7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Integrating bioenergy and food production on degraded landscapes in Indonesia for improved socioeconomic and environmental outcomes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

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

          Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass.

          Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade. LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare(-1) year(-1) of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare(-1) year(-1)). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil palm.

            Rising global demands for food and biofuels are driving forest clearance in the tropics. Oil-palm expansion contributes to biodiversity declines and carbon emissions in Southeast Asia. However, the magnitudes of these impacts remain largely unquantified until now. We produce a 250-m spatial resolution map of closed canopy oil-palm plantations in the lowlands of Peninsular Malaysia (2 million ha), Borneo (2.4 million ha), and Sumatra (3.9 million ha). We demonstrate that 6% (or ≈880,000 ha) of tropical peatlands in the region had been converted to oil-palm plantations by the early 2000s. Conversion of peatswamp forests to oil palm led to biodiversity declines of 1% in Borneo (equivalent to four species of forest-dwelling birds), 3.4% in Sumatra (16 species), and 12.1% in Peninsular Malaysia (46 species). This land-use change also contributed to the loss of ≈140 million Mg of aboveground biomass carbon, and annual emissions of ≈4.6 million Mg of belowground carbon from peat oxidation. Additionally, the loss of peatswamp forests implies the loss of carbon sequestration service through peat accumulation, which amounts to ≈660,000 Mg of carbon annually. By 2010, 2.3 million ha of peatswamp forests were clear-felled, and currently occur as degraded lands. Reforestation of these clearings could enhance biodiversity by up to ≈20%, whereas oil-palm establishment would exacerbate species losses by up to ≈12%. To safeguard the region's biodiversity and carbon stocks, conservation and reforestation efforts should target Central Kalimantan, Riau, and West Kalimantan, which retain three-quarters (3.9 million ha) of the remaining peatswamp forests in Southeast Asia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Impacts of Oil Palm on Recent Deforestation and Biodiversity Loss

              Palm oil is the most widely traded vegetable oil globally, with demand projected to increase substantially in the future. Almost all oil palm grows in areas that were once tropical moist forests, some of them quite recently. The conversion to date, and future expansion, threatens biodiversity and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Today, consumer pressure is pushing companies toward deforestation-free sources of palm oil. To guide interventions aimed at reducing tropical deforestation due to oil palm, we analysed recent expansions and modelled likely future ones. We assessed sample areas to find where oil palm plantations have recently replaced forests in 20 countries, using a combination of high-resolution imagery from Google Earth and Landsat. We then compared these trends to countrywide trends in FAO data for oil palm planted area. Finally, we assessed which forests have high agricultural suitability for future oil palm development, which we refer to as vulnerable forests, and identified critical areas for biodiversity that oil palm expansion threatens. Our analysis reveals regional trends in deforestation associated with oil palm agriculture. In Southeast Asia, 45% of sampled oil palm plantations came from areas that were forests in 1989. For South America, the percentage was 31%. By contrast, in Mesoamerica and Africa, we observed only 2% and 7% of oil palm plantations coming from areas that were forest in 1989. The largest areas of vulnerable forest are in Africa and South America. Vulnerable forests in all four regions of production contain globally high concentrations of mammal and bird species at risk of extinction. However, priority areas for biodiversity conservation differ based on taxa and criteria used. Government regulation and voluntary market interventions can help incentivize the expansion of oil palm plantations in ways that protect biodiversity-rich ecosystems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Food and Energy Security
                Food Energy Secur
                Wiley
                2048-3694
                2048-3694
                March 19 2019
                March 19 2019
                : e00165
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department for Management of Science and Technology DevelopmentTon Duc Thang University Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam
                [2 ]Faculty of Environment and Labour SafetyTon Duc Thang University Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam
                [3 ]Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor Indonesia
                [4 ]Institute for Technology and Resource Management in the Tropics and Sub‐tropicsTechnical University of Cologne Cologne Germany
                [5 ]Institute for Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of Bonn Bonn Germany
                [6 ]Center for Forest Biotechnology and Tree Improvement (BIOTIFOR) Yogyakarta Indonesia
                [7 ]World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Bogor Indonesia
                [8 ]National Institute of Forest Sciences Seoul Korea
                [9 ]Department of Forest and Conservation ScienceUniversity of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada
                Article
                10.1002/fes3.165
                783ea04a-43fe-411d-95cc-94807fca49cb
                © 2019

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1


                Comments

                Comment on this article