Cited by 22Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementBioenergy crop production and managementBiofuel production and bioconversion

Sustainable feedstock for bioethanol production: impact of spatial resolution on the design of a sustainable biomass supply-chain

Open access
Sharara, Mahmoud A., Sahoo, Kamalakanta, Reddy, Ashwan Daram, Kim, Seungdo, Zhang, Xuesong, Dale, Bruce, Jones, Curtis Dinneen, Izaurralde, Roberto Cesar +1 more·2020·Bioresource Technology

Abstract

This study assesses the role of spatial-resolution and spatial-variations in environmental impacts estimation and decision-making for corn-stover harvesting to produce biofuels. Geospatial corn-stover yields and environmental impacts [global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication, and soil-loss] dataset for two study areas in Wisconsin and Michigan were generated through Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model and aggregated at different spatial-resolutions (i.e., 100; 1000; 10,000 ha). For each spatial-resolution, decision-making was accomplished using an optimization routine to minimize different environmental impacts associated with harvesting stover to meet varied biomass demands. The results of the study showed that selective harvesting at higher-resolution (or lower-aggregation level) can result in significantly lower environmental impacts, especially at low stover demand levels. Additionally, the increased spatial resolution had more impact in minimizing the environmental impacts of corn stover harvest under a more variable landscape such as terrains and its influences are more pronounced for soil-loss and eutrophication potential compared to GWP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122896

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharara, M. A., Sahoo, K., Reddy, A. D., Kim, S., Zhang, X., Dale, B., Jones, C. D., Izaurralde, R. C., & Runge, T. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (US)
  • Joint Global Change Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Runge, Troy M.
Venue
Bioresource Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
302
Pages
122896
ISSN
0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3001311086
Cited by
22
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
US Department of Energy
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
corn stover, bioethanol, biomass supply chain, spatial resolution, environmental impact, global warming potential, eutrophication, soil loss, EPIC model, biomass harvesting, spatial aggregation, sustainable feedstocks, Wisconsin, Michigan
MeSH terms
Zea mays, Environment, Soil, Biomass, Biofuels

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