Cited by 41Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBiofuel production and bioconversion

Aboveground productivity and soil carbon storage of biofuel crops in O hio

Open access
Bonin, Catherine L., Lal, Rattan·2014·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Biofuel crops may help achieve the goals of energy‐efficient renewable ethanol production and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation through carbon (C) storage. The objective of this study was to compare the aboveground biomass yields and soil organic C (SOC) stocks under four crops (no‐till corn, switchgrass, indiangrass, and willow) 7 years since establishment at three sites in O hio to determine if high‐yielding biofuel crops are also capable of high levels of C storage. Corn grain had the highest potential ethanol yields, with an average of more than 4100 L ha−1, and ethanol yields increased if both corn grain and stover were converted to biofuel, while willow had the lowest yields. The SOC concentration in soils under biofuels was generally unaffected by crop type; at one site, soil in the top 10 cm under willow contained nearly 13 Mg C ha−1 more SOC(or 29% more) than did soils under switchgrass or corn. Crop type affected SOC content of macroaggregates in the top 10 cm of soil, where macroaggregates in soil under corn had lower C, N and C : N ratios than those under perennial grasses or trees. Overall, the results suggest that no‐till corn is capable of high ethanol yields and equivalent SOC stocks to 40 cm depth. Long‐term monitoring and measurement of SOC stocks at depth are required to determine whether this trend remains. In addition, ecological, energy, and GHG assessments should be made to estimate the C footprint of each feedstock.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcbb.12041

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Results presented in this study are in agreement with those reported by Bonin & Lal (2014), in which lower SOC stock increments were found in switchgrass compared to willow.

    “The results presented in this study are in agreement with those reported by Bonin & Lal (2014), in which lower SOC stock increments were found in switchgrass compared to willow.”

    From Carbon sequestration potential in perennial bioenergy crops: the importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection (2016) · cites this paper as Bonin & Lal (2014)

    The Soil organic carbon section reports a higher SOC stock under willow than switchgrass in the top 10 cm at one Ohio site. It found no significant crop differences at other depths or sites, however, and says the rate of SOC change remains unknown. The paper therefore supports a limited difference in measured stocks, not a general claim about lower SOC stock increments under switchgrass. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Under switchgrass, a large number of studies showed sequestration rates that were similar but higher on average.

    “Under switchgrass, a large number of studies [8, 9, 47, 57, 75, 77, 137, 138] showed sequestration rates, which were similar (Table 3) but higher on average (Fig. 4).”
  • New data show high sequestration rates for switchgrass on arable soils but no long-term change for short-rotation coppice willow on former grassland soils.

    “New data show high sequestration rates for switchgrass on arable soils [137] but no long-term change for SRC-willow on former grassland soils [143].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Best LB, Campa H III, Kemp KE et al. (1997) Bird abundance and nesting in CRP fields and cropland in the Midwest: a regional approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25, 864-877.
  2. Grossman RB, Reinsch TG (2002) Bulk density and linear extensibility. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4; SSSA Book Series 5 (eds Dane JH, Topp GC), pp. 201-225.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonin, C. L., & Lal, R.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Bonin, Catherine L.
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-31
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
67-75
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2134392664
Cited by
41
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
8.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Office of Science
  • Biological and Environmental Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
energy crops, soil organic carbon, aboveground biomass yield, ethanol yield, no-till corn, switchgrass, indiangrass, willow, macroaggregates, carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, perennial grasses, carbon footprint

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