Osvaldo E. Sala

Osvaldo E. Sala

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Osvaldo E. Sala

Global Drylands Center Arizona State University Tempe AZ USA

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

46Years (1981-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 March 2000 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
OSOsvaldo E. Sala
Osvaldo E. Sala
FIF Stuart Chapin Iii
F Stuart Chapin Iii
IIIii
Iii
JAJuan J. Armesto
Juan J. Armesto
EBEric Berlow
Eric Berlow
DWDiana H. Wall
Diana H. Wall
Scenarios of changes in biodiversity for the year 2100 can now be developed based on scenarios of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate, vegetation, and land use and the known sensitivity of biodiversity to these changes. This study identified a ranking of the importance of drivers of change, a ranking of the biomes with respect to expected changes, and the major sources of uncertainties. For terrestrial ecosystems, land-use change probably will have the largest effect, followed by climate change, nitrogen deposition, biotic exchange, and elevated carbon dioxide concentration. For freshwater ecosystems, biotic exchange is much more important. Mediterranean climate and grassland ecosystems likely will experience the greatest proportional change in biodiversity because of the substantial influence of all drivers of biodiversity change. Northern temperate ecosystems are estimated to experience the least biodiversity change because major land-use change has already occurred. Plausible changes in biodiversity in other biomes depend on interactions among the causes of biodiversity change. These interactions represent one of the largest uncertainties in projections of future biodiversity change.

1 November 1996 in Oecologia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RJR. B. Jackson
R. B. Jackson
JCJ. Canadell
J. Canadell
JEJ. R. Ehleringer
J. R. Ehleringer
HMH. A. Mooney
H. A. Mooney
OSO. E. Sala
O. E. Sala
ESE. D. Schulze
E. D. Schulze

1 December 1996 in Oecologia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JCJ. Canadell
J. Canadell
RJR. B. Jackson
R. B. Jackson
JEJ. B. Ehleringer
J. B. Ehleringer
HMH. A. Mooney
H. A. Mooney
OSO. E. Sala
O. E. Sala
ESE.-D. Schulze
E.-D. Schulze

1 June 2004 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
THTravis E. Huxman
Travis E. Huxman
MSMelinda D. Smith
Melinda D. Smith
PFPhilip A. Fay
Philip A. Fay
AKAlan K. Knapp
Alan K. Knapp
MSM. Rebecca Shaw
M. Rebecca Shaw
DWDavid G. Williams
David G. Williams

1 July 1988 in The American Naturalist
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DMD. G. Milchunas
D. G. Milchunas
OSO. E. Sala
O. E. Sala
WLW. K. Lauenroth
W. K. Lauenroth

17 November 2006 in Ecosystems
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FIF Stuart Chapin Iii
F Stuart Chapin Iii
GWG. M. Woodwell
G. M. Woodwell
JRJ. T. Randerson
J. T. Randerson
ERE. B. Rastetter
E. B. Rastetter
GLG. M. Lovett
G. M. Lovett
ESE.-D. Schulze
E.-D. Schulze
Recent projections of climatic change have focused a great deal of scientific and public attention on patterns of carbon (C) cycling as well as its controls, particularly the factors that determine whether an ecosystem is a net source or sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Net ecosystem production (NEP), a central concept in C-cycling research, has been used by scientists to represent two different concepts. We propose that NEP be restricted to just one of its two original definitions—the imbalance between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER). We further propose that a new term—net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB)—be applied to the net rate of C accumulation in (or loss from [negative sign]) ecosystems. Net ecosystem carbon balance differs from NEP when C fluxes other than C fixation and respiration occur, or when inorganic C enters or leaves in dissolved form. These fluxes include the leaching loss or lateral transfer of C from the ecosystem; the emission of volatile organic C, methane, and carbon monoxide; and the release of soot and CO2 from fire. Carbon fluxes in addition to NEP are particularly important determinants of NECB over long time scales. However, even over short time scales, they are important in ecosystems such as streams, estuaries, wetlands, and cities. Recent technological advances have led to a diversity of approaches to the measurement of C fluxes at different temporal and spatial scales. These approaches frequently capture different components of NEP or NECB and can therefore be compared across scales only by carefully specifying the fluxes included in the measurements. By explicitly identifying the fluxes that comprise NECB and other components of the C cycle, such as net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and net biome production (NBP), we can provide a less ambiguous framework for understanding and communicating recent changes in the global C cycle.