Land-use change and greenhouse gas emissions from corn and cellulosic ethanol
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may accompany land-use change (LUC) from increased biofuel feedstock production are a source of debate in the discussion of drawbacks and advantages of biofuels. Estimates of LUC GHG emissions focus mainly on corn ethanol and vary widely. Increasing the understanding of LUC GHG impacts associated with both corn and cellulosic ethanol will inform the on-going debate concerning their magnitudes and sources of variability. RESULTS: In our study, we estimate LUC GHG emissions for ethanol from four feedstocks: corn, corn stover, switchgrass, and miscanthus. We use new computable general equilibrium (CGE) results for worldwide LUC. U.S. domestic carbon emission factors are from state-level modelling with a surrogate CENTURY model and U.S. Forest Service data. This paper investigates the effect of several key domestic lands carbon content modelling parameters on LUC GHG emissions. International carbon emission factors are from the Woods Hole Research Center. LUC GHG emissions are calculated from these LUCs and carbon content data with Argonne National Laboratory's Carbon Calculator for Land Use Change from Biofuels Production (CCLUB) model. Our results indicate that miscanthus and corn ethanol have the lowest (-10 g CO2e/MJ) and highest (7.6 g CO2e/MJ) LUC GHG emissions under base case modelling assumptions. The results for corn ethanol are lower than corresponding results from previous studies. Switchgrass ethanol base case results (2.8 g CO2e/MJ) were the most influenced by assumptions regarding converted forestlands and the fate of carbon in harvested wood products. They are greater than miscanthus LUC GHG emissions because switchgrass is a lower-yielding crop. Finally, LUC GHG emissions for corn stover are essentially negligible and insensitive to changes in model assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides new insight into the influence of key carbon content modelling variables on LUC GHG emissions associated with the four bioethanol pathways we examined. Our results indicate that LUC GHG emissions may have a smaller contribution to the overall biofuel life cycle than previously thought. Additionally, they highlight the need for future advances in LUC GHG emissions estimation including improvements to CGE models and aboveground and belowground carbon content data.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study estimates land-use change (LUC) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for ethanol from corn, corn stover, switchgrass, and miscanthus using GTAP CGE results and Argonne’s CCLUB/GREET models. It finds corn ethanol has the highest base-case LUC GHG emissions (7.6 g CO2e/MJ), miscanthus the lowest (−10 g CO2e/MJ), and corn stover essentially negligible.
Key findings
- Base-case LUC GHG emissions were 7.6 g CO2e/MJ for corn ethanol, 2.8 g CO2e/MJ for switchgrass ethanol, −10 g CO2e/MJ for miscanthus ethanol, and essentially negligible for corn stover.
- Across all modelled parameter combinations, LUC GHG emissions ranged from 4.7 to 11 g CO2e/MJ for corn, 2.7 to 19 g CO2e/MJ for switchgrass, −10 to −2.1 g CO2e/MJ for miscanthus, and −1.21 g CO2e/MJ for corn stover.
- Switchgrass results were most sensitive to assumptions about converted forestlands and harvested wood product (HWP) carbon fate; accounting for HWP sequestration reduced switchgrass LUC GHG emissions by 3–4 g CO2e/MJ, and applying the forest proration factor (FPF) reduced them by 2–3 g CO2e/MJ.
- Corn ethanol LUC GHG emissions were lower than in previous studies, and at most contributed 20% of life-cycle GHG emissions for corn ethanol.
Methods
- Used worldwide LUC results from Purdue University’s GTAP computable general equilibrium model for four scenarios: corn ethanol expansion to 57 BL, plus corn stover (+35 BL), miscanthus (+27 BL), or switchgrass (+27 BL).
- Combined GTAP land transitions with domestic state-level soil organic carbon emission factors from a surrogate CENTURY model and U.S. Forest Service data, international carbon emission factors from Woods Hole Research Center, and aboveground forest carbon data from USDA Forest Service/NCASI COLE.
- Calculated LUC GHG emissions with Argonne National Laboratory’s CCLUB model and placed results in a life-cycle context using GREET; sensitivity analyses varied surrogate CENTURY parameters (soil cultivation coefficient, crop yield increase, erosion) and CCLUB parameters (HWP fate, FPF, tillage).
Limitations
- The paper states that addressing CGE model assumptions and their impact on LUC GHG emissions is outside its scope, and it used only one set of GTAP results; it notes that uncertainty associated with GTAP and similar models is large and difficult to estimate.
- The paper states that future advances are needed in CGE models and aboveground/belowground carbon content data, including global SOC data and further calibration of CENTURY parameters.
- The text makes evident that direct and indirect LUC could not be distinguished in GTAP results, and the forest proration factor was applied to reconcile forest land area differences among GTAP, the National Land Cover Dataset, and U.S. Forest Service data.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 14 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Of the land use transitions considered, conversions to miscanthus maximize carbon sequestration.
“The data in Figure 4 consistently show that, of the land use transitions we considered, conversions to miscanthus maximize carbon sequestration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Of the cellulosic feedstocks, corn stover has the lowest impact on domestic land use.
“Of the cellulosic feedstocks, corn stover has the lowest impact on domestic land use.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Corn stover is treated as a waste product of corn production rather than a co-product.
- Findingcitation
Carbon sequestration occurs when grassland or cropland-pasture is converted to switchgrass or miscanthus production.
“Carbon sequestration occurs when grassland or cropland-pasture is converted to switchgrass or miscanthus production, which is consistent with other studies [20,21].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [20] source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [21]
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Forest conversion to miscanthus production may not incur a carbon penalty.
“Forest conversion to miscanthus production, however, may not incur a carbon penalty.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Conversion of forest to produce corn or corn-corn stover results in the greatest amount of carbon emissions.
“Clearly, conversion of forest to produce corn or corn-corn stover results in the greatest amount of carbon emissions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
AEZ 10 (temperate sub-humid) is most affected by expansion of corn agriculture.
“Modelling results indicated that AEZ 10 (temperate sub-humid) is most affected by expansion of corn agriculture.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Switchgrass ethanol base case LUC GHG emissions are 2.8 g CO2e/MJ.
“Switchgrass ethanol base case results (2.8 g CO2e/MJ) were the most influenced by assumptions regarding converted forestlands and the fate of carbon in harvested wood products.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
GTAP contains significantly more forested land than either the National Land Cover Dataset or the U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory Data.
“GTAP contains significantly more forested land than either of the other two data sources.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the corn ethanol scenario, most of the land converted in the U.S. is cropland-pasture along with some domestic forest.
“In the case of corn ethanol (Scenario 1 in Table 1), most of the land converted in the U.S. is cropland-pasture along with some domestic forest (Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
Switchgrass ethanol base case results were the most influenced by assumptions regarding converted forestlands and the fate of carbon in harvested wood products.
“Switchgrass ethanol base case results (2.8 g CO2e/MJ) were the most influenced by assumptions regarding converted forestlands and the fate of carbon in harvested wood products.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When the forest proration factor is applied, between 20 and 22% of converted land shifts from forests to young forest-shrub for all feedstocks.
“When we apply the FPF, between 20 and 22% of converted land shifts from forests to YFS for all feedstocks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
The SOC emission factors vary slightly between AEZs 7 and 10 with the exception of forest land converted to corn production.
“The SOC emission factors vary slightly between AEZs 7 and 10 with the exception of forest land converted to corn production.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Switchgrass ethanol exhibits the largest sensitivity to changes in modelling parameters in LUC GHG emissions among the feedstocks examined.
“This fuel exhibits the largest sensitivity to changes in modelling parameters in LUC GHG emissions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Applying the calibrated soil cultivation effect coefficient increases LUC GHG emissions from corn production.
“Applying the calibrated soil cultivation effect coefficient therefore increases emissions from corn production.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
Of the fuels examined, corn ethanol has the highest LUC GHG emissions.
“Of the fuels examined, corn ethanol has the highest LUC GHG emissions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the U.S., the miscanthus ethanol scenario causes significant SOC increases in the large amount of cropland-pastureland converted for feedstock growth.
“In the U.S., the miscanthus ethanol scenario causes significant SOC increases in the large amount of cropland-pastureland converted for feedstock growth.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Switchgrass ethanol exhibits higher LUC GHG emissions than miscanthus ethanol.
“On the other hand, switchgrass exhibits higher emissions than miscanthus because it is produced with a lower yield, necessitating more land, including carbon-rich forests, to be converted for its production.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Miscanthus ethanol shows the potential to sequester carbon over the course of its life cycle.
“Miscanthus ethanol shows the potential to sequester carbon over the course of its life cycle.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
For a given HWP and FPF configuration, corn grown under a no-till land management practice emits less carbon than corn grown under other tillage practices.
“As expected, for a given HWP and FPF configuration, corn grown under a no-till land management practice emits less carbon because tillage activities do not disturb the soil and release carbon to the atmosphere.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Miscanthus ethanol exhibits net GHG sequestration from LUC.
“Miscanthus ethanol then exhibits net GHG sequestration from LUC.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
In the case of switchgrass ethanol, international LUC GHG emissions are significant.
“In the case of switchgrass ethanol, international LUC GHG emissions are significant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
LUC GHG impacts of corn stover ethanol production can be considered negligible.
“For the most part, however, LUC GHG impacts of corn stover ethanol production can be considered negligible.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Corn stover is treated as a waste product of corn production rather than a co-product.
- Findingown data
At most, LUC GHG emissions contribute 20% of life-cycle GHG emissions for corn ethanol.
“At most, LUC GHG emissions contribute 20% of life-cycle GHG emissions for corn ethanol.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Assuming crop yields increase with time causes LUC GHG emissions to decline regardless of feedstock.
“Logically, then, assuming crop yields increase with time causes LUC GHG emissions to decline regardless of feedstock.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
The results when corn stover is the ethanol feedstock show a small amount of carbon is sequestered.
“The results when corn stover is the ethanol feedstock show a small amount of carbon is sequestered.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For corn ethanol, applying the FPF decreases emissions by less than 1 g CO2e/MJ when the type of tillage and the HWP assumption are held constant.
“In the case of corn ethanol (Figure 9b), applying the FPF decreases emissions by less than 1 g CO2e/MJ when the type of tillage and the HWP assumption are held constant.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
In the United States, GHG emissions from forest-to-switchgrass conversion cut into gains in soil carbon from conversion of cropland-pasture lands to switchgrass production.
“In the United States, GHG emissions from forest-to-switchgrass conversion cut into gains in soil carbon from conversion of cropland-pasture lands to switchgrass production (Figure 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For corn ethanol, changing the HWP assumption under a constant tillage and FPF scenario decreases emissions by approximately 1 g CO2e/MJ.
“Changing the HWP assumption under a constant tillage and FPF scenario decreases emissions by approximately 1 g CO2e/MJ.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The base case estimate of LUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol is 7.6 g CO2e/MJ.
“Corn ethanol LUC results vary considerably, although the base case estimate (7.6 g CO2e/MJ) aligns well with a value in another recent report [35].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [35]
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingnone given
Converting forest to corn or corn stover production in AEZ 10 will produce greater carbon emissions than this transition in AEZ 7.
“Converting forest to corn or corn stover production in AEZ 10 will produce greater carbon emissions than this transition in AEZ 7.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For switchgrass ethanol, accounting for sequestration of carbon in HWP reduces LUC GHG emissions by between 3 and 4 g CO2e/MJ when the FPF assumption is held constant.
“In Figure 9a, accounting for sequestration of carbon in HWP reduces LUC GHG emissions by between 3 and 4 g CO2e/MJ when the FPF assumption is held constant.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
Regardless of the modelling scenario, corn stover ethanol LUC GHG emissions are essentially negligible.
“Regardless of the modelling scenario, corn stover ethanol LUC GHG emissions are essentially negligible.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The estimate of LUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol has decreased substantially compared to earlier studies.
“However, the estimate of LUC GHG emissions for this fuel has decreased substantially compared to earlier studies [1,2,11,12,36].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked - Findingown data
Including soil erosion impact has a limited effect on domestic LUC GHG emissions.
“Erosion would be expected to decrease SOC, but Figure 8 illustrates that including its impact has a limited effect on domestic LUC GHG emissions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
LUC GHG emissions could potentially contribute significantly to life-cycle GHG emissions (up to 19 g CO2e/MJ) for switchgrass ethanol.
“LUC GHG emissions could potentially contribute significantly to life-cycle GHG emissions (up to 19 g CO2e/MJ) for switchgrass ethanol.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For switchgrass ethanol, for a given HWP assumption, applying the FPF decreases GHG emissions by between 2 and 3 g CO2e/MJ.
“For a given HWP assumption, applying the FPF decreases GHG emissions by between 2 and 3 g CO2e/MJ.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The largest contributor to forest carbon emission factors is aboveground carbon.
“The largest contributor to these emission factors is aboveground carbon.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Without the contribution of LUC GHG sequestration, the net life-cycle GHG emissions result for miscanthus ethanol would be positive.
“Without the contribution of LUC GHG sequestration, the net life-cycle GHG emissions result for miscanthus ethanol would be positive.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Applying the calibrated soil cultivation effect coefficient decreases LUC GHG emissions slightly from switchgrass and miscanthus production.
“On the other hand, emissions decrease slightly from switchgrass and miscanthus production because when more SOC decay occurs prior to establishment of the feedstocks (calibrated clteff), conversion of cropland to produce them yields larger SOC increases.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The switchgrass ethanol scenario on net emits GHGs as a result of LUC.
“The switchgrass ethanol scenario therefore on net emits GHGs as a result of LUC.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given
SOC emission factors have either been developed for very specific lands (e.g., CRP or agricultural lands) or at the national or regional scale for other land types, as in the CARB and EPA analyses.
“Second, SOC emission factors have either been developed for very specific lands (e.g., CRP or agricultural lands) or at the national or regional scale for other land types, as in the CARB and EPA analyses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The LUC GHG emissions results for corn ethanol are lower than corresponding results from previous studies.
“The results for corn ethanol are lower than corresponding results from previous studies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
LUC GHG emissions may have a smaller contribution to the overall biofuel life cycle than previously thought.
“Our results indicate that LUC GHG emissions may have a smaller contribution to the overall biofuel life cycle than previously thought.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
LUC GHG emissions are highly uncertain due to large uncertainties in CGE modelling, aboveground carbon data, and SOC content data.
“LUC GHG emissions are also highly uncertain [14] due to large uncertainties in CGE modelling, aboveground carbon data, and SOC content data [15].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationcitation
The greater amount of land converted for switchgrass ethanol production compared to miscanthus ethanol production in the U.S. can be explained by crop yield, which can be nearly two times higher for miscanthus.
“Additionally, the greater amount of land converted for switchgrass ethanol production as compared to miscanthus ethanol production in the U.S. can be explained by crop yield, which can be nearly two times higher for miscanthus [31,32].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [31]
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [32]
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The higher LUC GHG emissions for switchgrass compared to miscanthus are largely due to switchgrass's lower yield, which necessitates more land conversion, including carbon-rich forests.
“On the other hand, switchgrass exhibits higher emissions than miscanthus because it is produced with a lower yield, necessitating more land, including carbon-rich forests, to be converted for its production.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The contrast between switchgrass and miscanthus results is largely due to the difference in their yield.
“It is important to note that the contrast between switchgrass and miscanthus results is largely due to the difference in their yield.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The area of forest predicted to be converted to grow switchgrass makes switchgrass results more sensitive to assumptions about HWP and the FPF than results for the other feedstocks.
“The area of forest that is predicted to be converted to grow this feedstock makes switchgrass results more sensitive to assumptions about HWP and the FPF than results for the other feedstocks (Figure 9).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The decrease in estimated LUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol is due to improvements in CGE modelling such as modifications to the modelling of animal feed, yield responses to price increases, and representation of growth in both supply and demand.
“This evolution is due to improvements in CGE modelling such as modifications to the modelling of animal feed, yield responses to price increases, and representation of growth in both supply and demand [24].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [24]
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
The uncertainty associated with these models, including GTAP, is large and difficult to estimate.
“The uncertainty associated with these models, including GTAP, is large and difficult to estimate, as Plevin et al. [14] discuss.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The potential for miscanthus ethanol to sequester carbon is largely due to its high yield.
“This result is largely due to its high yield.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 17
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenFor both corn and corn stover feedstocks, some forest land is recovered internationally, the majority of which is in Russia.
“For both corn and corn stover feedstocks, some forest land is recovered internationally, the majority of which is in Russia.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenAmong cellulosic crops, switchgrass production causes the most land conversion and the highest amount of forest conversion.
“Among cellulosic crops, switchgrass production causes the most land conversion and, as it does domestically, the highest amount of forest conversion.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataMiscanthus ethanol has the lowest LUC GHG emissions (−10 g CO2e/MJ) and corn ethanol the highest (7.6 g CO2e/MJ) under base case modelling assumptions.
“Our results indicate that miscanthus and corn ethanol have the lowest (−10 g CO2e/MJ) and highest (7.6 g CO2e/MJ) LUC GHG emissions under base case modelling assumptions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenFor both switchgrass and miscanthus ethanol, the majority of the land converted is in AEZ 7 (temperate arid) and is cropland-pasture.
“For both switchgrass and miscanthus ethanol, the majority of the land converted is in AEZ 7 (temperate arid) and is cropland-pasture.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenLUC GHG emissions for corn stover are essentially negligible and insensitive to changes in model assumptions.
“Finally, LUC GHG emissions for corn stover are essentially negligible and insensitive to changes in model assumptions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone givenLUC GHG emissions associated with corn stover were negligible.
“LUC GHG emissions associated with corn stover were negligible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenBoth aboveground carbon and carbon sequestered during annual growth are greater in AEZ 10 than in AEZ 7.
“Both aboveground carbon and carbon sequestered during annual growth are greater in AEZ 10 than in AEZ 7.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataConversion of forest to corn production with stover harvest transitions incurs the greatest carbon penalty whereas transition to miscanthus production results in the lowest amount of GHG emissions.
“As expected based on Figure 4, conversion of forest to corn production with stover harvest transitions incur the greatest carbon penalty whereas transition to miscanthus production results in the lowest amount of GHG emissions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningLess land is converted for corn ethanol production than for switchgrass, yet LUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol exceed those for all cellulosic crops.
“Less land is converted for corn ethanol production than for switchgrass, yet LUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol exceed those for all cellulosic crops.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataLUC modelling for corn stover predicts slight domestic gains in both young forest-shrub and forest lands and an increase in international forest lands, which sequester enough carbon to offset the carbon emitted from cropland-pasture conversion.
“LUC modelling in this case predicts slight domestic gains in both YFS and forest lands and an increase in international forest lands, which sequester enough carbon to offset the carbon emitted from cropland-pasture conversion.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingown dataThe sensitivity of LUC GHG emissions to key modelling parameters that dictate carbon emissions from converted lands is highlighted from the range of possible results in Table 5, which are affected by belowground and aboveground carbon simulation assumptions and results.
“The sensitivity of LUC GHG emissions to key modelling parameters that dictate carbon emissions from converted lands is highlighted from the range of possible results in Table 5, which are affected by belowground and aboveground carbon simulation assumptions and results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataInternational LUC GHG emissions associated with the miscanthus ethanol scenario are positive, but minimal.
“International LUC GHG emissions associated with this scenario are positive, but minimal.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningStover harvesting may not fundamentally change corn farming and should not result in significant LUC.
“Stover harvesting may not fundamentally change corn farming and should not result in significant LUC.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Corn stover is treated as a waste product of corn production rather than a co-product.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSwitchgrass production consumes cropland-pasture land in the United States, possibly shifting agricultural production from these lands to other countries.
“Switchgrass production consumes cropland-pasture land in the United States, possibly shifting agricultural production from these lands to other countries.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenFew studies have considered LUC GHG emissions from cellulosic ethanol production.
“Few studies have considered LUC GHG emissions from cellulosic ethanol production.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningInternationally, corn causes more LUC than the other crops because U.S. corn accounts for a large share of the international corn market and a reduction in U.S. corn exports caused by corn ethanol production increases corn production in other countries.
“Internationally, corn causes more LUC than the other crops because, unlike the cellulosic crops, U.S. corn accounts for a large share of the international corn market and a reduction in U.S. corn exports caused by corn ethanol production increases corn production in other countries.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenApplication of worldwide CGE modelling to LUC GHG calculations for cellulosic ethanol has been limited to EPA and CARB analyses for switchgrass and corn stover.
“First, application of worldwide CGE modelling to LUC GHG calculations for cellulosic ethanol has been limited to EPA and CARB analyses for switchgrass and corn stover.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSwitchgrass ethanol LUC GHG emissions are greater than miscanthus LUC GHG emissions because switchgrass is a lower-yielding crop.
“They are greater than miscanthus LUC GHG emissions because switchgrass is a lower-yielding crop.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataLUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol are not offset by sequestration elsewhere because corn reduces or only minimally enhances SOC.
“LUC GHG emissions for corn ethanol are not offset by sequestration elsewhere (Figure 7) because corn reduces or only minimally enhances SOC (Figure 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe complexity inherent in modelling worldwide phenomena in the future that involve economic, biogeochemical, and biogeophysical effects will likely always lead to large uncertainties and will produce estimates of LUC GHG emissions that vary widely.
“It is important to realize, however, that the complexity inherent in modelling worldwide phenomena in the future that involve economic, biogeochemical, and biogeophysical effects will likely always lead to large uncertainties and will produce estimates of LUC GHG emissions that vary widely.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningSimilar differences may be observed between other high- and low-yield energy crops.
“Similar differences may be observed between other high- and low-yield energy crops.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSwitchgrass production converts large areas of domestic cropland-pasture land, triggering conversion of lands abroad, including forests, to agriculture.
“As described earlier, switchgrass production converts large areas of domestic cropland-pasture land, triggering conversion of lands abroad, including forests, to agriculture.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataThe study did not investigate the influence of key CGE parameters on emissions because it used only one set of GTAP results.
“As discussed, we did not investigate the influence of key CGE parameters on emissions because we used only one set of GTAP results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
Corn stover is treated as a waste product of corn production rather than a co-product.
“this result is unsurprising because stover is modelled as a “waste” product of corn production (as opposed to a co-product).”
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?
The LUC GHG emissions estimated here (Table 2) are comparable with our previous results for corresponding biofuels (Dunn et al., 2013).
“The LUC GHG emissions estimated here (Table 2) are comparable with our previous results for corresponding biofuels (Dunn et al. , 2013).”
From Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol (2016) · cites this paper as Dunn et al., 2013
The Results and discussion section (Table 5) reports LUC GHG emissions for corn, corn stover, switchgrass, and miscanthus ethanol, so this paper provides previous results for corresponding biofuels. Our copy does not contain the citing study’s Table 2 values, so it cannot establish whether those estimates are comparable. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe case using the updated GTAP version has lower LUC GHG emissions than the previous estimates (4.7-11 g CO2eq MJ−1) (Dunn et al., 2013) regardless of assumptions used in the SOC modeling.
“The case using the updated GTAP version has lower LUC GHG emissions than the previous estimates (4.7 -11 g CO2eq MJ 1 ) (Dunn et al. , 2013) regardless of assumptions used in the SOC modeling.”
From Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol (2016) · cites this paper as Dunn et al., 2013
As LUC model results are a strong function of yield (Dunn et al., 2013) and SRWC yield is fairly close to switchgrass yield in most locations, LUC modeling results for the switchgrass ethanol scenarios can shed light on what we might expect results for poplar- or willow-derived ethanol to be.
“As LUC model results are a strong function of yield (Dunn et al. , 2013) and SRWC yield is fairly close to switchgrass yield in most locations, LUC modeling results for the switchgrass ethanol scenarios can shed light on what we might expect results for poplaror willow-derived ethanol to be.”
From Influence of spatially dependent, modeled soil carbon emission factors on life‐cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn and cellulosic ethanol (2016) · cites this paper as Dunn et al., 2013
Net CO2 emissions resulting from the direct use of biofuels are far less than the utilization of fossil fuel.
“net CO 2 emissions resulting from the direct use of biofuels are far less than the utilization of fossil fuel”
From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Dunn et al. 2013
CO2 and N2O are two primary greenhouse gas components because of their large quantity and multiple approaches of production.
“Among the GHGs, CO 2 and N 2 O are two primary components because of their large quantity and multiapproaches of production”
From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Dunn et al. 2013
Indirect effects of bioenergy production on CO2 emissions are important concerns, such as disturbance of CO2 emissions due to land use transitions.
“the indirect effects of bioenergy production on CO 2 emissions are also important concerns”
From Bioenergy production and environmental impacts (2018) · cites this paper as Dunn et al. 2013
Corn grain ethanol life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are higher than cellulosic ethanol due to its potential land use change impacts.
“Corn grain ethanol is one of the most important first-generation biofuel.Its life-cycle GHG emissions are higher than cellulosic ethanol due to its potential land use change impacts [9,10].”
From Biomass and biofuels in China: Toward bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on the environment (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Land use change impacts on carbon stocks can be so large that biofuels' GHG benefits are offset from a life-cycle perspective.
“Its impacts on carbon stocks (e.g., vegetation, soil) can be so large [75,76] that biofuels' GHG benefits are offset from a life-cycle perspective [9,70].”
From Biomass and biofuels in China: Toward bioenergy resource potentials and their impacts on the environment (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Multiple teams have subsequently applied different ecosystem carbon stock estimates to those results in order to estimate LUC emissions.
“Multiple teams have subsequently applied different ecosystem carbon stock estimates to those results in order to estimate LUC emissions ( 45 , 79 , 80 ).”
From Robust paths to net greenhouse gas mitigation and negative emissions via advanced biofuels (2020) · cites this paper as [79]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Corn stover ethanol productivity does not match the stated yield
MinorAt the stated 317 L per dry metric ton, a yield of 4.1 dry metric tons per hectare implies 1,299.7 L/ha, not 1,070 L/ha.
Reported 1070 · recomputed 1299.7
“| Corn stover | 4.1c | 1,070 L/had |”
Corn ethanol productivity does not match the stated yield
MinorThe stated crop yield and ethanol yield imply 2,717.6 L/ha, rather than the 4,250 L/ha reported in Table 2.
Reported 4250 · recomputed 2717.6
“| Corn | 7.9a | 4,250 L/hab |”
The two lists of four feedstocks differ
MinorThe GTAP modelling description lists both corn and corn ethanol as feedstocks but omits corn stover, which appears in the paper's other list of the four feedstocks.
“The modelling considered domestic U.S. production of ethanol from four feedstocks: corn, corn ethanol, switchgrass, and miscanthus.”
“In this paper, we estimate LUC GHG emissions associated with ethanol produced from four feedstocks (corn, corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus).”
Table 4 contains five scenarios, not four
MinorThe text says Table 4 outlines four surrogate CENTURY scenarios, but the table lists five cases: sa through se.
“CCLUB is populated with carbon EFs generated from surrogate CENTURY modelling under four scenarios outlined in Table 4.”
“| sa | X | | | X | | X | | sb | X | | X | | X | | | sc | X | | | X | X | | | sd | | X | X | | X | | | se | | X | | X | X | |”
Cites
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., & Yu, T.-H. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1151861 · Cited by 4,888 · cited 2× · see citing works
“However, the estimate of LUC GHG e missions for this fuel has decreased substantially compared to earlier studies [1,2,11,12,36].”
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152747 · Cited by 3,902 · see citing works
Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s
Gibbs, H. K., Ruesch, A. S., Achard, F., Clayton, M. K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0910275107 · Cited by 1,876 · see citing works
U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry
Downing, M. E., Eaton, L., Graham, R. L., Langholtz, M. H., Perlack, R. D., Turhollow, A., Stokes, B. J., & Brandt, C. C. (2011) · doi:10.2172/1023318 · Cited by 1,006 · see citing works
Land use/land cover changes and climate: modeling analysis and observational evidence
Pielke, R. A., Pitman, A. J., Niyogi, D., Mahmood, R., McAlpine, C., Hossain, F., Goldewijk, K. K., Nair, U. S., Betts, R., Fall, S., et al. (2011) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.144 · Cited by 920 · see citing works
Hertel, T. W., Golub, A. A., Jones, A. D., O'Hare, M., Plevin, R. J., & Kammen, D. M. (2010) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.8 · Cited by 554 · see citing works
Wang, M., Han, J., Dunn, J. B., Cai, H., & Elgowainy, A. (2012) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Self-citationPlevin, R. J., Jones, A. D., Torn, M. S., & Gibbs, H. K. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es101946t · Cited by 443 · see citing works
Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline
Hill, J., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Huo, H., Ludwig, L., Neumann, J., Zheng, H., & Bonta, D. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0812835106 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Economic Analysis of Land Use in Global Climate Change Policy
Hertel, T. W., Rose, S. K., & Tol, R. S. J. (2009) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203882962 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Direct climate effects of perennial bioenergy crops in the United States
Georgescu, M., Lobell, D. B., & Field, C. B. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1008779108 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Lotze-Campen, H., Klein, D., Bauer, N., Krause, M., Beringer, T., Gerten, D., & Edenhofer, O. (2011) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034017 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Smith, P., Davies, C. A., Ogle, S., Zanchi, G., Bellarby, J., Bird, N., Boddey, R. M., McNamara, N. P., Powlson, D., Cowie, A., et al. (2012) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02689.x · Cited by 185 · cited 2× · see citing works
“[8], who provide a vision for developing these data and discuss key sources of uncertainty i n their development.”
BackgroundMethodDavis, S. C., Parton, W. J., Grosso, S. J. D., Keough, C., Marx, E., Adler, P. R., & DeLucia, E. H. (2012) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/110003 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Tyner, W., Taheripour, F., Zhuang, Q., Birur, D., & Baldos, U. L. C. (2010) · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Osman, N., Koshiba, M., & Kaji, R. (1994) · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Replacing Gasoline with Corn Ethanol Results in Significant Environmental Problem-Shifting
Yang, Y., Bae, J., Kim, J., & Suh, S. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es203641p · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Qin, Z., Zhuang, Q., & Chen, M. (2012) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01129.x · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Lifecycle greenhouse gas implications of US national scenarios for cellulosic ethanol production
Scown, C. D., Nazaroff, W. W., Mishra, U., Strogen, B., Lobscheid, A. B., Masanet, E., Santero, N. J., Horvath, A., & McKone, T. E. (2012) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014011 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Kwon, H.-Y., Mueller, S., Dunn, J. B., & Wander, M. M. (2013) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.021 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citationDelucchi, M. A. (2010) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.028 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Fast Pyrolysis Pathways with GREET
Office of Sustainable Transportation. Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Han, J., Elgowainy, A., Palou-Rivera, I., Dunn, J., & Wang, M. Q. (2011) · doi:10.2172/1036090 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citation(2001) · Aspects of applied biology · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Dirk Pflugmacher, A., Cohen, W. B., Kennedy, R. E., & Lefsky, M. A. (2008) · Forest Science · doi:10.1093/forestscience/54.6.647 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Van Deusen, P. C., & Heath, L. S. (2010) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.010 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Kwon, H.-Y., & Hudson, R. J. M. (2010) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.025 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationThomas, A. R. C., Bond, A. J., & Hiscock, K. M. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01198.x · Cited by 31 · see citing works
How can land-use modelling tools inform bioenergy policies?
Davis, S. C., House, J. I., Diaz-Chavez, R. A., Molnar, A., Valin, H., & DeLucia, E. H. (2011) · Interface Focus · doi:10.1098/rsfs.2010.0023 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Mueller, S., Dunn, J., & Wang, M. (2012) · doi:10.2172/1044524 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review
Jeswani, H. K., Chilvers, A., & Azapagic, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0351 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Wang, M., Han, J., Dunn, J. B., Cai, H., & Elgowainy, A. (2012) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Self-citationSustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review
Bordonal, R. D. O., Carvalho, J. L. N., Lal, R., de Figueiredo, E. B., de Oliveira, B. G., & Scala, N. L. (2018) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-018-0490-x · Cited by 526 · see citing works
Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production
de Jong, S., Antonissen, K., Hoefnagels, R., Laura, L., Wang, M., Faaij, A. P. C., & Junginger, M. (2017) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0739-7 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
Self-citationLignin–Enzyme Interactions in the Hydrolysis of Lignocellulosic Biomass
Santos, A. C., Ximenes, E. D. A., Kim, Y., & Ladisch, M. R. (2018) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.10.010 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Soil carbon sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel production: empirical evidence
Qin, Z., Dunn, J. B., Kwon, H., Mueller, S., & Wander, M. M. (2016) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12237 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Self-citationLife-cycle analysis of bio-based aviation fuels
Han, J., Elgowainy, A., Cai, H., & Wang, M. Q. (2013) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.153 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Self-citationQin, Z., Zhuang, Q., Cai, X., He, Y., Huang, Y., Jiang, D., Lin, E., Liu, Y., Tang, Y., & Wang, M. Q. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.073 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Self-citationRobust paths to net greenhouse gas mitigation and negative emissions via advanced biofuels
Field, J. L., Richard, T. L., Smithwick, E. A. H., Cai, H., Laser, M. S., LeBauer, D. S., Long, S. P., Paustian, K., Qin, Z., Sheehan, J. J., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1920877117 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
“Multiple teams have subsequently applied different ecosystem carbon stock estimates to those results in order to estimate LUC emissions (45, 79, 80).”
Self-citationSurvey of Plant Density Tolerance in U.S. Maize Germplasm
Mansfield, B. D., & Mumm, R. H. (2013) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2013.04.0252 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Sustainable Lactic Acid Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass
Li, Y., Bhagwat, S. S., Cortes-Pena, Y. R., Ki, D., Rao, C. V., Jin, Y., & Guest, J. S. (2021) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c08055 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Ahlgren, S., & Lucia, L. D. (2014) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/1754-6834-7-35 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Biofuels and Their Co-Products as Livestock Feed: Global Economic and Environmental Implications
Popp, J., Harangi-Rákos, M., Gabnai, Z., Balogh, P., Antal, G., & Bai, A. (2016) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules21030285 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
“Recent LUC GHG results indicate that Searchinger and Heimlich [87] originally over-estimated LUC GHG emissions significantly [91].”
Life cycle analysis of fuel production from fast pyrolysis of biomass
Han, J., Elgowainy, A., Dunn, J. B., & Wang, M. (2013) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.141 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Self-citationBioenergy production and environmental impacts
Wu, Y., Zhao, F., Liu, S., Wang, L., Qiu, L., Alexandrov, G., & Jothiprakash, V. (2018) · Geoscience Letters · doi:10.1186/s40562-018-0114-y · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Review of sustainable energy carriers for aviation: Benefits, challenges, and future viability
Ansell, P. J. (2023) · Progress in Aerospace Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2023.100919 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Fisher, M. A., Boyarskiy, S., Yamada, M. R., Kong, N., Bauer, Š., & Tullman‐Ercek, D. (2013) · ACS Synthetic Biology · doi:10.1021/sb400065q · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Aui, A., Wang, Y., & Wright, M. M. (2021) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111098 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Carbon Accounting and Economic Model Uncertainty of Emissions from Biofuels-Induced Land Use Change
Plevin, R. J., Beckman, J. F., Golub, A., Witcover, J., & O’Hare, M. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es505481d · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Estimating induced land use change emissions for sustainable aviation biofuel pathways
Zhao, X., Taheripour, F., Malina, R. M., Staples, M. D., & Tyner, W. E. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146238 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
A comparison of Land Use Change models: challenges and future developments
Rosa, M. D., Knudsen, M. T., & Hermansen, J. E. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.097 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Lee, U., Kwon, H., Wu, M. M., & Wang, M. (2021) · Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · doi:10.1002/bbb.2225 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Self-citationBiomass to biofuel: Impacts and mitigation of environmental, health, and socioeconomic challenges
Chowdhury, P., Mahi, N. A., Yeassin, R., Chowdhury, N.-U.-R., & Farrok, O. (2025) · Energy Conversion and Management X · doi:10.1016/j.ecmx.2025.100889 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Land-water-food nexus of biofuels: Discourse and policy debates in Brazil
Lázaro, L. L. B., Giatti, L. L., de Sousa, W. C., & Giarolla, A. (2020) · Environmental Development · doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100491 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Life cycle environmental analysis of ‘drop in’ alternative aviation fuels: a review
Kolosz, B. W., Luo, Y., Xu, B. L., Maroto‐Valer, M. M., & Andrésen, J. M. (2020) · Sustainable Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1039/c9se00788a · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Gerbrandt, K., Chu, P. L., Simmonds, A., Mullins, K. A., MacLean, H. L., Griffin, W. M., & Saville, B. A. (2016) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2015.12.021 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
THE ROLE OF BIOFUELS IN FOOD COMMODITY PRICES VOLATILITY AND LAND USE
Oláh, J., Lengyel, P., Balogh, P., Harangi–Rákos, M., & Popp, J. (2017) · Journal of Competitiveness · doi:10.7441/joc.2017.04.06 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Carbon intensity of corn ethanol in the United States: state of the science
Scully, M. J., Norris, G. A., Falconi, T. M. A., & MacIntosh, D. L. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abde08 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Gelfand, I., Hamilton, S. K., Kravchenko, A. N., Jackson, R. D., Thelen, K. D., & Robertson, G. P. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b07019 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Schmer, M. R., Vogel, K. P., Varvel, G. E., Follett, R. F., Mitchell, R. B., & Jin, V. L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089501 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The greenhouse gas benefits of corn ethanol – assessing recent evidence
Lewandrowski, J. K., Rosenfeld, J. K., Pape, D., Hendrickson, T., Jaglo, K., & Moffroid, K. (2019) · Biofuels · doi:10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Qin, Z., Dunn, J. B., Kwon, H., Mueller, S., & Wander, M. M. (2016) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12333 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
“Detailed information regarding CCLUB and GREET modeling can also be found at Dunn et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2012), respectively.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationLife-cycle Analysis of Bioproducts and Their Conventional Counterparts in GREET
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), A., Dunn, J., Bioenergy Technologies Office (EE-3B) USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Adom, F. K., Sather, N. F., Han, J., Snyder, S., He, C., Gong, J., Yue, D., et al. (2015) · doi:10.2172/1250468 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationCai, H., Dunn, J. B., Wang, Z., Han, J., & Wang, M. (2013) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/1754-6834-6-141 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationMumm, R. H., Goldsmith, P., Rausch, K. D., & Stein, H. H. (2014) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/1754-6834-7-61 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Well-to-wake analysis of ethanol-to-jet and sugar-to-jet pathways
Han, J., Tao, L., & Wang, M. (2017) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/s13068-017-0698-z · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Self-citationIntegrated production of biodiesel and bioethanol from sweet potato
Silva, J. O. V. E., Almeida, M. F., Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M., & Dias, J. M. (2017) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.052 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Predicting soil C changes over sugarcane expansion in Brazil using the DayCent model
Oliveira, D. M. D. S., Williams, S., Cerri, C. E. P., & Paustian, K. H. (2017) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12427 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Canter, C. E., Dunn, J. B., Han, J., Wang, Z., & Wang, M. (2015) · BioEnergy Research · doi:10.1007/s12155-015-9664-4 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationLand management change greatly impacts biofuels’ greenhouse gas emissions
Qin, Z., Canter, C. E., Dunn, J. B., Mueller, S., Kwon, H., Han, J., Wander, M. M., & Wang, M. (2018) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12500 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationLife cycle assessment of UV-Curable bio-based wood flooring coatings
Montazeri, M., & Eckelman, M. J. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.209 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
A review of domestic land use change attributable to U.S. biofuel policy
Austin, K. G., Jones, J., & Clark, C. M. (2022) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112181 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Zaimes, G. G., Soratana, K., Harden, C. L., Landis, A. E., & Khanna, V. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00129 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Hoekman, S. K., & Broch, A. (2017) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.052 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Zaimes, G. G., Beck, A. W., Janupala, R. R., Resasco, D. E., Crossley, S. P., Lobban, L. L., & Khanna, V. (2017) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c7ee00682a · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Emery, I., Mueller, S., Qin, Z., & Dunn, J. B. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b04189 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citationBachmann, M., Kätelhön, A., Winter, B., Meys, R., Müller, L. J., & Bardow, A. (2021) · Faraday Discussions · doi:10.1039/d0fd00134a · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Qin, Z., Zhuang, Q., & Cai, X. (2014) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12212 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Production of cellulosic organic acids via synthetic fungal consortia
Scholz, S. A., Graves, I., Minty, J. J., & Lin, X. N. (2017) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.26509 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Lee, D.-Y., & Thomas, V. M. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.139 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Cruz, C. H. B., Souza, G. M., & Cortez, L. A. B. (2014) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-099424-6.00011-9 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Pourbafrani, M., McKechnie, J., Shen, T., Saville, B. A., & MacLean, H. L. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.050 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Yan, H., Guo, X., Zhao, S., & Yang, H. (2022) · Land · doi:10.3390/land11070997 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Plevin, R. J. (2016) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12507 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Ye, H., Peng, H., Li, C., Li, Y., Li, Z., Yang, Q., & Chen, G. Q. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117003 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Marginal lands for bioenergy in China; an outlook in status, potential and management
Qaseem, M. F., & Wu, A. (2020) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12770 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Garcia, D. J., & You, F. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.012 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Towards aromatics from biomass: Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of bio-based aniline
Winter, B., Meys, R., & Bardow, A. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125818 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Xue, X., Pang, Y., & Landis, A. E. (2014) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.026 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Cai, H., Prussi, M., Ou, L., Wang, M., Yugo, M., Laura, L., & Scarlat, N. (2022) · Sustainable Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1039/d2se00411a · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationWise, M., Hodson, E. L., Mignone, B. K., Clarke, L., WALDHOFF, S. T., & Luckow, P. (2015) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.05.009 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Wang, Z., Dunn, J. B., Han, J., & Wang, M. (2015) · Biotechnology for Biofuels · doi:10.1186/s13068-015-0350-8 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationZhang, J., Yoo, E., Davison, B. H., Liu, D., Schaidle, J. A., Tao, L., & Li, Z. (2021) · Green Chemistry · doi:10.1039/d1gc02854e · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Rajagopal, D. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024013 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Mahmud, N., & Rosentrater, K. A. (2019) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en13010155 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Elliott, J. W., Sharma, B., Best, N., Glotter, M. J., Dunn, J. B., Foster, I. T., Miguez, F. E., Mueller, S., & Wang, M. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es404546r · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationSustainable energy crop production
Grosso, S. J. D., Smith, P., Galdos, M. V., Hastings, A., & Parton, W. J. (2014) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.007 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Batten, R., Karanjikar, M., & Spatari, S. (2024) · Sustainable Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1039/d3se01470c · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Lund, M. T., Berntsen, T. K., & Fuglestvedt, J. S. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es505308g · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Wang, Y., & Cheng, M. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.080 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Exergy and CO2 Analyses as Key Tools for the Evaluation of Bio-Ethanol Production
Kang, Q. K., & Tan, T. (2016) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su8010076 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Handler, R. M., Shi, R., & Shonnard, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.149 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Plant Growth-Promoting Microbial Enzymes
Flores‐Gallegos, A. C., & Nava-Reyna, E. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813280-7.00030-x · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Impact of Land Use Changes on Soil and Vegetation Characteristics in Fereydan, Iran
Eghdami, H., Azhdari, G., Lebailly, P., & Azadi, H. (2019) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture9030058 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Lamers, P., Avelino, A. F. T., Zhang, Y., Tan, E. C. D., Young, B., Vendries, J., & Chum, H. L. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c08449 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Benavides, P. T., Gracida-Alvarez, U. R., Richa, K., Port, J., & Hawkins, T. R. (2025) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2025.132565 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
A Conceptual Review on Using Consequential Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for the Energy Sector
Luu, L. Q., Longo, S., Cellura, M., Sanseverino, E. R., Cusenza, M. A., & Franzitta, V. (2020) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en13123076 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Emery, I. R., & Mosier, N. S. (2014) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12196 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Han, J., Office of Sustainable Transportation. Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Elgowainy, A., Wang, M., & DiVita, V. B. (2015) · doi:10.2172/1212715 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, Y., Delgado, M. S., Sesmero, J., & Gramig, B. M. (2020) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/ajae.12119 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Ye, H., Huang, Y., Chen, P., Huang, W., Zhang, S., Huang, S., & Hou, S. (2016) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/s2095-3119(15)61066-8 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Developing bioenergy to tackle climate change
Zhang, X.-Y. (2016) · Advances in Climate Change Research · doi:10.1016/j.accre.2016.06.001 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Relay cropping as an adaptive strategy to cope with climate change
Gesch, R. W., Berti, M. T., Eberle, C. A., & Weyers, S. L. (2023) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.1002/agj2.21343 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Cellulosic Ethanol Production: Assessment of the Impacts of Learning and Plant Capacity
Aui, A., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122923 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
MWANGI, N. N., Waithaka, E. H., Mundia, C. N., Kinyanjui, M. J., & Mutua, F. N. (2020) · Modeling Earth Systems and Environment · doi:10.1007/s40808-020-00781-2 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Zhang, B., & Bao, J. (2025) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c10527 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Haus, M. O., Winter, B., Fleitmann, L., Palkovits, R., & Bardow, A. (2022) · Green Chemistry · doi:10.1039/d2gc01219g · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Abbas, H. M. M., Sultan, H., Shah, A., Tahir, A., Iltaf, H., & Nie, L. (2025) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2025.116335 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Liu, X., Kwon, H., & Wang, M. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac018f · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationBarter mode: The institutional innovation for affordable and clean energy (SDG7) in rural China
Wang, S., Yin, C., Yang, X., & Richel, A. (2023) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106725 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Assessing land-use impacts by clean vehicle systems
Pontau, P., Hou, Y., Cai, H., Yi, Z., Jia, X., Chiu, A. S. F., & Xu, M. (2015) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.12.008 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Wang, Z., Dunn, J. B., Han, J., & Wang, M. Q. (2013) · doi:10.2172/1148669 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationGarcia, A., Marín, P., & Ordóñez, S. (2023) · Fuel Processing Technology · doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2023.108007 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Well-to-wake analysis of switchgrass to jet fuel via a novel co-fermentation of sugars and CO2
Pamula, A. S. P., Lampert, D. J., & Atiyeh, H. K. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146770 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Second-Generation Ethanol from Lignocellulose
Parsons, S., McManus, M. C., & Taylor, C. M. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-101036-5.00013-6 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Carbon Calculator for Land Use Change from Biofuels Production (CCLUB)
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), A., Qin, Z., Bioenergy Technologies Office (EE-3B) USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Kwon, H., Dunn, J., Mueller, S., Wander, M. M., & Wang, M. (2018) · doi:10.2172/1480518 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationSampedro, J., Kyle, P. G., Ramig, C., Tanner, D., Huster, J. E., & Wise, M. (2021) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117580 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Environmental, social, and economic impacts of renewable energy sources
Kabir, Z., Sultana, N., & Khan, I. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-88668-0.00009-7 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Impact of Bioenergy on Environmental Sustainability
Pathak, K. K., & Das, S. (2019) · Energy, environment, and sustainability · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0410-5_10 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Posada, J. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-802323-5.00026-8 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dunn, J. B., Mueller, S., Kwon, H.-Y., & Wang, M. Q.
- Affiliations
- Argonne National Laboratory (US)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dunn, Jennifer B
- Venue
- Biotechnology for Biofuels
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51
- ISSN
- 1754-6834 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3662634
- OpenAlex
- W2152396357
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 38.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Biotechnology for Biofuels (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐ AC02‐06CH11357, Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357., AC02‐06CH11357, 06CH11357, No. DE-AC02-06CH11357, DE-AC02-)
- Purdue University
- University of Chicago (DE-AC02-06CH11357)
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Biomass Program (DE-AC02-06CH11357)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Keywords
- land use change, greenhouse gas emissions, bioethanol, corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, corn stover, switchgrass, Miscanthus, biofuel feedstock, computable general equilibrium model, harvested wood products
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
