ICEPT staff and PhD students publish widely in a range of academic journals,  policy reports and technical papers. 

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Prütz:2026:10.1038/s41558-026-02632-x,
author = {Prütz, R and Rogelj, J and Ganti, G and Price, J and Warren, R and Forstenhäusler, N and Wu, Y and Augustynczik, ALD and Wögerer, M and Krisztin, T and Havlík, P and Kraxner, F and Frank, S and Hasegawa, T and Doelman, JC and Daioglou, V and Humpenöder, F and Popp, A and Fuss, S},
doi = {10.1038/s41558-026-02632-x},
journal = {Nature Climate Change},
title = {Author Correction: Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal (Nature Climate Change, (2026), 16, 2, (155-163), 10.1038/s41558-026-02557-5)},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02632-x},
volume = {16},
year = {2026}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Correction to: Nature Climate Changehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02557-5, published online 30 January 2026. In the originally published version of this article, the description of the illustrative indication of effect direction required further detail. In the assessed scenarios, the deployment of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) partly occurs outside the bounds of the maximum biomass plantation potential map, which we used for our illustrative effect indication. In such cases, it cannot be inferred whether BECCS would be potentially beneficial or likely harmful. In our analysis, we accounted for this fact by refraining from making any indication for effect direction outside of the maximum biomass potential map. For readers, however, this approach may not have been immediately clear. To clarify this aspect, in the Methods, the second sentence of the third paragraph in the section “Biodiversity-sensitive CDR deployment areas” was expanded to now read: “If scenario-based bioenergy cropland occurs in places that are not within the constrained BECCS potential areas, we indicated ‘likely harmful’ outcomes as this would interfere with biosphere integrity – no such indication was made outside the maximum biomass plantation map due to unclear effect direction.” In the Supplementary Information section SI-F, we modified the fifth and sixth sentences to now read: “Unsurprisingly, the reduction in land available for CDR deployment decreases if areas that could potentially benefit from CDR deployment are not excluded from allocation. Nevertheless, applying the three exclusion criteria while allowing CDR deployment in areas that could potentially benefit from CDR deployment still results in a substantial reduction in CDR land.” In line with the changes described above, we updated the text in the panels and captions of Figs. S11 and 12. The implemented changes do not affect the findings and conclusions of
AU  - Prütz,R
AU  - Rogelj,J
AU  - Ganti,G
AU  - Price,J
AU  - Warren,R
AU  - Forstenhäusler,N
AU  - Wu,Y
AU  - Augustynczik,ALD
AU  - Wögerer,M
AU  - Krisztin,T
AU  - Havlík,P
AU  - Kraxner,F
AU  - Frank,S
AU  - Hasegawa,T
AU  - Doelman,JC
AU  - Daioglou,V
AU  - Humpenöder,F
AU  - Popp,A
AU  - Fuss,S
DO  - 10.1038/s41558-026-02632-x
PY  - 2026///
SN  - 1758-678X
TI  - Author Correction: Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal (Nature Climate Change, (2026), 16, 2, (155-163), 10.1038/s41558-026-02557-5)
T2  - Nature Climate Change
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02632-x
VL  - 16
ER  -
Download

Related links