School of Biological Sciences, Plymouth University, DrakeCircus PL4 8AA Plymouth, UKReceived 27 November 2013; accepted 20 January 2014IntroductionThe global demand for bioenergy is set to increase to apoint where it may supply up to one-third of globalprimary energy by 2050 (IEA, 2012). Current cultivationof biofuel and bioenergy crops has attracted consider-able criticism due to their encroachment into areas tra-ditionally occupied by food crops and natural andseminatural ecosystems. Among the most notorious ofthese bioenergy crops are sugarcane, jotropha, ethanolmaize, and palm oil, crops closely associated with biodi-versity and habitat loss, water deficit, and perhaps mostironically, given their potential for greenhouse gas emis-sions reduction, negative impacts on carbon storage andsequestration (Fargione et al., 2008; Martinelli & Filoso,2008; Koh et al., 2009; Romijn, 2011). In the medium-term bioenergy demand is likely to be met by so-calledsecond-generation (2G) lignocellulose crops, principallyperennial grasses and woody trees (Somerville et al.,2010). Many of the problems associated with establishedfirst-generation biofuel crops, which are often also foodcrops, could be avoided by cultivating 2G bioenergycrops on existing farmland. However, this option isoften undesirable due to increasing food demand andthe potential displacement of food crops (Dauber et al.,2010; Godfray et al., 2010; Gelfand et al., 2013). This con-flict between land use objectives, the so-called ‘food,energy, environment trilemma’ (Tilman et al., 2009),raises concerns that increased demand for bioenergycrops will displace food production and/or cause fur-ther destruction of natural and seminatural (so-calledmarginal) ecosystems. The problems of potential biodi-versity loss and land competition with food productionremain central to the debate surrounding the possiblecontribution that bioenergy crops could make towardsmeeting renewable energy and greenhouse gas emis-sions targets (Nonhebel, 2012). Policy makers are leftstruggling with the problems that have doggedbioenergy cultivation for decades; where should 2G bio-energy crops be planted and what proportion of landshould they occupy? Such questions raise doubts as tothe viability of bioenergy as a major future energysource; a major recent report into bioenergy crop viabil-ity in the United States concluded that economic andenvironmental uncertainty will strongly limit futuredeployment of 2G crops (Committee on Economic E Carvell et al., 2007, 2011;Whittingham, 2011), but this approach is not widelyapplied to bioenergy crops at present. Our second pro-posal is that new bioenergy plantations are located in amore strategic way that considers landscape context andis sensitive to how they affect biodiversity and ecosystemservices (Table 2). This involves planning the spatialarrangement of bioenergy plantations so that they inter-act positively with other landscape units. It also requiresan understanding of how the impact of bioenergy cropson biodiversity and food security varies depending upon
Read full abstract