Cited by 150Bioenergy crop production and managementHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

The impacts of Miscanthus × giganteus production on the Midwest US hydrologic cycle

Open access
VANLOOCKE, ANDY, BERNACCHI, CARL J., TWINE, TRACY E.·2010·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Abstract Perennial grasses are being considered as candidates for biofuel feedstocks to provide an alternative energy source to fossil fuels. Miscanthus × giganteus (miscanthus), in particular, is a grass that is predicted to provide more energy per sown area than corn ethanol and reduce net carbon dioxide emissions by increasing the storage of carbon belowground. Miscanthus uses more water than Zea mays (maize), mainly as a result of a longer growing season and higher productivity. Conversion of current land use for miscanthus production will likely disrupt regional hydrologic cycles, yet the magnitude, timing, and spatial distribution of effects are unknown. Here, we show the effects of five different scenarios of miscanthus production on the simulated Midwest US hydrologic cycle. Given the same historic precipitation observations, our ecosystem model simulation results show that on an annual basis miscanthus uses more water than the ecosystems it will likely replace. The actual timing and magnitude of increased water loss to the atmosphere depends on location; however, substantial increases only occur when miscanthus fraction cover exceeds 25% in dry regions and 50% in nearly all of the Midwest. Our results delineate where large‐scale land use conversion to perennial biofuel grasses might deplete soil water resources. Given the fact that some watersheds within the Midwest already have depleted water resources, we expect our results to inform decisions on where to grow perennial grasses for biofuel use to ensure sustainability of energy and water resources, and to minimize the potential for deleterious effects to water quantity and quality.

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/j.1757-1707.2010.01053.x

Cites

63 of 63 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?

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. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R et al. (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bulletin of the American Meteorologi- cal Society, 77, 437-471.
  2. Kistler R, Kalnay E, Collins W et al. (2001) The NCEP-NCAR 50- year reanalysis: monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82, 247-268.
  3. New M, Hulme M, Jones P (1999) Representing twentieth- century space-time climate variability. Part I: development of a 1961-90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. Journal of Climate, 12, 829-856.
  4. Thompson SL, Pollard D (1995a) A global climate model (Gen- esis) with a Land-Surface Transfer Scheme (Lsx) .1. Present climate simulation. Journal of Climate, 8, 732-761.
  5. Thompson SL, Pollard D (1995b) A global climate model (Gen- esis) with a Land-Surface Transfer Scheme (Lsx) 2. Co2 sensi- tivity. Journal of Climate, 8, 1104-1121.
  6. Twine TE, Kucharik CJ, Foley JA (2004) Effects of land cover change on the energy and water balance of the mississippi river basin. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5, 640-655.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
VANLOOCKE, A., BERNACCHI, C. J., & TWINE, T. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
TWINE, TRACY E.
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-11
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
180-191
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2123596417
Cited by
150
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 16
FWCI
34.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Energy Biosciences Institute
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
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 › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
Miscanthus × giganteus, perennial grasses, biofuel feedstock, land use conversion, water cycle, soil water depletion, water consumption, carbon sequestration, maize, Midwestern United States, ecosystem modeling, water resources sustainability

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