Spatial land use trade-offs for maintenance of biodiversity, biofuel, and agriculture
- 752 Downloads
Expansion of bioenergy production is part of a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change. Dedicated biomass crops will compete with other land uses as most high quality arable land is already used for agriculture, urban development, and biodiversity conservation.
First, we explore the trade-offs between converting land enrolled in the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to switchgrass for biofuel production or preserving it for biodiversity. Next, we examine the trade-offs between agriculture, biodiversity, and biofuel across the central and eastern U.S.
We compiled measures of biodiversity, agriculture, and biofuel from land cover classifications, species range maps, and mechanistic model output of switchgrass yield. We used a spatially-explicit optimization algorithm to analyze the impacts of small-to-large scale biomass production by identifying locations that maximize biofuel produced from switchgrass and minimize negative impacts on biodiversity and agriculture.
Using CRP land for switchgrass production increases the land area required to meet biomass goals and the species range area altered for birds, amphibians, mammals, and reptiles. When conversion is not limited to CRP, conversion scenarios including biodiversity and agriculture trade-offs require greater than 100 % more area for switchgrass to reach the same production goals. When land conversion scenarios do not include biodiversity, twice the range area for reptiles and amphibians could be altered.
Land-use trade-offs between biofuel production, agriculture, and biodiversity exist and alter optimum location of land conversion for low-to-high biofuel levels. This highlights the need for systematic land-use planning for the future.
KeywordsSpecies richness Ecosystem services Switchgrass Spatial optimization ALMANAC model Panicum virgatum L.
We thank Daren Harmel, Mari-Vaughn Johnson, Norman Meki, and Wayne Polley for helpful comments. Funding for this works was provided by The National Science Foundation Plant Genome Research Program award number NSF IOS-0922457. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
- BirdLife International, NatureServe (2012) Bird species distribution maps of the world. Version 2.0. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK and NatureServe, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
- Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313(5783):58–61Google Scholar
- Casler MD, Vogel KP, Taliaferro CM, Wynia RL (2004) Latitudinal adaptation of switchgrass populations. Crop Sci 44:293–303Google Scholar
- Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM, Wilcove DS (1997) Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275(5299):550–553Google Scholar
- Fargione JE, Hill JD, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235–1238Google Scholar
- Farm Services Agency (2008) Farm Bill 2008. Farm Services Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Farm Services Agency (2012) Conservation Reserve Program. Farm Services Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734):570–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DP (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):337–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75(1):3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold ND, Wickham JD, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(5):345–354Google Scholar
- IUNC (2012) IUNC Red List of Threatened Species Version 2012.1Google Scholar
- Johnson R, Becker GS (2008) The 2008 Farm Bill: major provisions and legislative action. Congressional Research Service, Library of CongressGoogle Scholar
- Kyoto Protocol (2009) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
- McLaughlin SB, Kiniry JR, Taliaferro CM, DeLaTorreUgarte D (2006) Projecting yield and utilization potential of switchgrass as an energy crop. In: Donald LS (ed) Advances in agronomy. Academic Press, London, pp 267–297Google Scholar
- Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply, ORNL/TM-2005/66, DOE/GO-102005-2135Google Scholar
- Pimentel D, Marklein A, Toth MA, Karpoff M, Paul GS, McCormack R, Kyriazis J, Krueger T (2008) Biofuel impacts on world food supply: use of fossil fuel. Land Water Resour Energy 1(2):41–78Google Scholar
- Renewable and Application Energy Laboratory (2007) Energy and resources group biofuels analysis meta-model. University of California, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
- Renewable Fuels Agency (2008) The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Renewable Fuels Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS 3rd, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sala OE, Chapin FS 3rd, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770–1774CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BF, De Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, Van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427(6970):145–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Towards a Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection: Communication from the Commission of the Council (2002) The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Congress (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. http://www.GovTrack.us
- U.S. Department of Energy (2011) U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. RD Perlack and BJ Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227pGoogle Scholar