The Wildfuels Alternative

The BBC and other news outlets are reporting on an experiment by Andrew Hector and colleagues, as published in Science.

Fertilisers 'reducing diversity'

Readers of this blog may already be tired by my stressing what is common knowledge amongst vegetation scientists, yet under-appreciated by most others involved with land management and biofuels: Harvesting grasslands tends to increase native biodiversity, and fertilization tends to decrease it.

The experiment in question examines why. In particular, it reveals that shading by productive overstory plants is directly responsible for reducing the diversity.

The experiment (using supplemental lighting) is clever and well-implemented. The results, I think most vegetation scientists would agree, are completely unsurprising. I find it quite refreshing to see results completely in line with expectation - it means that we are right!

Now the hard part. We need to find a way to convince those outside of the discipline that such basic, well-understood natural forces can be harnessed to produce biofuels systems that simultaneously promote biodiversity and produce fuel.

--Mike Palmer

Here is yet another study on the benefits of DIVERSE prairie restorations on roadsides. In most locations in North America, prairies will not remain prairies unless the biomass is regularly removed. Thus, this represents an ideal win-win-win-win-win (etc.) situation for biofuels. The benefits include plant diversity, net carbon sequestration, pollinators for agriculture, roadside beautification, runoff control, ease of harvest and transport, no conflict of food vs. fuel, no clearing of native forests and grasslands, energy independence, etc. Such an option should be considered first, not last.

Hopwood, J. L. (2008). "The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation." Biological Conservation 141(10): 2632-2640.
Marginal habitats such as hedgerows or roadsides become especially important for the conservation of biodiversity in highly modified landscapes. With concerns of a global pollination crisis, there is a need for improving pollinator habitat. Roadsides restored to native prairie vegetation may provide valuable habitat to bees, the most important group of pollinators. Such roadsides support a variety of pollen and nectar sources and unlike agricultural fields, are unplowed, and therefore can provide potential nesting sites for ground-nesting bees. To examine potential effects of roadside restoration, bee communities were sampled via aerial netting and pan trapping along roadside prairie restorations as well as roadsides dominated by non-native plants. Management of roadside vegetation via the planting of native species profoundly affected bee communities. Restored roadsides supported significantly greater bee abundances as well as higher species richness compared to weedy roadsides. Floral species richness, floral abundance, and percentage of bare ground were the factors that led to greater bee abundance and bee species richness along restored roadsides. Traffic and width of roadside did not significantly influence bees, suggesting that even relatively narrow verges near heavy traffic could provide valuable habitat to bees. Restored and weedy roadside bee communities were similar to the prairie remnant, but the prairie remnant was more similar in bee richness and abundance to restored roadsides. Restoring additional roadsides to native vegetation could benefit pollinator conservation efforts by improving habitat on the millions of acres of land devoted to roadsides worldwide, land that is already set aside from further development

Reinvest in Minnesota - Clean Energy (RIM-CE) has issued a short document promoting use of prairie grasses for biofuels:

http://www.cleanenergyminnesota.org/fuels.pdf

The High Plains Journal recently reported on a talk I gave to the Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management here on the Oklahoma State University campus:

Ecology, water and biodiversity enter ethanol debate

Here is a brand new review of the use of grasslands for biofuels:

Ceotto, E. (2008). "Grasslands for bioenergy production. A review." Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28(1): 47-55.
The promise of low-input high-diversity prairies to provide sustainable bioenergy production has recently been emphasized. This review article presents a critical discussion of some controversial points of using grasslands to produce bioenergy. The following issues are addressed: proteins versus biofuels; reactive nitrogen emissions; biodiversity; and effective land use. Two major disadvantages in deriving bioenergy from grasslands are identified: (i) marginal lands are displaced from their fundamental role of producing meat and milk foods, in contrast with the rising worldwide demand for high-quality food; and (ii) the combustion of N-rich grassland biomass, or by-products, results in emission of reactive N into the atmosphere and dramatically reduces the residence time of biologically-fixed nitrogen in the ecosystems. Nitrogen oxides, released during atmospheric combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, have a detrimental effect on global warming. Since intensively managed crops on fertile soils need to be cultivated to fulfil the dietary needs of populations, the potential role of inedible cereal crop residues in providing bioenergy merits consideration. This might spare more marginal land area for forage production or even for full natural use, in order to sustain high levels of biodiversity. Owing to the complexity of terrestrial systems, and the complexity of interactions, a modeling effort is needed in order to predict and quantify outcomes of specific combination of land use at higher integration levels.

Conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels
Washington DC
March 10, 2008

These are some highlights from the conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels, which took place yesterday.

After a few brief introductory talks and acknowledgments we heard from John Sheehan of LiveFuels, Incorporated. While he was at first dismissive of ‘feel good’ concepts of sustainability, he stressed the importance of life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuels. He is to be applauded for his call for dialogue between industry, policy makers, and scientists. He stated,

“I am personally disappointed by the reaction of the biofuels industry to the two Science papers”

(meaning the recent Fargione et al. paper and the Searchinger et al. paper as previously discussed in this blog). It was refreshing to hear that, given the degree of vilification these papers have enticed. He stressed that the papers should be an opportunity to engage the parties. My quick reaction to that is the difficulty of engaging ecologists: when there is such a flood of funding for biofuels science yet a tiny trickle for the ecological aspects, the ecologists response that ‘we have no data’ is not likely to be very engaging.

Robin Jenkins of Dupont reported on that company’s integration of LCA into the planning process and project development was enlightening. She stressed the importance of collaboration with sustainability experts early in the planning process. I have seen many industry presentations before, and this is one of the few ones that really seemed 100% sincere. She made a convincing case that sustainability should be an organizing principle, and is indeed what her company is currently based on.

Catherine Kling, an economist from Iowa State University, reported on some of the water quality impacts of converting row crop acreage to switchgrass in the upper Mississippi valley. Her models showed that there were only modest improvements in nitrogen pollution, but she stressed the sensitivity of the models to scientific assumptions. The model exercise, she stated, was largely a framework for learning how to ask the right questions.

Philip Robertson of Michigan State University spoke on the Biogeochemistry of bioenergy landscapes. He started immediately by stressing the difference between cellulosic and noncellulosic fuels:

“Let me not mince any words: grain-based biofuels are an ecological train wreck”.

His promotion of cellulosic ethanol did not mention that we do not yet have a demonstrated capacity. With only a few pilot plants out there, we do not even know whether cellulosic production is feasible. The feasibility is based on projections and modelling.

Robertson reported that mid-successional systems have the most to offer with respect to ecosystem services and biofuel feedstocks. It is unclear whether repeated harvests of such systems will continue to have positive benefits from the greenhouse gas perspective.

One of Roberston’s surprising findings (surprising to me – but not to biogeochemists who have known it for a long time) is that forests have a very high methane oxidation potential. This means they are actively able to reduce the amount of a nasty greenhouse gas. Therefore, clearing forests for other biofuels is not likely to be very good for GHG emissions.

Virginia Dale of Oak Ridge National Laboratory stressed the complexity of the land use change issue, and argued that ecologists were being very simplistic. Although this talk was well-organized, and given by a well-respected landscape ecologist, the message was deeply frustrating. It sounded like “the system is too complex to possibly understand. What may seem like a good idea might actually be a bad idea, and vice versa”. Thus, it almost seemed like a call for inaction.

Jose Goldemberg of the Universidade do Sao Paulo gave the lunchtime keynote address, stressing the positive effects of sugar cane ethanol. He argued that “the problems with biofuels do not compare with those of fossil fuels” but later used harsh words against clearing the Amazon for soy biodiesel, and even harsher words against palm oil. He implied that the food vs. fuel debate was not a serious issue in Brazil.

John Wiens of The Nature Conservancy gave an excellent talk on the potential biodiversity consequences of biofuels developments. His organizing principle was that “land use is local but the economic drivers are global”. He placed landscapes on a scale of land use intensity (related to productivity), in which the most conserved (undisturbed) landscapes were at one end of the continuum, and the most productive (disturbed) at the other end. A high valuation of conservation will expand protection towards the productive end, yet a high valuation of agricultural products (including biofuels) will facilitate conversion of wildlands (such as CRP lands) or the infamous ‘marginal lands’ to production. Implicit to this model is the idea of a monotonic decline of conservation value as a function of intensity of land use. I found this a useful framework, though a bit misleading in certain circumstances. In particular, there are landscapes in which an intermediate intensity of management might actually be good for conservation. I think this is one area where John and I will agree to disagree.

Wally Wilhelm of USDA prepared a talk on biofuels on ‘marginal’ lands, but could not present due to illness. Rob Mitchell spoke in his stead. This talk implied that switchgrass could go a long way towards supplying domestic needs for ethanol, but pointed out potential problems exist.

Linda Wallace of the University of Oklahoma discussed perennial grassland systems, and presented data on a warming experiment implying that diverse systems, through the insurance effect, are far more resilient and resistant to disturbance than are monocultures. She stressed the importance of head-to-head comparison of LIHD vs. HILD systems, and lamented the fact that most current ‘comparisons’ are not truly comparable, and that we are relying far too much on modeled results and so little on actual data.

Marilyn Buford of the USDA Forest Service presented an optimistic view of biofuels from forest land. The talk was high on generalities but low on data. Thus, it is difficult to summarize here.

Donna Perla of US EPA pled with the audience to consider Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as a prime potential feedstock. I think there was widespread support for this idea, but this talk was also low on specifics. The audience got no sense for what the major limiting technological factors were preventing the conversion of MSW into fuel. But the case that the resource could be significant was convincing.

Jerry Melillo of the Ecosystems Center presented a very pessimistic 50-year global model for the implications of biofuel development. To quote him,

“There will be almost certainly be massive biodiversity losses as biomass crops replace natural vegetation”

Other environmental and human impacts were also discussed. Nevertheless, Melillo stated some positive roles biofuels could play.

Otto Doering of Purdue University concluded the conference with a captivating talk, with no audiovisual aids except for the microphone. His entertaining style was almost uplifting – until we finally realized what his message was: many of the past policies that were good for conservation were implemented for reasons totally unrelated to conservation, and science has rarely been effectively integrated into policy. External drivers, rather than policy, has played the dominant role in land use change, whether in a positive or negative direction. While Doering did mention a few cases where ecologists (if they pose the argument appropriately) can make a difference, there was a strong implication that factors other than logic or values will continue to determine policy and its effects.

In addition to the talks, there were a number of posters, ranging from theory and modelling to experiments. Two posters (one by Hank Stevens, and one by Gregory Houseman) dealt directly with LIHD. Both ended up supporting the concept. The Stevens poster dealt more deeply with ecological theory, and the Houseman poster presented the results of an experiment. Interestingly, the Houseman poster backed up the famous Cedar Creek (Minnesota) results, but on a Kansas system: diverse systems can do remarkably well in unfertilized systems, comparably to low diversity fertilized systems.

Today (March 11) and tomorrow a select group (why I got selected is beyond me – perhaps this blog has something to do with it) is continuing with a workshop, to assess what is known and what needs to be known about the ecological consequences of biofuels. We expect to produce a number of print (and electronic) products, both specialized and not, related to the outcome of the workshop. It is too early to report on those, but I will blog about them when they become available! One thing is striking though: several of the ecologists in attendance say that this is the first workshop they have been to in which biofuels are being considered as having a possible role in a sustainable future. In contrast, I am from a geographic area (and institution) where few people question the beneficence of biofuels. I was surprised by the stark regional differences in attitudes towards biofuels (I suspected they existed but were more subtle).

The two recent articles in Science on climatic consequences of biofuels have sparked quite a bit of negative reaction from industry, and I will not repeat any of that here. However, I do note a recent misleading article in Biofuels Digest:

Biofuels emissions authors say biofuels OK if made from waste, perennials, or abandoned land

The article states:

"The University of Minnesota researchers who started a global controversy over biofuels emissions, with an article in Science magazine that has been reprinted and discussed around the globe, said that biofuels would be OK as practiced in….Minnesota."

Since when has Minnesota been using prairie for biofuels? There is a tiny set of experimental plots at Cedar Creek, and there is a small bioheat facility in the University of Minnesota - Morris. But other than that, Minnesota is not currently harvesting vast quantities of prairie, perennials, or waste for biofuels. Other locations are taking the lead.

Nor is Minnesota necessarily the best place for prairie biomass. Prairie Hay yields are greater in the southern part of the Great Plains. Land values of 'abandoned agricultural land' are probably more favorable elsewhere. The UM paper is clearly not an attempt to maximize the flow of Money to the University of Minnesota or the State of Minnesota.

On the other hand, it is not hard to find papers arguing for the benefits of fuel from canola, soy, maize, jatropha, sugarcane, switchgrass, sorghum, etc. I have yet to see Biofuels Digest raise the proverbial eyebrow at the institutions employing the authors of such papers.

Dr. Hank Stevens (Botany Department, Miami University) has initiated an exciting new project on 'biofuels rewilding'; i.e. restoring prairies for carbon sequestration and for biofuels:

Effects of Biodiversity on Carbon Storage in Experimental Prairies: Toward Sustainable Biofuels

This project seeks to understand whether we can turn Ohio corn fields into beautiful, diverse prairies to produce ethanol while at the same time reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our primary goal is to help slow the rate of global warming, while at the same time create new natural habitat for native plant and animal species. We also seek to provide outreach and education on this topic.

More prairie enthusiasts are needed to expand this vision throughout the Great Plains!

Although most of the biofuels feedstocks research is devoted towards dedicated monocultures, on rare occasion you will find a serious report on species mixtures. Here is one.

Mulkey, V. R., V. N. Owens and D. K. Lee (2008). "Management of warm-season grass mixtures for biomass production in South Dakota USA." Bioresource Technology 99(3): 609-617.

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman), and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash) are native warm-season grasses commonly used for pasture, hay, and conservation. More recently switchgrass has also been identified as a potential biomass energy crop, but management of mixtures of these species for biomass is not well documented. Therefore, the objectives of our study were to: (1) determine the effects of harvest timing and N rate on yield and biomass characteristics of established warm-season grass stands containing a mixture of switchgrass, big bluestem, and indiangrass, and (2) evaluate the impact of harvest management on species composition. Five N rates (0, 56, 112, and 224 kg ha I applied annually in spring and 224 kg ha(-1) evenly split between spring and fall) and two harvest timings (anthesis and killing frost) were applied to plots at two South Dakota USA locations from 2001 to 2003. Harvesting once a year shortly after a killing frost produced the greatest yields with high concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) along with lower concentrations of total nitrogen (TN) and ash. This harvest timing also allowed for the greatest percentage of desirable species while maintaining low grass weed percentages. While N rates of 56 and 112 kg ha-1 tended to increase total biomass without promoting severe invasion of grass and broadleaf weed species, N application did not always result in significant increases in biomass production. Based on these results, mixtures of switchgrass and big bluestem were well suited for sustainable biomass energy production. Furthermore, N requirements of these mixtures were relatively low thus reducing production input costs. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Carbon sequestration in grass mixtures (and in switchgrass monocultures) is, not surprisingly, much higher than in HILD annual crops:

Omonode, R. A. and T. J. Vyn (2006). "Vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and nitrogen under warm-season native grasses relative to croplands in west-central Indiana, USA." Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 117(2-3): 159-170.

Establishment of grasslands can be an effective means of sequestering soil organic carbon (SOC) and reducing atmospheric CO, that is believed to contribute to global warming. This study evaluated the vertical distribution and overall sequestration of SOC and total nitrogen (N) under warm-season native grasses (WSNGs) planted 6-8 years earlier relative to a corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.) crop sequence, and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) relative to tall mixed grasses of big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and little bluestem (Andropogon scopurius). Paired soil samples from 0-15, 15-30, 30-60 and 60-100 cm depth increments were taken from WSNGs and adjoining croplands at 10 locations, and from switchgrass and adjoining tall mixed grasses at four locations in three major soil types of alfisols, mollisols, and entisols in Montgomery County, Indiana. Significant differences in SOC and N concentrations of WSNGs and croplands were limited to the surface 30 cm. On average, SOC concentrations in the surface 15 cm depth were higher in WSNGs than croplands (average: 22.4 and 19.8 g kg(-1) C, respectively) but significant differences were observed in just 4 of 10 locations. Similarly, surface soil SOC concentrations were not different for switchgrass (22.1 g kg(-1)) relative to tall mixed grasses (21.4 g kg(-1)). Soil N concentrations never differed significantly among land use treatments. On average, SOC mass calculated to 1.0 m depth was 9.4 percent higher under WSNG than cropland (P0.058), and 8.1 percent higher in switchgrass relative to tall mixed grass (P0.054), but soil N mass was the same for both WSNGs and cropland. Vertical distribution under WSNG of SOC mass was 26, 21, 28, and 25 percent, and of total N mass was 3 1, 25, 28 and 16 percent, in the 0-15, 15-30, 30-60, and 60-100 cut depth intervals, respectively. Even though we acknowledge the potential influence of soil variability or prior landscape processes on our results at some locations, we estimated that WSNGs sequestered an average 2.1 Mg C ha(-1) yr(-1) more than the corn-soybean sequence.

I strongly suspect that adding forbs (especially legumes) and C3 grasses into the mix would have substantially increased yields AND C storage of grass mixes.

Non-ecologists are often surprised to learn that mowing (as for LIHD biofuels) can be compatible with conservation. Here is a case study, just published in Applied Vegetation Science. There are plenty of other examples in the recent literature.

Citation:
Patrick Endels, Hans Jacquemyn, Rein Brys, and Martin Hermy. 2007. Reinstatement of traditional mowing regimes counteracts population senescence in the rare perennial Primula vulgaris. Applied Vegetation Science 10:351-360.

Abstract

Question: Traditional management of grassland verges or ditch banks included mowing as a way to provide additional harvest¬ing of hay. Nowadays, such sites are often left unmanaged, as mowing verges is no longer profitable in modern agricultural systems. Are vulnerable plant species able to withstand com¬petition with the surrounding vegetation and maintain viable populations under these circumstances? How do they respond to reinstatement of traditional mowing regimes?

Location: Oedelem, northwestern Belgium.

Methods: To investigate the effect of reinstatement of the rare perennial Primula vulgaris, demography and adult plant performance were monitored in a grassland verge between 1999 and 2003 under different mowing regimes. Year transitions between life stages were analysed with matrix population models. To disentangle the contributions of the deviations in different life stage transitions to the variation in overall population growth rate, life table response experiments were used.

Results: Both management and year had a strong impact on demographic traits of P. vulgaris. If plots were left unmanaged, lower plant performance and declining population growth rates were observed. While population growth rates differed significantly between mowing regimes, mowing of plots only in July did not differ from mowing in July and October in terms of vegetative and reproductive output of adults. Mowing twice a year appeared to be most efficient in increasing population growth rate both by raising recruitment and growth of individu¬als into large reproductive adults.

Conclusions: Large P. vulgaris populations show a good ability to recover from recent abandonment of traditional management regimes. By mowing twice a year, managers are able to target vital rates that are most influential: growth and flowering of adult individuals

A recent article in Science Daily entitled "Switchgrass: Bridging Bioenergy And Conservation" describes a project by Michael Casler, who documents that the genetics of most modern switchgrass cultivars tends to mirror natural variation in nature. He suggests that these cultivars might be good simultaneously for biofuels and prairie restoration.

This recommendation seems reasonable for the upper Midwest, where almost every corner of every county has experienced the plow. Planting a monoculture of switchgrass on barren, degraded land might be a reasonable start. However, I still would suggest that native legumes be added early on.

In much of the Great Plains, however, we have native stands of switchgrass, mixed with a tremendous diversity of other grasses and perennial forbs, already present in situ. However, the biofuel industry seems to demand establishment of pure stands of switchgrass. And in Oklahoma, it is the low-lignin, high yielding transgenic switch that is the lead variety. There is no clear connection between switchgrass establishment and prairie restoration. Indeed, a number of ecologists in the state fear the a correlation between switchgrass establishment and prairie destruction. Ironically, Oklahoma is a state with a heritage of sustainable yields of prairie hay - but hay meadows have declined over the past decades.

I applaud Casler's genetic sleuthing on switchgrass. But before we assume that biofuels production equals prairie restoration, we need to look at the whole agronomic picture. I still think there is room for a biofuels rewilding of America.

--Mike

It is not just scientists who see the effects of abandonment of mowing on biodiversity:

There's a place called Far-away Meadow
We never shall mow in again,
Or such is the talk at the farmhouse:
The meadow is finished with men.
Then now is the chance for the flowers
That can't stand mowers and plowers.
It must be now, through, in season
Before the not mowing brings trees on,
Before trees, seeing the opening,
March into a shadowy claim.
The trees are all I'm afraid of,
That flowers can't bloom in the shade of;
It's no more men I'm afraid of;
The meadow is done with the tame.
The place for the moment is ours
For you, oh tumultuous flowers,
To go to waste and go wild in,
All shapes and colors of flowers,
I needn't call you by name.

-- The Last Mowing, Robert Frost, 1928

Hooray for the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academies of Science. Instead of following the biofuels-as-panacea approach of USDA, DOE, DOT, and state R&D agencies, the National Academies has taken a serious look at the environmental consequences of expanded biofuels production:

Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States (2007)

I hope the NRC will take a close look at other issues related to biofuels, such as biodiversity, invasive species, biocides, sodbusting, and changes in the nitrogen cycle.

Another round of applause: the current report actually mentions mixed prairie grasses as a possible biofuels feedstock. (though this is not surprising, since David Tilman is one of the committee members authoring the report).

The report states that not much is known about the water use implications of mixed grass biofuels.

Some things we definitely DO know about our mixed grass hay meadows in the Southern Great Plains are:

1) Prairie Hay Meadows are typically not irrigated
2) Even in drought years, you do not have total crop failure
3) Abandoning hay meadows (note that there are more abandoned hay meadows than there are hay meadows) are rapidly colonized by fast-growing weedy tree species. These weedy tree species transpire tremendous amounts of water, and are widely recognized as a serious hydrological concern in the area.

Thus, the use of native prairie hay meadows (in the regions that can support them, of course) as a biofuels feedstock is a win-win proposition for water, biodiversity, and biofuels.

---Mike Palmer

The August 2007 issue of Scientific American has an excellent article on perennial agriculture:

Future Farming: A Return to Roots?
By Cindy M. Cox and Jerry D. Glover and John P. Reganold (the online content is for paying customers only).

The main argument is that perennial wild plants have extremely extensive and efficient root systems, in contrast to annual agriculture which degrades the soil. Intensive breeding and hybridization can create a perennial-based agriculture that feeds the world and replenishes the soil. The visuals and the statistics in the article are quite striking.

The link to biofuels might seem obvious: why not breed perennial biofuels crops? Of course, this is what is being done: with poplar, switchgrass, prairie cordgrass, miscanthus, etc. But the next question is WHY breed perennial biofuels crops? In the case of food crops, the case for breeding is clear. Most perennial wild plants do not provide substantial qualities of food products. On the other hand, for biofuel feedstocks production, there is no evidence that intensive breeding will help produce are more sustained production of biomass. Indeed, fitness of wild perennials in grasslands is often correlated with sustained production of biomass. Nature has done the breeding for us. Even better, ecological filtering plus natural selection has resulted in combinations of species that complement each other in biomass production. There is no major technological hurdle for us to overcome in the production end for biofuels, in contrast to the situation for perennial food crops.

--Mike Palmer

This postdoctoral position was recently announced. It should be of great interest to any recent PhDs on the job market interested in applying community ecology skills to a matter of great environmental concern. The proposed work is clearly linked to LIHD and related ideas.

The Wilds is Seeking Postdoctoral Colleague for Biofuel Study on Marginal Landscapes

A Postdoctoral position is available starting March, 2008 at the Wilds through the Restoration Ecology Department. The Wilds is a large-scale conservation and research center located on 10,000 acres of reclaimed surface mined land in Southeastern Ohio. The Wilds is beginning a study on biofuel potential and ecosystem services on reclaimed mined landscapes.

The study's objectives are to determine the bioenergy production, carbon sequestration potential, and other potential environmental services on reclaimed mined land in Southeast Ohio; to determine best practices for biomass harvesting on reclaimed mined landscapes; to determine best practices for fertility inputs on reclaimed mined landscapes; to compare production potential of various combinations of perennial herbaceous grassland systems; to determine other environmental services of reclaimed mined land in conjunction with biofuel production and carbon storage such as habitat and biodiversity potential.

Requirements
A PhD in ecology, plant biology, landscape ecology, restoration ecology, or other related fields. The candidate must have a strong background in project design and statistical analysis.

HOW TO APPLY
Applicants should send a brief description of research interests, curriculum vitae with and the names of three references to: Dr. Nicole Cavender,
e-mail:
ncavender@thewilds.org
(subject: postdoctoral position). For questions please call (740) 638-5030 ext 2083.

NOTES
The position is available starting March, 2008 for a period of one year, with possibility to renew subject to satisfactory performance.

Nicole Cavender, Ph.D.
Director, Restoration Ecology
The Wilds
14000 International Rd
Cumberland,OH 43732
ncavender@thewilds.org
740-638-5030 x 2083
www.thewilds.org

I have written about how roadside mowing can enhance biodiversity as well as provide biomass fuels. It is probably better to use the term ‘haying’ to avoid implying the use of manicured bermudagrass roadsides. Here is an interesting article from the New York Times:

Wildflowers Find Favor with Highway Gardeners

My capsule summary of the article is as follows: wildflower enthusiasts and people concerned with biodiversity are advocating planting roadsides across the US with native plants – including switchgrass. While it is somewhat problematic with respect to ‘roadside vegetation management’, a relaxed mowing schedule ends up saving highway departments a lot of money. Reactions from the public range from wildly enthusiastic to disgusted. The ‘disgusted’ people think wildscaping looks unkempt, and that roadsides should look like lawns. According to the article, a “poll showed that the public prizes neatness more than nativeness.”

I wonder whether both opinions could be reconciled if an annual harvest lead to the production of biomass fuels. Those who like the idea of things looking neat might be the sort who favor economic development and land ‘being put to use’. Those who value diversity and wildflowers might be convinced that annual mowing is necessary to keep the biological diversity high (which is true in most grasslands with the exception of very arid areas, as long as the seed supply is high, naturally or artificially).

The article implied a bit of grumbling amongst highway crews about annual mowing causing problems with the lawnmowers breaking down. If the mental switch was made to thinking of the harvest as ‘haying’ instead of ‘mowing’, perhaps more appropriate equipment would be used.

On the subject of roadsides: it could be argued that roadside mowing is not a viable fuel because they are so widely dispersed so that transportation costs would be high. However, note that the harvest would largely be done in areas accessible by road (well, duh) and there would be less energy spent in reversing directions, as one would in a normal hay meadow. It would be fascinating to study the energetics and costs associated with harvesting roadsides vs. fields.

Roadside harvesting for biofuels appears to be a win-win-win situation for biodiversity and biofuels. A serious analysis is sorely needed.

---Mike

The Sierra club has a new article on biofuels:

Bio-Hope, Bio-Hype

It includes a link to a chart comparing different types of biofuels. It only mentions LIHD in passing:

Best-Case Scenario:
The best sources of biomass for fuel are waste products and native perennial grasses, which provide more usable energy per acre than corn ethanol or soybean diesel. In fact, says a report by the University of Minnesota, fuels made from native plants can actually be "carbon negative," because they store excess carbon dioxide in their roots and the surrounding soil, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

A reader might be misled into thinking that planting vast new acres of switchgrass or other prairie grasses is a 'best case scenario'. In the confusion, some environmentalists might indirectly advocate plowing up a prairie to plant monocultures of 'improved' native grasses.

--Mike Palmer

There are many ways to explain the empirical finding of high yields of some diverse systems. It may be satisfying to revert to arguments of the 'balance of nature' or the ideas popular in the 1960s and 1970s of a link between diversity and stability (that are making a comeback now). There is no denying that the relationship between yield and diversity is complex and sometimes a bit contentious. We have to watch out for the 'naturalist fallacy': the idea that if something occurs in nature, it must be good/productive/stable/moral/etc. But there are some very simple principles that justify the use of diverse systems, even without reverting to holism. I list 4:

1) It is expensive to get rid of 'weeds.' (in this context, I mean unplanted species).
2) Facilitation. Sometimes, some plant species make conditions more favorable for other plant species. In grassland systems, legumes (with their mutualistic association with nitrogen-fixing bacteria) allow nitrogen to enter the system, thus indirectly facilitating the growth of grasses.
3) Overyielding. Species vary in their resource use (e.g. their requirements for water, nutrients, light, etc.). This has been called the "Jack Spratt" phenomenon - fewer resources are wasted (i.e. the platter is kept cleaner) when species have different preferences. They are therefore able to grow more in a mixture than they are in a monoculture.
4) Nature is opportunistic. If there is an adequate seed source, bare soil does not stay bare for long. To say that 'nature abhorrs a vacuum' is not much of an exaggeration, though it is an example of the naturalist fallacy.

---Mike

Responding to an editorial by Linda Wallace and myself, Vincent Gutschick pointed out the need for more research into LIHD to assess its competitiveness. Linda and I responded in the same issue, essentially agreeing with him - but going further in our original arguments to stress the compatibility of LIHD with other land uses. The letters are available here:

LIHD versus HILD biofuels

---Mike Palmer

Is this the hero of the future?
(I'm just testing the ability to post images to the blog...)

---Mike

I have wondered, as many of you probably have, why hay meadows have not yet been given serious consideration as a biofuel source, despite their clear advantages. Perhaps there are some fundamental problems? Nevertheless, nobody (to my knowledge) has articulated any major concerns with grassland-derived biomass fuels.

Consider the following:

Corn (maize) has a considerable lobby. The lobby has disproportionate effect in the US because of the important role of Iowa (a corn state) in the US political process. Thus, HILD has strong political momentum.

Elsewhere in the world, the oil palm industry has considerable clout, including a substantial PR machine.

Cellulosic degradation is scientifically fascinating. Thus, the scientific community has been successful at lobbying for increased funding in this area. Since scientific endeavors tend to start simple, HILD monocultures have the edge.

Biotech industries are thrilled at having an opportunity to create (and patent) brand new crops that will be planted over vast areas. If we rely on LIHD, there will be absolutely no need for biotech. Why should this powerful group lend any support to LIHD?

Similarly, the agrichemical industry has absolutely nothing to gain from LIHD. Imagine the concept: no need to spray, and little or no need to fertilize. LIHD would be at best a nuisance and at worst a threat to such an industry.

There does not seem to be any active organizations promoting prairie hay. There is a century-old National Hay Association, but they do not seem to be politically active – nor have they taken any position on biofuels (at least it is not mentioned on their website).

A logical lobby to support LIHD would be environmental groups. But the idea of cutting natural grasslands to save the natural grasslands in counterintuitive to nonscientists (it is even counterintuitive to scientists who are not vegetation scientists).

.We would hope that the cost-effectiveness of LIHD would allow industry to lead the way – but without tax (and other) incentives for LIHD they are unlikely to get excited.

Thus, the battle for LIHD is an uphill battle. At present, my strategy is to publicize the advantages of LIHD, and to report on the good work by many scientists and others in many disciplines. But the next step beyond this is not obvious.

Are there any readers out there who have suggestions for allowing LIHD to gain traction?

--Mike Palmer

The link between biomass removal and diversity in grasslands is extremely well studied by vegetation scientists. However, its applied aspects have only been studied in depth in relation to conservation biology, fire, and grazing. Mowing has also been well studied, but mostly as a management tool - and not so much for the 'product' of biomass fuels.

Guo (2007) has just produced a theoretical framework for understanding the basic linkages between diversity, biomass, and productivity (in relation to biomass removal). Scientists interested in LIHD should seriously consider this model as a framework for the design of new production systems.

Guo, Q. F. (2007). "The diversity-biomass-productivity relationships in grassland management and restoration." Basic and Applied Ecology 8(3): 199-208.
Diversity, biomass, and productivity, the three key community/ecosystem variables, are interrelated and pose reciprocal influences on each other. The relationships among the three variables have been a central focus in ecology and formed two schools of fundamentally different nature with two related applications: (1) management - how biomass manipulation (e.g., grazing, burning) affects diversity and productivity, and (2) restoration - how diversity manipulation (e.g., seeding, planting) affects biomass and productivity. In the past, the two apparently related aspects have been studied intensively but separately in basic research and the reciprocal effects of the three variables and applied aspects have not been jointly addressed. In most cases, optimal management often involves regulating biomass so that high diversity and productivity or other preferred habitat characteristics can be achieved and maintained, while restoration usually involves planting/seeding a certain number and/or combination of native species so that the native structure and function of the habitat can be restored and degraded ecosystems can recover faster. This article attempts to unify these two schools and discusses the significance and implications of the diversity-biomass-productivity relationships in practice, with particular emphasis on grassland ecosystems.

Preface

Concern over climate change and overdependence on fossil fuel has increased interest in the development of biofuels. However, much of the research to date has ignored environmental consequences of existing and emerging biofuels technologies. In particular, most of the research has focused on High-Input, Low Diversity (HILD) systems at the expense of Low-Input, High Diversity (LIHD) systems. Also, natural and seminatural vegetation which would benefit from annual mowing needs to be seriously considered as a source of biomass for fuels.

Here, we outline some of the crucial research topics that must be addressed with respect to the viability of HILD and LIHD.

This posting is a DRAFT and all comments and critiques are welcome.

Research Questions for the development of Sustainable Biofuels

-Michael Palmer with input from Linda Wallace

This focuses on terrestrial vegetation (including crops) as a source for biofuels, but does not preclude development of alternatives such as algae or industrial and municipal waste.

1 Production Systems
1.1 HILD
1.1.1 Consequences of new crop monocultures
1.1.1.1 Emerging diseases and pests
1.1.1.2 Reliability of yield
1.1.1.3 Invasibility of new crops into natural communities
1.1.2 Consequences of new genetic monocultures
1.1.2.1 Emerging diseases and pests
1.1.2.2 Reliability of yield
1.1.2.3 Structural integrity of low-lignin plants
1.1.2.4 consequences of the breeding of plants with low biomass recalcitrance, especially with respect to fungal pathogens
1.1.3 Consequences of habitat destruction for biofuels crops
1.1.4 Effects of HILD on soil stability (erosion, soil structure)
1.1.5 Effects of HILD on soil respiration and carbon balance of HILD systems
1.2 LIHD
1.2.1 How does one design an ideal LIHD system? To what degree can spontaneous vegetation, which would have low inputs, be utilized?
1.2.2 To what degree and in what conditions does LIHD allow net carbon sequestration?
1.2.3 Other costs and benefits of LIHD
1.2.3.1 Wildlife and Biodiversity
1.2.3.2 Secondary economic gains such as honey production, recreation, fuel load reduction
1.2.3.3 Ecosystem-level properties such as nutrient flows, erosion, etc. especially as related to greenhouse gas emissions
1.2.4 Sociology
1.2.4.1 Possible attractiveness of lower intensity of LIHD for rural landowners
1.2.4.2 Perception of seminatural production systems by public
1.2.5 Identification of systems benefiting from biomass removal
1.2.5.1 Document the loss of natural grasslands, seminatural grasslands, and hay meadows
1.2.5.2 Determine whether the loss of such grasslands can be reversed by promotion of biofuels harvests
1.2.5.3 Determine the generality of ‘dominance reduction’ by haying as way to promote biodiversity
1.2.5.4 Can “vegetation management” such as mowing of roadsides, powerline right-of-ways, and fire breaks be used as a source of biomass fuels?
1.3 Comparison of HILD and LIHD
1.3.1 Define relevant, operational parameters related to sustainability
1.3.2 Devise a monitoring scheme (such as a network of replicated permanent plots) comparing HILD and LIHD
1.3.3 Life Cycle Analysis of economics and carbon
1.3.4 Economics (especially look at ecological break points and how they may or may not correlate with economic break points)
1.3.5 Comparison of harvest, distribution, and transportation. Lower yields of some systems might mean transportation may be an issue.
1.3.6 Compare public perception of conversion of landscape to HILD crops vs. seminatural grasslands
2 Conversion technology (as relates to ecological effects and promise).
2.1 Producer gas technology.
2.1.1 Can it be designed to handle LIHD fuels? Although the efficiency is less than the theoretical gain of cellulosic conversion (which is still largely an untested technology), it is a proven technology that can handle heterogeneous fuels.
2.2 Cellulosic conversion of heterogeneous fuels
2.2.1 The research to date is entirely (to my knowledge) based on homogenous fuel sources. This means it would only be suitable for HILD. Can cellulosic technologies be modified to handle heterogeneous sources?
2.3 Novel microbes
2.3.1 Cellulosic degradation research would benefit from a search for new enzymes from natural degradative processes (e.g. in the leaf litter layer, in insect guts, in ungulate guts).
2.3.2 Design of microbial communities for degradation: Is it possible to create a complex but manageable system that effectively degrades a heterogeneous feedstock?
2.4 Low-temperature pyrolysis with biochar production
2.4.1 Is this suitable for LIHD?
2.4.2 Is it a real solution for carbon sequestration?
2.4.3 Does it enhance soil fertility, and in which locations?

I have compiled a list of scholars with interests in LIHD biofuels in Oklahoma:

http://ecology.okstate.edu/Libra/OklahomaLIHD.htm

I will try to keep it updated. If anyone wishes their names added to the list, let me know. As you can see, there is a dedicated team of people who can achieve great things if appropriately funded!

The EU is eyeing new rules to ensure sustainability of biofuels.

Paul Hodson, an official who is charged with crafting the criteria, includes the following:

Third, the land used should not be home to a variety of plants or animals, what Hodson called a "high biodiversity quota", which would be displaced or destroyed in order to make room for crop growing.

It is great to see biodiversity considered. However, this ignores the fact that harvets can be used to maintain biodiversity.

So I propose the following subcriterion:

The land used should be home to a variety of plants or animals, with a 'high biodiversity quota', which would be benefited by biomass harvest.

The key is to use LIHD systems instead of HILD systems.

I know this discussion of the quantity of roadside vegetation is a little bit of a sidetrack from the main theme of LIHD, but it still demands careful consideration. And forgive my coining of some new terms here.

Just today, there appeared a new article in Science:

Watts, R. D., R. W. Compton, J. H. McCammon, C. L. Rich, S. M. Wright, T. Owens, and D. S. Ouren. 2007. Roadless Space of the Conterminous United States. Science 316:736-738.

Which presents impressive maps, and depressing statistics, about the quantity of roadless area in the US. Not surprisingly, populated areas have high roadiness, and the desert regions are relatively roadless. Particularly notable (but not astounding news) is that the prairie peninsula, the eastern and southern Great Plains, and other regions that have high grass productivity, are relatively roady.

Thus, there are prospects of using mowed road right-of-ways as biofuels sources. Now add to the road right-of-ways the railroad right-of-ways, the powerline right-of-ways, the mowed strips of airports (I dare not mention suburban lawns) - we are talking about truly astounding quantities of biomass that, with a few exceptions, are ending up in landfills, are burnt, or are otherwise discarded.

---Mike

According to the Federal Highway Administration there are 10 million acres in roadside rights-of-way in the US. This amounts to more than 40000 square kilometers, or the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined.

According to Forman (2000), there are approximately 5 million kilometers of rural public roads in the US (it is not clear whether this includes section line roads).

Let us assume that a 1.5m right-of-way exists on either side of each road. (Such right-of-ways are typically maintained by regular mowing).

This means there is a potential of 15000 square kilometers of land that could be mowed regularly, with the 'harvests' going to produce biofuels. As a point of comparison: Connecticut has an area of 14371 square kilometers.

Of course, much of this area is not productive (as in deserts), some is not vegetated, and some will be too far away from ethanol plants to be worth the energy expenditure for transportation. On the other hand, some right-of-ways are substantially wider than 1.5m.

Regular mowing of such areas would enhance biodiveristy, suppress some nasty plants such as Johnson grass, and would not require diversion of feedstocks from the food supply.

Of course, this is not a complete solution. It is unlikely that there will be a simple, single solution. But we need to change our mindset away from the high-tech crop-based mentality, and focus on the 'freebies' when we can get them.

_____________________________________________________________

Forman, R. T. T. 2000. Estimate of the Area Affected Ecologically by the Road System in the United States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35.

My family and I have just returned from the White Carpathians in Moravia. The hay meadows there have been under traditional management for more than 500 years, and they have ultra-high diversity (25 species of orchids alone). The story is typical for much of Europe: for most of the past millennium, the need for hay to power transportation and agricultural work allowed such traditional management to flourish – but over the past century, the use of petroleum has resulted in a gradual loss of grasslands through abandonment. (the patterns of abandonment under communist and capitalist systems differed tremendously in detail, but the result is the same). Nowadays, mowing is continued primarily as a nature management tool. It is continually a challenge to ‘make it pay’. In the Moravian parks, they are able to sell it at a nominal price for hay for horses. Other grassland preserves in Europe just pile the hay and let it rot.

Meanwhile, the Bohemian and Moravian landscapes (as with much of Europe) have spectacular acreages of rapeseed crop (in full boom right now). Biodiesel is the main reason behind increasing acreages in recent years (see the very informative Wikipedia entry under rapeseed). So it is possible for HILD to be aesthetically pleasing. But these fields are biological deserts, and are decreasing the area of cultivation for food.

The crop-based mentality of biofuels does not yet seem to be welcoming to grassland hay. But there do not seem to be overwheling obstacles to the use of grassland hay - just a change of mindset.

The LIHD/HILD debate seems to be a global one. So far, the ideas we have discussed seem to resonate with most scientists I have talked with, regardless of their home country.