Cited by 43Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesClimate change impacts on agricultureBioenergy crop production and management

Assessing impacts of bioenergy crops and climate change on hydrometeorology in the Yazoo River Basin, Mississippi

Kim, Hak Kwan, Parajuli, Prem B., Filip To, S.D.·2013·Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of bioenergy crop production, such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) and miscanthus (Miscanthus×giganteus), and climate change on hydrometeorology. The soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model was used to simulate hydrometeorological consequences and crop yields in the Yazoo River Basin (YRB) in northwestern Mississippi. Modeling results of streamflow and soybean and corn yields during the calibration and validation periods were consistent with the observed data. The yields of bioenergy crops were predicted using the calibrated SWAT model. In order to generate future climate change data, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) CM2.1 global coupled climate model was selected as a general circulation model (GCM). The output of the GFDL CM2.1 with the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B emission was downscaled by LARS-WG stochastic weather generator. Eight scenarios including bioenergy crop production and climate change were evaluated using the SWAT model. The results of this study indicate that the bioenergy crops will increase annual evapotranspiration and decrease annual surface water, water yield and streamflow. Furthermore, the future climate change scenarios showed that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will decrease annual evapotranspiration, which eventually will lead to an increase in annual surface runoff, water yield, and streamflow. However, decreased precipitation in the future periods will be the dominant cause of a decrease in annual evapotranspiration, surface runoff, water yield, and streamflow. Comparison of all scenarios showed that climate change is likely to affect hydrometeorology more significantly than bioenergy crop production, and the scenarios of the conversion of soybean and corn to miscanthus are more significant than the switchgrass scenarios. This study will help to develop future watershed management programs related to bioenergy crop production and climate change conditions within the Yazoo River Basin, which may also be applied in other geographic areas in the country and abroad.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.10.007

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Land conversion from native grass to bioenergy plants or growing bioenergy plants (switchgrass or Miscanthus) on low-productive land in the Mississippi River Basin can decrease water yield, surface runoff, and streamflow, and increase evapotranspiration and nitrogen loss.

    “the land conversion from native grass to bioenergy plants or growing bioenergy plants (switchgrass or Miscanthus) on the low-productive land in the Mississippi River Basin can indeed decrease water yield, surface runoff, and streamflow, and increase the evapotranspiration (ET) and nitrogen loss”

    From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Kim et al. 2013

  • Wide plantation of bioenergy crops will increase evapotranspiration and decrease annual surface water and water yield in the Yazoo River Basin of the Mississippi River.

    “wide plantation of bioenergy crops will increase the amount of ET, decrease annual surface water and water yield in the Yazoo River Basin of Mississippi River”

    From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Kim et al. (2013)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, H. K., Parajuli, P. B., & Filip To, S. D.
Affiliations
Mississippi State University (US)
Venue
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
169
Pages
61-73
ISSN
0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019557260
Cited by
43
References
68
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Department of Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
Keywords
energy crops, switchgrass, Miscanthus, climate change impacts, hydrometeorology, river discharge, evapotranspiration, surface runoff, water yield, crop yield, soybean, maize, crop conversion, GFDL CM2.1, SRES A1B, LARS-WG weather generator, Yazoo River Basin, watershed management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review