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

References

• Metz B, Davidson OR, Martens W, et al. Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer -A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Stoof CR, Richards BK, Woodbury PB, et al. Untapped Potential: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Bioenergy Production from Marginal Lands in the Northeast USA. Bioenerg Res. 2015;8:482–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao X, Monnell JD, Niblick B, et al. The viability of biofuel production on urban marginal land: An analysis of metal contaminants and energy balance for Pittsburgh's Sunflower Gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;124:22–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB. Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2008;23:65–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzmueller EJ, Jose S. Biomass production for biofuels using agroforestry: potential for the North Central Region of the United States. Agroforest Syst. 2012;85:305–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jose S, Bardhan S. Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: an overview. Agroforest Syst. 2012;86:105–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardhan S, Jose S. The potential for floodplains to sustain biomass feedstock production systems. Biofuels 2012;3:575–588.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis S, Kelly M. Mapping the potential for biofuel production on marginal lands: differences in definitions, data and models across scales. IJGI. 2014;3:430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez J, Fernández J. Approach to the potential production of giant reed in surplus saline lands of Spain. GCB Bioenergy. 2015;9:105–118. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NASS. CropScape and Cropland Data Layer: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS); 2015 [cited 2016 Feb. 18]. Available from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/Cropland/SARS1a.php
   Google Scholar
• Holland RA, Eigenbrod F, Muggeridge A, et al. A synthesis of the ecosystem services impact of second generation bioenergy crop production. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2015;46:30–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skevas T, Swinton SM, Hayden NJ. What type of landowner would supply marginal land for energy crops? Biomass Bioenerg. 2014;67:252–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartman JC, Nippert JB, Orozco RA, et al. Potential ecological impacts of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) biofuel cultivation in the Central Great Plains, USA. Biomass Bioenerg. 2011;35:3415–3421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang S, Post W, Wang D, et al. Hierarchical marginal land assessment for land use planning. Land Use Policy. 2013;30:106–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfand I, Sahajpal R, Zhang X, et al. Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 2013;493:514–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goerndt ME, Mize C. Short-rotation woody biomass as a crop on marginal lands in Iowa. North J Appl Forest. 2008; 25:82–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai X, Zhang X, Wang D. Land availability for biofuel production. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:334–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDaniels LH, Lieberman AS. Tree crops: a neglected source of food and forage from marginal lands. BioScience 1979;29:173–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson-Sköld Y, Bardos P, Chalot M, et al. Developing and validating a practical decision support tool (DST) for biomass selection on marginal land. J Environ Manage. 2014;145:113–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viator RP, White PM, JrHale AJ, et al. Screening for tolerance to periodic flooding for cane grown for sucrose and bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg. 2012;44:56–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maantay J, Maroko A. Mapping urban risk: flood hazards, race environmental justice in New York. Appl Geogr. 2009;29:111–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venteris ER, Skaggs RL, Coleman AM, et al. An assessment of land availability and price in the coterminous United States for conversion to algal biofuel production. Biomass Bioenerg. 2012;47:483–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NRCS-SSURGO. Web Soil Survey: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture; 2016 [cited 2016 Feb. 18]. Available from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• ESDAC. European Soil Database & soil properties: EUROPEAN SOIL DATA CENTRE; 2016 [cited 2016 July, 26]. Available from: http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/resource-type/european-soil-database-soil-properties
   Google Scholar
• EEA. Corine Land Cover types - 2006 European Environment Agency; 2006 [cited 2016 July, 26]. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/corine-land-cover-types-2006
   Google Scholar
• Sparovek G, Schnug E. Temporal Erosion-Induced Soil Degradation and Yield Loss. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2001;65:1479–1486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paroissien J-B, Darboux F, Couturier A, et al. A method for modeling the effects of climate and land use changes on erosion and sustainability of soil in a Mediterranean watershed (Languedoc, France). J Environ Manage. 2015;150:57–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng F-L, Merrill SD, Huang C-h, et al. Runoff, Soil Erosion, and Erodibility of Conservation Reserve Program Land under Crop and Hay Production. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2004;68:1332–1341. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2004.1332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kort J, Collins M, Ditsch D. A review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops. Biomass Bioenerg. 1998;14:351–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zalesny RS, Jr Donner DM, Coyle DR, et al. An approach for siting poplar energy production systems to increase productivity and associated ecosystem services. Forest Ecol Manag. 2012;284:45–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghezehei SB, Shifflett SD, Hazel DW, et al. SRWC bioenergy productivity and economic feasibility on marginal lands. J Environ Manage. 2015;160:57–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of the Interior. The Conservation Reserve Program Acreage by County, 2018 [cited 2018 January 17,]. Available from: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/conservation-reserve-program-acreage-by-county
   Google Scholar
• Ursula G, Kurt P, Günther, Maier SW. Land cover/land use map of Germany based on MERIS full-resolution data. Envisat & ERS Symposium 2004–2005.
   Google Scholar
• ESDAC. EUROPEAN SOIL DATA CENTRE (ESDAC), 2016 [cited 2016 July, 21]. Available from: http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/national-data
   Google Scholar
• USDA. Highly Erodible Land Definitions: Natural Resources Conservation Service Caribbean Area, United States Department of Agriculture; 2016 [cited 2016 January, 11]. Available from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/soils/?cid=nrcs141p2_037282
   Google Scholar
• FAO. FOOD Forests, Trees and Food. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• LeDuc SD, Zhang X, Clark CM, et al. Cellulosic feedstock production on Conservation Reserve Program land: potential yields and environmental effects. GCB Bioenergy. 2017;9:460–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee DK, Aberle E, Anderson EK, et al. Biomass production of herbaceous energy crops in the United States: field trial results and yield potential maps from the multiyear regional feedstock partnership. GCB Bioenergy. 2018;10:698–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO. CGIAR Research Priorities for Marginal Lands. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Governmnt U. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140.). 2007.
   Google Scholar
• MBEP. Energy Crops and Their Potential Development in Michigan. Michigan Biomass Energy Program. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh M, de la Torre UD, Shapouri H, et al. Bioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector. Environ Resource Econ. 2003;24:313–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milbrandt A. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States. Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Froese R, Abbott Z. Energy Crop Opportunities in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan: Michigan Technological University; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Searle SY, Malins CJ. Will energy crop yields meet expectations? Biomass Bioenerg. 2014;65:3–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham RL, Walsh ME, Lichtenberg E, et al. The economics of biomass production in the United States. Conference: 2. biomass conference of Americas, Portland, OR (United States), 20–24 Aug 1995; Other Information: PBD: [1995]1995. p. Medium: ED; Size: 12 p.
   Google Scholar
• Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Cameron KD, et al. Yields of willow biomass crops across a range of sites in North America. Aspects of Applied Biology. 2011; (112:):67–74.
   Google Scholar
• Updegraff K, Baughman MJ, Taff SJ. Environmental benefits of cropland conversion to hybrid poplar: economic and policy considerations. Biomass Bioenerg. 2004;27:411–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ping H, Bransby DI, van Santen E. Long-term biomass yields of giant reed, mimosa and switchgrass in Alabama. Biofuels, Bioprod Bioref. 2014;8:59–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs A. Switchgrass Cultivar, Harvest Frequency, Fertilizer Source, and Irrigation Effects on Near-Surface Soil Properties in West-Central Arkansas [MS thesis]. Ann Arbor: University of Arkansas; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• De La Torre Ugarte DG, Shapouri H, Walsh ME, Slinsky SP, United S, Department of A, et al. The economic impacts of bioenergy crop production on U.S. agriculture. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses; 2003. Available from: http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo22338
   Google Scholar
• Khanna M, Huang H, Lyutse S. Bringing Better Biomass Feedstocks to Market: An Analysis of the Breakeven Costs of Production. NRDC Issue brief: NRDC, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Wang DAN, Lebauer DS, Dietze MC. A quantitative review comparing the yield of switchgrass in monocultures and mixtures in relation to climate and management factors. GCB Bioenergy. 2010;2:16–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nderitu D, Gall E, Gotham D, et al. Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study. West Lafayette, IN: State Utility Forecasting Group, Energy Center, Purdue University; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Wambuguh LN. The potential of producing bioenergy crops on conservation reserve program land in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas (MINK region) to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions: An integrated economics and biological modeling approach [PhD thesis]. Ann Arbor: University of Missouri – Columbia; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson D, Jose S. Biomass production potential of three short rotation woody crop species under varying nitrogen and water availability. Agroforest Syst. 2010;80:259–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fike JH, Parrish DJ, Wolf DD, et al. Switchgrass production for the upper southeastern USA: Influence of cultivar and cutting frequency on biomass yields. Biomass Bioenerg. 2006;30:207–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiniry JR, Cassida KA, Hussey MA, et al. Switchgrass simulation by the ALMANAC model at diverse sites in the southern US. Biomass Bioenerg. 2005;29:419–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarus W, Headlee W, Zalesny R. Impacts of supplyshed-level differences in productivity and land costs on the economics of hybrid poplar production in Minnesota, USA. Bioenerg Res. 2015;8:231–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thelemann R, Johnson G, Sheaffer C, et al. The effect of landscape position on biomass crop yield. Agron J. 2010;102:513–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busby DP, Little RD, Shaik S, et al. Yield and Production Costs for Three Potential Dedicated Energy Crops in Mississippi and Oklahoma Environments. 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, et al. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:464–469. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704767105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netzer DAT, Ostry DN, Isebrands ME, Riemenschneider JG, Ward DE, Growth KT. Yield, and disease resistance of 7- to 12-year-old poplar clones in the north central United States. St. Paul, MN: U.S.: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 2002. p. 31.
   Google Scholar
• Kim K, Hamilton C, McCord J, et al. Investigating Hybrid Poplar As An Advancing Energy Crop For Bioenergy Production. IBSS Annual Meeting 2015; August 12, 2015: Southeastern Partnership for Integrated Biomass Supply Systems; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Koff JPd, Tyler DD. Improving Switchgrass Yields for Bioenergy Production. Cooperative Extension Faculty Research; 2012; (Paper 40).
   Google Scholar
• Zalesny R, Jr., Hall R, Zalesny J, et al. Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of populus energy crops in the Midwestern United States. Bioenerg Res. 2009;2:106–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vadas PA, Barnett KH, Undersander DJ. Economics and energy of ethanol production from Alfalfa, Corn, and Switchgrass in the Upper Midwest, USA. Bioenerg Res.. 2008;1:44–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agusdinata DB, Zhao F, Ileleji K, et al. Life Cycle assessment of potential biojet fuel production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:9133–9143
   Google Scholar
• González-García S, Moreira MT, Feijoo G, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of ethanol production from fast-growing wood crops (black locust, eucalyptus and poplar). Biomass Bioenerg. 2012;39:378–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodeur-Campbell MJ. Biochemical conversions of lignocellulosic biomass for sustainable fuel-ethanol production in the upper Midwest [PhD thesis]. Ann Arbor: Michigan Technological University; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Humbird D, Davis R, Tao L, et al. Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Corn Stover. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Budsberg E, Rastogi M, Puettmann ME, et al. Life-cycle assessment for the production of bioethanol from willow biomass crops via biochemical conversion. Forest Prod J. 2012;62:305–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milbrandt A, Kinchin C, McCormick R. The feasibility of producing and using biomass-based diesel and jet fuel in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Bandaru VPN, Hart Q, Jenner M, et al. Economic sustainability modeling provides decision support for assessing hybrid poplar-based biofuel development in California. Cal Ag. 2015;69:171–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timothy J, Skone PE. Role of alternative energy sources: pulverized coal and biomass co-firing technology assessment. Golden, CO: National Energy Technology Laboratory; August 30, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Forbes EGA, Olave RJ, Johnston CR, et al. Biomass and bio-energy utilisation in a farm-based combined heat and power facility. Biomass Bioenerg. 2016;89:172–183. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresource Technol. 2002;83:37–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfand I, Zenone T, Jasrotia P, et al. Carbon debt of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands converted to bioenergy production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:13864–13869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman J, Hertel T, Taheripour F, et al. Structural change in the biofuels era. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2012;39:137–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Energy USDo. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. In: Perlack RD and B.J. Stokes (Leads), editors. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy; 2011. p. 227.
   Google Scholar
• BTS. Airline Fuel Cost and Consumption (U.S. Carriers - All), January 2000 - March 2016: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT); 2016 [cited 2016 May 24]. Available from: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/fuel.asp/pn=1
   Google Scholar