The Wildfuels Alternative

Yet another case where listening to ecologists earlier on would have helped demystify (and diminish) environmental impacts of agrofuels:

Grassley: Land issue didn’t seem ‘big deal’

Alpha Galileo reports that increasing European biofuels targets will harm biodiversity:

Is Biofuel Policy Harming European Biodiversity?

Bibliographic information:

Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? by Jeannette Eggers, Katja Tröltzsch, Alessandra Falcucci, Luigi Maiorano, Peter H. Verburg, Erik Framstad, Gerald Louette, Dirk Maes, Szabolcs Nagy, Wim Ozinga and Ben Delbaere. GCB Bioenergy 1, 2009, pp. 18-34, doi 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01002.x

The Scientific Committee has released its report on the environmental consequences of biofuels:

Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use
Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009

This is a timely, careful, and thoroughly scholarly work on the actual and potential consequences of agrofuel expansion. It deserves to serve as a standard reference, and must not be ignored by policy makers considering incentives for the ethanol industry.

The Scientific Committee has released its report on the environmental consequences of biofuels:

Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use
Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, editors. 2009

This is a timely, careful, and thoroughly scholarly work on the actual and potential consequences of agrofuel expansion. It deserves to serve as a standard reference, and must not be ignored by policy makers considering incentives for the ethanol industry.

Despite all of the interest in cellulosic biofuels, biomethane seems to be sorely neglected. A new study from Ireland stresses the benefits of using biomethane from established stands of grass:

Murphy, J. D. and N. M. Power (2009). "An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland." Biomass & Bioenergy 33(3): 504-512.

The Biofuels Directive proposes 5.75% of transport fuel (by energy) to be replaced by biofuel in the year 2010. This equates to 11.3 PJ in Ireland, which equates to 538 million litres of ethanol or 323 million litres of biodiesel. However, if using biodiesel produced through bioesterification of rapeseed oil, then 6.3% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Furthermore this equates to 70% of arable land. Using ethanol produced from wheat, 3.9% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Ethanol produces less energy from a crop, than the energy in the biogas generated when the crop is digested. The ethanol production process uses up to 60% of the produced energy in the final ethanol product. It is shown for compressed biomethane generated from silage that the total parasitic demand of the process is of the order of 25%. Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland. The 2010 biofuels target can be met with 1.6% of agricultural land; this is four times less land than required using rapeseed. A conservative economic analysis would suggest a lower cost than ethanol produced from wheat. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

With very few changes in words, the following passage can hold for much of North America. Just replace "Irish" with "American", and change the numbers accordingly.

" Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland."

A new paper in Conservation Biology stresses the climatic and biodiversity consequences of biofuels expansion:

Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N. D. Burgess, F. Parish, C. A. Bruhl, P. F. Donald, D. Murdiyarso, B. Phalan, L. Reijnders, M. Struebig and E. B. Fitzherbert (2009). "Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate." Conservation Biology 23(2): 348-358.

The growing demand for biofuels is promoting the expansion of a number of agricultural commodities, including oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Oil-palm plantations cover over 13 million ha, primarily in Southeast Asia, where they have directly or indirectly replaced tropical rainforest. We explored the impact of the spread of oil-palm plantations on greenhouse gas emission and biodiversity. We assessed changes in carbon stocks with changing land use and compared this with the amount of fossil-fuel carbon emission avoided through its replacement by biofuel carbon. We estimated it would take between 75 and 93 years for the carbon emissions saved through use of biofuel to compensate for the carbon lost through forest conversion, depending on how the forest was cleared. If the original habitat was peatland, carbon balance would take more than 600 years. Conversely, planting oil palms on degraded grassland would lead to a net removal of carbon within 10 years. These estimates have associated uncertainty, but their magnitude and relative proportions seem credible. We carried out a meta-analysis of published faunal studies that compared forest with oil palm. We found that plantations supported species-poor communities containing few forest species. Because no published data on flora were available, we present results from our sampling of plants in oil palm and forest plots in Indonesia. Although the species richness of pteridophytes was higher in plantations, they held few forest species. Trees, lianas, epiphytic orchids, and indigenous palms were wholly absent from oil-palm plantations. The majority of individual plants and animals in oil-palm plantations belonged to a small number of generalist species of low conservation concern. As countries strive to meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions under one international agreement (Kyoto Protocol), they may not only fail to meet their obligations under another (Convention on Biological Diversity) but may actually hasten global climate change. Reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production, and it may help nations meet their international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss.

Here is a sobering report on the potential adverse effects of biofuels on the biosphere:

Unintended Environmental Consequences of a Global Biofuels Program

Jerry M. Melillo, Angelo C. Gurgel, David W. Kicklighter, John M. Reilly, Timothy W. Cronin, Benjamin S. Felzer, Sergey Paltsev, C. Adam Schlosser, Andrei P. Sokolov, and X. Wang

AFP and other news distributors are reporting on a recent study by Holly Gibbs of Stanford:

Biofuels may speed up, not slow global warming: study

The main concern is the clearing of tropical forests for agrofuels.

In one of his first moves, US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has announced new funding for biofuels research:

USDA, DOE Announce Up to $25 Million in Funding for Biomass Research and Development Initiative

For the most part, this is a continuation of business as usual. There is more megafunding for crop development and conversion technologies.

To quote from the announcement

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) covers three technical areas: biomass feedstocks development; cellulosic biofuels and biobased products; and biofuels development analysis, including strategic guidance, analyses of the energy and environmental impact of biofuels production, and an assessment of the potential for biomass feedstock production on federal lands.

There is a promising hint that ecological effects will be considered (though low on the list). However, I think the general public is not aware that our public lands are being considered for biofuels feedstocks.

There is an interesting irony here: an administration that criticizes oil leases on public land is seriously considering the possibility of plowing up the same public lands for agriculture.

I have heard a sentiment that environmental concerns over biofuels are a first-world, academic luxury. However, even a casual read of the global literature proves this perception to be false. A case in point is a recent commentary by Imelda Maidir from Indonesia:

Rethinking biofuel policies

A quote from the commentary:

Environmental concerns may be a valid reason for tax exemption, but whether the environmental effects would be positive is highly questionable, especially as the transition toward fast-growing sources has not been taken into considerations.

The conversion of natural ecosystems for the production of biofuel is not limited to the establishment of new feedstock farms and plantations. Rising global demand for biofuel production would send a strong market signal to increase production, leading to the clamorous clearing of land for non-feedstock commodities.

Displacement of existing agricultural production, as a result of biofuel demand is accelerating land-use change and, if left unchecked, will reduce biodiversity and may even cause increased GHG emissions.

Here is a new paper demonstrating the beneficial effects of diverse grasslands for pollinators. It leads support to the idea that diverse grasslands employed for biofuels would support multiple ecosystem services.

Ebeling, A., A. M. Klein, J. Schumacher, W. W. Weisser and T. Tscharntke (2008). "How does plant richness affect pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower visits?" Oikos 117(12): 1808-1815.
Pollinators play a key role in the reproduction of most plant species, and pollinator and plant diversity are often related. We studied an experimental gradient of plant species richness for a better understanding of plant-pollinator community interactions and their temporal variability, because in non-experimental field surveys plant richness is often confounded with gradients in management, soil fertility, and community composition. We observed pollinator species richness and frequency of visits six times in 73 plots over two years, and used advanced statistical analysis to account for the high number of zeroes that often occur in count data of rare species. The frequency of pollinator visits increased linearly with both the blossom cover and the number of flowering plant species, which was closely related to the total number of plant species, whereas the number of pollinator species followed a saturation curve. The presence of particularly attractive plant species was only important for the frequency of flower visits, but not to the richness of pollinators. Plant species richness, blossom cover, and the presence of attractive plant species enhanced the temporal stability in the frequency of pollinator visits. In conclusion, grasslands with high plant diversity enhance and stabilize frequent and diverse flower visitations, which should sustain effective pollination and plant reproduction.

The media have already described a new paper in PNAS that demonstrates yet another unintended consequence of corn biofuel production:

Landis, D. A., M. M. Gardiner, W. van der Werf and S. M. Swinton (2008). "Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(51): 20552-20557.
Increased demand for corn grain as an ethanol feedstock is altering U.S. agricultural landscapes and the ecosystem services they provide. From 2006 to 2007, corn acreage increased 19% nationally, resulting in reduced crop diversity in many areas. Biological control of insects is an ecosystem service that is strongly influenced by local landscape structure. Here, we estimate the value of natural biological control of the soybean aphid, a major pest in agricultural landscapes, and the economic impacts of reduced biocontrol caused by increased corn production in 4 U.S. states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). For producers who use an integrated pest management strategy including insecticides as needed, natural suppression of soybean aphid in soybean is worth an average of $33 ha. At 2007-2008 prices these services are worth at least $239 million y in these 4 states. Recent biofuel-driven growth in corn planting results in lower landscape diversity, altering the supply of aphid natural enemies to soybean fields and reducing biocontrol services by 24%. This loss of biocontrol services cost soybean producers in these states an estimated $58 million y in reduced yield and increased pesticide use. For producers who rely solely on biological control, the value of lost services is much greater. These findings from a single pest in 1 crop suggest that the value of biocontrol services to the U.S. economy may be underestimated. Furthermore, we suggest that development of cellulosic ethanol production processes that use a variety of feedstocks could foster increased diversity in agricultural landscapes and enhance arthropod-mediated ecosystem services.

The article gives some support to the idea of using diverse wildfuels as part of the solution:

"Mixed prairie communities could be used as a low-input high-diversity biofuel crop (28), contributing to flowering plant diversity and supporting a variety of pollinator and natural enemy arthropods (32). The vital services these arthropods provide to other crops may make such multispecies biofuel crops especially beneficial components of agricultural landscapes."

(note: reference #28 is the famous Tilman et al. 2006 paper in Science, and reference #32 is now in press, and is by some of the same authors as the current paper).

---Mike Palmer

Dan Simberloff has a perceptive piece in Weed Science on the concerns of invasion biologists:

Simberloff, D. (2008). "Invasion Biologists and the Biofuels Boom: Cassandras or Colleagues?" Weed Science 56(6): 867-872.

Modern invasion biology, is a new science, with the holy grail OF being able to predict the trajectory of particular invasions. Although this goal has yet to be achieved, there has been much progress through experimental research and meticulous Study of the scope and mechanisms of existing invasions. Several well-established patterns are relevant to potential biofuel feedstocks: (1) ca. half of all damaging plant invaders were deliberated introduced, not accidental hitchhikers or escapees; (2) some native plants have become invasive; coevolution with native community members was nor proof against unexpected damage; (3) many introduced plants were innocuous for decades or even centuries in their new locations before suddenly exploding across the landscape; lack Of Current observed impact does not guarantee safety; and (4) control or even eradication of widespread invaders is sometimes possible, but it is fit from certain and it is often very expensive. We cannot Count On effectively, managing an introduction gone awry. Because much invasion biology is targeted at developing 0 methods of preventing anthropogenic movement or establishment of species, invasion biologists have occasionally been assailed as obstructionists by various interests who fear their livelihoods will be impeded: the seed and horticulture trades, foresters, the pet industry, fish and game biologists, etc. A Fringe group of philosophers, sociologists, Landscape architects, and others have even taken to calling invasion biology a thinly veiled form of xenophobia. Some biofuels advocates have joined this litany, accusing invasion biologists of playing oil the emotions of all uneducated public by, raising fears of a new kudzu. Invasion biologists need not be cast in this role. In collaboration with agronomists, geneticists, physiologists, and other scientists, they have much to offer in understanding the risks posed by particular feedstocks and developing approaches that would minimize these risks and mitigate unforeseen consequences.

I agree with this view, but I strongly suspect that invasion biologists will not be invited to the table.

I also worry a bit that too much focus is being placed on the invasive potential of biofuels crops. This is indeed a serious concern. But from my perspective, it is orders of magnitude less of a concern than the conversion of wildlands (i.e. the 'marginal agricultural lands') to biofuels crops, and the ensuing emission of greenhouse gasses and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

---Mike Palmer

Here is a review on environmental impacts in the UK. The operational phrase that reverberates the most with the main message of this blog is "Compared to replacement of set-aside and permanent unimproved grassland, benefits are less apparent." I read "less apparent" as "possibly nonexistent". --Mike Palmer

Rowe, R. L., N. R. Street and G. Taylor (2009). "Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(1): 260-279.

There is momentum, globally, to increase the use of plant biomass for the production of heat, power and liquid transport fuels. This review assesses the evidence base for potential impacts of large-scale bioenergy crop deployment principally within the UK context, but with wider implications for Europe, the USA and elsewhere. We focus on second generation, dedicated lignocellulosic crops, but where appropriate draw comparison with current first-generation oil and starch crops, often primarily grown for food. For lignocellulosic crops, positive effects on soil properties, biodiversity, energy balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, carbon footprint and visual impact are likely, when growth is compared to arable crops. Compared to replacement of set-aside and permanent unimproved grassland, benefits are less apparent. For hydrology, strict guidelines on catchment management must be enforced to ensure detrimental effects do not occur to hydrological resources. The threat of climate change suggests that action will be required to ensure new genotypes are available with high water use efficiency and that catchment-scale management is in place to secure these resources in future. In general, for environmental impacts, less is known about the consequences of large-scale deployment of the C4 grass Miscanthus, compared to short rotation coppice (SRC) willow and poplar, including effects on biodiversity and hydrology and this requires further research. Detailed consideration of GHG mitigation and energy balance for both crop growth and utilization suggest that perennial crops are favoured over annual crops, where energy balances may be poor. Similarly, crops for heat and power generation, especially combined heat and power (CHP), are favoured over the production of liquid biofuels. However, it is recognized that in contrast to heat and power, few alternatives exist for liquid transportation fuels at present and research to improve the efficiency and energy balance of liquid transport fuel production from lignocellulosic sources is a high current priority. Although SRC, and to a lesser extent energy grasses such as Miscanthus, may offer significant benefits for the environment, this potential will only be realized if landscape-scale issues are effectively managed and the whole chain of crop growth and utilization is placed within a regulatory framework where sustainability is a central driver. Land resource in the UK and throughout Europe will limit the contribution that crops can make to biofuel and other renewable targets, providing a strong driver to consider sustainability in a global context. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The finding that plant diversity supporting soil carbon storage is not unique to Minnesota, and benefits of Low Input High Diversity (LIHD) systems may prove to be near universal in grasslands:

Steinbeiss, S., H. Bessler, C. Engels, V. M. Temperton, N. Buchmann, C. Roscher, Y. Kreutziger, J. Baade, M. Habekost and G. Gleixner (2008). "Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil carbon storage in experimental grasslands." Global Change Biology 14(12): 2937-2949.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and related climate change have stimulated much interest in the potential of soils to sequester carbon. In 'The Jena Experiment', a managed grassland experiment on a former agricultural field, we investigated the link between plant diversity and soil carbon storage. The biodiversity gradient ranged from one to 60 species belonging to four functional groups. Stratified soil samples were taken to 30 cm depth from 86 plots in 2002, 2004 and 2006, and organic carbon contents were determined. Soil organic carbon stocks in 0-30 cm decreased from 7.3 kg C m(-2) in 2002 to 6.9 kg C m(-2) in 2004, but had recovered to 7.8 kg C m(-2) by 2006. During the first 2 years, carbon storage was limited to the top 5 cm of soil while below 10 cm depth, carbon was lost probably as short-term effect of the land use change. After 4 years, carbon stocks significantly increased within the top 20 cm. More importantly, carbon storage significantly increased with sown species richness (log-transformed) in all depth segments and even carbon losses were significantly smaller with higher species richness. Although increasing species diversity increased root biomass production, statistical analyses revealed that species diversity per se was more important than biomass production for changes in soil carbon. Below 20 cm depth, the presence of one functional group, tall herbs, significantly reduced carbon losses in the beginning of the experiment. Our analysis indicates that plant species richness and certain plant functional traits accelerate the build-up of new carbon pools within 4 years. Additionally, higher plant diversity mitigated soil carbon losses in deeper horizons. This suggests that higher biodiversity might lead to higher soil carbon sequestration in the long-term and therefore the conservation of biodiversity might play a role in greenhouse gas mitigation.

These findings are important enough to warrant more broad-scale funding of LIHD research and demonstration projects. Instead of having biofuels crops replace natural grasslands, we should at least consider keeping diverse grasslands intact for the purpose of biofuels production AND conservation AND carbon sequestration.

---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

A news item in Reuters alerts to the climatic (and conservation) dangers of clearing forests for biofuels plantations:

Clearing forests for biofuel hurts climate - study

I hope to read the study in detail when it comes out in Conservation Biology. However, I do have a concern with all of the focus on clearing of forests. In North America (and perhaps in other places) grasslands are at great risk. I have written elsewhere about the sodbusting that is already occurring due to biofuels, as well as the accelerating loss of CRP lands. Sodbusting is the grassland equivalent of clearcutting old-growth forests. Its effects on the climate are potentially severe: turning of the soil leads to enhanced nitrous oxide emissions, enhanced soil respiration, and under certain circumstances methanogenesis. All of these mean more greenhouse gas emissions. We are just beginning to understand the biodiversity of the grassland rhizosphere, and it seems that it does not recover after plowing. Indeed, the damage is likely to be permanent.

Grasslands are also being ignored in the food vs. fuel debate. The ethanol industry spokespeople (and researchers on cellulosic feedstocks) are continually saying there is no conflict between food and fuel, because we can always plant cellulosic fuels on 'marginal agricultural land' or 'waste land'. Do not be misled by these terms. An agronomist may view certain lands as marginal or waste, but these may be the very same lands that have high value for conservation and biodiversity. Many will have substantial soil carbon stores that will be lost (i.e. by conversion to greenhouse gasses) upon cultivation.

We definitely need to study the effects of biofuels development on the world's forests, as well as the conflict between food and fuel. I look forward to continuing literature on these subjects. But let us not forget the grasslands

Finally, there seems to be some attention being paid by DOE to the environmental consequences of biofuels. The new Biofuels Action Plan includes plans for research on sustainability and environmental effects (other priority areas include Feedstock Logistics, Conversion Science and Technology, Distribution Infrastructure, and Blending).

• Sustainability: A working group led by USDA, DOE, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is defining science-based national criteria, which will be established by November 2008, and indicators to assess the sustainability of biofuels production coordinated with ongoing international activities.
• Environment, Health and Safety: An EPA-led working group is inventorying federal activities and areas of jurisdiction with respect to public health, safety, and environmental protection.

Of course, development of indicators and inventorying harm caused by biofuels does not necessarily mean that the runaway train of biofuels will be easily switched to a sustainable track. But at least we will be more likely to know the harm we are doing as we are doing it.

The fact sheet can be found here:

Fact Sheet: National Biofuels Action Plan

I have previously posted about the ESA workshop on biofuels. It has now yielded its first fruit, in the form of a policy paper in Science.

Some press releases:

Experts agree: Environmental standards needed for biofuels

Oklahoma researchers support biodiversity in biofuels production

Mandate For Biofuels Production Requires Science-Based Policy

The article is here, though you might need a subscription to read it:

Sustainable Biofuels Redux

It is truly amazing that 23 scientists can agree on anything. This document (expertly crafted by lead author Phil Robertson) emphasizes that we are ignoring some of the most important issues with respect to the sustainability of biofuels.

---Mike

The International Herald Tribune reports on an address by the recent recipient of the Stockholm Water Prize:

A British professor, John Anthony Allan, said the effect of the growing use of biofuels "is too frightening to even begin to realize."

Groom, M. J., E. M. Gray and P. A. Townsend (2008). "Biofuels and biodiversity: Principles for creating better policies for biofuel production." Conservation Biology 22(3): 602-609.
Biofuels are a newpriority in efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels; nevertheless, the rapid increase in production of biofuel feedstock may threaten biodiversity. There are general principles that should be used in developing guidelines for certifying biodiversity friendly biofuels. First, biofuel feedstocks should be grown with environmentally safe and biodiversity friendly agricultural practices. The sustainability of any biofuel feedstock depends on good growing practices and sound environmental practices throughout the fuel-production life cycle. Second, the ecological footprint of a biofuel, in terms of the land area needed to grow sufficient quantities of the feedstock, should be minimized. The best alternatives appear to be fuels of the future, especially fuels derived from microalgae. Third, biofuels that can sequester carbon or that have a negative or zero carbon balance when viewed over the entire production life cycle should be given high priority. Corn-based ethanol is the worst among the alternatives that are available at present, although this is the biofuel that is most advanced for commercial production in the United States. We urge aggressive pursuit of alternatives to corn as a biofuel feedstock. Conservation biologists can significantly broaden and deepen efforts to develop sustainable fuels by playing active roles in pursuing research on biodiversity friendly biofuel production practices and by helping define biodiversity-friendly biofuel certification standards.

A breath of fresh air: Saint Lawrence University is seeking campus-wide input into plans for biofuels development.

Biomass Panel Discussion

The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) has just released a Briefing document on potentially invasive biofuels crops:

GISP briefing documents

BBC has a short article on the GISP's concerns about biofuels:

Fuel crops 'pose invasion risk'
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
Nations should avoid planting biofuel crops that have a high risk of becoming invasive species, a report warns.

There are no details yet, but the San Francisco Business Times reports that some (though fewer than half) of the recently-announced research grants from the BP-supported Energy BioSciences Institute will cover the "social, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels production". Whether or not this is a case of greenwashing remains to be seen.

Energy Biosciences Institute makes first 49 biofuel grants

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has issued a fact sheet indicating its policy on sustainability for biofuels:

Sustainable biomass land reserves for a sustainable future

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

The International Association for Vegetation Science, the leading scientific organization for scholars of the ecology of plant communities, has recently released a resolution on biofuels - largely supporting the idea for research into alternatives to HILD:

International Association for Vegetation Science
Resolution on Biofuels

Whereas:

• Over the past few years, concern about global climate change and energy security has dramatically increased interest in biomass-derived energy,
• Almost all attention on biomass-derived energy has been focused on High-Input, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems, which have questionable sustainability and are susceptible to disease and crop failure,
• Low-Input, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems have not been explored as a source of biomass for energy, despite their possible advantages for global carbon balance,
• In some regions, LIHD systems have potential additional value for sustainability, plant and animal biodiversity, nature conservation, honey production, aesthetics, erosion control, and other benefits,
• Vegetation scientists have particular expertise on the productivity and sustainability of vegetation- derived biomass, and are thus especially qualified for addressing fundamental issues associated with biofuel production,
• Expenditures for Scientific Research on biofuels have expanded dramatically, but not for vegetation science,
• Increased production of HILD crops is threatening natural vegetation worldwide, and much of this vegetation is of high conservation value or provides valuable ecosystem services,

Therefore be it resolved that:

• We, the International Association for Vegetation Science, call upon scientific funding agencies to increase funding for basic and applied vegetation science,
• We call upon industry, government, and other institutions to avoid a strictly crop‐based approach, and to consider LIHD production where appropriate,
• We call upon our own membership to remain mindful and vigilant that many of the natural communities we value and study may come under threat from strong pressure for HILD developments,
• We call upon our own membership to consider how its expertise can be used and mobilized to contribute to a global research program, in which alternatives to HILD are explored,
• And we call upon our own membership to communicate a balanced view of biomass-based fuels with stakeholders, including threats and opportunities associated with leading opportunities.

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).

Perhaps King is Corn, but Queen Soy is also flexing her muscles:

U biofuels study has farmers upset
Two soybean growers' groups decided to suspend grants to the U to protest research that found growing biofuels could actually worsen global warming.

See also:

Biofuels study upsets farmers
Results showed that some biofuels added to global warming, and did not benefit the environment.

Does it make feedstock production more sustainable if you stifle research on biofuels sustainability?

There is so much that is good about the system of Land-Grant Universities in the US. However, the system is so beholden to the growers' groups, who understandably are concerned when their crops are criticized. Ideally, it is experts in the Land-Grant Universities who should lead the way with respect to sustainability research. But who will support such research? It is not coming from the feds, nor the states (at least not in a big way). Conservation groups do not have the necessary financial clout. The universities themselves do have some discretionary budget, but (I know from experience at OSU) there is little interest in a topic that could threaten to slow acceleration of the biofuels industry (which means much to the State's economy in the short term, but could be disastrous in the long term).

The major funding will likely come after the ecological damage occurs.

Can someone help rescue me from this pessimism?

--Mike

In the short time this blog has existed, the role of ecologists has evolved with respect to this issue. The tone of many of the earlier postings is that ecologists have not been involved, and the world (in particular, policy makers, big agriculture, and industry) is not listening to the ecologists.

It may be too early to conclude that things have changed. But the two recent articles in Science are raising quite a stir. Virtually all of the major newspapers have had editorials on the subject. Biofuels Digest continually runs stories on reactions. The wording of today's top story there is telling: the articles are described as 'shocking'. If the industry actually listened to ecologists early on, there would have been nothing shocking in the reports. There was a lot of basic science pointing in the same direction.

I still call on ecologists to be more visible in this debate. The science needs to be placed first and foremost. Biofuels may play a strong beneficial role in our future, but only if basic scientific principles are not considered 'pushback issues'.

--Mike

Biofuels digest continues to report on the kneejerk reaction to the Science articles:

Science magazine aftermath: respondents say new models forgot yield growth and distillers grains

The feedstock industry has depended on predicted "Yield growth". Indeed, yield growth to date is truly impressive, and a key part of the (in)famous Borlaug Hypothesis.

But future yield growth is a prediction, and (obviously) not an observation. There may be genetic ceilings. But more to the point, yield growth comes at a cost. Any biologist knows that; tradeoffs are an intrinsic part of the living organism. Faster growing plants are likely to require more nitrogen, more insecticides, more herbicides, more water, etc. Or they may lodge more easily. In any case, 'more yield' will mean 'more inputs'. This does not substantially affect the conclusions of the two Science Papers.

---Mike

The two provocative articles in Science deal almost entirely with the carbon cycle. But perhaps the most important Greenhouse Gas related to land clearing and agricultural inputs is ignored: N20. The authors are not at fault for failing to deal with it in depth; the regulatory focus is all on carbon, and there is hardly any good data on N2O (we do know that the warming potential of N2O is almost 300 times that of CO2). However, there is reason to suspect that even if we balance the carbon budget with respect to biofuels, the industry will still have a network effect. N2O deserves, at the very least, a prominent footnote.

[note added Feb 20: I stand corrected. N2O is indirectly considered in the Fargione et al. paper, in one of the appendices. Thanks to an anonymous colleague for pointing this out.]

The articles:

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science:1152747.

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change. Science:1151861.

There has been a surprising amount of coverage of two new articles in Science Magazine in the international press. Here are the citations of the two articles with abstracts:

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky and P. Hawthorne (2008). "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt." Science: 1152747.
Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes and T.-H. Yu (2008). "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change." Science: 1151861.
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

Not surprisingly, the ethanol lobby has reacted negatively to these scientific developments:

93 percent increase in greenhouse gases? Renewable Fuel Association says fossil fuels created the “carbon debt we can never repay”

Biofuel industries call studies "naive"

The second of these links is particularly interesting in that it quotes a well-known plant physiologist extensively. The biofuels industry has been naive because it has relied only on the advice of a very small branch of biology. Now that the rest of the biological community is putting forth its expertise (without the benefit of biofuels-related funding) it is labelled as naive. There were many missed opportunities to listen to ecologists and to support their work - and it is possible that the involvement of ecologists might have lead to the design of more climate-friendly systems. Let scientific peers decide whether the new work is naive.

--Mike

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!

The ESA has reissued its announcement of an upcoming conference. I plan on being there. It should be quite interesting, and I hope, influential.

The registration deadline for the Conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels is February 21. Visit http://esa.org/biofuels to sign up early. Space is limited to the first 500 registrants and is already 25% full!

Conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels
Ronald Reagan! Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.
March 10, 2008

On March 10, 2008, The Ecological Society of America will host a one-day conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels. 500 attendees will have the opportunity to hear invited presentations by leading scientists on:
- sustainable development and use of biofuels;
- social, biogeographic, land use, and biodiversity considerations; and,
- ecological dimensions of alternatives for crop selection and production, harvest and transport of product to refinery, and refining of liquid fuels and other co-products.

A keynote address will be delivered by Dr. Jose Goldemberg, Co-President of the Global Energy Assessment (GEA) Council and Professor at the Universidade de Sao Paulo. Goldemberg recently served as Secretary for the Environment of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and was a lead author of the World Energy Assessment.

The conference will conclude with an evening social featuring additional poster presentations and opportunities for attendees to network with presenters and others working in this important field.

Full details, including an agenda, confirmed speakers, registration information, and sponsorship opportunities, are available at http://www.esa.org/biofuels.

I post here, with permission, the entire text of the sustainable biofuels resolution of the Ecological Society of America.

Policy Statements » Statements: Biofuel Sustainability
Much attention is currently focused on the use of biofuels as an alternative energy source, both to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil supplies, and as a means of addressing one facet of global climate change. Supplying the emerging biofuels industry with enough biomass to meet the U.S. biofuel energy target – replacing 30 percent of the current U.S. petroleum consumption with biofuels by 2030 – will have a major impact on the management and sustainability of many U.S. ecosystems. Biofuels have great potential, but the ecological impacts of their development and use must be examined and addressed if they are to become a sustainable energy source.

The sustainability of alternative biofuel production systems must be assessed now, in order to maximize the potential for developing truly sustainable scenarios – that is, profitable systems that can provide adequate biomass with the least amount of environmental damage.

Biomass extraction and the byproducts of biofuel manufacturing will directly affect ecosystems in many ways. Much of the biomass needed for biofuel production will be supplied by croplands. Marginal croplands will be farmed more intensively and previously unfarmed areas will be brought into production. As this happens, the U.S. landscape will change. Current technologies emphasize use of annual and perennial grains. However, crop “leftovers,” such as corn husks and wheat straw, and fiber from perennial crops such as switch grass are likely to contribute as well. The exact mix will depend on a number of factors including emerging technologies, market prices, and policy incentives. That mix will have a major impact on both the long-term sustainability of the biofuel enterprise and on the underlying health of U.S. ecosystems.

The current focus on ethanol from corn illustrates the risks of exploiting a single source of biomass for biofuel production. A growing percentage of the U.S. corn harvest – 18 percent in 2006 – is directed towards grain ethanol production. This has not only resulted in record-high corn prices, it has produced strong incentives for continuously-grown corn, higher-than-optimal use of nitrogen fertilizers, the early return of land in conservation programs to production, and the conversion of marginal lands to high-intensity cropping. All of these changes exacerbate well-known environmental problems associated with intensive agriculture:

Continuously-grown corn is more susceptible to insect damage and allows weeds to become more persistent, requiring more insecticides and herbicides.
Nitrogen fertilizer is the principal contributor to nitrogen pollution of groundwater, surface waters, and coastal zones, and a major source of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.
Placing previously fallow land enrolled in conservation programs back into production reduces wildlife diversity, requires irrigation, and releases carbon dioxide.
Converting marginal lands to agriculture or farming them more intensively creates new sources of agricultural pollution and, in many cases, disproportionately increases nutrient loss and soil erosion; many of these lands are marginal to begin with because they are on sloping, sandy, or wet soils particularly susceptible to soil and nutrient loss.
We must assess the tradeoffs of these impacts with the benefits associated with biofuel development. Current grain-based ethanol production systems damage soil and water resources in the U.S. and are only profitable in the context of tax breaks and tariffs. Future systems based on a combination of cellulosic materials and grain could be equally degrading to the environment, with potentially little carbon savings, unless steps are taken now to ensure that three specific principles of ecological sustainability are incorporated into their design.

1. SYSTEMS THINKING. A systems approach is crucial to assess the energy yield, carbon neutrality, and the full impact of biofuel production on downstream and downwind ecosystems. It should take into account all of the flows, controls, and storage of materials and energy. A positive energy yield means that more energy is produced than is consumed by its extraction and transport. Carbon neutrality means that any fossil fuel carbon used in the production of biofuels is offset by carbon sequestration elsewhere in the system (and the system is the entire globe in this case). A systems approach must consider the effects on interconnected ecosystem processes such as nitrogen emissions from land to air, nitrate and phosphorus export, soil erosion, and other important impacts of agriculture on surrounding landscapes, including pests, nonnative species, and effects on wildlife or protected species. Consistent monitoring of the energy yield, carbon neutrality, and impact on interconnected ecosystems is critical to ensuring the sustainability of biofuel production.

2. CONSERVATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. A focus on ecosystem services will provide the foundation necessary for win-win scenarios. It is easy to design systems for maximum crop yields; over a century of agronomic research has shown that this can be done very successfully. Managing for other ecosystem services also provided by agricultural landscapes is less common but equally necessary. Lower yields from an unfertilized native prairie, for example, may be acceptable in light of the other benefits provided by native plants in an agricultural landscape. These include:

A complete and closed cycling of nutrients;
Minimized flooding and increased groundwater recharge;
Enhanced carbon sequestration in the soil because tilling would be unnecessary;
Fewer pests because habitat for insects and birds that prey on them is left intact;
Genetic diversity;
Reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff because no fertilizer is needed;
Reduced soil erosion due to continuous soil cover;
Reduced nitrous oxide production; and
Pollinator habitat and resources.
These benefits, in turn, would help ensure ecosystem services such as better water and air quality, crop pollination, flood mitigation, runoff reduction, and food and fiber production.

3. SCALE ALIGNMENT. Explicit consideration of scale in policy and management is necessary to achieve sustainability goals. Fields are managed at the level of individual farms, but sustainability must also be assessed at landscape, regional, and global scales. What is sustainable at one scale may be unsustainable at another. Policies must provide incentives for managing land sustainably and encourage the development of alternate technologies to create biofuel from various biomass sources. If used, incentives should be applied to the biomass content rather than the biofuel product in order to spur the development of a diverse portfolio of alternative energy sources.

Finally, biofuel production must also attend to economic impact, particularly on communities least likely to be able to afford higher food prices resulting from demand-driven increases in crop prices.

Taken together, these three principles – systems thinking, conservation of ecosystem services, and scale alignment – can create a sustainable biofuels infrastructure that will serve U.S. citizens, the economy, and the environment.

Adopted by the ESA Governing Board, January 2008.

The Ecological Society of America is the country's primary professional organization of ecologists, representing 10,000 scientists in the United States and around the world. Since its founding in 1915, ESA has pursued the promotion of the responsible application of ecological principles to the solution of environmental problems through ESA reports, journals, research, and expert testimony to Congress. For more information about the Society and its activities, visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org.

At long last, and much overdue, the Ecological Society of America as issued a position statement on the sustainability of biofuels:

Policy Statements » Statements: Biofuel Sustainability

Overall, the statement is quite strong. Indeed, one section seems to deal primarily with LIHD systems:

2. CONSERVATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. A focus on ecosystem services will provide the foundation necessary for win-win scenarios. It is easy to design systems for maximum crop yields; over a century of agronomic research has shown that this can be done very successfully. Managing for other ecosystem services also provided by agricultural landscapes is less common but equally necessary. Lower yields from an unfertilized native prairie, for example, may be acceptable in light of the other benefits provided by native plants in an agricultural landscape. These include:

* A complete and closed cycling of nutrients;
* Minimized flooding and increased groundwater recharge;
* Enhanced carbon sequestration in the soil because tilling would be unnecessary;
* Fewer pests because habitat for insects and birds that prey on them is left intact;
* Genetic diversity;
* Reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff because no fertilizer is needed;
* Reduced soil erosion due to continuous soil cover;
* Reduced nitrous oxide production; and
* Pollinator habitat and resources.

These benefits, in turn, would help ensure ecosystem services such as better water and air quality, crop pollination, flood mitigation, runoff reduction, and food and fiber production.

One minor quibble is that some would (and do) defend monocultures of 'improved' switchgrass as "native plants in an agricultural landscape", and yet switchgrass monocultures will not yield the benefits listed above. Nevertheless, I think ESA members, and supporters of LIHD, can be confident in standing behind the statement.

I hope this statement will be widely publicized, and will lead to sound policy.
Regrettably, it comes after much of the damage has been done - but let us hope that it will play some role in preventing future sodbusting, carbon imbalances, nitrous oxide releases, and offshore dead zones.

Congratulations to the ESA.

----Mike Palmer

A December 14 Conference at Cornell University appears to have been much more balanced than the typical biofuels conference (although I have been to a number of conferences and symposia on the subject, I missed this one).

Symposium looks at developing biofuel research

Although most conferences hype the value of biofuels for farmers, rural jobs, and plant geneticists, this conference actually seems to have addressed the concept of sustainability as well. Indeed, there was a promising statement attributed to Wolf Frommer of the Carnegie Institute of Science:

Fortunately, these concerns spread beyond academia, noted several researchers. Big businesses in the energy sector are "very much aware that if they don't have public opinion and media perception behind them ”¦ it's going to be extremely risky and very damaging for them," Rose said. "The industry is very much aware of sustainability, and I believe this is more than lip service."

While I have not yet heard this sentiment, it is encouraging to hear it expressed. If it does not become the pervasive attitude, biofuels will almost certainly lead to environmental degradation.

--Mike Palmer

A new study in Iowa aims to evaluate the viability of prairie LIHD systems. This is supported, in part, by the state of Iowa. This sort of research needs to be given the highest priority.

Tallgrass Prairie Center to study polyculture prairie hay for bio-electricity

Although the research is centered around generation of electricity (probably because corn is still king in Iowa) the development of sustainable production systems will clearly be relevant for cellulosic ethanol feedstocks.

--Mike Palmer

The Union of Concerned Scientists has offered carefully-considered commentary about the approval of genetically engineered roundup ready creeping bentgrass:

To USDA: Commercialization of GE Bentgrass
Comments from the Union of Concerned Scientists

The breeding of 'roundup ready' switchgrass is almost undoubtedly in an advanced development stage. Nearly all of the same concerns about bentgrass expressed by the UCS are also relevant for such switchgrass, with two main differences:

1) switchgrass occurs naturally throughout much of the US, so cross-breeding with wild plants is easier, and
2) bentgrass was developed for golf courses, which occupy a small portion of the US landscape. GE Switchgrass, on the other hand, is likely to be planted all over the US, if not the world.

I am not saying we should avoid genetic modification altogether. I do think the case of GE switchgrass is a very important special case, and it demands very strong scrutiny.

--Mike Palmer

Here is a job announcement for two postdoctoral positions on the sustainability of biofuels feedstock production (posted with permission). Note that native prairie grass systems are potentially considered! It is good to see this important work being planned, and I encourage bright young scientists who really want to make a difference to apply.

The new DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) has two openings for postdoctoral research on the environmental sustainability of fuel crop ecosystems, including annual grain, perennial grass, poplar, and native prairie systems. The positions begin as soon as January 2008 and are located at Michigan State University's W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (www.kbs.msu.edu), Michigan's largest agricultural experiment station and host of the NSF LTER site in row crop agriculture (www.kbs.msu.edu/lter). One position involves field measurement and evaluation of greenhouse gas exchanges. Practical knowledge of soil biogeochemistry and gas flux measurement methods is required, as is a PhD in soil microbiology, biogeochemistry, ecosystem ecology, or a related field. The other position focuses on soil water and nutrient fluxes, and requires a PhD and experience with field and lab measurements in hydrology or aquatic biogeochemistry. KBS is located in SW Michigan midway between Detroit and Chicago, about 60 miles from the MSU main campus in East Lansing. Applications should be submitted as a single pdf file and include a statement of interest, vitae, and names and contact information for 3 professional references. For further information contact Dr. Phil Robertson (gas exchange) or Dr. Steve Hamilton (hydrology/nutrients; see KBS web site for emails). Application review will begin December 12, 2007; apply to biofuel@kbs.msu.edu. More information about the GLBRC can be found at www.greatlakesbioenergy.org/.

The NAS report discussed previously on this blog, "Water Implications of Biofuel Production in the United States" is reposted in an easy-to-read format, along with commentary by Nate Hagens, in the following link from The Oil Drum:

The Implications of Biofuel Production for United States Water Supplies

There is an excellent and insightful Wall Street Journal article by Lauren Etter on the current problems with biofuels:

Ethanol Craze Cools. As Doubts Multiply, Claims for Environment,Energy Use Draw Fire

The article summarizes many of the reports and news items already discussed in this blog (though it does not mention LIHD). It graphically illustrates that the profitability of bio-ethanol is next to zero in the current market.

There is an interesting observation:

"Environmentalists complained about increased use of water and fertilizer to grow corn for ethanol, and said even ethanol from other plants such as switchgrass could be problematic because it could mean turning protected land to crop use"

I had not heard objections raised outside of academic circles concerning switchgrass, so it is good that the word is finally getting out to journalists on this point. This is a very serious land use (and global carbon) issue.

Another interesting quote from Bob Dinneen, the main lobbyist for the biofuels ethanol industry: "We're David in this fight". He might be right in one sense: They are David in the sense that they will eventually win. But the image of HILD-ethanol being the underdog in the current market cannot be taken seriously. They are calling the shots in DC, in the Universities, and in the industry. They are heavily subsidized, and the new farm bill and new energy bill are unlikely to change that. Even agronomists from corn-producing states are almost universal in stating that HILD bioethanol is a subsidy-driven and policy-driven industry; it would fail if the free market is left unchecked.

---Mike Palmer

When looking for ways to derive fuels from natural substances, the best approach may be to figure out how nature does it. A couple of billion years of evolution has resulted in many solutions to the problem.

Termite guts are an obvious place to look. You may have heard that termites themselves cannot digest cellulose, but they have a diverse gut biota(protozoans, yeasts, bacteria) that permits them to derive nutrition from wood.

A recent article in Science Daily describes an ambitious project to catalogue the biota associated with termite guts, with an eye towards finding efficient ways to extract biofuels from wood:

Termite Guts May Yield Novel Enzymes For Better Biofuel Production

It seems that much of 'bioprospecting' is geared towards finding the 'right' enzyme or compound to perform a function. I suspect this is not the right approach. The complexity of biological substances will necessitate a whole community of microorganisms to accomplish the degradation.

Termites tend to degrade only one source of biological material: wood (although there are termites that feed on other substances). For biofuels production, and more relevant for this list, for LIHD biofuels production, it may be more fruitful to look for places in nature where heterogeneous feedstocks are digested: in guts of generalist herbivores, or perhaps more simply, in compost piles.

Regardless of my particular recommendations, it seems to be clear that biofuels science is expanding to include not only chemistry and biochemistry, but microbiology, entomology, and phylogeny. Let us hope that when the science begins to incorporate ecology, it does not do so from scratch. There is at least a century of ecological research that has bearing on community structure and function. It would be a waste of effort to ignore this progress.

--Mike

One of the authors of the article cited in the preceding blog post is further quoted in the followign article:

Guebert -- Morrow Plots is hallowed ground for ag research

In the article, Richard Mulvaney says,

"It proves that our addiction to massive nitrogen injections is killing our most precious resource. ... I now view those giant anhydrous ammonia tanks injecting nitrogen all over as giant soil burners ... and the farmers driving them as unguided missiles."

And, as if an echo of Peter Donovan's comment on my last blog post,

"Equally striking is that their results are nothing new. Other studies the authors encountered in their research also showed that the over-application of nitrogen burned more soil-based carbon than it added."

And yet the "myth" continues -- even to the point that farmers now sell "carbon credits" to heavy carbon emitters as a way for the emitters to appear "green." Mulvaney views such schemes as akin to "fraud because the way we farm burns, not banks, carbon."

If there is hope, it is in the fact that some agronomists as well as (even fewer) ecologists, even in farm states, are willing to speak out.

--Mike

When I attended the Agronomy Society of America meetings in New Orleans earlier this month, there seemed to be a widespread assumption that increased nitrogen fertilization was necessary for biofuels production and enhanced sequestration of soil carbon. Now a new paper strongly challenges this view:

The Myth of Nitrogen Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration
S. A. Khan*, R. L. Mulvaney, T. R. Ellsworth and C. W. Boast
J Environ Qual 36:1821-1832 (2007)

This paper presents a careful analysis of the famous Morrow Plots under continuous corn production (established more than a century ago), and is a must read for anyone interested in the effects of nitrogen fertilization on the global carbon cycle (and hence the greenhouse effect). I quote from the conclusions:

A half century of synthetic N fertilization has played a crucial role in expanding worldwide grain production, but there has been a hidden cost to the soil resource: a net loss of native SOC and the residue C inputs. This cost has been exacerbated by the widespread use of yield-based systems for fertilizer N management, which are advocated for the sake of short-term economic gain rather than long-term sustainability. Fertilization beyond crop N requirements could be reduced substantially by a shift from yield- to soil-based N management, ideally implemented on a site-specific basis. This strategy may be of value for reversing the ongoing organic matter decline of arable soils, but several decades will likely be necessary before any such benefit can realistically be expected to emerge. In the meantime, caution is warranted in avoiding excessive N fertilization, and especially with the current trend toward the use of crop residues for bioenergy production.

This conclusion, along with concerns about nitrous oxide emissions (recall a single molecule of N2O has the warming potential of almost 300 molecules of CO2) AND the distinct possibility that 'peak nitrogen' will be roughly coincident with 'peak oil', should be a wake-up call for anyone planning a sustainable biofuels-based economy.

---Mike Palmer

On NPR's Weekend Edition yesterday, Scott Simon had an interview with David Tilman concerning the effect of biofuels on food prices and sustainability:

Biofuels and food prices

This is a great introduction to the concerns about HILD biofuels. It does not go far enough, in my opinion, in two respects:
1) other threats imposed by HILD including land conversion and nitrous oxide emissions
2) promoting high-diversity systems

Of course, the interview was too short to cover any topic in depth. But it is interesting that although low input perennial systems were suggested as an alternative, the idea of high diversity was not mentioned. Is this a retreat? Or an attempt to have a clearer message? Or just an accidental oversight?

There were a few points Tilman stressed that are often overlooked by biofuels promoters:

1) The conflict between food and fuel is likely to increase dramatically
2) We need to work on multiple 'niche' solutions instead of just assuming there is one magic bullet out there. Biofuels will at best only represent a sliver of a solution
3) Conservation and efficiency are where the most important advances are to be made
4) The backdrop behind future energy and food policy is the growing population of the planet, and the need to be sustainable in the face of increased consumption

I applaud David Tilman for making these points loud and clear.

--Mike

According to a new report in CNN Money, biofuels are sustainable, and will help fight climate change and promote energy independence. But don't take CNN's word for it; this comes from a distinguished 'panel of leading experts':

Biofuels Are a Sustainable Solution to Address Energy Security and Climate Change Concerns, Leading Experts Say

This panel was hosted by DuPont Applied BioSciences in Delaware. Who were the panelists?

DuPont Executive Vice President and Chief Innovation Officer Thomas M. Connelly, Jr. (Moderator)
BP Biofuels President Phillip New.
U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander "Andy" Karsner.
Dartmouth Engineering Professor Lee Lynd
Vantage Point Venture Partner Bernie Bulkin

OK - who on the list is an expert on sustainability? Climate change? Global carbon? Energy security? Who knows about ecology? Invasive species? Land use change? Nitrous oxide emissions? Soil respiration?

I don't think there are many scholars who do not want to see biofuels succeed. But selecting just a few voices from a very limited perspective does not move the debate forward.

Perhaps the definition of an expert panel is "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil"?

If we are truly interested in sustainability, we need to hear from the full spectrum of experts, not only industry representatives. We have to be prepared to hear things that make us uncomfortable.

--Mike

A new report from Reuters discusses the possibility (or probability) that dedicated feedstock crops can become invasive:

New biofuel crops pose risks to farms, ecosystems

It includes extensive quotes from Richard Mack, the leading U.S. invasive plant biologist.

One neglected aspect of invasive plant biology with respect to biofuels: plowing up virgin soil for the sake of biofuels, such as is occurring in much of the US Great Plains, will create opportunities for new invasions or range expansions of non-crop exotic species. Weeds follow the plow.

--Mike Palmer

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

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology has released a report on the potential for cellulosic biomass feedstocks. It does seem to include some of the concerns about sustainability, and prioritizes research in relation to efficiency (e.g. with respect to nitrogen, water, and energy) as well as yield. However, the focus is exclusively on monoculture crops.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2007. Convergence of Agriculture and Energy: II. Producing Cellulosic Biomass for Biofuels. CAST Commentary QTA2007-2. CAST, Ames, Iowa.

A report by Gerald Wynn of Reuters describes how the biofuels industry is becoming increasingly defensive in light of concerns raised over the sustainability of biofuels:

Biofuel industry fights the critics

What do readers think? Is this just a predictable knee-jerk reaction of an industry that considers itself under threat? Is the response justifiable? Is there an appropriate middle ground?

I have now been to several events related to biofuels in which I was the sole ecologist. A quote that was used at the latest conference (albeit in a different context) was,

"If you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu."

So, dear colleagues, please consider this: your field sites will be impacted in the new bioenergy economy. Natural areas will be cleared for biofuels (they already are disappearing). Climate will change. Dead zones in near-shore waters will expand. Resources will flow somewhere - but not to ecology, unless you join the table soon.

I did discuss the role of ecologists with several scholars at the conference. They chuckled, and implied that a few years down the road would be a good time to start thinking about ecological implications. My reading between the lines was that it would be awfully inconvenient right now for there to be much noise about adverse effects. It was rather telling that Oklahoma's secretary of energy referred to the environmental effects of biofuels as a 'pushback issue'. Well, at least it is an issue. But it is up to the ecologically-trained to keep the rest of the public continually aware of the issue.

---Mike

I have just returned from a biofuels feedstock workshop, run by the SunGrant Initiative. The participants consisted of a wide range of biofuels enthusiasts, plus a few skeptics.

One of the most interesting things was the language barrier. This is illustrated in the use of the terms 'monoculture' and 'polyculture'. Some participants argued vehemently that monocultures do not exist in contemporary agriculture, because most counties have more than one crop species growing somewhere in the county at the same time. Even at the scale of the field, if there is crop rotation (the argument goes) it is not a monoculture.

Agricultural diversification is indeed a goal, and having multiple crops in a county, plus strategic crop rotation, can potentially bring a number of ecological and economic benefits. While we applaud this, we cannot applaud the watering down of terminology.

Just for clarification:
A monoculture is one crop species growing in the same field at the same time.
A polyculture is more than one crop species growing in the same field at the same time.

However, it is clear, to an extent far greater than I had appreciated, that the term 'monoculture' is viewed as a perjorative. Simply using the term can be considered inflammatory to people who have spent their lives tending the soil. We should continue to use these terms in their proper context, but we should also be aware that there might be unintended reactions to their use.

---Mike

More conservationists are warning against the effects of biofuel crops on rain forests, and now Jane Goodall has added her voice:

Jane Goodall Says Biofuel Crops Hurt Rain Forests

The North/South issues are also emerging as a potential source of economic empowerment in the developing world. This is no surprise, since the net primary productivity (i.e. the basic capacity of the earth to produce biomass) is highest in the humid tropics. The organization Biopact has the specific vision 'towards a green energy pact between Europe and Africa".

For ecological and evolutionary reasons, and the vagaries of geography, the developing world is rich in both biodiversity and primary productivity. Unfortunately, (unlike with temperate grasslands) protecting biodiversity may be incompatible with harvesting the productivity. There have been some attempts at uniting the two yet others are wary of such attempts.

We are likely to hear much more about conservation vs. economic development vs. sustainability in the developing world in the months to come.

--Mike