Modeling wildlife and other trade-offs with biofuel crop production

GCB Bioenergy

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 330-341

  Stoms, David M ^a   Davis, Frank W ^a   Jenner, Mark W ^b   Nogeire, Theresa M ^a   Kaffka, Stephen R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Agroecosystems; Biofuels; Biomass feedstock; California wildlife habitat relationships system; Geographic information systems; Habitat suitability; Marxan; Renewable energy; Trade offs; Water demand

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; ANIMALS; COMMERCE; CROPS; CULTIVATION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECOSYSTEMS; GAS EMISSIONS; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; GREENHOUSE GASES; SUGAR BEETS; TRANSPORTATION;

AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS; BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK; HABITAT SUITABILITY; MARXAN; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; TRADE OFF; WATER DEMAND; WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP;

BIOFUELS;

ANIMALIA; BETA VULGARIS SUBSP. VULGARIS; BRASSICA NAPUS; BRASSICA NAPUS VAR. NAPUS; CYNODON (ANGIOSPERM);

EID: 84866539106     PISSN: 17571693     EISSN: 17571707     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01130.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Anderson W, Dien B, Brandon S, Peterson J (2008) Assessment of bermudagrass and bunch grasses as feedstock for conversion to ethanol. Applied Biochemistry and Bio-technology, 145, 13-21.
2. Aycrigg J (2010) Mapping species ranges and distribution models across the United States. Gap Analysis Bulletin, 18, 12-13.
3. Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Spatial Conservation Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools (eds Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP), pp. 185-195. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Barney JN, DiTomaso JM (2010) Bioclimatic predictions of habitat suitability for the biofuel switchgrass in North America under current and future climate scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34, 124-133.
5. Brosi BJ, Daily GC, Davis FW (2006) Agricultural and urban landscapes. In: The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, Vol 2 (eds Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis FW), pp. 256-274. Island Press, Washington.
6. Bryan BA, Ward J, Hobbs T (2008) An assessment of the economic and environmental potential of biomass production in an agricultural region. Land Use Policy, 25, 533-549.
7. Bryan BA, King D, Wang E (2010a) Biofuels agriculture: landscape-scale trade-offs between fuel, economics, carbon, energy, food, and fiber. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 330-345.
8. Bryan BA, King D, Wang E (2010b) Potential of woody biomass production for motivating widespread natural resource management under climate change. Land Use Policy, 27, 713-725.
9. California Biomass Collaborative (2006) A Roadmap for the Development of Biomass in California. PIER Collaborative Report CEC-500-2006-095-D. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
10. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group (2008) Users manual for version 8.2 of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System and Bioview. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
11. California Department of Food and Agriculture (2010) California Agricultural Resource Directory 2010-2011. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA.
12. Cal-IPC (2006) California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available at: http://www.cal-ipc.org (accessed 17 January 2011).
13. Chan AW, Hoffman R, McInnis B (2004) The role of systems modeling for sustainable development policy analysis: the case of bio-ethanol. Ecology and Society, 9, 6. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art6/ (accessed 20 June 2006).
14. Comrack L, Bolster B, Gustafson J, Steele D, Burkett E (2008) Species of Special Concern: A Brief Description of an Important California Department of Fish and Game Designation. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Sacramento, CA. 4 pp., Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2008-03.
15. Dale V, Efroymson R, Kline K (2011) The land use-climate change-energy nexus. Landscape Ecology, 26, 755-773.
16. Dauber J, Jones MB, Stout JC (2010) The impact of biomass crop cultivation on temperate biodiversity. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 289-309.
17. De Oliveira MED, Vaughan BE, Rykiel EJJ (2005) Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint. BioScience, 55, 593-602.
18. Dominguez-Faus R, Powers SE, Burken JG, Alvarez PJ (2009) The water footprint of biofuels: a drink or drive issue? Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 3005-3010.
19. Evans JM, Fletcher RJ, Alavalapati J (2010) Using species distribution models to identify suitable areas for biofuel feedstock production. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 63-78.
20. Fargione JE, Cooper TR, Flaspohler DJ et al. (2009) Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for grassland conservation. BioScience, 59, 767-777.
21. Fiorese G, Guariso G (2010) A GIS-based approach to evaluate biomass potential from energy crops at regional scale. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25, 702-711.
22. Fletcher RJ Jr, Robertson BA, Evans J, Doran PJ, Alavalapati JRR, Schemske DW (2011) Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 161-168.
23. Franklin J (2009) Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference and Prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Gevers J, Høye TT, Topping CJ, Glemnitz M, Schröder B (in press) Biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change through bioenergy: impacts of increased maize cultivation on farmland wildlife. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01104.x.
25. Geyer R, Stoms DM, Lindner JP, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010a) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use: Part 1 Inventory modeling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 454-467.
26. Geyer R, Lindner JP, Stoms DM, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010b) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use: part 2 impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 692-703.
27. Graham RL, Downing M, Walsh ME (1996) A framework to assess regional environmental impacts of dedicated energy crop production. Environmental Management, 20, 475-485.
28. Groom MJ, Gray EM, Townsend PA (2008) Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for creating better policies for biofuel production. Conservation Biology, 22, 602-609.
29. Halleux H, Lassaux S, Renzoni R, Germain A (2008) Comparative life cycle assessment of two biofuels ethanol from sugar beet and rapeseed methyl ester. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 184-190.
30. Hanak E, Lund J, Dinar A et al. (2011) Managing California's Water From Conflict to Reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco.
31. Hanegraaf MC, Biewinga EE, van der Bijl G (1998) Assessing the ecological and economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15, 345-355.
32. Haughton AJ, Bond AJ, Lovett AA et al. (2009) A novel, integrated approach to assessing social, economic and environmental implications of changing rural land-use: a case study of perennial biomass crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 315-322.
33. Hellmann F, Verburg PH (2011) Spatially explicit modelling of biofuel crops in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 2411-2424.
34. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 103, 11206-11210.
35. Jager HI, Baskaran LM, Brandt CC, Davis EB, Gunderson CA, Wullschleger SD (2010) Empirical geographic modeling of switchgrass yields in the United States. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 248-257.
36. Kaffka S (2009) Can feedstock production for biofuels be sustainable in California? California Agriculture, 63, 202-207.
37. Kaffka SR, Jenner MW (2011) Biofuels and Biodiversity in California: Scenarios of Biofuel Production. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
38. Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29, 426-439.
39. Lennartz S, Bax T, Aycrigg J, Davidson A, Reid M, Congalton R (2009) Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods for California Map Zones 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 13. Sanborn Solutions, Portland, OR.
40. Lovett AA, Sü nnenberg GM, Richter GM, Dailey AG, Riche AB, Karp A (2009) Land use implications of increased biomass production identified by GIS-based suitability and yield mapping for Miscanthus in England. BioEnergy Research, 2, 17-28.
41. McDonald RI, Fargione J, Kiesecker J, Miller WM, Powell J (2009) Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America. PLoS ONE, 4, e6802.
42. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243-253.
43. Meehan TD, Hurlbert AH, Gratton C (2010) Bird communities in future bioenergy landscapes of the Upper Midwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 18533-18538.
44. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J et al. (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation, 141, 1505-1524.
45. Robertson BA, Doran PJ, Loomis LR, Robertson JR, Schemske DW (2011) Perennial biomass feedstocks enhance avian diversity. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 3, 235-246.
46. Robertson GP, Dale VH, Doering OC et al. (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science, 322, 49-50.
47. Scheffran J, BenDor T (2009) Bioenergy and land use: a spatial-agent dynamic model of energy crop production in Illinois. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 39, 4-27.
48. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA et al. (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319, 1238-1240.
49. Shapouri H, Salassi M (2006) The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from Sugar in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture and Lousiana State University, Washington, DC.
50. Stoms DM, Nogeire T, Davis FW (2011) Biofuels and biodiversity in California: Trade-off analysis. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Publication number: CEC-500-2011-045.
51. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science, 314, 1598-1600.
52. Tittmann P, Parker N, Hart Q, Lay M, Jenkins B (2008) Economic potential of California biomass resources for energy and biofuel. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
53. Tyson KS, Bozell J, Wallace R, Petersen E, Moens L (2004) Biomass Oil Analysis: Research Needs and Recommendations. NREL Report No. TP-510-34796. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
54. Walsh ME, de la Torre Ugarte DG, Shapouri H, Slinsky SP (2003) Bioenergy crop production in the United States: potential quantities, land use changes, and economic impacts on the agricultural sector. Environmental & Resource Economics, 24, 313-333.
55. Williams PRD, Inman D, Aden A, Heath GA (2009) Environmental and sustainability factors associated with next-generation biofuels in the US: what do we really know? Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 4763-4775.
56. Williams RB, Jenkins BM, Gildart MC (2007) California biofuel goals and production potential. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition, Berlin, Germany. Available at: http://biomass.ucdavis.edu/files/reports/2007-cbc-california-biofuel-goals-and-production-potential.pdf (accessed 19 February 2011).
57. Wilson KA, Meijaard E, Drummond S et al. (2010) Conserving biodiversity in production landscapes. Ecological Applications, 20, 1721-1732.
58. Wu M, Mintz M, Wang M, Arora S (2009) Water consumption in the production of ethanol and petroleum gasoline. Environmental Management, 44, 981-997.
59. Zhang X, Izaurralde RC, Manowitz D et al. (2010) An integrative modeling framework to evaluate the productivity and sustainability of biofuel crop production systems. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 258-277.