Does Soil Carbon Loss in Biomass Production Systems Negate the Greenhouse Benefits of Bioenergy?
Interest in bioenergy is growing across the Western world in response to mounting concerns about climate change. There is a risk of depletion of soil carbon stocks in biomass production systems, because a higher proportion of the organic matter and nutrients are removed from the site, compared with conventional agricultural and forestry systems. This paper reviews the factors that influence soil carbon dynamics in bioenergy systems, and utilises the model FullCAM to investigate the likely magnitude of soil carbon change where bioenergy systems replace conventional land uses. Environmental and management factors govern the magnitude and direction of change. Soil C losses are most likely where soil C is initially high, such as where improved pasture is converted to biomass production. Bioenergy systems are likely to enhance soil C where these replace conventional cropping, as intensively cropped soils are generally depleted in soil C. Measures that enhance soil C include maintenance of productivity through application of fertilisers, inclusion of legumes, and retention of nutrient-rich foliage on-site.
Modelling results demonstrate that loss of soil carbon in bioenergy systems is associated with declines in the resistant plant matter and humified soil C pools. However, published experimental data and modelling results indicate that total soil C loss in bioenergy systems is generally small. Thus, although there may be some decline in soil carbon associated with biomass production, this is negligible in comparison with the contribution of bioenergy systems towards greenhouse mitigation through avoided fossil fuel emissions.
Keywordsbioenergy system greenhouse gas balance land use change soil carbon
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Attiwill, P.M. and Leeper, G.W.: 1987, Forest Soils and Nutrient Cycles, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
- Beets, P.N. and Madgwick, H.A.I.: 1988. ‘Above-ground dry matter and nutrient content of Pinus radiata as affected by lupin, fertilizer, thinning, and stand age’, New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 18, 43–64.Google Scholar
- Bolin, B., Sukumar, R., Ciais, P., Cramer, W., Jarvis, P., Kheshgi, H., Nobre, C., Semenov, S. and Steffen, W.: 2000, ‘Global Perspective’, in: R. Watson, I.R. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J. Verado and D.J. Dokken (eds.), Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–51.Google Scholar
- Cogle, A.L., Reddy, M.V.R., Rao, K.P.C., Smith, G.D., McGarry, D. and Yule, D.F.: 1995, ‘The role of biological practices and the soil biota in management of sealing, crusting and hardsetting soils’ in: H.B. So, G.D. Smith, S.R. Rain, B.M. Schafer and R.J. Loch (eds.), Sealing, Crusting and Hardsetting Soils: Productivity and Conservation, Brisbane, Australian Society of Soil Science Inc (Queensland Branch) pp. 305–324.Google Scholar
- Gifford, R.M. and Barrett, D.J.: 1999, ‘The carbon content of soil and vegetation in selected areas: Changes in soil and plant tissue C and N contents after clearing to pasture and conversion to forests’, Final NGGI Inventory Development Project Report to Environment Australia 81p.Google Scholar
- Grove, T.S., O'Connell, A.M., Mendham, D.S., Barrow, N.J. and Rance, S.J.: 2001, Sustaining the Productivity of Tree Crops on Agricultural Land in South-Western Australia, Publication No. 01/09. Canberra, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.Google Scholar
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 1997, ‘Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,’, J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. Treanton, I. Mamaty, Y. Bonduki, D.J. Griggs and B. Callender (eds.), (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Bracknell, U.K)Google Scholar
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2003, ‘Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.’ (National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Technical Support Unit, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan).Google Scholar
- Islam, K.R. and Weil, R.R.: 2000, ‘Soil quality indicator properties in mid-Atlantic soils as influenced by conservation management’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55, 69–78Google Scholar
- Jenkinson, D.S., Hart, P.B.S., Rayner, J.H. and Parry, L.C.: 1987, ‘Modelling the turnover of organic matter in long-term experiments at Rothamsted’, INTERCOL Bulletin 15, 1–8.Google Scholar
- McKenzie, N., Ryan, P., Fogarty, P. and Wood, J.: 2000, Sampling, Measurement and Analytical Protocols for Carbon Estimation in Soil, Litter and Coarse Woody Debris National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 14, Canberra, Australian Greenhouse Office.Google Scholar
- Nabuurs, G.J., Ravindranath, N.H., Paustian, K., Freibauer, A., Hohenstein, W. and Makundi, W.: 2003, ‘LUCF Sector Good Practice Guidance’ Ch3 in Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Hayama, Japan, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Google Scholar
- Paul, K.I., Polglase, P.J. and Richards, G.P.: 2003, ‘Predicted change in soil carbon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of controlling factors by linking a C accounting model (CAMFor) to models of forest growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC)’, Forest Ecology and Management 177, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Richards, G.P.: 2001, The FullCAM Carbon Accounting Model: Development, Calibration and Implementation for the National Carbon Accounting System National Carbon Accounting System Technical Report No. 28 Canberra, Australian Greenhouse Office.Google Scholar
- Smith, P.: 2004, ‘Monitoring and verification of soil carbon changes under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol’, Soil Use and Management (in press).Google Scholar
- Smith, P., Powlson, D.S., Glendining, M.J. and Smith J.U.: 1998, ‘Preliminary estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation in European soils through no-till farming’, Global Change Biology 4, 679–685.Google Scholar
- Smith, P., Smith, J.U., Powlson, D.S., McGill, W.B., Arah, J.R.M., Chertov, O.G., Coleman, K., Franko, U., Frolking, S, Jenkinson, D.S., Jensen, L.S., Kelly, R.H., Klein-Gunnewiek, H., Komarov, A., Li, C., Molina, J.A.E., Mueller, T., Parton, W.J., Thornley, J.H.M. and Whitmore, A.P.: 1997, ‘A comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models using seven long-term experimental datasets’, Geoderma 81, 153–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Spain, A.V. and Hutson, B.R.: 1983, ‘Dynamics and fauna of the litter layers’, in: Soils: An Australian viewpoint, Melbourne, CSIRO, Division of Soils, pp. 612–628.Google Scholar
- Spain, A.V., Isbell, R.F. and Probert, M.E.: 1983, ‘Soil organic matter’, in: Soils: An Australian viewpoint, Melbourne, CSIRO, Division of Soils, pp. 551–563.Google Scholar
- Van Cleeve, K and Powers, R.F.: 1995, ‘Soil carbon, soil formation, and ecosystem development’, in: W.W. McFee and J. M. Kelly (ed.), Carbon Forms and Functions in Forest Soils Madison, USA, Soil Science Society of America, pp. 155–200.Google Scholar
- Wood, S. and Cowie, A.L.: 2004, A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. Report to IEA Bioenergy Task 38.Google Scholar