Consensus,uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use

Perennial bioenergy crops have significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation by substituting for fossil fuels; yet delivering significant GHG savings will require substantial land‐use change, globally. Over the last decade, research has delivered improved understanding of the environmental benefits and risks of this transition to perennial bioenergy crops, addressing concerns that the impacts of land conversion to perennial bioenergy crops could result in increased rather than decreased GHG emissions. For policymakers to assess the most cost‐effective and sustainable options for deployment and climate change mitigation, synthesis of these studies is needed to support evidence‐based decision making. In 2015, a workshop was convened with researchers, policymakers and industry/business representatives from the UK, EU and internationally. Outcomes from global research on bioenergy land‐use change were compared to identify areas of consensus, key uncertainties, and research priorities. Here, we discuss the strength of evidence for and against six consensus statements summarising the effects of land‐use change to perennial bioenergy crops on the cycling of carbon, nitrogen and water, in the context of the whole life‐cycle of bioenergy production. Our analysis suggests that the direct impacts of dedicated perennial bioenergy crops on soil carbon and nitrous oxide are increasingly well understood and are often consistent with significant life cycle GHG mitigation from bioenergy relative to conventional energy sources. We conclude that the GHG balance of perennial bioenergy crop cultivation will often be favourable, with maximum GHG savings achieved where crops are grown on soils with low carbon stocks and conservative nutrient application, accruing additional environmental benefits such as improved water quality. The analysis reported here demonstrates there is a mature and increasingly comprehensive evidence base on the environmental benefits and risks of bioenergy cultivation which can support the development of a sustainable bioenergy industry.     

High‐resolution spatial modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from land‐use change to energy crops in the United Kingdom

We implemented a spatial application of a previously evaluated model of soil GHG emissions, ECOSSE, in the United Kingdom to examine the impacts to 2050 of land‐use transitions from existing land use, rotational cropland, permanent grassland or woodland, to six bioenergy crops; three ‘first‐generation’ energy crops: oilseed rape, wheat and sugar beet, and three ‘second‐generation’ energy crops: Miscanthus, short rotation coppice willow (SRC) and short rotation forestry poplar (SRF). Conversion of rotational crops to Miscanthus, SRC and SRF and conversion of permanent grass to SRF show beneficial changes in soil GHG balance over a significant area. Conversion of permanent grass to Miscanthus, permanent grass to SRF and forest to SRF shows detrimental changes in soil GHG balance over a significant area. Conversion of permanent grass to wheat, oilseed rape, sugar beet and SRC and all conversions from forest show large detrimental changes in soil GHG balance over most of the United Kingdom, largely due to moving from uncultivated soil to regular cultivation. Differences in net GHG emissions between climate scenarios to 2050 were not significant. Overall, SRF offers the greatest beneficial impact on soil GHG balance. These results provide one criterion for selection of bioenergy crops and do not consider GHG emission increases/decreases resulting from displaced food production, bio‐physical factors (e.g. the energy density of the crop) and socio‐economic factors (e.g. expenditure on harvesting equipment). Given that the soil GHG balance is dominated by change in soil organic carbon (SOC) with the difference among Miscanthus, SRC and SRF largely determined by yield, a target for management of perennial energy crops is to achieve the best possible yield using the most appropriate energy crop and cultivar for the local situation.     

Doubling protected land area may be inefficient at preserving the extent of undeveloped land and could cause substantial regional shifts in land use

Projection of land use and land-cover change is highly uncertain yet drives critical estimates of carbon emissions, climate change, and food and bioenergy production. We use new, spatially explicit land availability data in conjunction with a model sensitivity analysis to estimate the effects of additional land protection on land use and land cover. The land availability data include protected land and agricultural suitability and is incorporated into the Moirai land data system for initializing the Global Change Analysis Model. Overall, decreasing land availability is relatively inefficient at preserving undeveloped land while having considerable regional land-use impacts. Current amounts of protected area have little effect on land and crop production estimates, but including the spatial distribution of unsuitable (i.e., unavailable) land dramatically shifts bioenergy production from high northern latitudes to the rest of the world, compared with uniform availability. This highlights the importance of spatial heterogeneity in understanding and managing land change. Approximately doubling the current protected area to emulate a 30% protected area target may avoid land conversion by 2050 of less than half the newly protected extent while reducing bioenergy feedstock land by 10.4% and cropland and grazed pasture by over 3%. Regional bioenergy land may be reduced (increased) by up to 46% (36%), cropland reduced by up to 61%, pasture reduced by up to 100%, and harvested forest reduced by up to 35%. Only a few regions show notable gains in some undeveloped land types of up to 36%. Half of the regions can reach the target using only unsuitable land, which would minimize impacts on agriculture but may not meet conservation goals. Rather than focusing on an area target, a more robust approach may be to carefully select newly protected land to meet well-defined conservation goals while minimizing impacts to agriculture.     

Greenhouse gas emissions from four bioenergy crops in England and Wales: Integrating spatial estimates of yield and soil carbon balance in life cycle analyses

Accurate estimation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential of bioenergy crops requires the integration of a significant component of spatially varying information. In particular, crop yield and soil carbon (C) stocks are variables which are generally soil type and climate dependent. Since gaseous emissions from soil C depend on current C stocks, which in turn are related to previous land management it is important to consider both previous and proposed future land use in any C accounting assessment. We have conducted a spatially explicit study for England and Wales, coupling empirical yield maps with the RothC soil C turnover model to simulate soil C dynamics. We estimate soil C changes under proposed planting of four bioenergy crops, Miscanthus ( Miscanthus × giganteus ), short rotation coppice (SRC) poplar ( Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray × P. trichocarpa , var. Trichobel), winter wheat, and oilseed rape. This is then related to the former land use – arable, pasture, or forest/seminatural, and the outputs are then assessed in the context of a life cycle analysis (LCA) for each crop. By offsetting emissions from management under the previous land use, and considering fossil fuel C displaced, the GHG balance is estimated for each of the 12 land use change transitions associated with replacing arable, grassland, or forest/seminatural land, with each of the four bioenergy crops. Miscanthus and SRC are likely to have a mostly beneficial impact in reducing GHG emissions, while oilseed rape and winter wheat have either a net GHG cost, or only a marginal benefit. Previous land use is important and can make the difference between the bioenergy crop being beneficial or worse than the existing land use in terms of GHG balance.     

城市温室气体排放清单编制研究进展

温室气体排放清单是目前最常用的城市碳排放核算方法,有助于在大尺度上了解城市不同行业或部门的温室气体排放情况.然而,中国城市温室气体清单研究刚刚起步,研究成果还不多,尚缺乏系统、规范的城市温室气体研究方法和指标体系.概述了城市温室气体排放清单的主要参考编制方法,介绍了国内外城市温室气体清单的编制情况,对目前城市温室气体清单编制的特点进行了分析,总结了城市温室气体清单与国家温室气体清单在关键排放源、编制模式、方法体系等方面的差异;在此基础上结合我国城市实际,对适合中国城市的温室气体清单编制方法进行了探索,并针对清单编制过程中存在的具体问题提出了建议;最后对未来城市温室气体清单的发展趋势进行了展望,以期为中国温室气体清单编制及研究提供借鉴.     

Soil carbon stock impacts following reversion of Miscanthus × giganteus and short rotation coppice willow commercial plantations into arable cropping

There are posited links between the establishment of perennial bioenergy, such as short rotation coppice (SRC) willow and Miscanthus × giganteus, on low carbon soils and enhanced soil C sequestration. Sequestration provides additional climate mitigation, however, few studies have explored impacts on soil C stocks of bioenergy crop removal; thus, the permanence of any sequestered C is unclear. This uncertainty has led some authors to question the handling of soil C stocks with carbon accounting, for example, through life cycle assessments. Here, we provide additional data for this debate, reporting on the soil C impacts of the reversion (removal and return) to arable cropping of commercial SRC willow and Miscanthus across four sites in the UK, two for each bioenergy crop, with eight reversions nested within these sites. Using a paired‐site approach, soil C stocks (0–1 m) were compared between 3 and 7 years after bioenergy crop removal. Impacts on soil C stocks varied, ranging from an increase of 70.16 ± 10.81 Mg C/ha 7 years after reversion of SRC willow to a decrease of 33.38 ± 5.33 Mg C/ha 3 years after reversion of Miscanthus compared to paired arable land. The implications for carbon accounting will depend on the method used to allocate this stock change between current and past land use. However, with published life cycle assessment values for the lifetime C reduction provided by these crops ranging from 29.50 to 138.55 Mg C/ha, the magnitude of these changes in stock are significant. We discuss the potential underlying mechanisms driving variability in soil C stock change, including the age of bioenergy crop at removal, removal methods, and differences in the recalcitrant of the crop residues, and highlight the need to design management methods to limit negative outcomes.     

The impact of interventions in the global land and agri‐food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Interlocked challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation require transformative interventions in the land management and food production sectors to reduce carbon emissions, strengthen adaptive capacity, and increase food security. However, deciding which interventions to pursue and understanding their relative co‐benefits with and trade‐offs against different social and environmental goals have been difficult without comparisons across a range of possible actions. This study examined 40 different options, implemented through land management, value chains, or risk management, for their relative impacts across 18 Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that a relatively small number of interventions show positive synergies with both SDGs and NCPs with no significant adverse trade‐offs; these include improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, integrated water management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced soil erosion, salinization, and compaction, fire management, reduced landslides and hazards, reduced pollution, reduced post‐harvest losses, improved energy use in food systems, and disaster risk management. Several interventions show potentially significant negative impacts on both SDGs and NCPs; these include bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, afforestation, and some risk sharing measures, like commercial crop insurance. Our results demonstrate that a better understanding of co‐benefits and trade‐offs of different policy approaches can help decision‐makers choose the more effective, or at the very minimum, more benign interventions for implementation.     

A multi‐criteria based review of models that predict environmental impacts of land use‐change for perennial energy crops on water,carbon and nitrogen cycling

Reduction in energy sector greenhouse gas GHG emissions is a key aim of European Commission plans to expand cultivation of bioenergy crops. Since agriculture makes up 10–12% of anthropogenic GHG emissions, impacts of land‐use change must be considered, which requires detailed understanding of specific changes to agroecosystems. The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of perennials may differ significantly from the previous ecosystem. Net change in GHG emissions with land‐use change for bioenergy may exceed avoided fossil fuel emissions, meaning that actual GHG mitigation benefits are variable. Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling are complex interlinked systems, and a change in land management may affect both differently at different sites, depending on other variables. Change in evapotranspiration with land‐use change may also have significant environmental or water resource impacts at some locations. This article derives a multi‐criteria based decision analysis approach to objectively identify the most appropriate assessment method of the environmental impacts of land‐use change for perennial energy crops. Based on a literature review and conceptual model in support of this approach, the potential impacts of land‐use change for perennial energy crops on GHG emissions and evapotranspiration were identified, as well as likely controlling variables. These findings were used to structure the decision problem and to outline model requirements. A process‐based model representing the complete agroecosystem was identified as the best predictive tool, where adequate data are available. Nineteen models were assessed according to suitability criteria, to identify current model capability, based on the conceptual model, and explicit representation of processes at appropriate resolution. FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert‐N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES‐NOE were identified as appropriate models, with factors such as crop, location and data availability dictating the final decision for a given project. A database to inform such decisions is included.     

Impacts of intensifying or expanding cereal cropping in sub‐Saharan Africa on greenhouse gas emissions and food security

Cropping is responsible for substantial emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) worldwide through the use of fertilizers and through expansion of agricultural land and associated carbon losses. Especially in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), GHG emissions from these processes might increase steeply in coming decades, due to tripling demand for food until 2050 to match the steep population growth. This study assesses the impact of achieving cereal self‐sufficiency by the year 2050 for 10 SSA countries on GHG emissions related to different scenarios of increasing cereal production, ranging from intensifying production to agricultural area expansion. We also assessed different nutrient management variants in the intensification. Our analysis revealed that irrespective of intensification or extensification, GHG emissions of the 10 countries jointly are at least 50% higher in 2050 than in 2015. Intensification will come, depending on the nutrient use efficiency achieved, with large increases in nutrient inputs and associated GHG emissions. However, matching food demand through conversion of forest and grasslands to cereal area likely results in much higher GHG emissions. Moreover, many countries lack enough suitable land for cereal expansion to match food demand. In addition, we analysed the uncertainty in our GHG estimates and found that it is caused primarily by uncertainty in the IPCC Tier 1 coefficient for direct N₂O emissions, and by the agronomic nitrogen use efficiency (N‐AE). In conclusion, intensification scenarios are clearly superior to expansion scenarios in terms of climate change mitigation, but only if current N‐AE is increased to levels commonly achieved in, for example, the United States, and which have been demonstrated to be feasible in some locations in SSA. As such, intensifying cereal production with good agronomy and nutrient management is essential to moderate inevitable increases in GHG emissions. Sustainably increasing crop production in SSA is therefore a daunting challenge in the coming decades.     

Trade‐offs between land and water requirements for large‐scale bioenergy production

Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the future energy mix as it can substitute fossil fuels and contribute to climate change mitigation. However, large‐scale bioenergy cultivation may put substantial pressure on land and water resources. While irrigated bioenergy production can reduce the pressure on land due to higher yields, associated irrigation water requirements may lead to degradation of freshwater ecosystems and to conflicts with other potential users. In this article, we investigate the trade‐offs between land and water requirements of large‐scale bioenergy production. To this end, we adopt an exogenous demand trajectory for bioenergy from dedicated energy crops, targeted at limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector to 1100 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent until 2095. We then use the spatially explicit global land‐ and water‐use allocation model MAgPIE to project the implications of this bioenergy target for global land and water resources. We find that producing 300 EJ yr^?1 of bioenergy in 2095 from dedicated bioenergy crops is likely to double agricultural water withdrawals if no explicit water protection policies are implemented. Since current human water withdrawals are dominated by agriculture and already lead to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, such a doubling will pose a severe threat to freshwater ecosystems. If irrigated bioenergy production is prohibited to prevent negative impacts of bioenergy cultivation on water resources, bioenergy land requirements for meeting a 300 EJ yr^?1 bioenergy target increase substantially (+ 41%) – mainly at the expense of pasture areas and tropical forests. Thus, avoiding negative environmental impacts of large‐scale bioenergy production will require policies that balance associated water and land requirements.     

Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel

Under the current accounting systems, emissions produced when biomass is burnt for energy are accounted as zero, resulting in what is referred to as the ‘carbon neutrality’ assumption. However, if current harvest levels are increased to produce more bioenergy, carbon that would have been stored in the biosphere might be instead released in the atmosphere. This study utilizes a comparative approach that considers emissions under alternative energy supply options. This approach shows that the emission benefits of bioenergy compared to use of fossil fuel are time‐dependent. It emerges that the assumption that bioenergy always results in zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to use of fossil fuels can be misleading, particularly in the context of short‐to‐medium term goals. While it is clear that all sources of woody bioenergy from sustainably managed forests will produce emission reductions in the long term, different woody biomass sources have various impacts in the short‐medium term. The study shows that the use of forest residues that are easily decomposable can produce GHG benefits compared to use of fossil fuels from the beginning of their use and that biomass from dedicated plantations established on marginal land can be carbon neutral from the beginning of its use. However, the risk of short‐to‐medium term negative impacts is high when additional fellings are extracted to produce bioenergy and the proportion of felled biomass used for bioenergy is low, or when land with high C stocks is converted to low productivity bioenergy plantations. The method used in the study provides an instrument to identify the time‐dependent pattern of emission reductions for alternative bioenergy sources. In this way, decision makers can evaluate which bioenergy options are most beneficial for meeting short‐term GHG emission reduction goals and which ones are more appropriate for medium to longer term objectives.     

Evaluation of the ECOSSE model for simulating soil carbon under short rotation forestry energy crops in Britain

Understanding and predicting the effects of land‐use change to short rotation forestry (SRF) on soil carbon (C) is an important requirement for fully assessing the C mitigation potential of SRF as a bioenergy crop. There is little current knowledge of SRF in the UK and in particular a lack of consistent measured data sets on the direct impacts of land use change on soil C stocks. The ECOSSE model was developed to simulate soil C dynamics and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in mineral and organic soils. The ECOSSE model has already been applied spatially to simulate land‐use change impacts on soil C and GHG emissions. However, it has not been extensively evaluated under SRF. Eleven sites comprising 29 transitions in Britain, representing land‐use change from nonwoodland land uses to SRF, were selected to evaluate the performance of ECOSSE in predicting soil C and soil C change in SRF plantations. The modelled C under SRF showed a strong correlation with the soil C measurements at both 0–30 cm (R = 0.93) and 0–100 cm soil depth (R = 0.82). As for the SRF plots, the soil C at the reference sites have been accurately simulated by the model. The extremely high correlation for the reference fields (R ≥ 0.99) shows a good performance of the model spin‐up. The statistical analysis of the model performance to simulate soil C and soil C changes after land‐use change to SRF highlighted the absence of significant error between modelled and measured values as well as the absence of significant bias in the model. Overall, this evaluation reinforces previous studies on the ability of ECOSSE to simulate soil C and emphasize its accuracy to simulate soil C under SRF plantations.     

Carbon emissions and sinks in agro-ecosystems of China

Besides ruminant animals and their wastes, soil is an important regulating medium incarbon cycling. The soil can be both a contributor to climate change and a recipient of impacts. Inthe past, land cultivation has generally resulted in considerable depletion of soil organic matter andthe release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The observation in the North-South Transect of Eastern China showed that climate change and land use strongly impact all soil proc-esses and GHG exchanges between the soil and the atmosphere. Soil management can restoreorganic carbon by enhancing soil structure and fertility and by doing so mitigating the negative im-pacts of atmospheric greenhouses on climate. A wide estimation carried out in China shows that carbon sequestration potential is about 77.2 MMt C/a (ranging from 26.1-128.3 MMt C/a) using proposed IPCC activities during the next fifty years.     

Ecosystem model parameterization and adaptation for sustainable cellulosic biofuel landscape design

Renewable fuel standards in the US and elsewhere mandate the production of large quantities of cellulosic biofuels with low greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints, a requirement which will likely entail extensive cultivation of dedicated bioenergy feedstock crops on marginal agricultural lands. Performance data for such systems is sparse, and non‐linear interactions between the feedstock species, agronomic management intensity, and underlying soil and land characteristics complicate the development of sustainable landscape design strategies for low‐impact commercial‐scale feedstock production. Process‐based ecosystem models are valuable for extrapolating field trial results and making predictions of productivity and associated environmental impacts that integrate the effects of spatially variable environmental factors across diverse production landscapes. However, there are few examples of ecosystem model parameterization against field trials on both prime and marginal lands or of conducting landscape‐scale analyses at sufficient resolution to capture interactions between soil type, land use, and management intensity. In this work we used a data‐diverse, multi‐criteria approach to parameterize and validate the DayCent biogeochemistry model for upland and lowland switchgrass using data on yields, soil carbon changes, and soil nitrous oxide emissions from US field trials spanning a range of climates, soil types, and management conditions. We then conducted a high‐resolution case study analysis of a real‐world cellulosic biofuel landscape in Kansas in order to estimate feedstock production potential and associated direct biogenic GHG emissions footprint. Our results suggest that switchgrass yields and emissions balance can vary greatly across a landscape large enough to supply a biorefinery in response to variations in soil type and land‐use history, but that within a given land base both of these performance factors can be widely modulated by changing management intensity. This in turn implies a large sustainable cellulosic biofuel landscape design space within which a system can be optimized to meet economic or environmental objectives.     

Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010

Historic land‐cover/use change is important for studies on climate change, soil carbon, and biodiversity assessments. Available reconstructions focus on the net area difference between two time steps (net changes) instead of accounting for all area gains and losses (gross changes). This leads to a serious underestimation of land‐cover/use dynamics with impacts on the biogeochemical and environmental assessments based on these reconstructions. In this study, we quantified to what extent land‐cover/use reconstructions underestimate land‐cover/use changes in Europe for the 1900–2010 period by accounting for net changes only. We empirically analyzed available historic land‐change data, quantified their uncertainty, corrected for spatial‐temporal effects and identified underlying processes causing differences between gross and net changes. Gross changes varied for different land classes (largest for forest and grassland) and led to two to four times the amount of net changes. We applied the empirical results of gross change quantities in a spatially explicit reconstruction of historic land change to reconstruct gross changes for the EU27 plus Switzerland at 1 km spatial resolution between 1950 and 2010. In addition, the reconstruction was extended back to 1900 to explore the effects of accounting for gross changes on longer time scales. We created a land‐change reconstruction that only accounted for net changes for comparison. Our two model outputs were compared with five commonly used global reconstructions for the same period and area. In our reconstruction, gross changes led in total to a 56% area change (ca. 0.5% yr^?1) between 1900 and 2010 and cover twice the area of net changes. All global reconstructions used for comparison estimated fewer changes than our gross change reconstruction. Main land‐change processes were cropland/grassland dynamics and afforestation, and also deforestation and urbanization.     

Assessing Environmental Impacts of Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Expansion: Model Definition and Preliminary Results

Short rotation coppice (SRC) systems can play a role as feedstock for bioenergy supply contributing to EU energy and climate policy targets. A scenario depicting intensive arable crop cultivation in a homogeneous landscape (lacking habitat structures) was compared to a scenario including SRC cultivation on 20 % of arable land. A range of indicators was selected to assess the consequences of SRC on soil, water and biodiversity, using data from the Rating-SRC project (Sweden and Germany). The results of the assessment were presented using spider diagrams. Establishment and use of SRC for bioenergy has both positive and negative effects. The former include increased carbon sequestration and reduced GHG emissions as well as reduced soil erosion, groundwater nitrate and surface runoff. SRC can be used in phytoremediation and improves plant and breeding bird biodiversity (exceptions: grassland and arable land species) but should not be applied in dry areas or on soils high in toxic trace elements (exception: cadmium). The scenario-based analysis was found useful for studying the consequences of SRC cultivation at larger scales. Limitations of the approach are related to data requirements and compatibility and its restricted ability to cover spatial diversity and dynamic processes. The findings should not be generalised beyond the representativeness of the data used.     

Adaptation of global land use and management intensity to changes in climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide

Land use contributes to environmental change, but is also influenced by such changes. Climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels’ changes alter agricultural crop productivity, plant water requirements and irrigation water availability. The global food system needs to respond and adapt to these changes, for example, by altering agricultural practices, including the crop types or intensity of management, or shifting cultivated areas within and between countries. As impacts and associated adaptation responses are spatially specific, understanding the land use adaptation to environmental changes requires crop productivity representations that capture spatial variations. The impact of variation in management practices, including fertiliser and irrigation rates, also needs to be considered. To date, models of global land use have selected agricultural expansion or intensification levels using relatively aggregate spatial representations, typically at a regional level, that are not able to characterise the details of these spatially differentiated responses. Here, we show results from a novel global modelling approach using more detailed biophysically derived yield responses to inputs with greater spatial specificity than previously possible. The approach couples a dynamic global vegetative model (LPJ‐GUESS) with a new land use and food system model (PLUMv2), with results benchmarked against historical land use change from 1970. Land use outcomes to 2100 were explored, suggesting that increased intensity of climate forcing reduces the inputs required for food production, due to the fertilisation and enhanced water use efficiency effects of elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, but requiring substantial shifts in the global and local patterns of production. The results suggest that adaptation in the global agriculture and food system has substantial capacity to diminish the negative impacts and gain greater benefits from positive outcomes of climate change. Consequently, agricultural expansion and intensification may be lower than found in previous studies where spatial details and processes consideration were more constrained.     

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.     

How willing are landowners to supply land for bioenergy crops in the Northern Great Lakes Region?

Land to produce biomass is essential if the United States is to expand bioenergy supply. Use of agriculturally marginal land avoids the food vs. fuel problems of food price rises and carbon debt that are associated with crop and forestland. Recent remote sensing studies have identified large areas of US marginal land deemed suitable for bioenergy crops. Yet the sustainability benefits of growing bioenergy crops on marginal land only pertain if land is economically available. Scant attention has been paid to the willingness of landowners to supply land for bioenergy crops. Focusing on the northern tier of the Great Lakes, where grassland transitions to forest and land prices are low, this contingent valuation study reports on the willingness of a representative sample of 1124 private, noncorporate landowners to rent land for three bioenergy crops: corn, switchgrass, and poplar. Of the 11% of land that was agriculturally marginal, they were willing to make available no more than 21% for any bioenergy crop (switchgrass preferred on marginal land) at double the prevailing land rental rate in the region. At the same generous rental rate, of the 28% that is cropland, they would rent up to 23% for bioenergy crops (corn preferred), while of the 55% that is forestland, they would rent up to 15% for bioenergy crops (poplar preferred). Regression results identified deterrents to land rental for bioenergy purposes included appreciation of environmental amenities and concern about rental disamenities. In sum, like landowners in the southern Great Lakes region, landowners in the Northern Tier are reluctant to supply marginal land for bioenergy crops. If rental markets existed, they would rent more crop and forestland for bioenergy crops than they would marginal land, which would generate carbon debt and opportunity costs in wood product and food markets.     

Initial soil C and land‐use history determine soil C sequestration under perennial bioenergy crops

In the UK and other temperate regions, short rotation coppice (SRC) and Miscanthus x giganteus (Miscanthus) are two of the leading ‘second‐generation’ bioenergy crops. Grown specifically as a low‐carbon (C) fossil fuel replacement, calculations of the climate mitigation provided by these bioenergy crops rely on accurate data. There are concerns that uncertainty about impacts on soil C stocks of transitions from current agricultural land use to these bioenergy crops could lead to either an under‐ or overestimate of their climate mitigation potential. Here, for locations across mainland Great Britain (GB), a paired‐site approach and a combination of 30‐cm‐ and 1‐m‐deep soil sampling were used to quantify impacts of bioenergy land‐use transitions on soil C stocks in 41 commercial land‐use transitions; 12 arable to SRC, 9 grasslands to SRC, 11 arable to Miscanthus and 9 grasslands to Miscanthus. Mean soil C stocks were lower under both bioenergy crops than under the grassland controls but only significant at 0–30 cm. Mean soil C stocks at 0–30 cm were 33.55 ± 7.52 Mg C ha^?1 and 26.83 ± 8.08 Mg C ha^?1 lower under SRC (P = 0.004) and Miscanthus plantations (P = 0.001), respectively. Differences between bioenergy crops and arable controls were not significant in either the 30‐cm or 1‐m soil cores and smaller than for transitions from grassland. No correlation was detected between change in soil C stock and bioenergy crop age (time since establishment) or soil texture. Change in soil C stock was, however, negatively correlated with the soil C stock in the original land use. We suggest, therefore, that selection of sites for bioenergy crop establishment with lower soil C stocks, most often under arable land use, is the most likely to result in increased soil C stocks.