Using the available indicators of potential biodiversity damage for Life Cycle Assessment on soybean crop according to Brazilian ecoregions

Identificador:  imarina:9218755

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/imarina9218755

Autores:  Garcia Lucas, Kassio R; Anton, Assumpcio; Ventura, Mauricio Ursi; Pereira Andrade, Edilene; Ralisch, Ricardo

Resumen:
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the use of and suggest possible adjustments to indicators of biodiversity loss for LCA proposed by Chaudhary and Books (2018). For this, we analyzed soybean production in Brazil. Potential damage to biodiversity has been determined for all Brazilian ecoregions: the Amazon; the Atlantic forest; Caatinga; Cerrado; Pampas; and the Pantanal. Two dimensions of assessment were considered - global and regional - in addition to Average-country. An adjustment was proposed for the vulnerability coefficient to the indicators Average-country Brazil: the Regional Species Fragility Index (FI). Two inventories were created using two different functional units: area of production of soybean by ecoregion (year m2); and area corresponding to production of 1 kg of soybean (year m2). Thus, we observed that when the indicators of aggregate values were adopted, the Atlantic Forest was the ecoregion most affected by the crop. Regarding the assessments of the Potential Biodiversity Damage (BD) Global and Regional indicators, the Atlantic Forest and the Amazon were the ecoregions that suffered the highest impacts, mainly on plants, birds and amphibians taxa. Besides, the impacts at the global level were always more expressive than the regional ones. Due to this, we noticed that the results were influenced by the Vulnerability Score (VS). The suitability of the VS for FI is relevant and the adjustment in the equation can be suggested for other regions. Considering the results found here, to prevent regional impacts, technical measures such as extensive farming and crop rotation should be prioritized as impact mitigation actions. However, political measures tend to be more effective at geographic levels when addressing more than one ecoregion, due to the standardization of preservation procedures. Thus, from the results reported here, we conclude that the FI is relevant to diagnose measures at the administrative geographic levels of the ecoregions present in a single country, and the applied indicators reinforce that the Atlantic Forest ecoregion is the most vulnerable due to the replacement of wild forest for cultivated areas, which includes soybean crops.