Quantifying Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses to Bioenergy Crops in Town Creek Watershed in Mississippi

Bioenergy crops are considered as a feedstock source, which can be grown in marginal soils. However, these crops may have different levels of crop yield potential and environmental benefits. The objectives of this study were to model and compare the effects of four bioenergy crops (corn—Zea mays, soybean—Glycine max (L.) Merr., miscanthus—Miscanthus-giganteus, and switchgrass—Panicum virgatum) in the Town Creek watershed (TCW) in northeast Mississippi using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The calibrated SWAT model for TCW was used to quantify impacts to streamflow, crop yield, and sediment yield. The SWAT model reasonably (3·s-1) from the TCW when compared with the USGS observed stream flow (29.34 m3·s-1. In addition, model reasonably predicted (±6%) average annual corn yield (4.66 Mg·ha-1) and soybean yield (1.42 Mg·ha-1) as compared to National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported average annual corn (4.96 Mg·ha-1) and soybean yield (1.34 Mg·ha-1) from the watershed. Further, the model simulated results from this study determined that long-term average annual feedstock yield from TCW is the greatest when growing miscanthus grass (817,732 Mg) followed by switchgrass (477,317 Mg), corn (236,132 Mg), and soybeans (65,235 Mg). The SWAT model predicted the greatest annual average sediment yield (6.62 Mg·ha-1) from continuous corn crop scenario while the perennial grasses (switchgrass and miscanthus) had the lowest sediment yield (2.91 Mg·ha-1 and 3.20 Mg·ha-1 respectively). Overall, producing a perennial grass in the TCW would provide the largest biomass feedstock source with the least environmental impact. The results of this study will help to

[1]  João Rocha,et al.  Soil and Water Assessment Tool "SWAT" , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[2]  Fernando E. Miguez,et al.  Modeling Miscanthus in the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) to simulate its water quality effects as a bioenergy crop. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  John R. Williams,et al.  The EPIC crop growth model , 1989 .

[4]  John R. Williams,et al.  EPIC-erosion/productivity impact calculator: 1. Model documentation. , 1990 .

[5]  Stephen P. Long,et al.  Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus , 2008 .

[6]  Michael J. Oimoen,et al.  The National Elevation Dataset , 2002 .

[7]  Carl J. Bernacchi,et al.  A comparison of canopy evapotranspiration for maize and two perennial grasses identified as potential bioenergy crops , 2010 .

[8]  R. Lal,et al.  Bioenergy Crops and Carbon Sequestration , 2005 .

[9]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  An integrated biogeochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States , 2010 .

[10]  Ian Shield,et al.  Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. , 2008, The New phytologist.

[11]  R. Perrin,et al.  Farm-Scale Production Cost of Switchgrass for Biomass , 2008, BioEnergy Research.

[12]  Stephen P. Long,et al.  More Productive Than Maize in the Midwest: How Does Miscanthus Do It?1[W][OA] , 2009, Plant Physiology.

[13]  Jing Wang,et al.  Reconciling field size distributions of the US NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) cropland data , 2014 .

[14]  G. McIsaac,et al.  Miscanthus and switchgrass production in central Illinois: impacts on hydrology and inorganic nitrogen leaching. , 2010, Journal of environmental quality.

[15]  Darren T. Drewry,et al.  Implications for the hydrologic cycle under climate change due to the expansion of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  P. Jacobus,et al.  Energy Information Administration New Releases, July--August 1990 , 1990 .

[17]  Prem B. Parajuli,et al.  Assessing sensitivity of hydrologic responses to climate change from forested watershed in Mississippi , 2010 .

[18]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions , 2007 .

[19]  K. Moore,et al.  Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization on Biomass Yield and Quality in Large Fields of Established Switchgrass in Southern Iowa, USA , 2008 .

[20]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Progress toward evaluating the sustainability of switchgrass as a bioenergy crop using the SWAT model. , 2010 .

[21]  Xuesong Zhang,et al.  SWAT Ungauged: Hydrological Budget and Crop Yield Predictions in the Upper Mississippi River Basin , 2010 .

[22]  John Clifton-Brown,et al.  Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois , 2008 .

[23]  J. Fike,et al.  The Biology and Agronomy of Switchgrass for Biofuels , 2005 .

[24]  D. Goodrich,et al.  Scenario Analysis for the San Pedro River, Analyzing Hydrological Consequences of a Future Environment , 2004, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[25]  B. Sohngen,et al.  Importance of Crop Yield in Calibrating Watershed Water Quality Simulation Tools 1 , 2011 .

[26]  R. Perrin,et al.  Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .