Apeer-reviewed open-access journal

BioRisk 7: |—4 (2012) 1 1
doi: 10.3897/biorisk.7.4077 EDITORIAL & B | O R IS k

www.pensoftonline.net/biorisk

Shedding light on the biodiversity and ecosystem
impacts of modern land use

Jens Dauber', Josef Settele*

| Institute of Biodiversity, Johann Heinrich von Thiinen-Institute (vT1), Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig,
Germany 2. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research — UFZ, Department of Community Ecology, Theo-
dor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany

Corresponding author: Jens Dauber (jens.dauber@yti.bund.de)

Received 2 October 2012 | Accepted 2 October 2012 | Published 17 October 2012

Citation: Dauber J, Settele J (2012) Shedding light on the biodiversity and ecosystem impacts of modern land use.
BioRisk 7: 1-4. doi: 10.3897/biorisk.7.4077

Bioenergy implications for Biodiversity and Ecosystems, GMO impact monitoring
and a tool for the assessment of urban and industrial expansion impacts on riparian
habitats are the topics of the present issue of BioRisk - three topics from within the
field of modern or contemporary land-use developments, representing typical drivers
which put biodiversity and ecosystems at risk.

When it comes to the question whether we can fuel the world with feedstock from
bioenergy crops without losing the ability to feed a still growing world population of
humans, an answer often ready at hand is to turn abandoned and marginal land to
agricultural use. This either to increase crop yields in general or to cultivate dedicated
energy crops on those lands in order to avoid land-use competition. Those concepts
of cultivating or re-cultivating of seemingly surplus land are often based on optimistic
assessments in the order of millions of hectares being available globally (German Na-
tional Academy of Sciences Leopoldina 2012; Offermann et al. 2011). The question
whether those estimates of land potentials would bear up against calculations taking
environmental and socio-economic constraints into account systematically was adopt-
ed in the opinion paper by Dauber et al. (2012; this issue). It is stated in this paper that
confusion in the applicability of concepts suggesting the utilization of surplus land for
bioenergy crop cultivation is caused by ambiguity in the definition and characteriza-
tion of surplus land as well by uncertainties in assessments of land availability and of
potential yields of bioenergy crops when grown on surplus land. ‘The authors suggest

Copyright Jens Dauber, Josef Settele. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0
(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

2 Jens Dauber & Josef Settele / BioRisk 7: 1-4 (2012)

a thorough reassessment of land availability for bioenergy production by clarifying the
terminology of surplus land and taking both constraints and options for an efficient
and sustainable bioenergy-land use into account. Bioenergy is de facto increasingly
developing into a significant part of agricultural land use. Therefore we urgently need
more integrated energy, agriculture and land-use policies to circumvent adverse im-
pacts of competition for land. Policy recommendations for resolving conflicting land-
use demands suggested by Dauber et al. (2012) comprise first of all a slow-down in the
rapid expansion of the bioenergy sector, at least until adequate and effective controls
addressing environmental and social impacts such as biodiversity loss, GHG emissions
and displacement of local communities are implemented in bioenergy policies. Further
steps would include identifying key or focus areas of true surplus land potentials at re-
gional scales through improved baseline knowledge of actual land use and application
of this knowledge in comprehensive land-use management guidelines.

To date policies on bioenergy development have not given adequate attention to
the potential impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Groom et al. 2008). As
land-use change is regarded as one of the major drivers of the ongoing loss of biodi-
versity, there is a major concern that extensive commercial production of bioenergy
feedstock could have negative effects on biodiversity. At the same time, positive ef-
fects, in particular of perennial crops, short rotation coppice (SRC) plantations and
agroforestry systems, on biodiversity at local scales are reported. As many of those
findings are based on studies from experimental sites, significant uncertainties still
exist about impacts of full commercial production at the landscape or regional scales
(Dauber et al. 2010). To improve our understanding of the effects of commercial
SRC cultivation on biodiversity, Baum et al. (2012; this issue) have conducted a
study on the species composition of vascular plants in 15 willow and poplar SRC
plantations in Central Sweden and Northern Germany. The objective of their study
was to evaluate the influences of light availability, plantation age, and soil proper-
ties on phytodiversity. Baum et al. (2012) could show that especially plantation age
and irradiance play an important role for plant diversity in SRC plantations with
different light regimes creating habitats for species with different demands. Thus,
measures enhancing the structural diversity of SRC plantations at the local and the
landscape scale, such as planting of several small SRC plantations with different rota-
tion regimes and clones in one area, would foster the phytodiversity of agricultural
landscapes. Their study provides one example of how creativity in utilizing the op-
tions provided by bioenergy feedstock cultivation could lead to an environmentally
sustainable development of the bioenergy sector.

Another important topic — when it comes to risks for biodiversity and ecosystems
— is the growth of GM crops. In Europe there are many concerns about adverse envi-
ronmental effects of these crops, and the opinions on the outcomes of environmen-
tal risk assessments (ERA) differ largely. GM crop safety testing and introduction
studies among the regulatory system are insufhciently developed. Therefore Graef et
al. (2012; this issue) propose a framework for a European-wide network for system-
atic GMO impact assessment (ENSyGMO). This network aims at improving the

Shedding light on the biodiversity and ecosystem impacts of modern land use 3

regulatory system by enhancing and harmonising the ERA process and post-market
environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GM crops in the EU. Specific elements of
the network are a) methodologies for both indicator and field site selection for GM
crop ERA and PMEM, b) an EU-wide typology of agro-environments, c) a pan-
European field testing network using GM crops, d) specific hypotheses on GM crop
effects, and e) state-of-the art sampling, statistics and modelling approaches. Involv-
ing actors from various sectors, the network will address public concerns and create
confidence in the ENSyGMO results.

In the last contribution of this issue, Abboud et al. (2012) have developed a prac-
tical approach for impact assessments for riparian habitats — particularly for condi-
tions in Western Asia, namely in Lebanon. Aim is to promote conservation efforts
amid destructive and profit driven urban and industrial expansion, where the challenge
for national conservation scientists is the reconciliation between scientific ‘rigor’ and
pressing national realities. As biodiversity is ranked low on the national priority list,
compared to other social, political, and economic issues, the authors propose a rapid
management strategy guide based on a habitat assessment tool for riparian ecosystems.
The proposed riparian habitat assessment tool (RiHAT) consists of a habitat condi-
tion index based on twelve indicators and might show into new directions relevant for
countries where assessments of the risks for biodiversity are hardly conducted.

We think that the manuscripts of the present issue nicely represent the scope of
the journal and thus hope that these are a good advertisement for BioRisk and make
further authors submit their manuscripts.

References

Abboud M, Makhzoumi J, Clubbe C, Zurayk R, Jury S, Talhouk SN (2012) Riparian habitat
assessment tool for Lebanese rivers (RiHAT): case study Ibrahim River. BioRisk 7: 99-116.

Baum S, Weih M, Bolte A (2012) Stand age characteristics and soil properties affect species
composition of vascular plants in short rotation coppice plantations. BioRisk 7: 51-71.

Dauber J, Jones M, Stout J (2010) The impact of biomass crop cultivation on temperate biodi-
versity. GCB Bioenergy 2: 289-309. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01058.x

Dauber J, Brown C, Fernando AL, Finnan J, Krasuska E, Ponitka J, Styles D, Thran D, Van
Groenigen KJ, Weih M, Zah R (2012) Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and
socio-economic implications. BioRisk 7: 5—50.

German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (2012) Bioenergy — Chances and Limits.
Halle (Saale), 118 pp.

Graef F, Roembke J, Binimelis R, Myhr AI, Hilbeck A, Breckling B, Dalgaard T, Stachow U, Cat-
acora GV, Bohn T, Quist D, Darvas B, Dudel G, Oehen B, Meyer H, Henle K, Wynne B,
Metzger M, Kniabe S, Settele J, Székacs A, Wurbs A, Bernard J, Murphy-Bokern D, Buiatti
M, Giovannetti M, Debeljak M, Andersen E, Paetz A, Dzeroski S, Tappeser B, van Gestel
CAM, Wosniok W (2012) A framework for a European network for a systematic environ-
mental impact assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMO). BioRisk 7: 73-97.

4 Jens Dauber & Josef Settele / BioRisk 7: 1-4 (2012)

Groom MJ, Gray EM, Townsend PA (2008) Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for creat-
ing better policies for biofuel production. Conservation Biology, 22: 602-609. doi:
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00879.x

Offermann R, Seidenberger T, Thrin D, Kaltschmitt M, Zinoviev S, Miertus S (2011) As-
sessment of global bioenergy potentials. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 16: 103-115. doi: 10.1007/s11027-010-9247-9