Bioenergy or biodiversity? Woody debris structures and maintenance of red-backed voles on clearcuts

Sullivan, Thomas P.; Sullivan, Druscilla S.; Lindgren, Pontus M.F.; Ransome, Douglas B.; Bull, Justin G.; Ristea, C.

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08.013

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies underline changes in agriculture, the alteration of land use dynamics, food insecurity and an increase in food prices (Azar and Larson, 2000;Rathmann et al 2010). Other research outlines several interrelated problems: the spatial relations between deforestation and biofuel production (Gao et al, 2011); the high energy and water costs of crop irrigation and production (Dalla Marta et al, 2011;Pérez et al, 2011;Williams et al, 2012); threats to biodiversity (Rowe et al, 2009;Sullivan et al, 2011); the loss of local control over territories and ecosystems and the land grab phenomenon (Cotula, 2012;Dauvergne and Neville, 2010;Duvail et al, 2012;Vermeulen and Cotula 2010); territorial disputes (Amigun et al 2011;Fernandes et al 2010); involvement and tensions with indigenous communities (Colbran, 2011;Hazlewood, 2012;Montefrio and Sonnenfeld, 2013); connections to the climate dimension (Jensen and Andersen, 2013;Tsao et al, 2012); and direct questioning of the sustainability of these REs (Levidow and Paul, 2010;Zeller and Grass, 2008).…”

Section: The Impact Of the Global Industrial Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The international discussion pays little attention to the territorial dimension of biofuel production and, thus, to the relations between biofuel production chains and territorial organisation at different spatial scales (Puttilli, 2009;Puttilli and Tecco, 2012 Amigun et al (2011);Azar and Larson (2000); Carrosio (2013); Colbran (2011);Cotula (2012);Dalla Marta et al (2011);Dauvergne and Neville (2010);de Carvalho and Marin (2011);Duvail et al (2012);Fernandes et al (2010); Gao et al (2011);Gupta and Dermibas (2010); Hazlewood (2012); Levidow and Paul (2010); Montefrio and Sonnenfeld (2013); Naylor (2007); Jensen and Andersen (2013); Pérez et al (2011);Ponti and Gutierrez (2009);Rathmann et al (2010); Rowe et al (2009);Russi (2008); Sawyer (2008); Sullivan et al (2011);Tsao et al (2012); Vermeulen and Cotula (2010); Williams et al (2012); Zeller and Grass (2008) more attention to be paid to the geographies of the energy transition. In particular, location, landscape, territoriality, spatial differentiation, scaling and spatial embeddedness are identified by these authors as necessary concepts to reflect the spatiality of energy transitions, which is too often analysed as single case studies.…”

Section: The Territorial Dimension and The Spatial Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainable biofuel: A question of scale and aims

Ciervo

Schmitz

2017

Moravian Geographical Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Impact Of the Global Industrial Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Territorial Dimension and The Spatial Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable biofuel: A question of scale and aims

Ciervo

Schmitz

2017

Moravian Geographical Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deadwood provides many important components of wildlife habitat and is important for seeds and other organisms, such as wood-inhabiting fungi (Sullivan et al 2011).…”

Section: Sustainable Bioenergy Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). Restrictions on biomass removal to facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity are based on information in Sullivan et al (2011) and in Verkerk et al (2011) that generally favors the avoidance of residues removal from protected areas.…”

Section: Sustainable Bioenergy Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the variety of possible influences resulting from such biomass extraction, the possible positive impacts include fire prevention, risk management and forest health (Raison 2002, Soliño et al 2010), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction (Wang et al 2010, Valente et al 2011) and the addition of touristic-recreational value (Ribe 1989, Stupak et al 2010. In contrast, an analysis of the literature stresses that negative impacts can potentially arise in the areas of soil fertility reduction (Eisenbies et al 2009, Wall & Hytönen 2011, Aherne et al 2012, decreased soil and water protection (Abbas et al 2011, Aherne et al 2012 and biodiversity losses (Riffell et al 2011, Sullivan et al 2011. Therefore, in a complex system such as the forest environment, it is important to evaluate the impact of biomass removal to prevent the overestimation of the bioenergy supply.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomasfor: an open-source holistic model for the assessment of sustainable forest bioenergy

Sacchelli¹,

Zambelli²,

Zatelli³

et al. 2013

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

© iForest -Biogeosciences and Forestry IntroductionThe assessment of the agroenergy chain is a fundamental issue in the field of renewable energies, in particular for the substitution of alternative energy sources for fossil fuels in rural areas (Fiorese & Guariso 2010). In this framework, the relevant topics are the evaluation of the bioenergy demand/supply ratio and the quantification of the impact of biomass on ecological and socio-economic parameters (Steubing et al. 2010). Furthermore, the evaluation of the agroenergy chain must consider policy directives and the presence of fundings and regulation that can cause market distortion (Sonneborn 2004).The analysis of the biomass sector in holistic terms is quite complex given the proposed objectives and scale of results (Cornelissen et al. 2012). Territorial and technological characteristics can be highly differentiated among study areas and could introduce variation into assessments of agroenergy (Freppaz et al. 2004, Vettorato et al. 2011. The characteristics of the European region, particularly those of the Italian territorial area, coupled with the present forest landscape dynamics (Tattoni et al. , 2011 have suggested how the exploitation of wood-energy sources can achieve a high level of importance for bioenergy production in these areas (e.g., for a widespread relationship linking the agroforestry environment with the local population -Ramachandra 2009, Notaro & Paletto 2011). The variability of national forest areas in terms of geomorphology, species composition, facilities and socio-economic issues requires the use of flexible tools and Decision Support Systems (DSSs) to quantify the resources and to facilitate the communication between researchers, local stakeholders and policy makers in woodenergy planning activities as applied to the forest sector. A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approach appears to represent an appropriate tool for attaining this goal.Several studies have analysed GIS and spatial analysis instruments as tools for biomass chain evaluation at the European, national and local levels. Angelis-Dimakis et al. (2011) classify energy availability in terms of potential availability (according to the gross energy of the source), theoretical availability (the harvestable fraction) and exploitable availability (based on ecological and economic sustainability criteria). A state-of-the-art treatment of the topic of forest biomass availability at the European level was developed by Rettenmaier et al. (2008) who analysed the methodological approaches and input datasets used for bioenergy estimation. These authors classified the analytic process according to biomass typology (ecological, technical, economical, sustainable), biomass sources (e.g., residues, stem, stumps) and spatial-temporal variables (e.g., scale of analysis, time frame). Geomatic applications for biomass resource evaluation have been implemented by different authors (Chirici et al. 2007, Lasserre et al. 2011, Kotamaa et al. 2010). For example, Gallaun et al. (2010) have com...

show abstract

Integration of vole management in boreal silvicultural practices

Huitu

Rousi²,

Henttonen³

2012

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voles of the genera Microtus and Myodes are widespread and among the most abundant of small mammal species in the boreal zone of the Northern Hemisphere. They are keystone herbivore species in northern ecosystems, and they have profound impacts on both higher and lower trophic levels. Voles are also major silvicultural pests, damaging millions of tree seedlings in years of peak abundance. Prevention of vole damage to silviculture has proven to be very difficult owing to the ubiquity of both suitable vole habitat and potential damage sites across landscapes. The degree of damage inflicted by voles on seedling stands is largely, but not solely, determined by prevailing vole densities, which often fluctuate in 3-4 year population cycles. Silvicultural practices related to site habitat manipulation and/or choice and rearing of seedling material may also greatly influence the severity of vole damage to seedlings. The manipulation of these practices is currently at the forefront of methods potentially applicable to control vole damage in boreal forests. This paper reviews current evidence for the efficacy and present recommendations for further development and application of these methods to mitigate vole damage to seedling stands in boreal silviculture.

show abstract

Bioenergy or biodiversity? Woody debris structures and maintenance of red-backed voles on clearcuts

Cited by 40 publications

References 35 publications

Sustainable biofuel: A question of scale and aims

Sustainable biofuel: A question of scale and aims

Biomasfor: an open-source holistic model for the assessment of sustainable forest bioenergy

Integration of vole management in boreal silvicultural practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About