Limits...
Comparing bioenergy production sites in the Southeastern US regarding ecosystem service supply and demand.

Meyer MA, Chand T, Priess JA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Increased concerns globally about the sustainable production of biomass for bioenergy has resulted in numerous certification schemes focusing on best management practices, mostly operating at the plot/field scale.If tradeoffs between biomass production and other ESS are not addressed by landscape planning, it may be reasonable to include rules in certification schemes that require, e.g., the connectivity of natural or semi-natural forest patches in plantation forestry or semi-natural landscape elements in agricultural production systems.Integrating indicators on landscape configuration and composition into certification schemes is particularly relevant considering that certification schemes are governance tools used to ensure comparable sustainability standards for biomass produced in countries with variable or absent legal frameworks for landscape planning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department Computational Landscape Ecology, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Biomass for bioenergy is debated for its potential synergies or tradeoffs with other provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ESS). This biomass may originate from different production systems and may be purposefully grown or obtained from residues. Increased concerns globally about the sustainable production of biomass for bioenergy has resulted in numerous certification schemes focusing on best management practices, mostly operating at the plot/field scale. In this study, we compare the ESS of two watersheds in the southeastern US. We show the ESS tradeoffs and synergies of plantation forestry, i.e., pine poles, and agricultural production, i.e., wheat straw and corn stover, with the counterfactual natural or semi-natural forest in both watersheds. The plantation forestry showed less distinct tradeoffs than did corn and wheat production, i.e., for carbon storage, P and sediment retention, groundwater recharge, and biodiversity. Using indicators of landscape composition and configuration, we showed that landscape planning can affect the overall ESS supply and can partly determine if locally set environmental thresholds are being met. Indicators on landscape composition, configuration and naturalness explained more than 30% of the variation in ESS supply. Landscape elements such as largely connected forest patches or more complex agricultural patches, e.g., mosaics with shrub and grassland patches, may enhance ESS supply in both of the bioenergy production systems. If tradeoffs between biomass production and other ESS are not addressed by landscape planning, it may be reasonable to include rules in certification schemes that require, e.g., the connectivity of natural or semi-natural forest patches in plantation forestry or semi-natural landscape elements in agricultural production systems. Integrating indicators on landscape configuration and composition into certification schemes is particularly relevant considering that certification schemes are governance tools used to ensure comparable sustainability standards for biomass produced in countries with variable or absent legal frameworks for landscape planning.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

ESS supply (arithmetic mean) for the entire watershed (a, e), natural or semi-natural forest as counterfactual (b, f) for plantation forestry (c) and corn and wheat production (g).The highest arithmetic mean value for each ESS category is used maximum to scale the radar charts for the Satilla (a-d) and Big Sunflower watersheds (e-h) separately.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359142&req=5

pone.0116336.g004: ESS supply (arithmetic mean) for the entire watershed (a, e), natural or semi-natural forest as counterfactual (b, f) for plantation forestry (c) and corn and wheat production (g).The highest arithmetic mean value for each ESS category is used maximum to scale the radar charts for the Satilla (a-d) and Big Sunflower watersheds (e-h) separately.

Mentions: In the Satilla watershed, plantation forestry had a slightly lower mean carbon storage and vertebrate diversity than did natural- or semi-natural forests and the counterfactual; c.f. Fig. 4B, C. The plantation forestry had a higher vertebrate diversity and carbon storage than did the agricultural land and watershed average; c.f. Fig. 4A, D. By contrast, groundwater recharge was higher for plantation forestry than for forests. The P and sediment retention were negligible compared with agricultural land and the watershed average for both plantation forestry and forests. A paired correlation analysis for a sample of 10,000 pixels from all land use/land cover classes showed a high positive correlation between carbon storage and vertebrate diversity (S1 Fig.). A high negative correlation between groundwater recharge and both vertebrate diversity and carbon storage can be observed.


Comparing bioenergy production sites in the Southeastern US regarding ecosystem service supply and demand.

Meyer MA, Chand T, Priess JA - PLoS ONE (2015)

ESS supply (arithmetic mean) for the entire watershed (a, e), natural or semi-natural forest as counterfactual (b, f) for plantation forestry (c) and corn and wheat production (g).The highest arithmetic mean value for each ESS category is used maximum to scale the radar charts for the Satilla (a-d) and Big Sunflower watersheds (e-h) separately.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359142&req=5

pone.0116336.g004: ESS supply (arithmetic mean) for the entire watershed (a, e), natural or semi-natural forest as counterfactual (b, f) for plantation forestry (c) and corn and wheat production (g).The highest arithmetic mean value for each ESS category is used maximum to scale the radar charts for the Satilla (a-d) and Big Sunflower watersheds (e-h) separately.
Mentions: In the Satilla watershed, plantation forestry had a slightly lower mean carbon storage and vertebrate diversity than did natural- or semi-natural forests and the counterfactual; c.f. Fig. 4B, C. The plantation forestry had a higher vertebrate diversity and carbon storage than did the agricultural land and watershed average; c.f. Fig. 4A, D. By contrast, groundwater recharge was higher for plantation forestry than for forests. The P and sediment retention were negligible compared with agricultural land and the watershed average for both plantation forestry and forests. A paired correlation analysis for a sample of 10,000 pixels from all land use/land cover classes showed a high positive correlation between carbon storage and vertebrate diversity (S1 Fig.). A high negative correlation between groundwater recharge and both vertebrate diversity and carbon storage can be observed.

Bottom Line: Increased concerns globally about the sustainable production of biomass for bioenergy has resulted in numerous certification schemes focusing on best management practices, mostly operating at the plot/field scale.If tradeoffs between biomass production and other ESS are not addressed by landscape planning, it may be reasonable to include rules in certification schemes that require, e.g., the connectivity of natural or semi-natural forest patches in plantation forestry or semi-natural landscape elements in agricultural production systems.Integrating indicators on landscape configuration and composition into certification schemes is particularly relevant considering that certification schemes are governance tools used to ensure comparable sustainability standards for biomass produced in countries with variable or absent legal frameworks for landscape planning.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department Computational Landscape Ecology, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Biomass for bioenergy is debated for its potential synergies or tradeoffs with other provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ESS). This biomass may originate from different production systems and may be purposefully grown or obtained from residues. Increased concerns globally about the sustainable production of biomass for bioenergy has resulted in numerous certification schemes focusing on best management practices, mostly operating at the plot/field scale. In this study, we compare the ESS of two watersheds in the southeastern US. We show the ESS tradeoffs and synergies of plantation forestry, i.e., pine poles, and agricultural production, i.e., wheat straw and corn stover, with the counterfactual natural or semi-natural forest in both watersheds. The plantation forestry showed less distinct tradeoffs than did corn and wheat production, i.e., for carbon storage, P and sediment retention, groundwater recharge, and biodiversity. Using indicators of landscape composition and configuration, we showed that landscape planning can affect the overall ESS supply and can partly determine if locally set environmental thresholds are being met. Indicators on landscape composition, configuration and naturalness explained more than 30% of the variation in ESS supply. Landscape elements such as largely connected forest patches or more complex agricultural patches, e.g., mosaics with shrub and grassland patches, may enhance ESS supply in both of the bioenergy production systems. If tradeoffs between biomass production and other ESS are not addressed by landscape planning, it may be reasonable to include rules in certification schemes that require, e.g., the connectivity of natural or semi-natural forest patches in plantation forestry or semi-natural landscape elements in agricultural production systems. Integrating indicators on landscape configuration and composition into certification schemes is particularly relevant considering that certification schemes are governance tools used to ensure comparable sustainability standards for biomass produced in countries with variable or absent legal frameworks for landscape planning.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus