support farmers in adapting their farms to climate change accordingly. This can help strengthen the livelihoods of people who depend on livestock grazing, particularly in the Global South," Taube said.
- [14]
If the 15% and 11-billion-tonne figures describe the same below-2C run, grasslands with maintained diversity would take up roughly 73 billion tonnes of CO2 a year through photosynthesis in 2050.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- phys.orgLosing plant diversity could reduce grassland CO₂ absorption 15% by 2050, model projects
1 article · October 8, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
Entities
- Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchFollow
- Kiel UniversityFollow
- Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesFollow
- Stephen WirthFollow
- Susanne RolinskiFollow
- Friedhelm TaubeFollow