The impacts of biofuel crops on local biodiversity: a global synthesis

Abstract

Concerns about the environmental impacts of climate change have led to increased targets for biofuel in the global energy market. First-generation biofuel crops contain oil, sugar or starch and are usually also grown for food, whereas second-generation biofuel is derived from non-food sources, including lignocellulosic crops, fast-growing trees, crop residues and waste. Increasing biofuel production drives land-use change, a major cause of biodiversity loss, but there is limited knowledge of how different first- and second-generation biofuel crops affect local biodiversity. A more detailed understanding could support better decisions about the net environmental impacts of biofuels. We synthesised data from 116 sources where a potential biofuel crop was grown and estimated how two measures of local biodiversity, species richness and total abundance, responded to different crops. Local species richness and abundance were 37% and 49% lower at sites planted with first-generation biofuel crops than in sites with primary vegetation. Soybean, wheat, maize and oil palm had the worst effects; the worst affected regions were Asia and Central and South America; and plant species richness and vertebrate abundance were the worst affected biodiversity measures. Second-generation biofuels had significantly smaller effects: species richness and abundance were 19% and 25%, respectively, lower in such sites than in primary vegetation. Our models suggest that land clearance to generate biofuel results in negative impacts on local biodiversity. However, the geographic and taxonomic variation in effects, and the variation in yields among different crops, are all relevant for making the most sustainable land-use decisions.

Ecosystem services provided by marine and freshwater phytoplankton

“…), can produce, in a fast way, large amounts of hydrocarbons, especially lipids, which are suitable for biodiesel production (Razeghifard, 2013;Mucko et al, 2020). In this respect, we have to keep in mind that biofuel production from land plants (e.g., soybean, oil palm, sugarcane, wheat, maize) causes changes in the land use and a loss of biodiversity (Tudge et al, 2021). Conversely, microalgae can be grown in a more efficient and sustainable way since they do not require fertile land to grow (Yamamoto et al, 2016).…”

Environmental pharmacology—Dosing the environment: IUPHAR review 36

“…EC 50 or IC 50 ) would provide a better indicator of potential sublethal impacts. Biodiversity in the United Kingdom has decreased substantially, despite the halving of the total mass of pesticide applied (Tudge et al, 2021).…”

The perennial biogas crops cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) and field grass pose better autumn and overwintering habitats for arthropods than silage maize (Zea mays L.)

“…Biomass as feedstock for energy is strongly debated from the aspect of biodiversity conservation on farmland (Immerzeel et al, 2014; Tudge et al, 2021). First‐generation energy crops such as maize ( Zea mays L.) are considered more harmful for farmland biodiversity compared with second generation or dedicated energy crops (Dotzauer et al, 2019; Haughton et al, 2016).…”