2017 SWCS Annual Conference July 30-August 2, 2017 Monona Terrace Convention Center

1. The viability of growing shrub willow as bioenergy buffer on
intensively managed agricultural fields of U.S. Midwest
C. Zumpf1, J. Cacho1, P. Campbell1, H. Ssegane2, and C. Negri1
[1] Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA; [2] The Climate Corp., St. Louis, MO, USA

2. Increased agroecosystem production efficiency as one of key responses to future multi-faceted challenges
Credit: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
http://farmweeknow.com/story-ags-link-to-gulf-hypoxia-still-murky-3-42318
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
© NASA Earth Observatory
2014 Toledo drinking water shut down
(high nitrate levels)
Des Moines (Iowa) Water Works filed a federal
lawsuit against 3 counties for nitrate pollution
• Biofuels for mitigating climate change impacts should:
 not displace grasslands, forestlands, & agricultural lands
 come from non-food sources (US EISA 2007)
 have 60% net greenhouse gases savings (COM, 2007)
• 70% increase in current food production rate is needed to feed
more than 9 billion people by 2050 (WRI, 2013)

3. Main question:
• Can the efficiency and sustainability of commodity crop production be improved by integrating
perennial bioenergy crops into intensively managed agroecosystems?
 Landscape design approach (Nassauer, 2008) + inherent
physiological traits of perennial bioenergy crops (Davis et
al., 2013).
• Multifunctional system (food, energy, etc.)
• Maximize productivity per unit land area
• Maximize the use of production inputs
(especially chemical fertilizer)
• Minimize environmental footprints

4. Sangamon
Indian Creek watershed, IL
(Hamada et al., 2015)
Study site near Fairbury, IL (Ssegane et al., 2015)
Field study site (near Fairbury, IL)
• 6.5 ha (non-tile drained) field under continuous corn rotation
• Bordered by a corn-soybean rotation (east side) & riparian forest buffer (west side)
• Riparian forest buffer is adjacent to the Indian Creek, which drains into the Vermillion River
• Mean annual PCP = 887 mm (GHCN); Mean annual total ET = 661 mm (NASA-NLDAS).

5. 5
Study site analysis
Terrain & soil Surface & subsurface hydrology
Crop yield Water quality (soil water NO3-N)
Ssegane et al. (2015)
Low corn yield
areas coincide with
high nitrate losses
VERIS® soil mapping and image provided by Farm
Map Solutions, LLC.

6. Bioenergy crop placement
Berm
Country road
MW1
MW5
Willow Corn
MW4
MW3
MW2
MW6S
MW6D
Corn
Residential area
North:
Downslope
South:
Upslope
Ssegane et al. (2015)
Field study layoutCrop placement guide
Fertile soil
Marginal soil

7. Soil Water Collection:
MacroRhizons (Rhizosphere®, Netherlands)
Soil Sampling: GeoProbe®
drilling system
 Crop Growth Monitoring: Allometric measurement
 Corn Yield: Yield maps from harvesting equipment
Field Monitoring Infrastructure
 GW level monitoring: Level troll (In-Situ, Inc., Ft. Collins, CO)
 GW sampling: wells & bailers
Profile soil moisture monitoring:
EnviroSCAN probe (Sentek Pty Ltd, S. AUS)
Sapflow/transpiration: Dynamax Flow 32-1K
system (Dynamax, Inc., Houston, TX)
GHGs monitoring: Static chambers
Subsurface nitrate loading: Ion-
exchange resins

8. 8Cr
Corn
Corn
Willow
North Plots
South plots
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
Zumpf et al. (2017)
Biomass (Mg ha yr-1
)
Fairbury, IL (unfertilized) 6.45
*Tully, NY (unfertilized) 6.75
100 kg N ha yr-1 9.8
300 kg N ha yr-1 11.7
Composted poultry manure 14.1
*Ssegane et al. (2015)
Biomass produced and nitrogen uptake (end of 2015 season; 2nd cropping year)
Plots NUE (Corn only, %) NUE (Corn + Willow, %) NUE (% increase)
North 59.4 78.23 18.83
South 45.85 60.4 14.55
N fertilizer applied 248 kg N ha-1
yr-1

9. Soil quality impacts
Zumpf et al. (2017)
Ssegane et al. (2015)
North Plots
South plots

10. Impacts on water
Cumulative Transpiration (2015)
Profile soil water content (2015)
Zumpf et al. (2017)

11. Impacts on water: Soil water nitrate concentration
NO3 (mg L-1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2013 2014 2015 2016
NO3-N(mgL-1)
Corn Willow
-2.3% (1.00) 11.0% (1.00)
70.4% (0.003)*
87.7% (0.007)*
% N reduction (p-value)
Zumpf et al. (2017)
Willow planted &
coppiced
1st growing
year

12. Greenhouse Gases Emissions

13. Other Ecosystem Services
Design including
bioenergy and
water quality
Current
land use
Tile- nitrate leachate Sediment yield Pollinator nesting index
(InVEST)
Tile- nitrate leachate Sediment yield Pollinator nesting index
(InVEST)
(Ssegane et al., 2016)
(Graham et al., 2016) InVEST = integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs
(https://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/)

14. 14
Economics: Scenario analysis at a watershed scale
• 3 cases: 2 ha, 10 ha, 40.5 ha
• 3 scenarios for each case: [1] Business As Usual (BAU), [2] Landscape Single Subfield
(LSSF), & [3] Landscape Multiple Subfields (LMSF)
• Indian Creek Watershed, IL
(Ssegane et al., 2016)
BAU
LSSF
LMSF

15. Case Scenario
Transport
distance
km
Annual net
revenue
($/ha)
Annual net
revenue
($/wet metric
ton)
Opportunity
cost: min yield
[max yield]
($/ton)b
1
(2.0 ha)
BAU
Min 2 -$145.79 -$10.34 41.59 [-9.66]
Max 18 -$177.92 -$11.87 40.06 [-11.19]
Landscape:
single
subfield
(LSSF)
Min 2 -$108.73 -$5.22 46.71 [-4.54]
Max 18 -$135.91 -$6.55 45.38 [-5.87]
Landscape:
Multiple (4)
subfields
(LMSF)
Most likely 24 -$217.45 -$10.48 41.45 [-9.80]
2
(10.1 ha)
BAU
Min 2 -$108.73 -$8.55 43.38 [-7.87]
Max 18 -$143.32 -$10.21 41.72 [-9.53]
Landscape:
single
subfield
(LSSF)
Min 2 -$81.54 -$3.97 47.96 [-3.29]
Max 18 -$116.14 -$5.61 46.32 [-4.93]
Landscape:
Multiple (9)
subfields
(LMSF)
Most likely 36 -$237.22 -$11.38 40.55 [-10.70]
3
(40.5 ha)
BAU
Min 3.5 -$91.43 -$7.76 44.17 [-7.08]
Max 16.4 -$118.61 -$9.08 42.85 [-8.40]
Landscape:
single
subfield
(LSSF)
Min 3.5 -$66.72 -$3.21 48.72 [-2.53]
Max 16.4 -$93.90 -$4.54 47.39 [-3.86]
Landscape:
multiple
(43)
subfields
(LMSF)
Most likely
76
-$303.94 -$14.58 37.35 [-13.90]
• Willow does not provide a positive net revenue in Indian
Creek watershed
• Land rental cost is the major reason
• Reduced losses ~$5/ton are seen in the LSSF (saving on
fertilizer and headland)
• LMSF present higher losses, depending on distance
• Nitrogen recovery savings allow for an extra ~5 to 7 km
of inter-field distance.
• Opportunity cost (difference in net revenue between
willow and corn in that area: choosing to grow willow
over corn) suggest willow may still be competitive
compared to low yielding corn (3.2 Mg ha-1).
15
(Ssegane et al., 2016)
Economics: Scenario analysis at a watershed scale

16. Economics: Opportunity costs & cost of water quality
Sensitive to corn yields, at current prices a perennial crop such as
bioenergy willow could represent a viable alternative in
underproductive subfield patches if there were a market for it.
Farmer’s perspective: When considering
environmental services, normalized costs show
that a multi-crop landscape could be
competitive with other conservation practices.
Christianson et al. (2013)
Societal perspective:
• What would society pay for the additional regulating services provided?
• What policy could support this type of development?
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Willow net revenue Opportunity cost lo Opportunity cost Hi
$/ton(biomass)
Net Revenue and Opportunity Cost

17. -$600
-$400
-$200
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Value of ES from reductions in nitrogen and soil losses $/ha
Returns from SWG
Value of reductions in soil losses
Value of reductions in nitrogen losses
Per hectare, losses from switchgrass production could be more than compensated by the value of the Ecosystem Service
provided. Data on willows in process.
-$427
$1,351
Societal perspective: What would it cost to society to pay for the additional regulating services provided?
17
Economics: Opportunity costs & cost of water quality

18. Conclusions
 Shrub willow as bioenergy buffer on continuous corn system:
• substantially improves the system’s N use efficiency.
• produces biomass that is comparable to unfertilized willow monoculture (per unit area).
• does not seem to have negative impact on soil nutrient reserves.
• has subsoil carbon sequestration potential.
• has comparable water use to corn.
• significantly improves water quality.
• has potential positive benefits to pollinators.
• does not provide a positive net revenue in Illinois due to high rental cost of land, but could be
more competitive than corn in marginal soil.
• is competitive with currently available water quality BMPs (e.g., constructed wetlands,
bioreactors, controlled drainage, & N rate reduction)
• can be economically competitive when monetary values of all the ecosystem services it provides
are considered.

19. Acknowledgements
Project funding source:
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)
Program, Bioenergy technologies Office (BETO)
Farm Owners:
Mr. Ray Popejoy and Mr. Paul Kilgus
Environmental Sciences Division, Argonne
Roser Matamala Paradeda, Timothy Vugteveen, and John Quinn
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)
Karen Scanlon and Chad Watts
SWCD, Livingston County, IL
Terry Bachtold and Rebecca Taylor
Indian Creek Watershed Project Leadership and Sponsors
USDA-NRCS, Livingston County, IL
Eric McTaggart
Staff, Andrews Engineering, Pontiac, IL
State University of New York (SUNY)
Tim Volk and Justin Heavy
Student Interns

20. References
COM. 2007. Communications from the Commission of the European Council and the European Parliament: An energy policy for Europe.
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.
Christianson, L., Tyndall, J., & Helmers M. (2013). Financial comparison of seven nitrate reduction strategies for Midwestern agricultural
drainage. Water Resources and Economics, 2–3:30-56.
Davis, S. C., Boddey, R. M., Alves, B. J., Cowie, A. L., George, B. H., Ogle, S. M., Smith, P., Noordwijk, M., Wijk, M. T. (2013). Management
swing potential for bioenergy crops. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy, 5:623-638.
Hamada, Y., Ssegane, H., & Negri, M. C. (2015). Mapping intra-field yield variation using high resolution satellite imagery to integrate
bioenergy and environmental stewardship in an agricultural watershed. Remote Sensing,7(8), 9753-9768.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014 synthesis report. Summary for policymakers (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf).
NASA-North American Land Data Assimilation System (NASA-NLDAS) (https://ldas.gsfc.nasa.gov/nldas/NLDAS2forcing.php).
NOAA-Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA-GHCN) (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-
datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-ghcn).
Ssegane, H., Negri, M. C., Quinn, J., & Urgun-Demirtas, M. (2015). Multifunctional landscapes: Site characterization and field-scale design to
incorporate biomass production into an agricultural system. Biomass Bioenerg, 80, 179-190.
Ssegane, H., Zumpf, C., Negri, M. C., Campbell, Patty, Heavy, J. P., Volk, T. A. (2016). The economics of growing shrub willow as a
bioenergy buffer on agricultural fields: A case study in the Midwest Corn Belt. Biofuel Bioprod Bior, 10:776–789. doi:10.1002/bbb.1679.
USEPA. (2015). Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force - 2015 Report to Congress. Biennial Report, EPA.
WRI. (2013). World resources report 2013-2014: Creating a sustainable food future. Interim Findings. Word Resources Institute
(http://www.wri.org/).
Zumpf C, Ssegane H, Campbell P, Negri MC, Cacho J. (2017). Nitrogen recovery and biomass production: environmental ecosystem services
at the field scale. J Environ Qual. doi:10.2134/jeq2017.02.0082.

21. 21
Thank you…
Questions?...