Systematic application of a quantitative definition of marginal lands in estimating biomass energy potential in the Missouri/Mississippi River Corridor

Abstract

Cultivation of cellulosic biomass on marginal lands in the Missouri/Mississippi River Corridor (MMRC) could improve environmental performance for the watershed, e.g. nutrient runoff interception, erosion stabilization, feedstock for bio-based energy, and barge shipments could have net energy benefits. This work reviewed marginal lands literature to reach a generic definition that could be linked with publicly available land and soil quality datasets to quantify marginal lands in the MMRC. The definition developed is: Marginal lands are non-croplands and/or lands not suitable for long-term food crop production because of high erodibility (K factor > 0.4) and/or being prone to flood. The MMRC extends 161 km from the banks of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, totaling 2.5 million km². Bioenergy production potential was estimated using scenarios to explore the inclusion and exclusion of croplands, forestland and Conservation Reserve Program lands. Among the plausible scenarios a maximum of 189.3 billion liters and a minimum of 1.85 billion liters of bioethanol can be produced in MMRC. The maximum jet fuel production could meet all US demand and the maximum electricity production could meet 23% of current US demand. This work highlights the trade-offs associated with competing demands on land in relation to achieving bioenergy goals.

Keywords:

• Marginal lands
• energy crops
• bioethanol
• sustainable systems
• Missouri and Mississippi rivers

Acknowledgements

The authors of this research would like to thank the Mizzou Advantage program at the University of Missouri - Columbia for financially supporting this work. The authors would also like to thank the faculty, in particular Ranjith Udawatta, of the Center for Agroforestry at the University of Missouri - Columbia, for discussions about marginal lands and bioenergy crops.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.