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.     

Global advanced bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies and societal transformation measures

Bioenergy plays an important role in low greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios. Among various possible sources of bioenergy, dedicated bio‐crops could contribute to most of the potential. However, large scale bio‐crop deployment raises sustainability concerns. Policies to alleviate the pressure of bio‐crops on the terrestrial environment can affect bioenergy potential and production costs. Here, we estimated the maximum bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies (biodiversity and soil protection) and societal transformation measures from demand and supply side (demand‐side policy includes sustainable diet; supply‐side policy includes advanced technology and trade openness for food) by using an integrated assessment modelling framework, which consists of a general equilibrium model (Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium) and a spatial land use allocation model (Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Platform for Land‐Use and Environmental Model). We found that the global advanced bioenergy potential under no policy was 245 EJ/year and that 192 EJ/year could be produced under US$5/GJ. These figures were 149 EJ/year and 110 EJ/year, respectively, under a full environmental policy. Biodiversity protection has a greater impact than soil protection due to its larger coverage and stronger implementation. Societal transformation measures effectively increase them to 186 EJ/year and 143 EJ/year, respectively, even under full environmental policies. These results imply that the large‐scale bioenergy deployment possibly needed for the climate target to limit the global mean temperature increase well below 2°C compared to the preindustrial level might face a trade‐off with environmental protection targets and that possible mitigation pathways in harmony with other environmental issues need to be explored.     

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.     

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.     

Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions

Climate stabilization scenarios emphasize the importance of land‐based mitigation to achieve ambitious mitigation goals. The stabilization scenarios informing the recent IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report suggest that bioenergy could contribute anywhere between 10 and 245 EJ to climate change mitigation in 2100. High deployment of bioenergy with low life cycle GHG emissions would enable ambitious climate stabilization futures and reduce demands on other sectors and options. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) would even enable so‐called negative emissions, possibly in the order of magnitude of 50% of today's annual gross emissions. Here, I discuss key assumptions that differ between economic and ecological perspectives. I find that high future yield assumptions, plausible in stabilization scenarios, look less realistic when evaluated in biophysical metrics. Yield assumptions also determine the magnitude of counterfactual land carbon stock development and partially determine the potential of BECCS. High fertilizer input required for high yields would likely hasten ecosystem degradation. I conclude that land‐based mitigation strategies remain highly speculative; a constant iteration between synoptic integrated assessment models and more particularistic and fine‐grained approaches is a crucial precondition for capturing complex dynamics and biophysical constraints that are essential for comprehensive assessments.     

A realistic meteorological assessment of perennial biofuel crop deployment: a Southern Great Plains perspective

Utility of perennial bioenergy crops (e.g., switchgrass and miscanthus) offers unique opportunities to transition toward a more sustainable energy pathway due to their reduced carbon footprint, averted competition with food crops, and ability to grow on abandoned and degraded farmlands. Studies that have examined biogeophysical impacts of these crops noted a positive feedback between near‐surface cooling and enhanced evapotranspiration (ET), but also potential unintended consequences of soil moisture and groundwater depletion. To better understand hydrometeorological effects of perennial bioenergy crop expansion, this study conducted high‐resolution (2‐km grid spacing) simulations with a state‐of‐the‐art atmospheric model (Weather Research and Forecasting system) dynamically coupled to a land surface model. We applied the modeling system over the Southern Plains of the United States during a normal precipitation year (2007) and a drought year (2011). By focusing the deployment of bioenergy cropping systems on marginal and abandoned farmland areas (to reduce the potential conflict with food systems), the research presented here is the first realistic examination of hydrometeorological impacts associated with perennial bioenergy crop expansion. Our results illustrate that the deployment of perennial bioenergy crops leads to widespread cooling (1–2 °C) that is largely driven by an enhanced reflection of shortwave radiation and, secondarily, due to an enhanced ET. Bioenergy crop deployment was shown to reduce the impacts of drought through simultaneous moistening and cooling of the near‐surface environment. However, simulated impacts on near‐surface cooling and ET were reduced during the drought relative to a normal precipitation year, revealing differential effects based on background environmental conditions. This study serves as a key step toward the assessment of hydroclimatic sustainability associated with perennial bioenergy crop expansion under diverse hydrometeorological conditions by highlighting the driving mechanisms and processes associated with this energy pathway.     

The role of bioenergy for global deep decarbonization: CO2 removal or low‐carbon energy?

Bioenergy is expected to have a prominent role in limiting global greenhouse emissions to meet the climate change target of the Paris Agreement. Many studies identify negative emissions from bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as its key contribution, but assume that no other CO₂ removal technologies are available. We use a global integrated assessment model, TIAM‐UCL, to investigate the role of bioenergy within the global energy system when direct air capture and afforestation are available as cost‐competitive alternatives to BECCS. We find that the presence of other CO₂ removal technologies does not reduce the pressure on biomass resources but changes the use of bioenergy for climate mitigation. While we confirm that when available BECCS offers cheaper decarbonization pathways, we also find that its use delays the phase‐out of unabated fossil fuels in industry and transport. Furthermore, it displaces renewable electricity generation, potentially increasing the likelihood of missing the Paris Agreement target. We found that the most cost‐effective solution is to invest in a basket of CO₂ removal technologies. However, if these technologies rely on CCS, then urgent action is required to ramp up the necessary infrastructure. We conclude that a sustainable biomass supply is critical for decarbonizing the global energy system. Since only a few world regions carry the burden of producing the biomass resource and store CO₂ in geological storage, adequate international collaboration, policies and standards will be needed to realize this resource while avoiding undesired land‐use change.     

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

Ongoing concern over climate change has led to interest in replacing fossil energy with bioenergy. There are different approaches to quantitatively estimate the climate change effects of bioenergy systems. In the present work, we have focused on a range of published impact assessment methods that vary due to conceptual differences in the treatment of biogenic carbon fluxes, the type of climate change impacts they address and differences in time horizon and time preference. Specifically, this paper reviews fifteen different methods and applies these to three hypothetical bioenergy case studies: (a) woody biomass grown on previously forested land; (b) woody biomass grown on previous pasture land; and (b) annual energy crop grown on previously cropped land. Our analysis shows that the choice of method can have an important influence on the quantification of climate change effects of bioenergy, particularly when a mature forest is converted to bioenergy use as it involves a substantial reduction in biomass carbon stocks. Results are more uniform in other case studies. In general, results are more sensitive to specific impact assessment methods when they involve both emissions and removals at different points in time, such as for forest bioenergy, but have a much smaller influence on agricultural bioenergy systems grown on land previously used for pasture or annual cropping. The development of effective policies for climate change mitigation through renewable energy use requires consistent and accurate approaches to identification of bioenergy systems that can result in climate change mitigation. The use of different methods for the same purpose: estimating the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, can lead to confusing and contradictory conclusions. A full interpretation of the results generated with different methods must be based on an understanding that the different methods focus on different aspects of climate change and represent different time preferences.     

Marginal lands for bioenergy in China; an outlook in status,potential and management

Energy consumption and CO₂ emissions have been increasing continuously over the past few decades in China and there is a pressing need to replace the fossil fuel‐based economy with an efficient low‐carbon system, tailor‐made to future requirements. China is starting an energy transition with the aim of building an energy system for the future. China has made tremendous progress in increasing the amount of renewable energy and reducing the cost of renewable energy over the last 20 years. According to the 14th 5 year plan, China aims to incorporate 20% of renewable energy to the primary energy mix and attain 27% reduction in CO₂ emissions. Bioenergy crops constitute a significant proportion of biomass‐based bioenergy and have recently been promoted by the Chinese Government to help overcome food and fuel conflict. Steps are being taken to promote bioenergy crops on marginal lands in China, and various regions across the country with soil marginality have been evaluated for bioenergy crop cultivation. The present paper reviews the status of bioenergy in China and the potential status of marginal lands from different regions of China. It also elaborates on some of the policies, subsidies and incentives allocated by the Chinese Government for the promotion of biomass‐based energy. Land management and plant improvement strategies were discussed, which are effective in making marginal lands suitable for bioenergy crop cultivation. Managing planting strategies, intercropping and crop rotation are effective management practices used in China for the utilization of marginal lands. A national investigation is desirable for creating an inventory of technical and economic potential of biomass feedstocks that could be planted on marginal lands. This would assist with highlighting the pros and cons of using marginal lands for bioenergy production and effective policy making.     

Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands

While improved management of agricultural landscapes is promoted as a promising natural climate solution, available estimates of the mitigation potential are based on coarse assessments of both agricultural extent and aboveground carbon density. Here we combine 30 meter resolution global maps of aboveground woody carbon, tree cover, and cropland extent, as well as a 1 km resolution map of global pasture land, to estimate the current and potential carbon storage of trees in nonforested portions of agricultural lands. We find that global croplands currently store 3.07 Pg of carbon (C) in aboveground woody biomass (i.e., trees) and pasture lands account for an additional 3.86 Pg C across a combined 3.76 billion ha. We then estimate the climate mitigation potential of multiple scenarios of integration and avoided loss of trees in crop and pasture lands based on region‐specific biomass distributions. We evaluate our findings in the context of nationally determined contributions and find that the majority of potential carbon storage from integration and avoided loss of trees in crop and pasture lands is in countries that do not identify agroforestry as a climate mitigation technique.     

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.     

Assessment of yield gaps on global grazed‐only permanent pasture using climate binning

To meet rising demands for agricultural products, existing agricultural lands must either produce more or expand in area. Yield gaps (YGs)—the difference between current and potential yield of agricultural systems—indicate the ability to increase output while holding land area constant. Here, we assess YGs in global grazed‐only permanent pasture lands using a climate binning approach. We create a snapshot of circa 2000 empirical yields for meat and milk production from cattle, sheep, and goats by sorting pastures into climate bins defined by total annual precipitation and growing degree‐days. We then estimate YGs from intra‐bin yield comparisons. We evaluate YG patterns across three FAO definitions of grazed livestock agroecosystems (arid, humid, and temperate), and groups of animal production systems that vary in animal types and animal products. For all subcategories of grazed‐only permanent pasture assessed, we find potential to increase productivity several‐fold over current levels. However, because productivity of grazed pasture systems is generally low, even large relative increases in yield translated to small absolute gains in global protein production. In our dataset, milk‐focused production systems were found to be seven times as productive as meat‐focused production systems regardless of animal type, while cattle were four times as productive as sheep and goats regardless of animal output type. Sustainable intensification of pasture is most promising for local development, where large relative increases in production can substantially increase incomes or “spare” large amounts of land for other uses. Our results motivate the need for further studies to target agroecological and economic limitations on productivity to improve YG estimates and identify sustainable pathways toward intensification.     

Projected gains and losses of wildlife habitat from bioenergy‐induced landscape change

Domestic and foreign renewable energy targets and financial incentives have increased demand for woody biomass and bioenergy in the southeastern United States. This demand is expected to be met through purpose‐grown agricultural bioenergy crops, short‐rotation tree plantations, thinning and harvest of planted and natural forests, and forest harvest residues. With results from a forest economics model, spatially explicit state‐and‐transition simulation models, and species–habitat models, we projected change in habitat amount for 16 wildlife species caused by meeting a renewable fuel target and expected demand for wood pellets in North Carolina, USA. We projected changes over 40 years under a baseline ‘business‐as‐usual’ scenario without bioenergy production and five scenarios with unique feedstock portfolios. Bioenergy demand had potential to influence trends in habitat availability for some species in our study area. We found variation in impacts among species, and no scenario was the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ across all species. Our models projected that shrub‐associated species would gain habitat under some scenarios because of increases in the amount of regenerating forests on the landscape, while species restricted to mature forests would lose habitat. Some forest species could also lose habitat from the conversion of forests on marginal soils to purpose‐grown feedstocks. The conversion of agricultural lands on marginal soils to purpose‐grown feedstocks increased habitat losses for one species with strong associations with pasture, which is being lost to urbanization in our study region. Our results indicate that landscape‐scale impacts on wildlife habitat will vary among species and depend upon the bioenergy feedstock portfolio. Therefore, decisions about bioenergy and wildlife will likely involve trade‐offs among wildlife species, and the choice of focal species is likely to affect the results of landscape‐scale assessments. We offer general principals to consider when crafting lists of focal species for bioenergy impact assessments at the landscape scale.     

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.     

Restoration of degraded lands through bioenergy plantations

Land degradation has become a worldwide problem. Increasing population, the conversion of forest land into cropland, and its gradual degradation due to unsustainable agricultural practices have led to this prevailing scenario. Unsustainable agriculture practices like use of chemical fertilizers for increasing crop productivity (recorded 281.75 lakh tonnes in the year 2010–2011) also leads to degradation of land. A total of 4.1 million hectares of culturable wasteland was recorded in the same year. Also, crude oil consumption is increasing at a rate of 1.7% which prompts for massive input of crude oil. Thus, biofuel plantations have recently attracted a lot of attention because of several advantages that they present. The genetically engineered bioenergy crops can help in land restoration by increasing the soil fertility, growing in stress conditions, and they also lead to the production of fuels through their various parts. The use of genetically engineered bioenergy crops will not only help in the prevention of degraded land but also yield biofuel as a product and enhance soil fertility and health for further sustainable agricultural practices.     

Rehabilitation of Tropical Lands: A Key to Sustaining Development

Land rehabilitation is proposed as a management strategy to reverse the negative consequences of tropical deforestation and land degradation. We first define the concepts associated with ecosystem modification—conversion, damage, and degradation—and those associated with ecosystem repair—restoration, rehabilitation, and reclamation. We then present a scheme of sustainable land use in the tropics, with illustrations of how rehabilitation and restoration activities fit into the overall scheme of the use of land. Because damaged lands cannot contribute effectively to sustained economic development, land rehabilitation is a necessary step for increasing the chances of attaining sustainability. Approaches for rehabilitating ecosystems are discussed, including the management of stressors and subsidies in relation to their point of interaction in the ecosystem. Finally, we illustrate the concepts of ecosystem rehabilitation of damaged, degraded, and derelict lands with examples of case studies from dry to humid life zones in island and continental situations throughout the tropics. The case studies demonstrate that opportunities for success exist, even with severely degraded lands, but a considerable amount of research remains to be done before we have a full understanding of the complexity of the task facing us.     

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.     

Accelerating the development of a sustainable bioenergy portfolio through stable isotopes

Bioenergy could help limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels while supplying almost a fourth of the world's renewable energy needs by 2050. However, the deployment of bioenergy raises concerns that adoption at meaningful scales may lead to unintended negative environmental consequences. Meanwhile, the full consolidation of a bioenergy industry is currently challenged by a sufficient, resilient, and resource-efficient biomass supply and an effective conversion process. Here, we provide a comprehensive analysis of how stable isotope approaches have accelerated the development of a robust bioeconomy by advancing knowledge about environmental sustainability, feedstock development, and biological conversion. We show that advances in stable isotope research have generated crucial information to (1) gain mechanistic insight into the potential of bioenergy crops to mitigate climate change as well as their impact on water and nutrient cycling; (2) develop high-yielding, resilient feedstocks that produce high-value bioproducts in planta; and (3) engineer microbes to enhance feedstock conversion to bioenergy products. Further, we highlight knowledge gaps that could benefit from future research facilitated by stable isotope approaches. We conclude that advances in mechanistic knowledge and innovations within the field of stable isotopes in cross-disciplinary research actions will greatly contribute to breaking down the barriers to establishing a robust bioeconomy.     

Trade‐offs for food production,nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential

Large‐scale biomass plantations (BPs) are a common factor in climate mitigation scenarios as they promise double benefits: extracting carbon from the atmosphere and providing a renewable energy source. However, their terrestrial carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) potentials depend on important factors such as land availability, efficiency of capturing biomass‐derived carbon and the timing of operation. Land availability is restricted by the demands of future food production depending on yield increases and population growth, by requirements for nature conservation and, with respect to climate mitigation, avoiding unfavourable albedo changes. We integrate these factors in one spatially explicit biogeochemical simulation framework to explore the tCDR opportunity space on land available after these constraints are taken into account, starting either in 2020 or 2050, and lasting until 2100. We find that assumed future needs for nature protection and food production strongly limit tCDR potentials. BPs on abandoned crop and pasture areas (~1,300 Mha in scenarios of either 8.0 billion people and yield gap reductions of 25% until 2020 or 9.5 billion people and yield gap reductions of 50% until 2050) could, theoretically, sequester ~100 GtC in land carbon stocks and biomass harvest by 2100. However, this potential would be ~80% lower if only cropland was available or ~50% lower if albedo decreases were considered as a factor restricting land availability. Converting instead natural forest, shrubland or grassland into BPs could result in much larger tCDR potentials ? but at high environmental costs (e.g. biodiversity loss). The most promising avenue for effective tCDR seems to be improvement of efficient carbon utilization pathways, changes in dietary trends or the restoration of marginal lands for the implementation of tCDR.     

The effect of agriculture on the seasonal dynamics and functional diversity of benthic biofilm in tropical headwater streams

Tropical streams are one of the most endangered ecosystems in the world due to the constant pressures from human activities. Among these activities, agriculture represents a land use that is crucial for human development but also a key driver of stream degradation and biodiversity decline in the tropics. Against this background, we investigated indirect effects of agriculture (alterations in stream flow and nutrient availability) and climate characteristics (water temperature) on benthic biofilm communities in tropical streams (São Paulo State, Brazil). Three first‐order streams draining catchments dominated by agricultural land use (sugarcane for bioenergy production, pasture) with some remaining riparian forest were studied for 1 year. We focused on the relationships of benthic biofilm biomass, algal biomass, diatom community, and functional structure with streamflow dynamics, nitrate concentrations, and water temperature. Our results indicate that these biological responses were mainly mediated by flow and water temperature and not by resource availability in the studied headwater streams. This result could be explained by the heavy rains and elevated runoff generation in these tropical catchments under agricultural influence, which might override the known effects of nutrient enrichment on benthic biofilm communities. Considering forecast climate and land‐use changes in tropical streams, our findings may suggest potential shifts in benthic biofilm communities, with functional consequences for aquatic food webs in these environments. Abstract in Brazilian Portuguese is available with online material.