26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references101

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest.

            Legislation on biofuels production in the USA and Europe is directing food crops towards the production of grain-based ethanol, which can have detrimental consequences for soil carbon sequestration, nitrous oxide emissions, nitrate pollution, biodiversity and human health. An alternative is to grow lignocellulosic (cellulosic) crops on 'marginal' lands. Cellulosic feedstocks can have positive environmental outcomes and could make up a substantial proportion of future energy portfolios. However, the availability of marginal lands for cellulosic feedstock production, and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains uncertain. Here we evaluate the potential for marginal lands in ten Midwestern US states to produce sizeable amounts of biomass and concurrently mitigate GHG emissions. In a comparative assessment of six alternative cropping systems over 20 years, we found that successional herbaceous vegetation, once well established, has a direct GHG emissions mitigation capacity that rivals that of purpose-grown crops (-851 ± 46 grams of CO(2) equivalent emissions per square metre per year (gCO(2)e m(-2) yr(-1))). If fertilized, these communities have the capacity to produce about 63 ± 5 gigajoules of ethanol energy per hectare per year. By contrast, an adjacent, no-till corn-soybean-wheat rotation produces on average 41 ± 1 gigajoules of biofuel energy per hectare per year and has a net direct mitigation capacity of -397 ± 32 gCO(2)e m(-2) yr(-1); a continuous corn rotation would probably produce about 62 ± 7 gigajoules of biofuel energy per hectare per year, with 13% less mitigation. We also perform quantitative modelling of successional vegetation on marginal lands in the region at a resolution of 0.4 hectares, constrained by the requirement that each modelled location be within 80 kilometres of a potential biorefinery. Our results suggest that such vegetation could produce about 21 gigalitres of ethanol per year from around 11 million hectares, or approximately 25 per cent of the 2022 target for cellulosic biofuel mandated by the US Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, with no initial carbon debt nor the indirect land-use costs associated with food-based biofuels. Other regional-scale aspects of biofuel sustainability, such as water quality and biodiversity, await future study.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: Summary of available measurement data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jhart@ceh.ac.uk
                Journal
                Glob Change Biol Bioenergy
                Glob Change Biol Bioenergy
                10.1111/(ISSN)1757-1707
                GCBB
                Global Change Biology. Bioenergy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1757-1693
                1757-1707
                27 November 2017
                March 2018
                : 10
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/gcbb.2018.10.issue-3 )
                : 150-164
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Lancaster Environment Centre Lancaster LA1 4AP UK
                [ 2 ] Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523‐1499 USA
                [ 3 ] Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit USDA‐ARS and Department of Plant Biology University of Illinois Urbana IL 61801 USA
                [ 4 ] “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture University of São Paulo Avenida Pádua Dias 11‐13418‐900 Piracicaba Brazil
                [ 5 ] Department of Biology, Research Centre of Excellence on Plants and Ecosystems University of Antwerp B‐2610 Wilrijk Belgium
                [ 6 ] Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. Shell Technology Centre Houston Houston TX 77082 USA
                [ 7 ] Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS) Aberystwyth University Aberystwyth SY23 3EQ UK
                [ 8 ] Department of Soil and Crop Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523‐1499 USA
                [ 9 ] Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen AB21 3UU UK
                [ 10 ] Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence: Jeanette Whitaker, tel. +44(0)1524 595888, fax +44(0)1524 61536, e‐mail: jhart@ 123456ceh.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8824-471X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124
                Article
                GCBB12488
                10.1111/gcbb.12488
                5815384
                29497458
                522b82e9-5a31-47dc-ba74-168a4a702f19
                © 2017 The Authors. Global Change Biology Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 June 2017
                : 25 September 2017
                : 05 October 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 15, Words: 11937
                Funding
                Funded by: Energy Technologies Institute (ETI)
                Funded by: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
                Funded by: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
                Funded by: Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
                Funded by: European Research Council under the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme
                Award ID: FP7/2007‐2013
                Funded by: ERC Advanced Grant
                Award ID: 233366
                Funded by: NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellowship on bioenergy and soil sustainability
                Award ID: NE/M006832/1
                Funded by: ETI‐ELUM
                Award ID: ETI/ET/I000100/1
                Funded by: MAGLUE
                Award ID: EP/M013200/1
                Funded by: UKERC
                Funded by: Soils‐R‐GRREAT
                Award ID: NE/P019455/1
                Funded by: USDA/NIFA
                Award ID: 2011‐67009‐30083
                Award ID: 2013‐68005‐21298
                Funded by: North Central Regional Sun Grant Center at South Dakota State University
                Award ID: DE‐FG36‐08GO88073
                Categories
                Research Review
                Research Review
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                gcbb12488
                March 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.3.2.2 mode:remove_FC converted:16.02.2018

                biofuels,biomass,greenhouse gas emissions,land‐use change,life‐cycle assessment,nitrous oxide,perennial bioenergy crops,soil carbon

                Comments

                Comment on this article