Models relating sediment supply to catchment properties are important in order to use the geological record to deduce landscape evolution and interplay between tectonics and climate. Water discharge (Q w) is an important factor in the widely used ‘BQART ’ model, which relates sediment load to a set of measurable catchment parameters. Although many of the factors in this equation may be independently estimated with some degree of certainty in ancient systems, water discharge (Q w) certainly cannot. An analysis of a world database of modern catchments with 1255 entries shows that the commonly applied equation relating catchment area (A ) to water discharge (Q w = 0·075A0·8) does not predict water discharge from catchment area well in many cases (R 2 = 0·5 and an error spanning about three orders of magnitude). This is because the method does not incorporate the effect of arid and wet climate on river water discharge. The inclusion of climate data into such estimations is an opportunity to refine these estimates, because generalized estimates of palaeoclimate can often be deduced on the basis of sedimentological data such as palaeosol types, mineralogy and palaeohydraulics. This paper investigates how the relationship between catchment area and river discharge varies with four runoff categories (arid, semi‐arid, humid and wet), which are recognizable in the geological record, and modifies the coefficient and exponent of the above‐mentioned equation according to these classes. This modified model yields improved results in relating discharge to catchment area (R 2 = 0·95 and error spanning one order of magnitude) when core, outcrop or regional palaeoclimate reconstruction data are available in non‐arid systems. Arid systems have an inherently variable water discharge, and catchment area is less important as a control due to downstream losses. The model here is sufficient for many geological applications and makes it possible to include variations in catchment humidity in mass‐flux estimates in ancient settings. 相似文献
Strong and rapid greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, far beyond those currently committed to, are required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. This allows no sector to maintain business as usual practices, while application of the precautionary principle requires avoiding a reliance on negative emission technologies. Animal to plant-sourced protein shifts offer substantial potential for GHG emission reductions. Unabated, the livestock sector could take between 37% and 49% of the GHG budget allowable under the 2°C and 1.5°C targets, respectively, by 2030. Inaction in the livestock sector would require substantial GHG reductions, far beyond what are planned or realistic, from other sectors. This outlook article outlines why animal to plant-sourced protein shifts should be taken up by the Conference of the Parties (COP), and how they could feature as part of countries’ mitigation commitments under their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to be adopted from 2020 onwards. The proposed framework includes an acknowledgment of ‘peak livestock’, followed by targets for large and rapid reductions in livestock numbers based on a combined ‘worst first’ and ‘best available food’ approach. Adequate support, including climate finance, is needed to facilitate countries in implementing animal to plant-sourced protein shifts.
Key policy insights
Given the livestock sector’s significant contribution to global GHG emissions and methane dominance, animal to plant protein shifts make a necessary contribution to meeting the Paris temperature goals and reducing warming in the short term, while providing a suite of co-benefits.
Without action, the livestock sector could take between 37% and 49% of the GHG budget allowable under the 2°C and 1.5°C targets, respectively, by 2030.
Failure to implement animal to plant protein shifts increases the risk of exceeding temperate goals; requires additional GHG reductions from other sectors; and increases reliance on negative emissions technologies.
COP 24 is an opportunity to bring animal to plant protein shifts to the climate mitigation table.
Revised NDCs from 2020 should include animal to plant protein shifts, starting with a declaration of ‘peak livestock’, followed by a ‘worst first’ replacement approach, guided by ‘best available food’.