1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293

FROM: EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

SUBJECT: Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and Transport 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

There are a number of spreadsheets on the docket containing data and calculations used in the analysis 

of greenhouse gases attributable to the production and transport of jatropha oil for biofuel. This 

memorandum provides additional explanation of the key assumptions used in our calculations and 

modeling.

Cultivation and Harvesting

Seed Yields and Oil Content 

For the purposes of our analysis, we project that in 2022, on average, one hectare of jatropha grown in 

southern Mexico (specifically Yucatan, Oaxaca and Chiapas states) will yield five tonnes of dry seeds per 

year, while one hectare in Brazil will yield four tonnes per year. For Mexico, five tonnes per hectare 

reflects a middle to upper bound estimate of recorded yields in the literature, but is conservative 

compared to current yields reported in the GCEH petition. Table 1 summarizes Mexican jatropha yields 

reported in literature reviewed by EPA, with comments on each study.

Table 1. Mexico Dry Seed Yield Studies (tonnes per hectare per year)

Study Yield Comments

Almeida et al. (2011) 4.3 Direct observations and literature collected covering 

Mexico, Brazil, India, and Tanzania. Observations are 

from “jatropha entrepreneurs” so production scale is 

uncertain.

Achten & Verchot (2011)/ 

Skutsch et al. (2011)

3.7 to 11 Achten & Verchot (2011) Mexico values are based on 

those reported by Skutsch (2011) which are in turn 

based Mexican government and farmer expectations 

and do not reflect observed data.

Achten et al. (2008) 5 Nicaragua from personal communication.

4 Paraguay from personal communication.

Trabucco et al. (2010) 1.5 to 5 Estimated productivity of naturally occurring jatropha 

as a function of environmental and climate factors, 

yield range for Southern Mexico only. Yields in other 

regions are lower.
2

There are fewer recorded observed yields in northeastern Brazil;1however, based on environmental 

and climate characteristics as modeled by Trabucco et al. (2010), we expect jatropha yield in this region 

will be somewhat lower than yields in southern Mexico. Table 2 summarizes Brazil jatropha yields 

reported in literature reviewed by EPA, with comments for each study.

Table 2. Brazil Dry Seed Yield Studies

Study Yield (t/ha/yr) Comments

Bailis & Baka (2010) 2 to 6 Midpoint based on model runs by Lapola et al. (2009) 

and should not be considered separate data point. High 

and low estimates added arbitrarily for sensitivity 

analysis, not based on observed data.

Lapola et al. (2010a) 3.7 Models runs of smallholder farms in NE Brazil

Trabucco et al. (2010) 2.5 to 3.5 Estimated productivity of naturally occurring jatropha 

as a function of environmental and climate factors, 

yield range for NE Brazil only. Yields in other regions are 

lower.

Our projections for average jatropha seed yields in Mexico and Brazil in the year 2022 are conservative 

because intensive jatropha cultivation is relatively new, with lots of room for potential advances through 

genetics, breeding and improved agronomic practices. 

For jatropha grown in Mexico and Brazil in 2022 we project dry seed oil content of 35 percent by mass. 

This value is within the range of current values reported in the literature reviewed by EPA, and is also 

similar to the values reported in the GCEH petition. (See Table 2-3 in the literature review conducted for 

this notice, which summarizes values reported in the literature.) We view 35 percent seed oil content as 

a conservative projection for 2022 given the potential for increases through advances in breeding, 

genetics and crop management.

Preparation and Planting 

Chemical and energy inputs are required when jatropha is first planted. There is limited information 

available on the inputs and energy requirements for preparation and planting of jatropha. We used 

values from the GCEH petition for inputs of diesel and fertilizers. Based on information in Bailis and 

Baka (2010), we also assumed that jatropha production in Brazil would require the addition of two 

tonnes per hectare of agricultural lime, as the soils in Brazil are highly acidic. However, based on 

information provided by GCEH in support of their petition, soils in Mexico would not require lime 

addition. We used a weighted average of the planting areas in Mexico and Brazil to calculate an average 

lime addition of 1.11 tonnes per hectare.

There is a range of values found in the literature on the lifetime of typical jatropha plantations. For 

example, Achten et al. (2008) and Achten et al. (2010) suggest a jatropha lifetime of 30-50 years, 

 

1

Specifically the regions of Brazil that encompasses the following provinces: Alagoas, Bahia, Ceara, Maranhao, 

Paraiba, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Tocantins
3

whereas Bailis and Baka (2010) use lifetimes of 20 and 30 years for their lifecycle analysis. Our analysis 

assumes that jatropha has a 20 year crop cycle, meaning that every 20 years the existing jatropha plants 

are removed and the crop is replanted. Accordingly, our analysis assumes the GHG emissions associated 

with preparation and planting occur every 20 years. A lifetime of 20 years is a conservative estimate, 

because it is at the low end of the range reported in the literature, and emissions from preparation and 

planting will occur more frequently than if we assumed a longer replanting cycle. 

Annual Inputs and Harvesting 

In addition to emissions associated with preparation, planting and replanting, growing and harvesting 

jatropha requires crop inputs and energy use on an annual basis. 

Fertilizer and Pesticide Inputs

We assumed that annual fertilizer inputs will have to at least make up for nutrients lost from harvesting 

jatropha fruits. To determine the nutrients lost through removal of jatropha fruits, we used data from 

Bailis and Baka (2010), who also used this approach in their lifecycle analysis.2 Bailis and Baka present 

data on the fertilizer requirements for a range of seed yields. We interpolated these data to calculate 

the nutrients required for our assumed seed yields. 

To replace the nutrients lost through fruit removal we assumed that husks and seedcake will be applied 

to the fields as a source of nutrients, as this is an approach commonly reported in the literature and the 

GCEH petition. To calculate the nutrients added from these sources, we used the nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and potassium contents of different parts of the jatropha plant presented by Reinhardt et al. (2008).3 

For the seedcake, we used data from the GCEH petition and the literature review to determine the 

percent shells, seedcake, and residual oil present in the seedcake.

4

 We used a weighted average of the 

nutrient content of each of these components to calculate the nutrient content of the seedcake. We 

found that an additional 9.3 kg/ha of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer would need to be added to make up 

for nutrients lost from fruit harvesting. As a conservative estimate, we assumed that 9.3 kg/ha of 

potassium and phosphorus fertilizers would be added as well, even though this would replace more 

potassium and phosphorus than is lost through fruit harvesting. Details about these calculations can be 

found in the spreadsheets posted on the docket.

5

 

For pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides, we used values from Bailis and Baka (2010). These value are 

based on surveys of jatropha growers in Brazil. According to the surveys, two of six growers used 

herbicide, one used pesticide, and one used nematicides. These growers typically applied these 

chemicals during the first 2-3 years of jatropha growth. As a conservative estimate, we assumed that 

herbicides, pesticides, and nematicides would be used in the amounts reported by the growers that 

used these chemicals. The emissions from pesticides, herbicides and insecticides are very small 

compared to the other GHG sources we evaluated.

 

2

See Table S7 in Bailis and Baka 2010.

3

See Table 2-10 in Reinhardt et al. (2008)

4

See “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0293.

5

See “Jatropha Lifecycle Oil Production and Transport GHG Calculations” spreadsheet on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0293.
4

Energy Use

We used inputs of diesel and electricity provided by the GCEH petition. The electricity value used is a 

conservative/large estimate relative to other values in the literature, such as Fan et al. (2012), and the 

diesel value is within the range of values in the literature. For example, Bailis and Baka (2010) assumed 

that jatropha fruit harvest would be manual, and that 5 L of diesel per hectare would be needed for 

mowing. On the other hand, Reinhardt et al. (2008) assumed that 55-141 L of diesel per hectare would 

be needed for jatropha cultivation, depending on the yield. 

Nitrous Oxide Emissions

Equations for direct and indirect emissions from fertilizer and crop residues (including husks, seedcake, 

and above and below ground residue from trees that are removed at the end of a crop cycle) are from 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Limited data are available on the nitrogen content of 

the husks, seedcake, and tree residue. Therefore, we used the best data available to us. The nitrogen 

content of the husks and seedcake are from Reinhardt et al. (2008).

6

 According to Stratton et al. (2010), 

these data are based on a 30-hectare test plot in India. The nitrogen content of the above and below 

ground residue is from Jongschaap et al. (2007), which compiled data from three sources.

7

 

To calculate the amount of above ground residue, we used data from Bailis and Baka (2010) on the 

relationship between the above ground residue (excluding leaves) and the yield.8 To this, we added the 

biomass from leaves, based on the ratio of leaf biomass to stem and branch biomass from Reinhardt et 

al. (2008).9 The below ground residue was calculated based on the ratio of below ground residue to 

above ground biomass in Reinhardt et al. (2008).10 For more information on these calculations, see the 

“Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG Calculations” spreadsheets posted on the docket for this 

notice.

Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions

Jatropha Biomass Carbon Stocks 

We estimated the average amount of biomass carbon sequestered by jatropha plantations in southern 

Mexico and northeastern Brazil, projected out to 2022. Although there is relatively little data on 

jatropha plantations compared to other crops, jatropha biomass carbon stocks were estimated using 

available scientific information from the literature. Reinhardt et al. measured basic data about jatropha 

plants, such as root to shoot ratios and biomass carbon content. Bailis and Baka used the data from 

Reinhardt et al. to estimate biomass carbon stocks for different jatropha yield scenarios. Using our 

projected jatropha yields of 5 and 4 tonnes per hectare per year for Mexico and Brazil respectively, we 

used the Bailis and Baka approach to estimate average biomass carbon stocks of 8.9 and 8.1 tonnes per 

hectare for ten year old jatropha plantations in Mexico and Brazil, respectively. Per the methodology 

developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, we translated these estimates into average biomass carbon 

stocks over 30 years. Assuming linear growth rates, a 20 year replanting cycle and pruning of any 

 

6

See Table 2-10 in Reinhardt et al. (2008)

7

See “Wood” and “Root” values in Table 3 in Jongschaap et al. (2007)

8

See Table S5 in Bailis and Baka (2010)

9

See Table 2-8 in Reinhardt et al. (2008)

10 See Table 2-7 in Reinhardt et al. (2008)
5

growth after 10 years to ensure fruit accessibility, we estimated average jatropha plantation biomass 

carbon stocks over 30 years to be 6.9 and 6.3 tonnes per hectare for Mexico and Brazil respectively.

EPA’s estimates for jatropha biomass carbon stocks are within the range of estimates in the literature 

for jatropha plantations in these regions. For comparison, Skutsch et al. measured 70 jatropha plants in 

Mexico and categorized them into two groups: fast growing and moderate growing, the difference 

between these relating to the soil conditions where the plants were found. Assuming linear growth 

rates and a planting density of 1,600 trees per hectare they estimated carbon stocks of 9.1 and 3.6 

tonnes per hectare at ten years for fast and moderate growing plants, respectively. Skutsch et al. 

assumed a 20 year planting cycle, and that any growth after 10 years would be pruned out to ensure 

that fruits are accessible for harvesting, implying that the biomass carbon stocks would stay constant for 

stands from 10 to 20 years of age. The GCEH petition estimated the average biomass carbon stocks for 

their jatropha plantations in Mexico to be approximately 7 tonnes per hectare. Bailis and Baka used 

data on jatropha seed yields in combination with root to shoot ratios measured by Reinhardt et al. 

(2008) to estimate biomass carbon stocks for mature jatropha plantations in Brazil. Assuming 1,250 

jatropha plants per hectare, they estimated 5-9 tonnes of biomass carbon per hectare for high yield and 

low yield jatropha plants respectively. Bailis and McCarthy found that jatropha plantations in Brazil and 

India store 7.3-9.1 tonnes of carbon per hectare in above ground biomass and litter when managed with 

regular pruning. 

There are other studies in the literature that report significantly lower biomass carbon stocks for 

jatropha plantations. However, these studies looked at lower yielding jatropha production systems 

grown on less fertile land and/or using significantly lower crop inputs (e.g., fertilizer, irrigation). 

Typically, these studies also looked at jatropha production in regions such as India, Africa and Southeast 

Asia that did not factor into our assessment. We did not factor these studies into our assessment of 

jatropha biomass carbon stocks, because we focused our analysis on higher yielding, intensively 

managed plantations grown on traditional agricultural land in Mexico and Brazil.

Jatropha Grown on Unused Grassland Scenario 

As explained in the notice, the first main scenario that we evaluated considers jatropha grown on 

otherwise unused grasslands in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil. Mexico and Brazil grassland 

carbon stocks were estimated for the March 2010 RFS rule.11 Per Harris et al. (2009), above- and 

belowground carbon stocks for grassland in Brazil were estimated to be 10.9 tonnes of carbon per 

hectare based on the average value reported in the literature for campo limpo (pure grassland).

To maintain a consistent global approach, for all countries except Brazil, carbon stocks in grasslands 

were estimated based on default biomass values given in Table 6.4 of the IPCC AFOLU Guidelines. These 

default values are presented by ecological zone. Therefore, grassland carbon stocks within each country 

reflect the area-weighted value based on the proportions of each ecological zone present within each 

country. Using this approach, biomass carbon stocks in Mexico were estimated to be 4.1 tonnes of 

carbon per hectare.

 

11 See page 13 of Harris et al. (2009)
6

For grassland converted to jatropha, the only land use change emissions are associated with changes in 

biomass carbon stocks, meaning the difference between the average jatropha biomass carbon stocks 

and the average grassland biomass carbon stocks. Per the methodology developed for the March 2010 

RFS rule, the resulting emissions are annualized over thirty years.

Based on the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, we assume no change in soil carbon 

stocks averaged over thirty years when grasslands are converted to perennial crops such as jatropha. 

For Brazil and Mexico we also assume that burning is not used as part of converting grasslands to 

jatropha. For more information on the land use change calculations for this scenario, see the 

spreadsheets posted on the docket.

Jatropha Grown on Agricultural Land Scenario

In this scenario, we examined the possible impacts if jatropha directly displaced land that would have 

otherwise been used for agricultural production in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil. As 

described in the associated Federal Register (FR) notice, for this analysis we used the Food and 

Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-CARD model).

12

 As explained in 

the FR notice, we conducted two simulations with the FAPRI-CARD model, one for jatropha cultivation in 

southern Mexico and one for cultivation in both southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil.

As described in the FR notice, we used a land displacement approach that allowed the model to shift or 

expand displaced crop and pasture areas to previously unused areas. Using this approach, in both 

scenarios the FAPRI-CARD model projected that the area used for staple crop production in Mexico (e.g., 

corn, beans, wheat) would decline by more than the area displaced by jatropha, and in the scenario that 

included jatropha production in Brazil the model projected that pasture area would decrease by more 

than the area need for jatropha production and other crops displaced by jatropha. These projections 

are the result of a number of factors including crop, livestock and land price changes projected by the 

model that incentivize intensification of crop and livestock production and other changes in crop and 

pasture land use. As a conservative approach for GHG modeling, we adjusted the FAPRI-CARD results to 

eliminate the model’s “extra” projected decreases in crop and pasture area in Mexico and Brazil beyond 

the area needed for jatropha and agricultural land displaced by jatropha. In other words, as a 

conservative approach we assumed that growing jatropha in Mexico and Brazil would not result in less 

total crop and pasture area (including areas used for jatropha) compared to the control case that does 

not include jatropha. The full results from these simulations are provided in spreadsheets available on 

the docket.

As explained in the notice, using the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule we estimated 

the GHG emissions resulting from land use changes, changes in crop production (including for example 

emissions associated with changes in overall fertilizer use, energy use and nitrous oxide emissions), and 

changes in livestock production (including for example emissions associated with changes in energy use 

for livestock production, methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide from manure). The 

 

12 For more information on the FAPRI-CARD model see the March 2010 RFS rule and associated Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf 
7

calculations for these emissions sources are included in the Jatropha Production and Transport GHG 

Calculations spreadsheets available on the docket.

Seed and Oil Transport 

Based on information in the GCEH petition, we assumed that jatropha seeds are transported by truck 20 

miles to a facility (for a 40 mile round trip), and that pre-treated jatropha oil is transported 75 miles by 

truck and then 500 miles by barge. These distances are converted to emissions using the emission 

factors and equations in the Jatropha Production and Transport GHG Calculations spreadsheets posted 

to the docket.

Oil Extraction and Pretreatment

We assumed that oil is extracted by screw press. The electricity and fuel needed for oil extraction is 

based on data in Bailis and Baka (2010).13 As explained above in the “Seed Yields and Oil Content” 

section, we used a seed oil content of 35%. We use an oil yield of 75% based on a review of the 

literature.14 For mechanical screw press extraction, the reported extraction efficiency is 70-80%.

Inputs for oil pretreatment include chemicals (such as sodium hydroxide) and electricity. For these 

inputs, we used values from the petition. These values are within the range of values reported in the 

literature.15 

Consideration of Other LUC Scenarios 

As explained in the FR notice and above, we evaluated two main scenarios: one where jatropha is grown 

on otherwise unused grasslands in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil and one where it is grown 

on land in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil that would otherwise be used for crops or pasture. 

While it is possible that jatropha could be grown on other types of land such as shrubland or secondary 

forest that would result in GHG emissions that are higher than soybean oil, the RFS program’s 

qualification requirements for renewable biomass would limit the amount of this type of land that can 

be used to grow jatropha for the RFS program. Furthermore, since jatropha is not currently being 

produced on a commercial scale and biofuel production is by far the largest potential market for 

jatropha oil (e.g., it is not suitable for cooking oil), EPA’s approval of jatropha biofuel pathways for the 

RFS is unlikely to result in a situation where growing jatropha on RFS qualifying land would increase the 

amount of jatropha being grown on non-RFS qualifying lands for purposes other than production of 

renewable fuels (a situation that could result in significant indirect impacts). Below we discuss 

information we considered to reach these conclusions, including studies on historical jatropha land use 

in Mexico and Brazil, the RFS renewable biomass provisions, and land use policies in Mexico and Brazil.

 

13 See Table S11 in Bailis and Baka (2010).

14 See “Mechanical Screw Press” values in Table 2-8 of “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature 

Review and Synthesis” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.

15 See “GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis” on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0293.
8

Historical Jatropha Land Use in Mexico and Brazil

Skutsch et al. evaluated land use change impacts for three jatropha case studies in Mexico. The Mexican 

cases, established in 2007, evaluated smallholder systems in Chiapas and Michoacan states and a 

commercial production operation in Yucatan. They found two jatropha plantations in Yucatan, with 

combined area of 2,350 hectares that had been planted on estates that had been partially reforested 

after a period of low-intensity grazing. The observed jatropha area in Chiapas and Michoacan was 

described as small, with no specific area figure provided. In Chiapas, the authors found that 14 of the 21 

jatropha farmers interviewed (all smallholders) had planted on fields previously used for maize and 

peanuts, whereas 6 farmers used pasture land and one had cleared a forest plot. In other words, in 

Chiapas the case study looked at jatropha established on land previously used for 66% annual cropping, 

29% pasture and 5% secondary forest. In Michoacan much of the jatropha was planted by growers 

practicing a shifting cultivation system,16 of these growers more than half had cleared a patch of 

secondary forest to plant jatropha and the rest had used fields that had been maize the previous year. 

In Michoacan jatropha was also observed on land permanently used for agriculture, and in a few areas 

of prime, irrigated land. Overall, the previous land uses in Michoacan were 25% secondary forest, 25% 

fallow land (fallow for 8-11 years) and 50% annual cropping. More recently, Soto et al. studied jatropha 

adoption by smallholders in the Mexican state of Chiapas. Their survey found that 83% of jatropha 

producers cultivated in land occupied by subsistence crops (mostly maize and beans) and 2.3% used 

land previously occupied by cash crops. According to information provided by GCEH about their 

plantations in southern Mexico, the initial set of parcels purchased in 2008 were almost 90% used for 

cattle grazing, with the remainder being low-density brush. Subsequently, GCEH acquired land from an 

adjacent pig farmer that was consolidating operations. In Brazil, Bailis and Baka surveyed jatropha 

producers located in central and northeast Brazil. The producers that were approached had used 

primarily pasture land, with smaller areas of food crops and natural vegetation also cleared.17 In 

general, we believe these findings support our approach of evaluating the GHG impacts of jatropha 

production on otherwise unused grassland, and jatropha production on land otherwise used for crops or 

pasture. As discussed below, we believe the RFS renewable biomass provisions will limit the amount of 

other direct or indirect land use change impacts that are not already accounted for in our modeling. 

Renewable Biomass Provisions

While it is possible that jatropha could be grown on other types of land such as shrubland or secondary 

forest that would result in GHG emissions that are higher than what we estimated through our 

modeling, the RFS program’s qualification requirements for renewable biomass would limit the amount 

of this type of land that can be used to grow jatropha for the RFS program.18 For example, oil extracted 

from jatropha seeds grown on land that was forested or not actively managed or fallow on December 

19, 2007 would not meet the RFS program definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR 80.1401. Per the 

regulatory definition at 40 CFR 80.1401, renewable biomass includes, “Planted crops and crop residue 

 

16 The authors describe this as a “traditional long rotation swidden system (milpa) for maize, beans, and squash...” 

with long fallow periods (up to 25 years) to maintain soil depth.

17 See Table S2 in Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka (2010)

18 For example, oil extracted from jatropha seeds grown on land that was forested or not actively managed or 

fallow on December 19, 2007 would not meet the definition of renewable biomass under the RFS program.
9

harvested from existing agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007 and that was 

nonforested and either actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007.” There are a number of 

different types of land that may be suitable to grow jatropha from an agronomic or economic 

perspective, but that would not align with the RFS regulatory definition for renewable biomass, for 

example this includes all of the following types of land (not intended to be an exhaustive list):

 Previously undisturbed forest.

 Land that was not previously cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007.

 Land that was forested on December 19, 2007.

 Land that was not actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007.19

In other words, the RFS regulations exclude the use of many of the types of land that would result in 

higher land use change GHG emissions than the types of land used for jatropha in our modeling. 

However, the following types of land if used for jatropha production could result in higher land use 

change emissions than the types of land considered in our modeling: land that was actively managed or 

fallow on December 19, 2007 that grew back as secondary forest before being planted with jatropha, 

and such land that would grow back as secondary forest if it is not planted with jatropha.

EPA also considered information on government policies that could influence the types of land used for 

future jatropha production. In Mexico, jatropha production is promoted by CONAFOR through the 

ProAborl Programme, which aims to provide financial and technical assistance to all types of landowners 

to protect, conserve, restore and sustainably manage their forest resources. Information provided as 

part of the GCEH petition indicates that CONAFOR does not promote jatropha plantations that would 

replace forested areas. While EPA does not have data to verify the impacts of this policy, it could

discourage the use of secondary forest land for jatropha production. Brazil also has a number of policies 

to reduce deforestation rates, but EPA has not conducted a detailed review of how these policies may 

impact the types of land used for jatropha production in Brazil.

Overall, our review of available information on jatropha land use in Mexico and Brazil suggests that the 

scenarios we modeled adequately capture the likely land use change impacts of future jatropha 

production for use in making biofuels for the RFS program. Based on our modeling, if relatively small 

areas of high carbon stock land are cleared for jatropha plantations we believe the conclusions 

described in the notice preamble would still apply because the GHG impacts would be offset by jatropha 

grown on the types of land considered in our modeling.

 

19 Per the definition at 40 CFR 80.1401, Fallow means cropland, pastureland, or land enrolled in the Conservation 

Reserve Program (administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency) that is intentionally left idle to regenerate for 

future agricultural purposes with no seeding or planting, harvesting, mowing, or treatment during the fallow period.
10

References

Achten, Wouter M. J., and Louis V. Verchot. 2011. “Implications of Biodiesel-Induced Land-Use 

Changes for CO2 Emissions: Case Studies in Tropical America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.” 

Ecology and Society 16 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-04403-160414.

Achten, W.M.J., L.R. Nielsen, R. Aerts, A.G. Lengkeek, E.D. Kjaer, A. Trabucco, J.K. Hansen, W.H. 

Maes, L. Graudal, F.K. Akinnifesi, and B. Muys. 2010. “Towards Domestication of Jatropha 

Curcas.” Biofuels 1(1):91-107. doi:10.4155/bfs.09

Achten, W.M.J., L. Verchot, Y.J. Franken, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, R. Aerts, and B. Muys. 2008. 

“Jatropha Bio-diesel Production and Use.” Biomass and Bioenergy 32(12):1063-1084. 

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003

Almeida, J. W.M.J. Achten, M.P. Duarte, B. Mendes, and B. Muys. 2011. "Benchmarking the 

Environmental Performance of the Jatropha Biodiesel System through a Generic Life Cycle 

Assessment." Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(12): 5447-5453. doi:10.1021/es200257m.

Bailis, Robert E. and Jennifer E. Baka. 2010. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change 

from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil." Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(22): 8684-8691. 

doi:10.1021/es1019178.

Fan, J., R. M. Handler, D.R. Shonnard, and T.N. Kalnes. 2012. “A Review of Life Cycle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Hydroprocessed Jet Fuels from Renewable Oils and Fats.” 

International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering Research 3(3):114-138.

Harris, NL, S. Grimland and S. Brown. 2009. Land Use Change and Emission Factors: Updates 

since Proposed RFS Rule. Report submitted to EPA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006). “N2O emissions from managed soils, and 

CO2 emissions from lime and urea application.” 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use. Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, 

L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and Tanube, K (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

Jongschaap, R.E.E., W.J. Corré, P.S. Bindraban, and W.A. Brandenburg. 2007. Claims and Facts 

on Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas Evaluation, Breeding and Propagation Programme. 

Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands. Report 158. Plant Research International 

B.V. Available at: http://www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Claims_and_Facts_on_Jatropha_-WUR. 

Accessed on August 10, 2008.

Lapola, David M., Ruediger Schaldach, Joseph Alcamo, Alberte Bondeau, Jennifer Koch, 

Christina Koelking, and Joerg A. Priess. 2010a. “Indirect Land-use Changes Can Overcome 

Carbon Savings from Biofuels in Brazil.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

(February 8). doi:10.1073/pnas.0907318107.
11

Lapola, David M., Ruediger Schaldach, Joseph Alcamo, Alberte Bondeau, Jennifer Koch, 

Christina Koelking, and Joerg A. Priess. 2010b. “Supporting Information for Indirect Land-use 

Changes Can Overcome Carbon Savings from Biofuels in Brazil.” Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences (February 8). 

Reinhardt, G., K. Becker, D.R. Chaudhary, J. Chikara, E. von Falkenstein, G. Francis, S.O. Gartner, 

MR.R. Gandhi, A. Ghosh, P.K. Ghosh, H.P.S. Makkar, J. Münch, J.S. Patolia, M.P. Reddy, N. 

Rettenmaier, S.C. Upadhyay. 2008. “Basic Data for Jatropha Production and Use.” Heidelberg, 

Germany: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH.

Skutsch, Margaret, Emilio de los Rios, Silvia Solis, Enrique Riegelhaupt, Daniel Hinojosa, Sonya 

Gerfert, Yan Gao, and Omar Masera. 2011. "Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental and Social 

Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program." Ecology and Society. 16(4): 11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-

160411. 

Soto, I., Achten, W.M.J, Muys, B., Mathjis, E. 2015. Who benefits from energy policy incentives? 

The case of jatropha adoption by smallholders in Mexico. Energy Poicy, 79: 37-47

Stratton, R.W., H.M. Wong, and J.I. Hileman. 2010. “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Alternative Jet Fuels.” Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction Project 

28. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Trabucco, Antonio, Wouter M. J. Achten, Colm Bowe, Raf Aerts, Jos Van Orshoven, Lindsey 

Norgrove, and Bart Muys. 2010. “Global Mapping of Jatropha Curcas Yield Based on Response 

of Fitness to Present and Future Climate.” GCB Bioenergy 2 (3): 139–151. doi:10.1111/j.1757-

1707.2010.01049.x.