Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “corn farming”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

72 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-HWB USDA ARS Pasture Sytems and Watershed Management Research Unit- Hawbecker Site

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-HWB USDA ARS Pasture Sytems and Watershed Management Research Unit- Hawbecker Site. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-HWB USDA ARS Pasture Sytems and Watershed Management Research Unit- Hawbecker Site produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Hawbecker farm is owned by Penn State University. The farming that took place was performed by their Farm Operations Division. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, the Beef and Sheep Reasearch Farm, The University Airport, and other large fields maintained by Farm Operations. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Meteorological Site, a Phenocam, and the GraceNet plots. Crop Rotation during period was 2 years Alfalfa, 1 year Corn for grain and 1 year Wheat.

Goslee, Sarah↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sustainable aviation fuel from ethanol: Techno-economic analysis and life cycle analysis

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is crucial for improving energy security, enhancing domestic production, and reducing carbon emissions in the aviation sector. Among various SAF production technologies, the ethanol-to-jet (ETJ) pathway is a promising option due to its economic viability and technological maturity. This study integrates a techno-economic analysis (TEA) and a life cycle analysis (LCA) to evaluate emissions reduction strategies for SAF production via the ETJ pathway, considering use of ethanol derived from both corn grain and corn stover. Conventional corn grain-derived ETJ fuel reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 22 % compared to fossil jet fuel, with potential reductions of 26 %–96 % when incorporating renewable energy sources, with a 6 %–32 % increase in the minimum fuel selling price (MFSP). Corn stover-derived ETJ achieves a 77 % GHG reduction but with higher MFSPs compared to corn grain ETJ. Carbon capture and storage (CCS without considering the cost for piping and sequestration, only compression) reduces the emissions of corn grain-derived ETJ by up to 32 gCO 2 e/MJ and enables negative emissions for corn stover-derived ETJ, with MFSP increases ranging from 1 % to 22 %. While carbon capture and utilization (CCU) increase ethanol yield by 47 %, it raises MFSPs by 54 % due to high electricity demand. Sustainable farming practices provide only limited carbon intensity (CI) reductions individually but do offer cumulative benefits when combined. These findings highlight the trade-offs between cost and environmental impact, providing insights to optimize SAF production strategies and support aviation sector goals for emissions reduction.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2022

AmeriFlux US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.

Goslee, Sarah↗
DOE OSTI2022

AmeriFlux US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.

Goslee, Sarah↗
DOE OSTI2024

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1 produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.

Goslee, Sarah↗
DOE OSTI2024

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2 produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.

Goslee, Sarah↗
DOE OSTI2024

Perennializing marginal croplands: going back to the future to mitigate climate change with resilient biobased feedstocks

Managing annual row crops on marginally productive croplands can be environmentally unsustainable and result in variable economic returns. Incorporating perennial bioenergy feedstocks into marginally productive cropland can engender ecosystem services and enhance climate resiliency while also diversifying farm incomes. We use one of the oldest bioenergy-specific field experiments in North America to evaluate economically and environmentally sustainable management practices for growing perennial grasses on marginal cropland. This long-term field trial called 9804 was established in 1998 in eastern Nebraska and compared the productivity and sustainability of corn (Zea mays L.)—both corn grain and corn stover—and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) bioenergy systems under different harvest strategies and nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates. This experiment demonstrated that switchgrass, compared to corn, is a reliable and sustainable bioenergy feedstock. This experiment has been a catalyst for other bioenergy projects which have also expanded our understanding of growing and managing bioenergy feedstocks on marginal cropland. We (1) synthesize research from this long-term experiment and (2) provide perspective concerning both the knowledge gained from this experiment and knowledge gaps and how to fill them as well as the role switchgrass will play in the future of bioenergy.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

AmeriFlux US-RGF Stanislaus County Forage Farm

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RGF Stanislaus County Forage Farm. Site Description - Commercially farmed field in Stanislaus County, California. Part of a multi-year, ground-truthing field study under the DOE ARPA-E SMARTFARM project (https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-posts/smartfarm-changing-whats-possible-agriculture). Field is approx. 31.3 ha in size (1,300 ft by 2,600 ft), part of a 176+ acre site in several fields with commercial corn-wheat rotation for silage, in combination with manure application.

Schuppenhauer, Michael R.↗
DOE OSTI2024

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-RGF Stanislaus County Forage Farm

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RGF Stanislaus County Forage Farm. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-RGF Stanislaus County Forage Farm produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Commercially farmed field in Stanislaus County, California. Part of a multi-year, ground-truthing field study under the DOE ARPA-E SMARTFARM project (https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-posts/smartfarm-changing-whats-possible-agriculture). Field is approx. 31.3 ha in size (1,300 ft by 2,600 ft), part of a 176+ acre site in several fields with commercial corn-wheat rotation for silage, in combination with manure application.

Schuppenhauer, Michael R.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Effectiveness of Residue and Tillage Management on Runoff Pollutant Reduction from Agricultural Areas

Highlights No-till and no-till residue systems were effective in reducing runoff particulate and total nutrients but increased dissolved nutrients. Maintaining >30% residue cover reduced most runoff constituents, irrespective of no-till or tillage. No-till-residue prevented runoff nutrient losses and benefitted farm revenue by avoiding tillage. Abstract. Reduced tillage management conservation practices (No-till and Reduced-till) are widely adopted in agriculture; however, understanding their overall effectiveness for water quality protection is challenging. A meta-analysis was conducted to understand and quantify the effectiveness of residue and tillage management on runoff, sediment, and nutrient losses from agricultural fields. Annual runoff and the associated sediment, and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loads were compiled from 60 peer reviewed research articles published across the United States and Canada. A total of 1575 site-years of data were categorized into tillage (<30% surface cover), no-tillage (<30% surface cover), tillage with residue (>30% surface cover), no-tillage with residue (>30% surface cover), and pasture management. No-tillage, no-tillage-residue, and tillage-residue managements were evaluated for their effectiveness in reducing runoff, nutrients, and sediment loads compared to tillage. Synthesized and surveyed corn yield data were used to evaluate the economic cost effectiveness of no-tillage-residue management with respect to tillage. Across the site years (1968-2019) studied, median runoff depth for no-tillage and no-tillage-residue were 84% and 70% greater than tillage and tillage-residue management, respectively. No-tillage-residue management had up to 86% less sediment losses than tillage systems, on average, for both >30% and <30% surface cover. No-tillage-residue management was most effective, with a positive performance effectiveness of 65% to 90% in controlling sediments, particulate, and total nutrient losses in runoff compared to tillage. Cost effectiveness analysis revealed the benefits of no-tillage-residue management in reducing nutrient loads and increasing net-farm revenue by avoiding tillage operational costs. Except for dissolved phosphorus, no-tillage-residue management cost effectiveness for sediments and nutrient loads ranged from negative $6 to negative $102 per every Mg or kg of load reduction, indicating it had both economic and environmental benefits compared to tillage management. Overall, these results indicate that over the long-term, no-tillage and tillage, combined with greater than 30% residue cover, can effectively reduce sediment and nutrient losses. This work highlights the importance of crop residues on the soil surface to reduce runoff losses, even in no-tillage systems. Keywords: Conservation tillage, No-tillage, Residue cover, Tillage, Water quality.

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2023

Field‐scale analysis of miscanthus production indicates climate change may increase the opportunity for water quality improvement in a key Iowa watershed

Abstract The Raccoon River Basin is the primary source for drinking water in Iowa's largest city and plays a major role in the Mississippi River Basin's high nutrient exports. Future climate change may have major impacts on the biological, physiological, and agronomic processes imposing a threat to ecosystem services. Efforts to reduce nitrogen (N) loads within this basin have included local litigation and the implementation of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, which suggest incorporating bioenergy crops (i.e., miscanthus) within the current corn–soybean landscape to reach a 41% reduction in nitrate loads. This study focuses on simulating N export for historical and future land use scenarios by using an agroecosystem model (Agro‐IBIS) and a hydrology model (THMB) at the 500‐m resolution, similar to the scale of agricultural fields. Model simulations are driven by CMIP5 climate data for historical, mid‐century, and late‐century under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 warming projections. Using recent crop profit analyses for the state of Iowa, profitability maps were generated and nitrogen leaching thresholds were used to determine where miscanthus should replace corn–soybean area to maximize reductions in N pollution. Our results show that miscanthus inclusion on low profit and high N leaching areas can result in a 4% reduction of N loss under current climate conditions and may reduce N loss by 21%–26% under future climate conditions, implying that water quality has the potential continue to improve under future climate conditions when strategically implemented conservation practices are included in future farm management plans.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Life-cycle analysis of soybean meal, distiller-dried grains with solubles, and synthetic amino acid-based animal feeds for swine and poultry production

Swine and poultry meat production are two important sectors in the U.S. economy. They play an important role in environmental sustainability because they contribute to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as the result of agricultural and production activities. To improve the sustain ability of swine and poultry meat production, it is important to understand the environmental effects and identify the key drivers of the production activities. In this work, we presented an environmental assessment of the production of swine (i.e., pork) and poultry (i.e., broiler chicken). We conducted a life-cycle analysis of formulating animal feeds using soybean meal, corn, distiller-dried grains with solubles (DDGS), and synthetic amino acids as candidate ingredients to produce swine and poultry. We evaluated GHG emissions, fossil fuel consumption, and water consumption from formulating and utilizing a variety of animal feeds based on these ingredients for swine and poultry production, using an expanded version of the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET (R)) model. With pork and broiler chicken as the finished products, the functional unit was defined as one kg of live-weight animal at the farm gate. Feed production was the major contributor to the life-cycle GHG emissions (88 % and 91 % of the total GHG emissions for swine and poultry production, respectively) and fossil fuel consumption (79 % and 84 % of the total fossil fuel consumption for swine and poultry process, respectively). Among the four ingredient types, amino acids had the biggest GHG emission footprint; however, DDGS had the largest effect on increasing GHG emissions of swine and poultry production.

animal feed production↗
DOE OSTI2022

From Farm to Flight: CoverCress as a Low Carbon Intensity Cash Cover Crop for Sustainable Aviation Fuel Production. A Review of Progress Towards Commercialization

Thlaspi arvense L. (Field Pennycress; pennycress) is being converted into a winter-annual oilseed crop that confers cover crop benefits when grown throughout the 12 million-hectares U.S. Midwest. To ensure a fit with downstream market demand, conversion involves not only improvements in yield and maturity through traditional breeding, but also improvements in the composition of the oil and protein through gene editing tools. The conversion process is similar to the path taken to convert rapeseed into Canola. In the case of field pennycress, the converted product that is suitable as a rotational crop is called CoverCress™ as marketed by CoverCress Inc. or golden pennycress if marketed by others. Off-season integration of a CoverCress crop into existing corn and soybean hectares would extend the growing season on established croplands and avoid displacement of food crops or ecosystems while yielding up to 1 billion liters of seed oil annually by 2030, with the potential to grow to 8 billion liters from production in the U.S. Midwest alone. The aviation sector is committed to carbon-neutral growth and reducing emissions of its global market, which in 2019 approached 122 billion liters of consumption in the U.S. and 454 billion liters globally. The oil derived from a CoverCress crop is ideally suited as a new bioenergy feedstock for the production of drop-in Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), renewable diesel, biodiesel and other value-added coproducts. Through a combination of breeding and genomics-enabled mutagenesis approaches, considerable progress has been made in genetically improving yield and other agronomic traits. With USDA-NIFA funding and continued public and private investments, improvements to CoverCress germplasm and agronomic practices suggest that field-scale production can surpass 1,680 kg ha -1 (1,500 lb ac -1 ) in the near term. At current commodity prices, economic modeling predicts this level of production can be profitable across the entire supply chain. Two-thirds of the grain value is in oil converted to fuels and chemicals, and the other one-third is in the meal used as an animal feed, industrial applications, and potential plant-based protein products. In addition to strengthening rural communities by providing income to producers and agribusinesses, cultivating a CoverCress crop potentially offers a myriad of ecosystem services. The most notable service is water quality protection through reduced nutrient leaching and reduced soil erosion. Biodiversity enhancement by supporting pollinators’ health is also a benefit. While the efforts described herein are focused on the U.S., cultivation of a CoverCress crop will likely have a broader application to regions around the world with similar agronomic and environmental conditions.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

FUN-BioCROP model with litter decomposition parameters derived from the LIDET dataset

This repository contains the code and data necessary to run the FUN-BioCROP (Fixation and Uptake of Nitrogen-Bioenergy Carbon, Rhizosphere, Organisms, and Protection) model with litter decomposition parameters derived from a modified Monte Carlo simulation that used the Long-term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team dataset. Related publication:Juice, S.M., Ridgeway, J.R., Hartman, M.D., Parton, W.J., Berardi, D.M., Sulman, B.N., Allen, K.E., & Brzostek, E.R. Reparameterizing litter decomposition using a simplified Monte Carlo method improves litter decay simulated by a microbial model and alters bioenergy soil carbon estimates. Description of Files: FUNBioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd R code with FUN-BioCROP model that can be run with 10 different sets of parameters for litter decomposition (Baseline, LIDET, or eight other best parameter sets identified in the modified Monte Carlo simulation. CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R Code with CORPSE model functions, called by FUNBioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd Model Input Data: bulk.csv, bulk_till.csv, rhizo.csv, rhizo_till.csv, litter.csv Initial C and N (kg C or N/m2) pool values for each soil compartment, final values from spin up. All five files have the same columns: (Column - Description - Units) uFastC - Unprotected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uSlowC - Unprotected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uNecroC - Unprotected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 pFastC - Protected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pSlowC - Protected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pNecroC - Protected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeC - Carbon in living microbial biomass - kg carbon/m2 uFastN - Unprotected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uSlowN - Unprotected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uNecroN - Unprotected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pFastN - Protected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pSlowN - Protected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pNecroN - Protected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 inorganicN - Inorganic nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 CO2 - Carbon in carbon dioxide - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeN - Nitrogen in living microbial biomass - kg nitrogen/m2 Model Input Data: FluxTower_AvgSoilT.csv: Average daily soil temperature (oC) at 10 cm depth at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Energy Farm flux tower from 7/2008-3/2016. (One year of averaged data) Model Input Data: FluxTower_AvgSoilVWC.csv: Average daily soil volumetric water content (VWC) at 10 cm depth at UIUC Energy Farm flux tower from 7/2008-3/2016. (One year of averaged data) Model Input Data: input_CCS_LIDET Study.csv: This file has daily data to run FUN-BioCROP (Column - Description - Units): yr - calendar year - year doy - day of year (1 to 365) (no leap year) - day anpp - aboveground NPP (DayCent) - kg C/m2/day bnpp - belowground NPP (DayCent) - kg C/m2/day aglivc - live aboveground biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 bglivcj - live juvenile fine root biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 bglivcm - live mature fine root biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 aglivn - live aboveground biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 bglivnj - live juvenile fine root biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 bglivnm - live mature fine root biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 nyr - simulation year - year cult - indicates a cultivation event (0 or 1) crop - indicates a new crop (0 or 1) fert - indicates a fertilizer event (0 or 1) frst - indicates the first day of the growing season (0 or 1) harv - indicates a harvest event (0 or 1) last - indicates the end of the growing season (0 or 1) croptype - crop type (0=none; 1=alfalfa; 2=corn; 3=grass clover pasture; 4=soybean; 5=wheat) cropsrl - crop specific root length - mm/g root cultrhizmix - fraction of rhizosphere mixed with bulk soil during cultivation (0.0-1.0) - fraction cultlitmix - fraction of litter mixed with bulk soil during cultivation (0.0-1.0) - fraction harvremov - fraction of above ground biomass removed during harvest (0.0-1.0) - fraction fertamt - fertilization amount - g N/m2 lifehist - plant life history (0 = annual, 1 = perennial) froot_turnover_c - amount of C in fine root turnover - kg C/m2 froot_turnover_n - amount of N in fine root turnover - kg N/m2 agrd_turnover_c - amount of C in aboveground biomass turnover - kg C/m2 agrd_turnover_n - amount of N in aboveground biomass turnover - kg N/m2 leaf_litter_fastfrac - Fast decomposing fraction of leaf litter (0.0-1.0) - fraction root_litter_fastfrac - Fast decomposing fraction of root litter (0.0-1.0) - fraction root_diameter - root diameter - mm root_length - root length - mm root/m2 rhizo_frac - fraction of total soil volume that is rhizosphere (0.0 - 1.0) - fraction date - date in format YYYY-MM-DD Instructions: Save the model code ("FUN-BioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd") and accompanything files (data streams and CORPSE function code) in the same folder. In model code "Chunk 3: Load CORPSE Data Streams" set the working directory (setwd) to the folder with the files saved in step #1. In "Chunk 5: Define LIDET parameter sets" select the litter decomposition parameter set to be used in the run, and comment out all other sets. If changing any parameter values, edit them in "Chunk 6: Load parameters." Run all chunks up to and including "Chunk 10: Prepare Data for Export." In "Chunk 11: Export Output Data" edit data frames for export and filenames, as necessary. "Chunk 12: Graph Total Soil C" makes a figure of C remaining over the model run period. Description of each model chunk (in file FUN-BioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd): Chunk 1: Remove all functions, clear memory. Removes all functions from R environment, clears the memory. Chunk 2: Load Packages. Loads packages necessary to run the code. Chunk 3: Load CORPSE Data Streams. Sets the working directory and loads the data files necessary to run CORPSE. Chunk 4: Load CORPSE Functions. Loads the R script with CORPSE functions from the working directory, "CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R". Chunk 5: Define LIDET parameter sets. Has ten different parameter sets for litter decomposition tested in this study: Baseline parameters, LIDET parameters, and the other 8 best performing parameter sets identified in the modified Monte Carlo. To run the model, all but one parameter set must be commented out. Chunk 6: Load Parameters. Loads all fixed parameters to run the model. Data frame with definitions of parameters is in the CORPSE function script "CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R" Chunk 7: Prepare Data Streams. Takes data streams loaded in Chunk 3 and puts them in the format necessary to run the model. The model is coded to run at least two sites at a time, so if only one site is being run it must be run in duplicate. Individual data tables of daily values are created in this chunk from the input data file. Chunk 8: Set Initial Conditions. Creates data tables of soil C and N pools for each soil compartment (rhizo_till, rhizo, bulk_till, bulk, litter) and loads initial values into the data tables. Creates lists for each soil compartment to hold model output. Chunk 9: Load FUN Data and Set Up Matrices. Uses DayCent data to calculate FUN input data: root and leaf N demand, total N demand, plant CN, leaf N available for retranslocation, and litter production. Creates matrices for FUN model outputs. Chunk 10: Run Model. Runs the model. Chunk 11: Prepare Data for Export. Combines data from each day saved as lists into data frames for each soil compartment. Adds values from all soil compartments together to calculate total soil values, creates separate data frames for each soil C and N pool (e.g., protected slow C) for the total soil value. Adds different C and N pools together to calculate total soil C and N for all layers. Creates data frame of ratio of protected to unprotected SOC. Organizes FUN data for export. Chunk 12: Export Results. Exports CSV files of model results to the working directory. Chunk 13: Graph Total Soil C. Makes figure of C remaining over time. Related Links: Original FUN-BioCROP model: https://github.com/BrzostekEcologyLab/FUN-BioCROP LIDET dataset: https://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TD023

Juice, Stephanie↗
DOE OSTI2021

Aircraft-based inversions quantify the importance of wetlands and livestock for Upper Midwest methane emissions

Abstract. We apply airborne measurements across three seasons (summer, winter and spring 2017–2018) in a multi-inversion framework to quantify methane emissions from the US Corn Belt and Upper Midwest, a key agricultural and wetland source region. Combing our seasonal results with prior fall values we find that wetlands are the largest regional methane source (32 %, 20 [16–23] Gg/d), while livestock (enteric/manure; 25 %, 15 [14–17] Gg/d) are the largest anthropogenic source. Natural gas/petroleum, waste/landfills, and coal mines collectively make up the remainder. Optimized fluxes improve model agreement with independent datasets within and beyond the study timeframe. Inversions reveal coherent and seasonally dependent spatial errors in the WetCHARTs ensemble mean wetland emissions, with an underestimate for the Prairie Pothole region but an overestimate for Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetland extent and emission temperature dependence have the largest influence on prediction accuracy; better representation of coupled soil temperature–hydrology effects is therefore needed. Our optimized regional livestock emissions agree well with the Gridded EPA estimates during spring (to within 7 %) but are ∼ 25 % higher during summer and winter. Spatial analysis further shows good top-down and bottom-up agreement for beef facilities (with mainly enteric emissions) but larger (∼ 30 %) seasonal discrepancies for dairies and hog farms (with > 40 % manure emissions). Findings thus support bottom-up enteric emission estimates but suggest errors for manure; we propose that the latter reflects inadequate treatment of management factors including field application. Overall, our results confirm the importance of intensive animal agriculture for regional methane emissions, implying substantial mitigation opportunities through improved management.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

How does uncertainty of soil organic carbon stock affect the calculation of carbon budgets and soil carbon credits for croplands in the U.S. Midwest?

Cropland carbon budget depicts the amount of carbon flowing in and out of agroecosystems and the changes in carbon stocks of soil and living biomass during the same period. Soil carbon credit is the additional change in soil carbon stock under certain farming practices compared with the business-as-usual practices. Accurately calculating cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is critical to assessing climate change mitigation potential in agroecosystems. The calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is sensitive to local soil and climatic conditions, especially initial soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, which is determined by both SOC concentration (SOC%) and bulk density (Bulk_Density). SOC stock data are either from soil sampling or gridded public survey data. In agroecosystem models, SOC stock data are a key model input for quantifying cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. However, various types and degrees of uncertainties exist in SOC stock datasets, which propagate to the quantification of SOC stock change. In particular, a large discrepancy is found in two widely used SOC stock datasets — Rapid Carbon Assessment dataset (RaCA) and Gridded Soil Survey Geographic Database (gSSURGO) — in the U.S. Midwest, with a relative difference (quantified using Normalized Root Mean Square Error, NRMSE) of 48.0% for 0–30 cm SOC stock between the two datasets. It remains largely unclear how uncertainty in SOC stocks affects the calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. To address this question, we used a well-validated process-based agroecosystem model, ecosys, to assess the impacts of SOC stock uncertainty on carbon budget and soil carbon credit calculation in the U.S. Midwestern corn-soybean rotation systems. Our results reveal the following findings: (1) A sizable discrepancy exists in simulated cropland carbon budget between using gSSURGO and using RaCA for their SOC% and Bulk_Density as model inputs, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of only 0.4 for simulated change of SOC stock (ΔSOC) using these two different soil datasets. (2) Simulated cropland carbon budget components were more sensitive to initial SOC% than to Bulk_Density. For example, the upper and lower quartiles of multi-year averaged ΔSOC were –29.8 and 4.8 gC/m 2 /year for the selected counties respectively, with an uncertainty of 13.7 and 0.7 gC/m 2 /year induced by uncertainties in initial SOC% and Bulk_Density, respectively. (3) Both simulated ΔSOC and its uncertainty were negatively correlated with initial SOC%, whereas ΔSOC was negatively correlated with air temperature, and ΔSOC uncertainty was positively correlated with air temperature. (4) The uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits was much smaller compared with the uncertainty of calculated absolute carbon budgets assuming the same SOC stock uncertainty level in the inputs. Specifically, in our assessment comparing planting cover crops vs no cover crop, the uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits induced by initial SOC% uncertainty was less than 4% (relative to the quantified value of the soil carbon credits) for 90% of the cases. Our analysis highlights that high accuracy measurement of SOC% as inputs is needed for the calculation of cropland carbon budgets; however, soil carbon credit quantification is much less sensitive to the initial SOC% inputs, and the current publicly available soil datasets (e.g., gSSURGO) are largely suitable for the calculation of soil

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

The CERN LHC provided proton and heavy ion collisions during its Run 2 operation period from 2015 to 2018. Proton-proton collisions reached a peak instantaneous luminosity of 2.1× 10 34 cm -2 s -1 , twice the initial design value, at √(s)=13 TeV. The CMS experiment records a subset of the collisions for further processing as part of its online selection of data for physics analyses, using a two-level trigger system: the Level-1 trigger, implemented in custom-designed electronics, and the high-level trigger, a streamlined version of the offline reconstruction software running on a large computer farm. This paper presents the performance of the CMS high-level trigger system during LHC Run 2 for physics objects, such as leptons, jets, and missing transverse momentum, which meet the broad needs of the CMS physics program and the challenge of the evolving LHC and detector conditions. Sophisticated algorithms that were originally used in offline reconstruction were deployed online. Highlights include a machine-learning b tagging algorithm and a reconstruction algorithm for tau leptons that decay hadronically.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗