The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry
Open accessAbstract
By‐products of agricultural and forestry processes, known as residues, may act as a primary source of renewable energy. Studies assessing the availability of this resource offer little insight on the drivers and constraints of the available potential as well as the associated costs and how these may vary across scenarios. This study projects long‐term global supply curves of the available potential using consistent scenarios of agriculture and forestry production, livestock production and fuel use from the spatially explicit integrated assessment model IMAGE. In the projections, residue production is related to agricultural and forestry production and intensification, and the limiting effect of ecological and alternative uses of residues are accounted for. Depending on the scenario, theoretical potential is projected to increase from approximately 120 EJ yr−1 today to 140–170 EJ yr−1 by 2100, coming mostly from agricultural production. To maintain ecological functions approximately 40% is required to remain in the field, and a further 20–30% is diverted towards alternative uses. Of the remaining potential (approximately 50 EJ yr−1 in 2100), more than 90% is available at costs <10$2005 GJ−1. Crop yield improvements increase residue productivity, albeit at a lower rate. The consequent decrease in agricultural land results in a lower requirement of residues for erosion control. The theoretical potential is most sensitive to baseline projections of agriculture and forestry demand; however, this does not necessarily affect the available potential which is relatively constant across scenarios. The most important limiting factors are the alternative uses. Asia and North America account for two‐thirds of the available potential due to the production of crops with high residue yields and socioeconomic conditions which limit alternative uses.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies
Berndes, G., Hoogwijk, M., & van den Broek, R. (2003) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(02)00185-x · Cited by 1,149
Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios
Hoogwijk, M., Faaij, A., Eickhout, B., de Vries, B., & Turkenburg, W. (2005) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.05.002 · Cited by 444
Self-citationGlobal bioenergy potentials through 2050
Fischer, G., & Schrattenholzer, L. (2001) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(00)00074-x · Cited by 346
Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: Availability and distribution
Jiang, D., Zhuang, D., Fu, J., Huang, Y., & Wen, K. (2012) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.012 · Cited by 311
Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy
Dornburg, V., van Vuuren, D., van de Ven, G., Langeveld, H., Meeusen, M., Banse, M., van Oorschot, M., Ros, J., Jan van den Born, G., Aiking, H., et al. (2010) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/b922422j · Cited by 287
Self-citationSoil and crop response to harvesting corn residues for biofuel production
Blanco-Canqui, H., & Lal, R. (2007) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.06.012 · Cited by 286
The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints
Haberl, H., Beringer, T., Bhattacharya, S. C., Erb, K.-H., & Hoogwijk, M. (2010) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.10.007 · Cited by 285
Mann, L., Tolbert, V., & Cushman, J. (2002) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(01)00166-9 · Cited by 237 · cited 1×
“Maintenance of soil organic carbon (SOC) is widely cited as an important ecological service provided by residues; however, the feedbacks and mechanisms involved are unclear (Mann et al., 2002; Lal, 2005).”
BackgroundBiofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions
Liska, A. J., Yang, H., Milner, M., Goddard, S., Blanco-Canqui, H., Pelton, M. P., Fang, X. X., Zhu, H., & Suyker, A. E. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2187 · Cited by 207
Cited by
Lignin valorization: Status, challenges and opportunities
Sethupathy, S., Murillo Morales, G., Gao, L., Wang, H., Yang, B., Jiang, J., Sun, J., & Zhu, D. (2022) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126696 · Cited by 473
Malico, I., Nepomuceno Pereira, R., Gonçalves, A. C., & Sousa, A. M. O. (2019) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.022 · Cited by 253
Galán-Martín, Á., Tulus, V., Díaz, I., Pozo, C., Pérez-Ramírez, J., & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. (2021) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.001 · Cited by 215
Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios
Vaughan, N. E., Gough, C., Mander, S., Littleton, E. W., Welfle, A., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- Daioglou, V., Stehfest, E., Wicke, B., Faaij, A., & van Vuuren, D. P.
- Venue
- GCB Bioenergy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-07-29
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 456-470
- ISSN
- 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-1707
- OpenAlex
- W1959753344
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 13.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcbb.12285
- The paper
- Daioglou, V., Stehfest, E., Wicke, B., Faaij, A., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2016). Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry. GCB Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12285
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.