Cited by 260Bioenergy crop production and managementEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityBioeconomy and Sustainability Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Ecological Impact of Biofuels

Fargione, Joseph E., Plevin, Richard J., Hill, Jason D.·2010·Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics

Abstract

The ecological impact of biofuels is mediated through their effects on land, air, and water. In 2008, about 33.3 million ha were used to produce food-based biofuels and their coproducts. Biofuel production from food crops is expected to increase 170% by 2020. Economic model estimates for land-use change (LUC) associated with food-based biofuels are 67–365 ha 10−6 l−1, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions for decades compared to business as usual. Biodiversity is reduced by about 60% in U.S. corn and soybean fields and by about 85% in Southeast Asian oil palm plantations compared to unconverted habitat. Consequently, the largest ecological impact of biofuel production may well come from market-mediated LUC. Mitigating this impact requires targeting biofuel production to degraded and abandoned cropland and rangeland; increasing crop yields and livestock production efficiency; use of wastes, residues, and wildlife-friendly crops; and compensatory offsite mitigation for residual direct and indirect impacts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144720

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Babcock BA, 2009, Iowa Ag Rev., 15
  2. Blanco-Canqui H, 2008, Soil Water Manag. Conserv., 72, 693
  3. CARB, 2009, Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Vol. I, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons
  4. Counc. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2007, Biofuel Feedstocks: The Risk of Future Invasions
  5. FAO, 2008, The State of Food and Agriculture–Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities
  6. FAPRI, 2009, U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook
  7. Foreman LF, 2006, Econ. Inf. Bull. No. 7
  8. GAO, 2007, Rep. GAO-07-1054
  9. Harris N, 2009, Land use change and emission factors: updates since the RFS proposed rule
  10. 10.1017/S1074070800002935 · DOI
  11. Hensen IE., 2003, Oil Palm Bull., 46, 15
  12. Hess P, 2009, Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. Proc., 169
  13. ISO, 2006, ISO 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. Rep. ISO 14040:2006(E)
  14. ISO, 2006, ISO 14044: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Rep. ISO 14044:2006(E)
  15. Roberts MG, 2007, Potential Impacts of Biofuels Expansion on Natural Resources; a Case Study of the Ogallala Aquifer Region
  16. Stickler C, 2007, Readiness for REDD: A Preliminary Global Assessment of Tropical Forested Land Suitability for Agriculture
  17. USDA, 2009, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008) AC-07-SS-1
  18. USEPA, 2009, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program
  19. USEPA, 2010, Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis
  20. Vyn TJ, West TD, Steinhardt GC. 2000. Corn and soybean response to tillage and rotation systems on a dark prairie soil: 25year review. Proc. 15th Conf. Int. Soil Tillage Res. Organ., July 2–6, Forth Worth, Tex.
  21. Weidema B, Ekvall T. 2009. Consequential LCA: Chapter for CALCAS deliverable D18, 2009 “Guidelines for applications of deepened and broadened LCA,” (CALCAS) Co-ordination Action innovation in Life-Cycle Analy. Sustain.Available athttp://www.lca-net.com/files/consequential_LCA_CALCAS_final.pdf
  22. Yusoff S, 2007, Int. J. Life Cycle Anal., 1, 50

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fargione, J. E., Plevin, R. J., & Hill, J. D.
Affiliations
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics
Published
2010-12-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
351-377
ISSN
  • 1543-592X (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2069
OpenAlex
W2059032638
Cited by
260
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 26
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Keywords
biofuels, land use change, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, oil palm plantations, rangeland, crop yield, compensatory mitigation, ecological impacts

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