Table S1. Partial budgets for stover collection scenarios modeled Stover harvest 8.42

Transcription

1 Table S. Partial budgets for stover collection scenarios modeled Scenario. -Beans, 38% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Yield change Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 8.42 Storage 2.6 Transportation 2.40 from simulated N replacement Simulated Total Cost $24.92 $6.55 Scenario 2. -Beans, 52% Stover Removal Cost category Description allocated to Cost Source Removal Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 3.82 Storage 6.95 Transportation 6.6 Yield change from simulated N replacement Simulated Total Cost $37.56 $92.76

2 Scenario 3. Continuous, 38% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Field operations Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 8.42 Storage 2.6 Transportation 2.40 Disk Yield change Additional cultivation Chisel from simulated N replacement 30 lb N due to lack of N credit Simulated 9.80 Total Cost $78.83 $ Scenario 4. Continuous, 52% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Field operations Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 3.82 Storage 6.95 Transportation 6.6 Disk Yield change Additional cultivation Chisel from simulated N replacement 30 lb N due to lack of N credit Simulated Total Cost $05.05 $

3 Scenario 5. NT -Bean, 38% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Field operations Yield change Additional cultivation Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 8.42 Storage 2.6 Transportation 2.40 Disk Chisel from simulated N replacement Simulated Extra herbicide Beans 2.00 Total Cost $26.23 $ Scenario 6. NT -Bean, 52% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Field operations Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 3.82 Storage 6.95 Transportation Disk Chisel Yield change from simulated N replacement Simulated Additional cultivation Extra herbicide Beans Total Cost $38.63 $

4 Scenario 7. NT Continuous, 38% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Field operations Additional cultivation Yield change Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 8.42 Storage 2.6 Transportation 2.40 Disk Chisel lb N due to lack of N credit from simulated N Simulated replacement Total Cost $66.4 $63.35 Scenario 8. NT Continuous, 52% Stover Removal Cost category Removal Field operations Additional cultivation Yield change Description allocated to Cost Source Nutrient replacement Stover harvest 3.82 Storage 6.95 Transportation 6.6 Disk Chisel lb N due to lack of N credit from simulated N -4.7 Simulated replacement Total Cost $92.36 $228.3 Note: Cost savings from simulated yield changes for scenarios -8 based on assumption of : stover to grain ratio 4

5 Table S2. Management Simulation Details for Each Scenario Baseline and Scenarios -2: Conventional till corn-bean rotation Management input Soybean Planting 5/5 5/24 Harvesting 0/4 0/7 Tillage Spring chisel plow (50% of area) 2 weeks before corn planting (Apr 5) Fall Chisel Plow (50% of area) after soybean harvest (Nov ) Offset disk plow (Apr 30) No-till Fertilizer application Nitrogen fertilizer 4/22 None Phosphorus fertilizer 4/22 P2O5 56 kg/ha (May 0) Herbicide application* Atrazine 2.2 kg/ha (May 2) -- Additional fertilizer application for stover (for corn only) Fertilizer CB No stover (scenario ) CB38 38% stover (scenario 2) CB52 52% stover (scenario 3) Anhydrous ammonia 22 kg/ha 244 kg/ha 256 kg/ha P2O5 67 kg/ha 78 kg/ha 83 kg/ha * Herbicide application is not actually modeled in either SWAT or DAYCENT for the purposes of this exercise. 5

6 Scenarios 3-4: Conventional till continuous corn rotation Management input Planting 5/5 Harvesting 0/4 Tillage Spring chisel plow (50% of area) 2 weeks before corn planting (Apr 5) Fall chisel plow (50% of area) after harvest (Nov ) Offset disk plow (Apr 30) Fertilizer application Nitrogen fertilizer 4/22 Phosphorus fertilizer 4/22 Herbicide application* Atrazine 2.2 kg/ha (May 2) Additional fertilizer application for stover Fertilizer CC No stover (scenario 5) CC38 38% stover (scenario 6) CC52 52% stover (scenario 7) Anhydrous ammonia 254 kg/ha 285 kg/ha 298 kg/ha P2O5 67 kg/ha 78 kg/ha 83 kg/ha 6

7 Scenarios 5-6: No-till corn-bean rotation Management input Soybean Planting 5/5 5/24 Harvesting 0/4 0/7 Tillage None None Fertilizer application Nitrogen fertilizer 4/22 None Phosphorus fertilizer 4/22 P2O5 56 kg/ha (May 0) Herbicide application* Atrazine 2.2 kg/ha (May 2) -- Additional fertilizer application for stover (for corn only) Fertilizer CBNT No stover (scenario 9) CBNT38 38% stover (scenario 0) CBNT52 52% stover (scenario ) Anhydrous ammonia 22 kg/ha 244 kg/ha 256 kg/ha P2O5 67 kg/ha 78 kg/ha 83 kg/ha * Herbicide application is not actually modeled in either SWAT or DAYCENT for the purposes of this exercise. 7

8 Scenarios 7-8: No-till continuous corn rotation Management input Planting 5/5 Harvesting 0/4 Tillage None Fertilizer application Nitrogen fertilizer 4/22 Phosphorus fertilizer 4/22 Herbicide application* Atrazine 2.2 kg/ha (May 2) Additional fertilizer application for stover Fertilizer CCNT No stover (scenario 3) CCNT38 38% stover (scenario 4) CCNT52 52% stover (scenario 5) Anhydrous ammonia 254 kg/ha 285 kg/ha 298 kg/ha P2O5 67 kg/ha 78 kg/ha 83 kg/ha * Herbicide application is not actually modeled in either SWAT or DAYCENT for the purposes of this exercise. 8

9 Figure S. Nitrate (NO 3 )-Cost trade-off frontier and watershed distribution of cropping practices from joint minimization of NO 3 and cost 9

10 Figure S2. Total Phosphorus(TP)-Cost trade-off frontier and watershed distribution of cropping practices from joint minimization of TP and cost 0

11 Figure S3. Total suspended sediment(tss)-cost trade-off frontier and watershed distribution of cropping practices from joint minimization of TSS and cost

12 Figure S4. Global warming potential(gwp)-cost trade-off frontier and watershed distribution of cropping practices from joint minimization of GWP and cost 2

13 Figure S5. Relationship between stover and individual pollutants along the stover-cost trade-off frontier (Figure 2) 3

14 References. Brechbill, S. C.; Tyner, W. E.; Ileleji, K. E. The Economics of Biomass Collection and Transportation and Its Supply to Indiana Cellulosic and Electric Utility Facilities. Bioenergy Research 20, 4(2), Reeling, C. J. Using carbon offsets to fund agricultural conservation practices in a working-lands setting. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, Illinois, U. o. FAST: Farm Analysis Solution Tools. (2 November), 4. Vitosh, M. L.; Johnson, J. W.; Mengel, D. B., Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations for, Soybeans, Wheat and Alfalfa. In Extension Bulletin, Michigan State University: Cain, Z. T. Examining the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Land Use Changes in the Matson Ditch Watershed. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,