Projection of corn production and stover-harvesting impacts on soil organic carbon dynamics in the U.S. Temperate Prairies

Wu, Yiping; Young, Claudia; Dahal, Devendra; Sohl, Terry L.; Davis, Brian F.

doi:10.1038/srep10830

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Transitioning lands in other uses to biofuel feedstock production will affect the carbon stocks of these lands (Melillo et al ., ; Fargione et al ., ). Even if agricultural residues, such as corn stover, are used toward this demand, which would largely change land management rather than land use/cover, soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks will still be affected (Liska et al ., ; Wu et al ., ). To achieve decreases in transportation sector GHG emissions, biofuel policies require that the life‐cycle GHG emissions of eligible biofuels be less than life‐cycle GHG emissions for gasoline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Converting land to biofuel feedstock production incurs changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) that can influence biofuel life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Estimates of these land use change (LUC) and life-cycle GHG emissions affect biofuels' attractiveness and eligibility under a number of renewable fuel policies in the USA and abroad. Modeling was used to refine the spatial resolution and depth extent of domestic estimates of SOC change for land (cropland, cropland pasture, grassland, and forest) conversion scenarios to biofuel crops (corn, corn stover, switchgrass, Miscanthus, poplar, and willow) at the county level in the USA. Results show that in most regions, conversions from cropland and cropland pasture to biofuel crops led to neutral or small levels of SOC sequestration, while conversion of grassland and forest generally caused net SOC loss. SOC change results were incorporated into the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model to assess their influence on life-cycle GHG emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol. Total LUC GHG emissions (g CO 2 eq MJ À1 ) were 2.1-9.3 for corn-, À0.7 for corn stover-, À3.4 to 12.9 for switchgrass-, and À20.1 to À6.2 for Miscanthus ethanol; these varied with SOC modeling assumptions applied. Extending the soil depth from 30 to 100 cm affected spatially explicit SOC change and overall LUC GHG emissions; however, the influence on LUC GHG emission estimates was less significant in corn and corn stover than cellulosic feedstocks. Total life-cycle GHG emissions (g CO 2 eq MJ À1 , 100 cm) were estimated to be 59-66 for corn ethanol, 14 for stover ethanol, 18-26 for switchgrass ethanol, and À7 to À0.6 for Miscanthus ethanol. The LUC GHG emissions associated with poplar-and willow-derived ethanol may be higher than that for switchgrass ethanol due to lower biomass yield.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, harvesting residues from dead plants that are originally returned to croplands can directly accelerate the SOC loss due to reduced carbon input (Hoekman et al 2018). Nonetheless, the SOC loss might be controlled, to a certain degree, through an appropriate residue management such as the limited amount of residue removal and additional organic matter inputs (e.g., manure application) (Robertson et al 2014;Sheehan et al 2014;Wu et al 2015). The crop residue is the major source in producing biochar, utilizing the crop residue with an appropriate technique can produce vast biochar with the available crop residues.…”

Section: Biodiversity and Socmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feedstocks of biofuel production include the grains (e.g., corn kernel and soybean), cellulosic materials such as crop residue (e.g., corn stover), and dedicated energy crops (e.g., switchgrass and Miscanthus) (Sang and Zhu 2011;Wu et al 2015). Thus, bioenergy has attracted much attention and occupied a significant status in the world's energy consumption and in the fight against climate change (Jiang et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioenergy production and environmental impacts

Zhao

Liu

et al. 2018

Geosci. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with the conventional fossil fuel, bioenergy has obvious advantages due to its renewability and large quantity, and thus plays a crucial role in helping defend the energy security. However, the bioenergy development may potentially cause serious environmental alterations, which remain unclear. The study summarizes the environmental impacts of bioenergy production based on the compilation and published data. Our analysis shows that more and more attention is being paid to the environmental protection as the development of bioenergy, and among the influencing terms of bioenergy production, water issues (i.e., water quantity and quality) gain the greatest concern, whereas the least attention has been given to soil erosion. Although we recognize that the bioenergy production can indeed exert negative effects on the environment in terms of water quantity and quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and soil organic carbon, and soil erosion, the adverse impacts varied greatly depending on biomass types, land locations, and management practices. Identifying the reasonable cultivation locations, appropriate bioenergy crop types, and optimal management practices can be beneficial to environment and sustainable development of bioenergy. In this field, Chinese bioenergy production has lagged behind and does not match its rising energy consumption, but it has a great potential of and demand for biomass-based energy especially under its urbanization, in spite of the negative environmental impacts. Therefore, this article is expected to serve as a reference and guideline on what has been done in the bioenergy-oriented countries that might stimulate development of more effective and environmentally sound guidelines for promoting bioenergy production in China and other developing countries as well.

show abstract

“…As discussed above, the maintenance of crop residues on the soil is one of the main factors associated with the positive soil C balance for some crops (Figure 1). Therefore, increasing crop residue harvest for bioenergy production can be associated with decreases in soil C stocks in areas with annual crops (e.g., Anderson-Teixeira et al, 2009;Blanco-Canqui, 2013;Liska et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2015;Carvalho et al, 2017), sugarcane (e.g., Carvalho et al, 2017;Oliveira et al, 2017) and afforestation (e.g., Hudiburg et al, 2011). Certainly, energy production from alternative biomass is essential for the transition to a low-C economy (Sanchez et al, 2015).…”

Section: Iv) Crop Residues Vs Soil C Stocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop residue harvest for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review

Cherubin

Oliveira

Feigl

et al. 2018

Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.)

227

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The use of crop residues as a bioenergy feedstock is considered a potential strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, indiscriminate harvesting of crop residues can induce deleterious effects on soil functioning, plant growth and other ecosystem services. Here, we have summarized the information available in the literature to identify and discuss the main trade-offs and synergisms involved in crop residue management for bioenergy production. The data consistently showed that crop residue harvest and the consequent lower input of organic matter into the soil led to C storage depletions over time, reducing cycling, supply and availability of soil nutrients, directly affecting the soil biota. Although the biota regulates key functions in the soil, crop residue can also cause proliferation of some important agricultural pests. In addition, crop residues act as physical barriers that protect the soil against raindrop impact and temperature variations. Therefore, intensive crop residue harvest can cause soil structure degradation, leading to soil compaction and increased risks of erosion. With regard to GHG emissions, there is no consensus about the potential impact of management of crop residue harvest. In general, residue harvest decreases CO 2 and N 2 O emissions from the decomposition process, but it has no significant effect on CH 4 emissions. Plant growth responses to soil and microclimate changes due to crop residue harvest are site and crop specific. Adoption of the best management practices can mitigate the adverse impacts of crop residue harvest. Longterm experiments within strategic production regions are essential to understand and monitor the impact of integrated agricultural systems and propose customized solutions for sustainable crop residue management in each region or landscape. Furthermore, private and public investments/cooperations are necessary for a better understanding of the potential environmental, economic and social implications of crop residue use for bioenergy production.

show abstract

Projection of corn production and stover-harvesting impacts on soil organic carbon dynamics in the U.S. Temperate Prairies

Cited by 16 publications

References 62 publications

Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol

Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol

Bioenergy production and environmental impacts

Crop residue harvest for bioenergy production and its implications on soil functioning and plant growth: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About