Cited by 97Bioenergy crop production and managementHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

Watershed‐scale impacts of bioenergy crops on hydrology and water quality using improved SWAT model

Open access
Cibin, Raj, Trybula, Elizabeth, Chaubey, Indrajeet, Brouder, Sylvie M., Volenec, Jeffrey J.·2016·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Cellulosic bioenergy feedstock such as perennial grasses and crop residues are expected to play a significant role in meeting US biofuel production targets. We used an improved version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to forecast impacts on watershed hydrology and water quality by implementing an array of plausible land‐use changes associated with commercial bioenergy crop production for two watersheds in the Midwest USA. Watershed‐scale impacts were estimated for 13 bioenergy crop production scenarios, including: production of Miscanthus × giganteus and upland Shawnee switchgrass on highly erodible landscape positions, agricultural marginal land areas and pastures, removal of corn stover and combinations of these options. Water quality, measured as erosion and sediment loading, was forecasted to improve compared to baseline when perennial grasses were used for bioenergy production, but not with stover removal scenarios. Erosion reduction with perennial energy crop production scenarios ranged between 0.2% and 59%. Stream flow at the watershed outlet was reduced between 0 and 8% across these bioenergy crop production scenarios compared to baseline across the study watersheds. Results indicate that bioenergy production scenarios that incorporate perennial grasses reduced the nonpoint source pollutant load at the watershed outlet compared to the baseline conditions (0–20% for nitrate‐nitrogen and 3–56% for mineral phosphorus); however, the reduction rates were specific to site characteristics and management practices.

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.12307

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Corn stover removal can cause increased evapotranspiration and reductions of water yield at the watershed scale, though the magnitude varied with watershed and harvest rate.

    “the corn stover removal can also cause increased ET and reductions of water yield at the watershed scale”

    From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Cibin et al. 2016

  • Soil erosion induced by high-rate residue removal may be mitigated by appropriate management options such as direct input of organic matter and other protecting measures.

    “soil erosion induced by high-rate residue removal may be mitigated by appropriate management options, such as the direct input of organic matter and other protecting measures”

    From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Cibin et al. (2016)

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: 1

  1. Orr MJN (2012) Comparative assessment of five cellulosic biofuel management strategies: Implications to soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cibin, R., Trybula, E., Chaubey, I., Brouder, S. M., & Volenec, J. J.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Chaubey, Indrajeet
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
837-848
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2163725704
Cited by
97
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 3
FWCI
19.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐EE0004396)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
energy crops, catchment hydrology, water quality, land use change, perennial grasses, Miscanthus × giganteus, switchgrass, corn stover removal, soil erosion, sediment load, river discharge, non-point source pollution, nitrate, phosphorus, SWAT model, biofuels

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