Modelling the economics of farm-based anaerobic digestion in a UK whole-farm context

Anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies convert organic wastes and crops into methane-rich biogas for heating, electricity generation and vehicle fuel. Farm-based AD has proliferated in some EU countries, driven by favourable policies promoting sustainable energy generation and GHG mitigation. Despite increased state support there are still few AD plants on UK farms leading to a lack of normative data on viability of AD in the whole-farm context. Farmers and lenders are therefore reluctant to fund AD projects and policy makers are hampered in their attempts to design policies that adequately support the industry. Existing AD studies and modelling tools do not adequately capture the farm context within which AD interacts. This paper demonstrates a whole-farm, optimisation modelling approach to assess the viability of AD in a more holistic way, accounting for such issues as: AD scale, synergies and conflicts with other farm enterprises, choice of feedstocks, digestate use and impact on farm Net Margin. This modelling approach demonstrates, for example, that: AD is complementary to dairy enterprises, but competes with arable enterprises for farm resources. Reduced nutrient purchases significantly improve Net Margin on arable farms, but AD scale is constrained by the capacity of farmland to absorb nutrients in AD digestate.

Detecting local adaptation in widespread grassland species - the importance of scale and local plant community

1 Adaptation of plant populations to local environments has been shown in many species but local adaptation is not always apparent and spatial scales of differentiation are not well known. In a reciprocal transplant experiment we tested whether: (i) three widespread grassland species are locally adapted at a European scale; (ii) detection of local adaptation depends on competition with the local plant community; and (iii) local differentiation between neighbouring populations from contrasting habitats can be stronger than differentiation at a European scale. 2 Seeds of Holcus lanatus, Lotus corniculatus and Plantago lanceolata from a Swiss, Czech and UK population were sown in a reciprocal transplant experiment at fields that exhibit environmental conditions similar to the source sites. Seedling emergence, survival, growth and reproduction were recorded for two consecutive years. 3 The effect of competition was tested by comparing individuals in weeded monocultures with plants sown together with species from the local grassland community. To compare large-scale vs. small-scale differentiation, a neighbouring population from a contrasting habitat (wet-dry contrast) was compared with the 'home' and 'foreign' populations. 4 In P. lanceolata and H. lanatus, a significant home-site advantage was detected in fitness-related traits, thus indicating local adaptation. In L. corniculatus, an overall superiority of one provenance was found. 5 The detection of local adaptation depended on competition with the local plant community. In the absence of competition the home-site advantage was underestimated in P. lanceolata and overestimated in H. lanatus. 6 A significant population differentiation between contrasting local habitats was found. In some traits, this small-scale was greater than large-scale differentiation between countries. 7 Our results indicate that local adaptation in real plant communities cannot necessarily be predicted from plants grown in weeded monocultures and that tests on the relationship between fitness and geographical distance have to account for habitat-dependent small-scale differentiation. Considering the strong small-scale differentiation, a local provenance from a different habitat may not be the best choice in ecological restoration if distant populations from a more similar habitat are available.

Making ecological science policy relevant: issues of scale and disciplinary integration

In this paper, we ask why so much ecological scientific research does not have a greater policy impact in the UK. We argue that there are two potentially important and related reasons for this failing. First, much current ecological science is not being conducted at a scale that is readily meaningful to policy-makers. Second, to make much of this research policy-relevant requires collaborative interdisciplinary research between ecologists and social scientists. However, the challenge of undertaking useful interdisciplinary research only re-emphasises the problems of scale: ecologists and social scientists traditionally frame their research questions at different scales and consider different facets of natural resource management, setting different objectives and using different language. We argue that if applied ecological research is to have greater impact in informing environmental policy, much greater attention needs to be given to the scale of the research efforts as well as to the interaction with social scientists. Such an approach requires an adjustment in existing research and funding infrastructures.