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

Abstract

Concerns about the 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. Biofuel production drives land-use change, a major cause of biodiversity loss, but there is limited knowledge of how different biofuel crops affect local biodiversity. Therefore, a more detailed understanding could inform more environmentally-conscious decisions about where to grow which biofuel crops. 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 smaller, but still significant, 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 cultivate biofuel crops reduces local biodiversity. However, the yield of biofuel from different crops influences the biodiversity impacts per unit of energy generated, and the geographic and taxonomic variation in effects are also relevant for making sustainable land-use decisions.

Can woody biomass-based energy production be promoted among US forest landowners prioritizing forest beauty and biodiversity conservation?

“…In that case, the landowners are more likely to keep the wood as it is. Removing/cutting down the wood can destroy the forest scenery/beauty and wildlife habitats (Cornwall, 2017;Tudge et al, 2021), contradicting the landowners' desire. Thus, information related to removing/cutting down the wood is deemed costly and excluded from the mind, leading to landowners' lower likelihood of involving in woody biomass-based energy generation in the next five years.…”

“…For example, Quaranda (2016) contended that "burning trees for energy pollutes our climate and our air, destroys our forests, and harms our health." Recent evidence also hints at the negative effect of growing biofuel crops on local biodiversity measured by species richness and total abundance (Tudge et al, 2021).…”

The tragedy of the Natural History Museum, London

“…The current waves of extinctions are driven by human numbers and magnified by both poverty driving unsustainable habitat destruction, and increasing wealth driving ever increasing consumption, all of which is combined with greed, corruption and indifference. In addition, while aimed at reducing Co 2 levels, the expanding use of biofuels adds to the pace of natural habitat loss and habitat degradation (Tudge et al, 2021). As with any large-scale natural habitat loss this not only inevitably leads to additional extinctions but can significantly increase Co 2 emissions because of the differential extraction of Co 2 through photosynthesis between natural and transformed habitats.…”

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 ).…”