Cargando…

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and fee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kalt, Gerald, Mayer, Andreas, Theurl, Michaela C., Lauk, Christian, Erb, Karl‐Heinz, Haberl, Helmut
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6852302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31762785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12626
_version_ 1783469802413621248
author Kalt, Gerald
Mayer, Andreas
Theurl, Michaela C.
Lauk, Christian
Erb, Karl‐Heinz
Haberl, Helmut
author_facet Kalt, Gerald
Mayer, Andreas
Theurl, Michaela C.
Lauk, Christian
Erb, Karl‐Heinz
Haberl, Helmut
author_sort Kalt, Gerald
collection PubMed
description Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6852302
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68523022019-11-22 Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice? Kalt, Gerald Mayer, Andreas Theurl, Michaela C. Lauk, Christian Erb, Karl‐Heinz Haberl, Helmut Glob Change Biol Bioenergy Original Research Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-13 2019-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6852302/ /pubmed/31762785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12626 Text en © 2019 The Authors. GCB Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kalt, Gerald
Mayer, Andreas
Theurl, Michaela C.
Lauk, Christian
Erb, Karl‐Heinz
Haberl, Helmut
Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
title Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
title_full Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
title_fullStr Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
title_full_unstemmed Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
title_short Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
title_sort natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6852302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31762785
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12626
work_keys_str_mv AT kaltgerald naturalclimatesolutionsversusbioenergycancarbonbenefitsofnaturalsuccessioncompetewithbioenergyfromshortrotationcoppice
AT mayerandreas naturalclimatesolutionsversusbioenergycancarbonbenefitsofnaturalsuccessioncompetewithbioenergyfromshortrotationcoppice
AT theurlmichaelac naturalclimatesolutionsversusbioenergycancarbonbenefitsofnaturalsuccessioncompetewithbioenergyfromshortrotationcoppice
AT laukchristian naturalclimatesolutionsversusbioenergycancarbonbenefitsofnaturalsuccessioncompetewithbioenergyfromshortrotationcoppice
AT erbkarlheinz naturalclimatesolutionsversusbioenergycancarbonbenefitsofnaturalsuccessioncompetewithbioenergyfromshortrotationcoppice
AT haberlhelmut naturalclimatesolutionsversusbioenergycancarbonbenefitsofnaturalsuccessioncompetewithbioenergyfromshortrotationcoppice