Mark H. Eisenbies
State University of New York System
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mark H. Eisenbies.
Gcb Bioenergy | 2018
Timothy A. Volk; Bill Berguson; Christopher Daly; Michael D. Halbleib; Raymond O. Miller; Timothy G. Rials; Lawrence P. Abrahamson; Dan Buchman; Marylin Buford; Michael W. Cunningham; Mark H. Eisenbies; Eric S. Fabio; Karl Hallen; Justin P Heavey; Gregg A. Johnson; Yulia A. Kuzovkina; Bo Liu; Bernie Mcmahon; Randy Rousseau; Shun Shi; Richard Shuren; Lawrence B. Smart; Glen R. Stanosz; Brain Stanton; Bryce Stokes; Jeff Wright
To increase the understanding of poplar and willow perennial woody crops and facilitate their deployment for the production of biofuels, bioproducts, and bioenergy, there is a need for broadscale yield maps. For national analysis of woody and herbaceous crops production potential, biomass feedstock yield maps should be developed using a common framework. This study developed willow and poplar potential yield maps by combining data from a network of willow and poplar field trials and the modeling power of PRISM‐ELM. Yields of the top three willow cultivars across 17 sites ranged from 3.60 to 14.6 Mg ha−1 yr−1 dry weight, while the yields from 17 poplar trials ranged from 7.5 to 15.2 Mg ha−1 yr−1. Relationships between the environmental suitability estimates from the PRISM‐ELM model and results from field trials had an R2 of 0.60 for poplar and 0.81 for willow. The resulting potential yield maps reflected the range of poplar and willow yields that have been reported in the literature. Poplar covered a larger geographic range than willow, which likely reflects the poplar breeding efforts that have occurred for many more decades using genotypes from a broader range of environments than willow. While the field trial data sets used to develop these models represent the most complete information at the time, there is a need to expand and improve the model by monitoring trials over multiple cutting cycles and across a broader range of environmental gradients. Despite some limitations, the results of these models represent a dramatic improvement in projections of potential yield of poplar and willow crops across the United States.
Frontiers in Energy Research | 2018
Obste Therasme; Timothy A. Volk; Antonio M. Cabrera; Mark H. Eisenbies; Thomas E. Amidon
Shrub willows are being developed as a short rotation woody crop (SRWC) that can grow on marginal agricultural land. Willow has a high net energy ratio (energy produced/ fossil fuel energy consumed), low greenhouse gas footprint and high carbohydrate production potential. Willow biomass can be combined with forest biomass, but willow often has a higher proportion of bark that creates challenges because it increases the ash content and decreases the melting point. Hot water extraction is a pretreatment that has been shown to improve the quality of chipped material while producing a marketable stream of byproducts. This study evaluated how the amount of bark (0%, 33%, 66% and 100%) on three willow cultivars and sugar maple impact the output of hot water extraction in terms of mass removal and extract composition, as well as its influence on the heating value, ash and elemental content. The hot water extraction process resulted in ash content up to 50% for sugar maple and willow, but there was variation among the willow varieties. The heating value after hot water extraction was about 5% higher because of the removal of mostly hemicelluloses, which have relatively low heating value. HWE led to significant reductions of calcium, potassium, magnesium and sulfur contents. The hot water extraction provides a fermentable sugar stream and other co-products after multiple separation and treatment steps, and improves the characteristics of willow and sugar maple biomass for combined heat and power. This paper demonstrates how biomass with higher bark content can generate a useable sugar stream while improving the quality of the biomass for combined heat and power by managing its ash content while simultaneously producing other valuable products.
Bioenergy Research | 2014
Mark H. Eisenbies; Timothy A. Volk; John H. Posselius; Christopher A. Foster; Shun Shi; Samvel Karapetyan
Bioenergy Research | 2016
Nathan J. Sleight; Timothy A. Volk; Gregg A. Johnson; Mark H. Eisenbies; Shun Shi; Eric S. Fabio; Penelope S. Pooler
Bioenergy Research | 2015
Mark H. Eisenbies; Timothy A. Volk; John H. Posselius; Shun Shi; Aayushi Patel
Food and Energy Security | 2016
Timothy A. Volk; Justin P Heavey; Mark H. Eisenbies
Cellulosic Energy Cropping Systems | 2014
Timothy A. Volk; Lawrence P. Abrahamson; Thomas Buchholz; Jesse Caputo; Mark H. Eisenbies
Archive | 2014
Mark H. Eisenbies; Timothy A. Volk; Lawrence P Abrahamson; Rich Shuren; Brian Stanton; John H. Posselius; Matt McArdle; Samvel Karapetyan; Aayushi Patel; Shun Shi; Jose Zerpa
Biomass & Bioenergy | 2016
Mark H. Eisenbies; Timothy A. Volk; Aayushi Patel
Biomass & Bioenergy | 2017
Mark H. Eisenbies; Timothy A. Volk; Jesus Espinoza; Carlos Gantz; Austin Himes; John H. Posselius; Rich Shuren; Brian Stanton; Bruce Summers
Collaboration
Dive into the Mark H. Eisenbies's collaboration.
State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
View shared research outputs