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.     

Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil fuel carbon emissions

Field trials throughout Europe over the past 15 years have confirmed the potential for high biomass production from Miscanthus, a giant perennial rhizomatous grass with C₄ photosynthesis. However, policies to promote the utilization of biomass crops require yield estimates that can be scaled up to regional, national and continental areas. The only way in which this information can be reliably provided is through the use of productivity models. Here, we describe MISCANMOD, a productivity model, which was used in conjunction with a GIS to plot potential, non‐water‐limited yields across Europe. Modelled rainfed yields were also calculated using a water balance approach based on FAO estimates of plant available water in the soil. The observed yields were consistent with modelled yields at 20 trial sites across Europe. We estimate that if Miscanthus was grown on 10% of suitable land area in the European Union (EU15), 231 TWh yr^?1 of electricity could be generated, which is 9% of the gross electricity production in 2000. Using the same scenario, the total carbon mitigation could be 76 Mt C yr^?1, which is about 9% of the EU total C emissions for the 1990 Kyoto Protocol baseline levels.     

Implications of land class and environmental factors on life cycle GHG emissions of Miscanthus as a bioenergy feedstock

Replacement of fossil fuels with sustainably produced biomass crops for energy purposes has the potential to make progress in addressing climate change concerns, nonrenewable resource use, and energy security. The perennial grass Miscanthus is a dedicated energy crop candidate being field tested in Ontario, Canada, and elsewhere. Miscanthus could potentially be grown in areas of the province that differ substantially in terms of agricultural land class, environmental factors and current land use. These differences could significantly affect Miscanthus yields, input requirements, production practices, and the types of crops being displaced by Miscanthus establishment. This study assesses implications on life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of these differences through evaluating five Miscanthus production scenarios within the Ontario context. Emissions associated with electricity generation with Miscanthus pellets in a hypothetically retrofitted coal generating station are examined. Indirect land use change impacts are not quantified but are discussed. The net life cycle emissions for Miscanthus production varied greatly among scenarios (?90–170 kg CO₂eq per oven dry tonne of Miscanthus bales at the farm gate). In some cases, the carbon stock dynamics of the agricultural system offset the combined emissions of all other life cycle stages (i.e., production, harvest, transport, and processing of biomass). Yield and soil C of the displaced agricultural systems are key parameters affecting emissions. The systems with the highest potential to provide reductions in GHG emissions are those with high yields, or systems established on land with low soil carbon. All scenarios have substantially lower life cycle emissions (?20–190 g CO₂eq kWh^?1) compared with coal‐generated electricity (1130 g CO₂eq kWh^?1). Policy development should consider the implication of land class, environmental factors, and current land use on Miscanthus production.     

Large-scale deployment of grass in crop rotations as a multifunctional climate mitigation strategy

The agriculture sector can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and providing biomass to substitute for fossil fuels and other GHG-intensive products. The sector also needs to address water, soil, and biodiversity impacts caused by historic and current practices. Emerging EU policies create incentives for cultivation of perennial plants that provide biomass along with environmental benefits. One such option, common in northern Europe, is to include grass in rotations with annual crops to provide biomass while remediating soil organic carbon (SOC) losses and other environmental impacts. Here, we apply a spatially explicit model on >81,000 sub-watersheds in EU27 + UK (Europe) to explore the effects of widespread deployment of such systems. Based on current accumulated SOC losses in individual sub-watersheds, the model identifies and quantifies suitable areas for increased grass cultivation and corresponding biomass- and protein supply, SOC sequestration, and reductions in nitrogen emissions to water as well as wind and water erosion. The model also provides information about possible flood mitigation. The results indicate a substantial climate mitigation potential, with combined annual GHG savings from soil-carbon sequestration and displacement of natural gas with biogas from grass-based biorefineries, equivalent to 13%–48% of current GHG emissions from agriculture in Europe. The environmental co-benefits are also notable, in some cases exceeding the estimated mitigation needs. Yield increases for annual crops in modified rotations mitigate the displacement effect of increasing grass cultivation. If the grass is used as feedstock in lieu of annual crops, the displacement effect can even be negative, that is, a reduced need for annual crop production elsewhere. Incentivizing widespread deployment will require supportive policy measures as well as new uses of grass biomass, for example, as feedstock for green biorefineries producing protein concentrate, biofuels, and other bio-based products.     

An assessment of biomass for bioelectricity and biofuel,and for greenhouse gas emission reduction in Australia

We provide a quantitative assessment of the prospects for current and future biomass feedstocks for bioenergy in Australia, and associated estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation resulting from their use for production of biofuels or bioelectricity. National statistics were used to estimate current annual production from agricultural and forest production systems. Crop residues were estimated from grain production and harvest index. Wood production statistics and spatial modelling of forest growth were used to estimate quantities of pulpwood, in‐forest residues, and wood processing residues. Possible new production systems for oil from algae and the oil‐seed tree Pongamia pinnata, and of lignocellulosic biomass production from short‐rotation coppiced eucalypt crops were also examined. The following constraints were applied to biomass production and use: avoiding clearing of native vegetation; minimizing impacts on domestic food security; retaining a portion of agricultural and forest residues to protect soil; and minimizing the impact on local processing industries by diverting only the export fraction of grains or pulpwood to bioenergy. We estimated that it would be physically possible to produce 9.6 GL yr^?1 of first generation ethanol from current production systems, replacing 6.5 GL yr^?1 of gasoline or 34% of current gasoline usage. Current production systems for waste oil, tallow and canola seed could produce 0.9 GL yr^?1 of biodiesel, or 4% of current diesel usage. Cellulosic biomass from current agricultural and forestry production systems (including biomass from hardwood plantations maturing by 2030) could produce 9.5 GL yr^?1 of ethanol, replacing 6.4 GL yr^?1 of gasoline, or ca. 34% of current consumption. The same lignocellulosic sources could instead provide 35 TWh yr^?1, or ca. 15% of current electricity production. New production systems using algae and P. pinnata could produce ca. 3.96 and 0.9 GL biodiesel yr^?1, respectively. In combination, they could replace 4.2 GL yr^?1 of fossil diesel, or 23% of current usage. Short‐rotation coppiced eucalypt crops could provide 4.3 GL yr^?1 of ethanol (2.9 GL yr^?1 replacement, or 15% of current gasoline use) or 20.2 TWh yr^?1 of electricity (9% of current generation). In total, first and second generation fuels from current and new production systems could mitigate 26 Mt CO₂‐e, which is 38% of road transport emissions and 5% of the national emissions. Second generation fuels from current and new production systems could mitigate 13 Mt CO₂‐e, which is 19% of road transport emissions and 2.4% of the national emissions lignocellulose from current and new production systems could mitigate 48 Mt CO₂‐e, which is 28% of electricity emissions and 9% of the national emissions. There are challenging sustainability issues to consider in the production of large amounts of feedstock for bioenergy in Australia. Bioenergy production can have either positive or negative impacts. Although only the export fraction of grains and sugar was used to estimate first generation biofuels so that domestic food security was not affected, it would have an impact on food supply elsewhere. Environmental impacts on soil, water and biodiversity can be significant because of the large land base involved, and the likely use of intensive harvest regimes. These require careful management. Social impacts could be significant if there were to be large‐scale change in land use or management. In addition, although the economic considerations of feedstock production were not covered in this article, they will be the ultimate drivers of industry development. They are uncertain and are highly dependent on government policies (e.g. the price on carbon, GHG mitigation and renewable energy targets, mandates for renewable fuels), the price of fossil oil, and the scale of the industry.     

Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK

Planting the perennial biomass crop Miscanthus in the UK could offset 2–13 Mt oil eq. yr^?1, contributing up to 10% of current energy use. Policymakers need assurance that upscaling Miscanthus production can be performed sustainably without negatively impacting essential food production or the wider environment. This study reviews a large body of Miscanthus relevant literature into concise summary statements. Perennial Miscanthus has energy output/input ratios 10 times higher (47.3 ± 2.2) than annual crops used for energy (4.7 ± 0.2 to 5.5 ± 0.2), and the total carbon cost of energy production (1.12 g CO₂‐C eq. MJ^?1) is 20–30 times lower than fossil fuels. Planting on former arable land generally increases soil organic carbon (SOC) with Miscanthus sequestering 0.7–2.2 Mg C4‐C ha^?1 yr^?1. Cultivation on grassland can cause a disturbance loss of SOC which is likely to be recovered during the lifetime of the crop and is potentially mitigated by fossil fuel offset. N₂O emissions can be five times lower under unfertilized Miscanthus than annual crops and up to 100 times lower than intensive pasture. Nitrogen fertilizer is generally unnecessary except in low fertility soils. Herbicide is essential during the establishment years after which natural weed suppression by shading is sufficient. Pesticides are unnecessary. Water‐use efficiency is high (e.g. 5.5–9.2 g aerial DM (kg H₂O)^?1, but high biomass productivity means increased water demand compared to cereal crops. The perennial nature and belowground biomass improves soil structure, increases water‐holding capacity (up by 100–150 mm), and reduces run‐off and erosion. Overwinter ripening increases landscape structural resources for wildlife. Reduced management intensity promotes earthworm diversity and abundance although poor litter palatability may reduce individual biomass. Chemical leaching into field boundaries is lower than comparable agriculture, improving soil and water habitat quality.     

Opportunities for renewable bioenergy using microorganisms

Global warming can be slowed, and perhaps reversed, only when society replaces fossil fuels with renewable, carbon-neutral alternatives. The best option is bioenergy: the sun's energy is captured in biomass and converted to energy forms useful to modern society. To make a dent in global warming, bioenergy must be generated at a very high rate, since the world today uses approximately 10 TW of fossil-fuel energy. And, it must do so without inflicting serious damage on the environment or disrupting our food supply. While most bioenergy options fail on both counts, several microorganism-based options have the potential to produce large amounts of renewable energy without disruptions. In one approach, microbial communities convert the energy value of various biomass residuals to socially useful energy. Biomass residuals come from agricultural, animal, and a variety of industrial operations, as well as from human wastes. Microorganisms can convert almost all of the energy in these wastes to methane, hydrogen, and electricity. In a second approach, photosynthetic microorganisms convert sunlight into biodiesel. Certain algae (eukaryotes) or cyanobacteria (prokaryotes) have high lipid contents. Under proper conditions, these photosynthetic microorganisms can produce lipids for biodiesel with yields per unit area 100 times or more than possible with any plant system. In addition, the non-lipid biomass can be converted to methane, hydrogen, or electricity. Photosynthetic microorganisms do not require arable land, an advantage because our arable land must be used to produce food. Algae or cyanobacteria may be the best option to produce bioenergy at rates high enough to replace a substantial fraction of our society's use of fossil fuels.     

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

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

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.     

Sustainable Cultivation Concepts for Domestic Energy Production from Biomass

Referee: Dr. J. Grant McLeod, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 1030 Swift Current, Saskatchewan S9H 3X2, Canada According to the European Union, biomass will play a major role in the substitution of fossil fuels with renewable resources. Biomass will contribute 83% to the increased use of renewable resources by the year 2010. In contrast to other solar energy sources, plant biomass is always available and can be converted into energy continuously. An important objective in the production of energy crops on arable farm land should be to realize a high net energy yield and fulfill obligations in the field of environmental protection. The “double cropping system” was developed to meet these obligations. Silaging as a conservation method for wet biomass makes this sustainable cultivation system possible. It includes a diverse array of crops and provides the opportunity to integrate rural organic wastes into this energy concept. The model presented, “the energy self supplying farm”, shows that it is possible to meet the energy consumption requirements of a livestock farming operation with energy crop production on 10 to 18% of the arable farm land. According to a new rape energy concept, a land resource requirement of roughly 10% is feasible if biomass residues from rape oil production for liquid fuels are also utilized for energy production. For a farm with livestock, anaerobic digestion technology is an appropriate technique to deliver heat and electricity for the farmstead. Digestion residues, used as fertilizer in energy crop production, results in an almost complete nutrient recycling. Energy output can be increased above the demand of the farm via the biogas reactor, using the total biomass produced with double cropping. Surplus electricity is supplied to the grid at a guaranteed price. Biomass is a domestic energy resource, and farmers have the chance to extend their function from a supplier of raw material to managers of domestic energy resources. Under the currently established framework, monetary return per hectare could be more than double with biomass energy production via biogas. This will allow the agricultural economy to recover and promote a sustainable regional development. In addition to being a convenient method of waste management, sustainable energy crop production can make a significant contribution to environmental protection and the improvement of the social and economic cohesion within a community.     

Modeling wildlife and other trade‐offs with biofuel crop production

Biofuels from agricultural sources are an important part of California's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil. Land conversion for agricultural and urban uses has already imperiled many animal species in the state. This study investigated the potential impacts on wildlife of shifts in agricultural activity to increase biomass production for transportation fuels. We applied knowledge of the suitability of California's agricultural landscapes for wildlife species to evaluate wildlife effects associated with plausible scenarios of expanded production of three potential biofuel crops (sugar beets, bermudagrass, and canola). We also generated alternative, spatially explicit scenarios that minimized loss of habitat for the same level of biofuel production. We explored trade‐offs to compare the marginal changes per unit of energy for transportation costs, wildlife, land and water‐use, and total energy produced, and found that all five factors were influenced by crop choice. Sugar beet scenarios require the least land area: 3.5 times less land per liter of gasoline equivalent than bermudagrass and five times less than canola. Canola scenarios had the largest impacts on wildlife but the greatest reduction in water use. Bermudagrass scenarios resulted in a slight overall improvement for wildlife over the current situation. Relatively minor redistribution of lands converted to biofuel crops could produce the same energy yield with much less impact on wildlife and very small increases in transportation costs. This framework provides a means to systematically evaluate potential wildlife impacts of alternative production scenarios and could be a useful complement to other frameworks that assess impacts on ecosystem services and greenhouse gas emissions.     

European-wide GIS-based modelling system for quantifying the feedstock from Miscanthus and the potential contribution to renewable energy targets

Reliable estimates of feedstock resources are a prerequisite to the establishment of a biomass based-industry for energy and non food products. Field trials in the European Union (EU) show that Miscanthus spp. can produce high yields. Here we use a model (MISCANMOD) coupled with a GIS environment to estimate the contribution that Miscanthus could make to projected national electricity consumption. We describe the integration of different data sets, transformation procedures, and spatial analyses using GIS to produce energy statistics for the EU-25. Overall, Miscanthus grown on the 10% of arable land which is currently in set-aside could generate 282 TWh yr⁻¹ electricity. This would meet 39% of the EU-25 target of 723 TWh yr⁻¹ of electricity from renewable energy sources (RES) by 2010. As RES targets rise, land available for energy crops is also expected to increase. We consider three additional scenarios where Miscanthus could be grown on 10%, 20% and 35% of all agricultural land and we estimate it could generate respectively 345, 691 and 1209 TWh yr⁻¹ of electrical energy. At a national scale France, Poland and Germany have the highest potentials for Miscanthus production based on agricultural land area (respectively 83, 52, 49 TWh yr⁻¹ when 10% agricultural land is used). Finally, we reduced the scale to the EU NUTS2 (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) regions to examine regional generation capacities. Key regions have been identified where national RES targets are exceeded. These regions could become net exporters of renewable energy.     

Potential Soil Carbon Sequestration and CO2 Offset by Dedicated Energy Crops in the USA

Energy crops are fast-growing species whose biomass yields are dedicated to the production of more immediately usable energy forms, such as liquid fuels or electricity. Biomass-based energy sources can offset, or displace, some amount of fossil-fuel use. Energy derived from biomass provides 2 to 3% of the energy used in the U.S.A.; but, with the exception of corn-(Zea mays L.)-to-ethanol, very little energy is currently derived from dedicated energy crops. In addition to the fossil-fuel offset, energy cropping might also mitigate an accentuated greenhouse gas effect by causing a net sequestration of atmospheric C into soil organic C (SOC). Energy plantations of short-rotation woody crops (SRWC) or herbaceous crops (HC) can potentially be managed to favor SOC sequestration. This review is focused primarily on the potential to mitigate atmospheric CO₂ emissions by fostering SOC sequestration in energy cropping systems deployed across the landscape in the United States. We know that land use affects the dynamics of the SOC pool, but data about spatial and temporal variability in the SOC pool under SRWC and HC are scanty due to lack of well-designed, long-term studies. The conventional methods of studying SOC fluxes involve paired-plot designs and chronosequences, but isotopic techniques may also be feasible in understanding temporal changes in SOC. The rate of accumulation of SOC depends on land-use history, soil type, vegetation type, harvesting cycle, and other management practices. The SOC pool tends to be enhanced more under deep-rooted grasses, N-fixers, and deciduous species. Carbon sequestration into recalcitrant forms in the SOC pool can be enhanced with some management practices (e.g., conservation tillage, fertilization, irrigation); but those practices can carry a fossil-C cost. Reported rates of SOC sequestration range from 0 to 1.6 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1 under SRWC and 0 to 3 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1 under HC. Production of 5 EJ of electricity from energy crops—a perhaps reasonable scenario for the U.S.A.—would require about 60 Mha. That amount of land is potentially available for conversion to energy plantations in the U.S.A. The land so managed could mitigate C emissions (through fossil C not emitted and SOC sequestered) by about 5.4 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1. On 60 Mha, that would represent 324 Tg C yr^?1—a 20% reduction from current fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions. Advances in productivity of fast-growing SRWC and HC species suggest that deployment of energy cropping systems could be an effective strategy to reduce climate-altering effects of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and to meet global policy commitments.     

Crop‐based biofuels and associated environmental concerns

Current Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) models indicate that crop‐based biofuels generate greenhouse gas savings, compared with fossil fuels. We argue that they do so only because they ignore the emissions of CO₂ from vehicles burning the biofuels without determining if the biomass is “additional,” and because they underestimate the ultimate emissions of N₂O from nitrogen fertiliser use. Taking proper account of these factors would result in very different findings. It would be far better to derive biofuels from biomass, from waste feedstocks or high‐yielding bioenergy crops with low nitrogen demand, grown on currently unproductive land.     

Wood pellets,what else? Greenhouse gas parity times of European electricity from wood pellets produced in the south‐eastern United States using different softwood feedstocks

Several EU countries import wood pellets from the south‐eastern United States. The imported wood pellets are (co‐)fired in power plants with the aim of reducing overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity and meeting EU renewable energy targets. To assess whether GHG emissions are reduced and on what timescale, we construct the GHG balance of wood‐pellet electricity. This GHG balance consists of supply chain and combustion GHG emissions, carbon sequestration during biomass growth and avoided GHG emissions through replacing fossil electricity. We investigate wood pellets from four softwood feedstock types: small roundwood, commercial thinnings, harvest residues and mill residues. Per feedstock, the GHG balance of wood‐pellet electricity is compared against those of alternative scenarios. Alternative scenarios are combinations of alternative fates of the feedstock materials, such as in‐forest decomposition, or the production of paper or wood panels like oriented strand board (OSB). Alternative scenario composition depends on feedstock type and local demand for this feedstock. Results indicate that the GHG balance of wood‐pellet electricity equals that of alternative scenarios within 0–21 years (the GHG parity time), after which wood‐pellet electricity has sustained climate benefits. Parity times increase by a maximum of 12 years when varying key variables (emissions associated with paper and panels, soil carbon increase via feedstock decomposition, wood‐pellet electricity supply chain emissions) within maximum plausible ranges. Using commercial thinnings, harvest residues or mill residues as feedstock leads to the shortest GHG parity times (0–6 years) and fastest GHG benefits from wood‐pellet electricity. We find shorter GHG parity times than previous studies, for we use a novel approach that differentiates feedstocks and considers alternative scenarios based on (combinations of) alternative feedstock fates, rather than on alternative land uses. This novel approach is relevant for bioenergy derived from low‐value feedstocks.     

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

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

Bioenergy crop productivity and potential climate change mitigation from marginal lands in the United States: An ecosystem modeling perspective

Growing biomass feedstocks from marginal lands is becoming an increasingly attractive choice for producing biofuel as an alternative energy to fossil fuels. Here, we used a biogeochemical model at ecosystem scale to estimate crop productivity and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from bioenergy crops grown on marginal lands in the United States. Two broadly tested cellulosic crops, switchgrass, and Miscanthus, were assumed to be grown on the abandoned land and mixed crop‐vegetation land with marginal productivity. Production of biomass and biofuel as well as net carbon exchange and nitrous oxide emissions were estimated in a spatially explicit manner. We found that, cellulosic crops, especially Miscanthus could produce a considerable amount of biomass, and the effective ethanol yield is high on these marginal lands. For every hectare of marginal land, switchgrass and Miscanthus could produce 1.0–2.3 kl and 2.9–6.9 kl ethanol, respectively, depending on nitrogen fertilization rate and biofuel conversion efficiency. Nationally, both crop systems act as net GHG sources. Switchgrass has high global warming intensity (100–390 g CO₂eq l^?1 ethanol), in terms of GHG emissions per unit ethanol produced. Miscanthus, however, emits only 21–36 g CO₂eq to produce every liter of ethanol. To reach the mandated cellulosic ethanol target in the United States, growing Miscanthus on the marginal lands could potentially save land and reduce GHG emissions in comparison to growing switchgrass. However, the ecosystem modeling is still limited by data availability and model deficiencies, further efforts should be made to classify crop‐specific marginal land availability, improve model structure, and better integrate ecosystem modeling into life cycle assessment.     

The potential of Miscanthus to sequester carbon in soils: comparing field measurements in Carlow,Ireland to model predictions

Growing bioenergy crops such as Miscanthus has the potential to mitigate atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions by the replacement of fossil fuels and by storing carbon (C) in the soil due to land use change. Here we compare direct measurements of soil organic C fractions made in Carlow (Ireland) to model predictions made by RothC and a cohort model. Our results show that when Miscanthus is grown on land previously under arable agriculture, the soil organic C will increase to a level above that of native pasture, as Miscanthus organic material is shown to have a slow decomposition rate. In addition we demonstrate that for measured organic C, fractions of different lability are similar to the C pools used in RothC. Using the model predictions from RothC and Miscanthus yields from MISCANFOR, we predict that in Ireland, changing the land use from arable to Miscanthus plantations has the potential to store between 2 and 3 Mg C ha^?1 y^?1 depending on the crop yield and the initial soil organic C level.     

Carbon sequestration under Miscanthus: a study of 13C distribution in soil aggregates

The growing of bioenergy crops has been widely suggested as a key strategy in mitigating anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. However, the full mitigation potential of these crops cannot be assessed without taking into account their effect on soil carbon (C) dynamics. Therefore, we analyzed the C dynamics through four soil depths under a 14‐year‐old Miscanthus plantation, established on former arable land. An adjacent arable field was used as a reference site. Combining soil organic matter (SOM) fractionation with ¹³C natural abundance analyses, we were able to trace the fate of Miscanthus‐derived C in various physically protected soil fractions. Integrated through the whole soil profile, the total amount of soil organic carbon (SOC) was higher under Miscanthus than under arable crop, this difference was largely due to the input of new C. The C stock of the macroaggregates (M) under Miscanthus was significantly higher than those in the arable land. Additionally, the C content of the micro‐within macroaggregates (mM) were higher in the Miscanthus soil as compared with the arable soil. Analysis of the intramicroaggregates particulate organic matter (POM) suggested that the increase C storage in mM under Miscanthus was caused by a decrease in disturbance of M. Thus, the difference in C content between the two land use systems is largely caused by soil C storage in physically protected SOM fractions. We conclude that when Miscanthus is planted on former arable land, the resulting increase in soil C storage contributes considerably to its CO₂ mitigation potential.