Cited by 41Bioenergy crop production and managementEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityForest Biomass Utilization and Management

Implications of land class and environmental factors on life cycle GHG emissions of Miscanthus as a bioenergy feedstock

Open access
Sanscartier, David, Deen, Bill, Dias, Goretty, MacLean, Heather L., Dadfar, Humaira, McDonald, Ian, Kludze, Hilla·2014·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Replacement of fossil fuels with sustainably produced biomass crops for energy purposes has the potential to make progress in addressing climate change concerns, nonrenewable resource use, and energy security. The perennial grass Miscanthus is a dedicated energy crop candidate being field tested in Ontario, Canada, and elsewhere. Miscanthus could potentially be grown in areas of the province that differ substantially in terms of agricultural land class, environmental factors and current land use. These differences could significantly affect Miscanthus yields, input requirements, production practices, and the types of crops being displaced by Miscanthus establishment. This study assesses implications on life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of these differences through evaluating five Miscanthus production scenarios within the Ontario context. Emissions associated with electricity generation with Miscanthus pellets in a hypothetically retrofitted coal generating station are examined. Indirect land use change impacts are not quantified but are discussed. The net life cycle emissions for Miscanthus production varied greatly among scenarios (−90–170 kg CO 2eq per oven dry tonne of Miscanthus bales at the farm gate). In some cases, the carbon stock dynamics of the agricultural system offset the combined emissions of all other life cycle stages (i.e., production, harvest, transport, and processing of biomass). Yield and soil C of the displaced agricultural systems are key parameters affecting emissions. The systems with the highest potential to provide reductions in GHG emissions are those with high yields, or systems established on land with low soil carbon. All scenarios have substantially lower life cycle emissions (−20–190 g CO 2eq kWh−1) compared with coal‐generated electricity (1130 g CO 2eq kWh−1). Policy development should consider the implication of land class, environmental factors, and current land use on Miscanthus production.

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.12062

Cites

39 of 39 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

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: 6

  1. Bayaert RP (1996) The Effect of Cropping and Tillage Management on the Dynamics of Soil Organic Matter. M.Sc thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
  2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006a) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Chapter 11: N 2 O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO 2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan on behalf of the IPCC.
  3. IPCC (2006b) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Chapter 2: Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-Use Categories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan on behalf of the IPCC.
  4. IPCC (2007) Technical Summary -Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Con- tribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  5. Kuzyakov Y, Biriukova O, Turyabahika F, Stahr K (2001) Electrostatic method to separate roots from soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 164, 541-545.
  6. Rosser B (2012) Evaluation of Miscanthus winter hardiness and yield potential in Ontatio, Msc. thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanscartier, D., Deen, B., Dias, G., MacLean, H. L., Dadfar, H., McDonald, I., & Kludze, H.
Affiliations
  • Saskatchewan Research Council (Canada) (CA)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (CA)
Corresponding author
Sanscartier, David
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-04-12
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
401-413
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2131112911
Cited by
41
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
12.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
Keywords
Miscanthus, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, biomass feedstock, energy crops, land classes, soil carbon, carbon stock dynamics, production scenarios, Ontario

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