CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsLand Use and Ecosystem Services

A multi‐criteria based review of models that predict environmental impacts of land use‐change for perennial energy crops on water, carbon and nitrogen cycling

Open access
Thomas, Amy R. C., Bond, Alan J., Hiscock, Kevin M.·2013·GCB Bioenergy
DOI 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01198.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reduction in energy sector greenhouse gas GHG emissions is a key aim of European Commission plans to expand cultivation of bioenergy crops. Since agriculture makes up 10–12% of anthropogenic GHG emissions, impacts of land‐use change must be considered, which requires detailed understanding of specific changes to agroecosystems. The greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of perennials may differ significantly from the previous ecosystem. Net change in GHG emissions with land‐use change for bioenergy may exceed avoided fossil fuel emissions, meaning that actual GHG mitigation benefits are variable. Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling are complex interlinked systems, and a change in land management may affect both differently at different sites, depending on other variables. Change in evapotranspiration with land‐use change may also have significant environmental or water resource impacts at some locations. This article derives a multi‐criteria based decision analysis approach to objectively identify the most appropriate assessment method of the environmental impacts of land‐use change for perennial energy crops. Based on a literature review and conceptual model in support of this approach, the potential impacts of land‐use change for perennial energy crops on GHG emissions and evapotranspiration were identified, as well as likely controlling variables. These findings were used to structure the decision problem and to outline model requirements. A process‐based model representing the complete agroecosystem was identified as the best predictive tool, where adequate data are available. Nineteen models were assessed according to suitability criteria, to identify current model capability, based on the conceptual model, and explicit representation of processes at appropriate resolution. FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert‐N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES‐NOE were identified as appropriate models, with factors such as crop, location and data availability dictating the final decision for a given project. A database to inform such decisions is included.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review uses multi-criteria decision analysis and a literature-derived conceptual model to identify process-based agroecosystem models suitable for predicting water, carbon and nitrogen cycling impacts of land-use change to perennial energy crops. It concludes that no single universal model exists, but several process-based models can be suitable depending on crop, location and data availability.

Key findings

  • Nineteen models were assessed; the abstract identifies FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES-NOE as appropriate models, while the conclusions list DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, ECOSSE, Ecosys, WNMM and ANIMO as suitable agroecosystem models, with DNDC, DayCent and WNMM applied over the widest geographical scope.
  • Process-based whole-agroecosystem models were preferred over empirical/statistical models for scenario analysis; required outputs were GHG balance (including indirect emissions from leached nitrates), SOM status, yield and change in evapotranspiration.
  • A Scopus search for “soil N2O emission model” gave 403 results; model mentions included IPCC methodology 190, DNDC 112, DayCent 54, Expert-N 34, Ecosys 15, HIP 15, ANN 14, NLOSS 13, WNMM 8, NOE 9 (6 as CERES-NOE), CASA 8, STICS 6, FASSET 5, InfoCrop 4, ANIMO 3, FullCAM 3, MCROPS and MGRASS 2, ECOSSE 1 and INCA 1.
  • Contextual numbers reported: agriculture contributes 10–12% of anthropogenic GHG emissions; N2O has a GWP of 310 relative to CO2; oil seed rape releases 0.24–0.40 t C ha−1 yr−1, Miscanthus stores 0.62 t C ha−1 yr−1, willow SRC stores 0.09–0.18 t C ha−1 yr−1 and forest stores 0.32 t C ha−1 yr−1; Li et al. found the GWP of N2O emissions from reduced tillage offset soil carbon storage by 75–310%.

Methods

  • Literature review and conceptual model (Figs 1 and 2) were used to identify potential impacts and controlling variables, structure the decision problem and outline model requirements.
  • A two-stage conjunctive multi-criteria decision analysis was applied: primary criteria (representation of the complete agroecosystem, potential to meet all required outputs, explicit representation of required soil/crop/land-management processes) excluded unsuitable models; secondary criteria (resolution, regions applied, crops parameterized) were compiled in Table 2.
  • A Scopus search using “TITLE-ABS-KEY-AUTH (soil N2O emission model)” yielded 403 results, from which a database of widely used models was compiled; no new field data or model validation were generated.

Limitations

  • Stated: criteria were identified by an individual decision-maker, with literature used as a proxy for stakeholder input; it was not possible to consider every existing model; no universal model was found; validation gaps remain by climate and crop; models cannot be tested for future climates; data demands of process-based models are high; performance tends to be better in environments similar to model development regions.
  • Stated: the scope excludes ecology and biodiversity, landscape structure, socioeconomic systems and emissions from fuel use; validation of GHG emissions is complicated by spatio-temporal variability, and point measurements may not represent longer-term field-scale changes.
  • Evident from the text: suitability conclusions rely on literature-reported process representation and validation history rather than a new comparative validation, and the abstract and conclusion lists of suitable models differ slightly (e.g. FASSET appears in the abstract list but is ruled out in the discussion/table for poor representation of tillage variation; CERES-NOE is listed in the abstract but noted as not validated for perennials).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01198.x

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 137 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingreasoning

    Some processes affecting soil nutrient cycling were identified as of lesser importance by reviewing the literature.

    “Some processes affecting soil nutrient cycling were identified as of lesser importance by reviewing the literature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    FASSET is unable to represent variation in mineralisation rates and GHG balance with tillage.

    “FASSET is unable to represent variation in mineralisation rates and GHG balance with tillage (Chatskikh et al., 2005), and function parameters for denitrification/nitrification controls are derived from site-specific data, which may impede performance at new sites (Chen et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chatskikh et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingnone given

    Of the remaining models, all can provide the specific required outputs of yield, direct GHG emissions, leaching and ET.

    “Of the remaining models, all can provide the specific required outputs of yield, direct GHG emissions, leaching and ET.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    FASSET function parameters for denitrification/nitrification controls are derived from site-specific data, which may impede performance at new sites.

    “function parameters for denitrification/nitrification controls are derived from site-specific data, which may impede performance at new sites (Chen et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    DayCent, WNMM and CERES-NOE do not represent SOM below 20 cm.

    “DayCent, WNMM and CERES-NOE do not represent SOM below 20 cm, so conclusions cannot be drawn for changes at greater depth, and DayCent uses implicit representation of microbial dynamics which may impede performance (Mu ¨ller et al., 1997;Del Grosso et al., 2000;Chen et al., 2008;Del Grosso et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mu ¨ller et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Del Grosso et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Chen et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 39
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 44

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES-NOE were identified as appropriate models, with factors such as crop, location and data availability dictating the final decision for a given project.

    “FASSET, ECOSSE, ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, Ecosys, WNMM and CERES-NOE were identified as appropriate models, with factors such as crop, location and data availability dictating the final decision for a given project.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    A Scopus search for 'TITLE-ABS-KEY-AUTH (soil N 2 O emission model)' gave 403 results.

    “A Scopus search was run to find models using 'TITLE-ABS-KEY-AUTH (soil N 2 O emission model)', which gave 403 results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 403 Scopus results, the numbers discussing each model were: 190 IPCC methodology, 112 DNDC, 54 Day-Cent, 34 Expert-N, 15 Ecosys, 15 Hole In The Pipe (HIP), 14 ANN, 13 NLOSS, 8 WNMM, 9 NOE (6 AS CERES-NOE), 8 CASA, 6 STICS, 5 FASSET, 4 InfoCrop, 3 ANIMO, 3 FullCAM, 2 MCROPS and MGRASS, 1 ECOSSE and 1 INCA.

    “Of these 403 results, several models were featured strongly; 190 discussed the IPCC methodology, 112 DNDC, 54 Day-Cent, 34 Expert-N, 15 Ecosys, 15 Hole In The Pipe (HIP), 14 ANN, 13 NLOSS, 8 WNMM, 9 NOE (6 AS CERES-NOE), 8 CASA, 6 STICS, 5 FASSET, 4 InfoCrop, 3 ANIMO, 3 FullCAM, 2 MCROPS and MGRASS, 1 ECOSSE and 1 INCA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    DayCent represents an increase in decomposition immediately after tillage, but does not represent changes in bulk density for tilled vs. no tilled systems.

    “for example DayCent represents an increase in decomposition imme-diately after tillage, but does not represent changes in bulk density for tilled vs. no tilled systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The critical parameters required to model water usage and crop yield for perennial energy crops were considered by the MCDA presented here and indicated that DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, ECOSSE, Ecosys, WNMM and ANIMO are suitable agroecosystem models for predicting potential impacts, and cover a range of regions and crop types.

    “The critical parameters required to model water usage and crop yield for perennial energy crops were considered by the MCDA presented here and indicated that DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, ECOSSE, Ecosys, WNMM and ANIMO are suitable agroecosystem models for predicting potential impacts, and cover a range of regions and crop types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    CERES-NOE has not been validated for perennials, which may make it less applicable.

    “For example, CERES-NOE has not been validated for perennials, which may make it less applicable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    STICS does not separate SOM pools according to availability and rates of decay, and so was ruled out.

    “In terms of required process representation, STICS does not separate SOM pools according to availability and rates of decay, and so was ruled out.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    All of the remaining models can represent precipitation, flooding and irrigation, crop uptake and growth and fertilizer and residue application, as well as simultaneous denitrification and nitrification, using partitioning based on WFPS or aerated fraction of soil.

    “All of the remaining models can represent precipitation, flooding and irrigation, crop uptake and growth and fertilizer and residue application, as well as simultaneous denitrification and nitrification, using partitioning based on WFPS or aerated fraction of soil (Frolking et al., 1998;Li et al., 2000;Renaud et al., 2006;Chen et al., 2008;Chirinda et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frolking et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Li et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Renaud et al., 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Expert-N incorporates more complete representation of tillage.

    “since it incorporates more complete representation of tillage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In terms of climatic regions, validation gaps are as follows: ANIMO, dry, cold and tropical climates; ECOSSE and WNMM, cold and tropical climates; Expert-N, CERES-NOE, dry and cold climates; and Ecosys and DayCent, tropical climates.

    “In terms of climatic regions, validation gaps are as follows: ANIMO, dry, cold and tropical climates; ECOSSE and WNMM, cold and tropical climates; Expert-N, CERES-NOE, dry and cold climates; and Ecosys and DayCent, tropical climates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    ANIMO, DNDC, DayCent, Expert-N, Ecosys, WNMM, CERES-NOE and ECOSSE differ in terms of scales and processes represented, and in terms of validation history.

    “they differ in terms of scales and processes represented, and in terms of validation history.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Perennials tend to have high nutrient use efficiency, limited yield response to fertilizer, and higher associated soil nutrient retention compared to traditional annual arable crops.

    “Perennials tend to have high nutrient use efficiency, limited yield response to fertilizer and higher associated soil nutrient retention, when compared to traditional annual arable crops.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Beale & Long, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Christian & Riche, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Boehmel et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Nitrous oxide has a global warming potential of 310 relative to CO2.

    “Nitrous oxide, N 2 O has a global warming potential (GWP) of 310 relative to CO 2 , so a change in emissions is particularly significant (Solomon et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Solomon et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Agriculture contributes 58% of anthropogenic N2O and 47% of anthropogenic CH4 emissions, and agriculture makes up 10-12% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions.

    “Since land-use change contributes significantly to CO 2 , and agriculture is one of the main causes of N 2 O and CH 4 generation [contributing 58% and 47% of anthropogenic emissions, respectively, making up 10-12% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (AllaLi et al., 2007a,b;Malc ¸a & Freire, 2012;Smith et al., 2007Smith et al., , 2008))]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites AllaLi et al., 2007a,b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Malc ¸a & Freire, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Smith et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The balance of carbon storage varies with land use; oil seed rape releases 0.24-0.40 t C ha-1 yr-1, Miscanthus stores 0.62 t C ha-1 yr-1, willow short rotation coppice stores 0.09-0.18 t C ha-1 yr-1, and forest stores 0.32 t C ha-1 yr-1.

    “The balance of carbon storage varies with land use, e.g. oil seed rape releases 0.24-0.40t C ha À1 yr À1 depending on management; whereas Miscanthus stores 0.62 t C ha À1 yr À1 ; willow short rotation coppice (SRC) stores 0.09 -0.18 t C ha À1 yr À1 ; and forest stores 0.32 t C ha À1 yr À1 (Branda ˜o et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Branda ˜o et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The CO2 sink from no till may not offset emissions from disruption of the previous ecosystem, and may not at equilibrium exceed the previous land use.

    “However, this CO 2 sink may not offset emissions from disruption of the previous ecosystem, and may not (at equilibrium) exceed the previous land use.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    No till practice for perennials should encourage soil organic carbon accumulation producing a CO2 sink, as well as increasing soil pore oxidation of CH4.

    “Therefore, no till practice for perennials should encourage soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation producing a CO 2 sink, as well as increasing soil pore oxidation of CH 4 (Ball et al., 1999;Keoleian & Volk, 2005;Li et al., 2005a,b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ball et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Keoleian & Volk, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Li et al., 2005a,b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    Due to coupling of carbon and nitrogen cycles, changes in carbon storage affect nitrogen storage and emissions.

    “Due to coupling of C and N cycles, this will also affect N storage and emissions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Any change to perennial crop management requirements and growth patterns affects water cycling and availability, soil physical and chemical properties, and resulting carbon and nitrogen cycling and emissions.

    “Any change to these affects water cycling and availability, as well as soil physical and chemical properties and resulting carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling and emissions (Haughton et al., 2009;Rowe et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Haughton et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rowe et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Perennial crops differ from most frequently grown arable crops in terms of management requirements and growth patterns.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Although N fertilizer inputs are often considered to have a strong positive correlation with N2O output, their importance may be overstated, and tillage can be a more useful determinant.

    “However, although N fertilizer inputs are often considered to have strong positive correlation with N 2 O output, their importance may be overstated, and tillage can be a more useful determinant (Li et al., 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Crop growth, soil nutrient cycling and soil-atmosphere exchanges can be viewed as components of the same system, which must be represented in its entirety to make relevant predictions.

    “Therefore, crop growth, soil nutrient cycling and soil-atmosphere exchanges can be viewed as components of the same system, which must be represented in its entirety to make relevant predictions (Smith et al., 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Smith et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    There is no accepted EU-wide framework for prediction of the environmental impacts of land-use change for energy crops.

    “Since there is no accepted EUwide framework for prediction of the environmental impacts of land-use change for energy crops, then a change in ET may be considered in some cases, but not in others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Required model outputs are GHG balance (including indirect emissions from leached nitrates), SOM status, yield, and change in ET.

    “Required model outputs are as indicated in Fig. 1: • GHG balance (including indirect emissions from leached nitrates) • SOM status • Yield • Change in ET”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Evapotranspiration varies with land use, and there are significant differences between perennials and annuals.

    “Evapotranspiration (ET) also varies with land use, and there are significant differences between perennials and annuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Goodrich et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McKendry, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vanloocke et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Current understanding of crop-soil processes is incomplete, making such change difficult to anticipate, and change in nitrogen may be more relevant in terms of GHGs.

    “However, current understanding of crop-soil processes is incomplete, making such change difficult to anticipate, and furthermore change in N may be more relevant in terms of GHGs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    SOM accumulation rate for a new land use varies over time; it is often greatest during establishment and usually curvilinear until SOM reaches equilibrium under constant conditions.

    “SOM accumulation rate for a new land use will vary over time; it is often greatest during establishment and usually curvilinear until SOM reaches equilibrium, under constant conditions (Smith, 2004;IPCC, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Smith, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites IPCC, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In order for a process-based model to achieve good performance, representation of processes and their interaction must be as comprehensive as possible.

    “In order for a process-based model to achieve good performance, representation of processes and their interaction must be as comprehensive as possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    GHG emissions are a global issue in terms of climate change.

    “whereas GHG emissions are a global issue in terms of climate change (Dondini et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dondini et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The significance of change in evapotranspiration is site specific, such that reduction in effective rainfall may be detrimental in some locations, or may reduce flood risk in others.

    “The significance of change in ET is also site specific, such that reduction in effective rainfall may be detrimental in some locations, or may reduce flood risk in others (Rowe et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rowe et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Without representation of spatial variation in controlling factors, explicit representation of microbial processes will not improve model performance.

    “Without representation of spatial variation in controlling factors, it has been suggested that explicit representation of microbial processes will not improve model performance (Potter et al., 1996;Chen et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Potter et al., 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Chen et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The IPCC land-use change assessment focuses on GHG emissions, meaning that change in ET for a new crop is not considered, although it could be an output for a Tier 3 process-based model, and would be incorporated by a full EIA.

    “The IPCC land-use change assessment focuses on GHG emissions, meaning that change in ET for a new crop is not considered, although it could be an output for a Tier 3 process-based model, and would be incorporated by a full EIA.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    It is important to base confidence in the model on performance at validation as opposed to calibration.

    “It is important to base confidence in the model on performance at validation as opposed to calibration (Perrin et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Perrin et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Due to the high GWP of N2O and the uncertainty of N2O emissions response to change in land use and management, it is sensible to focus on models with good potential in this area.

    “Due to the high GWP of N 2 O outlined in Section Introduction, and the uncertainty of N 2 O emissions response to change in land use and management outlined in Section Potential impacts of land-use change to perennial energy crops, it is sensible to focus on models with good potential in this area.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Secondary criteria are of varying importance depending on the location, crops and data availability of the study in which a land-use change model is required.

    “These secondary criteria are of varying importance depending on the location, crops and data availability of the study in which a land-use change model is required.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Resolution appears to be of secondary importance.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Due to the required range of outputs, it may be necessary to couple models.

    “Due to the required range of outputs, it may be necessary to couple models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Microbial population dynamics correlate with other parameters and may be represented implicitly.

    “For example, microbial population dynamics correlate with other parameters and may be represented implicitly (Mu ¨ller et al., 1997;Del Grosso et al., 2000), and the importance of freeze thaw is dependent on study location and climate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mu ¨ller et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Del Grosso et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    To make useful predictions, it is necessary for all outputs identified in Section Model selection for predicting impacts on water and GHG balance of land-use change to perennial energy crops to be produced.

    “To make useful predictions, it is also necessary for all outputs identified in Section Model selection for predicting impacts on water and GHG balance of land-use change to perennial energy crops to be produced.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Indirect GHG emissions tend not to be a standard output for agroecosystem models.

    “In particular, indirect GHG emissions tend not to be a standard output for agroecosystem models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    There are a great number of models available which could be used to predict part(s) of the required outputs.

    “There are a great number of models available which could be used to predict part(s) of the required outputs, and so it is not possible to consider every existing model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is not possible to consider every existing model.

    “and so it is not possible to consider every existing model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The predictive models considered are not intended to give a complete assessment, but could contribute a useful input to a broader lifecycle analysis (LCA).

    “The predictive models considered are not intended to give a complete assessment, but could contribute a useful input to a broader lifecycle analysis (LCA).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Model complexity may increase scope.

    “Model complexity may increase scope, however, simple models may perform better when coupled, and structure may be more important than complexity in determining model accuracy (Smith et al., 1997;Perrin et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Smith et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Perrin et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Calibration of Expert-N could prove extremely useful.

    “although calibration of this model could prove extremely useful, since it incorporates more complete representation of tillage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Land-use change for perennial energy crops often represents major change to tillage regime, evapotranspiration, crop rooting depth and seasonality of land cover, with knock-on effects on soil chemical and physical properties such as texture, WFPS and available C and N, and resulting GHG emissions of CH4, CO2 and N2O.

    “Land-use change for perennial energy crops often represents major change to tillage regime, evapotranspiration, crop rooting depth and seasonality of land cover, with knock-on effects on soil chemical and physical properties such as texture, WFPS and available C and N, and resulting GHG emissions of CH 4 , CO 2 and N 2 O.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: GHG emissions from agriculture are significant, contributing 10-12% of the anthropogenic total.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    This approach excludes models not capable of whole agroecosystem representation of all required processes and outputs, enabling more detailed consideration of all suitable models.

    “This approach excludes models not capable of whole agroecosystem representation of all required processes and outputs, enabling more detailed consideration of all suitable models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Water usage may differ from previous vegetation, affecting the catchment regime, and potentially limiting crop yield.

    “Also, water usage may differ from previous vegetation, affecting the catchment regime, and potentially limiting crop yield.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Although criteria were identified by an individual decision-maker, the use of literature to support application of the conjunctive approach to key criteria should ensure robust objectivity.

    “Although criteria were identified by an individual decision-maker, the use of literature to support application of the conjunctive approach to key criteria should ensure robust objectivity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Where the data demands of a process-based model cannot be met, one of these non-process-based models may be applied if it has been calibrated at a similar site.

    “However, where the data demands of a processbased model cannot be met, one of these models may be applied if it has been calibrated at a similar site.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Given the history of model development, whereby a model is designed to solve a specific problem in the context of specific (usually localized) sites, the duplication identified in the literature search is, to some extent, inevitable.

    “Given the history of model development, whereby a model is designed to solve a specific problem in the context of specific (usually localized) sites, the duplication identified in the literature search is, to some extent, inevitable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Although validation is often based on time series GHG emissions, the spatio-temporal variability of emissions at field scale complicates the process.

    “Although validation is often based on time series GHG emissions, the spatio-temporal variability of emissions at field scale complicates the process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    This review meets a need for identification of suitable models for predicting impacts of land-use change, particularly for perennial bioenergy crops, and is novel in that the whole agroecosystem approach is not commonly applied to research on land-use impacts.

    “This review meets a need for identification of suitable models for predicting impacts of land-use change, particularly for perennial bioenergy crops, and is novel in that the whole agroecosystem approach is not”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The models identified are only as good as their performance at validation, and this must be considered both in model selection, and also in conclusions and decisions based on model output.

    “However, the models identified are only as good as their performance at validation, and this must be considered both in model selection, and also in conclusions and decisions based on model output.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Besides needing to represent all relevant processes, true harmony would also require the model to perform equally between sites.

    “However, besides needing to represent all relevant processes, true harmony would also require the model to perform equally between sites.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Understanding these variables may help to minimize ecosystem impacts and to fulfil the emissions savings potential of bioenergy crops.

    “Hence, understanding these variables may help to minimize ecosystem impacts and to fulfil the emissions savings potential of bioenergy crops.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A universal model may only provide universal representation of commonalities.

    “Therefore, a universal model may only provide universal representation of commonalities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Models cannot be tested for future climates, which may affect longer term predictions.

    “it must also be remembered that models cannot be tested for future climates, which may affect longer term predictions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If many of the processes occurring differ, different aspects of the model may apply at different sites, and these components may not have similar performance.

    “If many of the processes occurring differ, different aspects of the model may apply at different sites, and these components may not have similar performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The representation of tillage is particularly significant and often incomplete.

    “The representation of tillage is particularly significant and often incomplete, for example DayCent represents an increase in decomposition imme-diately after tillage, but does not represent changes in bulk density for tilled vs. no tilled systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It may be useful to adjust existing models to refine relevant processes and eliminate any unnecessary input data requirements.

    “although it may be useful to adjust existing models to refine relevant processes and eliminate any unnecessary input data requirements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Applying a model outside of its suitable range will diminish performance, negating perceived harmony.

    “however, the effect of applying a model outside of its suitable range will diminish performance, negating perceived harmony.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Additional work on validation in other regions would be required before any of these models could be regarded as geographically universal.

    “although additional work on validation in other regions would be required before any of these models could be regarded as geographically universal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Further validation studies are required to cover all extremes of dry, tropical, cold and temperate climates for DNDC.

    “although further validation studies are required to cover all extremes of these climates”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Model performance may remain better in locations similar to the region of model development which could negate perceived harmony.

    “Model performance may remain better in locations similar to the region of model development which could negate perceived harmony.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Indirect emissions may not be included in outputs, but can be easily calculated from predicted leaching rates.

    “Indirect emissions may not be included in outputs, but can be easily calculated from predicted leaching rates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Given the availability of models meeting the review criteria, it is not necessary to build a new model for application to perennial energy crops.

    “Given the availability of models meeting the review criteria, it is not necessary to build a new model for application to perennial energy crops, although it may be useful to adjust existing models to refine relevant processes and eliminate any unnecessary input data requirements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Calibration and validation may be necessary to add specific new crop types for DNDC and DayCent.

    “although calibration and validation may be necessary to add specific new crop types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
66 of 66

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The objectivity of the MCDA approach depends on the objectivity of the criteria identification in the first two stages.

    “The objectivity of the MCDA approach is dependent on the objectivity of the criteria identification in the first two stages, so it is crucial that a transparent approach is used, based on appropriate stakeholder input, or data and literature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A literature review can be used in proxy for stakeholder input in criteria identification.

    “MCDA often incorporates stakeholder input for criteria identification; however, a literature review may be used in proxy.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    MCDA is a robust, logical approach to meeting multiple demands.

    “The approach takes the form of multi-criteria based decision analysis (MCDA) which is a robust, logical approach to meeting multiple demands.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Perennial crops differ from most frequently grown arable crops in terms of management requirements and growth patterns.

    “Perennial crops differ from most frequently grown arable crops in terms of management requirements and growth patterns.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The whole agroecosystem approach is well recognized in agriculture and is often utilized for improving efficiency of amounts and timings of fertilizer inputs and irrigation.

    “However, the whole agroecosystem approach is well recognized in agriculture, and is often utilized for improving efficiency of amounts and timings of fertilizer inputs and irrigation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Indirect emissions do not affect representation of other processes.

    “Indirect emissions do not affect representation of other processes, and could be represented by a separate sub model.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The importance of freeze thaw is dependent on study location and climate.

    “and the importance of freeze thaw is dependent on study location and climate.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Resolution appears to be of secondary importance.

    “Since resolution appears to be of secondary importance, this was included in a second criteria matrix, along with locations and crops to which the model has been applied”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GHG emissions from agriculture are significant, contributing 10-12% of the anthropogenic total.

    “GHG emissions from agriculture are significant, contributing 10-12% of the anthropogenic total.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GHG emissions, evapotranspiration and yield are all significant impacts of agriculture.

    “GHG emissions, evapotranspiration and yield are all significant impacts of agriculture.”
10 of 10

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?

  • Previous reviews on carbon sequestration under perennial energy crops include some unrelated to soil organic carbon, some without experimental evidence, and some focused on specific geographical regions.

    “Although there have been previous reviews on C sequestration under PECs [8–11], some of these were either unrelated to SOC [12, 13], or did not report any experimental evidence [1, 14, 15], or focused on specific geographical regions [16].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Soil water dynamics are considered a key parameter in all SOC models applied to PECs.

    “Soil water dynamics are considered a key parameter in all SOC models applied to PECs [14, 15].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. European Commission, 2008, Document SEC 85 V2; accompanying the package of implementation measures for the EU's objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020, 212
  2. European Commission, 2008, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, 61
  3. Firbank L, 2012, Green Energy and Technology, 2012, Sustainable Bioenergy and Bioproducts, 189
  4. Fraiture C, 2008, Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 139
  5. Hendriks RFA, 2008, 13th International Peat Congress After Wise Use ‐ The Future of Peatlands, 583
  6. IPCC, 2006, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme
  7. IPCC, 2007, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 104
  8. Richards GP, 2001, The FullCAM Carbon Accounting Model: Development, Calibration, and Implementation. Carbon Accounting and Emissions Trading Related to Bioenergy, Wood Products, and Carbon Sequestration, 1
  9. SchoumansOF SilgramME AndersenHEet al. (2003)Review and literature evaluation of nutrient quantification tools EUROHARP report 1 NIVA report SNO 4739‐2003 120pp.Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) Norway.
  10. Smith P, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  11. Stenger R, 1999, Proceedings Technical Session 20, 19

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thomas, A. R. C., Bond, A. J., & Hiscock, K. M.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Thomas, Amy R. C.
ORCID
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-17
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
227-242
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
DOI
10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01198.x
OpenAlex
W2170813815
Cited by
31
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • UK Energy Research Centre
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G035989/1)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/G007748/1)
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 › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
land use change, perennial energy crops, bioenergy, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycling, evapotranspiration, water resource impacts, environmental impact assessment, multi-criteria decision making, agroecosystem modeling, model adequacy, mechanistic model, DayCent

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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