Spatiotemporal land use modelling to assess land availability for energy crops – illustrated for Mozambique

A method and tool have been developed to assess future developments in land availability for bioenergy crops in a spatially explicit way, while taking into account both the developments in other land use functions, such as land for food, livestock and material production, and the uncertainties in the key determinant factors of land use change (LUC). This spatiotemporal LUC model is demonstrated with a case study on the developments in the land availability for bioenergy crops in Mozambique in the timeframe 2005–2030. The developments in the main drivers for agricultural land use, demand for food, animal products and materials were assessed, based on the projected developments in population, diet, GDP and self‐sufficiency ratio. Two scenarios were developed: a business‐as‐usual (BAU) scenario and a progressive scenario. Land allocation was based on land use class‐specific sets of suitability factors. The LUC dynamics were mapped on a 1 km² grid level for each individual year up to 2030. In the BAU scenario, 7.7 Mha and in the progressive scenario 16.4 Mha could become available for bioenergy crop production in 2030. Based on the Monte Carlo analysis, a 95% confidence interval of the amount of land available and the spatially explicit probability of available land was found. The bottom‐up approach, the number of dynamic land uses, the diverse portfolio of LUC drivers and suitability factors, and the possibility to model uncertainty mean that this model is a step forward in modelling land availability for bioenergy potentials.     

A regional assessment of land‐based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy,BECCS, reforestation,and forest management

Land‐based solutions are indispensable features of most climate mitigation scenarios. Here we conduct a novel cross‐sectoral assessment of regional carbon mitigation potential by running an ecosystem model with an explicit representation of forest structure and climate impacts for Bavaria, Germany, as a case study. We drive the model with four high‐resolution climate projections (EURO‐CORDEX) for the representative concentration pathway RCP4.5 and present‐day land‐cover from three satellite‐derived datasets (CORINE, ESA‐CCI, MODIS) and identify total mitigation potential by not only accounting for carbon storage but also material and energy substitution effects. The model represents the current state in Bavaria adequately, with a simulated forest biomass 12.9 ± 0.4% lower than data from national forest inventories. Future land‐use changes according to two ambitious land‐use harmonization scenarios (SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP4xRCP3.4) achieve a mitigation of 206 and 247 Mt C (2015–2100 period) via reforestation and the cultivation and burning of dedicated bioenergy crops, partly combined with carbon capture and storage. Sensitivity simulations suggest that converting croplands or pastures to bioenergy plantations could deliver a carbon mitigation of 40.9 and 37.7 kg C/m², respectively, by the year 2100 if used to replace carbon‐intensive energy systems and combined with CCS. However, under less optimistic assumptions (including no CCS), only 15.3 and 12.2 kg C/m² are mitigated and reforestation might be the better option (20.0 and 16.8 kg C/m²). Mitigation potential in existing forests is limited (converting coniferous into mixed forests, nitrogen fertilization) or even negative (suspending wood harvest) due to decreased carbon storage in product pools and associated substitution effects. Our simulations provide guidelines to policy makers, farmers, foresters, and private forest owners for sustainable and climate‐benefitting ecosystem management in temperate regions. They also emphasize the importance of the CCS technology which is regarded critically by many people, making its implementation in the short or medium term currently doubtable.     

Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th Carbon Budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 Mt_DM/year of biomass respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 /year in the centralized and distributed energy systems respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions and water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks. The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO₂ reductions of approximately 18 and 23 /year from the centralized and distributed energy systems respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 /year from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 Mt_DM/year of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO₂ from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO₂ transport infrastructures.     

The effects of land use and climate change on the carbon cycle of Europe over the past 500 years

The long residence time of carbon in forests and soils means that both the current state and future behavior of the terrestrial biosphere are influenced by past variability in climate and anthropogenic land use. Over the last half‐millennium, European terrestrial ecosystems were affected by the cool temperatures of the Little Ice Age, rising CO₂ concentrations, and human induced deforestation and land abandonment. To quantify the importance of these processes, we performed a series of simulations with the LPJ dynamic vegetation model driven by reconstructed climate, land use, and CO₂ concentrations. Although land use change was the major control on the carbon inventory of Europe over the last 500 years, the current state of the terrestrial biosphere is largely controlled by land use change during the past century. Between 1500 and 2000, climate variability led to temporary sequestration events of up to 3 Pg, whereas increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations during the 20th century led to an increase in carbon storage of up to 15 Pg. Anthropogenic land use caused between 25 Pg of carbon emissions and 5 Pg of uptake over the same time period, depending on the historical and spatial pattern of past land use and the timing of the reversal from deforestation to afforestation during the last two centuries. None of the currently existing anthropogenic land use change datasets adequately capture the timing of the forest transition in most European countries as recorded in historical observations. Despite considerable uncertainty, our scenarios indicate that with limited management, extant European forests have the potential to absorb between 5 and 12 Pg of carbon at the present day.     

Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada

We estimate the mitigation potential of local use of bioenergy from harvest residues for the 2.3 × 10⁶ km² (232 Mha) of Canada's managed forests from 2017 to 2050 using three models: Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM‐CFS3), a harvested wood products (HWP) model that estimates bioenergy emissions, and a model of emission substitution benefits from the use of bioenergy. We compare the use of harvest residues for local heat and electricity production relative to a base case scenario and estimate the climate change mitigation potential at the forest management unit level. Results demonstrate large differences between and within provinces and territories across Canada. We identify regions with increasing benefits to the atmosphere for many decades into the future and regions where no net benefit would occur over the 33‐year study horizon. The cumulative mitigation potential for regions with positive mitigation was predicted to be 429 Tg CO₂e in 2050, with 7.1 TgC yr ^?1 of harvest residues producing bioenergy that met 3.1% of the heat demand and 2.9% of the electricity demand for 32.1 million people living within these regions. Our results show that regions with positive mitigation produced bioenergy, mainly from combined heat and power facilities, with emissions intensities that ranged from roughly 90 to 500 kg CO₂e MWh^?1. Roughly 40% of the total captured harvest residue was associated with regions that were predicted to have a negative cumulative mitigation potential in 2050 of ?152 Tg CO₂e. We conclude that the capture of harvest residues to produce local bioenergy can reduce GHG emissions in populated regions where bioenergy, mainly from combined heat and power facilities, offsets fossil fuel sources (fuel oil, coal and petcoke, and natural gas).     

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.     

The climate change mitigation effect of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests in Central Europe

We compare sustainably managed with unmanaged forests in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation based on published data. For sustainably managed forests, accounting of carbon (C) storage based on ecosystem biomass and products as required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is not sufficient to quantify their contribution to climate change mitigation. The ultimate value of biomass is its use for biomaterials and bioenergy. Taking Germany as an example, we show that the average removals of wood from managed forests are higher than stated by official reports, ranging between 56 and 86 mill. m³ year^?1 due to the unrecorded harvest of firewood. We find that removals from one hectare can substitute 0.87 m³ ha^?1 year^?1 of diesel, or 7.4 MWh ha^?1 year^?1, taking into account the unrecorded firewood, the use of fuel for harvesting and processing, and the efficiency of energy conversion. Energy substitution ranges between 1.9 and 2.2 t CO_{2 equiv.} ha^?1 year^?1 depending on the type of fossil fuel production. Including bioenergy and carbon storage, the total mitigation effect of managed forest ranges between 3.2 and 3.5 t CO_{2 equiv.} ha^?1 year^?1. This is more than previously reported because of the full accounting of bioenergy. Unmanaged nature conservation forests contribute via C storage only about 0.37 t CO_{2 equiv.}  ha^?1 year^?1 to climate change mitigation. There is no fossil fuel substitution. Therefore, taking forests out of management reduces climate change mitigation benefits substantially. There should be a mitigation cost for taking forest out of management in Central Europe. Since the energy sector is rewarded for the climate benefits of bioenergy, and not the forest sector, we propose that a CO₂ tax is used to award the contribution of forest management to fossil fuel substitution and climate change mitigation. This would stimulate the production of wood for products and energy substitution.     

Projected changes in mineral soil carbon of European croplands and grasslands, 1990–2080

We present the most comprehensive pan‐European assessment of future changes in cropland and grassland soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks to date, using a dedicated process‐based SOC model and state‐of‐the‐art databases of soil, climate change, land‐use change and technology change. Soil carbon change was calculated using the Rothamsted carbon model on a European 10 × 10′ grid using climate data from four global climate models implementing four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions scenarios (SRES). Changes in net primary production (NPP) were calculated by the Lund–Potsdam–Jena model. Land‐use change scenarios, interpreted from the narratives of the IPCC SRES story lines, were used to project changes in cropland and grassland areas. Projections for 1990–2080 are presented for mineral soil only. Climate effects (soil temperature and moisture) will tend to speed decomposition and cause soil carbon stocks to decrease, whereas increases in carbon input because of increasing NPP will slow the loss. Technological improvement may further increase carbon inputs to the soil. Changes in cropland and grassland areas will further affect the total soil carbon stock of European croplands and grasslands. While climate change will be a key driver of change in soil carbon over the 21st Century, changes in technology and land‐use change are estimated to have very significant effects. When incorporating all factors, cropland and grassland soils show a small increase in soil carbon on a per area basis under future climate (1–7 t C ha^?1 for cropland and 3–6 t C ha^?1 for grassland), but when the greatly decreasing area of cropland and grassland are accounted for, total European cropland stocks decline in all scenarios, and grassland stocks decline in all but one scenario. Different trends are seen in different regions. For Europe (the EU25 plus Norway and Switzerland), the cropland SOC stock decreases from 11 Pg in 1990 by 4–6 Pg (39–54%) by 2080, and the grassland SOC stock increases from 6 Pg in 1990 to 1.5 Pg (25%) under the B1 scenario, but decreases to 1–3 Pg (20–44%) under the other scenarios. Uncertainty associated with the land‐use and technology scenarios remains unquantified, but worst‐case quantified uncertainties are 22.5% for croplands and 16% for grasslands, equivalent to potential errors of 2.5 and 1 Pg SOC, respectively. This is equivalent to 42–63% of the predicted SOC stock change for croplands and 33–100% of the predicted SOC stock change for grasslands. Implications for accounting for SOC changes under the Kyoto Protocol are discussed.     

Meeting Europe's climate change commitments: quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union is committed to a reduction in CO₂ emissions to 92% of baseline (1990) levels during the first commitment period (2008–2012). The Kyoto Protocol allows carbon emissions to be offset by demonstrable removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, land‐use/land‐management change and forestry activities that are shown to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels can be included in the Kyoto targets. These activities include afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol) and the improved management of agricultural soils (article 3.4). In this paper, we estimate the carbon mitigation potential of various agricultural land‐management strategies and examine the consequences of European policy options on carbon mitigation potential, by examining combinations of changes in agricultural land‐use/land‐management. We show that no single land‐management change in isolation can mitigate all of the carbon needed to meet Europe's climate change commitments, but integrated combinations of land‐management strategies show considerable potential for carbon mitigation. Three of the combined scenarios, one of which is an optimal realistic scenario, are by themselves able to meet Europe's emission limitation or reduction commitments. Through combined land‐management scenarios, we show that the most important resource for carbon mitigation in agriculture is the surplus arable land. We conclude that in order to fully exploit the potential of arable land for carbon mitigation, policies will need to be implemented to allow surplus arable land to be put into alternative long‐term land‐use. Of all options examined, bioenergy crops show the greatest potential for carbon mitigation. Bioenergy crop production also shows an indefinite mitigation potential compared to other options where the mitigation potential is finite. We suggest that in order to exploit fully the bioenergy option, the infrastructure for bioenergy production needs to be significantly enhanced before the beginning of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2008. It is not expected that Europe will attempt to meet its climate change commitments solely through changes in agricultural land‐use. A reduction in CO₂‐carbon emissions will be key to meeting Europe's Kyoto targets, and forestry activities (Kyoto Article 3.3) will play a major role. In this study, however, we demonstrate the considerable potential of changes in agricultural land‐use and ‐management (Kyoto Article 3.4) for carbon mitigation and highlight the policies needed to promote these agricultural activities. As all sources of carbon mitigation will be important in meeting Europe's climate change commitments, agricultural carbon mitigation options should be taken very seriously.     

Net biome production of the Amazon Basin in the 21st century

Global change includes multiple stressors to natural ecosystems ranging from direct climate and land‐use impacts to indirect degradation processes resulting from fire. Humid tropical forests are vulnerable to projected climate change and possible synergistic interactions with deforestation and fire, which may initiate a positive feedback to rising atmospheric CO₂. Here, we present results from a multifactorial impact analysis that combined an ensemble of climate change models with feedbacks from deforestation and accidental fires to quantify changes in Amazon Basin carbon cycling. Using the LPJmL Dynamic Global Vegetation Model, we modelled spatio‐temporal changes in net biome production (NBP); the difference between carbon fluxes from fire, deforestation, soil respiration and net primary production. By 2050, deforestation and fire (with no CO₂ increase or climate change) resulted in carbon losses of 7.4–20.3 Pg C with the range of uncertainty depending on socio‐economic storyline. During the same time period, interactions between climate and land use either compensated for carbon losses due to wetter climate and CO₂ fertilization or exacerbated carbon losses from drought‐induced forest mortality (?20.1 to +4.3 Pg C). By the end of the 21st century, depending on climate projection and the rate of deforestation (including its interaction with fire), carbon stocks either increased (+12.6 Pg C) or decreased (?40.6 Pg C). The synergistic effect of deforestation and fire with climate change contributed up to 26–36 Pg C of the overall decrease in carbon stocks. Agreement between climate projections (n=9), not accounting for deforestation and fire, in 2050 and 2098 was relatively low for the directional change in basin‐wide NBP (19–37%) and aboveground live biomass (13–24%). The largest uncertainty resulted from climate projections, followed by implementation of ecosystem dynamics and deforestation. Our analysis partitions the drivers of tropical ecosystem change and is relevant for guiding mitigation and adaptation policy related to global change.     

Uncertain effectiveness of Miscanthus bioenergy expansion for climate change mitigation explored using land surface,agronomic and integrated assessment models

Large-scale bioenergy plays a key role in climate change mitigation scenarios, but its efficacy is uncertain. This study aims to quantify that uncertainty by contrasting the results of three different types of models under the same mitigation scenario (RCP2.6-SSP2), consistent with a 2°C temperature target. This analysis focuses on a single bioenergy feedstock, Miscanthus × giganteus, and contrasts projections for its yields and environmental effects from an integrated assessment model (IMAGE), a land surface and dynamic global vegetation model tailored to Miscanthus bioenergy (JULES) and a bioenergy crop model (MiscanFor). Under the present climate, JULES, IMAGE and MiscanFor capture the observed magnitude and variability in Miscanthus yields across Europe; yet in the tropics JULES and IMAGE predict high yields, whereas MiscanFor predicts widespread drought-related diebacks. 2040–2049 projections show there is a rapid scale up of over 200 Mha bioenergy cropping area in the tropics. Resulting biomass yield ranges from 12 (MiscanFor) to 39 (JULES) Gt dry matter over that decade. Change in soil carbon ranges from +0.7 Pg C (MiscanFor) to −2.8 Pg C (JULES), depending on preceding land cover and soil carbon.2090–99 projections show large-scale biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is projected in Europe. The models agree that <2°C global warming will increase yields in the higher latitudes, but drought stress in the Mediterranean region could produce low yields (MiscanFor), and significant losses of soil carbon (JULES and IMAGE). These results highlight the uncertainty in rapidly scaling-up biomass energy supply, especially in dry tropical climates and in regions where future climate change could result in drier conditions. This has important policy implications—because prominently used scenarios to limit warming to ‘well below 2°C’ (including the one explored here) depend upon its effectiveness.     

A review of global potentially available cropland estimates and their consequences for model‐based assessments

The world's population is growing and demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel is increasing, placing greater demand on land and its resources for crop production. We review previously published estimates of global scale cropland availability, discuss the underlying assumptions that lead to differences between estimates, and illustrate the consequences of applying different estimates in model‐based assessments of land‐use change. The review estimates a range from 1552 to 5131 Mha, which includes 1550 Mha that is already cropland. Hence, the lowest estimates indicate that there is almost no room for cropland expansion, while the highest estimates indicate that cropland could potentially expand to over three times its current area. Differences can largely be attributed to institutional assumptions, i.e. which land covers/uses (e.g. forests or grasslands) are societally or governmentally allowed to convert to cropland, while there was little variation in biophysical assumptions. Estimates based on comparable assumptions showed a variation of up to 84%, which originated mainly from different underlying data sources. On the basis of this synthesis of the assumptions underlying these estimates, we constructed a high, a medium, and a low estimate of cropland availability that are representative of the range of estimates in the reviewed studies. We apply these estimates in a land‐change model to illustrate the consequences on cropland expansion and intensification as well as deforestation. While uncertainty in cropland availability is hardly addressed in global land‐use change assessments, the results indicate a large range of estimates with important consequences for model‐based assessments.     

Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production

The capacity for forests to aid in climate change mitigation efforts is substantial but will ultimately depend on their management. If forests remain unharvested, they can further mitigate the increases in atmospheric CO₂ that result from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. Alternatively, they can be harvested for bioenergy production and serve as a substitute for fossil fuels, though such a practice could reduce terrestrial C storage and thereby increase atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in the near‐term. Here, we used an ecosystem simulation model to ascertain the effectiveness of using forest bioenergy as a substitute for fossil fuels, drawing from a broad range of land‐use histories, harvesting regimes, ecosystem characteristics, and bioenergy conversion efficiencies. Results demonstrate that the times required for bioenergy substitutions to repay the C Debt incurred from biomass harvest are usually much shorter (< 100 years) than the time required for bioenergy production to substitute the amount of C that would be stored if the forest were left unharvested entirely, a point we refer to as C Sequestration Parity. The effectiveness of substituting woody bioenergy for fossil fuels is highly dependent on the factors that determine bioenergy conversion efficiency, such as the C emissions released during the harvest, transport, and firing of woody biomass. Consideration of the frequency and intensity of biomass harvests should also be given; performing total harvests (clear‐cutting) at high‐frequency may produce more bioenergy than less intensive harvesting regimes but may decrease C storage and thereby prolong the time required to achieve C Sequestration Parity.     

Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts

Most climate mitigation scenarios involve negative emissions, especially those that aim to limit global temperature increase to 2°C or less. However, the carbon uptake potential in land‐based climate change mitigation efforts is highly uncertain. Here, we address this uncertainty by using two land‐based mitigation scenarios from two land‐use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) as input to four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs; LPJ‐GUESS, ORCHIDEE, JULES, LPJmL). Each of the four combinations of land‐use models and mitigation scenarios aimed for a cumulative carbon uptake of ~130 GtC by the end of the century, achieved either via the cultivation of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or avoided deforestation and afforestation (ADAFF). Results suggest large uncertainty in simulated future land demand and carbon uptake rates, depending on the assumptions related to land use and land management in the models. Total cumulative carbon uptake in the DGVMs is highly variable across mitigation scenarios, ranging between 19 and 130 GtC by year 2099. Only one out of the 16 combinations of mitigation scenarios and DGVMs achieves an equivalent or higher carbon uptake than achieved in the land‐use models. The large differences in carbon uptake between the DGVMs and their discrepancy against the carbon uptake in IMAGE and MAgPIE are mainly due to different model assumptions regarding bioenergy crop yields and due to the simulation of soil carbon response to land‐use change. Differences between land‐use models and DGVMs regarding forest biomass and the rate of forest regrowth also have an impact, albeit smaller, on the results. Given the low confidence in simulated carbon uptake for a given land‐based mitigation scenario, and that negative emissions simulated by the DGVMs are typically lower than assumed in scenarios consistent with the 2°C target, relying on negative emissions to mitigate climate change is a highly uncertain strategy.     

Land‐use conversion and changing soil carbon stocks in China's ‘Grain‐for‐Green’ Program: a synthesis

The establishment of either forest or grassland on degraded cropland has been proposed as an effective method for climate change mitigation because these land use types can increase soil carbon (C) stocks. This paper synthesized 135 recent publications (844 observations at 181 sites) focused on the conversion from cropland to grassland, shrubland or forest in China, better known as the ‘Grain‐for‐Green’ Program to determine which factors were driving changes to soil organic carbon (SOC). The results strongly indicate a positive impact of cropland conversion on soil C stocks. The temporal pattern for soil C stock changes in the 0–100 cm soil layer showed an initial decrease in soil C during the early stage (<5 years), and then an increase to net C gains (>5 years) coincident with vegetation restoration. The rates of soil C change were higher in the surface profile (0–20 cm) than in deeper soil (20–100 cm). Cropland converted to forest (arbor) had the additional benefit of a slower but more persistent C sequestration capacity than shrubland or grassland. Tree species played a significant role in determining the rate of change in soil C stocks (conifer < broadleaf, evergreen < deciduous forests). Restoration age was the main factor, not temperature and precipitation, affecting soil C stock change after cropland conversion with higher initial soil C stock sites having a negative effect on soil C accumulation. Soil C sequestration significantly increased with restoration age over the long‐term, and therefore, the large scale of land‐use change under the ‘Grain‐for‐Green’ Program will significantly increase China's C stocks.     

Balance between climate change mitigation benefits and land use impacts of bioenergy: conservation implications for European birds

Both climate change and habitat modification exert serious pressure on biodiversity. Although climate change mitigation has been identified as an important strategy for biodiversity conservation, bioenergy remains a controversial mitigation action due to its potential negative ecological and socio-economic impacts which arise through habitat modification by land use change. While the debate continues, the separate or simultaneous impacts of both climate change and bioenergy on biodiversity have not yet been compared. We assess projected range shifts of 156 European bird species by 2050 under two alternative climate change trajectories: a baseline scenario, where the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C by the end of the century, and a 2 degrees scenario, where global concerted effort limits the temperature increase to below 2 °C. For the latter scenario, we also quantify the pressure exerted by increased cultivation of energy biomass as modelled by IMAGE2.4, an integrated land use model. The global bioenergy use in this scenario is in the lower end of the range of previously estimated sustainable potential. Under the assumptions of these scenarios, we find that the magnitude of range shifts due to climate change is far greater than the impact of land conversion to woody bioenergy plantations within the European Union, and that mitigation of climate change reduces the exposure experienced by species. However, we identified potential for local conservation conflict between priority areas for conservation and bioenergy production. These conflicts must be addressed by strict bioenergy sustainability criteria that acknowledge biodiversity conservation needs beyond existing protected areas and apply also to biomass imported from outside the European Union.     

Land suitability for energy crops under scenarios of climate change and land‐use

Bioenergy is expected to play a critical role in climate change mitigation. Most integrated assessment models assume an expansion of agricultural land for cultivation of energy crops. This study examines the suitability of land for growing a range of energy crops on areas that are not required for food production, accounting for climate change impacts and conservation requirements. A global fuzzy logic model is employed to ascertain the suitable cropping areas for a number of sugar, starch and oil crops, energy grasses and short rotation tree species that could be grown specifically for energy. Two climate change scenarios are modelled (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5), along with two scenarios representing the land which cannot be used for energy crops due to forest and biodiversity conservation, food agriculture and urban areas. Results indicate that 40% of the global area currently suitable for energy crops overlaps with food land and 31% overlaps with forested or protected areas, highlighting hotspots of potential land competition risks. Approximately 18.8 million km² is suitable for energy crops, to some degree, and does not overlap with protected, forested, urban or food agricultural land. Under the climate change scenario RCP8.5, this increases to 19.6 million km² by the end of the century. Broadly, climate change is projected to decrease suitable areas in southern regions and increase them in northern regions, most notably for grass crops in Russia and China, indicating that potential production areas will shift northwards which could potentially affect domestic use and trade of biomass significantly. The majority of the land which becomes suitable is in current grasslands and is just marginally or moderately suitable. This study therefore highlights the vital importance of further studies examining the carbon and ecosystem balance of this potential land‐use change, energy crop yields in sub‐optimal soil and climatic conditions and potential impacts on livelihoods.     

Changes in soil organic carbon under perennial crops

This study evaluates the dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) under perennial crops across the globe. It quantifies the effect of change from annual to perennial crops and the subsequent temporal changes in SOC stocks during the perennial crop cycle. It also presents an empirical model to estimate changes in the SOC content under crops as a function of time, land use, and site characteristics. We used a harmonized global dataset containing paired‐comparison empirical values of SOC and different types of perennial crops (perennial grasses, palms, and woody plants) with different end uses: bioenergy, food, other bio‐products, and short rotation coppice. Salient outcomes include: a 20‐year period encompassing a change from annual to perennial crops led to an average 20% increase in SOC at 0–30 cm (6.0 ± 4.6 Mg/ha gain) and a total 10% increase over the 0–100 cm soil profile (5.7 ± 10.9 Mg/ha). A change from natural pasture to perennial crop decreased SOC stocks by 1% over 0–30 cm (?2.5 ± 4.2 Mg/ha) and 10% over 0–100 cm (?13.6 ± 8.9 Mg/ha). The effect of a land use change from forest to perennial crops did not show significant impacts, probably due to the limited number of plots; but the data indicated that while a 2% increase in SOC was observed at 0–30 cm (16.81 ± 55.1 Mg/ha), a decrease in 24% was observed at 30–100 cm (?40.1 ± 16.8 Mg/ha). Perennial crops generally accumulate SOC through time, especially woody crops; and temperature was the main driver explaining differences in SOC dynamics, followed by crop age, soil bulk density, clay content, and depth. We present empirical evidence showing that the FAO perennialization strategy is reasonable, underscoring the role of perennial crops as a useful component of climate change mitigation strategies.     

Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials,risks and trade‐offs

Afforestation is considered a cost‐effective and readily available climate change mitigation option. In recent studies afforestation is presented as a major solution to limit climate change. However, estimates of afforestation potential vary widely. Moreover, the risks in global mitigation policy and the negative trade‐offs with food security are often not considered. Here we present a new approach to assess the economic potential of afforestation with the IMAGE 3.0 integrated assessment model framework. In addition, we discuss the role of afforestation in mitigation pathways and the effects of afforestation on the food system under increasingly ambitious climate targets. We show that afforestation has a mitigation potential of 4.9 GtCO₂/year at 200 US$/tCO₂ in 2050 leading to large‐scale application in an SSP2 scenario aiming for 2°C (410 GtCO₂ cumulative up to 2100). Afforestation reduces the overall costs of mitigation policy. However, it may lead to lower mitigation ambition and lock‐in situations in other sectors. Moreover, it bears risks to implementation and permanence as the negative emissions are increasingly located in regions with high investment risks and weak governance, for example in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Afforestation also requires large amounts of land (up to 1,100 Mha) leading to large reductions in agricultural land. The increased competition for land could lead to higher food prices and an increased population at risk of hunger. Our results confirm that afforestation has substantial potential for mitigation. At the same time, we highlight that major risks and trade‐offs are involved. Pathways aiming to limit climate change to 2°C or even 1.5°C need to minimize these risks and trade‐offs in order to achieve mitigation sustainably.     

Biomass production in plantations: Land constraints increase dependency on irrigation water

Integrated assessment model scenarios project rising deployment of biomass‐using energy systems in climate change mitigation scenarios. But there is concern that bioenergy deployment will increase competition for land and water resources and obstruct objectives such as nature protection, the preservation of carbon‐rich ecosystems, and food security. To study the relative importance of water and land availability as biophysical constraints to bioenergy deployment at a global scale, we use a process‐detailed, spatially explicit biosphere model to simulate rain‐fed and irrigated biomass plantation supply along with the corresponding water consumption for different scenarios concerning availability of land and water resources. We find that global plantation supplies are mainly limited by land availability and only secondarily by freshwater availability. As a theoretical upper limit, if all suitable lands on Earth, besides land currently used in agriculture, were available for bioenergy plantations (“Food first” scenario), total plantation supply would be in the range 2,010–2,300 EJ/year depending on water availability and use. Excluding all currently protected areas reduces the supply by 60%. Excluding also areas where conversion to biomass plantations causes carbon emissions that might be considered unacceptably high will reduce the total plantation supply further. For example, excluding all areas where soil and vegetation carbon stocks exceed 150 tC/ha (“Carbon threshold savanna” scenario) reduces the supply to 170–290 EJ/year. With decreasing land availability, the amount of water available for irrigation becomes vitally important. In the least restrictive land availability scenario (“Food first”), up to 77% of global plantation biomass supply is obtained without additional irrigation. This share is reduced to 31% for the most restrictive “Carbon threshold savanna” scenario. The results highlight the critical—and geographically varying—importance of co‐managing land and water resources if substantial contributions of bioenergy are to be reached in mitigation portfolios.