chose to compare tobacco only with soybean, since physic-chemical characteristics of its oil is the most comparable. Each field was divided into two parts and the Brassicaceae (*B. Jun‐ cea*in 2010 or *B. carinata* in 2012-2012, depending on the sowing time) were sown only in one halfof the field. To maximize the biofumigant effect, green manuring of the Brassicaceae bio‐ mass was carried out when the crop reached flowering. After this, sowing of soybeanas well as the transplant of tobacco plantlets took place in both parts of the field. In order to make the proposal as flexible as possible, four different fertilization treatments on the oilseed crops were used in 2010-2011: low input (30 kg/ha of chemical fertilizer13), medium input (90 kg/ha of chemicalfertilizer), high input (140 kg/ha of chemical fertilizer) or organic input (10000 kg/ha of poultry manure). In 2012, to test the possibility of increase the biofumigat effect of the Brassicaceae, the author decided to split the total amount of fertilization dosage on both crops in rotation: a half on the Brassicaceae and the other half on the oilseed crop (tobacco or soybean).In all the field trials, untreated plots were set up as control. All field

Land Use Change Impacts of Biofuels: A Methodology to Evaluate Biofuel Sustainability

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52255

27

Yet in the first year of experimentation the authors assured that the green manure of Brassi‐ caceaedo not increase the sulphur content of the successive crop and its oil [1], which is therefore suitable for biodiesel production14. To evaluate the effect of the green manure of Brassicaceaeon nematode infection, countings of *Meloidogyne* spp. were carried out on soil samples taken from both sides of the field while effects on yield of crops grown in succes‐ sion were monitored recording the fresh weight per hectare of plant biomass from both sides of the field (or when possible the seed yield). The authors also checked the weed-sup‐

Research on alternative biofuel faces the increasing demand for energy requirements by means of a more sustainable energy supply. From this point of view, greenhouse gases sav‐

The first year of experimentation showed that the use of *B. juncea* as green manure does not influence the sulphur content in sunflower seeds and oil, suggesting no sulphur accumula‐ tion occurs in succeeding crops. Theplants grown in succession of *B. juncea* resulted in high‐ er biomass. This could be due either to the increase in the organic matter content or to the pest control. Indeed, counting of nematodes revealed a strong effect of the green manure of *B. juncea* on nematode control. These data trends were confirmed in the second year also for *B. carinata*: the authors observed that the positive effects on biomass correspond to a similar effect on seed yields. In addition the weed suppressive effect of the green manure with *B.*

The third year of experimentation will end in 2013, so data from this season are not

14 The contents of this element in the final product must be under 10 ppm (UNI EN 14214 - Automotive fuels. Fatty

tests were conducted under Good Experimental Practices (GEP).

pressive effects of Brassicaceae.

ing are expected from biofuels.

available.

*5.1.8. Results and discussion on agronomical aspects*

*carinata* was also observed and reported in Figure 3.

13 NPK fertilizer was composed of 46% urea; 48% P2O5; 50% K.

acid methyl esters (FAME) for diesel engines. Requirements and test methods).

#### *5.1.6. Nutrient and irrigation management*

Soil fertility can be improved by managing nutrient stocks and flows. A range of interven‐ tion strategies are available to farmers. Land users tend to purchase and use fertilizer nu‐ trients in areas with good market access and higher agricultural potential. Combining manures with inorganic fertilizers can result in significant synergy and increased nutrient and water use efficiencies [53].

The authors decided to exploit the green manure as partial source of nutrients, complement‐ ing the nutrient needs of the successive oilseeds crop with organic poultry manure. To opti‐ mize the agronomic system (crop/soil/management) from the nutrient point of view, the authors also tested the possibility to apply inorganic fertilizer, sharing the total dose rate of application on the two crops: half on the oilseed crop (the crop which bring the harvest) and the other half on the Brassicaceae aiming at increasing its biomass production to maximize the biofumigant effect of the crop.

The Brassicaceae/tobacco crop rotation, taking into consideration the climate of the Mediter‐ ranean basin and in particular those of experimental trial sites chosen by the authors, should not need high input of water. This characteristic depends on the peculiarities of crops in‐ volved in the crop rotation and it is in favour of a sustainable agronomic management. In‐ deed, the Brassicaceae take advantage of the water naturally supplied by the winter season of growing, while the tobacco plant due to itstaproot system, widely branched, is able to survive also in arid condition with limited water needing. The authors tested the production supplying only emergency irrigation for the tobacco crop.

#### *5.1.7. Experimental details of field trials*

The agronomic rotation Brassicaceae/tobacco was tested under a wide range of situations. Three field triallocations were chosen for seasons 2010 and 2011, taking into account Italy's wide latitudinal distribution (two locations in the north and one location in the south)11.Af‐ ter two years of experimentation, the author decided to maintain two of these locations, in order to concentrate the attention on the most representative sites12.Experimental design was thought to produce oilseeds from *N. tabacum* and from traditional oilseed crops (sun‐ flower, soybean, rapeseed in 2010-2011 and soybean in 2012), used as comparison to validate themethodology. For the third year of experimentation, the authors decided to dedicate more land to the tobacco, limiting the space available for the traditional oilseed crops. They

11 Altedo (BO), Vaccolino (FE) and Santa Margherita di Savoia (FG).

12 Altedo (BO), Santa Margherita di Savoia (FG).

chose to compare tobacco only with soybean, since physic-chemical characteristics of its oil is the most comparable. Each field was divided into two parts and the Brassicaceae (*B. Jun‐ cea*in 2010 or *B. carinata* in 2012-2012, depending on the sowing time) were sown only in one halfof the field. To maximize the biofumigant effect, green manuring of the Brassicaceae bio‐ mass was carried out when the crop reached flowering. After this, sowing of soybeanas well as the transplant of tobacco plantlets took place in both parts of the field. In order to make the proposal as flexible as possible, four different fertilization treatments on the oilseed crops were used in 2010-2011: low input (30 kg/ha of chemical fertilizer13), medium input (90 kg/ha of chemicalfertilizer), high input (140 kg/ha of chemical fertilizer) or organic input (10000 kg/ha of poultry manure). In 2012, to test the possibility of increase the biofumigat effect of the Brassicaceae, the author decided to split the total amount of fertilization dosage on both crops in rotation: a half on the Brassicaceae and the other half on the oilseed crop (tobacco or soybean).In all the field trials, untreated plots were set up as control. All field tests were conducted under Good Experimental Practices (GEP).

Yet in the first year of experimentation the authors assured that the green manure of Brassi‐ caceaedo not increase the sulphur content of the successive crop and its oil [1], which is therefore suitable for biodiesel production14. To evaluate the effect of the green manure of Brassicaceaeon nematode infection, countings of *Meloidogyne* spp. were carried out on soil samples taken from both sides of the field while effects on yield of crops grown in succes‐ sion were monitored recording the fresh weight per hectare of plant biomass from both sides of the field (or when possible the seed yield). The authors also checked the weed-sup‐ pressive effects of Brassicaceae.

#### *5.1.8. Results and discussion on agronomical aspects*

means of control when included in an integrated crop management system. According to this school of thought, the authors tested the possibility to halt the marginalization of conta‐ minated soils introducing a crop rotation system between a Brassicaceae, able to fight nem‐ atodes and improving soil organic matter at the same time, and a promising oilseeds non-

Soil fertility can be improved by managing nutrient stocks and flows. A range of interven‐ tion strategies are available to farmers. Land users tend to purchase and use fertilizer nu‐ trients in areas with good market access and higher agricultural potential. Combining manures with inorganic fertilizers can result in significant synergy and increased nutrient

The authors decided to exploit the green manure as partial source of nutrients, complement‐ ing the nutrient needs of the successive oilseeds crop with organic poultry manure. To opti‐ mize the agronomic system (crop/soil/management) from the nutrient point of view, the authors also tested the possibility to apply inorganic fertilizer, sharing the total dose rate of application on the two crops: half on the oilseed crop (the crop which bring the harvest) and the other half on the Brassicaceae aiming at increasing its biomass production to maximize

The Brassicaceae/tobacco crop rotation, taking into consideration the climate of the Mediter‐ ranean basin and in particular those of experimental trial sites chosen by the authors, should not need high input of water. This characteristic depends on the peculiarities of crops in‐ volved in the crop rotation and it is in favour of a sustainable agronomic management. In‐ deed, the Brassicaceae take advantage of the water naturally supplied by the winter season of growing, while the tobacco plant due to itstaproot system, widely branched, is able to survive also in arid condition with limited water needing. The authors tested the production

The agronomic rotation Brassicaceae/tobacco was tested under a wide range of situations. Three field triallocations were chosen for seasons 2010 and 2011, taking into account Italy's wide latitudinal distribution (two locations in the north and one location in the south)11.Af‐ ter two years of experimentation, the author decided to maintain two of these locations, in order to concentrate the attention on the most representative sites12.Experimental design was thought to produce oilseeds from *N. tabacum* and from traditional oilseed crops (sun‐ flower, soybean, rapeseed in 2010-2011 and soybean in 2012), used as comparison to validate themethodology. For the third year of experimentation, the authors decided to dedicate more land to the tobacco, limiting the space available for the traditional oilseed crops. They

edible crop, the tobacco plant.

and water use efficiencies [53].

the biofumigant effect of the crop.

*5.1.7. Experimental details of field trials*

supplying only emergency irrigation for the tobacco crop.

11 Altedo (BO), Vaccolino (FE) and Santa Margherita di Savoia (FG).

12 Altedo (BO), Santa Margherita di Savoia (FG).

*5.1.6. Nutrient and irrigation management*

26 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

Research on alternative biofuel faces the increasing demand for energy requirements by means of a more sustainable energy supply. From this point of view, greenhouse gases sav‐ ing are expected from biofuels.

The first year of experimentation showed that the use of *B. juncea* as green manure does not influence the sulphur content in sunflower seeds and oil, suggesting no sulphur accumula‐ tion occurs in succeeding crops. Theplants grown in succession of *B. juncea* resulted in high‐ er biomass. This could be due either to the increase in the organic matter content or to the pest control. Indeed, counting of nematodes revealed a strong effect of the green manure of *B. juncea* on nematode control. These data trends were confirmed in the second year also for *B. carinata*: the authors observed that the positive effects on biomass correspond to a similar effect on seed yields. In addition the weed suppressive effect of the green manure with *B. carinata* was also observed and reported in Figure 3.

The third year of experimentation will end in 2013, so data from this season are not available.

13 NPK fertilizer was composed of 46% urea; 48% P2O5; 50% K.

14 The contents of this element in the final product must be under 10 ppm (UNI EN 14214 - Automotive fuels. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) for diesel engines. Requirements and test methods).

**•** Acidification Potential (AP), expressed in kg SO2-Equiv.

**Figure 4.** Flowcharts of soy and tobacco field phase of production.

the authors recurred to the Soil Conditioning Index.

soil quality.

approach [55].

tion impacts calculations.

**•** Eutrophication Potential (EP) expressed in kg Phosphate-Equiv.

**•** Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years), expressed in kg CO2-Equiv.

**•** Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP, steady state), expressed in kg R11-Equiv.

Land Use Change Impacts of Biofuels: A Methodology to Evaluate Biofuel Sustainability

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52255

29

In order to observe the holistic aim of Life Cycle Assessment, the authors did a special effort trying to include considerations about Land Use impact in their analysis aware of the capital

The method of Milà i Canals has been considered as the most consistent with the scope of the study. The ultimate goal of the project is the sustainable production of biodiesel with a contemporary rescue of marginal soils. The Soil Organic Matter indicator chosen by Milà i Canals constitutes a trade-off between an easy to measure and a representative indicator of

This indicator could confirm the expected increase in SOM in marginal soils after the crop rotation and management system defined in the SUSBIOFUEL project. SOM evalua‐ tion could help also in GHG emission assessment (biofumigant green manure practice al‐ ready showed important saving in COeq emissions, calculated with a simplified LCA

Measures of SOM in the marginal soil before the crop rotation for each scenario represent the reference situation for the land use indicator, while measures of SOM during and after the SUSBIOFUEL tests constitutes the quality value needed for occupation and transforma‐

In order to have information useful for decision making between different project options,

The Soil Conditioning Index (SCI) is a Windows-Excel based model developed by NRSC (Natural Resource Conservation Service) US Department of Agriculture to estimate soil car‐

environmental importance of this issue in biofuels sustainability evaluation.

**•** Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential (POCP), expressed in kg Ethene-Equiv.

**Figure 3.** Field trials carried out in Altedo (BO) on the left and in Vaccolino (FE) on the right. Assessment of weeds.

#### **5.2. Evaluation of sustainability aspects**

In the SUSBIOFUEL project LCA has been chosen as sustainability evaluation and decision making tool.

Several scenarios have been evaluated to assess the environmental burdens related to differ‐ ent feedstock and agronomic management system.

In this chapter, two main scenarios have been selected to compare the production of biofuel using two different crops. Furthermore the possible improving in soil quality due to the agronomic practices proposed will be evaluated.

Both scenarios consider a crop rotation between a cover crop with naturally biocidal effects (*B. juncea* or *B. carinata*) and the oilseed crop, soybean or tobacco. For tobacco crop, a pre‐ liminary greenhouse phase was considered. Authors choose to set tillage, nutrient and irri‐ gation management at the lowest level suggested by the good agricultural practices as explained in paragraph 5.1. The use of the rotation with brassica has been considered suffi‐ cient and no other pesticides were added in the model.

The functional unit is 1 litre of oilseed, system boundaries goes from the seed preservation to the oil production.

Data used in this study are both collected directly on the experimental fields and from good agricultural practices (GAP) vade mecum [54], data from Ecoinvent Database were also used.

The method chosen to evaluate the potential impacts of the system is the CML 2001 (updat‐ ed in November 2009) using GaBi LCA software. The following impact categories have been assessed:

**•** Abiotic Depletion (ADP), expressed in kg Sb-Equiv

**Figure 4.** Flowcharts of soy and tobacco field phase of production.

**Figure 3.** Field trials carried out in Altedo (BO) on the left and in Vaccolino (FE) on the right. Assessment of weeds.

In the SUSBIOFUEL project LCA has been chosen as sustainability evaluation and decision

Several scenarios have been evaluated to assess the environmental burdens related to differ‐

In this chapter, two main scenarios have been selected to compare the production of biofuel using two different crops. Furthermore the possible improving in soil quality due to the

Both scenarios consider a crop rotation between a cover crop with naturally biocidal effects (*B. juncea* or *B. carinata*) and the oilseed crop, soybean or tobacco. For tobacco crop, a pre‐ liminary greenhouse phase was considered. Authors choose to set tillage, nutrient and irri‐ gation management at the lowest level suggested by the good agricultural practices as explained in paragraph 5.1. The use of the rotation with brassica has been considered suffi‐

The functional unit is 1 litre of oilseed, system boundaries goes from the seed preservation

Data used in this study are both collected directly on the experimental fields and from good agricultural practices (GAP) vade mecum [54], data from Ecoinvent Database were also

The method chosen to evaluate the potential impacts of the system is the CML 2001 (updat‐ ed in November 2009) using GaBi LCA software. The following impact categories have been

**5.2. Evaluation of sustainability aspects**

28 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

ent feedstock and agronomic management system.

agronomic practices proposed will be evaluated.

cient and no other pesticides were added in the model.

**•** Abiotic Depletion (ADP), expressed in kg Sb-Equiv

making tool.

to the oil production.

used.

assessed:

In order to observe the holistic aim of Life Cycle Assessment, the authors did a special effort trying to include considerations about Land Use impact in their analysis aware of the capital environmental importance of this issue in biofuels sustainability evaluation.

The method of Milà i Canals has been considered as the most consistent with the scope of the study. The ultimate goal of the project is the sustainable production of biodiesel with a contemporary rescue of marginal soils. The Soil Organic Matter indicator chosen by Milà i Canals constitutes a trade-off between an easy to measure and a representative indicator of soil quality.

This indicator could confirm the expected increase in SOM in marginal soils after the crop rotation and management system defined in the SUSBIOFUEL project. SOM evalua‐ tion could help also in GHG emission assessment (biofumigant green manure practice al‐ ready showed important saving in COeq emissions, calculated with a simplified LCA approach [55].

Measures of SOM in the marginal soil before the crop rotation for each scenario represent the reference situation for the land use indicator, while measures of SOM during and after the SUSBIOFUEL tests constitutes the quality value needed for occupation and transforma‐ tion impacts calculations.

In order to have information useful for decision making between different project options, the authors recurred to the Soil Conditioning Index.

The Soil Conditioning Index (SCI) is a Windows-Excel based model developed by NRSC (Natural Resource Conservation Service) US Department of Agriculture to estimate soil car‐ bon trends. This tool can predict the consequences of cropping system and tillage practices on the status of soil organic matter in a field[56]. SCI estimates the combined effect of three variables on trends in organic matter, as a simple weighted average.

The soil conditioning index formula is:

$$\text{SCI} = \begin{pmatrix} \text{OM} \times 0.4 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \text{FO} \times 0.4 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \text{RF} \times 0.2 \end{pmatrix} \tag{1}$$

*5.2.1. Results and discussion on sustainability evaluation*

Potential, have anyhow to be considered.

**Figure 5.** Scenario results normalization15.

**6. Conclusion**

validity of the use of tobacco as non-edible oilseed crop.

the sustainable profile of biodiesel production.

Results obtained represent the comparison between the two scenarios which don't in‐ clude yet land use impact category, since further researches are needed on this topic. As shown in Figure 5 for all impact categories selected the tobacco oil production, despite the greenhouse phase, generate less than 30% of potential impacts in comparison with soya oil. Results have been normalizedto find which impact categories are the more im‐ portant. Figure 5 shows that these processes have a great effect on global warming poten‐ tial, nevertheless, the other impact categories, apart from Ozone Layer Depletion

Land Use Change Impacts of Biofuels: A Methodology to Evaluate Biofuel Sustainability

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52255

31

Even if these results have to be considered preliminary, they give the indication about the

The use of oilseeds derived from non-edible crops represents a first step in order to increase

Beyond the use of non-edible crops, to face the land use change (one of the main criticisms‐ about biodiesel sustainability) the authors propose to set up the non-edible system of pro‐

15 For confidentiality reasons, unit of measures and numerical results are detailed on SUSBIOFUEL internal report.

Where OM accounts for organic material returned to the soil (as a function of biomass pro‐ duced), FO represents tillage and field operation effects and ER is the sorting and removal of surface soil material by sheet, rill and wind erosion.

Controlling erosion and building organic matter do not guarantee good soil quality, but in most cropping situations they are prerequisites to improving and protecting soil quality and productivity. The SCI is a quick way to characterize the organic matter dynamics of a farm‐ ing system and can help assess good soil management. The following information is needed about the field to calculate the SCI:

The SCI can predict if a particular management system will have a positive or negative trend in SOM. If the SCI value is negative, soil organic matter is predicted to be declining under a given production system, and corrective measures should be planned. If the SCI value is zero or positive, soil organic matter is predicted to be stable or increasing.

The Soil Conditioning Index represents a support to plan and design conservation crop rota‐ tion and residue management practices when low organic matter, surface crusting or ero‐ sion are identified as concerns and it helps producers in changes in SOM monitoring or prediction.

The use of this semi-quantitative tool allows running several what-if scenarios which results could be useful to drive decisions taken in the project.

Understanding processes that affect soil quality can guide in management decisions and practices that will maintain or improve the soil resource.

Appropriate management strategies can significantly reduce the payback period and en‐ hance greenhouse gas benefits associated with biofuel production system.

#### *5.2.1. Results and discussion on sustainability evaluation*

bon trends. This tool can predict the consequences of cropping system and tillage practices on the status of soil organic matter in a field[56]. SCI estimates the combined effect of three

Where OM accounts for organic material returned to the soil (as a function of biomass pro‐ duced), FO represents tillage and field operation effects and ER is the sorting and removal

Controlling erosion and building organic matter do not guarantee good soil quality, but in most cropping situations they are prerequisites to improving and protecting soil quality and productivity. The SCI is a quick way to characterize the organic matter dynamics of a farm‐ ing system and can help assess good soil management. The following information is needed

The SCI can predict if a particular management system will have a positive or negative trend in SOM. If the SCI value is negative, soil organic matter is predicted to be declining under a given production system, and corrective measures should be planned. If the SCI

The Soil Conditioning Index represents a support to plan and design conservation crop rota‐ tion and residue management practices when low organic matter, surface crusting or ero‐ sion are identified as concerns and it helps producers in changes in SOM monitoring or

The use of this semi-quantitative tool allows running several what-if scenarios which results

Understanding processes that affect soil quality can guide in management decisions and

Appropriate management strategies can significantly reduce the payback period and en‐

hance greenhouse gas benefits associated with biofuel production system.

value is zero or positive, soil organic matter is predicted to be stable or increasing.

*SCI OM FO RF* 0.4 0.4 0.2 = ´+ ´+´ ( ) ( ) ( ) (1)

variables on trends in organic matter, as a simple weighted average.

**•** Additional applications of organic matter or removals of organic matter **•** All field operations (tillage, fertilizer and manure application, harvest)

The soil conditioning index formula is:

30 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

about the field to calculate the SCI:

**•** All crops in the crop rotation

**•** Typical yield for each crop

**•** Soil texture **•** Climate data

**•** Rates of erosion

prediction.

of surface soil material by sheet, rill and wind erosion.

could be useful to drive decisions taken in the project.

practices that will maintain or improve the soil resource.

Results obtained represent the comparison between the two scenarios which don't in‐ clude yet land use impact category, since further researches are needed on this topic. As shown in Figure 5 for all impact categories selected the tobacco oil production, despite the greenhouse phase, generate less than 30% of potential impacts in comparison with soya oil. Results have been normalizedto find which impact categories are the more im‐ portant. Figure 5 shows that these processes have a great effect on global warming poten‐ tial, nevertheless, the other impact categories, apart from Ozone Layer Depletion Potential, have anyhow to be considered.

**Figure 5.** Scenario results normalization15.

Even if these results have to be considered preliminary, they give the indication about the validity of the use of tobacco as non-edible oilseed crop.

#### **6. Conclusion**

The use of oilseeds derived from non-edible crops represents a first step in order to increase the sustainable profile of biodiesel production.

Beyond the use of non-edible crops, to face the land use change (one of the main criticisms‐ about biodiesel sustainability) the authors propose to set up the non-edible system of pro‐

15 For confidentiality reasons, unit of measures and numerical results are detailed on SUSBIOFUEL internal report.

duction onmarginal soils. According to the state of the art on soil quality properties and indicators, soil organic matter is outstanding, so each phase of production was thought to respect, and if possible improve, this property of the soil. In this scenario the aim of the pro‐ duction is not only the oilseeds harvest, but also the maintenance and if possible the rescue of the full soil functionality. Taking into account these considerations, the authors analysed which oilseed crop would have been the most suitable, which kind of marginal soil, which the best agronomic practices to follow in this particular situation. In this publication the au‐ thors present a case study which contributes significantly to a wider portfolio of land-use strategy. Tobacco was individuated as the most promising non-edible oilseed crop and the possibility to produce tobacco oilseeds from soils rendered marginal by nematode infesta‐ tion was analysed.

**Author details**

, R. Bucchi1

1 Agri 2000 Soc. Coop., Bologna, Italy

3 ENEA – UTVALAMB, Bologna, Italy

5 Khemistar S.r.l, Novara, Italy

and G. Carvoli5

2 University of Bologna – DICAM, Bologna, Italy

tainable Energy 2008;12: 455-471.

The US Drought, July 23, 2012.

cessed20 July 2012).

http://www.fao.org/ (accessed 12 July 2012).

, A. Rispoli1

, C. Chiavetta2

[1] Bianchi C.L. et al. Non Edible Oils: Raw Materials for Sustainable Biodiesel. Biodiesel

[2] Searchinger T. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science 2008;319(5867): 1238-1240.

[3] Kalita D. Hydrocarbon plant – New source of energy for future. Renewable andSus‐

[4] Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO: Food price index data from the UN's.

[5] International Monetary Fund. IMF: World Economic Outlook: Crisis and Recovery, April 2009. http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm (accessed 12 July 2012).

[6] Azar C., Emerging scarcities - Bioenergy-food competition in a carbon constrained world. In: Scarcity and growth revisited: natural resources and the environment in

[7] Lagi M., Bar-Yam Yavni, Bar-Yam Yaneer, UPDATE July 2012 — The Food Crises:

[8] Delzeit R., Klepper G., Lange M. Review of IFPRI study "Assessing the land use con‐ sequences of European biofuel policy and its uncertainties", Kiel Institute for World Economy. http://www.ebb-u.org/EBBpressreleases/Review\_iLUC\_IfW\_final.pdf (ac‐

[9] Fritsche U.R., Hennenberg K., Hunecke K. Sustainability Standards for international‐ ly traded Biomass The "iLUC Factor" as a Means to Hedge Risks of GHG Emissions

the new millennium. John Hopkins University Press; 2005. p359-377.

4 Università degli Studi di Milano – Dipartimento di Chimica, Milano, Italy

– Feedstocks and Processing Technologies: InTech; 2011.

, P.L. Porta3

Land Use Change Impacts of Biofuels: A Methodology to Evaluate Biofuel Sustainability

, C.L. Bianchi4

, C. Pirola4

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52255

,

33

D. Barnabè1

D.C. Boffito4

**References**

The authors verified that the green manure of *B. juncea*or *B. carinata* (depending on the sow‐ ing period) resulted in nematode infestation drastically decreasing and improved soil quali‐ ty reflected in higher seeds yield of crops in agronomic succession. In addition weedsuppressive effect of this agronomic practice was shown, avoiding chemical herbicide applications for this agronomic system. The restoring of soil fertility avoiding the fumigant usage, and in the meantime the generation of income from non-edible vegetable oils, assure the ethical, economic and environmental sustainability of the solution. It should be also con‐ sidered that food production from marginal soils would worsen soil depletion and nemato‐ des infestation.

Preliminary results, according to the traditional LCA, confirmed that tobacco is a promising non-edible oilseed crop according to the agronomic practices applied, for those soils ren‐ dered marginal by nematode infestation.

This study reports the impact of cover crops and their green manures on the density and damage of root-knot and lesion nematodes to oilseed crops, as well as those of tillage, soil amendments, crop rotation, and cover crops on oilseeds yield and root rot severity. The inci‐ dence and severity of root diseases is an indirect assessment of soil health for specific com‐ modity/soil use [57]. In order to evaluate the sustainability of this scenario through the LCA methodology, it would be relevant to estimate the benefits on soil quality of the agronomic system proposed. For this reason the authors are studying how to complete the information supplied by the traditional land use indicator.

Policy strategies will be needed to increasingly shift abandoned or low biodiversity value marginal lands to this kind of ecologically-friendly practices.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The authors gratefully acknowledge financially support by Italian Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (project SUSBIOFUEL – D.M. 27800/7303/09).

#### **Author details**

duction onmarginal soils. According to the state of the art on soil quality properties and indicators, soil organic matter is outstanding, so each phase of production was thought to respect, and if possible improve, this property of the soil. In this scenario the aim of the pro‐ duction is not only the oilseeds harvest, but also the maintenance and if possible the rescue of the full soil functionality. Taking into account these considerations, the authors analysed which oilseed crop would have been the most suitable, which kind of marginal soil, which the best agronomic practices to follow in this particular situation. In this publication the au‐ thors present a case study which contributes significantly to a wider portfolio of land-use strategy. Tobacco was individuated as the most promising non-edible oilseed crop and the possibility to produce tobacco oilseeds from soils rendered marginal by nematode infesta‐

The authors verified that the green manure of *B. juncea*or *B. carinata* (depending on the sow‐ ing period) resulted in nematode infestation drastically decreasing and improved soil quali‐ ty reflected in higher seeds yield of crops in agronomic succession. In addition weedsuppressive effect of this agronomic practice was shown, avoiding chemical herbicide applications for this agronomic system. The restoring of soil fertility avoiding the fumigant usage, and in the meantime the generation of income from non-edible vegetable oils, assure the ethical, economic and environmental sustainability of the solution. It should be also con‐ sidered that food production from marginal soils would worsen soil depletion and nemato‐

Preliminary results, according to the traditional LCA, confirmed that tobacco is a promising non-edible oilseed crop according to the agronomic practices applied, for those soils ren‐

This study reports the impact of cover crops and their green manures on the density and damage of root-knot and lesion nematodes to oilseed crops, as well as those of tillage, soil amendments, crop rotation, and cover crops on oilseeds yield and root rot severity. The inci‐ dence and severity of root diseases is an indirect assessment of soil health for specific com‐ modity/soil use [57]. In order to evaluate the sustainability of this scenario through the LCA methodology, it would be relevant to estimate the benefits on soil quality of the agronomic system proposed. For this reason the authors are studying how to complete the information

Policy strategies will be needed to increasingly shift abandoned or low biodiversity value

The authors gratefully acknowledge financially support by Italian Ministero delle Politiche

Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (project SUSBIOFUEL – D.M. 27800/7303/09).

tion was analysed.

32 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

des infestation.

dered marginal by nematode infestation.

supplied by the traditional land use indicator.

**Acknowledgements**

marginal lands to this kind of ecologically-friendly practices.

D. Barnabè1 , R. Bucchi1 , A. Rispoli1 , C. Chiavetta2 , P.L. Porta3 , C.L. Bianchi4 , C. Pirola4 , D.C. Boffito4 and G. Carvoli5

#### **References**

from Indirect Land Use Change - Working Paper -. Öko-Institut, Darmstadt Office 2010. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1030/2010-082-en.pdf (accessed 20 July 2012).

[22] Larson, W.E., Pierce, F.J., The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management. In: Doran J.W. (ed.) Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environ‐ ment. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 35. Soil Science Society

Land Use Change Impacts of Biofuels: A Methodology to Evaluate Biofuel Sustainability

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52255

35

of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI; 1994. p37– 51.

teria. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1992;7 25– 31.

of Alternative Agriculture 1992;7 3– 4.

and Water Conservation 1995;50(3) 253-261.

Mineola, N.Y.: Dover; 1941.

13A-17A.

2282-2290.

2002; 7 (6) 330-348.

[23] Arshad M.A., Coen G.M. Characterization of soil quality: physical and chemical cri‐

[24] Haberern J. Coming full circle—the new emphasis on soil quality. American Journal

[25] Hans J. et al., editor. Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedolog.

[26] Kemper W. D., Schneider N. N., Sinclair T. R. No-till can increase earthworm popula‐ tions and rooting depths. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2011;66(1)

[27] Six J., Conant R. T., Paul E. A., Paustian K. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant and Soil 2002;241(2) 155-176. [28] Reicosky D.C., Kemper W.D., Langdale G.W., Douglas C.L., Rasmussen P.E. Soil or‐ ganic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. Journal of Soil

[29] Balesdent J., Chenu C., Balabane M. Relationship of soil organic matter dynamics to physical protection and tillage. Soil and Tillage Research 2000;53(3–4) 215–230. [30] Soane B.D., van Ouwerkerk C., Implications of soilcompaction in crop production for the quality of the environment. Soil and Tillage Research 1995;35(1–2) 5–22.

[31] Reicosky D.C., Forcella F. Cover crop and soil quality interactions in agroecosystems. [32] Bureau, J.-C., Disdier, A.C., Gauroy, C., Tréguer, D. A quantitative assessment of the determinants of the net energy value of biofuels (2010) Energy Policy, 38 (5), pp.

[33] McKone, T.E., Nazaroff, W.W., Berck, P., Auffhammer, M., Lipman, T., Torn, M.S., Masanet, E., Lobscheid, A., Santero, N., Mishra, U., Barrett, A., Bomberg, M., Finger‐ man, K., Scown, C., Strogen, B., Horvath, A. Grand challenges for life-cycle assess‐ ment of biofuels (2011) Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (5), pp. 1751-1756.

[34] Cherubini F., Stromman A.H. Life cycle assessment of bioenergy system: state of the

[35] Brentrup F., Hanninghof J., Lammel J. andKuhlmann H. Life Cycle Impact Assess‐ ment of Land Use based on the Hemeroby concept. International Journal of LCA

[36] Bare J. Recommendation for land use impact assessment: first step into framework,

art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology 2011; 102(2):437-451.

theory and implementation. Clean Techn Environ Policy 2011; 13:7-18.

[22] Larson, W.E., Pierce, F.J., The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management. In: Doran J.W. (ed.) Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environ‐ ment. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 35. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI; 1994. p37– 51.

from Indirect Land Use Change - Working Paper -. Öko-Institut, Darmstadt Office 2010. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1030/2010-082-en.pdf (accessed 20 July 2012).

[10] HyungtaeK., Seungdo K., Bruce E. Dale. Biofuels, Land Use Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Some Unexplored Variables. Environmental Science Technology

[11] Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R. A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., Tokgoz S., Hayes D., Yu T.H. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science 2008;319( 5867) 1238-1240.

[12] Geyer R., Lindener J.P., StomsD.M.,Davis W.F., Wittstock B. Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessment of land use. Part 2: Impact assessment. International Jour‐

[13] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNFCCC: History.

[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC: Fourth Assessment Report

[15] Ibrahim D. Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review. Re‐

[16] European Commission. EU: Renewable Energy: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewa‐

[17] Warkentin B.P., Fletcher H.F. Soil quality for intensive agriculture: conference pro‐ ceedings, 1977, Proc. Int. Sem. on Soil Environ. andFert. Manage. in Intensive Agric.

[18] Larson W.E., Pierce F.J. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In: Dumanski J., Pushparajah E., Latham M., Myers R. (ed.) Evaluation for Sustainable Land Man‐ agement in the Developing World Vol. 2. Technical Papers, p175– 203; 1991: confer‐ ence proceedings, Sept. 15-21, 1991, Int. Board for Soil Res. and Management,

[19] Karlen D.L., Mausbach M.J., Doran J.W., Cline R.G., Harris R.F., Schuman G.E. Soil quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

[20] Pierce F.J., Larson W.E., Dowdy R.H., Soil loss tolerance: maintenance of long-term soil productivity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1984;39 136–138.

[21] Larson W.E., Pierce F.J. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In: Dumanski J., Pushparajah E., Latham M., Myers R. (ed.) Evaluation for Sustainable Land Man‐ agement in the Developing World Vol. 2. Technical Papers, p175– 203; 1991: confer‐ ence proceedings, Sept. 15-21, 1991, Int. Board for Soil Res. and Management,

2009;43 (3) 961–967.

34 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

nal of LCA 2010; 15:692-703.

Bangkok, Thailand.

Bangkok, Thailand.

1997;61 4-10.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php (accessed 12 July 2012).

(AR4). http://www.ipcc.ch/(accessed 12 July 2012).

newable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2000;4(1) 157–175.

bles/biofuels/sustainability\_schemes\_en.htm (accessed 12 July 2012).

Soc. Sci. Soil and Manure, Tokyo, Japan, Natl. Inst. of Agric. Sci.

[37] Milà i Canals L., Romanya' J., Cowell S.J. Method for assessing impacts on life sup‐ portfuction (LSF) related to the use "of fertile land" in life cycle assessment (LCA). Journal of Cleaner Production 2007; 15 1426-1440.

[50] Palmer C.E., Warwick S., Keller W. Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Family, Plant Biotech‐ nology, and Phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 2001;3(3)

Land Use Change Impacts of Biofuels: A Methodology to Evaluate Biofuel Sustainability

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52255

37

[51] Torabi H., Naghdibadi H.A., Omidi H., Amirshekari H., Miransari M. Effects of soil tillage, canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars and planting date on canola yield, and oil and some biological and physical properties of soil. Follow Archives of Agronomy

[52] David J. Chitwood, USDA-ARS. Nematicides. Beltsville, Maryland. Pag. 1104 http://

[53] Piha M. I., Optimizing Fertilizer Use and Practical Rainfall Capture in a Semiarid En‐ vironment with Variable Rainfall. Experimental Agriculture 1993;29 405–415.

[54] Ribaudo F. Prontuario di Agricoltura per il geometra, il perito agrario e l'agrotecnico.

[55] Lazzeri L., D'Avino L., Gies D. 2010. Additional Benefits of the Efficacy in Contain‐ ing Soilborne Pest and Pathogens with Biofumigation Plants and Materials. Proceed‐ ings of the VIIth International Symposium on Chemical and Non-Chemical Soil and

[56] Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture. Guide to us‐

[57] Abawi G.S, Widmer T.L. Impact of soil health management practices on soilborne pathogens, nematodes and root diseases of vegetable crops. Applied Soil Ecology,

Substrate Disinfestation Leuven – Belgium. Acta Horticulture 883, 323-329.

naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/43874/PDF(accessed 13 July 2012).

245–287. ISSN: 1549-7879.

and Soil Science 2008;54(2) 175-188.

Bologna, Italy: Ed. Edagricole. 1993.

ing the Soil Conditioning Index 2002.

2000;15(1) 37–47.

[50] Palmer C.E., Warwick S., Keller W. Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Family, Plant Biotech‐ nology, and Phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 2001;3(3) 245–287. ISSN: 1549-7879.

[37] Milà i Canals L., Romanya' J., Cowell S.J. Method for assessing impacts on life sup‐ portfuction (LSF) related to the use "of fertile land" in life cycle assessment (LCA).

[38] European Commission-Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sus‐ tainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook- Rec‐

[39] Milà i Canals L., Bauer C., Depestele J., Dubreuil A., FreiermuthKnuchel R., Gaillard G., Michelsen O., Muller-Wenk R., RYdgren B. Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. International Journal of LCA 2007; 12 (1): 5-15.

[40] Mattila T., Helin T., Antikainen R. Land use indicators in life cycle assessment. A case study on beer production. International Journal of LCA 2012; 17:277-286.

[41] Beck T., Bos U., Wittstock B., Baitz M., Fischer M., Sedlbauer K., LANCA – land use indicator value calculation in life cycle assessment. Fraunhofer, Stuttgart 2010.

[42] SUSBIOFUEL project ("Studio di fattibilità per la produzione di biocarburanti da semi oleosi di nuove specie e da sottoprodotti o materiali di scarto" – D.M. 27800/7303/09), financially supported by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and For‐

[43] Milbrandt A., Overend R.P. Assessment of Biomass Resources from Marginal Lands

[44] Fogher, C. Sviluppo di un Ideotipo di Tabacco per la Produzione di Seme da Usare a Fini Energetici. Presentedat the workshop "La Filiera del Tabacco in Campania: Ris‐ trutturazione e/o Riconversione. La ricerca come motore per l'innovazione tecnologi‐ ca, la sostenibilità e la competitività della filiera", Portici, Italy, February, 2008.

[45] University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture. UKAg: Planning And Constructing An Outside Float Bed For Tobacco Transplant Production. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/

[46] Romero E., Barrau C., Romero, F. Plant Metabolites Derived from Brassica spp. Tis‐ sues as Biofumigant to Control Soil Borne Fungi Pathogens. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Chemical and non- Chemical Soil and Substrate Disin‐

[47] Curto G., Lazzeri L. Brassicacee, un Baluardo Sotterraneo Contro i Nematodi. Agri‐

[48] Al-Khatib K., Libbey C., Boydston R. Weed Suppression with Brassica Green Manure

[49] Krishnan G., Holshauser D. L., Nissen S. J. Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max)

Crops in Green Pea. Weed Science, 1997;45(3) 439-445. ISSN 1939-7291.

with Green Manure Crops. Weed Technology, 1998;12(1) 97-102.

TobaccoProd/pubs/Float%20basics.pdf (accessed 16 July 2012).

festation, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>237, Leuven, Belgium, September 2009.

ommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context.

Journal of Cleaner Production 2007; 15 1426-1440.

in APEC Economies 2009. APEC#209-RE-01.4.

estry Policies – Italy.

36 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

coltura, 2006;34(5) 110-112.

**Chapter 2**

**Tropical Agricultural Production,**

Minerva Singh and Shonil Bhagwat

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

**1. Introduction**

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

**1.1. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural conflicts**

parts of the tropics (Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998).

**Oil Palm Expansion in South East Asia**

**Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts:**

Agricultural expansion remains one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity losses and environmental degradation across the world, especially in the tropics (Angelsen et al., 1999 and Norris, 2008). From 1961 to 1993, the world population increased by 80% (Goklany, 1998). Due to the rapidly expanding human populations large increases in the supply of agricultural products are required, which may lead to the transformation of many landscapes (including biodiversity-rich tropical rainforests) to agricultural landscapes (Ewers et al., 2009). The quest for further land for agricultural production has already caused significant habitat loss and fragmentation, posing substantial threats to the world's biodiversity, forests and ecosystems (Goklany, 1998). According to Matson and Vitousek (2006), many involved in conservation believe that the twin goals of increasing agricultural production and conservation are fundamentally incompatible. Indeed representatives of developing countries (where the tropical forests and majority of the world's biodiversity reside) argue that their developmental needs are partially met by deforestation, since it provides arable land and timber export revenues (Leplay et al., 2010). Further, agricultural revenues accrued from cultivating planta‐ tion crops, such as timber, palm and coffee, are significant drivers of deforestation in many

Agricultural expansion is often accompanied by significant reductions in tree cover, fallow vegetation, habitat diversity and forest connectivity. Habitat loss and modification are considered to be among the most important drivers of species loss worldwide (Pimm and Raven 2000). Conservative estimates of the effects of anthropogenic land-use changes on global

> © 2013 Singh and Bhagwat; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2013 Singh and Bhagwat; licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

## **Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts: Oil Palm Expansion in South East Asia**

Minerva Singh and Shonil Bhagwat

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

#### **1. Introduction**

#### **1.1. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural conflicts**

Agricultural expansion remains one of the leading causes of deforestation, biodiversity losses and environmental degradation across the world, especially in the tropics (Angelsen et al., 1999 and Norris, 2008). From 1961 to 1993, the world population increased by 80% (Goklany, 1998). Due to the rapidly expanding human populations large increases in the supply of agricultural products are required, which may lead to the transformation of many landscapes (including biodiversity-rich tropical rainforests) to agricultural landscapes (Ewers et al., 2009). The quest for further land for agricultural production has already caused significant habitat loss and fragmentation, posing substantial threats to the world's biodiversity, forests and ecosystems (Goklany, 1998). According to Matson and Vitousek (2006), many involved in conservation believe that the twin goals of increasing agricultural production and conservation are fundamentally incompatible. Indeed representatives of developing countries (where the tropical forests and majority of the world's biodiversity reside) argue that their developmental needs are partially met by deforestation, since it provides arable land and timber export revenues (Leplay et al., 2010). Further, agricultural revenues accrued from cultivating planta‐ tion crops, such as timber, palm and coffee, are significant drivers of deforestation in many parts of the tropics (Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998).

Agricultural expansion is often accompanied by significant reductions in tree cover, fallow vegetation, habitat diversity and forest connectivity. Habitat loss and modification are considered to be among the most important drivers of species loss worldwide (Pimm and Raven 2000). Conservative estimates of the effects of anthropogenic land-use changes on global

© 2013 Singh and Bhagwat; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2013 Singh and Bhagwat; licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

breeding bird populations, from a global level meta-analysis, indicate that they have caused losses of between a fifth and a quarter of pre-agricultural bird numbers, across a wide range of temperate and tropical land-use types (Gaston et al., 2003). Large-scale deforestation is also a significant driver of habitat fragmentation, i.e. breaking up of formerly contiguous habitat areas (Laurance and Peres, 2006). Forest fragmentation in turn increases the susceptibility of habitats to edge effects, isolation and disruption of vital ecological processes, followed by species losses from individual forest fragments (Lovejoy, 1986). Forest fragmentation also reduces the ability of forest-dependent species such as understory birds, herbivorous insects and dung beetles to transverse the landscape to reach more suitable habitats (Laurance et al., 2011). Thus, habitat loss, modification and fragmentation synergistically drive biodiversity losses (Hilty et al., 2006).

on conservation of biodiversity and carbon stocks. Finally, the paper provides a detailed overview and description of the different strategies and landscape configurations that may

Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

41

**Figure 1.** Total forest covered by oil palm plantations, and hence losses of natural forests, in Indonesia and Malaysia

In recent decades, oil palm has become one of the most rapidly expanding crops in the world (Koh & Wilcove 2007) and occupies 13.8 million hectares in the tropics (FAO, 2009). The rapid growth of oil palm cultivation can be attributed to its value as both a source of food and as raw material for various consumer products, such as cosmetics, industrial lubricants and biofuels (Corley & Tinker 2003). This rapid oil palm monoculture expansion has been taking

In Indonesia and Malaysia, in the last 20 years deforestation has been driven by expansion of agricultural plantations, especially oil palm monocultures. The replacement of natural forest cover with oil palm monocultures has had detrimental effects on the regional biodiversity. The plantations support less biodiversity than the primary forests or even disturbed and logged forests they replace (Fitzherbert et al., 2008). The lower biodiversity value of oil palm mono‐ cultures can be attributed to the absence of major structurally complex components of forest vegetation, including forest trees, lianas and epiphytic orchids (Danielsen et al. 2009). Owing to the lack of the structurally complex flora, oil palm monocultures support less than half the

**2. Oil palm expansion and associated biodiversity & carbon storage**

place at the cost of primary forests in the tropics (Corley, 2009).

(Mongabay, 2012)

**challenges**

allow for the reconciliation of conservation priorities with oil palm expansion.

At a regional level, Singapore represents an extreme case of habitat loss, with a loss of 95% of its primary rainforest. This extreme habitat loss is correlated with high rates of species losses at all taxonomic levels. Extinction rates have been substantially higher for forest specialists (33%) than for species that can persist in open/modified habitats and forest edges (7%). However, they have been highest for highly habitat-specific taxa, e.g. 67% and 59% for habitatspecific birds and mammals, respectively, in Singapore (Brook et al., 2003).' Note, we have deleted the references to 'the island', because Singapore consists of 63 islands, and it is not clear whether you mean the main island or all the islands. Alternatively, you could clarify whether you mean the main islands or the islands generally. There have been considerable efforts to protect biodiversity in reserves and parks, but many of these refuges are small, fragmented, isolated or poorly protected (Harvey et al., 2008). Besides having inadequate dimensions, most protected areas are embedded within agricultural landscapes, and the buffer zones are inadequate to alleviate effects of fragmentation, contamination by agrochemicals, hunting and unsustainable or illegal logging (DeFries et al. 2005).

Biodiversity conservation in many parts of the tropics is threatened by rapid habitat loss and destruction (Sodhi et al., 2004). South East Asia, which hosts four biodiversity hotspots, is especially vulnerable and it is estimated that 42% of the region's species could be extinct by 2100 (Sodhi and Brooks, 2006). In recent decades, in addition to swidden agriculture, rapid urbanization and timber logging, the expansion of oil palm monocultures has been one of the most significant drivers of deforestation and habitat loss in South East Asia (Corlett and Primack, 2008) and other tropical countries. The coverage of oil palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia in 2008 is illustrated in Figure 1.

From figure 1 it can be seen that the area under oil palm plantations has risen significantly since 1990 and this expansion is a major driver for forest loss. The rapid growth of the oil palm industry can be attributed to its uses, which include food products, and other consum‐ er goods such as cosmetics, industrial lubricant and biofuels (Corley & Tinker 2003). The de‐ mand for vegetable oil based biofuel (such as oil palm based biodiesel) is expected to rise exponentially over the coming decades. This in turn is expected to cause an increase in for‐ est loss as natural forests are removed to make way for oil palm monocultures (Butler, 2007). This paper presents an overview of the impact of oil palm plantations on biodiversity and carbon storage. Subsequently, the paper describes the role of human modified landscapes on conservation of biodiversity and carbon stocks. Finally, the paper provides a detailed overview and description of the different strategies and landscape configurations that may allow for the reconciliation of conservation priorities with oil palm expansion.

breeding bird populations, from a global level meta-analysis, indicate that they have caused losses of between a fifth and a quarter of pre-agricultural bird numbers, across a wide range of temperate and tropical land-use types (Gaston et al., 2003). Large-scale deforestation is also a significant driver of habitat fragmentation, i.e. breaking up of formerly contiguous habitat areas (Laurance and Peres, 2006). Forest fragmentation in turn increases the susceptibility of habitats to edge effects, isolation and disruption of vital ecological processes, followed by species losses from individual forest fragments (Lovejoy, 1986). Forest fragmentation also reduces the ability of forest-dependent species such as understory birds, herbivorous insects and dung beetles to transverse the landscape to reach more suitable habitats (Laurance et al., 2011). Thus, habitat loss, modification and fragmentation synergistically drive biodiversity

At a regional level, Singapore represents an extreme case of habitat loss, with a loss of 95% of its primary rainforest. This extreme habitat loss is correlated with high rates of species losses at all taxonomic levels. Extinction rates have been substantially higher for forest specialists (33%) than for species that can persist in open/modified habitats and forest edges (7%). However, they have been highest for highly habitat-specific taxa, e.g. 67% and 59% for habitatspecific birds and mammals, respectively, in Singapore (Brook et al., 2003).' Note, we have deleted the references to 'the island', because Singapore consists of 63 islands, and it is not clear whether you mean the main island or all the islands. Alternatively, you could clarify whether you mean the main islands or the islands generally. There have been considerable efforts to protect biodiversity in reserves and parks, but many of these refuges are small, fragmented, isolated or poorly protected (Harvey et al., 2008). Besides having inadequate dimensions, most protected areas are embedded within agricultural landscapes, and the buffer zones are inadequate to alleviate effects of fragmentation, contamination by agrochemicals,

Biodiversity conservation in many parts of the tropics is threatened by rapid habitat loss and destruction (Sodhi et al., 2004). South East Asia, which hosts four biodiversity hotspots, is especially vulnerable and it is estimated that 42% of the region's species could be extinct by 2100 (Sodhi and Brooks, 2006). In recent decades, in addition to swidden agriculture, rapid urbanization and timber logging, the expansion of oil palm monocultures has been one of the most significant drivers of deforestation and habitat loss in South East Asia (Corlett and Primack, 2008) and other tropical countries. The coverage of oil palm plantations in Indonesia

From figure 1 it can be seen that the area under oil palm plantations has risen significantly since 1990 and this expansion is a major driver for forest loss. The rapid growth of the oil palm industry can be attributed to its uses, which include food products, and other consum‐ er goods such as cosmetics, industrial lubricant and biofuels (Corley & Tinker 2003). The de‐ mand for vegetable oil based biofuel (such as oil palm based biodiesel) is expected to rise exponentially over the coming decades. This in turn is expected to cause an increase in for‐ est loss as natural forests are removed to make way for oil palm monocultures (Butler, 2007). This paper presents an overview of the impact of oil palm plantations on biodiversity and carbon storage. Subsequently, the paper describes the role of human modified landscapes

hunting and unsustainable or illegal logging (DeFries et al. 2005).

and Malaysia in 2008 is illustrated in Figure 1.

losses (Hilty et al., 2006).

40 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

**Figure 1.** Total forest covered by oil palm plantations, and hence losses of natural forests, in Indonesia and Malaysia (Mongabay, 2012)

### **2. Oil palm expansion and associated biodiversity & carbon storage challenges**

In recent decades, oil palm has become one of the most rapidly expanding crops in the world (Koh & Wilcove 2007) and occupies 13.8 million hectares in the tropics (FAO, 2009). The rapid growth of oil palm cultivation can be attributed to its value as both a source of food and as raw material for various consumer products, such as cosmetics, industrial lubricants and biofuels (Corley & Tinker 2003). This rapid oil palm monoculture expansion has been taking place at the cost of primary forests in the tropics (Corley, 2009).

In Indonesia and Malaysia, in the last 20 years deforestation has been driven by expansion of agricultural plantations, especially oil palm monocultures. The replacement of natural forest cover with oil palm monocultures has had detrimental effects on the regional biodiversity. The plantations support less biodiversity than the primary forests or even disturbed and logged forests they replace (Fitzherbert et al., 2008). The lower biodiversity value of oil palm mono‐ cultures can be attributed to the absence of major structurally complex components of forest vegetation, including forest trees, lianas and epiphytic orchids (Danielsen et al. 2009). Owing to the lack of the structurally complex flora, oil palm monocultures support less than half the vertebrate species found in the natural forests they replace (Persey and Anhar, 2010). An early exploration of these phenomena examined the impact of converting primary lowland forests to logging concessions and oil palm plantations in Sumatra on birds, primates, squirrels, tree shrews and bats (Danielsen and Heegaard (1995). Logging reportedly caused no change in the abundance of primate groups, squirrels and tree shrews, but was associated with a 38%-50% decline in the species richness of bats, while conversion of primary lowland forests to oil palm plantations led to species-poor and less diverse animal communities with fewer specialized species. For instance, only 5%-10% of primary forest bird species were recorded (and no mammalian species apart from one primate species) in oil palm plantations.

rapidly than omnivorous birds (Aratrakorn et al., 2006). Furthermore, bird communities in the oil palm and rubber plantations are reportedly extremely similar. The results confirm that a high proportion of species formerly present in the region are unable to adapt to conversion of forest to oil palm and rubber plantations, resulting in large losses of bird species and the replacement of species with high conservation status by those with extensive ranges and low

Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

43

The species losses have not been restricted to birds. For instance, analyses by Koh and Wilcove (2007) indicate that conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm plantations has decreased species richness of forest butterflies by 83% and 79%, respectively, in South East Asia. Further, Fayle et al. (2010) found that conversion of lowland forests to oil palm plantations in Sabah (Malaysia) causes a 64% reduction in ant species richness. Monoculture plantations such as those of oil palm also have much lower species diversity of dung beetles than primary or even logged forests (Chung et al., 2000). Similar trends in the diversity of insect species across different land use types have also been observed elsewhere in the world. For example, Barlow et al. (2007) surveyed dung beetles across different land use types, including *Eucalyp‐ tus* plantations, and found that dung beetle communities have very low species diversity in plantations. Furthermore, the depletion of dung beetle abundance is likely to have detrimental consequences for the maintenance of ecosystem services associated with them. Dung beetles have high ecological importance and are tightly linked with mammal communities (Edwards et al., 2011). Hence any alteration in their community structure can have a domino effect on higher taxonomic groups. Turner and Foster (2009) found that conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm plantations in Malaysia also detrimentally affects the abundance of arthropods at all levels of the forest ecosystem. In another survey, of moth population distributions and diversity in Danum, Sabah, 67% of the species recorded in primary forest were not detected at oil palm sites and adjacent, disturbed forest (Chey, 2006). The results showed that biodiversity loss (using moths as indicator species) was most significant in oil

palm plantations, the most common form of forest conversion in Sabah.

has a significantly negative impact on the flora and fauna of the area.

Hence, on the basis of evidence presented in the literature cited above, it may be inferred that oil palm plantations tend to have less taxonomically diverse species assemblages than more diverse habitats such as logged forests. These monocultures are poor substitute habitats for most tropical forest species, particularly those of high conservation concern, such as vulnera‐ ble, endemic or range-restricted species.  This has been attributed to the fact that the extreme disturbance that follows conversion to oil palm plantation

In addition to having detrimental effects on biodiversity, oil palm expansion also contrib‐ utes to carbon emissions in South East Asia (Koh et al., 2011). Forest conversion to oil palm monoculture causes a net release of approximately 650 Mg CO2 equivalents per hec‐ tare, and emissions resulting from peat forest conversion are even higher due to the de‐ composition of drained peat and consequent release of greenhouse gases (GHGs; Germer and Sauerborn, 2008). This conversion in turn creates a "biofuel carbon debt" by releasing

conservation status.

These findings have been corroborated by recent research focussing on the impact of convert‐ ing primary forest to oil palm plantations on various species. Across all taxa, only 15% of species recorded in primary forest were found in oil palm plantations in a study by Fitzherbert et al. (2008). However, the ability of oil palm monocultures to support biodiversity varies across different taxa.

In Malaysia, primary forests support up to 80 mammalian species, while disturbed forests provide habitats for about 30 mammal species and oil palm plantations only support up to 12 species (WWF 2012, Clay (2004)). Corroborative research by Maddox et al. (2007) indicates that oil palm monocultures provide poor habitats for most endangered terrestrial mammal species of South East Asia. Orang-utans are a critically endangered mammal species, restricted to the islands of Sumatra and Borneo. In the recent past, expanding oil palm estates have encroached on their major habitat, the primary lowland forests, and this habitat loss has been associated with sharp decline in their population (Friends of the Earth, 2009). Further, most endangered species, including the iconic Sumatran tiger, tapirs and clouded leopard have not been detected in oil palm plantations. In addition, some species (including deer, macaques and pangolins) have shown a limited tolerance for oil palm plantations (Maddox et al., 2007).

Fukuda et al. (2009) examined effects of land use change on the diversity and distribution of bat species in an intact lowland Dipterocarp forest and surrounding land of modified use types, including secondary forests, orchards and oil palm monocultures. The intact lowland forest had the highest species diversity, and many of the specialist species such as frugivorous and insectivorous bats were absent from oil palm plantations. Oil palm plantations and orchards were only able to provide food sources for three megachiropteran species, and even these species displayed a preference for primary and secondary forests (Fukuda et al., 2009). In addition, Sheldon et al. (2010) found that only between 5% and 53% of bird species recorded in Bornean primary forest were also present in nearby oil palm plantations. Similarly, Phillipps and Phillipps (2010) reported that lowland primary forests in Borneo support more than 220 habitat specialist (often endemic and vulnerable) birds, while oil palm plantations support less than a dozen bird species, most of which are generalists? Conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm plantations has also reportedly decreased the species richness of forest birds in Peninsular Malaysia, by 77% and 73%, respectively (Peh et al., 2006). Similar trends in bird species population declines have been observed elsewhere in the world. Notably, in Thailand, conversion of forests to rubber and oil palm plantations has resulted in a 60% decline in bird species richness, with insectivorous and frugivorous birds declining more rapidly than omnivorous birds (Aratrakorn et al., 2006). Furthermore, bird communities in the oil palm and rubber plantations are reportedly extremely similar. The results confirm that a high proportion of species formerly present in the region are unable to adapt to conversion of forest to oil palm and rubber plantations, resulting in large losses of bird species and the replacement of species with high conservation status by those with extensive ranges and low conservation status.

vertebrate species found in the natural forests they replace (Persey and Anhar, 2010). An early exploration of these phenomena examined the impact of converting primary lowland forests to logging concessions and oil palm plantations in Sumatra on birds, primates, squirrels, tree shrews and bats (Danielsen and Heegaard (1995). Logging reportedly caused no change in the abundance of primate groups, squirrels and tree shrews, but was associated with a 38%-50% decline in the species richness of bats, while conversion of primary lowland forests to oil palm plantations led to species-poor and less diverse animal communities with fewer specialized species. For instance, only 5%-10% of primary forest bird species were recorded (and no

These findings have been corroborated by recent research focussing on the impact of convert‐ ing primary forest to oil palm plantations on various species. Across all taxa, only 15% of species recorded in primary forest were found in oil palm plantations in a study by Fitzherbert et al. (2008). However, the ability of oil palm monocultures to support biodiversity varies across

In Malaysia, primary forests support up to 80 mammalian species, while disturbed forests provide habitats for about 30 mammal species and oil palm plantations only support up to 12 species (WWF 2012, Clay (2004)). Corroborative research by Maddox et al. (2007) indicates that oil palm monocultures provide poor habitats for most endangered terrestrial mammal species of South East Asia. Orang-utans are a critically endangered mammal species, restricted to the islands of Sumatra and Borneo. In the recent past, expanding oil palm estates have encroached on their major habitat, the primary lowland forests, and this habitat loss has been associated with sharp decline in their population (Friends of the Earth, 2009). Further, most endangered species, including the iconic Sumatran tiger, tapirs and clouded leopard have not been detected in oil palm plantations. In addition, some species (including deer, macaques and pangolins)

Fukuda et al. (2009) examined effects of land use change on the diversity and distribution of bat species in an intact lowland Dipterocarp forest and surrounding land of modified use types, including secondary forests, orchards and oil palm monocultures. The intact lowland forest had the highest species diversity, and many of the specialist species such as frugivorous and insectivorous bats were absent from oil palm plantations. Oil palm plantations and orchards were only able to provide food sources for three megachiropteran species, and even these species displayed a preference for primary and secondary forests (Fukuda et al., 2009). In addition, Sheldon et al. (2010) found that only between 5% and 53% of bird species recorded in Bornean primary forest were also present in nearby oil palm plantations. Similarly, Phillipps and Phillipps (2010) reported that lowland primary forests in Borneo support more than 220 habitat specialist (often endemic and vulnerable) birds, while oil palm plantations support less than a dozen bird species, most of which are generalists? Conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm plantations has also reportedly decreased the species richness of forest birds in Peninsular Malaysia, by 77% and 73%, respectively (Peh et al., 2006). Similar trends in bird species population declines have been observed elsewhere in the world. Notably, in Thailand, conversion of forests to rubber and oil palm plantations has resulted in a 60% decline in bird species richness, with insectivorous and frugivorous birds declining more

mammalian species apart from one primate species) in oil palm plantations.

have shown a limited tolerance for oil palm plantations (Maddox et al., 2007).

different taxa.

42 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

The species losses have not been restricted to birds. For instance, analyses by Koh and Wilcove (2007) indicate that conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm plantations has decreased species richness of forest butterflies by 83% and 79%, respectively, in South East Asia. Further, Fayle et al. (2010) found that conversion of lowland forests to oil palm plantations in Sabah (Malaysia) causes a 64% reduction in ant species richness. Monoculture plantations such as those of oil palm also have much lower species diversity of dung beetles than primary or even logged forests (Chung et al., 2000). Similar trends in the diversity of insect species across different land use types have also been observed elsewhere in the world. For example, Barlow et al. (2007) surveyed dung beetles across different land use types, including *Eucalyp‐ tus* plantations, and found that dung beetle communities have very low species diversity in plantations. Furthermore, the depletion of dung beetle abundance is likely to have detrimental consequences for the maintenance of ecosystem services associated with them. Dung beetles have high ecological importance and are tightly linked with mammal communities (Edwards et al., 2011). Hence any alteration in their community structure can have a domino effect on higher taxonomic groups. Turner and Foster (2009) found that conversion of primary forests and logged forests to oil palm plantations in Malaysia also detrimentally affects the abundance of arthropods at all levels of the forest ecosystem. In another survey, of moth population distributions and diversity in Danum, Sabah, 67% of the species recorded in primary forest were not detected at oil palm sites and adjacent, disturbed forest (Chey, 2006). The results showed that biodiversity loss (using moths as indicator species) was most significant in oil palm plantations, the most common form of forest conversion in Sabah.

Hence, on the basis of evidence presented in the literature cited above, it may be inferred that oil palm plantations tend to have less taxonomically diverse species assemblages than more diverse habitats such as logged forests. These monocultures are poor substitute habitats for most tropical forest species, particularly those of high conservation concern, such as vulnera‐ ble, endemic or range-restricted species.  This has been attributed to the fact that the extreme disturbance that follows conversion to oil palm plantation has a significantly negative impact on the flora and fauna of the area.

In addition to having detrimental effects on biodiversity, oil palm expansion also contrib‐ utes to carbon emissions in South East Asia (Koh et al., 2011). Forest conversion to oil palm monoculture causes a net release of approximately 650 Mg CO2 equivalents per hec‐ tare, and emissions resulting from peat forest conversion are even higher due to the de‐ composition of drained peat and consequent release of greenhouse gases (GHGs; Germer and Sauerborn, 2008). This conversion in turn creates a "biofuel carbon debt" by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual GHG reductions that these biofuels would pro‐ vide by displacing fossil fuels (Fargione et al., 2008). Research by Danielsen et al. (2009) indicates that it could take between 75-93 years for carbon emissions saved from the use of biofuels to compensate for the carbon released by forest conversion. CO2 emissions from conversion of peat swamp forest, in particular, are far greater than gains from sub‐ stitution of fossil fuels with palm oil (Hooijer et al., 2006).

vegetation) have much more complex structure, with significant resemblance to primary vegetation (Lindenmayer and Hobbs, 2004). The dichotomy has important implications for both conservation strategies and the design of oil palm plantations, indicating that modified landscapes and new planning strategies may be required to reduce their impacts on local

Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

45

The problems associated with reducing the adverse effects of agricultural expansion on nature are substantial and require urgent attention. Two very different management approaches have been recommended in the literature to address these problems: land sparing, in which farm yields are increased and pressure to convert land for agriculture is reduced (at the potential cost of reducing wildlife populations on farmland); and land sharing/wildlife friendly farming, in which on-farm practises that are benign to wildlife are applied (Balmford et al., 2005).

In land sparing, homogeneous areas of farmland are managed to maximize yields, while separate reserves target biodiversity conservation. Land sparing is associated with an island model of modified landscapes, where islands of nature are seen as separate from human activities. The resulting agricultural systems are mostly homogenous and industrial in style, striving for maximum economic efficiency. They commonly rely on high inputs of fertilizers and pesticides, crop diversity is usually low, and individual fields tend to be large (Fischer et al., 2008). Indeed, according to Waggoner (1996), high yields of food crops have to be main‐ tained if mankind is to put aside any land for biodiversity conservation. This arguably makes

Green et al. (2005) have presented a model that identifies the trade-offs involved. According to their research on a range of taxa in developing countries, high yield farming provides a means of allowing more species to persist. In accordance with the model: the abundance of imperilled bird species is reportedly 60-fold lower in fragments and 200-fold lower in oil palm plantations than in primary contiguous forest; retention of forest fragments does not increase bird abundance in adjacent oil palm plantations; and fragments have lower species richness than contiguous forest, with an avifaunal composition that is more similar to that of the plantations than contiguous forest (Edwards et al., 2010). Therefore, from a conservation perspective, any investment in the retention of fragments would be better directed toward the protection of primary contiguous forest. In contrast, censuses of birds in El Trunifo Biosphere reserve, southern Mexico, indicate that shade coffee plantations may have bird diversity levels similar to those of natural forests (Tejeda-Cruz and Sutherland, 2004). However, the coffee agricultural systems and natural forests differ in species composition, notably birds that are highly sensitive to disturbance are more abundant in primary forests. Hence, although coffee agricultural systems may play an important role in maintaining local biodiversity, their promotion as a "silver bullet" may encourage the transformation of primary forests to shade coffee plantations, leading to a loss of forest species. Similarly, in North Borneo there is reportedly little difference in butterfly diversity between primary and logged forests, but marked differences in the composition of butterfly assemblages between the two habitats. Butterfly species with higher shade preferences and narrower geographic distributions are

biodiversity (Maddox et al., 2007).

**3.1. The land sparing approach**

a compelling argument for land sparing.

While the carbon sequestration and conservation value of old growth and undisturbed primary forests is well established, less than pristine human modified landscapes also have considerable conservation and carbon storage potential. Research by Berry et al. (2010) indicates that more than 90% of the species recorded in primary forests are also present in logged forests. In addition to providing vital habitats for biodiversity, human-modified landscapes (such as logged forests) have significant carbon storage potential. During recovery, Berry et al. (2010) found that logged forest accumulated carbon five times more rapidly than natural forest (1.4 and 0.28 Mg C ha-1 year-1, respectively), providing significant carbon storage.

Hence, in order to create palm oil monocultures that do not damage local biodiversity and carbon stocks, it is vital to include human modified/degraded landscapes in any conservation program considered for a given area.

#### **3. Role of human-modified landscapes in biodiversity conservation**

A significant body of literature (discussed in the previous section) indicates that converting land to oil palm plantations has a detrimental effect on most taxa. However, literature also indicates that the marginal and/or degraded habitats often found within or outside palm oil concessions can retain high conservation values. The fate of biodiversity within patches of lowland forests is inextricably linked to the broader landscape context, including how the surrounding agricultural matrix is designed and managed (Wallace et al. 2005). Species are more likely to persist in protected areas that incorporate local environmental heterogeneity, because this provides them with a range of conditions, thereby allowing them to adjust their local distribution in response to environmental change (Gillson and Willis, 2004). Whilst this matrix is rarely of the quality found in protected areas, using the conservation potential of unprotected lands can help overcome many of the shortfalls of the protected area system (Maddox et al., 2007) and combat the effects of habitat loss, fragmentation and edge effects. For instance, selectively logged forests can make important contributions to the conservation of tropical biodiversity, provided that they are managed in a way that maintains environmental heterogeneity (Hamer et al., 2003).

There are also other land use types that can counter the threats oil palm monocultures pose to biodiversity. While intensive oil palm monocultures offer few biodiversity conservation benefits (Koh, 2008), other plantation systems, such as cocoa agroforests and mixed fruit orchards, may provide valuable habitats (Hartley 2002). This dichotomy may be due to the vegetation structure of monocultures being too simple to support high levels of species diversity, while multi-species plantations (especially those that encompass remnants of native vegetation) have much more complex structure, with significant resemblance to primary vegetation (Lindenmayer and Hobbs, 2004). The dichotomy has important implications for both conservation strategies and the design of oil palm plantations, indicating that modified landscapes and new planning strategies may be required to reduce their impacts on local biodiversity (Maddox et al., 2007).

The problems associated with reducing the adverse effects of agricultural expansion on nature are substantial and require urgent attention. Two very different management approaches have been recommended in the literature to address these problems: land sparing, in which farm yields are increased and pressure to convert land for agriculture is reduced (at the potential cost of reducing wildlife populations on farmland); and land sharing/wildlife friendly farming, in which on-farm practises that are benign to wildlife are applied (Balmford et al., 2005).

#### **3.1. The land sparing approach**

17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual GHG reductions that these biofuels would pro‐ vide by displacing fossil fuels (Fargione et al., 2008). Research by Danielsen et al. (2009) indicates that it could take between 75-93 years for carbon emissions saved from the use of biofuels to compensate for the carbon released by forest conversion. CO2 emissions from conversion of peat swamp forest, in particular, are far greater than gains from sub‐

While the carbon sequestration and conservation value of old growth and undisturbed primary forests is well established, less than pristine human modified landscapes also have considerable conservation and carbon storage potential. Research by Berry et al. (2010) indicates that more than 90% of the species recorded in primary forests are also present in logged forests. In addition to providing vital habitats for biodiversity, human-modified landscapes (such as logged forests) have significant carbon storage potential. During recovery, Berry et al. (2010) found that logged forest accumulated carbon five times more rapidly than natural forest (1.4 and 0.28 Mg C ha-1 year-1, respectively), providing significant carbon storage. Hence, in order to create palm oil monocultures that do not damage local biodiversity and carbon stocks, it is vital to include human modified/degraded landscapes in any conservation

**3. Role of human-modified landscapes in biodiversity conservation**

A significant body of literature (discussed in the previous section) indicates that converting land to oil palm plantations has a detrimental effect on most taxa. However, literature also indicates that the marginal and/or degraded habitats often found within or outside palm oil concessions can retain high conservation values. The fate of biodiversity within patches of lowland forests is inextricably linked to the broader landscape context, including how the surrounding agricultural matrix is designed and managed (Wallace et al. 2005). Species are more likely to persist in protected areas that incorporate local environmental heterogeneity, because this provides them with a range of conditions, thereby allowing them to adjust their local distribution in response to environmental change (Gillson and Willis, 2004). Whilst this matrix is rarely of the quality found in protected areas, using the conservation potential of unprotected lands can help overcome many of the shortfalls of the protected area system (Maddox et al., 2007) and combat the effects of habitat loss, fragmentation and edge effects. For instance, selectively logged forests can make important contributions to the conservation of tropical biodiversity, provided that they are managed in a way that maintains environmental

There are also other land use types that can counter the threats oil palm monocultures pose to biodiversity. While intensive oil palm monocultures offer few biodiversity conservation benefits (Koh, 2008), other plantation systems, such as cocoa agroforests and mixed fruit orchards, may provide valuable habitats (Hartley 2002). This dichotomy may be due to the vegetation structure of monocultures being too simple to support high levels of species diversity, while multi-species plantations (especially those that encompass remnants of native

stitution of fossil fuels with palm oil (Hooijer et al., 2006).

program considered for a given area.

44 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

heterogeneity (Hamer et al., 2003).

In land sparing, homogeneous areas of farmland are managed to maximize yields, while separate reserves target biodiversity conservation. Land sparing is associated with an island model of modified landscapes, where islands of nature are seen as separate from human activities. The resulting agricultural systems are mostly homogenous and industrial in style, striving for maximum economic efficiency. They commonly rely on high inputs of fertilizers and pesticides, crop diversity is usually low, and individual fields tend to be large (Fischer et al., 2008). Indeed, according to Waggoner (1996), high yields of food crops have to be main‐ tained if mankind is to put aside any land for biodiversity conservation. This arguably makes a compelling argument for land sparing.

Green et al. (2005) have presented a model that identifies the trade-offs involved. According to their research on a range of taxa in developing countries, high yield farming provides a means of allowing more species to persist. In accordance with the model: the abundance of imperilled bird species is reportedly 60-fold lower in fragments and 200-fold lower in oil palm plantations than in primary contiguous forest; retention of forest fragments does not increase bird abundance in adjacent oil palm plantations; and fragments have lower species richness than contiguous forest, with an avifaunal composition that is more similar to that of the plantations than contiguous forest (Edwards et al., 2010). Therefore, from a conservation perspective, any investment in the retention of fragments would be better directed toward the protection of primary contiguous forest. In contrast, censuses of birds in El Trunifo Biosphere reserve, southern Mexico, indicate that shade coffee plantations may have bird diversity levels similar to those of natural forests (Tejeda-Cruz and Sutherland, 2004). However, the coffee agricultural systems and natural forests differ in species composition, notably birds that are highly sensitive to disturbance are more abundant in primary forests. Hence, although coffee agricultural systems may play an important role in maintaining local biodiversity, their promotion as a "silver bullet" may encourage the transformation of primary forests to shade coffee plantations, leading to a loss of forest species. Similarly, in North Borneo there is reportedly little difference in butterfly diversity between primary and logged forests, but marked differences in the composition of butterfly assemblages between the two habitats. Butterfly species with higher shade preferences and narrower geographic distributions are particularly adversely affected by logging (Hamer et al., 2003). A similar, earlier survey of butterfly species distribution in Buru, Indonesia, indicated that their species richness and abundance was higher in primary forests than in other land use types. The primary forests also housed endemic species and species whose distribution is restricted to the province (Hill et al., 1995). Dunn (2004) compared the effects of logging and conversion of forest to agriculture or pasture on ant, bird, and lepidoptera species richness by combining data from 34 studies of tropical forests in Africa, Asia and the Americas, finding that forest conversion to agriculture or pasture decreased the species richness of ants and animals overall.

According to Norris (2008), it is important to recognize that some biodiversity is retained in agricultural landscapes, and that it is the degree of biodiversity retention that we need to understand and effectively manage. In regions such as Indonesia there are relatively few pristine areas and agriculture–forest mosaics now comprise much of the landscape (Koh et al., 2009). In this scenario, given the fragmented nature of most tropical ecosystems, agricultural landscapes should be an essential component of any conservation strategy (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010). In this context, we examine an alternative land management option;

Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

47

Estimates suggest that more than half of all species exist principally outside Protected Areas, mostly in agricultural landscapes (Blann, 2006). Such species can be conserved by modifying existing agricultural landscapes through the principles of eco-agriculture and wildlife friendly

In wildlife-friendly farming, as opposed to land sparing, conservation and production are integrated within more heterogeneous landscapes (Fischer et al., 2008), but agricultural yields tend to be relatively low (Green et al. 2005). Therefore, a larger land area is typical‐ ly needed to produce the same agricultural yield. While this leaves less land for perma‐ nent preservation, more biodiversity can occur on the "wildlife-friendly" agricultural land itself (Fischer et al., 2008). Wildlife friendly farming systems apply the principle that agri‐ cultural landscapes can be designed and managed to host wild biodiversity of many types, with neutral or even positive effects on agricultural production. It may be regarded as an integrated conservation–agriculture strategy, in which biodiversity conservation is an explicit objective of agriculture and rural development, which are explicitly considered in shaping conservation and livelihood strategies (Scherr and McNeely, 2007). For in‐ stance, agroforestry systems are important for the livelihood of many families in rural areas of the tropics, especially the humid tropics where most biodiversity hotspots are lo‐ cated. They may also provide critical refuges for wildlife. Hence, wildlife friendly land planning strategies like these should be considered important components of integrated

Harvey et al. (2008) discuss the illustrative case of Mesoamerican biodiversity hotspots, where 80% of the primary forest has been converted to agricultural landscapes and the survival of endemic species is threatened. The cited authors propose an integrated land‐ scape management strategy, in which conservation and production units within the agri‐ cultural matrix are managed jointly for long-term sustainability and agricultural production. While this approach is unlikely to maximize agricultural productivity, tradi‐ tional small-scale farms can provide both farmer livelihoods and biodiversity conservation (Harvey et al., 2008), since forested and non-forested habitats contribute to biodiversity conservation.Forest fragments, riparian forests, tree plantations and other types of rem‐ nant and introduced tree cover serve as habitats for many species, enhance landscape con‐ nectivity, and retain potential for forest regeneration and restoration (Chazdon 2003; Harvey et al. 2006*a* Furthermore, landscapes exploited for various other uses, such as di‐

landscape conservation strategies (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2008).

wildlife friendly farming.

**3.2. Land sharing/wildlife friendly farming**

farming (Scherr and McNeely, 2007).

On the basis of the impacts that forest clearance has on the distribution different kinds of taxa, many authors have recommended using land sparing techniques as a way of con‐ serving maximum possible biodiversity. Due to the impacts of forest clearance on the dis‐ tribution of various taxa, many authors (e.g., Ghazoul et al., 2010) have recommended land sparing strategies to conserve maximum possible biodiversity. Accordingly, studies by Anderson et al. (2009) indicate that achieving both high agricultural production and bi‐ odiversity is difficult within a single land management system, and some 'land sparing' is necessary to achieve biodiversity targets. Research by Phalan (2009) in Ghana also indi‐ cates that increasing yields on existing croplands may enhance possibilities to spare natu‐ ral habitats, by reducing the area of land needed for agriculture. According to these authors, the persistence of many species maybe better enhanced by enlarging or maintain‐ ing areas of natural forest cover while intensifying production on converted land to en‐ sure that demands for plantation crops (such as oil palm) are met by maximizing yields on unforested land. This view is supported (*inter alia*) by findings presented by Green et al. (2005) and Balmford et al. (2005) that more bird diversity could be sustained by por‐ tioning land between intensive agriculture and wildlife reserves. Thus, although land sparing is a weak strategy, and can only be applied under a limited set of circumstances, it can have positive outcomes for nature conservation (Ewers et al., 2009).

Despite its proposed benefits, the land sparing approach has been heavily critiqued in a body of peer-reviewed literature. Notably, Matson and Vitousek (2006) suggest that intensive agricultural systems may fail to spare land for nature and the high use of agricultural inputs may adversely impact areas downstream from the agricultural farms. Thus, the high use of agro-chemicals, such as fertilizers, which is required for land intensification, could have detrimental effects on biodiversity, although extensive integrated land management could enhance profitability and benefit native vegetation (Moll et al., 2007). In contrast, Polasky et al. (2005) found that biodiversity conservation objectives can potentially be achieved in agricultural landscapes with thoughtful land-use planning. Due to the degree of conflict between conservation and agricultural returns, with the assumption that sensitive species survive only within and economic activity only outside reserves, land-sparing is a much less integrated approach than some options. Further, it does not recognize, or incorporate, the important contributions to the conservation of tropical biodiversity that other land use types, such as selectively logged forests, can make provided that their management maintains environmental heterogeneity (Hamer et al., 2003).

According to Norris (2008), it is important to recognize that some biodiversity is retained in agricultural landscapes, and that it is the degree of biodiversity retention that we need to understand and effectively manage. In regions such as Indonesia there are relatively few pristine areas and agriculture–forest mosaics now comprise much of the landscape (Koh et al., 2009). In this scenario, given the fragmented nature of most tropical ecosystems, agricultural landscapes should be an essential component of any conservation strategy (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010). In this context, we examine an alternative land management option; wildlife friendly farming.

#### **3.2. Land sharing/wildlife friendly farming**

particularly adversely affected by logging (Hamer et al., 2003). A similar, earlier survey of butterfly species distribution in Buru, Indonesia, indicated that their species richness and abundance was higher in primary forests than in other land use types. The primary forests also housed endemic species and species whose distribution is restricted to the province (Hill et al., 1995). Dunn (2004) compared the effects of logging and conversion of forest to agriculture or pasture on ant, bird, and lepidoptera species richness by combining data from 34 studies of tropical forests in Africa, Asia and the Americas, finding that forest conversion to agriculture

On the basis of the impacts that forest clearance has on the distribution different kinds of taxa, many authors have recommended using land sparing techniques as a way of con‐ serving maximum possible biodiversity. Due to the impacts of forest clearance on the dis‐ tribution of various taxa, many authors (e.g., Ghazoul et al., 2010) have recommended land sparing strategies to conserve maximum possible biodiversity. Accordingly, studies by Anderson et al. (2009) indicate that achieving both high agricultural production and bi‐ odiversity is difficult within a single land management system, and some 'land sparing' is necessary to achieve biodiversity targets. Research by Phalan (2009) in Ghana also indi‐ cates that increasing yields on existing croplands may enhance possibilities to spare natu‐ ral habitats, by reducing the area of land needed for agriculture. According to these authors, the persistence of many species maybe better enhanced by enlarging or maintain‐ ing areas of natural forest cover while intensifying production on converted land to en‐ sure that demands for plantation crops (such as oil palm) are met by maximizing yields on unforested land. This view is supported (*inter alia*) by findings presented by Green et al. (2005) and Balmford et al. (2005) that more bird diversity could be sustained by por‐ tioning land between intensive agriculture and wildlife reserves. Thus, although land sparing is a weak strategy, and can only be applied under a limited set of circumstances,

or pasture decreased the species richness of ants and animals overall.

46 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

it can have positive outcomes for nature conservation (Ewers et al., 2009).

environmental heterogeneity (Hamer et al., 2003).

Despite its proposed benefits, the land sparing approach has been heavily critiqued in a body of peer-reviewed literature. Notably, Matson and Vitousek (2006) suggest that intensive agricultural systems may fail to spare land for nature and the high use of agricultural inputs may adversely impact areas downstream from the agricultural farms. Thus, the high use of agro-chemicals, such as fertilizers, which is required for land intensification, could have detrimental effects on biodiversity, although extensive integrated land management could enhance profitability and benefit native vegetation (Moll et al., 2007). In contrast, Polasky et al. (2005) found that biodiversity conservation objectives can potentially be achieved in agricultural landscapes with thoughtful land-use planning. Due to the degree of conflict between conservation and agricultural returns, with the assumption that sensitive species survive only within and economic activity only outside reserves, land-sparing is a much less integrated approach than some options. Further, it does not recognize, or incorporate, the important contributions to the conservation of tropical biodiversity that other land use types, such as selectively logged forests, can make provided that their management maintains

Estimates suggest that more than half of all species exist principally outside Protected Areas, mostly in agricultural landscapes (Blann, 2006). Such species can be conserved by modifying existing agricultural landscapes through the principles of eco-agriculture and wildlife friendly farming (Scherr and McNeely, 2007).

In wildlife-friendly farming, as opposed to land sparing, conservation and production are integrated within more heterogeneous landscapes (Fischer et al., 2008), but agricultural yields tend to be relatively low (Green et al. 2005). Therefore, a larger land area is typical‐ ly needed to produce the same agricultural yield. While this leaves less land for perma‐ nent preservation, more biodiversity can occur on the "wildlife-friendly" agricultural land itself (Fischer et al., 2008). Wildlife friendly farming systems apply the principle that agri‐ cultural landscapes can be designed and managed to host wild biodiversity of many types, with neutral or even positive effects on agricultural production. It may be regarded as an integrated conservation–agriculture strategy, in which biodiversity conservation is an explicit objective of agriculture and rural development, which are explicitly considered in shaping conservation and livelihood strategies (Scherr and McNeely, 2007). For in‐ stance, agroforestry systems are important for the livelihood of many families in rural areas of the tropics, especially the humid tropics where most biodiversity hotspots are lo‐ cated. They may also provide critical refuges for wildlife. Hence, wildlife friendly land planning strategies like these should be considered important components of integrated landscape conservation strategies (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2008).

Harvey et al. (2008) discuss the illustrative case of Mesoamerican biodiversity hotspots, where 80% of the primary forest has been converted to agricultural landscapes and the survival of endemic species is threatened. The cited authors propose an integrated land‐ scape management strategy, in which conservation and production units within the agri‐ cultural matrix are managed jointly for long-term sustainability and agricultural production. While this approach is unlikely to maximize agricultural productivity, tradi‐ tional small-scale farms can provide both farmer livelihoods and biodiversity conservation (Harvey et al., 2008), since forested and non-forested habitats contribute to biodiversity conservation.Forest fragments, riparian forests, tree plantations and other types of rem‐ nant and introduced tree cover serve as habitats for many species, enhance landscape con‐ nectivity, and retain potential for forest regeneration and restoration (Chazdon 2003; Harvey et al. 2006*a* Furthermore, landscapes exploited for various other uses, such as di‐ verse coffee agroforestry (Moguel & Toledo 1999; Komar 2006), cocoa agroforestry (Rice & Greenberg 2000; Harvey et al. 2006*b* ) and traditional agro-ecological land systems, such as organic farming and swidden agriculture (Finegan & Nasi 2004), also retain high levels of both wild and agricultural biodiversity and offer much greater conservation value than the high-yield intensive agricultural landscapes that are proposed to replace them.

et al. (2006) compared the distributions of birds in a mixed fruit orchard and a nearby isolated forest patch on Khao Luang mountain, southern Thailand, with that in natural forest. They found the orchard was about 75% as rich in bird species as the forest, and the avifauna in the former was dominated by smaller fugivorous, nectarivorous and widespread generalist species. Sundaic birds contributed 26% of sightings in the orchard, although understory insectivores were poorly represented. However, while agricultural diversification may assist in restoring modest levels of diversity in areas already degraded or committed to human use, it should not be seen as a substitute for conventional protection of forest and wildlife. Com‐ munities in disturbed habitats are known to contain significantly more generalized species than those associated with pristine habitats (Taki and Kevan 2007), hence it is vital to identify

Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

49

Both land sparing and land sharing approaches have advocates, and pros and cons, raising questions about which, if either, approach should be used. The optimal choice between land sparing and wildlife-friendly farming, or combining the two, to maintain production and biodiversity will differ between landscapes (Hodgson et al., 2010). The choice of which strategy to use could be informed by yield-density relations, which describe relationships between population densities of particular species and agricultural yields. Land sparing is a recom‐ mended strategy for species whose populations decline rapidly when their natural intact habitats are converted to low intensity agricultural landscapes. In contrast, wildlife friendly farming may be more appropriate for species whose densities persist even when their intact

Instead of taking an either-or approach, Koh et al. (2009) draw on both strategies, advocating the creation of agroforestry zones between high conservation value areas and intensive agricultural plantations (such as palm oil monocultures) to create more heterogeneous landscapes that can benefit both biodiversity and rural communities. However, before selecting any of the aforementioned approaches many other landscape level factors must be taken into account. The landscape considerations that can arise and why they need to be addressed has been illustrated by a comparison of distributions and abundance patterns of multiple species (frogs, bats and dung beetles) between a cloud forest and coffee agroforestry in Mexico (Pineda et al., 2005). The three indicator sets of species considered responded differently to land use change from montane cloud forest to coffee agroforestry. The species richness of frogs in the coffee agroforestry system was just a fifth of that in the cloud forests, and a third of the forest species were recorded in both the forest and the coffee agroforestry system. In contrast, the abundance and diversity of beetle species were higher in the coffee agroforestry system, while the composition of bat species did not significantly differ between the land use types. This variation in species distribution has been attributed to differences in the permeability of different species through the two habitats and their physiological traits. Shaded coffee agroforestry systems form a matrix around remnant patches of the cloud forest, and provide connections between the forest fragments and other habitats in the landscape.

the optimal approach for a given scenario.

**4. Land sparing versus wildlife friendly farming choices**

natural habitats are converted in this manner (Mattison and Norris, 2005).

According to Bhagwat et al. (2008), agroforestry systems can alleviate resource use pres‐ sure in protected areas, enhance habitats for certain species and improve the connectivity of landscape components. Traditional agroforestry systems such as jungle rubber, shadegrown coffee and cocoa systems in the tropics resemble natural rainforests in many struc‐ tural respects, and thus have been suggested to be promising wildlife-friendly land use strategies, conserving a significant proportion of tropical rainforest diversity while provid‐ ing significant economic returns (Schroth et al., 2004). As primary forests shrink, fragment and are reduced to isolated habitat islands in a landscape dominated by agricultural farms/plantations, agroforestry systems could help maintain higher levels of biodiversity both within and outside protected areas. Although it has been correctly noted that agro‐ forestry systems displace natural ecosystems, they offer greater potential for reconciling biodiversity conservation with agricultural production than intensive monocultures (Schroth, 2003).

To illustrate the potential conservation utility of agroforestry systems, For example, jungle rubber gardens of Indonesia are low-input rubber agro-forests that structurally resemble secondary forest and retain high populations of wild species. Beukema et al. (2007) compared the plant and bird diversity in Indonesian jungle rubber agroforestry systems to that in primary forest and rubber plantations. They found that species richness in the jungle rubber systems was slightly higher for terrestrial pteridophytes, similar for birds and lower for epiphytic pteridophytes, trees and vascular plants as a whole than in primary forest. For subsets of 'forest species' of terrestrial pteridophytes and birds, species richness was lower in the jungle rubber systems than in primary forest. These findings show that forest-like land use can be potentially used to support species diversity in an impoverished landscape increasingly dominated by monoculture plantations (Beukema et al., 2007). Similarly, Perfecto et al. (2005) investigated the biodiversity conservation potential of shade-grown coffee systems and concluded that due to the retention of canopy cover such agro-forests can provide both biodiversity conservation and economic returns from agricultural production. According to Harvey, (2007) transforma‐ tion from near-primary forest to cocoa agroforestry in Sulawesi (Indonesia) has had little effect on overall species richness, but reduced plant biomass and carbon storage by ≈75%, and the species richness of forest-using taxa by ≈60%. In contrast, increased land use intensity in cacao agroforestry, coupled with a reduction in shade tree cover from 80% to 40%, has caused only minor quantitative changes in biodiversity and maintained high levels of ecosystem function‐ ing while doubling farmers' net income. Hence, Harvey, (2007) concluded that low-shade agroforestry provides the best available compromise between economic forces and ecological needs. Similarly, Harvey and Villalobos (2007) examined species diversity across various agroforestry systems and concluded that heterogeneous mixed plantations of tree crops such as banana and cocoa are more hospitable to biodiversity than monoculture plantations. Round et al. (2006) compared the distributions of birds in a mixed fruit orchard and a nearby isolated forest patch on Khao Luang mountain, southern Thailand, with that in natural forest. They found the orchard was about 75% as rich in bird species as the forest, and the avifauna in the former was dominated by smaller fugivorous, nectarivorous and widespread generalist species. Sundaic birds contributed 26% of sightings in the orchard, although understory insectivores were poorly represented. However, while agricultural diversification may assist in restoring modest levels of diversity in areas already degraded or committed to human use, it should not be seen as a substitute for conventional protection of forest and wildlife. Com‐ munities in disturbed habitats are known to contain significantly more generalized species than those associated with pristine habitats (Taki and Kevan 2007), hence it is vital to identify the optimal approach for a given scenario.

#### **4. Land sparing versus wildlife friendly farming choices**

verse coffee agroforestry (Moguel & Toledo 1999; Komar 2006), cocoa agroforestry (Rice & Greenberg 2000; Harvey et al. 2006*b* ) and traditional agro-ecological land systems, such as organic farming and swidden agriculture (Finegan & Nasi 2004), also retain high levels of both wild and agricultural biodiversity and offer much greater conservation value than

According to Bhagwat et al. (2008), agroforestry systems can alleviate resource use pres‐ sure in protected areas, enhance habitats for certain species and improve the connectivity of landscape components. Traditional agroforestry systems such as jungle rubber, shadegrown coffee and cocoa systems in the tropics resemble natural rainforests in many struc‐ tural respects, and thus have been suggested to be promising wildlife-friendly land use strategies, conserving a significant proportion of tropical rainforest diversity while provid‐ ing significant economic returns (Schroth et al., 2004). As primary forests shrink, fragment and are reduced to isolated habitat islands in a landscape dominated by agricultural farms/plantations, agroforestry systems could help maintain higher levels of biodiversity both within and outside protected areas. Although it has been correctly noted that agro‐ forestry systems displace natural ecosystems, they offer greater potential for reconciling biodiversity conservation with agricultural production than intensive monocultures

To illustrate the potential conservation utility of agroforestry systems, For example, jungle rubber gardens of Indonesia are low-input rubber agro-forests that structurally resemble secondary forest and retain high populations of wild species. Beukema et al. (2007) compared the plant and bird diversity in Indonesian jungle rubber agroforestry systems to that in primary forest and rubber plantations. They found that species richness in the jungle rubber systems was slightly higher for terrestrial pteridophytes, similar for birds and lower for epiphytic pteridophytes, trees and vascular plants as a whole than in primary forest. For subsets of 'forest species' of terrestrial pteridophytes and birds, species richness was lower in the jungle rubber systems than in primary forest. These findings show that forest-like land use can be potentially used to support species diversity in an impoverished landscape increasingly dominated by monoculture plantations (Beukema et al., 2007). Similarly, Perfecto et al. (2005) investigated the biodiversity conservation potential of shade-grown coffee systems and concluded that due to the retention of canopy cover such agro-forests can provide both biodiversity conservation and economic returns from agricultural production. According to Harvey, (2007) transforma‐ tion from near-primary forest to cocoa agroforestry in Sulawesi (Indonesia) has had little effect on overall species richness, but reduced plant biomass and carbon storage by ≈75%, and the species richness of forest-using taxa by ≈60%. In contrast, increased land use intensity in cacao agroforestry, coupled with a reduction in shade tree cover from 80% to 40%, has caused only minor quantitative changes in biodiversity and maintained high levels of ecosystem function‐ ing while doubling farmers' net income. Hence, Harvey, (2007) concluded that low-shade agroforestry provides the best available compromise between economic forces and ecological needs. Similarly, Harvey and Villalobos (2007) examined species diversity across various agroforestry systems and concluded that heterogeneous mixed plantations of tree crops such as banana and cocoa are more hospitable to biodiversity than monoculture plantations. Round

the high-yield intensive agricultural landscapes that are proposed to replace them.

(Schroth, 2003).

48 Biofuels - Economy, Environment and Sustainability

Both land sparing and land sharing approaches have advocates, and pros and cons, raising questions about which, if either, approach should be used. The optimal choice between land sparing and wildlife-friendly farming, or combining the two, to maintain production and biodiversity will differ between landscapes (Hodgson et al., 2010). The choice of which strategy to use could be informed by yield-density relations, which describe relationships between population densities of particular species and agricultural yields. Land sparing is a recom‐ mended strategy for species whose populations decline rapidly when their natural intact habitats are converted to low intensity agricultural landscapes. In contrast, wildlife friendly farming may be more appropriate for species whose densities persist even when their intact natural habitats are converted in this manner (Mattison and Norris, 2005).

Instead of taking an either-or approach, Koh et al. (2009) draw on both strategies, advocating the creation of agroforestry zones between high conservation value areas and intensive agricultural plantations (such as palm oil monocultures) to create more heterogeneous landscapes that can benefit both biodiversity and rural communities. However, before selecting any of the aforementioned approaches many other landscape level factors must be taken into account. The landscape considerations that can arise and why they need to be addressed has been illustrated by a comparison of distributions and abundance patterns of multiple species (frogs, bats and dung beetles) between a cloud forest and coffee agroforestry in Mexico (Pineda et al., 2005). The three indicator sets of species considered responded differently to land use change from montane cloud forest to coffee agroforestry. The species richness of frogs in the coffee agroforestry system was just a fifth of that in the cloud forests, and a third of the forest species were recorded in both the forest and the coffee agroforestry system. In contrast, the abundance and diversity of beetle species were higher in the coffee agroforestry system, while the composition of bat species did not significantly differ between the land use types. This variation in species distribution has been attributed to differences in the permeability of different species through the two habitats and their physiological traits. Shaded coffee agroforestry systems form a matrix around remnant patches of the cloud forest, and provide connections between the forest fragments and other habitats in the landscape. Although such systems cannot be regarded as substitutes for the primary forest habitats they replace, they can allow the preservation of biodiversity in a fragmented, human-modified landscape (Pineda et al., 2005). Wells et al. (2007) surveyed the species assemblages of small non-volant mammals in three unlogged and three logged forests and compared the species richness, dominance and evenness of small non-volant mammals between these habitats in Sabah, Indonesia. They found species richness and diversity were higher in logged forests, and all common species were present in both habitats. However, closer analysis revealed that while habitat modification did not have a significant effect on the distribution of most of the species it had a profound impact on the rarer species. Rare and specialized species, such as arboreal mammals and Viverridae, were completely missing from logged forest sites. Hence, while the conservation value of logged forests cannot be negated, it can be inferred that the presence of logged forests may not help the conservation and preservation of habitat-specific and rangerestricted species.

conserving biodiversity. The key element of this strategy is the "matrix"; the area surrounding patches of native vegetation (Forman, 1995), which significantly influences the withincommunity remnant dynamics (Laurance, 1990). A matrix with complex vegetation structures similar to those of native vegetation supplies a variety of ecosystem benefits, including support for ecological processes, varied habitats for species outside patches of native vegetation or protected areas, shelter, breeding sites, additional food resources and the capacity to recover

Tropical Agricultural Production, Conservation and Carbon Sequesteration Conflicts…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52420

51

"Matrix effects" may also explain why the abundance and richness of species can be main‐ tained in non-forest habitats such as agricultural production systems, logged forests (Barlow et al., 2007) and mixed cropping systems. These modified landscapes successfully provide habitat elements and ecological processes needed for species persistence outside of a primary forest habitat. For instance, as mentioned above, jungle rubber gardens of Indonesia structur‐ ally resemble secondary forest and allow wild species of various taxa to persist Beukema et al. (2007). The cited findings, and other examples, illustrate the potential importance of the landscape matrix surrounding primary forest or primary forest patches for enabling species persistence and biodiversity conservation in non-forest habitats. A number of examples illustrate the role landscape matrix surrounding the primary forest patches or primary forests play in enabling species persistence and biodiversity conservation in non-forest habitats.

Oil palm plantations, particularly, can be made wildlife friendly by preserving forest frag‐ ments, riparian strips, etc., and/or by providing habitat complexity within them in the form of epiphytes and understory plants (Jackson et al., 2010). These elements can maintain both connectivity of habitats for animal species and vital ecological processes at landscape scale (Bennett, 2003). The following sections discuss some of these landscape configurations, and

As discussed above, deforestation is occurring at an alarming rate in the tropics, leading to high rates of forest fragmentation, especially in South East Asia (Sodhi et al., 2004), and species losses resulting from these processes have been described as the greatest threats to biodiversity (Myers, 1989). It has been argued that small fragments may become the last refuges of many rainforest species on the brink of extinction, and in areas with little residual rainforest fragments can act as 'seeds' for re-establishing extensive forest (Turner and Corlett, 1996). Thus, since high rates of land conversion coincide with high levels of species richness and endemism, it is imperative to determine the capacity of small forest remnants to support

In a rapid evaluation of butterfly species in a single remaining forest patch in Costa Rica, Daily and Ehrlich (1995) found that even small (20-30 ha), isolated forest fragments retained a large butterfly fauna. This suggests that even heavily managed systems of largely exotic plants (such as agricultural systems) could be designed to serve as corridors for butterflies and perhaps some other groups of organisms and connect separated forest patches. Benedick et al. (2006) evaluated impacts of habitat fragmentation on the species richness and faunal composition of butterflies in tropical rainforests in Sabah, Borneo, considering both α- and β-diversity patterns

particularly how they can help the creation of more sustainable oil palm plantations.

**5.1. Biodiversity in small fragmented rainforest patches**

biodiversity.

from disturbance (Chazdon et al., 2009).