1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. Summer Temperature Constraint Function
Summer Heat Injury
Potential
Winter Wheat

17. Soil Constraint Functions
Soil pH
Soil Salinity
Winter Wheat
Soil Drainage

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

19. Environmental Model Relative Yield
Dryland Winter Wheat, Local Varieties

20. “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

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

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

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

24. 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

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

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

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

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

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

30. Draft Map
Under Review

31. Draft Map
Under Review

32. Time series