Journal of Water Resource and Protection

Volume 4, Issue 9 (September 2012)

ISSN Print: 1945-3094   ISSN Online: 1945-3108

Google-based Impact Factor: 1.01  Citations  h5-index & Ranking

Comparison of Potential Bio-Energy Feedstock Production and Water Quality Impacts Using a Modeling Approach

HTML  Download Download as PDF (Size: 588KB)  PP. 763-771  
DOI: 10.4236/jwarp.2012.49087    3,770 Downloads   6,403 Views  Citations
Author(s)

ABSTRACT

Cellulosic and agricultural bio-energy crops can be utilized as feedstock source for bio-fuels production and provide environmental benefits such as hydrology, water quality. This study compared potential feedstock yield and water quality benefit scenarios of six bio-energy crops: Miscanthus (Miscanthus-giganteus), Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), Corn (Zea mays), and Soybean {Glycine max (L.) Merr.} at the watershed scale using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The SWAT model was calibrated (1998 to 2002) and validated (2003 to 2010) using monthly measured USGS stream flow data. Model was further verified using available monthly sediment yield, and county level NASS corn and soybean yield data within the watershed. The long-term average annual potential feedstock yield as an alternative energy source was determined the greatest when growing Miscanthus grass scenario (21.9 Mg/ha) followed by Switchgrass (15.2 Mg/ha), Johnsongrass (12.1 Mg/ha), Alfalfa (7 Mg/ha), Corn (5.9 Mg/ha), and Soybean (2.35 Mg/ha). Model results determined the least amount of average annual sediment yield (1.1 Mg/ha) from the Miscanthus grass scenario and the greatest amount (12 Mg/ha) from the corn crop scenario. About 11% less annual average surface water flow from the watershed could be anticipated when converting land areas from soybean to Miscanthus grass. The results of this study suggested that growing Miscanthus grass in the UPRW would have the greatest potential feedstock yield and water quality benefits. The results of this study may help in developing future watershed management programs.

Share and Cite:

Parajuli, P. (2012) Comparison of Potential Bio-Energy Feedstock Production and Water Quality Impacts Using a Modeling Approach. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 4, 763-771. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2012.49087.

Cited by

[1] Evaluating hydrogeochemical characteristics of groundwater and surface water in the Upper Pearl River Watershed, USA
2021
[2] Regional differences in impacts to water quality from the bioenergy mandate
Biomass and Bioenergy, 2017
[3] Regional differences in water quality impacts from the Bioenergy Mandate: A scenario-based approach to quantifying the impacts from RFS2
2017
[4] Watershed‐scale impacts of bioenergy crops on hydrology and water quality using improved SWAT model
GCB Bioenergy, 2016
[5] Precision Conservation for Biofuel Production
Precision Conservation: Geospatial Techniques for Agricultural and Natural Resources Conservation, 2016
[6] Mix of first-and second-generation biofuels to meet multiple environmental objectives: Implications for policy at a watershed scale
Water Economics and Policy, 2015
[7] Watershed scale impacts of bioenergy crops on hydrology and water quality using improved SWAT model
GCB Bioenergy, 2015
[8] A Stochastic Approach for Predicting the Profitability of Bioenergy Grasses
Agronomy Journal, 2014
[9] Adjusting Crop Insurance APH Calculation to Accommodate Biomass Production
2013 AAEA: Crop Insurance and the Farm Bill Symposium, October 8-9, Louisville, KY. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, 2013
[10] An assessment of the impact of landscape soil, government programs and crop insurance on the profitability of perennial grass cropping systems grown for bioenergy
2013
[11] An Assessment of the Impact of Landscape Soil, Government Programs and Crop Insurance on the Profitability of Perennial Grass Cropping Systems Grown …
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2013

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.