Investigating the Efficacy of Integrating Energy Crops into Non-Profitable Subfields in Iowa

Nair, Shyam K.; Griffel, L. Michael; Hartley, Damon; McNunn, Gabe; Kunz, M. Ross

doi:10.1007/s12155-018-9925-0

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the potential crop residues identified, corn stover seems to be a dominant biomass source. There is no clearly dominant energy crop identified, and their potential will depend upon their yields, production cost, land availability, and other inputs required for their production [28,29].…”

Section: Biofuel Production In the Usmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, biomass yield can change considerably from year to year at a given location, and soil type and conditions as well as other environmental constraints may even vary across a farm field. These variations increase the complexity required to precisely determine and harvest different amounts of biomass (e.g., crop residues) in different years and locations to avoid severe soil erosion and nutrient loss and other negative environmental impacts [29,36,37]. This is a difficult task for farm operators and may unintentionally result in overharvesting of biomass in some years or locations.…”

Section: Intentional and Unintentional Overharvesting Of Crop Residuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biofuels are expected to offset GHG emissions from the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Yet, GHG consequences of biofuels vary with biofuel type, feedstock Entailing economic incentives and a large amount of land to grow perennial biomass to meet the Renewable Fuel Standards [31] Transnational indirect land use (ILUC) including deforestation elsewhere [32,33] Estimation difficulty [34] Overharvesting of crop residues Overharvesting due to cost savings [35] Overharvesting due to temporal and spatial yield variations [29,36,37] Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Varying from case to case [38] Emissions associated with ILUC [32,33] Measurement difficulty [39,40] Soil erosion and nutrient loss Varying from case to case [41,42] A potential limiting factor for residue removals in some locations [37] Air quality Increased emissions of PM, O 3 , and SO x [6] and NO x [43] Varying from case to case [44] Water use Increased water use for feedstock production [44,45], especially in areas already facing water shortage [41,46] Water quality Increased chemical use for biomass production [38,45] or supplementing soil nutrient loss from residue removals [47][48][49] Biodiversity…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas Emission Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integrating policy, market, and technology for sustainability governance of agriculture-based biofuel and bioeconomic development in the US

Stupak

Smith

2019

Energ Sustain Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scaled-up production of biofuels and bioproducts in the US is likely to cause land use expansion and intensification domestically and internationally, possibly leading to undesirable environmental and socioeconomic consequences. Although these concerns have been widely recognized, sustainability governance systems are yet to be developed. Here, we review (1) the US bioenergy policies, (2) biofuel production and market trends, (3) major sustainability concerns, and (4) existing regulations and programs for sustainability governance, including potential interactions with markets and technology. US bioenergy policy dates back to the 1970s and has evolved over time with various tax incentives plus production mandates in recent key legislation. Commercial production of cellulosic biofuels is impeded largely by technology and cost barriers. Uncertainties exist in the estimates of environmental and socioeconomic impacts due to the lack of empirical data and knowledge of complex relationships among biofuel and bioeconomic development, natural ecosystems, and socioeconomic dimensions. There are various existing sustainability governance mechanisms on which a biofuel sustainability governance system can be built on. Considering all these, we propose an adaptive system that incorporates regulations, certification, social norms, market, and technology for sustainability monitoring and governance, and is able to contribute to addressing the overall environmental concerns associated with collective land use for food, fiber, and fuel production. Building on existing programs and mechanisms and with proper monitoring of biofuel and bioproduct development, such a governing system can be developed and implemented in response to sustainability concerns that may arise as biofuel and bioproduct production increases.

show abstract

Section: Biofuel Production In the Usmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intentional and Unintentional Overharvesting Of Crop Residuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Greenhouse Gas Emission Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating policy, market, and technology for sustainability governance of agriculture-based biofuel and bioeconomic development in the US

Stupak

Smith

2019

Energ Sustain Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These grassy feedstocks can be grown in areas where annual row crop production is chronically less profitable and/or areas of high conservation value (Gelfand et al, 2013;Meehan et al, 2013;Brandes et al, 2016;Schulze et al, 2016;Mishra et al, 2019;Khanna et al, 2021;Martinez-Feria et al, 2022). Converting low-yielding cropland to grassland cover has the potential to improve the overall profitability of farm fields (Bonner et al, 2014;Brandes et al, 2018;Nair et al, 2018). The cost of grassland establishment and management tends to be lower than for cash crops, and depending on local or regional market development, perennial systems may out compete annual systems in terms of productivity and profitability (Tilman et al, 2006;Gelfand et al, 2013;Manatt et al, 2013;Brandes et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring changes in financial and ecosystems service outcomes with simulated grassland restoration in a Corn Belt watershed

Audia¹,

Schulte²,

Tyndall³

2022

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While provisioning ecosystem services generated through agricultural production are high, this often comes at the expense of other ecosystem services. Approaches that support both farm income and a balanced array of ecosystem services are needed. We employed a landscape modeling approach to demonstrate the financial and ecosystem service outcomes of strategically restoring grassland cover within a Corn Belt agricultural watershed. We assessed potential changes associated with a “Baseline” land use scenario and two alternative scenarios for the Grand River Basin (Iowa and Missouri, USA). In a “Buffered” scenario we simulated the impacts of replacing cropland within 20 m of streams with restored native grassland cover. In a “Productivity-based” scenario we simulated the replacement of annual row crops on poorly performing croplands with native grassland cover. Grasslands comprised 0.4% of the Baseline scenario. Grassland was expanded to 0.8% of the watershed in the Buffered scenario, reducing annual nutrient and sediment loss by 1.44%, increasing soil carbon sequestration by 0.12% over 10 years, and increasing pollinator abundance by 0.01%. The estimated annual value of these enhancements was $1.7 million for nitrogen reduction, $0.1 million for phosphorus reduction, $0.5 million for sediment reduction, and $1.3 million for soil carbon sequestration. Grassland comprised 4.9% of the watershed in the Productivity-based scenario, reduced annual nutrient and sediment loss by 11.50%, increased soil carbon sequestration by 1.13% over 10 years, and increased pollinator abundance by 0.42%. The estimated annual value of enhancements was $18 million for nitrogen reduction, $1.4 million for phosphorus reduction, $2.5 million for sediment reduction, and $14 million for soil carbon sequestration. We also calculated the value of grassland biomass for a potential energy market. The benefit of producing and selling grassland biomass ranged -$445 to $1,291 ha−1 yr−1. Scaled to the watershed, annual revenues ranged -$7.3 million to $21.1 million for the Buffered scenario and -$44.2 million to $128.8 million for the Productivity-based scenario. This study was the first to quantify changes in revenue and the value of ecosystem services associated with grassland restoration in the Grand River Basin and can help inform discussion among watershed stakeholders.

show abstract

“…Yield data from harvest equipment, while the most accurate, is not always collected, is often expensive to obtain for large areas, and comes with privacy concerns. Instead, researchers commonly use proxy measures such as soil productivity indices to estimate field profitability (Bonner et al, 2014;Nair et al, 2018;Namoi et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying environmental, economic, and equity opportunities through a spatial lens

Summers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture in the U.S. Corn Belt has become highly specialized, efficiently growing two crops, corn and soybeans, and concentrated livestock production. However, this specialization -and the management system it encourages -has caused negative environmental externalities. For example, beneficial insects and wildlife, their habitat, and water quality have all declined as agricultural production has simplified and expanded on the landscape. Solutions exist to address those negative externalities by incorporating conservation and native perennial cover into the landscape. Nonetheless, these solutions often contradict the traditional productivist norms of agriculture and have other tangible barriers (e.g., cost or alignment with the production system). This dissertation used spatial analysis methods to identify opportunities for environmental, economic, and equitable improvement across the landscape. It included three studies evaluating biophysical, economic, and social factors for conservation practice implementation. In an effort to expand the breadth of analysis, the final chapter focused on social equity at a national extent for environmental resource provisioning.To identify where win-win scenarios for ecosystem services (i.e., nitrate reduction for enhanced water quality) and economic benefits to a landowner exist, three case study watersheds were analyzed to determine whether and how often conservation practices to address nitrate reduction and water quality overlapped with unprofitable subfield areas. The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) and Iowa State Ag Decision Maker financial data were used to identify overlaps between water quality-focused conservation practice placement and unprofitable subfield areas. Approximately 30% of the study area had co-occurring economic and environmental benefits that resulted in a win-win scenario. In the remaining 70% of the study area, trade-offs existed between increasing whole-field profitability and improvements to water quality. While conservation in unprofitable areas tended to be more cost-effective, it did not always differ significantly from implementing conservation practices in profitable areas.

show abstract

Investigating the Efficacy of Integrating Energy Crops into Non-Profitable Subfields in Iowa

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

Integrating policy, market, and technology for sustainability governance of agriculture-based biofuel and bioeconomic development in the US

Integrating policy, market, and technology for sustainability governance of agriculture-based biofuel and bioeconomic development in the US

Measuring changes in financial and ecosystems service outcomes with simulated grassland restoration in a Corn Belt watershed

Identifying environmental, economic, and equity opportunities through a spatial lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About