MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102915793 · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12058

A spatial model of climate change effects on yields and break‐even prices of switchgrass and miscanthus in Ontario, Canada

2013· article· en· W2102915793 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaron V. De Laporte, Alfons Weersink, Daniel W. McKenney

Bibliographic record

VenueGCB Bioenergy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscanthusEnergy cropGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceClimate changeBioenergyPanicum virgatumAgronomyBiomass (ecology)AgroforestryTonneAgricultureGlobal warmingBiofuelGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Concerns over global climate change have led many jurisdictions to implement strategies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas levels. One example is the replacement of coal with dedicated energy crops, such as switchgrass and miscanthus. The yields and costs of these potentially valuable bio‐energy crops have been evaluated in only a few cases, and previous studies have not focused on climate change effects. This article assesses the potential yields and costs of growing switchgrass and miscanthus on the agricultural land base in Ontario, Canada, under different climate assumptions, using a GIS‐based integrated biophysical and economic simulation model. The model shows that miscanthus has a mean peak yield that is 88.5% (29.6 t ha−1 compared with 15.7 t ha−1) higher and a mean farm gate break‐even price that is 25.9% ($58.20 per tonne compared with $73.29 per tonne) lower than switchgrass. The impact of climate change on the yield and break‐even price of switchgrass and miscanthus is dependent upon the climate model. CGCM3.1 predicts that mean peak yields of switchgrass and miscanthus could drop by 17.8% and 14.9%, whereas CCSM3.0 predicts that mean yields could increase to 41.4% and 44.9%, from 2071 to 2100, in the A2 climate scenario respectively. Both crops show promise as biomass sources for bio‐energy production, but a changing global climate, along with cultivar and planting technology developments, could affect crop choices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGCB BioenergySame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207