Most are aware of the ongoing debate regarding the use of invasive plant biomass for bioenergy production. Recently, two papers have been published on the use of existing invasive plant populations with Nackley et al. (Front Ecol Environ 2013; doi:10.1890/120241) (http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/120241) using a modeling approach to assess the potential of harvesting two invasive woody species in supplying revenue to support ecological restoration and Quinn et al. (Biol Invasions 2013; doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0591-z ) (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10530-013-0591-z) providing a commentary-style review or assessment of the issues. Both papers provide useful information, but the focus is strikingly different from the standpoint of current conditions and the ways and means to move forward. The following is not a criticism of either one, but simply an observation and assessment of the differing views/approaches and what are some important points that can be taken away from them in moving forward on this important topic.
The Nackley et al. approach evaluates removal and restoration using real costs and distribution values in a case study involving saltcedar and Russian olive in a region of Washington State. They discuss the demands for low cost invasive plant material and thermochemical traits of the two species and conclude that there is potential to stimulate demand for a revenue-generating biomass market that removes invasive trees with some limitations. In the Quinn et al. paper, there is considerable discussion that spans across all of the major issues, including conflicting views of the environmentalist and business-person's goals regarding invasive plant removal, current biorefinery limitations and the logistics of processing and transportation, legal matters associated with the willingness and interests of landowners and state and federal regulations, and the potential costs for conducting removal/restoration in addition to the (unintended) effects on non-target species and the area, in general. Could the Nackely et al. model be applied to all regions outside their focus area - they think so. And, could the issues raised by the Quinn et al. commentary be addressed in a future operation that efficiently and effectively utilizes biomass from invasive plant species - they think so, too. The question is then, how can groups, such as those represented by these two papers, come together to make accurate assessments and plan for the future in a world with less dependence on fossil fuels and more reliance on the use of fuels not yet fossilized (invasive plants), which also seem to be especially troublesome in terms of ecological impacts and ecosystem alterations? One of the most interesting parts of this whole debate is that as we continue to have it, the plants continue to expand regardless of what we think or say. If we ever come up with a coordinated effort to effectively and efficiently utilize existing invasive plant biomass for bioenergy as part of a comprehensive restoration approach, we will probably, by then, have a fairly long-term supply of biomass. And, once that supply does run out (e.g., eradication), we'll be on to other sources of energy and maybe have even curbed our high demand for energy in truly conservation-minded lifestyle approaches. Steve ........................................... Stephen L. Young, PhD Weed Ecologist University of Nebraska-Lincoln West Central Research & Extension Center 402 West State Farm Road North Platte, NE 69101 Ph: 308-696-6712 http://ipcourse.unl.edu/iwep Twitter: @NAIPSC
