Cited by 85Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBiofuel production and bioconversion

Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices

Hudiburg, Tara W., Davis, Sarah C., Parton, William, Delucia, Evan H.·2015·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Perennial grasses have been proposed as viable bioenergy crops because of their potential to yield harvestable biomass on marginal lands annually without displacing food and to contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by storing carbon in soil. Switchgrass, miscanthus, and restored native prairie are among the crops being considered in the corn and agricultural regions of the Midwest and eastern United States. In this study, we used an extensive dataset of site observations for each of these crops to evaluate and improve the DayCent biogeochemical model and make predictions about how both yield and GHG fluxes would respond to different management practices compared to a traditional corn‐soy rotation. Using this model‐data integration approach, we found 30–75% improvement in our predictions over previous studies and a subsequent evaluation with a synthesis of sites across the region revealed good model‐data agreement of harvested yields (r2 > 0.62 for all crops). We found that replacement of corn‐soy rotations would result in a net GHG reduction of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 with average annual yields of 3.6, 9.2, and 17.2 Mg of dry biomass per year for native prairie, switchgrass, and miscanthus respectively. Both the yield and GHG balance of switchgrass and miscanthus were affected by harvest date with highest yields occurring near onset of senescence and highest GHG reductions occurring in early spring before the new crops emergence. Addition of a moderate length…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcbb.12152

Cites

7 of 7 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hudiburg, T. W., Davis, S. C., Parton, W., & Delucia, E. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Ohio University (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Delucia, Evan H.
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03-07
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
366-374
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2103895775
Cited by
85
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
19.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • North Central Regional Sun Grant Center at South Dakota State University
  • US Department of Energy Office of Biomass Programs (DE-FG36-08GO88073)
  • Energy Bioscience Institute
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, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, switchgrass, Miscanthus, perennial grasses, DayCent model, model-data integration, harvest time, crop rotation length, soil carbon sequestration, biomass yield, marginal land, soil quality

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