化学除草剂对农田生态系统野生植物多样性的影响

农田生物多样性是全球生物多样性的重要组成部分, 除草剂的大量施用对其产生了严重影响。本文综述了化学除草剂对农田生态系统中野生植物多样性的影响, 并分析归纳了其影响机制。除草剂的施用会使敏感植物减少, 抗药性植物增多, 从而改变农田生态系统中的野生植物物种组成, 并使其趋同化, 降低遗传多样性和物种多样性, 以致植物功能群单一化, 群落稳定性下降。除草剂的主要影响机制是杀死植物或改变其生长代谢、抗性、繁殖等, 改变生境, 并与人为因素、环境因素等产生协同影响。不同种类的除草剂影响程度不同, 且不同物种间、不同群落间的响应也存在差异。我国化学除草剂使用量持续增长, 应加强除草剂对野生植物多样性的影响及其机制研究, 重视除草剂使用历史记录和野生植物的长期监测, 以及除草剂使用规范和相关政策法律研究, 更好地保护我国农田生态系统中的生物多样性。     

磷的生物有效性对山地生态系统的影响

磷(P)的生物有效性对山地生态系统的发育和稳定至关重要。由于大气CO_2浓度升高和N沉降增加,生态系统C、N和P的化学计量比失衡,P的生物有效性受到更多关注。近年来山地系统中P的研究不断深入,2004—2013年间ISI Web of Knowledge中相关研究论文几乎是此前近百年的3倍。总结了山地生态系统中P的生物有效性的特点及其对植物物种多样性和初级生产力的影响。山地生态系统P的生物有效性因垂直高差和地形梯度空间变异明显,快速物质运移和生物过程是控制山地生态系统P的生物有效性的关键因素。P的生物有效性可以影响山地生态系统物种多样性和初级生产力,其对初级生产力的限制存在于全球范围内的山地生态系统。当P的生物有效性发生改变时,山地生态系统的结构越复杂,其植物物种多样性和初级生产力的响应可能会越平缓。全球变化的重要驱动因子(如增温和N沉降增加)可以直接或间接地改变山地生态系统P的生物有效性,因此需要在山地生态系统中加强长期监测和养分控制实验,并结合新型P分析技术,以期认识山地生态系统P的生物有效性的现状、变化趋势和对生态系统的影响,从而为适应全球变化背景下山地生态系统养分状况的改变提供依据。     

新书介绍

本书主要论述了全球各生态系统中生物质的种类和数量;全球生物质生产展望——21世纪的水域农业;全球生物质循环过程中有机碳库的大小和通量;全球生物质的循环与低碳农业的发展;全球生物质的起源与平衡账;植物生物质的分类及其功能;农业生态系统中生物质的循环和利用;土壤生物质的代谢过程和重要作用;重金属及其在生物质中的转移过程;土壤生物质和温室效应;生物质氢（H2）——永不枯竭的无碳能源等。     

能源作物发展现状和商业化前景

生物质是植物通过光合作用而固定于地球上的太阳能,通过生物质能转换技术可以高效地利用生物质能源,生产各种清洁燃料替代矿物燃料,以减少人类对矿物能源的依赖,保护国家能源资源,减轻能源消费对环境造成的污染。其中,能源作物是指经专门种植,用以提供能源原料的草本和木本植物。利用山地、荒地等未利用土地,     

陆地生态系统植物多样性对矿质元素输入的响应

人类活动的加剧改变了陆地生态系统矿质元素(如氮、磷、钾等)循环的速度和方向,并且对生态系统的结构和功能也产生重要影响。如今,矿质元素输入量的改变及其产生的后续效应对陆地生态系统生物多样性的影响备受学者们的关注。从4个方面综述了全球氮沉降背景下主要矿质元素输入的改变对陆地植物多样性的影响及其机理:1)矿质营养元素限制的概念、确定方法以及与植物多样性的耦合关系;2)概述了氮、磷、钾等主要矿质元素输入对陆地植物多样性的影响:主要表现为负面效应;3)探讨了矿质元素输入影响植物多样性的可能机制,包括生态系统水平上的机制(如竞争排斥、酸化铝毒、物种入侵、同质性假说,间接诱导机制等)和植物个体水平上的机制(如元素失衡和环境敏感性增加等);4)根据目前研究现状,指出了已有研究的局限性,分析了未来可能的研究方向和重点。     

生物质炭生物与非生物氧化特性研究进展

生物质炭是由植物生物质热解炭化产生的一类高度芳香化难熔性固态物质。生物质热解炭化还田能否成为人类应对全球气候变化的重要途径直接取决于其在土壤生态系统中的稳定性。生物质炭稳定性的研究对科学计算和评估土壤生态系统生物质炭输入的碳固持与减排作用具有重要现实意义。重点概述了土壤生态系统生物质炭生物与非生物氧化特性、影响因素及其机理研究进展,并对生物质炭在土壤环境中的稳定性预测模型研究进行了分析。在此基础上,今后需针对不同类型旱地土壤生态系统和不同类型稻田土壤生态系统生物质炭稳定性及其机理开展研究,并进一步开展土壤生态系统生物质炭稳定性预测模型研究。     

互花米草入侵对鸟类的生态影响

生物入侵威胁本地物种生存,破坏生态系统的结构和功能,是导致全球生物多样性丧失的重要原因之一。外来植物是入侵生物中的重要一类,可以显著改变本地植被群落,并影响其他生物类群。鸟类作为生态系统中的较高营养级,对由入侵植物引起的栖息地变化十分敏感。互花米草自引入中国沿海以来,其分布区域不断扩散,多数研究认为互花米草入侵造成本地生物多样性降低和生态系统退化。系统梳理了互花米草入侵对鸟类栖息地、食物资源、繁殖、群落等方面的生态影响。主要负面影响有:(1)植被群落结构不利于鸟类栖息、筑巢、觅食;(2)鸟类食物资源丰度和多样性下降;(3)本地鸟类种群数量和物种多样性显著下降。在我国东部沿海湿地,互花米草入侵已经显著改变了植被与鸟类分布格局。但随着入侵历史的增长,少数小型雀形目鸟类却可以逐渐适应互花米草生境。互花米草入侵为某些非本地鸟类提供了空白生态位,在一定程度上丰富了本地物种多样性,对互花米草的快速清除反而可能不利于已适应并依赖互花米草生境的鸟类。综上,认为互花米草入侵对鸟类群落甚至整个生态系统的影响可能需要更多研究进行综合评价,应开展长期、大尺度、多因子的监测研究和多物种比较研究,建立生态评价模型并制定科学有效的互花米草管理对策。     

生物入侵对鸟类的生态影响

生物入侵是全球生物多样性面临的最主要威胁之一, 入侵种在改变入侵地环境的同时也使当地的生物受到极大影响。鸟类在生态系统中处于较高的营养级, 生态系统中任何一个环节的变化都可能对鸟类造成一定的影响。本文回顾了哺乳动物、鸟类、无脊椎动物和植物等不同生物类群的入侵对本地鸟类生态影响方面的研究进展。外来生物对鸟类的影响主要表现在以下几方面: (1)外来哺乳动物对成鸟、幼鸟或鸟卵的捕食作用; (2)外来鸟类与本地鸟类竞争栖息地和食物资源, 与当地的近缘种杂交而造成基因流失; (3)外来无脊椎动物改变本地鸟类的栖息环境和食物状况, 甚至直接捕食本地鸟类; (4)外来植物入侵改变入侵地的植物群落组成和结构, 造成本地鸟类的栖息地丧失或破碎化, 并通过改变入侵地生态系统的食物链结构而对高营养级的鸟类产生影响。最后, 作者还提出了该领域有待解决的问题和今后可能的研究方向。     

全球变化现象及其效应

通过论述大气臭氧层的损耗、大气中氧化作用的减弱、全球气候变暖、生物多样性的减少、土地利用格局与环境质量的改变和人口的急剧增长等全球变化现象,阐明只有推行可持续发展战略才能改善环境,从而根本上遏制全球变化的加剧．文章对全球变化的若干基本问题进行了论述．     

植物功能性状与湿地生态系统土壤碳汇功能

湿地生态系统碳平衡对气候变化极为敏感,是陆地生态系统碳循环响应全球变化的重要环节。然而,湿地生态系统碳汇调节机制仍不十分清楚,并且对影响因子的研究多集中在非生物因子上。综述了植物功能性状和功能性状多样性对湿地生态系统土壤碳汇功能的影响,阐明了生物因子对生态系统碳循环响应全球变化的重要性,介绍了植物功能性状对生态系统碳输入和输出过程的影响,简述了植物功能性状多样性的研究现状及其在指示生态系统碳汇功能现状和预测未来趋势等方面的应用。从优势植物、植物种间关系和植物-微生物种间关系3方面总结了植物功能性状多样性直接和间接影响生态系统碳循环的途径。展望了植物功能性状和功能性状多样性与湿地生态系统土壤碳汇功能的研究前景。     

Bioenergy crops,biodiversity and ecosystem services in temperate agricultural landscapes—A review of synergies and trade-offs

The Paris agreement on climate change requires rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. One important mitigation strategy, at least in the intermediate future, is the substitution of fossil fuels with bioenergy. However, using agriculture- and forest-derived biomass for energy has sparked controversy regarding both the climate mitigation potential and conflicts with biodiversity conservation. The urgency of the climate crisis calls for using forests for carbon sequestration and storage rather than for bioenergy, making agricultural biomass an attractive alternative for fossil energy substitution. However, this calls for comprehensive assessments of its sustainability in terms of consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this review, we provide a first holistic overview of the impacts on ecosystems of land-use changes from bioenergy crop production in temperate climates, by synthesizing results on both biodiversity and ecosystem service impacts. We found that bioenergy-related land-use changes can have both positive and negative effects on ecosystems, with original land use, bioenergy crop type and scale of bioenergy production being important moderators of impacts. Despite the risk of opportunity cost for food production, perennial crop cultivation on arable land had the lowest occurrence of negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Growing biomass for bioenergy on surplus land has been suggested as a way to alleviate competition with food production and biodiversity conservation, but our results demonstrate that utilizing marginal or abandoned land for bioenergy crop production cannot fully resolve these trade-offs. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical studies of the biodiversity value of marginal and abandoned land, limiting our understanding of the sustainability implications of biomass cultivation on surplus land. We argue that future research and policies for bioenergy production must explicitly consider biodiversity and ecosystem services in combination to avoid potential trade-offs between the two and to ensure sustainable bioenergy production.     

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.     

Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints

We estimate the global bioenergy potential from dedicated biomass plantations in the 21st century under a range of sustainability requirements to safeguard food production, biodiversity and terrestrial carbon storage. We use a process‐based model of the land biosphere to simulate rainfed and irrigated biomass yields driven by data from different climate models and combine these simulations with a scenario‐based assessment of future land availability for energy crops. The resulting spatial patterns of large‐scale lignocellulosic energy crop cultivation are then investigated with regard to their impacts on land and water resources. Calculated bioenergy potentials are in the lower range of previous assessments but the combination of all biomass sources may still provide between 130 and 270 EJ yr^?1 in 2050, equivalent to 15–25% of the World's future energy demand. Energy crops account for 20–60% of the total potential depending on land availability and share of irrigated area. However, a full exploitation of these potentials will further increase the pressure on natural ecosystems with a doubling of current land use change and irrigation water demand. Despite the consideration of sustainability constraints on future agricultural expansion the large‐scale cultivation of energy crops is a threat to many areas that have already been fragmented and degraded, are rich in biodiversity and provide habitat for many endangered and endemic species.     

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.     

The impact of biomass crop cultivation on temperate biodiversity

The urgency for mitigation actions in response to climate change has stimulated policy makers to encourage the rapid expansion of bioenergy, resulting in major land‐use changes over short timescales. Despite the potential impacts on biodiversity and the environment, scientific concerns about large‐scale bioenergy production have only recently been given adequate attention. Environmental standards or legislative provisions in the majority of countries are still lagging behind the rapid development of energy crops. Ranging from the field to the regional scale, this review (i) summarizes the current knowledge about the impact of biomass crops on biodiversity in temperate regions, (ii) identifies knowledge gaps and (iii) drafts guidelines for a sustainable biomass crop production with respect to biodiversity conservation. The majority of studies report positive effects on biodiversity at the field scale but impacts strongly depend on the management, age, size and heterogeneity of the biomass plantations. At the regional scale, significant uncertainties exist and there is a major concern that extensive commercial production could have negative effects on biodiversity, in particular in areas of high nature‐conservation value. However, integration of biomass crops into agricultural landscapes could stimulate rural economy, thus counteracting negative impacts of farm abandonment or supporting restoration of degraded land, resulting in improved biodiversity values. Given the extent of landconversion necessary to reach the bioenergy targets, the spatial layout and distribution of biomass plantations will determine impacts. To ensure sustainable biomass crop production, biodiversity would therefore have to become an essential part of risk assessment measures in all those countries which have not yet committed to making it an obligatory part of strategic landscape planning. Integrated environmental and economic research is necessary to formulate standards that help support long‐term economic and ecological sustainability of biomass production and avoid costly mistakes in our attempts to mitigate climate change.     

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.     

Global change synergies and trade‐offs between renewable energy and biodiversity

Reliance on fossil fuels is causing unprecedented climate change and is accelerating environmental degradation and global biodiversity loss. Together, climate change and biodiversity loss, if not averted urgently, may inflict severe damage on ecosystem processes, functions and services that support the welfare of modern societies. Increasing renewable energy deployment and expanding the current protected area network represent key solutions to these challenges, but conflicts may arise over the use of limited land for energy production as opposed to biodiversity conservation. Here, we compare recently identified core areas for the expansion of the global protected area network with the renewable energy potential available from land‐based solar photovoltaic, wind energy and bioenergy (in the form of Miscanthus × giganteus). We show that these energy sources have very different biodiversity impacts and net energy contributions. The extent of risks and opportunities deriving from renewable energy development is highly dependent on the type of renewable source harvested, the restrictions imposed on energy harvest and the region considered, with Central America appearing at particularly high potential risk from renewable energy expansion. Without restrictions on power generation due to factors such as production and transport costs, we show that bioenergy production is a major potential threat to biodiversity, while the potential impact of wind and solar appears smaller than that of bioenergy. However, these differences become reduced when energy potential is restricted by external factors including local energy demand. Overall, we found that areas of opportunity for developing solar and wind energy with little harm to biodiversity could exist in several regions of the world, with the magnitude of potential impact being particularly dependent on restrictions imposed by local energy demand. The evidence provided here helps guide sustainable development of renewable energy and contributes to the targeting of global efforts in climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation.     

Bioenergy production and forest landscape change in the southeastern United States

Production of woody biomass for bioenergy, whether wood pellets or liquid biofuels, has the potential to cause substantial landscape change and concomitant effects on forest ecosystems, but the landscape effects of alternative production scenarios have not been fully assessed. We simulated landscape change from 2010 to 2050 under five scenarios of woody biomass production for wood pellets and liquid biofuels in North Carolina, in the southeastern United States, a region that is a substantial producer of wood biomass for bioenergy and contains high biodiversity. Modeled scenarios varied biomass feedstocks, incorporating harvest of ‘conventional’ forests, which include naturally regenerating as well as planted forests that exist on the landscape even without bioenergy production, as well as purpose‐grown woody crops grown on marginal lands. Results reveal trade‐offs among scenarios in terms of overall forest area and the characteristics of the remaining forest in 2050. Meeting demand for biomass from conventional forests resulted in more total forest land compared with a baseline, business‐as‐usual scenario. However, the remaining forest was composed of more intensively managed forest and less of the bottomland hardwood and longleaf pine habitats that support biodiversity. Converting marginal forest to purpose‐grown crops reduced forest area, but the remaining forest contained more of the critical habitats for biodiversity. Conversion of marginal agricultural lands to purpose‐grown crops resulted in smaller differences from the baseline scenario in terms of forest area and the characteristics of remaining forest habitats. Each scenario affected the dominant type of land‐use change in some regions, especially in the coastal plain that harbors high levels of biodiversity. Our results demonstrate the complex landscape effects of alternative bioenergy scenarios, highlight that the regions most likely to be affected by bioenergy production are also critical for biodiversity, and point to the challenges associated with evaluating bioenergy sustainability.     

How is biodiversity protection influencing the potential for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands?

Sustainable feedstock supply is a critical issue for the bioenergy sector. One concern is that feedstock production will impact biodiversity. We analyze how this concern is addressed in assessments of biomass supply potentials and in selected governance systems in the EU and Brazil, including the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Brazilian Forest Act. The analysis focuses on grasslands and includes estimates of the amount of grassland area (and corresponding biomass production volume) that would be excluded from cultivation in specific biodiversity protection scenarios. The reviewed assessments used a variety of approaches to identify and exclude biodiverse grasslands as unavailable for bioenergy. Because exclusion was integrated with other nature protection considerations, quantification of excluded grassland areas was often not possible. The RED complements and strengthens the CAP in terms of biodiversity protection. Following the RED, an estimated 39%–48% (about 9–11 Mha) and 15%–54% (about 10–38 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse in EU‐28. The estimated biomass production potential on these areas corresponds to some 1–3 and 1.5–10 EJ/year for natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively (depending on area availability and management intensity). However, the RED lacks clear definitions and guidance, creating uncertainty about its influence on grassland availability for bioenergy feedstock production. For Brazil, an estimated 16%–77% (about 16–76 Mha) and 1%–32% (about 7–24 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse. In Brazil, ecological–economic zoning was found potentially important for grassland protection. Further clarification of grassland definitions and delineation in regulations will facilitate a better understanding of the prospects for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands, and the impacts of bioenergy deployment on biodiversity.     

Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land‐use and energy experts, land‐use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life‐cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end‐use efficiency, improved land carbon‐stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small‐scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr^?1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large‐scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land‐intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.