Search

Digital soil maps of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration potential resulting from a hypothetical 10% relative increase in long‐term vegetation cover are presented at 100‐m resolution across the state of New South Wales (NSW) in southeast Australia. This land management outcome is considered realistically achievable for many land managers, using strategies such as revegetation, grazing management or crop residue management. A mean state‐wide potential increase of 5.4 Mg ha−1 over the 0‐ to 30‐cm depth interval was derived. Assuming a 20‐year period of re‐equilibration, this equates to an average SOC increase of 0.27 Mg ha−1 year−1. Sequestration potential is systematically influenced by a combination of climate, soil parent material and current vegetation cover, for example only 1.6 Mg ha−1 SOC under dry conditions in sandy, infertile soil material with sparse vegetation cover, compared with 15.9 Mg ha−1 under wet conditions in clay‐rich, fertile soil material with moderate–high vegetation cover. The outputs could be used to identify locations of highest sequestration potential and thereby help prioritize areas and inform decisions on sequestration programmes. Future application of the method at field scale with high levels of accuracy, together with strategic sampling, may provide statistically reliable estimates of carbon sequestration, for application in carbon trading schemes such as Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund. The modelling involved a conceptually transparent 'space‐for‐time substitution' process. Multiple linear regression (MLR) and random forest (RF) modelling techniques were applied, but only MLR gave consistently meaningful results. The apparent failing of RF in this application warrants further examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Livestock have long been integral to food production systems, often not by choice but by need. While our knowledge of livestock greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation has evolved, the prevailing focus has been—somewhat myopically—on technology applications associated with mitigation. Here, we (1) examine the global distribution of livestock GHG emissions, (2) explore social, economic and environmental co‐benefits and trade‐offs associated with mitigation interventions and (3) critique approaches for quantifying GHG emissions. This review uncovered many insights. First, while GHG emissions from ruminant livestock are greatest in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC; globally, 66% of emissions are produced by Latin America and the Caribbean, East and southeast Asia and south Asia), the majority of mitigation strategies are designed for developed countries. This serious concern is heightened by the fact that 80% of growth in global meat production over the next decade will occur in LMIC. Second, few studies concurrently assess social, economic and environmental aspects of mitigation. Of the 54 interventions reviewed, only 16 had triple‐bottom line benefit with medium–high mitigation potential. Third, while efforts designed to stimulate the adoption of strategies allowing both emissions reduction (ER) and carbon sequestration (CS) would achieve the greatest net emissions mitigation, CS measures have greater potential mitigation and co‐benefits. The scientific community must shift attention away from the prevailing myopic lens on carbon, towards more holistic, systems‐based, multi‐metric approaches that carefully consider the raison d'être for livestock systems. Consequential life cycle assessments and systems‐aligned 'socio‐economic planetary boundaries' offer useful starting points that may uncover leverage points and cross‐scale emergent properties. The derivation of harmonized, globally reconciled sustainability metrics requires iterative dialogue between stakeholders at all levels. Greater emphasis on the simultaneous characterization of multiple sustainability dimensions would help avoid situations where progress made in one area causes maladaptive outcomes in other areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We synthesized 20 years of research to explain the interrelated processes that determine soil and plant responses to biochar. The properties of biochar and its effects within agricultural ecosystems largely depend on feedstock and pyrolysis conditions. We describe three stages of reactions of biochar in soil: dissolution (1–3 weeks); reactive surface development (1–6 months); and aging (beyond 6 months). As biochar ages, it is incorporated into soil aggregates, protecting the biochar carbon and promoting the stabilization of rhizodeposits and microbial products. Biochar carbon persists in soil for hundreds to thousands of years. By increasing pH, porosity, and water availability, biochars can create favorable conditions for root development and microbial functions. Biochars can catalyze biotic and abiotic reactions, particularly in the rhizosphere, that increase nutrient supply and uptake by plants, reduce phytotoxins, stimulate plant development, and increase resilience to disease and environmental stressors. Meta‐analyses found that, on average, biochars increase P availability by a factor of 4.6; decrease plant tissue concentration of heavy metals by 17%–39%; build soil organic carbon through negative priming by 3.8% (range −21% to +20%); and reduce non‐CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from soil by 12%–50%. Meta‐analyses show average crop yield increases of 10%–42% with biochar addition, with greatest increases in low‐nutrient P‐sorbing acidic soils (common in the tropics), and in sandy soils in drylands due to increase in nutrient retention and water holding capacity. Studies report a wide range of plant responses to biochars due to the diversity of biochars and contexts in which biochars have been applied. Crop yields increase strongly if site‐specific soil constraints and nutrient and water limitations are mitigated by appropriate biochar formulations. Biochars can be tailored to address site constraints through feedstock selection, by modifying pyrolysis conditions, through pre‐ or post‐production treatments, or co‐application with organic or mineral fertilizers. We demonstrate how, when used wisely, biochar mitigates climate change and supports food security and the circular economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. We review the literature on bioenergy use for climate change mitigation, including studies that use top‐down integrated assessment models or bottom‐up modelling, and studies that do not rely on modelling. We summarize the state of knowledge concerning potential co‐benefits and adverse side effects of bioenergy systems and discuss limitations of modelling studies used to analyse consequences of bioenergy expansion. The implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and how bioenergy alters energy systems and land use. Depending on previous land use, widespread deployment of monoculture plantations may contribute to mitigation but can cause negative impacts across a range of other sustainability criteria. Strategic integration of new biomass supply systems into existing agriculture and forest landscapes may result in less mitigation but can contribute positively to other sustainability objectives. There is considerable variation in evaluations of how sustainability challenges evolve as the scale of bioenergy deployment increases, due to limitations of existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence alternative uses of biomass and land. Integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms to enhance co‐benefits and minimize adverse side effects can reduce the risks of large‐scale deployment of bioenergy. Further, conservation and efficiency measures for energy, land and biomass can support greater flexibility in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy‐making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system‐level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short‐term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium‐ to long‐term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. There are different approaches to quantitatively estimate the climate change effects of bioenergy systems. In the present work, we review fifteen different methods and apply these to three hypothetical bioenergy case studies. Our analysis shows that the choice of method can have an important influence on the quantification of climate change effects of bioenergy. The use of different methods for the same purpose can lead to confusing and contradictory conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ongoing debate about costs and benefits of wood-pellet based bioenergy production in the southeastern United States ( SE USA) requires an understanding of the science and context influencing market decisions associated with its sustainability. Production of pellets has garnered much attention as US exports have grown from negligible amounts in the early 2000s to 4.6 million metric tonnes in 2015. Currently, 98% of these pellet exports are shipped to Europe to displace coal in power plants. We ask, 'How is the production of wood pellets in the SE USA affecting forest systems and the ecosystem services they provide?' To address this question, we review current forest conditions and the status of the wood products industry, how pellet production affects ecosystem services and biodiversity, and what methods are in place to monitor changes and protect vulnerable systems. Scientific studies provide evidence that wood pellets in the SE USA are a fraction of total forestry operations and can be produced while maintaining or improving forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are protected by the requirement to utilize loggers trained to apply scientifically based best management practices in planning and implementing harvest for the export market. Bioenergy markets supplement incomes to private rural landholders and provide an incentive for forest management practices that simultaneously benefit water quality and wildlife and reduce risk of fire and insect outbreaks. Bioenergy also increases the value of forest land to landowners, thereby decreasing likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to verify that regulations and good practices are achieving goals and to enable timely responses if problems arise. Conducting rigorous research to understand how conditions change in response to management choices requires baseline data, monitoring, and appropriate reference scenarios. Long-term monitoring data on forest conditions should be publicly accessible and utilized to inform adaptive management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioenergy from boreal forests managed for productive purposes (e.g., pulp, timber) is commonly held to offer attractive options for climate change mitigation. However, this view has been challenged in recent years. Carbon balances, cumulative radiative forcing, and average global temperature change have been calculated for a variety of bioenergy management regimes in Swedish forests, and the results support the view that an increased use of forest biomass for energy in Sweden can contribute to climate change mitigation, although methodological (e.g., spatial scales) and parameter value choices influence the results significantly. We show that the climate effect of forest-based bioenergy depends on the forest ecosystems and management, including biomass extraction for bioenergy and other products, and how this management changes in response to anticipated market demands; and on the energy system effects, which determine the fossil carbon displacement and other greenhouse gas ( GHG) mitigation effects of using forest biomass for bioenergy and other purposes. The public and private sectors are advised to consider information from comprehensive analyses that provide insights about energy and forest systems in the context of evolving forest product markets, alternative policy options, and energy technology pathways in their decision-making processes. WIREs Energy Environ 2016, 5:351-369. doi: 10.1002/wene.178 For further resources related to this article, please visit the . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades. We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders' views and experiences related to (1) the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislationwhich uses market-based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co-regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta-standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes' inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on-the-ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioenergy crops are often classified (and subsequently regulated) according to species that have been evaluated as environmentally beneficial or detrimental, but in practice, management decisions rather than species per se can determine the overall environmental impact of a bioenergy production system. Here, we review the greenhouse gas balance and 'management swing potential' of seven different bioenergy cropping systems in temperate and tropical regions. Prior land use, harvesting techniques, harvest timing, and fertilization are among the key management considerations that can swing the greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy from positive to negative or the reverse. Although the management swing potential is substantial for many cropping systems, there are some species (e.g., soybean) that have such low bioenergy yield potentials that the environmental impact is unlikely to be reversed by management. High-yielding bioenergy crops (e.g., corn, sugarcane, Miscanthus, and fast-growing tree species), however, can be managed for environmental benefits or losses, suggesting that the bioenergy sector would be better informed by incorporating management-based evaluations into classifications of bioenergy feedstocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) Tier 1 methodologies commonly underpin project-scale carbon accounting for changes in land use and management and are used in frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment and carbon footprinting of food and energy crops. These methodologies were intended for use at large spatial scales. This can introduce error in predictions at finer spatial scales. There is an urgent need for development and implementation of higher tier methodologies that can be applied at fine spatial scales (e.g. farm/project/plantation) for food and bioenergy crop greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting to facilitate decision making in the land-based sectors. Higher tier methods have been defined by IPCC and must be well evaluated and operate across a range of domains (e.g. climate region, soil type, crop type, topography), and must account for land use transitions and management changes being implemented. Furthermore, the data required to calibrate and drive the models used at higher tiers need to be available and applicable at fine spatial resolution, covering the meteorological, soil, cropping system and management domains, with quantified uncertainties. Testing the reliability of the models will require data either from sites with repeated measurements or from chronosequences. We review current global capability for estimating changes in soil carbon at fine spatial scales and present a vision for a framework capable of quantifying land use change and management impacts on soil carbon, which could be used for addressing issues such as bioenergy and biofuel sustainability, food security, forest protection, and direct/indirect impacts of land use change. The aim of this framework is to provide a globally accepted standard of carbon measurement and modelling appropriate for GHG accounting that could be applied at project to national scales (allowing outputs to be scaled up to a country level), to address the impacts of land use and land management change on soil carbon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which evaluates the effect of biochars on nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emission from Vertisols and Alfisols. It states that the repacked soil columns were subdued to three wetting-drying (W-D) cycles to attain a variety of water-filled pore space (WFPS). Throughout the first two W-D cycles, wood biochar synthesized at 400 °C and 550 °C had contrasting effects on nitrous oxide emissions and the soils changed with poultry manor biochars synthesized at 400 °C generated higher nitrous oxide emissions. Throughout the third W-D cycle, all biochars consistently reduced nitrous oxide emissions. It concludes that increased biochar efficiency in decreasing nitrous oxide emissions was due to biochars' sorption capacity.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation".

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral," by E-D, Schulze and colleagues in the May 1, 2012 issue.