17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals

      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.

          Abstract

          Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references104

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

          Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review.

          Biochar is a stable carbon-rich by-product synthesized through pyrolysis/carbonization of plant- and animal-based biomass. An increasing interest in the beneficial application of biochar has opened up multidisciplinary areas for science and engineering. The potential biochar applications include carbon sequestration, soil fertility improvement, pollution remediation, and agricultural by-product/waste recycling. The key parameters controlling its properties include pyrolysis temperature, residence time, heat transfer rate, and feedstock type. The efficacy of biochar in contaminant management depends on its surface area, pore size distribution and ion-exchange capacity. Physical architecture and molecular composition of biochar could be critical for practical application to soil and water. Relatively high pyrolysis temperatures generally produce biochars that are effective in the sorption of organic contaminants by increasing surface area, microporosity, and hydrophobicity; whereas the biochars obtained at low temperatures are more suitable for removing inorganic/polar organic contaminants by oxygen-containing functional groups, electrostatic attraction, and precipitation. However, due to complexity of soil-water system in nature, the effectiveness of biochars on remediation of various organic/inorganic contaminants is still uncertain. In this review, a succinct overview of current biochar use as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water is summarized and discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Climate-smart soils.

            Soils are integral to the function of all terrestrial ecosystems and to food and fibre production. An overlooked aspect of soils is their potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Although proven practices exist, the implementation of soil-based greenhouse gas mitigation activities are at an early stage and accurately quantifying emissions and reductions remains a substantial challenge. Emerging research and information technology developments provide the potential for a broader inclusion of soils in greenhouse gas policies. Here we highlight 'state of the art' soil greenhouse gas research, summarize mitigation practices and potentials, identify gaps in data and understanding and suggest ways to close such gaps through new research, technology and collaboration.
              Bookmark
              • 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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annual Review of Environment and Resources
                Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
                Annual Reviews
                1543-5938
                1545-2050
                October 17 2019
                October 17 2019
                : 44
                : 1
                : 255-286
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, United Kingdom;
                [2 ]World Economic Forum, 1223 Cologny, Switzerland
                [3 ]Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt University of Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
                [5 ]Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, Maryland 20740, USA
                [6 ]Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, 10829 Berlin, Germany
                [7 ]Geographical Institute, Humboldt University of Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
                [8 ]The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia 22203, USA
                [9 ]Ithaka Institute gGmbH, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
                [10 ]Environmental Analytics, Agroscope, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland
                [11 ]Institute for Applied Ecology, Department of Climatic Effects on Special Crops, Hochschule Geisenheim University, 65366 Geisenheim, Germany
                [12 ]International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
                [13 ]Priestley International Centre for Climate, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
                [14 ]Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
                [15 ]Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh TD1 3HF, United Kingdom
                [16 ]Wageningen Environmental Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
                [17 ]Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
                Article
                10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
                a2958db5-9703-4efb-b136-513653c86dad
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article