Bioenergy, Food Production and Biodiversity – An Unlikely Alliance?
Open accessAbstract
The global demand for bioenergy is set to increase to a point where it may supply up to one-third of global primary energy by 2050 (IEA, 2012). Current cultivation of biofuel and bioenergy crops has attracted considerable criticism due to their encroachment into areas traditionally occupied by food crops and natural and seminatural ecosystems. Among the most notorious of these bioenergy crops are sugarcane, jotropha, ethanol maize, and palm oil, crops closely associated with biodiversity and habitat loss, water deficit, and perhaps most ironically, given their potential for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, negative impacts on carbon storage and sequestration (Fargione et al., 2008; Martinelli & Filoso, 2008; Koh et al., 2009; Romijn, 2011). In the medium-term bioenergy demand is likely to be met by so-called second-generation (2G) lignocellulose crops, principally perennial grasses and woody trees (Somerville et al., 2010). Many of the problems associated with established first-generation biofuel crops, which are often also food crops, could be avoided by cultivating 2G bioenergy crops on existing farmland. However, this option is often undesirable due to increasing food demand and the potential displacement of food crops (Dauber et al., 2010; Godfray et al., 2010; Gelfand et al., 2013). This conflict between land use objectives, the so-called 'food, energy, environment trilemma' (Tilman et al., 2009), raises concerns that increased demand for bioenergy crops will displace food production and/or cause further destruction of natural and seminatural (so-called marginal) ecosystems. The problems of potential biodiversity loss and land competition with food production remain central to the debate surrounding the possible contribution that bioenergy crops could make towards meeting renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions targets (Nonhebel, 2012). Policy makers are left struggling with the problems that have dogged bioenergy cultivation for decades; where should 2G bioenergy crops be planted and what proportion of land should they occupy? Such questions raise doubts as to the viability of bioenergy as a major future energy source; a major recent report into bioenergy crop viability in the United States concluded that economic and environmental uncertainty will strongly limit future deployment of 2G crops (Committee on Economic & Environmental Impacts of Increasing Biofuels Production, 2011). However, this assertion relies on the old agricultural paradigm of large-scale cultivation of monocultures on existing agricultural land. Indeed, current policy advice largely ignores the potential to better manage bioenergy crops to reduce their impacts on food, biodiversity and ecosystem services and for strategic deployment of 2G bioenergy crops within the landscape so that they mitigate environmental damage and enable a more balanced use of limited land resources. We propose two main strategies for managing bioenergy crops that could reduce their impact on food production and the environment, and at the same time may even boost biodiversity and food production via increases in ecosystem service provision (Table 1). The first of these is that existing bioenergy crops are managed to facilitate biodiversity and support ecosystem service providers (ESPs). When properly managed using well-designed agri-environment schemes, wildlife-friendly farming practices can be successful in sustaining biodiversity (Ausden, 2007; Carvell et al., 2007, 2011; Whittingham, 2011), but this approach is not widely applied to bioenergy crops at present. Our second proposal is that new bioenergy plantations are located in a more strategic way that considers landscape context and is sensitive to how they affect biodiversity and ecosystem services (Table 2). This involves planning the spatial arrangement of bioenergy plantations so that they interact positively with other landscape units. It also requires an understanding of how the impact of bioenergy crops on biodiversity and food security varies depending upon their biological and physical environmental context. We suggest that the strategic planting of bioenergy crops, relative to other land use packages, could mitigate environmental damage caused by other land uses, benefit ecosystem service provision and in some cases boost arable productivity. Bioenergy crops could therefore make up a component of multifunctional landscapes in which limited land resources are used to meet the requirements and aspirations of a diverse community of users. To illustrate these points further, we focus on three geographically distinct cases where these general principles could be applied. Our choice of these case studies is based upon literature availability, the extent (current or potential) of bioenergy cultivation and the degree of conflict with other land uses within these regions. Land availability and competition between bioenergy cultivation and other land uses have received considerable attention
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Growing energy crops on either low-productive or marginal lands can improve landscape design, and better management practices can reduce the risk of biodiversity loss at locations, although this requires further studies.
“growing energy crops on either low-productive or marginal lands can improve the landscape design, and better management practices can reduce the risk of biodiversity loss at locations, although this requires further studies”
From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Manning et al. 2015
Better management practices, use of marginal lands, and improved landscape design can help reduce the risk of biodiversity loss at locations where large-scale biofuel development occurs.
“Better management practices, use of marginal lands, and improved landscape design can help reduce the risk of biodiversity loss at locations where large-scale biofuel development occurs [43,98].”
From Biomass and biofuels in China: Toward bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on the environment (2018) · cites this paper as [98]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185383 · Cited by 11,943 · see citing works
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152747 · Cited by 3,902 · see citing works
Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline
Gallai, N., Salles, J.-M., Settele, J., & Vaissière, B. E. (2009) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014 · Cited by 2,955 · see citing works
Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies
Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1234485 · Cited by 1,741 · see citing works
Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma
Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J. A., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J., Searchinger, T., Somerville, C., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1177970 · Cited by 1,596 · see citing works
Feedstocks for Lignocellulosic Biofuels
Somerville, C., Youngs, H., Taylor, C., Davis, S. C., & Long, S. P. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1189268 · Cited by 1,307 · see citing works
The water footprint of bioenergy
Gerbens-Leenes, W., Hoekstra, A. Y., & van der Meer, T. H. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0812619106 · Cited by 774 · see citing works
Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest
Gelfand, I., Sahajpal, R., Zhang, X., Izaurralde, R. C., Gross, K. L., & Robertson, G. P. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11811 · Cited by 736 · see citing works
Carvell, C., Meek, W. R., Pywell, R. F., Goulson, D., & NOWAKOWSKI, M. (2006) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01249.x · Cited by 444 · see citing works
EXPANSION OF SUGARCANE ETHANOL PRODUCTION IN BRAZIL: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES
Martinelli, L. A., & Filoso, S. (2008) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-1813.1 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
da Veiga, V. F., & Pinto, A. C. (2002) · Química Nova · doi:10.1590/s0100-40422002000200016 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Role of buffer strips in management of waterway pollution: A review
Barling, R. D., & Moore, I. D. (1994) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/bf02400858 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Nitrate Paradigm Does Not Hold Up for Sugarcane
Robinson, N., Brackin, R., Vinall, K., et al. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019045 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
The impact of biomass crop cultivation on temperate biodiversity
Dauber, J., Jones, M. B., & Stout, J. C. (2010) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01058.x · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities
Fletcher, R. J., Robertson, B. A., Evans, J., Doran, P. J., Alavalapati, J. R. R., & Schemske, D. W. (2010) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/090091 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications
Dauber, J., Brown, C., Fernando, A. L., Finnan, J., Krasuska, E., Ponitka, J., Styles, D., Thrän, D., Van Groenigen, K. J., Weih, M., et al. (2012) · BioRisk · doi:10.3897/biorisk.7.3036 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery?
Whittingham, M. J. (2011) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01987.x · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Renewable fuel standard: potential economic and environmental effects of U.S. biofuel policy
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-6308 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Designer landscapes for sustainable biofuels
Koh, L. P., Levang, P., & Ghazoul, J. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.012 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Carvell, C., Osborne, J. L., Bourke, A. F. G., Freeman, S. N., Pywell, R. F., & Heard, M. S. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-0677.1 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
The impacts of <i>Miscanthus</i> × <i>giganteus</i> production on the Midwest US hydrologic cycle
VANLOOCKE, A., BERNACCHI, C. J., & TWINE, T. E. (2010) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01053.x · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Le, P. V. V., Kumar, P., & Drewry, D. T. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1107177108 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Haughton, A. J., Bond, A., Lovett, A. A., Dockerty, T., Sünnenberg, G., Clark, S. J., Bohan, D. A., Sage, R. B., Mallott, M., Mallott, V. E., et al. (2009) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01623.x · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Wiens, J. A., Fargione, J., & Hill, J. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/09-0673.1 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Hanowski, J., Niemi, G., & Christian, D. C. (1997) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96173.x · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Rowe, R. L., Hanley, M. E., Goulson, D., Clarke, D. J., Doncaster, C. P., & Taylor, G. (2010) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.046 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Self-citationStanley, D. A., & Stout, J. C. (2013) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12060 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Impacts of biofuel cultivation on mortality and crop yields
Ashworth, K., Wild, O., & HEWITT, C. N. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1788 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Land clearing and greenhouse gas emissions from Jatropha biofuels on African Miombo Woodlands
Romijn, H. (2010) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.041 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Global food supply and the impacts of increased use of biofuels
Nonhebel, S. (2011) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.09.019 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Bird and Small Mammal Use of Short-Rotation Hybrid Poplar Plantations
Christian, D. P., Collins, P. T., Hanowski, J. M., & Niemi, G. J. (1997) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802426 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Habitat Management for Conservation
Ausden, M. (2007) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198568728.001.0001 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
HARVESTING DISRUPTS BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF HERBIVORES IN A SHORT-ROTATION COPPICE SYSTEM
Björkman, C., Bommarco, R., Eklund, K., et al. (2004) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/03-5341 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Palm-oil boom raises conservation concerns
Gilbert, N. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/487014a · Cited by 56 · see citing works
The Impacts of Sugarcane Expansion on Wildlife in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Verdade, L. M., Gheler‐Costa, C., Penteado, M., & Dotta, G. (2012) · Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems · doi:10.4236/jsbs.2012.24020 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Gries, R., Louzada, J., de Almeida, S. D. S. P., et al. (2011) · Insect Conservation and Diversity · doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00145.x · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Evaluating ecosystem processes in willow short rotation coppice bioenergy plantations
Rowe, R. L., Goulson, D., Doncaster, C. P., Clarke, D. J., Taylor, G., & Hanley, M. E. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12040 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationOLIVEIRA, R. D. F. D., ALMEIDA, L. C. D., de Souza, D. R., et al. (2012) · European Journal of Entomology · doi:10.14411/eje.2012.049 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Use of short-rotation coppice willow crops by birds and small mammals in central New York
Campbell, S., Frair, J. L., Gibbs, J. P., & Volk, T. A. (2012) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.09.026 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Bioenergy that supports ecological restoration
Nackley, L. L., Lieu, V. H., García, B. B., Richardson, J. J., Isaac, E., Spies, K. A., Rigdon, S., & Schwartz, D. T. (2013) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/120241 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Bioenergy - a Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source MAIN REPORT
Bauen, A., Berndes, G., Junginger, M., et al. (2009) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lawton JH, Brotherton PNM, Brown VK et al. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England's wildlife sites and ecological network. DEFRA, London, UK.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reconciling food security and bioenergy: priorities for action
Kline, K. L., Msangi, S., Dale, V. H., Woods, J., Souza, G. M., Osseweijer, P., Clancy, J. S., Hilbert, J. A., Johnson, F. X., McDonnell, P. C., et al. (2017) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12366 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions
Harris, Z. M., Spake, R., & Taylor, G. (2015) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.008 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Self-citationQin, Z., Zhuang, Q., Cai, X., He, Y., Huang, Y., Jiang, D., Lin, E., Liu, Y., Tang, Y., & Wang, M. Q. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.073 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Bioenergy production and environmental impacts
Wu, Y., Zhao, F., Liu, S., Wang, L., Qiu, L., Alexandrov, G., & Jothiprakash, V. (2018) · Geoscience Letters · doi:10.1186/s40562-018-0114-y · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Harris, Z. M., Alberti, G., Viger, M., Jenkins, J. R., Rowe, R., McNamara, N. P., & Taylor, G. (2017) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12347 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Manning, P., Taylor, G., & E. Hanley, M.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Plant Sciences University of Bern Altenbergrain 21 Bern CH‐3013 Switzerland
- University of Southampton (GB)
- School of Biological Sciences Plymouth University Drake Circus PL4 8AA Plymouth UK
- ORCID
- Taylor, Gail
- Venue
- GCB Bioenergy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-04-15
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 570-576
- ISSN
- 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-1707
- OpenAlex
- W1993608492
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 18.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Environment Research Council (NE/H010718/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
- Keywords
- energy crops, food production, biodiversity loss, land use competition, second-generation biofuels, habitat loss, carbon sequestration, biofuel policy, perennial grasses, woody trees, food security, greenhouse gas emissions reduction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
