Skip to main content

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Ambio volume 45, pages 872–884 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Whilst life cycle assessment (LCA) boundaries are expanded to account for negative indirect consequences of bioenergy such as indirect land use change (ILUC), ecosystem services such as water purification sometimes delivered by perennial bioenergy crops are typically neglected in LCA studies. Consequential LCA was applied to evaluate the significance of nutrient interception and retention on the environmental balance of unfertilised energy willow planted on 50-m riparian buffer strips and drainage filtration zones in the Skåne region of Sweden. Excluding possible ILUC effects and considering oil heat substitution, strategically planted filter willow can achieve net global warming potential (GWP) and eutrophication potential (EP) savings of up to 11.9 Mg CO2e and 47 kg PO4e ha−1 year−1, respectively, compared with a GWP saving of 14.8 Mg CO2e ha−1 year−1 and an EP increase of 7 kg PO4e ha−1 year−1 for fertilised willow. Planting willow on appropriate buffer and filter zones throughout Skåne could avoid 626 Mg year−1 PO4e nutrient loading to waters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Arbault, D., M. Rivière, B. Rugani, E. Benetto, and L. Tiruta-Barna. 2014. Integrated earth system dynamic modeling for life cycle impact assessment of ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment 472: 262–272.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronsson, P., H. Rosenqvist, and I. Dimitriou. 2014. Impact of nitrogen fertilization to short-rotation willow coppice plantations grown in Sweden on yield and economy. Bioenergy Research 7: 993–1001.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, P. 2014. The economic benefits of native shelter belts report 2/14. Warrnambool: Basalt-to-Bay Landcare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R.G., D. Mendham, G. Ogden, and J. Bartle. 2014. Enhancing tree belt productivity through capture of short-slope runoff water. GCB Bioenergy 7: 1107–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, Å. 2002. Breeding birds in short-rotation coppices on farmland in central Sweden—The importance of Salix height and adjacent habitats. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 90: 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berndes, G., S. Ahlgren, P. Börjesson, and A. Cowie. 2013. Bioenergy and land use change state of the art. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 2: 282–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börjesson, P. 1999. Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden—Part I: Identification and quantification. Biomass and Bioenergy 16: 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börjesson, P., G. Berndes, F. Fredriksson, and T. Kåberger. 2002. Multifunktionella bioenergiodlingar. Slutrapport till Energimyndigheten (Multifunctional bioenergy plantations. Final report to the Swedish Energy Agency). Report No 37, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, Lund.

  • Börjesson, P., and G. Berndes. 2006. The prospects for willow plantations for wastewater treatment in Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 428–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M. H. Ejhed, and L. Rapp. 2008. Näringsbelastning på Östersjön och Västerhavet 2006 (Nutrient load on the Baltic Sea and the North Sea 2006—OK translation David?). Report 5815, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.

  • Burney, J.A., S.J. Davis, and D.B. Lobell. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 12052–12057.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carsan, S., A. Stroebel, I. Dawson, R. Kindt, C. Mbow, J. Mowo, and R. Jamnadass. 2014. Can agroforestry option values improve the functioning of drivers of agricultural intensification in Africa? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CML, 2010. Characterisation factors database available online from Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Universiteit Leiden, Leiden. http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html. Accessed 15 May 2012.

  • Dalgaard, T., J.F. Bienkowski, A. Bleeker, U. Dragosits, J.L. Drouet, P. Durand, A. Frumau, N.J. Hutchings, et al. 2012. Farm nitrogen balances in six European landscapes as an indicator for nitrogen losses and basis for improved management. Biogeosciences 9: 5303–5321.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitriou, I., H. Rosenqvist, and G. Berndes. 2011. Slow expansion and low yields of willow short rotation coppice in Sweden; implications for future strategies. Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 4613–4618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC. 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. OJEU: L 140/16.

  • Ecoinvent. 2014. Ecoinvent database version 3.1, accessed via SimaPro.

  • Eurostat. 2015. Population and employment statistics page. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.

  • Firbank, L., R.B. Bradbury, D.I. McCracken, and C. Stoate. 2013. Delivering multiple ecosystem services from Enclosed Farmland in the UK. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 166: 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., E. Hizsnyik, S. Prieler, H., and van Velthuizen. 2007. Assessment of biomass potentials for biofuel feedstock in Europe: Methodology and results. REFUEL project, Workpackage 2. Laxenburg.

  • Garnett, T., M.C. Appleby, A. Balmford, I.J. Bateman, T.G. Benton, et al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and Policies. Science 341: 33–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H.C.J., J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S.M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin. 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812–818.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-García, S., B. Mola-Yudego, I. Dimitriou, P. Aronsson, and R. Murphy. 2012. Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial willow plantations in Sweden. Science of the Total Environment 421–422: 210–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, G., F. Wetterich, and U. Geier. 2000. Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the farm level. International Journal of LCA 5: 345–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havlík, P., H. Valin, M. Herrero, M. Obersteiner, E. Schmid, M.C. Rufino, A. Mosnier, P.K. Thornton, H. Böttcher, R.T. Conant, S. Frank, S. Fritz, S. Fuss, F. Kraxner, and A. Notenbaert. 2014. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. PNAS 111: 3709–3714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2006. IPCC GUIDELINES for national greenhouse gas inventories. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2016.

  • Johnsson, H., and K. Mårtensson. 2002. Kväveläckage från svensk åkermark (Nitrogen leaching from Swedish arable land). Report 5248, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.

  • Jordbruksverket. 2014a. Jordbruksstatistisk årsbok 2014. Jönköping.

  • Jordbruksverket. 2014b. Riktlinjer för gödsling och kalkning 2015. Jönköping.

  • Kloverpris, J., H. Wenzel, and P. Nielsen. 2008. Life cycle inventory modeling of land use induced by crop consumption. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13: 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, J. 1988. Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 22–23: 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupp, G., J. Albrecht, M. Darbi, and O. Bastian. 2011. Ecosystem services in energy crop production—A concept for regulatory measures in spatial planning? Journal of Landscape Ecology 4: 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiedrzyńska, E., A. Jóźwik, M. Kiedrzyński, and M. Zalewski. 2014. Hierarchy of factors exerting an impact on nutrient load of the Baltic Sea and sustainable management of its drainage basin. Marine Pollution Bulletin 88: 162–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth, A., and A. Båth. 2009. Assessment of regional willow coppice yield in Sweden on basis of water availability. Forest Ecology and Management 121: 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskell, L.C., A. Crowe, M.J. Dunbar, B. Emmett, et al. 2013. Exploring the ecological constraints to multiple ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 561–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R.B., and P. Grogan. 2001. Potential C-sequestration rates of short-rotation coppiced willow and Miscanthus biomass crops: A modelling study. Aspects of Applied Biology 65: 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, H. ed. 2011. Short rotation forestry: Review of growth and environmental impacts. Forest Research Monograph, 2, Forest Research, Surrey.

  • Misselbrook, T.H., S.L. Gilhespy, and L.M. Cardenas (eds.). 2012. Inventory of ammonia emissions from UK agriculture 2011. London: Defra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, D.S., R. DeFries, Y.E. Shimabukuro, L.O. Anderson, E. Arai, F. del Bon Espirito-Santo, R. Freitas, and J. Morisette. 2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 103: 14637–14641.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, D., R. Edwards, L. Marelli, N. Scarlat, M. Brandao, and F. Monforti-Ferrario. 2010. The effects of increased demand for biofuel feedstocks on the world agricultural markets and areas. JRC, Ispra.

  • PBL. 2011. The protein puzzle: The consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), The Hague.

  • Pinder, R.W., E.A. Davidson, C.L. Goodalec, T.L. Greavera, J.D. Herricka, and L. Liud. 2012. Climate change impacts of US reactive nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109: 7671–7675.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plassmann, K. 2012. Methods for assessing the carbon footprints of products can favour low- over high-yielding agricultural systems when carbon removals are included. Nature Climate Change 2: 2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehl, T., J. Lansche, and J. Müller. 2012. Life cycle assessment of energy generation from biogas—Attributional versus consequential approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16: 3766–3775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, et al. 2014. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosemond, A.D., J.P. Benstead, P.M. Bumpers, V. Gulis, J.S. Kominoski, D.W.P. Manning, K. Suberkropp, and J.B. Wallace. 2015. Experimental nutrient additions accelerate terrestrial carbon loss from stream ecosystems. Science 347: 1142–1145.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCB. 2014 Skane land data. Statistiska centralbyrån, Stockholm. http://www.scb.se/. Accessed Nov 2014.

  • Sikkema, R., M. Steiner, M. Junginger, W. Hiegl, M.T. Hansen, and A. Faaij. 2011. The European wood pellet markets: current status and prospects for 2020. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 5: 250–278.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleeswijk, W., A.L. van Oers, J. Guinée, J. Struijs, and M. Huijbregts. 2008. Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Science of the Total Environment 390: 227–240.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluka, C., and P.C. Peck. 2015. Stakeholder dynamics in the forest energy sector: Key issues to manage and ways forward. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 9: 51–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styles, D., and M.B. Jones. 2007. Energy crops in Ireland: Quantifying potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture and electricity sectors. Biomass and Bioenergy 31: 759–772.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styles, D., J. Gibbons, A.P. Williams, H. Stichnothe, D.R. Chadwick, and J.R. Healey. 2015a. Cattle feed or bioenergy? Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas feedstock scenarios on dairy farms, global change biology bioenergy 7: 1034–1049.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Styles, D., J. Gibbons, A.P. Williams, J. Dauber, B. Urban, H. Stichnothe, D. Chadwick, and D.L. Jones. 2015b. Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas, biofuel and biomass energy options in an arable rotation. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 7: 1305–1320.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styles, D., E. Mesa-Dominguez, and D. Chadwick. 2016. Environmental balance of the of the UK biogas sector: An evaluation by consequential life cycle assessment. Science of the Total Environment 560–561: 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonini, D., L. Hamelin, H. Wenzel, and T. Astrup. 2012. Bioenergy production from perennial energy crops: A consequential LCA of 12 bioenergy scenarios including land use changes. Environmental Science and Technology 46: 13521–13530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, J., J. Clifton-Brown, A. Hastings, P. Robson, G. Allison, and P. Smith. 2012. Food versus fuel: the use of land for lignocellulosic ‘next generation’ energy crops that minimize competition with primary food production. GCB Bioenergy 4: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Rowe, I., A. Marvuglia, S. Rege, and E. Benetto. 2014. Applying consequential LCA to support energy policy: Land use change effects of bioenergy production. Science of the Total Environment 472: 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema, B.P., T. Ekvall, and R. Heijungs. 2009. Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA. Deliverable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. ENEA, Rome.

  • Withers, P. 2013. Personal communication, 22 April 2013.

  • Zamagni, A., J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, P. Masoni, and A. Raggi. 2012. Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17: 904–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper is a contribution to the strategic research area Biodiversity and Ecosystems in a Changing Climate, BECC. The authors are grateful to BECC for funding a workshop in Lund in February 2014 that initiated this collaborative study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Gwynedd, Wales, Bangor, LL57 2UW, UK

    David Styles, Sopan Patil & Tim Pagella

  2. Environmental and Energy System Studies, Lund University, PO Box 118, 22100, Lund, Sweden

    Pål Börjesson

  3. Biodiversity Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology Building, 223 62, Lund, Sweden

    Tina D’Hertefeldt, Klaus Birkhofer & Lars B. Pettersson

  4. Thünen Institute of Biodiversity, Bundesallee 50, 38116, Brunswick, Germany

    Jens Dauber

  5. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bath University, North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK

    Paul Adams

  6. The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, PO Box 196, 22100, Lund, Sweden

    Philip Peck

  7. Département de génie civil et de génie des eaux, Université Laval, 1065, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Céline Vaneeckhaute

  8. Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ullsväg 16, Box 7043, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Håkan Rosenqvist

Authors
  1. David Styles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pål Börjesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tina D’Hertefeldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Klaus Birkhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jens Dauber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sopan Patil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tim Pagella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lars B. Pettersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Philip Peck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Céline Vaneeckhaute
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Håkan Rosenqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Styles.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 208 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Styles, D., Börjesson, P., D’Hertefeldt, T. et al. Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment. Ambio 45, 872–884 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0790-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0790-9

Keywords

  • LCA
  • Eutrophication
  • Greenhouse gas emissions
  • Bioenergy
  • Agriculture
  • Environment