Nationwide Bio-Fuel Resource Mapping PRISM - EM Estimating the Potential Distribution and Yield of Biomass Crops Michael Halbleib, Christopher Daly, Matthew Doggett David Hannaway Sun Grant Western Region GIS Center Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon, USA GROUP PRISM

Introduction Resource Assessment Objective: Gain an understanding of the spatial distribution of current and potential biofuel/bio-energy feedstock resources across the country Envisioned outcome: A series of national geo-referenced grids (maps) that describe potential productivity patterns of various feedstocks

Methods to Accomplish This Collect plot level data Collecting and assimilate production information from field trials and the literature Issues Data representativeness- Data are taken from relatively few locations under widely varying management practices, different years, and span small portions of the environmental gradient – very noisy, difficult to extrapolate from data alone Environmental Modeling Model from the climate and soils instead of plot level data only Plot and field data are assimilated into the modeling process

Rarely Enough Data to Map Resources Directly Yield data alone are often insufficient to describe basic patterns

This is more what we’d expect based on climate and soil conditions Environmental Modeling as a Means of Identifying Potential Distribution and Yield This is more what we’d expect based on climate and soil conditions

An Environmental Suitability Modeling Framework Two main objectives: Develop gridded estimates (maps) of potential feedstock resources across the entire conterminous US, constrained by environmental factors (climate and soils) Assimilate biomass data collected from field trials into the mapping process so that maps reflect both field data and environmental gradients

PRISM PRISM Climate Mapping GROUP The world’s most advanced climate mapping science Developed and operated by the PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University Accounts for variations in climate due to elevation rain shadows, coastal effects, temperature inversions, and more Official climate maps of the USDA; historically supported by NRCS, recently by RMA GROUP PRISM

NRCS SSURGO Soils Data National coverage Provides soils information essential to the model such as pH, soil depth, soil water holding capacity, drainage classes, etc.

Biomass Yield PRISM-EM Percent of Maximum Yield SSURGO Soil Maps PRISM Climate Maps Biomass Yield Observed Yield Terrain/Land Cover Constraints

PRISM-EM “Limiting Factor” Approach Relative Yield (0,100%) = Lowest production resulting from the following functions: Water Balance Model Winter Low Temperature Constraint Summer High Temperature Constraint Soil Properties pH Salinity Drainage

Semi-Monthly Water Balance Model Temp Precip ETa KS Kc Es [AWC] TAW Droot Dr -------------------------- Deep Soil Em

Semi-Monthly Water Balance Model Water stress coefficient KS = (TAW - Dr) TAW = = total avail. water cont. = AWC Droot AWC = avail water content (NRCS data) Droot = rooting depth* Root zone moisture depletion Dr = Drt-1 + (Eta(t-1) – Pt-1) ETa = actual evapotranspiration P = precipitation Evapotranspiration Eta(t-1) = if crop on: ET0(t-1) KS(t-1) Kc; if crop off: KS(t-1) Es ET0 = Reference evapotranspiration (based on PRISM climate data) Kc = Crop coefficient (water use efficiency) when crop on* Es = Soil Evaporation (based on PRISM climate data) * User input

Semi-Monthly Water Balance Model Temperature coefficient C2 = (max*-Tavg)/max*-optimum*) * User input Winter Wheat Monthly Relative Yield (water balance) RY = KS (C2L e ((L/R)(1-C2R))) Water stress coefficient Temperature growth curve

Final Water Balance Relative Yield Calculating Final Water Balance Relative Yield Mo J F M A S O N D RY 5 50 90 80 30 70 60 10 GP 1 FP Potential Growth Period* N=3* Floating N-month* max yield Final RY = N-month max average RY within the Growth Period * User input

Winter Temperature Constraint Function Low End - Winter survival High End - Chilling Requirements Winter Wheat

Summer Temperature Constraint Function Summer Heat Injury Potential Winter Wheat

Soil Constraint Functions Soil pH Soil Salinity Winter Wheat Soil Drainage

Soil Constraint Functions – Accounting for Amendments Soil pH - Liming Soil Salinity Winter Wheat Soil Drainage - Tiling

Environmental Model Relative Yield Dryland Winter Wheat, Local Varieties

“Usable” Land Cover and Terrain Masks Forest, Urban, Tundra omitted Ag, Grass, Shrub, Savanna allowed Terrain Slopes > 7% omitted Local high ridges and peaks omitted

Environmental Model Relative Yield Dryland Winter Wheat, Local Varieties, “Usable” Land

RMA Reported Yield, 2000-2009 Mean Dryland Winter Wheat, All Varieties/Management, “Core” Counties Only “Core” Counties 30-30-30 ≥30 model cells/county ≥30% of county “usable” ≥30 RMA reports/county

National Relative Yield vs. RMA Reported Yield Dryland Winter Wheat, All Varieties/Management, “Core” Counties Only

Final Winter Wheat Straw Yield Dryland Winter Wheat, Natl. Regr., All Varieties/Mgmt, “Usable” Land RMA yield data assimilated via regression 0.4 Harvest Index

Nationwide Bio-Fuel Resource Mapping Winter Wheat All Land Non-Forest Land Assumes Amended Soils - Liming (pH) and Tiling (Drainage)

Nationwide Bio-Fuel Resource Mapping Corn All Land Non-Forest Land Assumes Amended Soils - Liming (pH) and Tiling (Drainage)

Nationwide Bio-Fuel Resource Mapping Sorghum All Land Non-Forest Land Assumes Amended Soils - Liming (pH) and Tiling (Drainage)

Nationwide Bio-Fuel Resource Mapping Energy Cane All Land Non-Forest Land Assumes Amended Soils - Liming (pH) and Tiling (Drainage)

Nationwide Bio-Fuel Resource Mapping Energy Cane Draft - Some Review All Land Changes based on comments Assumes Amended Soils - Liming (pH) and Tiling (Drainage)

Draft Map Under Review

Draft Map Under Review

Time series