Cargando…

Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand

Biomass for bioenergy is debated for its potential synergies or tradeoffs with other provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ESS). This biomass may originate from different production systems and may be purposefully grown or obtained from residues. Increased concerns globally about the susta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meyer, Markus A., Chand, Tanzila, Priess, Joerg A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25768660
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116336
_version_ 1782361347995992064
author Meyer, Markus A.
Chand, Tanzila
Priess, Joerg A.
author_facet Meyer, Markus A.
Chand, Tanzila
Priess, Joerg A.
author_sort Meyer, Markus A.
collection PubMed
description Biomass for bioenergy is debated for its potential synergies or tradeoffs with other provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ESS). This biomass may originate from different production systems and may be purposefully grown or obtained from residues. Increased concerns globally about the sustainable production of biomass for bioenergy has resulted in numerous certification schemes focusing on best management practices, mostly operating at the plot/field scale. In this study, we compare the ESS of two watersheds in the southeastern US. We show the ESS tradeoffs and synergies of plantation forestry, i.e., pine poles, and agricultural production, i.e., wheat straw and corn stover, with the counterfactual natural or semi-natural forest in both watersheds. The plantation forestry showed less distinct tradeoffs than did corn and wheat production, i.e., for carbon storage, P and sediment retention, groundwater recharge, and biodiversity. Using indicators of landscape composition and configuration, we showed that landscape planning can affect the overall ESS supply and can partly determine if locally set environmental thresholds are being met. Indicators on landscape composition, configuration and naturalness explained more than 30% of the variation in ESS supply. Landscape elements such as largely connected forest patches or more complex agricultural patches, e.g., mosaics with shrub and grassland patches, may enhance ESS supply in both of the bioenergy production systems. If tradeoffs between biomass production and other ESS are not addressed by landscape planning, it may be reasonable to include rules in certification schemes that require, e.g., the connectivity of natural or semi-natural forest patches in plantation forestry or semi-natural landscape elements in agricultural production systems. Integrating indicators on landscape configuration and composition into certification schemes is particularly relevant considering that certification schemes are governance tools used to ensure comparable sustainability standards for biomass produced in countries with variable or absent legal frameworks for landscape planning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4359142
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43591422015-03-23 Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand Meyer, Markus A. Chand, Tanzila Priess, Joerg A. PLoS One Research Article Biomass for bioenergy is debated for its potential synergies or tradeoffs with other provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ESS). This biomass may originate from different production systems and may be purposefully grown or obtained from residues. Increased concerns globally about the sustainable production of biomass for bioenergy has resulted in numerous certification schemes focusing on best management practices, mostly operating at the plot/field scale. In this study, we compare the ESS of two watersheds in the southeastern US. We show the ESS tradeoffs and synergies of plantation forestry, i.e., pine poles, and agricultural production, i.e., wheat straw and corn stover, with the counterfactual natural or semi-natural forest in both watersheds. The plantation forestry showed less distinct tradeoffs than did corn and wheat production, i.e., for carbon storage, P and sediment retention, groundwater recharge, and biodiversity. Using indicators of landscape composition and configuration, we showed that landscape planning can affect the overall ESS supply and can partly determine if locally set environmental thresholds are being met. Indicators on landscape composition, configuration and naturalness explained more than 30% of the variation in ESS supply. Landscape elements such as largely connected forest patches or more complex agricultural patches, e.g., mosaics with shrub and grassland patches, may enhance ESS supply in both of the bioenergy production systems. If tradeoffs between biomass production and other ESS are not addressed by landscape planning, it may be reasonable to include rules in certification schemes that require, e.g., the connectivity of natural or semi-natural forest patches in plantation forestry or semi-natural landscape elements in agricultural production systems. Integrating indicators on landscape configuration and composition into certification schemes is particularly relevant considering that certification schemes are governance tools used to ensure comparable sustainability standards for biomass produced in countries with variable or absent legal frameworks for landscape planning. Public Library of Science 2015-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4359142/ /pubmed/25768660 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116336 Text en © 2015 Meyer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Meyer, Markus A.
Chand, Tanzila
Priess, Joerg A.
Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand
title Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand
title_full Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand
title_fullStr Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand
title_short Comparing Bioenergy Production Sites in the Southeastern US Regarding Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand
title_sort comparing bioenergy production sites in the southeastern us regarding ecosystem service supply and demand
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25768660
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116336
work_keys_str_mv AT meyermarkusa comparingbioenergyproductionsitesinthesoutheasternusregardingecosystemservicesupplyanddemand
AT chandtanzila comparingbioenergyproductionsitesinthesoutheasternusregardingecosystemservicesupplyanddemand
AT priessjoerga comparingbioenergyproductionsitesinthesoutheasternusregardingecosystemservicesupplyanddemand