Linking Economic Linking Economic Models to Ecosystem Models to Ecosystem Models: Biofuel Models: Biofuel Examples Examples Bill Parton Bill Parton Steve Del Grosso Steve Del Grosso Sarah Davis Sarah Davis Bruce McCarl Bruce McCarl Steve Williams Steve Williams Steve Ogle Steve Ogle
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Linking Economic Models to Linking Economic Models to Ecosystem Models: Biofuel Ecosystem Models: Biofuel
ExamplesExamples
Bill PartonBill PartonSteve Del GrossoSteve Del Grosso
Sarah DavisSarah DavisBruce McCarlBruce McCarlSteve WilliamsSteve Williams
Steve OgleSteve Ogle
OutlineOutline Ecosystem ModelsEcosystem Models
DayCent model description & testingDayCent model description & testing EPIC, DNDC, BIOM-BGCEPIC, DNDC, BIOM-BGC
Linking to Economic ModelsLinking to Economic Models Fully linkedFully linked Economic Economic → Ecosystem→ Ecosystem Ecosystem → EconomicEcosystem → Economic
Biofuel Ecosystem Model ResultsBiofuel Ecosystem Model Results PennsylvaniaPennsylvania IllinoisIllinois
ConclusionsConclusions
CH4 Validaions
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30observed CH4 gC ha-1 d-1
sim
ua
lted
CH
4 g
C h
a-1 d
-1
intensive ag
dryland ag
short grass
coniferous
decidous
tropical
N2O Validations
-1
0
1
2
3
4
-1 0 1 2 3 4ln(observed N2O - gN ha-1 d-1)
ln(s
imu
alte
d N
2 O -
gN
ha-1
d-1
) deciduous forest
dryland ag
grassland
intensive ag
organic ag
DAYCENT vs NASS County Level Yields
y = 0.9067x + 24.511
R2 = 0.7109
0
200
400
600
800
0 200 400 600 800observed gC m-2 yr-1
sim
ula
ted
gC
m-2
yr-1
Compare Nitrate Export
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
year
kg
N/h
a/y
r
Observed
Simulated
Compare Water Drainage
01020304050607080
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
year
wa
ter
yie
ld c
m
Observed
Simulated
Fully Linked Economic and Fully Linked Economic and Ecological ModelsEcological Models
Economic Model
Land Use Change and Ag Management
Optimal Land Use Practice
Ecological Model Assessment•NPP•Greenhouse Gas Fluxes
AdvantagesAdvantages All land use options can be assessedAll land use options can be assessed
DisadvantagesDisadvantages Complex modelComplex model Excess computer timeExcess computer time Vulnerable to errorsVulnerable to errors
Economic Models Drive Ecological Economic Models Drive Ecological ModelsModels
Use FASM U.S. Agricultural Model to Use FASM U.S. Agricultural Model to predict biofuel land use changepredict biofuel land use change
Expansion of ag land into:Expansion of ag land into:1.1. CRPCRP
2.2. GrasslandGrassland
3.3. ForestsForests
Economic Models Drive Ecological Economic Models Drive Ecological ModelsModels
DayCent Model simulated ecosystem DayCent Model simulated ecosystem responseresponse
Plant productionPlant production NN22O fluxesO fluxes Soil C changesSoil C changes
Change in crop acreageChange in crop acreage Corn vs. Soybean vs. WheatCorn vs. Soybean vs. Wheat
Corn/Soybean Net Soil Greenhouse Gas
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cropland CTCorn/Soy
CRP CTCorn/Soy
GrasslandCT Corn/Soy
CRP to NTCorn/Soy
Grassland toNT Corn/Soy
Corn/Soy toSwitchgrass
g C
O2-C
eq
. m
-2 y
r-1
Cropland to Biofuels
-20
0
20
40
60
80
delta SOC N2O GHGnet ANPP
g C
O2-
C e
q. m
-2 y
r-1
CT corn/soy corn/soy to NT corn/soy corn/soy to cont. CT corn
corn/soy to cont. NT corn corn/soy to switchgrass
AN
PP
gC
m-2
yr-1
* 0
.1
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
GHGnet ANPP
g C
O2-C
eq
. m-2
yr-1
prairie prairie harvested prairie harvested + N prairie to switchgrass
AN
PP
gC
m-2
yr-1
* 0
.1Grassland/Degraded LandGrassland/Degraded Land
Ecological Models Drive Economic Ecological Models Drive Economic ModelsModels
Use ecological models to drive response Use ecological models to drive response surfaces used in economic modelssurfaces used in economic models NN22O vs. FertilizerO vs. Fertilizer Yield vs. FertilizerYield vs. Fertilizer Soil C vs. Land Use and FertilizerSoil C vs. Land Use and Fertilizer
Response Surface ModelingResponse Surface Modeling
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N2O Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer
05
1015
2025
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer010
3020
1.0
0.5
0.0
NO Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer0
10
3020
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer010
3020
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH40.40.30.20.10.0
0.50.60.70.80.91.0
N2 Flux
CORN
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N2O Flux
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N2O Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer
05
1015
2025
Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
05
1015
2025
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer010
3020
Fertilizer010
3020
1.0
0.5
0.0
NO Flux
1.0
0.5
0.0
NO Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer0
10
3020
Fertilizer010
3020
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer010
3020
Fertilizer010
3020
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH40.40.30.20.10.0
0.50.60.70.80.91.0
N2 Flux0.40.30.20.10.0
0.50.60.70.80.91.0
0.40.30.20.10.0
0.50.60.70.80.91.0
N2 Flux
CORN
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5PET Ann
8090
100110
120130
N2O Flux
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.25
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5PET Ann
8090
100110
120130
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
NO Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.60.7
N2 Flux
SOYBEAN
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5PET Ann
8090
100110
120130
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
N2O Flux
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.25
N2O Flux
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.25
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5PET Ann
8090
100110
120130
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
8090
100110
120130
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
NO Flux
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
NO Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
PET Ann80
90100
110120
130
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.60.7
N2 Flux 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.60.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.60.7
N2 Flux
SOYBEAN
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N2O Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer
05
1015
2025
1.0
0.5
0.0
N2 Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
NO Flux 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
Clay
0.1 0.20.3 0.4 0.5
Fertilizer05
1015
2025
WHEAT
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N2O Flux
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N2O Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer
05
1015
2025
Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
05
1015
2025
1.0
0.5
0.0
N2 Flux
1.0
0.5
0.0
N2 Flux
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
05
1015
2025
NO Flux 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
NO Flux 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Fertilizer0
510
1520
25
Fertilizer05
1015
2025
05
1015
2025
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
Clay
0.1 0.20.3 0.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.20.3 0.4 0.5
Fertilizer05
1015
2025
Fertilizer05
1015
2025
05
1015
2025
WHEAT
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
N2O Flux0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.6
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer010
2030
4050
1.0
0.5
0.0
NO Flux
1.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
2
1
0
N2 Flux
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
GRASS HAY
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
010
2030
4050
N2O Flux0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.6
N2O Flux0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.6
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Fertilizer010
2030
4050
Fertilizer010
2030
4050
010
2030
4050
1.0
0.5
0.0
NO Flux
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
NO Flux
1.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Clay
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CH4
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
010
2030
4050
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
Clay
0.1 0.2 0.30.4 0.5
2
1
0
N2 Flux
2
1
0
N2 Flux
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
Fertilizer0
1020
3040
50
010
2030
4050
GRASS HAY
Global Model ResultsGlobal Model Results
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
nitrif inhib split N fert 70%N no till no till+nitinhib
% d
elta
bas
e
grain yield
N2O total
GHG net
Beach, R.H., B.J. DeAngelo, S. Rose, C. Li, W. Salas, S.J. DelGrosso. 2008. Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural Economics 38: 109–115.
Biofuel Crop Specific Greenhouse Biofuel Crop Specific Greenhouse Gas BudgetGas Budget
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania SwitchgrassSwitchgrass Corn/SoybeanCorn/Soybean PopularPopular
Illinois/IowaIllinois/Iowa SwitchgrassSwitchgrass MiscanthusMiscanthus
Adler, P.R., S.J. Del Grosso, and W.J. Parton. 2007. Life cycle assessment of net greenhouse gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol. Appl. 17(3):675–691.
Greenhouse gas sources and sinks from Greenhouse gas sources and sinks from bioenergy cropping systems in the near-bioenergy cropping systems in the near-
termterm
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Gre
enh
ou
se g
as f
luxe
s (g
CO
2e-
C m
-2y-1
)
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Ag. machineryChemical inputNitrous oxideMethaneBiofuel conversionSoil CGHGnet
SWG
CS-CT
RCG CSA-CT
CS-NT
HP
CSA-NT
Near-term
Adler, P.R., S.J. Del Grosso, and W.J. Parton. 2007. Life cycle assessment of net greenhouse gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol. Appl. 17(3):675–691.
2005
0
2
4
6
8
10
alfalfa canary grass corn switchgrass soy
N2O
gN
ha-1
d-1
obs
sim
2006
0
2
4
6
8
10
alfalfa canary grass corn switchgrass soy
N2O
gN
ha-1
d-1
obs
sim
Observed and DAYCENT NObserved and DAYCENT N22O for Biofuel O for Biofuel
Cropping Systems in PennsylvaniaCropping Systems in Pennsylvania
Ames, Iowa - Switchgass Yields
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 60 120 180 240 300
N fert kg/ha
biom
ass
Mg/
ha
observed
DAYCENT
Ames, Iowa - Switchgass NO3 Leaching
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 60 120 180 240 300
N fert kg/ha
kg N
/ha
DAYCENT
S. C. Davis
S. C. Davis
S. C. Davis
S. C. Davis
SummarySummary
Fully linked models are difficult to useFully linked models are difficult to use Offline linking of models works wellOffline linking of models works well Net greenhouse gas balances are a Net greenhouse gas balances are a
function of:function of: Specific biofuel cropSpecific biofuel crop
• Perennial vs. annualPerennial vs. annual Land use prior to start of biofuel cropLand use prior to start of biofuel crop
• Existing croplandExisting cropland• CRP/mature grassland?CRP/mature grassland?
Tillage and fertilizing practiceTillage and fertilizing practice
Related Documents
