Robert C. Hendricks

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Dennis M. Bushnell

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Atmospheric and Soil Carbon and Halophytes

NASA/TM—2011-217132

September 2011
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Robert C. Hendricks

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Dennis M. Bushnell

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Atmospheric and Soil Carbon and Halophytes

NASA/TM—2011-217132

September 2011

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 1 

Atmospheric and Soil Carbon and Halophytes

Robert C. Hendricks

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Dennis M. Bushnell 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681 

Abstract 

World population is anticipated to grow 40% within 40–50 years (2008 baseline) with unprecedented demands 

for energy, food, freshwater, and clean environments. At 43% of the total landmass, exploiting the Earth’s arid 

and semi-arid lands becomes a matter of necessity. Compared with glycophyte agriculture, we view seawater 

and brackish water halophyte saline agriculture in its nascent stage and see the need to explore and farm on a 

massive scale. Halophyte farming costs should be the same as glycophyte cellulosic biomass farming; 

processing for cellulosic matter should also be applicable. Halophyte life cycle analyses (LCA) within the 

fueling debate are incomplete, yet glycophyte LCA favors biomass fueling. The Biomass Revolution is in 

progress. The capacity, cost, and logistics required for biomass replacement of petroleum-based fuels, however, 

will require all feedstock sources and regional cooperative productivity, technical investments, and both the 

participation and cooperation of the American farmer and global farm community. 

Introduction 

We are dealing with opportunities of enormous proportions driven by conflicts between energy, food, and 

freshwater demands (and shortages); population growth; and climatic changes. The opportunity has arrived to 

use what we now do not use: salt water, wastelands, and a wholly different plant genus—halophytes. Halophytes 

have the capacity—a wholly new capacity not included in previous biomass studies or current agricultural 

programs—to deal directly with these conflicts at reasonable cost (similar to cellulosic biomass) and could offset 

or replace $70/bbl barrel crude oil. Technologically, halophyte agriculture is just more farming, utilizing 

resources that do not compete with the food chain or freshwater resources. 

Soils, Water, and Soil Carbon 

Worldwide, soil formation is estimated at 1 mt/ha-yr and losses are 5–30 mt/ha-yr, resulting in 75109 mt/yr 

topsoil loss at a cost of nearly $0.51012/yr. Further, it requires 100–2500 years to naturally form 25 mm of topsoil 

(Ref. 1). Thus soils are fast becoming a non-renewable resource. Further, the availability of freshwater, while 

considered a renewable resource, is rapidly reaching a peak, even while desalination is progressing (Ref. 2); in 

40–50 years (2010 baseline) over half will be used in the cities and rejected as waste or brackish (Ref. 3). The 

continuous issues of freshwater rights and availability required for human survival and development of alternate 

energy sources spawn continuously conflict, growth limits, as well as public and private court fights; this will 

only escalate. 

For organic soils characteristic of glycophyte crop productivity (wheat, corn, soybeans, rice), carbon is the 

basic ingredient, typically 57% by weight, and is lost through tillage and erosion. Maintaining and restoring soil 

biomass carbon through no-till production offsets carbon emissions, enhances soil quality and productivity, and 

reduces wind and water erosion: all qualify for clean development mechanism credits (CDMCs). But no-till 

farming also requires herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides to control weeds, pathogens, and insects 

(Refs. 4 and 5)—all of which can become pollutants. Is natural plant (and rudiment animal) methane, NOx, 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 2 

methylbromide release acceptable and artificial no-till applications not? or to what extent (Ref. 5)? For that 

matter, active human CO2 release is 450 L/day (0.9 kg/day), with 6.6 billion inhabitants (humans release over 

2 billion tonnes CO2 out of a world total of 29 billion mt), or close to 7% anthropogenic emissions. 

Halophytes and Growth Demands 

The anticipated population growth of 40% within 40–50 years (2008 baseline) will result in proportional 

increases in demands for energy, food, freshwater, and clean environments. Exploiting the Earth’s arid and semiarid lands—43% of the total landmass—thus becomes a matter of necessity. The majority of desert soils are 

saline, but with sufficient nonsaline water can be reclaimed. Halophytes grown with brackish waters require 

about the same volume of water as conventionally irrigated crops. Seawater irrigation requirements are higher to 

control salt build-up in the root areas requiring adequate as well as well planned and executed irrigation and 

drainage (Ref. 6). 

With 50% of the population residing within 50 km of a shoreline, halophytes (which thrive in salt water) and 

salt-tolerant plants seem natural for crop selection (generically termed “salt tolerant”). One of several thousand 

is Salicornia bigelovii. Hodges (Ref. 7) has established a closed-cycle system (Seawater Foundation Farms) to 

conserve freshwater, arable land, provide food, and clean the environment. Salicornia (SOS-7, 7th generation) 

provides a total biomass of (~20 mt/ha): straw, 10 mt/ha; salt (ash), 7.2 mt/ha; and oilseed, 2.2 mt/ha 

(comprising oil, 0.6 mt/ha (73% linoleic) and meal (1.6 mt/ha). Part of the straw is used to rebuild soils, part for 

construction materials (including bioplastics), and part for fuels. The algae, shrimp, and tilapia farms provide 

sources of food and nutrients with plant nutrients from wastes. Here it is best to remember that developing 

higher hydrocarbons in more complex organisms is energy intensive, and unless the byproducts warrant or are 

cost effective, it is best to harvest lower-developed organisms. Air is cleaned as it is cycled though the soil, 

which removes contaminants; freshwater lenses provide ponds; marshes provide for wildlife; and the salt is a 

byproduct of value. Further, mangroves offer costal restoration and long-term carbon storage; one species, 

Avicenia marina, is tolerant to 4.5% saline and 50 °C. Balancing the entire community requires a concerted effort. 

Halophytes Production Costs.—Based on typical farming costs, salicornia production costs from initial 

land preparation (prorated over 10 years) to harvesting, bailing, and delivery to edge of field range from $44 to 

$53 per dry tonne ($175 to $211 per tonne carbon) for brackish and seawater irrigation, respectively. By 

comparison, glycophyte crops range from $30 to $40 per dry tonne. Halophytes can be grown on land that has 

not been forested or farmed, but glycophytes must be grown on arable land (Ref. 6). 

Fossil fuel requirement (see note b, Table 1b) to deliver 1 tonne of halophyte carbon to edge of field 225 kgfuel brackish and 300 kg-fuel saltwater irrigated fields, respectively. Other crops less dependent on irrigation 

require 130 to 180 kg/tonne-carbon, and corn grown as an energy crop requires 330 to 970 kg/tonne-carbon 

(Ref. 6). These cost and fuel requirements are summarized in Tables 1a and b. 

TABLE 1A.—COMPARATIVE COSTS AND FOSSIL FUEL REQUIREMENTS 

FOR HALOPHYTES AND GLYCOPHYTES 

Expense Water 

Fresh Brackish Sea 

Production Costs [US $(1990)/mt] 

Halophyte Dry --------- 44 53 

Carbon --------- 175 211 

Glycophyte Conventional 30–40 ---- ---- 

Fossil Fuel Required [ kg/mt-carbon] 

Halophyte Salicornia --------- 25 300 

Glycophyte Conventional 130–180 ---- ---- 

Corn to fuel 300–970 ---- ---- 

 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 3 

TABLE 1B.—CARBON BALANCE ESTIMATES BASED ON DATA FROM 

DR. CARL HODGES (REF. 8) AND PROF. ED GLENN (REF. 9)

Salicornia crop water pumpinga 1.8 m-H2O/ha = 18000 m3

-H2O/crop 

Fossil fuel required 3.8 m3-H2O/min requires 300 L-fuel/ha = 225kg/ha 

Fuel carbon content 85% C fuel  191 kg-C/ha 191 kg-C/ha 

Salicornia oil seed 2000 kg-oil seed/ha @30% seed-oil  600 kg-oil/ha 5100 kg-C/ha 

Salicornia straw returned to soil (cellulose) 20 mt/ha @70% cellulose @ 40% C  5600 kg-C/ha 5600 kg-C/ha 

–Optimistic Straw C:N @32:1 and humus C:N @8:1 

 25% C-sequestration or 1400 kg-C/ha 

1400 kg-C/ha 

–Conservative @20%  1120 kg-C/ha 

Salicornia roots (Hodges) 700 kg-C /ha @30%  210 kg-C/ha 210 kg-C/ha 

Table Summary 

Fossil fuel consumed 0.191 mt-C/ha 

Seed oil produced ( and consumed) 0.51 mt-C/ha 

Soil/root sequestration 1.3–1.6 mt-C/ha 

Net carbon balanceb,c 0.6–0.9 mt-C/ha a

Assume 5-m pumping head (conventional fueled pump). 

b

The wastelands we are advocating are mostly in very sunny regions. This means that we can use solar-thermal/PV 

systems for pumping energy, as well as the halophyte biomass to produce fuel for tractors and associated power 

equipment via combustion and Sterling cycles or conversion of electrical energy. Future systems WILL NOT NEED TO 

USE FOSSIL ANYTHING to raise halophytes. 

c

25% of the carbon in the atmosphere originates from deforestation, which is a glycophyte issue. We do not need to do 

this for halophytes, a major benefit. The other major atmospheric carbon sources: coal 26%, oil 31%, and natural gas 15% 

(Ref. 10). 

With the perennial seashore mallow, different production approaches are being investigated (Ref. 11), such 

as nutrient applications, watering (natural, and irrigation); harvesting direct and swathing combining; no-till 

seeding with pre-emergent application and fertilizer regimens. While the 3-acre, 4-year stand has not been 

replanted in the past 4 years, some reseeding occurs from dropping and combine straw residuals. This past year, 

the pre-emergent was sprayed and a light amount of fertilizer spun on. Thus far, the stand has become thicker as 

stems per crown have increased each year, and production costs are being tracked. 

Economic Analysis.—Whether halophytes such as salicornia (annual) or seashoremallow (perennial), 

biomass crop economics will be largely dependent upon the quantity and value of multiple products derived from 

the crop relative to the cost of their production. 

Currently, seashore mallow products include 

1. Oil, meal, and mucilage from the seed 

2. Two types of fibers from the stems for paper or ethanol (and potentially bioplastics) 

3. Carbon storage in the perennial living root systems and humus in the soils. 

With a large number of products the profitability of the crop would not bring as much as a crop with only one 

or two uses when various commodity prices changed, resulting in an overall lower cost of production (Ref. 11). 

Seawater Foundation has not yet provided their economic analysis delayed by changes in production 

management and product values (Ref. 8). 

To date we do not have an economic analysis of the perennial seashore mallow, yet an analysis will follow 

this year’s harvest of a 3-acre 4-year stand. 

Halophytes Carbon Cycle and CDMCs 

There are an abundance of life cycle analysis (LCA) studies for glycophyte crops such as those cited in 

Figures 1(a) and (b), where a negative CO2 equivalent implies CO2 emission/sequestration that is beneficial to 

climate in terms of greenhouse has (GHG) emissions. LCAs are involved with large changes in CO2 equivalent 

attributed to changes in land use such as deforestation, which leads to a large CO2 imbalance. 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 4 

Figure 1a.—Tons (t) of CO2 equivalent per hectare per year for biofuels for 

glycophite agriculture based on life cycle analysis method similar to their 

fossil fuel counterparts; degr. is degraded; nat., natural; ETBE, ethyl 

tertiary-butyl ether; BTL, biomass-to-liquid; and SRF, solid recovered fuel 

(from Ref. 12). 

Figure 1b.—Alternate aviation fueling life cycle analysis greenhouse gas 

emissions for glycophyte agricultural crops; HRJ is hydrogenated renewable jet 

fuel; LUC, land use change; FT, Fischer-Tropsch; ULS, ultralow sulfur; WWT, 

waste water treatment; and CCS, carbon capture and storage (Figure B-17 in 

(Ref. 13)). 

 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 5 

Figure 2.—Salicornia seed-oil fuel atmospheric and soil 

carbon balance (Ref. 7). 

These analyses generally favor biomass fueling except for palm, although sustainable palm is competitive 

with sugar cane, yet not considered by LCA analysts. Still, most glycophyte biomass fuel sources compete 

directly with our food supply, and all compete for freshwater resources. 

There are very few LCAs for halophytes. Dr. Carl Hodges (Ref. 14) created the atmospheric carbon balance 

sketch in Figure 2 (see also (Ref. 15)), which illustrates a system atmospheric carbon benefit ratio (C-fuel 

burn/C-removed and stored) and for SeaForest fuel, is 1/4; the biofuel removes and stores 4 times more carbon 

than is released when burned as a fuel (see notes 1 and 2, Table 1b). 

Considering salicornia along with the pumping requirements and sequestering the straw-carbon in the soil, 

Prof. Ed Glenn at U. of Arizona provides the C-balance shown in Table 1b. 

For the perennial seashore mallow, nearly half of the plant carbon is stored in the root system. The overall 

carbon balance is under consideration (Ref. 11). 

It is very important to realize that the Seawater Foundation Farms life cycle analysis (Ref. 14) addresses 

social, economic, conservation, growth, and development issues in addition to climatic and environmental issues 

applicable to globally diverse localities. Such LCA brings new meaning to life cycle analysis not considered in 

fueling debates, yet more aligned with those advocated and to be addressed within the Millennium Institute 

(Ref. 16) and perhaps World Growth (Ref. 17) organizations. 

Further studies are being conducted under the FAA-MIT PARTNER program with Dr. James I. Hileman on 

glycophyte LCA (Ref. 18) with potential forthcoming work on halophyte salicornia. The results of this study are 

not publically available in 2009. 

Biomass Revolution 

The issue of capacity for replacing petroleum per se, not just for aircraft fueling, appears to require ALL 

economically reasonable biomass sources, especially in the shorter term before algae costs come down and 

cyano-bacteria emerges from the laboratory stage. The productivity of algae and cyano-bacteria, IF their 

production and logistics costs can be brought down (or oil prices escalate drastically), practically ensures their 

place as the eventual biomass/biofuel sources. In the shorter term, ALL sources, cellulosic glycophytes as 

reasonable, halophytes, wastes, and weeds (all biomass) will be required to achieve capacity, and these will most 

likely be locally diverse, by necessity, as universal production is not a reality. 

 In the longer term halophytes will be used for food (as they are in parts of India today) simply because of the 

rapidly emerging shortages of sweet water, of which around 68% goes to agriculture. Shifting to halophytes for 

food would return much of this freshwater for direct human use. With the use of the 97% of the Earth’s water 

(which is salty) and utilization of wastelands (about 44% of the Earth’s land mass), the potential capacity of 

halophytes is massive, at costs potentials comparable to cellulosic glycophytes; it is just more farming. 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 6 

Halophyte farming is in a nascent stage, and there are few-to-no real numbers for this approach, which can be 

relied upon for moving forward. Real work and development is required to obtain agricultural objectives. Life is 

just not that easy: a lot of effort is required. We need investments in technology and the American farmer (as 

well as farmers throughout the world), whose ingenuity and hard work are required to make it happen. 

There are also the major opportunities proffered by genomics and synthetic biology to (1) greatly increase 

growth rates, (2) provide much more root CO2 sequestration, (3) tailor biomass for specific processing 

approaches such as, utilize N2 out of the atmosphere (soy beans, alfalfa), become “salt loving,” not just salt 

tolerant, and (4) utilize less nutrients to achieve product are just a few examples. This is what the Biomass 

Revolution is all about. Also, after fuel extraction, properly managed residue pyrolysis could provide electrical 

base load to back up wind and solar power systems, which also need to be included in the economic models 

(assume they are, but if not, need to be). 

Trying to “pick a winner” for biomass biofuels in the shorter term is not particularly productive, except that 

such studies should indicate shortfalls for various approaches in terms of costs and capacity so that these issues 

can be worked and improved. In short, we need a BIG Summation Sign ∑ for adding together all potential 

sources with the prime metrics being cost and capacity—current and potential—including “economies of scale.” 

Summary

World population is anticipated to grow 40% within 40–50 years (2008 baseline) with unprecedented 

demands for energy, food, freshwater, and clean environments. Agricultural topsoil and soil carbon are key 

ingredients in plant productivity, yet worldwide, 75 billion metric tons of soil are lost annually and considered a 

nonrenewable natural resource. Exploiting the Earth’s arid and semi-arid lands at 43% of the total landmass 

becomes a matter of necessity. 

Basically, we view seawater and brackish water halophyte farming as follows: 

1. According to the National Research Council (NRC) report (Ref. 19) India and others have been growing 

halophytes for a long time, yet massive production requires significant work as saline agriculture is in its a nascent 

stage. 

2. Among the 10,000 halophytes are many, even before genomics, that are as productive as glycophytes and 

we need to explore and farm the most productive ones qualifying for clean development mechanism or system 

credits. 

3. THEREFORE: 

Halophyte costs etc. should be exactly the same as glycophyte/cellulosic biomass farming/processing (these 

are known), except for reduced real estate taxes (using wastelands) and the need for the wastelands to be near a 

source of brackish or salt water, either open or underground. Since ocean water has 80% of the nutrients, 

fertilizer costs should be reduced with respect to glycophytes. Then there is the genomic approach using the 

soybean or alfalfa system of atmospheric N2 uptake to save use of nitrogen fertilizer. All the processing for 

cellulosic matter that is rapidly developing and multiferous should be applicable. 

4. Life cycle analysis (LCA) within the fueling debate are incomplete. In addition to environmental issues, 

such analyses need to address social, economic, conservation, climatic, growth, and development issues 

applicable to globally diverse localities. 

5. The Biomass Revolution is in progress, but the capacity, cost, and logistics required for biomass 

replacement of petroleum-based fuels will require all feedstock sources and regional cooperative productivity, 

technical investments along with the American farmer and global farm community. 

References 

1. Myers, N., and Kent, J., 2005, The New GAIA Atlas of Planet Management, Octopus Publishing Group, 

London, UK. 

2. Fahey, J., 2009, “Making Sweet Water From (Almost) Perpetual Motion,” Forbes Magazine, vol. 184, 

pp. 94–97. 
NASA/TM—2011-217132 7 

3. Gleick, P.H., 2009, “The World’s Water 2008–2009.” The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Ch. 1, 

Peak Water and Data Table 19, Water Content of Things, pp. 335–338. 

4. Sundermeier, A., Reeder, R., and Lal, R., 2005, “Soil Carbon Sequestration—Fundamentals,” Extension 

Fact Sheet AEX–510–05, The Ohio State University Extension, Columbus, OH. 

5. Gressel, J., 2009, “Why Transgenics Are Imperative for Biofuel Crops,” NASA/OAI Seminar, Based on 

Gressel, J., 2008, Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop Biodiversity, Johns-Hopkins University 

Press, Baltimore, MD. 

6. Glenn, E.P., Hodges, C.N., Lieth, H., Pielke, R., and Pitelka, L., 1992, “Growing Halophytes to Remove 

Carbon From the Atmosphere,” Environment, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 40–43. 

7. Hodges, C.N., 1990, “Environmental Technologies: Ordering Biological Development,” Journal of Social 

and Biological Structures, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 83–92. 

8. Hodges, C., 2009, Seawater Foundation, private communication. 

9. Glenn, E.P., 2009, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, private communication. 

10. Dembo, R., 2009, “Keynote Address BCNET Green Technologies for Research and Learning,” 

Zerofootprint, Toronto, Canada. http://www.zerofootprint.net/ 

11. Gallagher, J., 2009, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, private communication. jackg@UDel.Edu. 

12. Reinhardt, G.A., Rettenmairer, N., and Koppen, S., 2008, “How Sustainable Are Biofuels for 

Transportation?” Bioenergy. Challenges and Opportunities, Proceedings of International Conference and 

Exhibition on Bioenergy, Guimaraes, Portugal. 

13. GIACC: Group on International Aviation and Climate Change, 2009, “Agenda Item 2: Review of Aviation 

Emissions Related Activities Within ICAO and Internationally: U.S. Fuel Trend Analysis and Comparison 

to GIACC/4–IP/1,” GIACC Fourth Meeting, GIACC/4–IP/12, Montreal, Canada. 

http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj28/fueltrend-analy.pdf 

14. The Seawater Foundation, 2007, “The Seawater Foundation,” http://www.seawaterfoundation.org/ 

15. Hendricks, R.C., 2008, “Potential Carbon Negative Commercial Aviation Through Land Management” 

ISROMAC12–2008–20242, 12th International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of 

Rotating Machinery, Honolulu, HI. 

16. Millenium Institute, 2010, “Millenium Institute: a sustainable future for Earth is possible,” 

http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/ 

17. World Growth, 2007–2010, “World Growth,” http://www.worldgrowth.org/ 

18. Hileman, J.I., Ortiz, D., Bartis, J., Wong, H.M., Donohoo, P.E., Weiss, M.A., and Waitz, I.A., 2009, “Near 

Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels,” Joint PARTNER-RAND Report No. TR–554, PARTNERCOE–

2009–001. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR554/. 

19. Anon, 1990, “Saline Agriculture, Salt-Tolerant Plants for Developing Countries, National Research Council, 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1489&page=R1 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-09-2011 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Atmospheric and Soil Carbon and Halophytes 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Hendricks, Robert, C.; Bushnell, Dennis, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 561581.02.08.03.16.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17204-2 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2011-217132 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 03, 05, 07, and 44 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

World population is anticipated to grow 40% within 40-50 years (2008 baseline) with unprecedented demands for energy, food, freshwater, 

and clean environments. At 43% of the total landmass, exploiting the Earth’s arid and semi-arid lands becomes a matter of necessity. 

Compared with glycophyte agriculture, we view seawater and brackish water halophyte saline agriculture in its nascent stage and see the 

need to explore and farm on a massive scale. Halophyte farming costs should be the same as glycophyte cellulosic biomass farming; 

processing for cellulosic matter should also be applicable. Halophyte life cycle analyses (LCA) within the fueling debate are incomplete, yet 

glycophyte LCA favors biomass fueling. The Biomass Revolution is in progress. The capacity, cost, and logistics required for biomass 

replacement of petroleum-based fuels, however, will require all feedstock sources and regional cooperative productivity, technical 

investments, and both the participation and cooperation of the American farmer and global farm community. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Synthetic fuels; Biomass; Fuels; Engines; Environment 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

13 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18