Climatic Change

, Volume 120, Issue 4, pp 889–901 | Cite as

Estimating environmentally relevant fixed nitrogen demand in the 21st century

  • Wilfried WiniwarterEmail author
  • Jan Willem Erisman
  • James N. Galloway
  • Zbigniew Klimont
  • Mark A. Sutton


Human activities affect the impact of the nitrogen cycle on both the environment and climate. The rate of anthropogenic nitrogen fixation from atmospheric N2 may serve as an indicator to the magnitude of this impact, acknowledging that relationship to be effect-dependent and non-linear. Building on the set of Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios developed for climate change research, we estimate anthropogenic industrial nitrogen fixation throughout the 21st century. Assigning characteristic key drivers to the four underlying scenarios we arrive at nitrogen fixation rates for agricultural use of 80 to 172 Tg N/yr by 2100, which is slightly less to almost twice as much compared with the fixation rate for the year 2000. We use the following key drivers of change, varying between scenarios: population growth, consumption of animal protein, agricultural efficiency improvement and additional biofuel production. Further anthropogenic nitrogen fixation for production of materials such as explosives or plastics and from combustion are projected to remain considerably smaller than that related to agriculture. While variation among the four scenarios is considerable, our interpretation of scenarios constrains the option space: several of the factors enhancing the anthropogenic impact on the nitrogen cycle may occur concurrently, but never all of them. A scenario that is specifically targeted towards limiting greenhouse gas emissions ends up as the potentially largest contributor to nitrogen fixation, as a result of large amounts of biofuels required and the fertilizer used to produce it. Other published data on nitrogen fixation towards 2100 indicate that our high estimates based on the RCP approach are rather conservative. Even the most optimistic scenario estimates that nitrogen fixation rate will remain substantially in excess of an estimate of sustainable boundaries by 2100.


Nitrogen Fixation Nitrogen Cycle Representative Concentration Pathway Biological Nitrogen Fixation Integrate Assessment Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors gratefully acknowledge support received for this work from the ÉCLAIRE project (part-financed by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme). This paper represents a contribution to the work of the International Nitrogen Initiative.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_834_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (36 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 36.0 KB)


  1. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12–03, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleeker A, Hicks WK, Dentener F, Galloway J, Erisman JW (2011) N deposition as a threat to the World’s protected areas under the convention on biological diversity. Environ Pollut 159:2280–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodirsky BL, Popp A, Weindl I et al (2012) N2O emissions from the global agricultural nitrogen cycle—current state and future scenarios. Biogeosciences 9:4169–4197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouwman AF, Beusen AHW, Billen G (2009) Human alteration of the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for the period 1970–2050. Global Biogeochem Cycles 23:GB0A04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butterbach-Bahl K, Nemitz E, Zaehle S et al (2011) Effect of reactive nitrogen on the European greenhouse balance. In: Sutton MA, Howard CM, Erisman JW, Billen G, Bleeker A, Grennfelt P, van Grinsven H, Grizzetti B (eds) The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 434–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (eds) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios. Findings of the scenarios working group of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of synthesis and assessment product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson EA (2012) Representative concentration pathways and mitigation scenarios for nitrous oxide. Environ Res Lett 7:024005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EEA (1998) Guidelines for data collection and processing - EU State of the environment report. annex 3. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  10. Elser JJ (2011) A world awash with nitrogen. Science 334:1504–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erisman JW, Sutton MA, Galloway JN, Klimont Z, Winiwarter W (2008) How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscie 1:636–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. contribution of working group i to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234Google Scholar
  13. Galloway JN, Aber JD, Erisman JW, Seitzinger SP, Howarth RW, Cowling EB, Cosby BJ (2003) The nitrogen cascade. BioScience 53:341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW et al (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions and potential solutions. Science 320:889–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grübler A, O’Neill B, Riahi K et al (2007) Regional, national, and spatially explicit scenarios of demographic and economic change based on SRES. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74:980–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Masui T, Matsumoto K, Hijioka Y et al (2011) An emission pathway for stabilization at 6 Wm−2 radiative forcing. Clim Chang 109:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios (SRES). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Neill B (2005) Population scenarios based on probabilistic projections: an application for the millennium ecosystem assessment. Popul Environ 26:229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (2008) Environmental performance of OECD agriculture since 1990. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Pimentel D, Hurd LE, Bellotti AC, Forster MJ, Oka IN, Sholes OD, Whitman RJ (1973) Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Riahi K, Rao S, Krey V et al (2011) RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Chang 109:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sutton MA, van Grinsven H, Billen G et al (2011a) Summary for Policy Makers. In: Sutton MA, Howard CM, Erisman JW, Billen G, Bleeker A, Grennfelt P, van Grinsven H, Grizzetti B (eds) The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp xxiv–xxxivCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sutton MA, Oenema O, Erisman JW, Leip A, van Grinsven H, Winiwarter W (2011b) Too much of a good thing. Nature 472:159–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ et al (2011) RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim Chang 109:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tilman D (1998) The greening of the green revolution. Nature 396:211–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B et al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner GM (2012) On the cusp of global collapse? Updated comparison of the limits to growth with historical data. Gaia 21(2):116–124Google Scholar
  32. USEPA-SAB (2011) Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An analysis of inputs, flows, consequences, and management options. A Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-11-013, Washington, DC, U.S.AGoogle Scholar
  33. United Nations (2004) World population to 2300. Population division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations (2005) World urbanization prospects: the 2005 revision. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  35. United Nations (2007) World population prospects the 2006 revision, population division. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  36. van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, den Elzen MGJ, van Vliet J, Isaac M (2010) Exploring IMAGE model scenarios that keep greenhouse gas radiative forcing below 3 W/m2 in 2100. Energ Econ 32:1105–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011a) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Vuuren DP, Bouwman LF, Smith SJ, Dentener F (2011b) Global projections for anthropogenic reactive nitrogen emissions to the atmosphere: an assessment of scenarios in the scientific literature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Elzen MGJ et al (2011c) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Clim Chang 109:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Moss R et al (2012) A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Glob Environ Chang 22:21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wijffels RH, Barbosa MJ (2010) An outlook on microalgal biofuels. Science 329:796–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winiwarter W, Hettelingh JP, Bouwman AF et al (2011) Future scenarios of nitrogen in Europe. In: Sutton MA, Howard CM, Erisman JW, Billen G, Bleeker A, Grennfelt P, van Grinsven H, Grizzetti B (eds) The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 551–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilfried Winiwarter
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jan Willem Erisman
    • 3
    • 4
  • James N. Galloway
    • 5
  • Zbigniew Klimont
    • 1
  • Mark A. Sutton
    • 6
  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.University of Graz, Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability ResearchGrazAustria
  3. 3.Louis Bolk InstituteDriebergenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.VU Free University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Environmental Sciences DepartmentUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  6. 6.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh Research StationPenicuikUK

Personalised recommendations