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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |