Effect of geographical location and stochastic weather variation on life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from camelina in the northwestern USA

  • Seyed Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaie
  • Ganti Suryanarayana MurthyEmail author



The effect of regional factors on life cycle assessment (LCA) of camelina seed production and camelina methyl ester production was assessed in this study. While general conclusions from LCA studies point to lower environmental impacts of biofuels, it has been shown in many studies that the environmental impacts are dependent on location, production practices, and even local weather variations.


A cradle-to-farm gate and well-to-pump approaches were used to conduct the LCA. To demonstrate the impact of agro-climatic and management factors (weather condition, soil characteristics, and management practices) on the overall emissions for four different regions including Corvallis, OR, Pendleton, OR, Pullman, WA, and Sheridan, WY, field emissions were simulated using the DeNitrification-DeComposition (DNDC) model. openLCA v.1.4.2 software was used to quantify the environmental impacts of camelina seed and camelina methyl ester production.

Results and discussion

The results showed that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during camelina production in different regions vary between 49.39 and 472.51 kg CO2-eq./ha due to differences in agro-climatic and weather variations. The GHG emissions for 1 kg of camelina produced in Corvallis, Pendleton, Pullman, and Sheridan were 0.76 ± 11, 0.55 ± 10, 0.47 ± 18, and 1.26 ± 6 % kg CO2-eq., respectively. The GHG emissions for 1000 MJ of camelina biodiesel using camelina produced in Corvallis, Pendleton, Pullman, and Sheridan were 53.60 ± 5, 48.87 ± 5, 44.33 ± 7, and 78.88 ± 4 % kg CO2-eq., respectively. Other impact categories such as acidification and ecotoxicity for 1000 MJ of camelina biodiesel varied across the regions by 43 and 103 %, respectively.


It can be concluded that process-based crop models such as DNDC in conjunction with Monte Carlo analysis are helpful tools to quantitatively estimate the influence of regional factors on field emissions which consequently can provide information about the expected variability in LCA results.


Camelina biodiesel Environmental impacts Field emissions Life cycle assessment openLCA Regional factors 



This project was supported by the Formula Grant No. 2012-67009-19917 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and USDA Hatch Multistate research project at Oregon State University.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1191_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (36 kb)
Online Resource 1 (XLSX 35 kb)
11367_2016_1191_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (36 kb)
Online Resource 2 (XLSX 36 kb)
11367_2016_1191_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (36 kb)
Online Resource 3 (XLSX 35 kb)
11367_2016_1191_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (32 kb)
Online Resource 4 (XLSX 32 kb)
11367_2016_1191_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (69 kb)
Online Resource 5 (PDF 68 kb)
11367_2016_1191_MOESM6_ESM.7z (309 kb)
Online Resource 6 (7z 309 kb)


  1. Aalde H et al. (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol 4: agriculture, forestry, and other land use, Chap. 2: generic methodologies applicable to multiple land-use. Generic.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  2. Bare JC (2002) Developing a consistent decision-making framework by using the US EPA’s TRACI. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium.​ ​Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  3. Bessou C, Lehuger S, Gabrielle B, Mary B (2013) Using a crop model to account for the effects of local factors on the LCA of sugar beet ethanol in Picardy region, France. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandess A (2012) Modeling the profitability of Camelina sativa as a biofuel feedstock in Eastern Colorado. Master’s thesis in Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  5. Broch A, Hoekman SK, Unnasch S (2013) A review of variability in indirect land use change assessment and modeling in biofuel policy. Environ Sci Pol 29:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown L, Syed B, Jarvis SC, Sneath RW, Phillips VR, Goulding KWT, Li C (2002) Development and application of a mechanistic model to estimate emission of nitrous oxide from UK agriculture. Atmos Environ 36:917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S (2013) Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 368:20130122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatskikh D, Olesen JE (2007) Soil tillage enhanced CO2 and N2O emissions from loamy sand soil under spring barley. Soil Till Res 97:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dangol N, Shrestha DS, Duffield JA (2015) Life cycle analysis and production potential of camelina biodiesel in the Pacific Northwest. Trans ASABE 58:465–475Google Scholar
  10. Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ (2011) Quantifying nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils and management impacts. Understanding greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural management. American Chemical Society, Washington, pp. 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Del Grosso SJ, Halvorson AD, Parton WJ (2008) Testing DAYCENT model simulations of corn yields and nitrous oxide emissions in irrigated tillage systems in Colorado. J Environ Qual 37:1383–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietiker D, Buchmann N, Eugster W (2010) Testing the ability of the DNDC model to predict CO2 and water vapour fluxes of a Swiss cropland site. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:396–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eve M, Pape D, Flugge M, Steele R, Man D, Riley-Gilbert M, Biggar S, Eds (2014) Quantifying greenhouse gas fluxes in agriculture and forestry: methods for entity-scale inventory. Technical bulletin number 1939. Office of the chief economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang HJ, Yu GR, Cheng SL, Zhu TH, Wang YS, Yan JH, Wang M, Cao M, Zhou M (2010) Effects of multiple environmental factors on CO2 emission and CH4 uptake from old-growth forest soils. Biogeosciences 7:395–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fumoto T, Kobayashi K, Li C, Yagi K, Hasegawa T (2008) Revising a process-based biogeochemistry model (DNDC) to simulate methane emission from rice paddy fields under various residue management and fertilizer regimes. Glob Change Biol 14:382–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilhespy SL, Anthony A, Cardenas L, Chadwick D, Prado AD, Li C, Misselbrook T, Rees RM, Salas W, Sanz-Cobena A, Smith P, Tilston EM, Topp CFE, Vetter S, Yeluripati JB (2014) First 20 years of DNDC (DeNitrification DeComposition): model evolution. Ecol Model 292:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Panichelli L, Villegas JD (2008) Energy and greenhouse gas balances of biofuels: biases induced by LCA modeling choices. J Sci Ind Res (JSIR) 67:885–897Google Scholar
  18. Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L (2009) Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresource Technol 100:4919–4930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, McConkey BG, Campbell CA, Nemecek T (2015) Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J Clean Prod 104:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. González-García S, García-Rey D, Hospido A (2013) Environmental life cycle assessment for rapeseed-derived biodiesel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanna M (2005) Fuel required for field operations. Iowa State University, University Extension, Ag Decision Maker. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  22. Hastings AF, Wattenbach M, Eugster W, Li C, Buchmann N, Smith P (2010) Uncertainty propagation in soil greenhouse gas emission models: an experiment using the DNDC model and at the Oensingen cropland site. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horak J, Siska B (2006) Evaluation of N2O emissions by DNDC model for sandy loam soils of danubian lowland. J Environ Eng Landscape Manage 14:165–171Google Scholar
  24. IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds), Published: IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  25. Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M, Dauriat A, Dinkel F, Doka G, Faist Emmenegger M, Gnansounou E, Kljun N, Schleiss K, Spielmann M, Stettler C, Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. ecoinvent report No. 17, Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, CH. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  26. Kelischek N (2011) Energy budget of nitrogen use in the United States. JSRESA 1:32–35Google Scholar
  27. Keske CM, Hoag DL, Brandess A, Johnson JJ (2013) Is it economically feasible for farmers to grow their own fuel? A study of Camelina sativa produced in the western United States as an on-farm biofuel. Biomass Bioenergy 54:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim S, Dale BE (2008) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol derived from corn grain via dry milling. Bioresource Technol 99:5250–5260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim S, Dale BE (2009) Regional variations in greenhouse gas emissions of biobased products in the United States—corn-based ethanol and soybean oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krohn BJ, Fripp M (2012) A life cycle assessment of biodiesel derived from the “niche filling” energy crop camelina in the USA. Appl Energy 92:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar D, Murthy GS (2012) Life cycle assessment of energy and GHG emissions during ethanol production from grass straws using various pretreatment processes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:388–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee J, Hopmans JW, van Kessel C, King AP, Evatt KJ, Louie D, Rolston DE, Six J (2009) Tillage and seasonal emissions of CO2, N2O and NO across a seed bed and at the field scale in a Mediterranean climate. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:378–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leip A, Marchi G, Koeble R, Kempen M, Britz W, Li C (2008) Linking an economic model for European agriculture with a mechanistic model to estimate nitrogen and carbon losses from arable soils in Europe. Biogeosciences 5:73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li X, Mupondwa E (2014) Life cycle assessment of camelina oil derived biodiesel and jet fuel in the Canadian Prairies. Sci Total Environ 481:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li C, Frolking S, Frolking TA (1992) A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events: 1. Model structure and sensitivity. J Geophys Res 97:9759–9776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li C, Zhuang YH, Cao MQ, Crill PM, Dai ZH, Frolking S, Moore B, Salas W, Song WZ, Wang XK (2001) Comparing a national inventory of N2O emissions from arable lands in China developed with a process-based agro-ecosystem model to the IPCC methodology. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 60:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li H, Qiu JJ, Wang LG, Xu MY, Liu ZQ, Wang W (2012) Estimates of N2O emissions and mitigation potential from a spring maize field based on DNDC model. J Integr Agr 11:2067–2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller P, Kumar A (2013) Development of emission parameters and net energy ratio for renewable diesel from Canola and Camelina. Energy 58:426–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosier AR, Parton WJ, Valentine DW, Ojima DS, Schimel DS, Delgado JA (1996) CH4 and N2O fluxes in the Colorado shortgrass steppe: 1. Impact of landscape and nitrogen addition. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 10:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mosier AR, Delgado JA, Cochran VL, Valentine DW, Parton WJ (1997) Impact of agriculture on soil consumption of atmospheric CH4 and a comparison of CH4 and N2O flux in subarctic, temperate and tropical grasslands. Nutr Cycle Agroecosys 49:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. NASS (2014) National Agricultural Statistics Service. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  42. NCDC (2014) National Climatic Data Center. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  43. Nemecek T, Kagi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dubendorf, CH. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  44. openLCA (2015) GreenDelta. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  45. Panichelli L, Dauriat A, Gnansounou E (2009) Life cycle assessment of soybean-based biodiesel in Argentina for export. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:144–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paustian K, Six J, Elliott ET, Hunt HW (2000) Management options for reducing CO2 emissions from agricultural soils. Biogeochemistry 48:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pradhan A, Shrestha DS, McAloon A, Yee W, Haas M, Duffield JA, Shapouri H (2009) Energy life-cycle assessment of soybean biodiesel. Agricultural Economic Report Number 845 Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  48. Roy AK, Wagner-Riddle C, Deen B, Lauzon J, Bruulsema T (2014) Nitrogen application rate, timing and history effects on nitrous oxide emissions from corn (Zea mays L. Can J Soil Sci 94:563–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ryberg M, Vieira MDM, Zgola M, Bare J, Rosenbaum RK (2014) Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Technol Environ 16:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sainju UM, Jabro JD, Stevens WB (2008) Soil carbon dioxide emission and carbon content as affected by irrigation, tillage, cropping system, and nitrogen fertilization. J Environ Qual 37:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shen W, Han W, Chock D, Chai Q, Zhang A (2012) Well-to-wheels life-cycle analysis of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies in China. Energy Policy 49:296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shonnard DR, Williams L, Kalnes TN (2010) Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 3:382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sintim HY, Zheljazkov VD, Obour AK, Garcia y Garcia A, Foulke TK (2015) Influence of nitrogen and sulfur application on camelina performance under dryland conditions. Ind Crop Prod 70:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Six J, Ogle SM, Breidt FJ, Conant RT, Mosier AR, Paustian K (2004) The potential to mitigate global warming with no-tillage management is only realized when practiced in the long term. Glob Change Biol 10:155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  56. Tabatabaie SMH, Murthy GS (2016) Cradle to farm gate life cycle assessment of strawberry production in the United States. J Clean Prod 127:548–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tenuta M, Sparling B (2011) A laboratory study of soil conditions affecting emissions of nitrous oxide from packed cores subjected to freezing and thawing. Can J Soil Sci 91:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ukaew S, Beck E, Archer DW, Shonnard DR (2015) Estimation of soil carbon change from rotation cropping of rapeseed with wheat in the hydrotreated renewable jet life cycle. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:608–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ukaew S, Beck E, Meki MN, Shonnard DR (2014) Application of the roundtable on sustainable biofuels method to regional differences in nitrous oxide emissions for the rapeseed hydrotreated renewable jet life cycle. J Clean Prod 83:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. US EPA (2015) Climate impacts in the Northwest United States. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  61. Uzoma KC, Smith W, Grant B, Desjardins RL, Gao X, Hanis K, Tenuta M, Goglio P, Li C (2015) Assessing the effects of agricultural management on nitrous oxide emissions using flux measurements and the DNDC model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 206:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Velthof GL, Kuikman PJ, Oenema O (2002) Nitrous oxide emission from soils amended with crop residues. Nutr Cycle Agroecosys 62:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang L, Qiu J, Tang H, Li H, Li C, Van Ranst E (2008) Modelling soil organic carbon dynamics in the major agricultural regions of China. Geoderma 147:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang M, Huo M, Arora S (2011) Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context. Energy Policy 39:5726–5736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. World Bank (2012) Economic and sector work. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils (no. 67395-GLB). The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  66. World Bank (2015) Commodity price. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  67. Wysocki DJ, Chastain TG, Schillinger WF, Guyd SO, Karow RS (2013) Camelina: seed yield response to applied nitrogen and sulfur. Field Crop Res 145:60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zaher U, Stöckle C, Painter K, Higgins S (2013) Life cycle assessment of the potential carbon credit from no-and reduced tillage winter wheat-based cropping systems in Eastern Washington State. Agric Syst 122:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyed Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaie
    • 1
  • Ganti Suryanarayana Murthy
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Biological and Ecological Engineering DepartmentOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations