Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 178

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 access
Daioglou, Vassilis, Stehfest, Elke, Wicke, Birka, Faaij, Andre, van Vuuren, Detlef P.·2016·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcbb.12285

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 178

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.