• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix A: Details of Impact...
 Appendix B: Calculation of...
 Literature Cited














Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas
CITATION THUMBNAILS MAP IT! DOWNLOADS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00004014/00001
 Material Information
Title: Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in Arkansas
Physical Description: Report
Language: English
Creator: Odum, Howard T.
Romitelli, Silvia
Tighe, Robert
Publisher: Center for Environmental Policy
Place of Publication: Gainesville, FL
Publication Date: 1998
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: emergy
swamp
river
permitting
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Arkansas -- Cache River and Black Swamp
Coordinates: 34.7 x -91.33
 Notes
General Note: 128 Pages
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: AA00004014:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )

( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Preface
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
        Page 4
    List of Figures
        Page 5
        Page 6
    List of Tables
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Abstract
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Introduction
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Methods
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Results
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Discussion
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Appendix A: Details of Impact Simulation
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
    Appendix B: Calculation of Transformities
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
    Literature Cited
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
Full Text




Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and
Black Swamp in Arkansas


Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romitelli, and Robert Tighe







Final Report on Contract #DACW39-94-K-0300
Energy Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment
between Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Army,
Vicksburg, Miss. and University of Florida







Center for Environmental Policy
Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611


January 10, 1998







Evaluation Overview of the Cache River and
Black Swamp in Arkansas*


Howard T. Odum, Silvia Romitelli, and Robert Tighe


Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611


Dec 10, 1997





*Part II and Final report of Contract # DACW39-94-K-0300: Energy
Systems Perspectives for Cumulative Impacts Assessment, between
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Vicksburg, Miss.
and the Center for Environmental Policy, Dept. of Environmental
Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Jean O'Neill,
was scientific advisor and contract officer.

Part I was a progress report entitled Energy Systems Perspectives on
Cumulative Impacts in the Black Swamp, Cache River Arkansas (H.T.Odum
and R. Tighe, Sept .30, 1994). It contained energy systems diagrams
aggregating the Black Swamp as a whole. To show qualitatively how
complex interactions developed cumulative impact, diagrams with
highlighted pathways were supplied for each of 6 functional sectors of the
system that had been recognized to be of concern: (a) waters, (b)
sediments, (c) biodiversity, (d) forestry, (e) fisheries, and (f) deer. If the
user has been taught the symbols and their meaning, inspection of these
networks provides a quick guide to components and interactions which
have to be considered in permitting. The appendix contained the
equations for each of the models and highlighted impact relationships.
These equations show the impact relationships in mathematical form, a
translation of the energy language diagrams, ready for simulation. An
example is the simulation of impact on groundwater in the Black Swamp
included in this final report.






CONTENTS
Page
Title Page ........................................... .............. 1
Contents .................................. ................... 3
Legends for the Figures ............................... .......... 5
List of Tables ................... ..... .......................... 7
Abstract .... ................................................ 9
Introduction ....................... .......................... 11
Cumulative Impacts............................. 11
Simulating Impacts ...................... ............ 11
Concepts ............. ................. .. .... .............. 12
Emergy and Energy Hierarchy....................... 12
Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental
Management ................................. 14
Transformity ................... .................. 14
Empower density .................................. 14
Empower of Arkansas, Cache River Basin and Black
Swamp ..................... ............ ..... ... 14
Emdollars and Real Wealth .......................... 15
Emergy Indices..................... ................. 15
Study Areas ............................................... 15
State of Arkansas ................................. 15
Cache River Basin ................................... 16
Black Swamp .............................. .......... 16
Background of Previous Study............................. 16
Cache River Basin ....... ......... ................... 16
Black Swamp ..................................... 24
Content of This Study ..................................... 26
Methods ....................................................... 27
Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts ............. 27
Emergy and Emdollar Evaluation......................... 27
Simulating Impacts .................... ..... .............. 29
Results ................ .... ...... ................ ............ 31
Arkansas ............................................... 31
Energy Systems Diagram ...................... ..... 31
Emdollar Evaluation Table ............... ......... ... 31
System Indices .................. ..... .............. 31
Comparisons ..................... .................... 31






Page
Cache River .............................................. 52
Energy Systems Diagram ............................ 52
Emdollar Evaluation Table ........................... 52
Emergy Indices ..................................... 52
Comparisons ......................................... 67
Black Swamp .............................................. 67
Energy Systems Diagram .............................. 67
Emdollar Evaluation Table ........................... 67
Emergy Indices ................ .................... 67
Comparisons ......................................... 75
Simulating Impacts on the Black Swamp ...................... 75
Simulating Effects of Separate Impacts .................. 76
Simulating Cumulative Impacts ....................... 76
Discussion ..................................................... 81
Principal Resources ....................................... 81
Evaluating Change ........................................ 82
Use of Evaluations for Permitting .......................... 82
Appendix A. Details of Impact Simulation ........................ 85
Appendix B. Calculation of Transformities ........................ 95
Transformities of Global Water Flows ....................... 95
Transformities of Migrant Birds............................ 97
Transformities of Agricultural Commodities ................... 97
Literature Cited ............................................... 119






Legends for the Figures

Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2)
the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp.

Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers,
1974).

Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994).

Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy
from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy
transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar
transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main
energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp.

Figure 5. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a)
Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate
emdollars of environmental contribution.

Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments.

Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs
in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary;
(c) three arm summary.

Figure 8. EMERGY signature of environment and economy in Arkansas.

Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with
main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay.

Figure 10. EMERGY signature of environment and economy of the Cache
River Watershed.

Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main
empower inputs in solar emjoules per year.

Figure 12. EMERGY signature of a hectare of Black Swamp Ecosystem.

Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache
River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical
equations; (b) with values of flows and storage used for calibration from
Appendix Table Al.







Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as
calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight,
primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8.

Appendix Figures:

Figure Al. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration
conditions before impact.

Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass.

Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater.

Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows.

Figure AS. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and cutting
biomass.

Figure A6. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater and diverting
river inflow.

Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river
inflow.

Figure A8. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river
and cutting biomass.

Figure Bl. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a)
Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c)
energy flows.

Figure B2. Emergy signature for rice production in Arkansas.

Figure B3. Emergy signature for soybean production in Arkansas.

Figure B4. Emergy signature for wheat production in Arkansas.

Figure BS. Emergy signature for sorghum production in Arkansas.

Figure B6. Emergy signature for corn production in Arkansas.

Figure B7. Emergy signature for broiler production in Arkansas.






List of Tables

Table 1. Definitions

Table 2. Emergy per Unit

Table 3. Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas

Table 4. Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States

Table 5. Emergy Indices for Arkansas

Table 6. Annual Emergy Flows of the Cache River Basin

Table 7. Exchange Between the Cache River Basin and Other Parts of the
United States

Table 8. Emergy Indices for the Cache River Basin

Table 9. Annual Emergy Flows in the Black Swamp

Table 10. Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of Black Swamp

Table 11. Simulated Impacts on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black
Swamp

Table 12. Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change

Appendix:

Appendix Table Al. Data Used for Calibration (Table A2) of the Water
Simulation model in Figure 13

Appendix Table A2. Calibration Spreadsheet for the Water Simulation
model for the Black Swamp (Figure 13)

Appendix Table A3. Simulation Program in BASIC (for Macintosh QBASIC)

Appendix Table Bl. Emergy of Migrant Birds

Appendix table B2. Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production in Arkansas

Appendix Table B3. Emergy Evaluation of Soybean Production in Arkansas




8



Appendix Table B4. Emergy Evaluation of Wheat Production in Arkansas

Appendix Table B5. Emergy Evaluation of Sorghum Production in
Arkansas

Appendix Table B6. Emergy Evaluation of Corn Production in Arkansas

Appendix Table B7. Emergy Evaluation of Poultry Broiler Production in
Arkansas






ABSTRACT

This is the second and final report applying energy systems methods for
overview, evaluation, and management of watersheds, with the Cache River
in Arkansas as an example. The first report included systems models
(diagrams and mathematical expressions) for showing environmental,
ecological, and economic interactions in the Cache River watershed, and a
portion of its floodplain known as the Black Swamp, for synthesizing
knowledge and understanding cumulative impacts.

This second report uses the systems overviews to evaluate influences and
processes affecting the area on 3 scales, from the large scale down: (1) the
state of Arkansas, (2) the Cache River watershed, and (3) the Black Swamp.
Emergy and emdollars were used to determine what is important for
environmental management and permitting. (Emergy is the available
energy in units of one kind of energy previously used up directly and
indirectly to make a product or service. Emdollars (em$) are the part of
the gross economic product due to an emergy contribution).

Policy for decisions on environment can be based on the maximum
empower principle, which defines choices as best which maximize
empower and emdollar contributions of environment and the economy
together. (Empower is the rate of emergy use per year). Decisions on
permitting of a development proposal should be those that maximize the
emdollar production of the system.

The state evaluation showed Arkansas to have a high level of indigenous
real wealth (a high emergy/money ratio, and high emergy levels per
person) compared to the United States as a whole. About 37% of the state's
total emdollars were contributed by water, soils, natural gas and other local
resources and 63% from fuels, goods, and services purchased from out of
state. Only 11% was renewable. Twice as much real wealth (emergy) was
sold out of state as rice and other commodities than was received in
monetary payments.

Evaluation of the Cache River watershed with its intensive rice production
showed about half of the area's total emdollars were contributed by ground
and river water uses and half from fuels, goods, and services purchased from
out of the area. Forty two percent of the production was unsustainable,
based on non-renewable use of soils and groundwater storage.

Evaluation of the Black Swamp showed annual contributions to a hectare
were: 1608 em$ in the inflow of sediments and 4847 em$ as organic.






Physical energy contributed 449 em$ (geopotential energy used up).
Forest productivity contributed $372 em$ using the chemical potential
energy of water used by forests for their evapotranspiration. Swamp
based fish production was 633 em$.

Per hectare, the Black Swamp, with 7640 em$/year, was more valuable
than the average Cache River watershed area with 4111 em$/year and the
average for Arkansas with 4738 em$/year. For permitting, the burden of
proof is on a developer to show that a proposed economic use of a swamp
area will generate a greater annual emdollar value.

Since energy systems models define mathematical equations, the models
can be calibrated with observed data and simulated to determine the
consequences of the relationships shown in the model. A model of the
water budget of the Black Swamp and its groundwater was calibrated and
simulated considering several "what if" alternatives. Cutting forest, and
diverting the river had small effects on the groundwater compared to the
larger effect of direct pumping. However, large cumulative impacts on the
forest resulted from the three factors affecting the water budget together.

As with any initial overview evaluation, closure was obtained by using
whatever estimates and approximations were readily available. The
numerical results therefore are uneven and preliminary, inviting
refinement by specialists with better data.






INTRODUCTION

Understanding watersheds and their ecosystems requires that their roles
in the surrounding economy and landscape be quantitatively evaluated.
Since maximum economic benefits are not achieved by diminishing the life
support functions of watersheds, decisions by those planning and
authorizing developments need to be made according to the principle of
maximizing the real wealth productivity of both the ecosystems and the
dependent economy. This paper overviews and evaluates the developed
Cache River watershed in Arkansas and the contributions of the original
floodplain forest ecosystem now represented by a remnant, the Black
Swamp.

Energy systems diagrams are used to identify and summarize the main
components and processes on three scales shown in Figures 1-3: (1) State
of Arkansas; (2) Cache River Watershed; and (3) Black Swamp. Then the
principal contributions to real wealth in these systems are evaluated with
EMERGY, spelled with an "m", and expressed as emdollars for comparison
with economic values on a common basis. Patterns over time are explored
with simulation models. Those considering changes in the watershed can
use the results by comparing emdollars of existing environmental and
economic contributions with emdollars of the systems to result from
proposed changes. Changes which do not increase emdollar value should
not be authorized.

Cumulative Impacts
Most cumulative impact evaluations have been concerned with the effects
accumulating on one property of the landscape, such as groundwater or
biodiversity. By contrast, a systems overview of an ecosystem in relation
to its surroundings shows the interplay of all variables on each other. By
expressing each variable in a measure that applies to them all, it is
possible to add up all impacts, or examine them separately to identify
principal actions. This study evaluates various changes taking place in the
Cache River watershed that impact the floodplain forest remnant
represented by the Black Swamp.

Simulating Impacts
Quantitative estimates of impacts of changes and proposed changes can be
obtained by computer simulation of overview models, calibrated with local
values for flow and storage. Included in this study is an example of the
simulation of ground water response with an overview model that has
water flows, storage, and interactions highly aggregated so that the






process and result are easily understood. Overview assessment and
decision making require simplicity, while including details considered to be
important. Simulating aggregate water responses for this purpose, to learn
"what if," is different from the detailed and expensive simulation of water
distribution spatially. Each approach has its place in impact evaluation,
depending on the scale of the questions.

Concepts

Emergy analysis is a procedure for environmental accounting of the
cumulative work required for a product or service in units of one kind of
energy. It allows the user to define the proportion of the regional
economy due to a specific natural resource. It measures what an
environmental resource is contributing to the regional economy. A brief
explanation of emergy concepts and measures follows, with definitions
summarized in Table 1.

Emergy and Energy Hierarchy
Because of the second energy law, all the processes of nature and the
economy can be arranged in a series, representing the hierarchy of energy.
All processes use up some of the potential of energy (its availability) to do
work, dispersing that energy in degraded form. Therefore, the product of
useful processes has less available energy in its output than its inputs.
This means that processes may be arranged in an energy transformation
series like Figure 4a. In each block, available energy is dispersed. Total
energy flow (power) decreases from left to right, but becomes more
concentrated. Examples are food chains, stages in the hydrological cycle,
and steps in the production sectors of the economy.

Energy is abundant but low quality on the left, whereas energy is less but
of higher quality on the right, capable of doing more per calorie. It would
be misleading, if not wrong, to consider a calorie of energy on the right
equivalent to one on the left. For example, a calorie of human service is
many times more valuable than a calorie of sunlight. A calorie of a hawk's
work in the ecosystem contributes and controls much more than a calorie
of a leaf. It takes many calories on the left to make a calorie on the right.

However, energies of different kinds may be appropriately compared by
expressing each in units of one kind of available energy previously used
up. In the approach used in this report, solar energy is used. Thus, Solar
Emergy is defined as the available solar energy previously used directly
and indirectly to make a product or service. The unit of emergy is the
emcalorie or the emjoule. Whereas joules of energy are in a piece of wood,






Table 1
Summary of Definitions


Available Energy =



Useful Energy =


Power =

EMERGY =




Empower =


Transformity =


Solar EMERGY =



Solar Empower =


Solar Transformity =


Potential energy capable of doing work and being
degraded in the process
(units: kilocalories, joules, etc.)

Available energy used to increase
system production and efficiency

Useful energy flow per unit time

Available energy of one kind
previously required directly and
indirectly to make a product or service
(units: emjoules, emkilocalories, etc.)

EMERGY flow per unit time
(units: emjoules per unit time)

EMERGY per unit available energy
(units: emjoule per joule)

Solar energy required directly and
indirectly to make a product or service
(units: solar emjoules)

Solar EMERGY flow per unit time
(units: solar emjoules per unit time)

Solar EMERGY per unit available energy
(units: solar emjoules per joule)


____ __ __I_ __ ___ __ _____ 1_________1__






emjoules refer to the available energy that was previously used up to
make the wood. We sometimes call emergy the "energy memory."

Maximum Empower Principle and Environmental Management
The flow of useful emergy is also called empower (Table 1). The maximum
power principle has long been advocated as a general principle for self
organizing systems, including those of nature and of the economy. Stated
so as to represent different kinds of energy appropriately, this principle is:
Self organizing systems develop designs of components and relationships
that maximize the intake and efficient use of emergy. Designs with more
empower displace those with less.

Consequently, either by reason or by trial and error, the landscape with
environment and economy will develop maximum empower designs.
Public attitudes, environmental management and permitting, to be
successful in the long run, need to arrange for maximum empower during
development.

Transformity
Whereas the energy flow decreases through an energy transformation
series, the emergy flow stays the same or increases if more inputs are
added. Transformity is defined as the energy per unit energy. It
increases from left to right (Figure 4a). It is a measure of energy quality.
Transformities are useful for making calculation of emergy from data on
energy. Solar emergy = (energy)(solar transformity).

Empower Density
Self organizing systems develop centers of energy processing. Hierarchical
centers have high concentrations of empower. The spatial concentration of
empower is measured as areal empower density. For example, on a small
scale, empower is concentrated in trunks of trees and in the bodies of
animals. On a large scale empower is concentrated in flowing streams and
human settlements.

Empower of Arkansas, the Cache River Basin, and the Black Swamp
As summarized in Figure 4b, sunlight, tides, and heat from the deep earth
drive the geobiosphere, including the state of Arkansas. From the global
processes, rains, geological contributions, and inputs from the economy
operate the Cache River watershed. Climatic inputs and river waters
operate the Black Swamp. In Figure 4b these are arranged from left to
right in order of decreasing energy flow but increasing transformity.






Emdollars and Real Wealth
Figure 5 shows the main inputs to the economy of any area, including
those free from the environment and those purchased and transported in.
Through many processes and transformations these inputs develop the
real wealth of the area such as forests, clean waters, clothing, food,
housing, transport, information and aesthetics. Within that area the money
circulating among the people facilitates efficient buying and selling, often
measured by the gross economic product. Since emergy measures the real
wealth on a common basis, dividing the annual emergy use by the gross
economic product provides a useful emergy/money ratio for relating real
wealth to money. The emdollar is defined as the emerge divided by the
emergy/money ratio. Emdollars put environmental resource contributions
on a common basis with contributions purchased by the economy.
Environmental management can maximize empower by arranging
developments and permits so that they maximize emdollars of the
economy and environment.

Emergy Indices
Various ratios of emergy flows are useful for evaluating a system and its
potential. Two are defined in Figure 6. The emergy yield ratio is
calculated by dividing the emergy of the yield (Y) flowing into the
economy on the right by the feedback of emergy (F) the economy is
supplying from the right. A system with a large net emergy ratio is
contributing much more real wealth than it requires for the process.
Examples are rich mineral deposits and abundant fresh waters. In recent
years the main sources of fuels that operate the nation have a net emergy
ratio between 4 and 10, fluctuating with prices of fuels (Odum, 1996).

The intensity of regional economic development and use of environment is
given by an emerge investment ratio defined as the ratio of emergy
purchased from the economy (F) to the emergy used free from the local
environment (E). In wilderness parks the ratio is less than one. Typical
development in the U.S. has an investment ratio of 7. By offering more
free local inputs than usual, developments less than 7 tend to cost less,
capture markets, and compete economically.

Study Areas
State of Arkansas
Arkansas, in the center of the United States, includes the Ozark mountain
highlands on the west and the Mississippi River alluvial valley on the east.
The latter includes the floodplain and old channels of the Mississippi River,
as well as current streams and tributaries, such as the Cache River (Figure
la).





Cache River
Basin



Iphis

Black Swamp
Stud Site


Ft. Smith -









Texarkana


.-* Mississippi
River








(b)

Figure 1. Three scales of watershed evaluation (1) as part of Arkansas; (2)
the Cache River Watershed; (3) the Black Swamp.







Cache River Basin
The Cache River rises in southeastern Missouri, and flows south-southwest
through northeast Arkansas to its confluence with the White River (Figure
2). It is one of several rivers traversing the Western Lowlands, an alluvial
plain in the upper portions of the Mississippi River Valley. The landscape
is flat and fertile, and has thus been conducive to the establishment of
agriculture, primarily crops such as soybeans, rice, cotton, and wheat.

Beginning with initial clearing and drainage in the early part of this
century, more than 80% of the former forestland of the Cache River basin
has been converted to agriculture. Of the little natural area that remains,
most is floodplain forest along the watercourses of the alluvial plain. In
the Cache River basin, this is primarily concentrated in several clumps
found along the lower portions of the river.

Black Swamp
The Black Swamp Wildlife management area is a part of the remaining
bottomland hardwood area in the lower Cache River Basin (Figure 2).
These are not virgin forests, but many patches have grown 100 or more
years since cutting.

Background of Previous Studies

The Cache River Basin
The Cache River basin was the subject of a major Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)(COE 1974), based on proposals for renovation and
extension of the previously completed channelization of portions of the
river. The previous channel works occurred in the upper basin, for 89
miles from river mile 114 near the town of Grubbs to the headwaters of
the river near Qulin, Missouri, and partial completion of the lower 10.5
miles of the river at its confluence with the White River (Figure 1). The
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contains detailed information on
various aspects of the ecology and economy of the basin, and some history
of human use in the area.

Mauney and Harp (1979) studied the effects of this channelization on the
fisheries of the Cache River and its main tributary Bayou DeView. They
found a general decline in fish populations in those areas that were
channelized, as compared to natural stretches of the streams.

Because of the drastic effect of rice irrigation on depleting the alluvial
aquifer in extensively-farmed areas of the Western Lowlands, substantial








Watershed


Walnut


Cache River


White River


Roads


Black Swamp
Study Site


Scale

0 10 20
Miles


Figure 2. Map of the Cache River Basin (Adapted from: Corps of Engineers,
1974).






-i Gauging Station
f, ePatterson

.--.---Cache River
*Gray





Study Site

Bottomland
Hardwoods

Black Swamp
Wildlife
Management
Area


Gauging Station
<..


Figure 3. Map of the Black Swamp (Source: Baker and Killgore, 1994).


a)







Energy flow, Calories per time


Transformity = Solar Emergy/Energy


1000
1000
1000


1000 10
100


1000
-=100
10


1000 =1000
1


Global Rain
GeobiosphereBough
nputs
-- --------- v ^ --- -. - -----------------------

Arkansas

Cache i River
Watershed
Black
- - --- -Swamp




(b)

Figure 4. A series of energy transformations forming an energy hierarchy
from left to right with each measured by its transformity. (a) Energy
transformation series based on one energy source with calculation of solar
transformity of energy of the flows downstream to the right; (b) main
energy flows and transformations contributing to the Black Swamp.















Sales out of State


Empower Use Emergy/money Ratio
Gross Economic Product




Figure 5. Empower (emergy flow) and money circulation in a state. (a)
Energy systems diagram; (b) emergy to money ratio used to evaluate
emdollars of environmental contribution.


Arkansas


21
Fuels
Purchase Materials
Out of State Goods & Serv.
- -- $ Electric
Power
1




















Emergy Investment Ratio =


F
E


Emergy Yield Ratio =


Figure 6. Emdollar indices used to evaluate environmental developments.


Y
F






study was made of the hydrology of this region, including the Cache River
basin. As early as 1953, an unreplenished decline of the aquifer in the
western portions of Cross, Poinsett, and St. Francis counties was noted, as
well as an alteration in the general flow direction of the aquifer in this
area (Counts and Engler 1954).

Broom and Lyford (1982) and Ackerman (1989) modelled the interactions
of irrigation and water movement throughout the surface and groundwater
systems of the region. Their efforts showed the depletion of the aquifer
affecting surficial hydrology of the region, capturing streamflow from the
Cache River as a source of recharge for the lowered aquifer.

Smith and Saucier (1971) mapped and described the geomorphology of the
Western Lowlands region as part of a larger effort to map the entire
Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Plain. They provide descriptions of
historic and current locations of the rivers of the region, and include a
portfolio of maps showing plan-view and cross-section analyses of the
geologic formations that currently occupy the area.

A special issue of the journal Wetlands in 1996 included 12 papers on the
Cache River Basin and the Black Swamp, the results of an intensive study
starting about 1987. The cooperative effort of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and several other
Federal and State agencies (Clairain and Kleiss, 1989) was designed to
consider biological, chemical, and physical aspects of bottomland hardwood
ecosystems including work to assess fisheries, hydrology, sedimentation,
spatial information, vegetation, water quality, and wildlife (Kleiss 1993,
1996).

In her summary of this special issue, Kleiss (1996) explains the way the
clearing of bottomland hardwoods, first for soybeans and then for rice,
with heavy groundwater pumping for part of the year, changed water
levels, hydroperiod, and ecology for the remaining bottomland hardwoods
in the rest of the basin. Kress, Graves, and Bourne (1996) mapped the land
use changes, with forest cover decreasing from 65% to 15% from 1935 to
1975. Remaining forest, mostly on hydric soils, is fragmented with a large
edge/area ratio.

Gonthier and Kleiss (1993) and Gonthier (1996) analyzed the records of
groundwater wells located throughout the Black Swamp, which penetrated
to varying depths in the underlying geologic units, including the alluvial
aquifer and its overlying confining unit. Groundwater levels of the basins,
including that under the bottomland hardwoods (Black Swamp), varied






seasonally and year to year with the heavy pumping for rice agriculture.
Floodplains that once received groundwater inputs were often recharging
groundwaters. During periods of rising stream flow, the Cache River
contributes recharge to the alluvial aquifer, while during falling stream
levels the aquifer discharges to the river.

Walton and Chapman (1993) and Walton, Chapman, and Davis (1996)
presented their spatial hydrologic simulation model of the watershed with
67 nodes synthesizing the interactions of precipitation, canopy
interception, overland flow, channel flow, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
and horizontal groundwater flow. The model generated a reasonable fit to
a hydroperiod graph of number of days versus water level of the Cache
River. The model provided an estimate of hydroperiod for sampling plots
located throughout the swamp.

Wilber, Tighe, and O'Neill (1996) found the low river flows in summer to
be related to drawdowns of the groundwater by rice agriculture and not to
climate. At the end of summer, when pumping ceases, groundwater levels
in the drawdown areas rise, albeit to levels lower than those preceding
withdrawal.

Black Swamp
Walton, Davis, Martin and Chapman (1996), analyzing the hydrology of the
Black Swamp, found that the highly channelized Cache River watershed
had downstream constrictions, causing overbank flooding and wetland
hydroperiod dependent on rains in the short-run. Nestler and Long (1994)
and Long and Nestler (1996) found that the hydroperiod in the swamps
has become erratic in dry periods with a loss of base flow that may be
attributed to groundwater pumping.

Hupp and Morris (1990) found that, prior to the late 1940's, deposition of
sediment in the swamp was consistent with normal sedimentation rates in
other, unimpacted alluvial floodplains. After that time, however, sediment
accumulation rates in the floodplain increased substantially, more than
doubling from previous years. Kleiss (1996) measured the sediment
budget and deposition for the Black Swamp, finding sedimentation at 1
cm/yr, removing 14% of the sediments from the river, most in the bottom
of the floodplain. Main factors affecting sedimentation rate were flood
duration, tree basal area and distance from the river.

With the help of a model of water detention on the floodplain Dortch
(1996) evaluated the removal of suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus from floodwaters. With a retention time of 5 days, sediment






removal was 6.6%/day, total nitrogen 4.8% per day, and total phosphorus
0.58% per day, rates less than in marshes.

Boar, Delaune, Lindau and Patrick (1993) and Delaune, Boar, Lindau, and
Kleiss (1996) measured denitrification process in the Black Swamp, finding
that 9 parts per million nitrate nitrogen in floodwaters were reduced
between 59 to 82% in 40 days. Experiments showed that the organic
carbon available to the sediment process was a limiting factor.

Smith (1996), analyzing the vegetation with gradient ordination methods,
found four main types in the Black Swamp, typical of southeastern United
States. These were named by dominant trees and related to flood depth
and duration:

In river-swamp forest with nearly continuous flooding:
1. Water Tupelo and Bald Cypress,

With 50% flooding, two types of lower hardwood swamp forest,
with more species:
2. Nuttall's Oak and Green Ash
3. Overcup Oak and Water Hickory

With flooding 30% of the year, diverse backwater forest
4. Willow Oak and Sweetgum

Baker and Killgore (1994) and Kilgore and Baker (1996) evaluated the
Black Swamp's role as a fisheries nursery by study of fish populations and
larval fish abundance. The fish community was comprised almost entirely
of flood-exploitative species. Larval fishes of 35 taxa were found, more in
the floodplain than in the river, and more in years of greater flood area.

Wakeley and Roberts (1994, 1996) evaluated small bird populations in
transects across the Black Swamp and related these to the gradient of
water flooding and the four vegetation types, including analysis of
structural characteristics of vegetation, snags, tree heights, etc. Because of
the fragmented patchiness with edge, more birds were found in the Black
Swamp than in some continuous forest. Although number of species in the
four types of habitat was similar, the dominant species were different and
arranged on a scale of water gradient. Birds were fewer in winter;
migrants were a small percentage.




26

Content of This Study

This study includes energy systems models, emergy, and emdollar
evaluations of the state of Arkansas, the Cache River Watershed and a
hectare of Black Swamp. Included is an example of simulation of an
overview model. Because overview models at the level of human verbal
thinking are relatively simple, calibrating and simulating can be done in a
day or two and does not require a major project authorization. A model of
the Black Swamp interaction with waters was simulated to evaluate
potential impacts of some changes in watershed management on ground
water and other variables.






METHODS

Developing Systems Models from Verbal Concepts

Energy System Diagramming
Developing an overview model starts with the drawing of a diagram of the
system of interest. After defining the physical boundary, important
outside sources are listed and drawn around the boundary from left to
right in order of their transformity, which marks their position in the
energy hierarchy (sun, wind rain, river, geology, fuel, chemicals, goods,
services, tourists, market, etc.). The main internal components and
processes in the system are identified and drawn inside the system frame,
such as forest, agriculture and industrial producers, urban areas, water
storage, etc. Pathways, interactions, and money transactions are
connected. The first diagram may be complex because minor components
and processes may be included. Next the diagram is simplified to those
parts and pathways that are found to be most important.

Emergy and Emdollar Evaluation

Emergy analysis tables were prepared on three scales: the state using
1992 data on Arkansas, the watershed and the swamp. For each system
an emergy evaluation table was prepared with a line item for each input,
output, and other items of special interest. An emergy evaluation table
typically has 6 columns: (1) number of the line item and its footnote, (2)
the name of the item to be estimated, (3) data in units of energy, mass or
cost, (4) emergy per unit, (5) solar emergy and (6) emdollars. Energy
flows are calculated from standard formulae from physics, chemistry,
geology, economics, engineering, etc. Emergy per unit was obtained from
previous emergy studies (Table 2).

Solar emergy of each line item was estimated by multiplying the data in
column 3 by the solar emergy per unit from column 4. Finally, the real
wealth value in emdollars was calculated by dividing emergy by the
emergy/money ratio of the country, state or region. Emergy/money ratio
was obtained by dividing the gross economic product by the total
contributing emergy used by that system. Finally, summations and indices
defined in Table 1 and Figure 6 were calculated to interpret the condition
of the system. Full explanation of methods is given in a recent book on
environmental accounting (Odum 1996).






Table 2
Emergy per Unit


Item Value and Unit Source


Direct sunlight
Wind
Rain chemical potential
Runoff geopotential
River geopotential
Earth cycle
Coal
River chemical potential
Natural gas
Petroleum
Sorghum & cotton
Topsoil losses
Groundwater
Electricity (nuclear)
Rice & soybean
Hydroelecetricity
Wheat
Poultry
Migrants birds
Livestock production
Fish production
Forest products


Soil losses
Bromine
Potassium
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Pesticides


1 sej/J
1.5 E3 sej/J
1.81 E4 sej/J
2.8 E4 sej/J
2.8 E4 sej/J
3.4 E4 sej/J
4.0 E4 sej/J
4.8 E4 sej/J
4.8 E4 sej/J
5.4 E4 sej/J
6.0 E4 sej/J
7.4 E4 sej/J
1.6 E5 sej/J
1.7 E5 sej/J
1.7 E5 sej/J
1.7 E5 sej/J
2.2 E5 sej/J
7.0 E5 sej/J
9.7 E5 sej/J
2.0 E6 sej/J
2.0 E6 sej/J
2.8 E8 sej/J

1.0 E9 sej/g
1.0 E9 sej/g
1.1 E9 sej/g
3.9 E9 sej/g
4.6 E9 sej/g
1.48 E10 sej/g


Odum, 1996
Romitelli, Appendix B
Brown and McClanahan, 1995
As fluorite, Brown and McClanahan, 1995


-






Simulating Impacts

Starting with an overview systems diagram previously drawn, a simplified
model diagram was drawn retaining the components of interest, the
impacting influences, and the important pathways. In this study, as an
example, groundwater fluctuations were observed as the Black Swamp
system was impacted by different water-related processes. The simplified
model of the Cache River system included pathways delivering influence
from outside and from other parts of the system.

Equations for each of the storage compartments of the diagram were
written following the nearly automatic translation of the systems symbols
to mathematical form. Each equation has positive terms for flows into
storage and negative terms for flows going out.

To calibrate the model, quantitative values for the inputs, storage and
flows were fed into the model using summary data where available.
Otherwise, data from similar systems were used or indirectly calculated
from relationships between variables (e.g., retention time = ratio between
volume of storage and flows).

A spreadsheet program was used to estimate the values of coefficients (the
k's in the program equations). Values of flows and storage were assigned
to each variable in the mathematical terms for flows. After the terms
were set equal to the flows, the term was manipulated with k's on one side
equal to the numerically evaluated expression on the other side. The
calculations were built into the spreadsheet so that changing one value
automatically changed all other places affected. For example, Appendix
Table 1 was used for the calculation of coefficients of the groundwater
impact model. Explanations were given in footnotes to the spreadsheet
table for each item.

The program for the simulation of cumulative impacts on groundwater in
the Black Swamp is written in QBASIC and included as Appendix Table A2.
It includes statements to introduce the starting variables, the coefficient
values, the equations for change on each iteration, and plotting statements.
The model was run first with the calibration data to simulate pre-impact
conditions operating in steady state conditions. Then the main program
was modified to include statements that would simulate impacting actions,
including groundwater pumping, river diversion and forest cutting.

To simulate effects of groundwater pumping, values of Jg were reduced by
increments of 1 E7 m3. This represents decrease of about 30, 60 and






90% of the outside groundwater flows feeding the alluvial aquifer below
the Black Swamp. River diversion was simulated by deducting equal
incremental volumes of 2 E7 m3/month from the Cache River inputs (Jc).
These represent reductions of 17, 35 and 52% of the average flow of Cache
River now running through the Black Swamp. Forest cutting was
simulated, reducing starting values of the hardwood forest biomass (B) by
increments of 5 E4 tons. It simulates cutting 13%, 26%, and 39% of original
forest.

Graphs of groundwater levels and other variables over time obtained from
simulation are included as Appendix Tables Al-A11. From these a table of
impact changes was prepared summarizing the many runs. See Odum
(1983, 1996) for more extensive explanations of the methodology of
energy systems modelling and simulation.






RESULTS

Arkansas

Energy Systems Diagram
Figure 7a is the overview model of the state of Arkansas with the water
components and flows darkly shaded.

Emdollar Evaluation Tables
Table 3 has the energy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources,
imports, and exports. Table 4 has the exchanges with the rest of the
United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations.
Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form
in Figure 8 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in
natural energy hierarchy). Major contributions come from the rain's
chemical and geopotential energy, the fossil fuels used within the state,
and the goods and services purchased from outside the state. Rainfall over
the land does work on the landscape which is measured as runoff
geopotential. Arkansas has an uneven relief with mountains and plateaus
over its west side and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore,
it has a relatively high runoff geopotential (~30% of its renewable emergy).
The state has a diversified economy with important industrial agriculture
requiring imports of pesticides and fertilizers. Fuels represents 31% of
state imports. Goods and services are 46% of state imports. The state
exports meat and services embodied in its agricultural and industrial
production.

Emergy Indices
State indices derived from the emergy evaluation tables are listed in Table
5. Arkansas is 58% self sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the
economy to the environmental renewable resources is 2.9. With 48 inches
of rain, water is 13% of the state's annual source of real wealth.

Comparisons
The emergy basis for the state is summarized in an aggregated diagram in
Figure 7b. Arkansas has a higher percentage of its economic basis supplied
from environmental emergy than the more developed states of Florida and
Texas, but less than that of Alaska and Maine. The state is also relatively
rich in non-renewable mineral resources that are intensely used by the
economy. Its natural gas reserves provides the amount used by the state
and supply the state with 28% of its energetic needs (EIA, 1994).









Flow


Arkansas


(a)
Figure 7. Energy systems diagram of Arkansas with main empower inputs
in solar emjoules per year. (a) Complex diagram; (b) aggregated summary;
(c) three arm summary.


























------ Billion $ per year
E20 solar emjoules per year


780


E20 Sej/year


Solar Emergy/Money =


1347 E20 sej/year
39 E9 $/year


= 3.45 E12 sej/$


Figure 7 (continued)


567




S1230









Table 3
Annual Emergy Flows of Arkansas


Note Item Data Units Emergy/Unit EMERGY 1990 Emdollars
J, g, $/yr sej/unit E20 sej E6 Em$


Renewable Resources
1 Direct sunlight
2 Wind
3 Runoff geopotential
4 Rain chemical pot.
5 Inflow river geopot.
6 Inflow river chem. pot.
7 Earth cycle

Indigenous Renewable Energy
8 Rice & soybean
9 Wheat
10 Sorghum & cotton
11 Poultry
12 Livestock production
13 Forest products
14 Fish production
15 Hydroelec.


793 E20
1.51 E18
8.55 E16
7.91 E17
9.77 E16
7.12 E15
1.35 E17


9.71
1.32
1.40
1.38
6.34
8.13
8.71
3.67


1
1496
27874
18199
27874
48459
34377


1.70 E5
2.20 E5
6.00 E4
7.00 E5
2.00 E6
2.75 E8
2.00 E6
1.70 E5


E16
E16
E16
E16
E15
E12
E13
E16


8
23
24
144
27
3
46
198

165
29
8
97
127
22
2
62
513


230
653
690
4174
789
100
1344


4785
845
243
2808
3675
648
50
1811








Table 3 (continued)


Indigenous Non-renewables Resources
16 Groundwater 2.88 E16
17 Bromine 1.71 Ell
18 Coal 1.33 E15
19 Natural gas 2.32 E17
20 Petroleum 6.44 E16
21 Soil losses 1.34 E13
22 Topsoil losses 2.44 E16
23 Electricity (nucl.) 1.27 E17


Imports
24 C
25 P
26 I'
27 P
28 P
29 P
30 C
31 S

Exports
32 F
33 L
34 C
35 S


:oal
petroleum
nitrogen
hosphorus
'otassium
'esticides
koods
services


'oultry
.ivestock
;oods
services


2.32 E17
2.38 E17
1.32 Ell
6.99 E9
6.82 E10
5.60 E10

1.85 E10


1.35 E16
3.99 E15

2.24 E10


1.60 E5
1.31 E10
3.98 E4
4.80 E4
5.30 E4
1.00 E9
7.40 E4
1.70 E5


3.98 E4
5.30 E4
4.60 E9
3.90 E9
1.10 E9
1.48 E10

1.75 E12


7.00 E5
2.00 E6

3.45 E12


46
22
1
111
34
134
18
215
582


92
126
6
0
1
8
9
324
567

94
80
2
774
1231


1336
650
15
3228
990
3892
522
6243
16876


2673
3654
176
8
22
240
263
9386
16421

2730
2313
61
22440
35675





Footnotes for Table 3

Area of the State = 1.35 E11 m2

1. Sunlight: 385 ly/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day (Weather Atlas of US)
Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(1.35 Ell m2)(365 days/yr)(4186
J/kcal) = 7.93 E20 J/yr

2. Wind energy
Calculated as Odum, 1996, Appendix B, with eddy diffusion
coefficient and vertical gradient coefficient (Odum, Diamond and
Brown, 1987)
= (height)(density) (diff coefficient) (wind gradient) (area)
= (1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m3/m2/s)(4.42 E-3 m/s/m)2
(area)(sec/yr) = 1.51 E18 J/yr

3. Rain geopotential energy
= (area)(runoff/yr) (ave elev gradient) (1000 kg/m3)(9.8m/s2)
average rain = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr
Energy
((1.34 E9 m2)(450m) + (1.78 E10 m2)(390 m) + (2.67 E10 m2)
(120 m) + (8.92 E10 m2)(75 m))(0.50 m)(1000 kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2)
= 8.55 E16 J/yr

4. Rain chemical potential
(Water used in evapotranspiration) = 55 in (Weather Atlas of US)
pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et al., 1987)
= 46.75 in/yr = 1.19 m/yr
Energy = (area) (evaporation) (1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 7.91 E17 J/yr

5 River geopotential
Major Inflowing rivers Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers
Flow in Arkansas River = 872 m3/s (Water Data-USGS, 1971)
Change in elevation (210 m 30.5 m)
Energy = (volume) (density) (height in height out)(gravity)
= 4.84 E16 J/yr
Flow in (Mississippi River) = 13300 m3/s
Change in elevation: (45 21 m)
= 9.86 E16 J/yr
Assumed 1/2 used in the State = 4.93 E16 J/yr
Total River Geopotential = 9.77 E16 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

6. River chemical potential in major inflowing rivers:
Arkansas River flow = 872 m3/s
Gibbs Free Energy in = 4.92 J/g (200 mg/1 dissolved solids)
Gibbs Free Energy out = 4.88 J/yr (400 mg/1 dissolved solids)
Energy = (volume)(density) (Gibbs Free Energy)
Energy in = 1.35297 E17
Energy out = 1.34472 E17
In Out = 8.24982 E14
Mississippi River flow = 13300 m3/s
Energy in = 2.06 E18
Energy out = 2.05 E18
In out = 1.26 E16 J/yr
Arkansas state total = 6.29 E15 J/yr
Total river chem potential = 7.12 E15 J/yr

7. Earth Cycle Energy = (land area)(heat flow/area)
= Assumed heat flows = 1 E6 J/m2/yr
Energy = 1.35 E17 J/yr

Notes 8-10. Agricultural production data on Arkansas from Census of
Agriculture (1992): Sorghum 5.93 E8; wheat 9.59 E8; rice 3.42 E9;
cotton 3.43 E8; soybeans 2.70 E9
Energy calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al.(1987)
Energy = (mass)(energy/unit)

8. Rice and Soybeans
Rice = (3.43 Ell g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.17 E15 J/yr
Soybeans = (2.70 E12 g)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.56 E16 J/yr
Total = 5.07 E16 J/yr

9. Wheat (3.42 E12 g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.73 E16

10. Sorghum and Cotten
Sorghum = (9.59 Ell g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.33 E16 J/yr
Cotton = (2.70 E12 g)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.52 E16 J/yr
Total = 5.86 E16 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

Notes 11-12. Animal production data for Arkansas from Census of
Agriculture (1992): Cattle 1.63 E6; cattle sold 8.18 E5; hogs & pigs
7.25 E5; pigs sold 2.02 E6; sheep 1.20 E4; chicken 2.21 E7;
broilers 8.62 E8
Calculated as in Odum, H.T. et al. (1987)
Energy = (annual production mass)(energy/mass)

11. Poultry Broilers
= 2.13 kcal/g (US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8)
(number produced)(1.8 kg/animal)(2.13 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.38 E16 J/yr

12. Livestock
Energy contents from US Department of Agriculture Handbook 8
Beef = 2.92 kcal/g; pork = 3.76 kcal/g

(Cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 3.48 E15 J/yr

Pigs: (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 2.86 E15 J/yr

13. Forest Production Data from US Department of Agriculture -
Southern Forest Experimental Station, Vissage, J.S. and P.E. Miller -
Southern Pulpwood production, 1990

Pulpwood production for 1990;
4.99 E6 cords = 6.38 E8 ft3 = 1.81 E7 m3
Density assumed 450 kg/m3 (specific density = 0.45)

Forest production = 8.13 E9 kg/yr = 8.13 El2 g/yr

Energy = (weight)(3.6 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.23 E17 J/yr

14. Fish production data from Census of Agriculture, 1992,
on fish sales in Arkansas: 4.45 E7 lb = 2.02 E7 kg
Energy = (mass)(energy/mass)
= (92.02 El0 g fish)(1.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 8.71 E13 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

15. Hydroelectricity production data from EIA Electrical Power Annual
(1992) = 3.48 E13 Btu
Energy = (3.48 E13 Btu)(1055.87 J/yr/Btu) = 3.67 E16 J/yr

16. Groundwater data from US Geological Survey
Open File Report 91-203 on 1989 water use for Arkansas:
Groundwater consumption:
4.25 E3 = million gal/day = 5.88 E9 m3/yr
Chemical potential energy of groundwater:
(volume)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.9 J/g) = 2.88 E16 J/yr

17. Bromine data from The Mineral Yearbook, 1992
Bromine production = 1.71 E5 ton/yr = 1.711 Ell g/yr

18. Coal production data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Administration Coal production (1992)
= 4.60 E4 short ton = 4.17 E4 ton/yr
Energy = (41731.2 ton)(3.18 El0 J/ton) = 1.33 E15 J/yr

19. Natural gas production data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Agency/ Natural gas annual 1992, Vol. 1
= 2.11 Ell cubic feet
= (2.11 E8 thsd cubic ft)(1.1 E9 J/thsd cubic feet) = 2.32 E17 J/yr

20. Petroleum production data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2
= 1.026 E7 barrels
Energy produced:
= (10260 E3 barrels)(6.28 E9 J/barrel) = 6.4433 E16 J/yr

21. Soil loss erosion in Arkansas cropland = 500 g/m2/yr (Odum et al.,
1983); cropland area = 2.69 E10 m2
(500 g/m3/yr)(2.69 E10 m2) = 1.34 E13 g/yr

22. Topsoil Energy Losses:
Assuming 3% organic content and 5.4 kcal/g
(Soil weight per year)(organic fraction)(5.4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 9.10 E15 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

23. Electricity (nuclear) data from EIA- Electrical Power Annual, 1992
Nuclear energy = 1.20 E14 Btu
(1.20 E14 Btu)(1055.87 J/Btu) = 1.27 E17 J/yr

24. Coal import data for Arkansas from Energy Information
Administration State Energy Data Report, 1992
= 12536 E3 short tonn = 220.7 trillion Btu
Coal energy use = (220.7 E12 Btu)(1055.87 J Btu) = 2.33 E17 J/yr
Coal Imported = (use produced) = 2.32 E17 J/yr

25. Petroleum import data from Energy Information Administration/
Petroleum Supply Annual 1992, Vol. 2
4.29 E7 barrels = 2.29 E14 Btu = 2.38 E17 J/y

Notes 26-28. Fertilizers estimated for crops and area planted:
using kilograms per hectare as follows:

N P205 K20

Sorghum 37.8 3.4 0.9 (Pimentel, 1980)
Wheat 89.7 1.12 0 (Pimentel, 1980)
Rice 134.5 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980)
Cotton 40.0 16.0 17 (Kohee & Lewis, 1984)
Soybeans 5.61 0 33.6 (Pimentel, 1980)


26. Nitrogen use in kilograms/yr:
For sorghum 5.28 E6; wheat 2.96 E7; rice 7.42 E7; cotton 1.54 E7;
soybeans 7.19 E6
Total N used (g/yr) = 1.32 E11 g/yr

27. Phosphorus use in kilograms/yr:
Sorghum 4.75 E5; wheat 3.70 ES; rice 0; cotton 6.14 E6; soybeans 0.
Total P use = 6.99 E9 g/yr

28. Potassium use in kilograms/yr:
Sorghum 1.26 E5; wheat 0; rice 1.85 E7; cotton 6.52 E6;
soybeans 4.30 E7
Total P used = 6.82 E10 g/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

29. Pesticides data for Arkansas from US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, 1994 1992 Census of Manufactures Agricultural
Chemicals
= 2.02 E8$/yr
Average price of pesticides
= 3.60 $/kg pesticides
Weight of pesticides used in the State = Expenses/Average Price
= 5.60 E7 kg = 5.60 E10 g/yr

30. Goods imported into Arkansas were estimated as a fraction of U.S.
imports of basic mineral and metal production in 1992. Arkansas
population is 0.94% of U.S. population.

U.S. Imports (1994 US Statistical Abstract):

Item Quantity Emergy/g Emergy, sej/yr

Iron Ore 1.25 E13 g 1.00 E9 1.25 E22
Steel Prod. 1.73 E13 g 2.64 E9 4.57 E22
Aluminum 1.16 E12 g 1.60 E10 1.86 E22
Copper ref 2.89 Ell g 6.80 E10 1.97 E22
9.64 E22

Emergy = (9.64 E22 sej/yr)(0.0094) = 9.06 E20 J/y

31. Services supplied to Arkansas with imports

a. Services with fuels

Btu $/1 E6 Btu $ Expenditures

Coal 2.17945 E14 1.66 3.62 E8
Petroleum 2.28576 E14 7.82 1.79 E9
Total 2.15 E9


b. Services with imported manufactured goods estimated as fraction
of U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas;
Arkansas population 0.94% of U.S. population
(4.76 Ell dollars)(0.0094) = 4.46 E9 $/yr






Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

c. Relative services imported from other parts of U.S. as given in
Table 4 = 1.02 E10 $

d. Federal benefit to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $

Total imported services = 1.85 E10 $/yr

Notes 32-33. Animal production sold out of state estimated as the
difference of production and consumption in the State.
Per capital consumption from 1994 US Stastitistical Abstract -
Data as boneless weight with data on pounds divided by
0.70, the percent of meat in the whole animal weight


32. Poultry broiler sales out of state:
Production 1.55 E12 g
Consumption per capital 1.80 E4 g
Consumption 4.3 E10 g
Weight exported 1.51 E12 g
Broiler energy exported:
(1.51 E12 g exported)(2.13 kcal/g)(4186


J/kcal) = 1.35 E16 J/yr


33. Livestock sales out of state:


Production
Consumption per capital
Consumption
Weight exported
Cattle energy:


Beef
2.86 Ell g
4.07 E4 g
9.75 E10 g
1.89 Ell g


= (1.89 E11 g)(2.92 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
Pork energy:
= (1.07 Ell g)(0.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
Total Livestock exports = 3.99 E15 J/yr


Pork
1.81 Ell g
3.11 E4 g
7.45 E10 g
1.07 Ell g

= 2.31 E15

= 1.68 E15


34. Goods exports were estimated as fraction of U.S. exports of iron and
steel products in 1992 5.3 E6 tons (1994 US Statistical Abstract)
Weight = (5.3 E6) (907 kg/ton)(l E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g
Emergy = (4.8 E15 g)(4.65 E9 seJ/g) = 2.24 E22 sej
In proportion to population
Iron & Steel products from Arkansas
= (2.24 E25)(0.0094) = 2.10 E20 sej/yr




43


Footnotes for Table 3 (continued)

35. Services exported = (value of total production)(percent exported)
a. Animals exported:
(production 2.44 E9 $/yr)(0.85 exported) = 2.08 E9 $/yr
b. Foreign Export from Arkansas in 1992 = 1.32 E9 $
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
c. Relative exports to other States from Table 4 = 1.63 E10 $
d. Federal Taxes in 1992 = 2.75 E9 $
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
Total Export = 2.24 E10 $/yr








Table 4
Export and Import Exchange Between Arkansas and Other States


Agr. Min. Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Retail Finance Serv. Gov't


U.S. average

State average

Difference

$/employee

#/employees

Export/import $


0.03

0.01

-0.02

34579

-18729

-6.48 E8


0.01

0

-0.01

149096

-9365

-1.40 E9


0.06

0.04

-0.02

34365

-18729

-6.44 E8


0.17

0.24

0.07

50971

65552

3.34 E9


0.07

0.05

-0.02

58460

-18729

-1.1 E9


0.04

0.05

0.01

75550.89

9365

7.08 E8


0.17

0.18

0.01

26341

9365

2.47 E8


0.07

0.04

-0.03

125580

-28094

-3.5 E9


0.35

0.23

-0.12

25541

-112375

-2.9 E9


0.05

0.16

0.11

116726

103011 t

1.2 EIO


Imports: -1.02 E10 $/yr

Exports: 1.63 E10 $/yr

Net Export: -6.14 E9 $/yr

(Calculation done considering the difference in percent of employment per sector for U.S. and State and the relative
contribution of employee of each sector to the country GNP)






Footnotes for Table 4


EXPORTS
1. Animal production (GOODS)
Production Per capital
grams consump
Beef 5.56 Ell 114044.8
Pork 1.81 Ell 72640.0
Broiler 2.16 E12 50303.2
Total 2.89 E12


State
consump
2.73 E11
1.74 Ell
1.2 Ell


Export

2.83 E11
7.59 E9
2.04 E12
2.33 E12


Energy
J/yr
5.07 E15
1.76 E14
2.04 E16
2.56 E16


Production = (number of animals)(average weight)


Assuming
Cattle =
Pork =
Broiler =


average weights for
680 kg
90 kg
2.5 kg


Per capital consumption (Data from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, pounds of
commodity consumed per capital in 1992, Table 220)
Information was given in terms of boneless weight. Therefore, pounds in
commodity per capital was divided by a factor (0.25 or 0.3), assumed to be
the percent of meat in the whole animal weight.
State consumption = (per capital) (State population)
Export = production consumption

Energy = (weight (g))(caloric content (kcal/g))(4186 J/kcal)
Caloric content of cattle = 4.26 kcal/g
Pork = 5.53 kcal/g
Broiler= 2.39 kcal/g

2. Value of animal exports (SERVICES)
Value of total production = 2.44 E9 $
Percent exported = 3.19 E12/3.76 E12 = 0.848
Value Exported = (value of total production)(percent exported)
= 2.07 E9 $






Footnotes for Table 4 (continued)


3. Grain exported (GOODS)
Production
grams
Sorghum 5.93 E11
Wheat 9.59 E11
Rice 3.42 E12
Cotton 3.43 Ell
Soybeans 2.7 E12
Hay 2.11 E12
Total 1.01 E13


Internal
consumption
0
1.5 Ell
1.83 E10
0
0
0
1.69 E11


Protein
produced
4.74 E10
1.15 Ell
4.79 Ell
1.37 E10
9.18 Ell
2.32 Ell
1.81 E12


Protein produced = (production) (percent protein)
% protein: Sorghum, 8%; Wheat, 12%; Rice, 10%; Cotton, 4%; Soybean, 34%;
Hay, 11%


Animal Consumptiom **1
Production Prot weight
grams % protein
Beef 5.56 Ell 0.2
Pork 1.81 Ell 0.13
Broiler 2.16 E12 0.2


Feed prot/
grams
1.11 E11
2.36 E10
4.31 Ell


Tot feed
prot weight
15.5
10.5
5.5


protein
1.72 E12
2.48 Ell
2.37 E12
4.34 E12


**1 from Pimentel, 1979
** Considering that 60% of protein come from another source that is not
grains, (Pimentel, 1979), we have:
Protein for feeding = (0.4)(total feeding protein)
= 1.74 E12 g/protein
Therefore, the amount required for feeding is about the same amount that
is produced in the State.
NO NET GRAIN EXPORT

4. Export of Services
State Foreign Export (SERVICES)
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
Foreign Exports in 1992 = 1.32 E9 $
Relative exports to other States (SERVICES), According with Table 1
= 1.63 E10 $






Footnotes for Table 4 (continued)

5. Value of taxes (SERVICES) (referring to 1992 taxes)
(1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States)
Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $
TOTAL SERVICES EXPORTED = 2.24 E10 $

6. Iron and Steel Products (GOODS)
U.S. Export of Iron and Steel products in 1992 (from 1994 US Statistical
Abstract)
= 5.3 E6 tons
(5.3 E6)(907 kg/ton)(1 E3 g/kg) = 4.81 E12 g
(4.8 E15 g)(4.65 E9 sej/g) = 2.24 E22 sej
Considering the State contribution proportional to its population
contribution to U.S.:
Iron/Steel products from Arkansas = (2.24 E25)(0.0094)
= 2.1 E20 sej


IMPORTS SERVICES
1. Value of the fuels
Btu $/1 E6 Btu Expenditures
$
Coal 2.18 E14 1.66 3.62 E8
Petroleum 2.29 E14 7.82 1.79 E9
Total 2.15 E9

2. Manufactured goods (SERVICES)
Calculating U.S. imports for 1992 less petroleum, meat, and gas
= 475697 million dollars
Estimating the amount shared by the State, considering the percent of U.S.
population living in Arkansas (0.94% of U.S. population)
Therefore, the share of foreign imports
= 4.46 E9 $

3. Relative Services
Considering the relative services imported from other parts of U.S. (as
shown in Table 1)
Relative services = 1.02 E10 $





Footnotes for Table 4 (continued)

4. Federal benefits
Federal aid for Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $
Therefore, total imported Services = 1.85 E10 $

5. Imports (GOODS)
Imports of basic mineral and metal products by U.S. in 1992 (1994 US
Statistical Abstract)


Item

Iron Ore
Steel Prod
Aluminum
Copper ref


Quantity
g
1.25 E13
1.73 E13
1.16 E12
2.89 E11


Energy


Transformity


1.00 E9
2.64 E9
1.60 E10
6.8 E10


Considering the State is 0.94% of U.S. population, the amount of Emergy
imported for basic mineral and metals for Arkansas is:
Basic minerals = (9.64 E22)(0.0094)
= 9.06 E20 J/y


Emergy
J/yr
1.25 E22
4.57 E22
1.86 E22
1.97 E22
9.64 E22





Table 4.1.a
State GDP Generated per Employee


by Sector


Sector Number of Gross State Dollars per % of total
Employees* Product# employee employees
E9 $


Agriculture 5641 2 354547 0.01
Construction 34565 1 28931 0.04
Manufacturing 228683 10 43729 0.24
Wholesale trade 46527 2 42986 0.05
Retail trade 167215 4 23921 0.18
Finance 37676 5 132710 0.04
Services 212954 5 23479 0.23
Transportation 49915 4 80136 0.05
Mining 3286 2 608643 0.00
Government 150000 0 0.16
936462

* 1992
# 1990
Table 4.1.b
U.S. Employment per Industry, 1992


Sector Employees GNP Dollars per % of total
thousands E9 $ employee employees


Agriculture 3210 111 34579 0.03
Mining 664 99 149096 0.01
Construction 7013 241 34365 0.06
Manufacturing 19972 1018 50971 0.17
Transportation 8245 482 58460 0.07
Wholesale 4765 360 75551 0.04
Retail sale 19589 516 26341 0.17
Finance 7764 975 125580 0.07
Services 40758 1041 25541 0.35
Government 5620 656 116726 0.05
117600 5499 46760










Emergy signature for Arkansas State


C f
o .c iS
ai


Figure 8. EMERGY signature of environment and economy in Arkansas.


350


300


* 250
C4
N
3U 200


> 150


( 100
uJ
50


0






Table 5
Emergy Indices for Arkansas


Item Name of index Expression* Quantity


Renewable use R

Indigenous non-renewable N

Imported emergy I

Total emergy used U=R+N+I U

Total exported emergy E

Emergy used from home sources (N+R)/U

Imports-exports I-E

Ratio of export to imports E/I

Fraction used, locally renewable R/U

Fraction of use purchased outside I/U

Fraction used, imported service Import ser./U

Ratio of economic to free (U-R-N)/(R+N)

Use per unit area (1.35 El m2) U/area

Use per person (2.39 E6 persons) U/population

Arkansas State Econ. Product (1990) GSP

Ratio of emergy use to GSP, Ark. U/GSP

Ratio of emergy use to GNP for U.S. U/GNP


1.98 E22 sej/y

5.82 E22 sej/y

5.67 E22 sej/y

1.35 E23 sej/y

1.23 E23 sej/y

0.58

-6.64 E22 sej/y

2.17

0.15

0.42

0.24

0.73

9.98 Ell sej/m2

5.64 E16 sej/indiv.

39 E9 $/yr

3.45 E12 sej/$

1.75 E12 sej/$


* For letters see Figure 7. U sum of inputs = R + N + I.






Cache River Basin

Energy Systems Diagram
Figure 9a is the overview model of the Cache River Basin with an overlay
diagram of the water components and flows given in Figure 9b. The basin
is rural with a few human settlements. Groundwater-irrigated rice and
some catfish aquaculture are based on the large water volumes.

Emdollar Evaluation Tables
Table 6 has the emergy and emdollar evaluation of the important sources,
imports, and exports. Table 7 has the exchanges with the rest of the
United States based on the percentage of workers in various occupations.
Contributions to real wealth from the tables are shown in bar graph form
in Figure 10 from left to right in order of their transformity (position in
natural energy hierarchy).

Cache River Basin is well served by rain (~48 in) during the whole year,
and with high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall
months. The Cache River basin is basically a flatland, and water has little
geopotential energy. The water evapotranspired by vegetation measures
the contribution of rain chemical potential. Rain chemical potential emergy
is the highest source of natural renewable emergy.

The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area largely based on
indigenous soils and waters. The intensive agriculture of recent years has
used soils and groundwater faster than their normal rate of restoration.
Groundwater has been nonrenewable with about 70% of the recharge of
the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer diverted to irrigation in 1972
(Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents, respectively, 28% and
26% of non-renewable energy used in the state and the basin. Soil formed
in the past makes up about 74% of the nonrenewable emergy use and 28%
of total emergy use in the basin. The agricultural production depends on
goods and services, fuel, and fertilizers brought into the basin from
outside. Goods and services make up about 24%.

Outside sales of grain carry high emergy, much more than is in the buying
power of the money received. Both areas export much more emergy than
they import.

Emergy Indices
Indices for the Cache River Basin derived from the emergy evaluation
tables are listed in Table 8. Although rural, the basin is only 48% self
sufficient. Its ratio of resources added by the economy to the






















Cultivation, 1 -><-
Irrigation, -
Processing
Rice & Catfish
Aquaculture


Cache River Basin, Arkansas


(a)
Figure 9. Energy systems diagram of the Cache River Watershed (a) with
main empower inputs in solar emjoules per year (b) water budget overlay.























X / J Irrigation,
Processing
Rice & Catfish
Aquaculture


Water Flows in the Cache River Basin

Water Budget Overlay Diagram for Cache River Model

(b)

Figure 9 (continued)
Figure 9 (continued)






Table 6
Annual Emergy Flows of the


Cache River Basin


Note Item Data & Units Emergy/unit Emergy U.S. Em$*
E20 seJ E6


Renewable Resources
1 Direct sunlight
2 Wind
3 Rain geopotential
4 Rain chemical pot.
5 Earth cycle


2.87
5.45
4.29
2.86
4.88


E19 J/yr
E16 J/yr
El5 J/yr
E16 J/yr
E15 J/yr


Indigenous Renewable Energy
6 Rice and soybeans 1.24 E16 J/yr
7 Wheat 1.30 E15 J/yr
8 Others 1.84 E15 J/yr
9 Poultry 4.24 E12
10 Livestock prod. 4.37 E13 J/yr
11 Fish prod. 2.53 E12 J/yr

Indigenous Non-renewable Energy
12 Losses of earth 1.54 E12 g/yr
13 Losses of topsoil 1.05 E15 J/yr
14 Groundwater 3.62 El5 J/y


Imports
15 Coal used
16 Natural gas
17 Petroleum
18 Electricity
19 Nitrogen
20 Phosphorus
21 Potassium
22 Pesticides
23 Goods & services

Exports
24 Rice & soybeans
25 Goods & services


8.43 E15 J/yr
8.65 E15 J/yr
1.09 E16 J/yr
6.93 E14 J/yr
1.66 E10 g/yr
5.18 E8 g/yr
8.08 E9 g/yr
5.03 E9 g/yr
5.95 E8 $/y


1.20 E16 J/yr
7.57 E8


1
1496
10488
18199
29000


1.70 E5
2.20 E5
6.00 E4
7.00 E5
2.00 E6
2.00 E6


1.00
7.40
1.60


3.98 E4
4.80 E4
5.30 E4
1.70 E5
4.19 E9
1.42 E10
9.50 E8
1.48 E10
2.3 E12


1.70 E5
3.45 E12


*U.S. $ 1990


0.29
0.81
0.45
5.21
1.41


21.08
2.86
1.11
0.03
0.87
0.05
26.00

15.4
0.78
5.79
22.01

3.35
4.15
5.79
1.18
0.70
0.07
0.08
0.74
13.69
29.75

20.33
26.11
46.43


8
24
13
151
41


611
83
32
1
25
1
754

448
22
168
638

97
120
168
34
20
2
2
22
397
862

589
757
1346






Footnotes to Table 6


Area of the Cache basin = 4.88 E9 m2

1. Direct sunlight
Insolation for Arkansas (from US Env. Data Serv. 1975: Weather
Atlas of the US) = 385 Langleys/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day
Energy = (3850 kcal/m2/day)(4.88 E9 m2)(365 days)(4186) J/kcal
= 2.87 E19 J/yr

2. Wind calculated with eddy diffusion coefficient and vertical gradient
coefficient (Odum, Diamond and Brown, 1987; Odum, 1996)
Energy = (height) (density) (diff coefficient) (wind gradient) (area)
= (1 E3 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m2/s)(4.42 E-3 /s)(4.88 E9 m2)
= 3.15 E16 J/yr = 5.45 E16 J/yr

3. Rain geopotential with average rainfall = 48 in/yr = 1.22 m/yr
Elevational gradient = 483 ft = 147.22 m
Energy = (area)(rain/yr) (elev. gradient) (1000 kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2)
= 4.29 E15 J/yr

4. Rain chemical potential as water used in evapotranspiration
Evaporation = 55 in (from US Env. Data Serv. 1975: Weather
Atlas of the US)
Pan coefficient = 0.85 (Scott, H.D. et al., 1987)
Water evapotranspired = 46.75 in = 1.19 m/yr
Energy = (area) (water evaportranspired) (1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g)
= 2.86 E16 J/yr

5. Earth cycle energy = (land area)(heat flow/area)
= 4.88 E15 J/yr
where heat flows assumed = 1 E6 J/m2/yr

Notes 6-8. Agricultural Production
For the main crops of Arkansas, data from Census of Agriculture,
1992 were multiplied by the percent area of each county in the
basin. Production was estimated in kg/yr:
Sorghum 9.30 E7; wheat 9.42 E7; rice 4.98 E8; cotton 2.06 E7; and
soybeans 2.90 E8
Energy = (mass)(energy/unit) calculated as in Odum et al. (1987)






Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

6. Rice and soybeans
Rice = (4.98 Ell g)(3.60 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 7.51 E15 J/yr
Soybeans = (2.90 Ell g)(4.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 4.89 E15 J/yr
Total weight: 7.88 E11 g; Total energy: 1.24 E16 J/yr

7. Wheat
(9.42 E10 g)(3.30 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.30 E15 J/yr

8. Others
Sorghum = (9.30 E10 g)(3.32 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.29 E15 J/yr
Cotton = (2.06 E10 g)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 3.44 E14 J/yr
Hay = (1.64 E10 g)(3.0 kcal/g)(4186 J) = 2.06 E14 J/yr
Total energy: 1.84 E15 J/yr

Notes 9-10. Animal Production
Data from Census of Agriculture, 1992 for Arkansas.
Production data for the main animals were multiplied by the percent
area of each county in the basin. Energy was calculated
= (animals sold)(mass of each)(energy/mass) as in Odum et al. (1987)
Number of animals sold per year in Cache River Basin:
Cattle 13215; cattle sold 6964; hog & pigs 4514; pigs sold 9831;
sheep129; broilers 2.64 E5

9. Poultry energy
= (number of broilers)(2.5 E3 g/animal)(2.39 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 4.24 E12 J/yr

10. Livestock
Cattle = (cattle sold)(3.5 E5 g/animal)(2.92 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 2.98 E13 J /yr
Pigs = (pigs sold)(9 E4 g/animal)(3.76 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.39 E13 J/yr
Total: 4.37 E13 J/yr

11. Fish production data from Census of Agriculture,1992 for Arkansas.
Production data for fish production in counties of the basin were
multiplied by the percent area of each county:
Production = 5.87 E5 kg/yr
Energy = (grams fish)(1.03 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.53 E12 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

12. Losses of earth
Cropland Erosion = 500 g/m2/yr
Cropland area = 3.09 E9 m2
Soil Losses = (500 g/m2/yr)(3.09 E9 m2) = 1.54 E12 g/yr

13. Topsoil Losses = 1.54 E12 g/yr
Typical soils are = 3% organic matter and 5.4 kcal/g org.
Energy
= (loss per year)(organic fraction)(5.4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.05 E15 J/yr

14. Groundwater data from Arkansas Summary for 1989
(US Geological Survey- Open File Rep 91-203)
Total water use = 0.39 E8 m3/yr
Chemical potential of basin groundwater
(volume/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.9 J/g) = 3.62 E15 J/yr

15. Coal data from Energy Information Administration State Energy
Data Report for1992:
State consumption = 12536 E3 short ton = 220.7 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area
Energy:
(220.7 E12 Btu/yr)(0.036) = 7.98 E12 Btu/yr = 8.43 E15 J/yr

16. Natural gas consumption data from State Energy Data report 1992.
Arkansas total = 225 billion cubic feet = 226.6 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area.
Energy = (226.6 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 8.19 E12 Btu/yr = 8.65 E15 J/yr

17. Petroleum data from Energy Info Administration State energy data
report forl992:
Arkansas consumption = 53115 E3 barrels = 286.3 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area
Energy = (286.3 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 1.04 E13 Btu/yr =1.09 E16 J/yr

18. Electrical power data from Energy Information Administration
4707 million Kwh = 155.7 trillion Btu
Consumption in proportion to basin area, 0.036 fraction of state area
Energy: (155.7 E12 Btu)(0.036) = 5.63 E12 Btu/yr = 6.93 E14 J/yr







Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

Notes 19-21. Fertilizers
Calculated considering occupied areas and the fertilizer
concentrations (kg/ha) used in the different cultures

19. Nitrogen used in the basin = 1.66 E7 kg/yr

20. Phosphorus applied in the basin = 5.18 E5 kg/yr as P205

21. Potassium applied in the basin = 8.08 E6 kg/yr as K20

22. Pesticides chemicals in the basin; 3.6 $/pesticides from Table 3;
(expenditure $)(1000)(basin % of state area) = 1.81 E7 $/yr
weight in kg/yr = (chemicals costs in $)/3.6 $/kg of pesticides
= 5.03 E9 g/yr

23. Goods and services brought into Arkansas estimated from costs
a. Services with imported fuels, estimated from coal, petroleum,
electricity and natural gas consumption = 2.32 E8 $/yr

b. Services with foreign imports:
(4.49 E9 $/yr)(0.94% of state population in basin) = 4.21 E7 $/yr

c. Purchases from other states of the U.S. based on relative
employment in different economic sectors in the basin compared
with averages outside, as given in Table 7.1 = 3.50 E8 $/yr

d. Federal services estimated as percent (in population terms) of the
federal transfer payments to Arkansas in 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994
US Statistical Abstract)
= (0.009)(transfers to Arkansas) = 1.59 E7 $/yr
Total Imported Services = (a + b + c + d) = 5.95 E8 $/yr

24. Exports: Rice and soybeans energy calculated as:
(product weight) (caloric content in kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
Rice: 4.98 Ell g/yr yields 7.50 E15 J/yr
Soybeans: 2.64 Ell g yields 4.45 E15 J/yr
Total energy 1.20 E16 J/yr





Footnotes for Table 6 (continued)

25. Goods and services leaving the basin:

a. Foreign grain exports: 0.09 percent (basin proportion of state
population) of Arkansas foreign exports of grains; prices from 1994
US Statistical Abstract table 1113 Principal Crops production,
supply and disappearance, 1989/1993 = 1.54 E8 $/yr

b. Basin foreign exports (services)
Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports: 1.32 E9 $/yr
Basin contribution: 1.24 E7 $/yr

c. Relative exports to other parts of U.S. using Table 6.1, computing
the relative differences in employment in economic sectors between
the basin and average for the U.S. = 5.61 E8 $/yr


d. Services equivalent to tax money estimated as a fraction of
federal taxes paid by the state = 2.75 E9 $/yr
Basin federal taxes 2.58 E7 $/yr


Total services going out of the basin = 7.53 E8 $/yr











Emergy signature for the Cache River basin


03 0

*i *
a: a: -


Figure 10. EMERGY signature of environment and economy of the Cache
River Watershed.


I-

10
0 10

U


i6


E
4
4


2


0








Table 7
Exchange Between Other Parts of the U.S. and the Cache River Basin
Estimated from the Percent of Employees in Occupational Sectors


Agr. Mng. Constr. Manuf. Transp. Wholes. Ret. Fin. Serv. Govt.


U.S. average 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.35 0.05

Basin 0.01 0 0.03 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.19 0.18

Differences -0.02 -0.01 -0.03 0.13 -0.03 0.01 0 -0.04 -0.16 0.13

$/employee 34579 149096 34365 50971 58460 75551 26341 125580 25541 116726

#/employees -497 -249 -746 3233 -746 249 0 -995 -3979 3233

Exp/Imp -1.72E7 -3.71E7-2.56E7 1.65E8 -4.36E7 1.88E7 0.00E -1.25E8 -1.02E8 3.77E8

Imports: 3.50 E8 $

Exports: 5.61 E8 $

Net Export: 2.11 E8 $

($/employee portion of the GNP generated by employee by sector in U.S.)






Footnotes For Table 7


IMPORT SERVICES
1. Value of imported fuels
Btu
Coal 7.979 E12
Natural Gas 8.192 E12
Petroleum 1.035 E13
Elecricity 5.629 E12


$/1 E6 Btu
1.66
3.44
7.82
19.56


Total Expend.
1.325 E7
2.818 E7
8.094 E7
1.1 E8
2.32 E8 $


2. Manufactured goods (Services)
Estimating the amount of foreign goods imported by Arkansas
Estimated foreign goods imports by Arkansas = 4.49 E9 $
Basin = 0.94% of state population
Therefore, imports of manufactured goods (Services) = 4.21 E7 $

3. Relative services
Imports from U.S. outside basin (based on relative differences on different
industrial sectors in the basin and outside, as shown in Table 3a)
Relative services = 3.50 E8 $

4. Federal benefits (Services)
Estimating as percent (in population terms) of the Federal Aid transferred
to Arkansas
Federal Aid to Arkansas, 1992 = 1.69 E9 $ (1994 US Statistical Abstract)
Basin Aid = (0.009385)(Arkansas Fed Aid) = 1.59 E7 $

TOTAL IMPORTED SERVICES = 5.95 E8 $


EXPORTS
1. Grain exported
Production
g/yr
Sorghum 9.30 E10
Wheat 9.42 E10
Rice 4.98 E11
Cotton 2.06 E10
Soybeans 2.90 Ell
Hay 1.64 E10
1.01 E12


Consumption


4.48
5.45


Remaining
production
9.299 E10
8.9746 E10
4.9785 Ell
2.0554 E10
2.8982 Ell
1.637 E10
1.0073 E12


I






Footnotes for Table 7 (continued)

Consumption calculated as per capital consumption of flour and cereal
multiplied by number of persons in the basin


Animal Feeding
# of animals


Beef
Pig
Broiler


Sorghum
Wheat
Rice
Cotton
Soybeans
Hay


20179
14345
264181


Weight
(grams)
1.37 E10
1.29 E9
6.6 E8


Production

9.299 E10
8.9746 E10
4.9785 E11
2.0554 E10
2.8982 E11
1.637 E10


Protein
content
0.08
0.12
0.1
0.04
0.34
0.11


Feed protein
ratio (g/g)
15.5
10.5
5.5


Protein
available
7.44 E9
1.08 E10
4.98 E10
8.22 E8
9.85 E10
1.80 E9
1.69 E11


Protein

4.254 E10
1.762 E9
7.265 E8
4.503 E10

Protein for
feeding
7.44 E9
0
0
0
8.76 E9
1.80 E9
1.80 E10


Production
available
0
8.9746 E10
4.9785 Ell
2.0554 E10
2.6406 Ell
0


Considering 60% of needed protein is coming from other sources,
protein needed for animal = 1.8 E10 g
(assuming that protein is provided by hay and sorghum and soybeans)


Grain production available for export


Wheat
Rice
Cotton
Soybeans


Production
(grams)
8.97 E10
4.98 Ell
2.06 E10
2.64 E11


Energy
J/yr
1.25 E15
7.5E15
3.44 E14
4.45 E15
1.35 E16


Sales
$
1.07 E7
6.46 E7
2.49 E7
5.39 E7
1.54 E8


(Grain Prices from 1994 US Statistical Abstract, Table 1113)
Principal Crops- production, Supply and Disappearance, 1989/1993
Grain Export (GOODS) = 1.35 E16 J/yr
Grain Export (SERVICES) + 1.54 E8 $






Footnotes for Table 7 (continued)


2. Animal Production
Weight Internal
(grams) consumption
Beef 1.37 E10 8.14 E9
Pig 1.29 E9 5.34 E8


1.50 E10
Animal Prod (GOODS) =


Counties

Butler
Clay
Craighead
Greene
Jackson
Lawrence
Monroe
Poinsett
Prairie
Woodruff


Sales/county
1000 $
3538
3127
3248
5001
1979
6354
832
1794
7286
372


Exp/
imp.
5.58 E9
7.57 E8


6.34 E9
1.175 E14 J/yr


% basin

0.095755
0.354792
0.303259
0.462598
0.450701
0.15494
0.228013
0.183625
0.068496
0.695715


Energy
J/yr
9.997 E13
1.752 E13
1.175 E14


Sales-basin
1000$
338.78
1109.43
984.99
2313.45
891.94
984.49
189.71
329.42
499.06
258.81
7900.07


Total Sales 7.9 E6 $
Export = (% exported)(total sales) = 3.34 E6 $
Animal Prod (SERVICES) = 3.34 E6 $


3. Basin Foreign Exports (SERVICES)
Taken as percent (in population terms) of Arkansas foreign exports:
Arkansas contribution to U.S. foreign exports = 1.32 E9 $
Basin contribution = 1.24 E7 $

4. Relative Exports to others parts of U.S. (SERVICES)
Calculated as shown in Table 3a, computing the relative differences
between Basin and average U.S. in employment in different industry
Relative Exports from Basin = 5.61 E8 $

5. Value of Taxes (SERVICES)
Estimating as percent of Federal Taxes paid by the State
Arkansas Federal Taxes = 2.75 E9 $
Basin Federal Taxes= 2.58 E7 $


EXPORTS (SERVICES) Total = 7.57 E8 $






Table 8
Emergy Indices for Cache River Basin


Item Name of Index Expression Quantity


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Renewable use R

Indigenous non-renewable N

Imported emergy I

Total emergy used, U=R+N+I U

Total emergy exported E

Emergy from home sources R+N/U

Imports exports I- E

Ratio of exports/imports E/I

Fraction locally renewable R/U

Fraction purchased I/U

Fraction imported services Imp ser/U

Ratio of economic to free (U-N-R)/(R+N)

Use per unit area (4.87 E9 m2) U/area

Use per person U/population


5.66 E20 sej/y

2.20 E21 sej/y

2.98 E21 sej/y

5.74 E21 sej/y

4.64 E21 sej/y

0.48

-1.67 E21 sej/y

1.56

0.10

0.52

0.24

1.06

1.18 E12 sej/m2

8.0 E16 sej/person






environmental renewable resources is 5.3. Water use is 20% (10%
groundwater) of the total source of real wealth, but the agricultural
economy based on the water including the imported inputs to agriculture
is 45% of the total emergy budget.

Comparisons
Emergy Indices of the Cache River basin were compared with those for the
whole Mississippi River basin in Table 6 (Diamond, 1984; Odum, Diamond
and Brown, 1987). The Cache River basin like the Mississippi River basin
used half of its emergy from home sources, but just 10% were locally
renewable. Compared to the rest of the state the Cache River basin used
less emergy from home (~48%), although a larger fraction came from
renewable resources (18%). Like the Mississippi basin and Arkansas as a
whole, the Cache River basin was an emergy exporter. The ratio between
exports and imports was 2.17 for the state, 1.50 for the Mississippi basin,
and 1.56 for the Cache River basin. Imported services were 24% for the
state, 29% for the Mississippi basin and 24% for the Cache River basin.
Annual emergy use per area in the Cache River basin(1.12 E12/m2/yr)
was greater than in the Mississippi basin and Arkansas state (~9 Ell/m2).
Emergy per person was very high (8 E16 sej/person) compared to that in
the larger areas of Arkansas and the United States as a whole.

Black Swamp
Energy Systems Diagram
Figure 11 is an overview model of the main parts and processes in a
hectare of Black Swamp. An efforts was made to include the parts and
processes considered important by those making recent studies such as
those in the special issue of the Wetlands Journal in 1997.

Emergy Evaluation Tables
Typical emergy flows were evaluated in Table 10 and represented in the
bar graph as a function of transformity in Figure 12. Water transpiration
and work of physical motions of water were the principal basis for this
ecosystem. There were also inputs by human managers and users.

Emergy Indices
Managed for its natural characteristics the ratio of economic inputs to the
natural environmental value was small (0.25), a ratio less than found in
national parks.






































Figure 11. Energy systems diagram of the Black Swamp with main
empower inputs in solar emjoules per year.






Table 9
Annual Emergy Flow in the Black Swamp


Note Item Raw units Emergy Solar Emdollars!
per unit Emergy 1992
J, g, $ sej/unit E16 sej/yr E3 $/yr


1 Solar energy, J 9.26 E16 1 9 27
2 Wind energy, J 1.76 E14 1496 26 76
3 Rain chemical pot., J 9.48 E13 18199 173 500
4 River geopotential, J 5.37 E13 27764 149 432
5 River chem potential, J 4.80 E13 48459 232 674
6 Forest evapotransp, J 9.23 E13 18199 168 487
7 Migratory birds, J 1.29 Ell 9.70 E5 12.5 36
8 Fish influx, J 2.43 E10 1.00 E6 2.4 7
9 Recreational uses, $ 1.75 E5 4.70 E12 82 239
10 Gross production, J 9.88 E13 33610* 332
Total Emergy = 414 1201

! 3.44 E12 sej/$

Area = 3888 acres (Coe, 1974) = 1.57 E7 m2 =1573 ha

* Sum (#4 + #6 + #7+ #8) = 332 E16 sej/yr
Solar transformity = (3.32 E18)/(9.88 E13) = 33610 sej/J

1. Solar energy = 385 ly/day = 3850 kcal/m2/day
(3850 kcal/m2/d)(1.57 E7 m2)(365 d)(4186 J/kcal) = 9.26 E16 J/yr

2. Wind energy
= (height) (density) (diffusion coefficient) (wind gradient) (area)
(1000 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.7 m2/s)(3.16 E7 s/yr)(0.0044/s2)
(1.57 E7 m2) = 1.76 E14 J/yr where diffusion coeff = 14.72 m3/m/s
and wind gradient = 0.00442 m/s/m

3. Rain chemical potential:
(1.22 m precip)(1.57 E7 m2)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 9.48 E13 J/yr






Footnotes for Table 9 (continued)

4. River geopotential
Flow in and out = 1.37 E9 (from average USGS data, 1987-
1993); (from Dortch, 1996, p. 361)
Elevation change = (57 m 53 m) (from Walton et al., 1996)

Geopotential energy used:
(volume/yr)(1000 kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2)(4 m drop) = 5.37 E13

5. River chemical potential
Mean annual river flow (Patterson) estimated from 5-year data
from US Geological Survey Water Data reports from Arkansas,
1987-1990 (1993). Flows from Dortch, (1996, p. 361)

Used chemical potential:
100 mg/l to 500 mg/1 (Kadlec & Knight, 1996)
Change in total dissolved solids = 400 150 mg/1
(1.37 E9 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.925 4.89 J/g) = 4.79 E13 J/yr

6. Bottomland hardwood evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration to pan evaporation ratio = 0.95 (cyp. riverine
from Lugo A., 1990)
Pan evaporation = 55 in = 139.7 cm (from US Env. Data Serv. 1975:
Weather Atlas of the US)
Assuming transpiration/pan evap =0.85
Transpiration rates = 118.745 cm
Forest transpiration energy
= (1.187 m)(1.57 E7 m2)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g) = 9.2 E13 J/yr

7. Birds migrants
Abundance of migrants during breeding season
1.5 birds/0.48 ha plot = 3.125 birds/ha
(3.125)(1573) ha = 4916 birds
Average weight = 19 g/bird = 9.5 g dry weight/bird
Bird dry weight/swamp = 4.67 E4 g dry wt
Respiration = (dry weight) (conversion factor) (23 6g/yr)
= 1.10 E7 g/yr (Costanza et. al, 1983)
Energy = (1.1 E7 g/yr)( 5.6 kcal/g)(4196 J/kcal)(0.5 yr)
= 1.29 Ell g/seas






Footnotes for Table 9 (continued)

8. Fish Influx as larvae
Larvae in floodplain in spring = 1.81 ind./m3
In spring + early summer = 1.33 ind./m3
For the whole season assume = 1.0 ind./m3
Volume of inundation water into the floodplain = 5.0 E6 m3

Based on transects and water stages (Kleiss, 1996)
5.0 E6 larvae in spring; average larval weight = 2 g
Total weight = (2 g/ind.)(5 E6 ind) = 1.0 E7 g
Energy
= (1 E7 g)(0.2 dry)(5.8 kcal/g)(4186 J/cal)(0.5 yr) = 2.43 E10 J

9. Recreational uses
Area demand: 3.10 E6 man/hours (Corps of Engineers, 1974)
Rec. areas in the region = 78,000 acres
Black Swamp = 3880 acres
Black Swamp percent = 0.0497
Black Swamp share 5% of demand = 1.55 E5 man/hours
Energy
(1.55 E5 man/hour)(104 kcal/h)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.7478 El0 J/yr

Counting by trips
Trips demands for hunting/fishing = 116,900 trips/year
Black Swamp area = 5% available area in the region
Black Swamp's trips = 5845 trips/year
Estimated cost/trip = $3.3/trip (Corps of Engineers, 1974)
Estimated expenses/trip = $20.00/trip (assumed)
Total expenses = 175,350 $/year
(Solar emergy)/(emergy/money for Arkansas)
In 1992 Emergy/money ratio = 4.70 E12 sej/$

10. Black Swamp gross primary production
= (5900 tonne/swamp/yr)(1 E6 g/tonne)(4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 9.88 E13 J/yr






Table 10
Annual Emdollar Values in one Hectare of the Black Swamp
For value of 1.57 E3 hectares of Black Swamp, multiply by 1570


Item Baseline River River Pumped
Evaluation Diverted Channelized Groundwater


1 Forest productivity 309 295 280 342
2 Sediment retention 1335 1135 0 1335
3 Organics retention 4023 3419 0 4023
4 Fish production 525 92 0 0
Total 6192 4941 280 5700


* Emdollars calculated by dividing emergy values by Arkansas emergy/dollar
ratio for 1992 = 3.45 E12 sej/$

Emergy per unit used to evaluate emergy:
Forest production 4916 sej/J
Sediment retention 1.7 E9 sej/gram
Organic matter retention 6.24 E4 sej/J
Fish production 2 E6 sej/J

1. Forest productivity:
Baseline evaluation: floodplain from inundation frequency in a natural
floodplain (Brinson, 1990) with 25% transition
Floodplain =11.5 t/ha/yr; transition = 7 t/ha/yr; upland = 10 t/ha/yr
Production/ha = (0.25)(1 ha)(7t/ha) + (0.75)(1 ha)(11.5 t/ha)
= 10.375 t/ha/yr
Energy = (10.375 t/ha/yr)(1 E6 g/t)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.17 Ell J/yr

Evaluation of swamp with diverted river: using upland, 15%; transition
30%; floodplain 55% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha,
11.5 t/ha.

Evaluation of channelized river: using upland, 80%; transition 20%;
floodplain 0% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha, 11.5 t/ha.

Evaluation of pumped groundwater impact: using upland, 0%; transition
25%; floodplain 75% with production, respectively: 10 t/ha, 7 t/ha, 13 t/ha.






Footnotes for Table 10 (continued)

2. Baseline sediment retention 2.75 tonne/ha/yr
River diversion 85% sediment retention
Channelization 0% sediment retention
Groundwater pumping, normal sediment retention

3. Baseline organic retention 1.07 E7 g/ha/yr
River diversion 85% retention
Channelization 0% retention
Groundwater pumping, normal retention

4. Baseline fish production 187 kg/ha
With river diversion 85%
With channelization 0%
With groundwater pumping 70%













Emergy signature for Black Swamp


.5
(0


-4----


E

i 3


-- -


E


Figure 12. EMERGY signature of a hectare of Black Swamp Ecosystem.


1


250





200


0 150-
--




uJ
U1
Q
QI
5 100 -


E
uJ






Comparisons
The annual emergy uses and flows are high comparable with other more
productive ecological systems.

Simulating Impacts

Diagram of the overview ground water model in Figure 13a has the
equations beneath the diagram and the mathematical terms for each
pathway or storage. Figure 13b has the values of flows and storage used
in the calibration based on calculations in Appendix Table Al. The
coefficients for the simulation model were calculated in Appendix Table
A2.

Figure 14 has the results of simulating the model calibrated with pre-
impact conditions. River water is the main water input to the swamp
(Figure 14a). Average standing water in the swamp varied from less than
0.10 m in the summer to 1.20 m in the winter and early spring months.
Water levels followed the annual sine-wave fluctuation supplied to
represent sunlight, rain and river. When river waters receded, the water
inputs to the swamp were provided by rainfall and groundwater. These
inputs were critical for the forest production because they occurred during
summer season when sunlight was maximum in the area.

The seasonal pulsing of sunlight and rain produces corresponding pulses in
photosynthetic production (Figure 14b). Similar graphs were obtained for
the several impact conditions (Appendix A), and these differences from the
base calibration run are summarized in Table 11. To understand the
impact interactions, the reader might use a finger to trace the pathways in
the model (Figure 13a) to see how each management action causes the
changed values reported in the summary Table 11.

The results of simulated effects of the various conditions on average gross
primary production and the swamp are given in Table 3.1.

Included in Appendix A are 26 year simulations of the overview model
(Figure 13a) for various conditions. Yearly fluctuations of the gross
primary production are displayed in the top panel, forest biomass and
water level of the swamp on the middle panel, and groundwater level and
the groundwater influx into the underlying aquifer on the bottom panel.
Impacts simulated separately were:
Pre-impacted conditions Figure B.1.
Effect of cutting forest Figure B.2.
Effect of lowering groundwater Figure B.3.







































Figure 11 with water pathways highlighted.






Effect of diverting river flows Figure B.4.
Simulation of combined actions (= cumulative impacts) were:
Effect of lowering groundwater and cutting forest Figure B.5.
Effect of lowering groundwater and diverting river Figure B.6.
Effect of diverting river and cutting forest Figure B.7.
Effect of lowering groundwater, diverting river and cutting forest -
Figure B.8.

Simulated Effects of Separate Impacts
According to the model predictions, cutting 10 or 20% of the forest did not
cause major impacts in the system production. In 7 to 10 years the forest
returned to the pre-impact conditions.

Reducing groundwater inputs and lowering the average groundwater level
in the area caused a 20% reduction in the groundwater inputs and caused
forest production and biomass to be reduced to 67% and 74% of the pre-
impacted values, respectively. Diverting 20% of river waters caused forest
production and biomass to decrease to 61% and 69% of the pre-impacted
conditions, respectively.

Simulation of Cumulative Impacts
Cutting biomass did not increase the larger impacts of lowering
groundwater or diverting the river. However, there were cumulative
synergistic effects of river diversion and lowering groundwater. Reducing
these two water inputs by 20% caused the forest production and biomass
to decrease to just 31% and 45% of the pre-impact values. The strongest
impact came from a scenario with 20% reduction in forest biomass,
groundwater and river water inputs. In this case, forest production and
biomass were reduce to 28% and 39% of the initial conditions, respectively.
































L = 1 + 0.5*Sin[(T+8)*0.523]


R = R1 + R2 *Sin(T*0.523) Lr = L/(1 + k1 1*S*B)
Jc = Jo + J1*Sin[(T + 13)*0.523]
Js = k4*[(Jc/Jcl)-2]
J5 = k5*{ [(S/S1)-hO]-[(A/A1) h1 ]}

dA/dt = Jg k*A +J5
dB/dt = k30*P -k31*P-k32*B -k33*B
dS = R + Js k7*P K3*S -k6*S -J5

(a)

Figure 13. Overview simulation model of impacts on waters of the Cache
River watershed affecting the Black Swamp. (a) With mathematical
equations; (b) with values of flows and storage used for calibration from
Appendix Table Al.


Product: P = Lr*S*B






























050


Figure 13 (continued)







(a) Water Inflow to Swamp

4- 35
c 30
S25 River
E 25
20
E 15
S10 Rain
o 5
2 -5 "- -------Ground water
Years



Sunlight Water Level Production
1.5 -- 12
.-c
10 4
o


I-
: 1.0 8


0 Oo
0.5 4

0 0 0
Years 5
(b) Swamp Characteristics



Figure 14. Simulation of the Black Swamp water model in Figure 13a as
calibrated with values in Figure 13b. (a) Water inputs; (b) sunlight,
primary production, and water level. See Appendix Figures Al A8.






DISCUSSION

Principal Resources

Sunlight and its derived natural energy flows (wind, rain, etc.) work in many
ways over the state and its river basin. However, it is in the form of rain that
it provides higher emergy for these areas, and the way it will be taken into
account in this analysis. Rain fallen over the land and working in the
landscape is measured as runoff geopotential. The water evapotranspired by
vegetation is measured as rain chemical potential. The state and the Cache
River basin are well served by rain (~48 in) during the whole year and
present high evapotranspiration rates during summer and early fall months.
Therefore, rain chemical potential emergy is the highest source of natural
renewable energy in both systems.

Arkansas has an uneven relief, with mountains and plateaus over its west side
and the Mississippi floodplain in its east side. Therefore, it has a relatively
high runoff geopotential (-30% of its renewable emergy). The Cache River
basin is basically a flatland, and water has little geopotential energy there.

The state is relatively rich in nonrenewable resources. It has a good deal of
mineral resources that are intensively used by the present economy. Its
natural gas reserves provide the amount used by the state and supply the
state with 28% of its energetic needs (EIA, 1994). The Cache River basin,
however, has no fuel reserves and depends on imports to supply its energetic
consumption.

The Cache River basin is basically an agricultural area, and therefore the
indigenous nonrenewable resources most used in the area are soil and
groundwater. Groundwater was taken as nonrenewable because about 70% of
the recharge of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer was already used
by irrigation in 1972 (Ackerman, 1989). Groundwater emergy represents 22%
and 14% of nonrenewable energy used in the state and the basin, respectively.

The most striking fact is the agricultural cost in terms of erosion in the Cache
River basin. Soil formed in the past is now intensively used. Soil loss makes
up about 84% of nonrenewable emergy used and 42% of total emergy used in
the basin.

The agricultural production in the basin depends on imports of goods and
services, fuel and fertilizers. Goods and services make up about 36% of the
whole basin emergy import.






The state has a more diversified economy. However, it is still largely
agricultural and dependent on some kind of imports. Fuels represent 31% of
state imports. Goods and services make up 46% of state imports. The basin
exports its high grain production and services embodied in such production.
The state exports meat and services embodied in its industrial production.
Both areas export much more emergy than they import.

Evaluating Change

Perspectives on the roles of various processes, inputs or impacts can be
obtained by comparing the annual emdollars of different flows in the
evaluation tables. Emdollars provide the resource contribution to the dollar
economy, the gross economic product. For example, Table 10 gives the value
of a hectare of Black Swamp and compares effects of river diversion,
channelization, and strong groundwater pumping.

Another way to evaluate the impacts is to observe the effects of a changed
input to a computer simulation model. The simulation automatically includes
synergistic and cumulative impacts. Table 11 has the results of simulating the
water model in Figure 13, showing the percentage decline in emdollar values
for different impacts separately and together. Table 11 has the model's
indications of impact on swamp forest productivity and biomass.

Use of Emergy Evaluation in Permitting

Emdollar evaluation allows environmental resources, their contributions to the
economy, and the impacts to be placed on familiar monetary terms. Whereas
the systems diagrams show pathways of contribution or impact, the
evaluations give substance, indicating how important they are and their
cumulative impacts, as we have shown with examples in Tables 9, 10, and 11
for the Black Swamp.

For those responsible for permits or other decisions about environment, Table
12 summarizes the steps to obtain an emdollar evaluation of a proposed
action. By evaluating the changes anticipated in the environment and the
associated economic development, the new may be compared with the pre-
condition. The general guideline can be to authorize developments that
maximize the annual emdollar production and use (including that of the
environment and the economic uses).






Table 11
Simulated Effects on the Productivity and Biomass of the Black Swamp


Action & % of Initial % of Initial
Impact Intensity Productivity Biomass


Cutting biomass
%/o 100 100
10%/ 99 97
20% 97 94
Diverting river flow
0% 100 100
10%/ 79 84
20% 61 69
Lowering groundwater
P/0o 100 100
10% 79 84
20%/ 61 74
Cutting biomass +
Lowering groundwater
0%/o 100 100
10%/ 80 81
20% 67 68
Cutting biomass +
Diverting river flow
0P0 100 100
10% 79 80
20% 65 63
Diverting river flow +
Lowering groundwater
0%o 100 100
10% 78 67
20% 58 45
Cutting biomass +
Diverting river flow +
Lowering groundwater
0% 100 100
10%/ 59 64
20% 31 39






Table 12
Steps for Emdollar Evaluation of a Proposed Change
(See Also Previous Section on Concepts)


1. Identify the changes by looking at a systems diagram for the
environmental system and its interface with economic use and impact.
Diagrams are already available for most ecosystems and environmental
use systems.

2. List the main changes. For example, replacing a swamp with a
development will have items that are lost and items from the economy
that will be added.

3. Obtain estimates of each of these in the normal every-day or
scientific units. For example, estimates may be appropriate for area of
land use changed, energy of sunlight, volume of water, number of ducks,
dollars spent on construction, etc. It is desirable to evaluate any large
storages--such as water, minerals, soil, forest wood, etc. It is also
necessary to evaluate the annual contribution in amounts contributed per
year.

4. Multiply each of these measures by the emergy per unit from unit
emergy tables. For example, emergy per gram, emergy per individual,
emergy per area, transformity (Table 1). The results of this step are
emergy of the stored quantities and annual emergy flows.

5. Next divide the emergy values from step #4 by the emergy/money
ratio for a recent year. The results are in emdollars. Emdollars include
nature's contribution and the money paid to people on the same scale.

6. Finally compare the alternative proposals including the original
condition to see which represent an increase in total emdollars. A proposal
which decreases total emdollars should not be authorized. Instead, better
designs for development may be found that use the work of nature and
that of the economy in a symbiotic way (called ecological engineering).





Appendix A
Details of Impact Simulation
Appendix Table Al
Data Used for Calibration of the Water Simulation Model in Figure 13

Flows In and Out of Standing Water Storage (S):

1. Rainfall into the area (R)
Average rainfall = 49.2 in (COE, 1974) = 1.25 m/yr
Annual rainfall = (area)(average rain)
= (10,000 m2)(1.25) = 12,500 m3/yr/ha
Considering the Black Swamp area (1573.5 ha)
= (12500 m3/yr/ha)(1573.5 ha) = 19.7 E6 m3/yr/swamp
= 1.64 E6 m3/month
Rainfall was varied during the year, with the sine equation:
R = (R1 + R2)(sin t)(0.523)
R1 = 1.60 E6 m3/month
R2 = 0.40 E6 m3/month
For the calibration month, R = 1.96 E6 m3/month

2. Standing water storage (S)
Assuming an annual average water level in the swamp of
0.30 m, the volume of water retained in the swamp
= (water level)(area) = (0.3)(10000 m2) = 3000 m3/ha
Considering the whole swamp
Volume = (3000 m3/ha)(1573.5 ha) = 4.72 E6 m3/swamp
Volume (assumed) = 5.00 E6 m3/swamp

3. Evaporation and transpiration
According to Lugo, A.E. (1990), evapotranspiration of riverine
cypress in Florida = 95% of pan evaporation.
Assumptions for the Black Swamp ecosystem:
Evaporation = 15% of pan evaporation
Evapotranspiraton = 85% of pan evaporation
Cache R. area: average pan evaporation = 55 in -1400 mm/yr
Ground level evaporation E ~ 200 mm/yr = (0.2 m)(10000 m)
2000 m3/ha
(2000 m3/ha)(1573.5 ha) = 3,147,000 m3
= 3.15 E6 m3/yr/swamp
Canopy evapotranspiration (ET) = 1400 200 = 1200 mm/yr
= (1.2 m/yr) (10000 m2/ha) = 12000 m3/ha/yr
= (12000 m3/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha) = 18.88 E6 m3/yr/swamp
= 1.47 E6 m3/month






Appendix Table Al (continued)

4. River flooding in the swamp
River water inflow is about 14 times the rainfall.
(Annual water budget for Black Swamp, Walton et al., 1996)
River inflow (-14)(1.96 E6 m3) = 2.74 E7 m3
Assumed = 3.0 E7 m3/month

5. Runoff leaving the swamp
The flow needed to empty floodwaters in the swamp in a
period of 4 to 6 months (flooding time).
Flows in = rainfall + river flooding
= 19.7 E6 m3/yr + 89.24 E6 m3/yr = 108.94 E6 m3/yr
Flows out = evaporation + evapotranspiration + runoff
= 3.15 E6 m3/yr + 18.88 E6 m3/yr + runoff
Then Runoff = 108.94 E6 m3/yr 22.03 E6 m3/yr
= 86.91 E6 m3/yr = 7.25 E6 m3/month
Assumed runoff for the calibration month (January)
= 8 E6 m3/month.

6. Groundwater inflow
Groundwater draining to the alluvial water storage (A) found
below the Black Swamp area assumed from the whole
northwest zone of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer
(from its NW boundary to the east Crowley Ridge divide south
to Black Swamp area), about 11,840 km2 which represents
14.3% of the whole aquifer area.
Water budget estimated for the aquifer by Ackerman (1989)
Percent of the aquifer considered:
Flows in layer 1-whole aquifer-1178 cfs; NW zone-168.3 cfs
Flows in layer 3-whole aquifer-2065 cfs; NW zone-295 cfs
Total groundwater flowing into the storage (A) is 463.3 cfs
= 13.12 m3/s = 413.77 E6 m3/yr = 3.46 E7 m3/month






Appendix Table Al (continued)

7. Alluvial water storage
The alluvial aquifer groundwater storage (A) was calculated as
the volume of the water of the Mississippi River valley
alluvial aquifer stored below the Black Swamp area. This
volume was estimated from the average depth (30.45 m)
and the average porosity (0.30) (Ackerman, 1989).
Therefore: volume = (depth) (porosity) (area)
= (30.45 m)(0.30)(10,000 m2/ha) = 91350 m3/ha
= (91350 m3/ha)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 1.44 E8 m3/swamp

8. Groundwater contribution to swamp
Water flow calibrated from swamp to the aquifer during wet
periods and from the aquifer to swamp in dry periods of late
summer. Flow from swamp to the aquifer:
= 5.0 E5 m3/month (about 25% of rainfall)

9. Groundwater out of the alluvial storage (A) calculated as the
water to balance other flows going in and out of the storage.
Groundwater flow in = 3.46 E7 m3/month + 5 E5 m3/montth
= 3.46 E7 m3/month

10. Cache River flow into the Black Swamp (Jc)
Average flow at Patterson (upstream gauging station)
= 1000 cfs = 28.32 m3/s
Annual flow = (28.32 m3/s)(365)(24)(3600 s/yr)
= 8.93 E8 m3/yr (7.44 E7 m3/yr)

11. The inflow river was oscillated according to the equation:
Jc= (JO+ J1)(sin ((t+13)(0.523))
JO = 1.2 E8 m3/month and J1 = 5 E7 m3/month

12. Storage of plant biomass (B) of riverine forest ranges from 100
to 300 ton/ha (Brinson, M.M., 1990). Standing biomass for
bottonland forest at Black Swamp assumed 250 ton/ha.
Total biomass = (standing biomass/ha)(area, ha)
= (250 ton/ha)(1573.5 ha) = (393375 ha) = 3.93 E5 ha




00


Appendix Table Al (continued)

13. Gross production of biomass
Net production in riverine forest like the Black Swamp
13.5 ton/ha/yr, where litterfall is about 5.5 ton /ha/yr
(Brinson, M.M., 1990). Respiration about 70% of gross
production; net production about 30%; gross production
= (13.5 ton/ha/yr)/0.3 = 45 ton/ha/yr
(45 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha) = 70807.5 ton/yr
= 7.1 E4 ton/swamp = 5900 ton/month

14. Biomass used in feeding back into production (Figure 13b)
Net production of litterfall of riverine forest
= (5.5 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 8654.25 ton/yr
= 8.65 E3 ton/yr/swamp (720 ton/month)

15. Net production to consumers equal the remaining net production
(woody production 8.0 ton/ha/yr)
(8.0 ton/ha/yr)(1573.5 ha/swamp) = 12588 ton/yr/swamp
= 1.26 E4 ton/yr/swamp (1050 ton/month).

16. Biomass production used by respiration about 70% of the gross
production = (45 ton/ha/yr)(0.70)(1573.5 ha/swamp)
= 49,565 ton/yr/swamp = 4130 ton/month

17. Sunlight: assumed forty percent of incident sunlight used by the
trees. However, production of the tree biomass proportional to
the 60% unused remainder (Lr) (Odum, H.T.,1983).
Sunlight varied during the year with a sine function
L= (1 + 0.5)(sin ((t+ 8)(0.523))





Al Before Impacts
Productivity J30

Standing Water S
Biomass B


Groundwater A/Ao

Groundwater Inflow Jg
ij


A3 Lowering Ground Water


A2 Cutting Biomass


J t F h '. f : .




.. --. -. .
', :: .,: : :! : : :: ..". :: i.".


A4 Diverting River Inflow




WWMWW-...


Years 26 Years
Figure Al. Simulation of the groundwater model with calibration
conditions before impact.
Figure A2. Impacts of cutting Biomass.
Figure A3. Impacts of lowering groundwater.
Figure A4. Impacts of diverting the river inflows.


ifAknA~A~h i RAAMA,;B1";FI!T 'J


-~----J




A5 Lowered Ground Water A6 Lowered Ground Water &


& Cut Biomass

Productivity J30


Standing Water S
Biomass B



Groundwater A/Ao


Groundwater Inflow Jg


A7 Diverted River & Cut Biomass








: ?; ;"T ; 1: ;' J .w ^' t ^'s:-;?; -^^A"1


I r
Years 26
Figure A5. Cumulative impacts
biomass.

Figure A6. Cumulative impacts
river inflow.


Diverted River


A8 Cut Biomass, Diverted River
& Lowered Ground Water


Years 26
of lowering groundwater and cutting

of lowering groundwater and diverting


Figure A7. Cumulative impact of cutting biomass and diverting river
inflow.

Figure A8. Cumulative impacts of lowering groundwater, diverting river
and cutting biomass.







Table A2
Calibration Values for the Water Simulation Model for the Black Swamp


Expression Value Coefficient Value


R = 1.96 E6
Jc*= 1.58 E8
Jcl = 3.94 E7
Jg= 3.45 E7
Lr = 0.6
Jr= 1.36 E8
S1 = 1.57 E7
A= 1.44 E8
B= 3.15 E5
S = 5.00 E6
Al = 1.57 E7
hO = 2.00 E-l
hl= 9.12


kl*A = 3.46 E7 kl = 2.41 E-l
k3*S = 8.00 E6 k3 = 1.60 EO
k4*((Jc/Jc )-2.0))= 3.00 E7 k4 1.49 E7
k5*(((S/S1)-h0))-((A/A1)-hl))= 5.00 E5 k5 = 5.84 E6
k6*S = 2.625 E5 k6 = 5.25 E-2
k7*Lr*S*B = 1.47 E6 k7 = 1.56 E-6
k11*Lr*S*B = 0.4 kll = 4.23 E-13
k30*Lr*S*B = 5900 k30 = 6.24 E-9
k31*Lr*S*B = 720 k31 = 7.62 E-10
k32*B = 4130 k32 = 1.31 E-2
k33*B = 1050 k33 = 3.33 E-3






Appendix Table A3
Black Swamp Water Simulation Program in BASIC

10 REM BSWF Calibrated without impacts
20 CLS
30 SCREEN 12
40 LINE (0, 0)-(319, 400), 3, B
41 LINE (0, 240)-(319, 240)
42 LINE (0, 90)-(319, 90)
45 REM OPEN "C:\excel\bswpre.dat" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
50 REM SCALING FACTORS
55 t =0
60 DT = .5
70 SO = 500000
80 BO = 6000
85 AO = 10000000
90 JGO = 500000
91 JCO = 2000000!
100 RO = 500000
101 tO = 1
102 LO = .1
103 j40 = 500
110 REM INITIAL QUANTITIES
120 R1 = 1604671
125 R2 = 397671
135 Jcl = 3.94E+07
136 JO = 1.2E+08
137 J1 = 5E+07
140 JG = 3.45E+07
150 A = 1.444E+08
155 Al = 1.57E+07
160 S = 5000000!
161 S1 = 1.57E+07
162 hO = .2
165 hi = 9.12
170 B = 315000
220 REM COEFFICIENTS
230 K1 = .241
240 K3 = 1.6
250 k4 = 1.49E+07
260 KS = 5480000!
270 k6 = .0525
280 K7 = 1.56E-06
310 KI1 = 4.23E-13
360 K30 = 6.24E-09
370 K31 = 7.62E-10
375 k32 =.013111
376 k33 = .003333
380 REM EQUATIONS
383 Jc = JO + J1 SIN((t + 13)* .523)
384 L = 1! + .5 SIN((t + 8) .523)
392 Js =k4 ((Jc / Jcl) -2!)
393 IF Js < 0 THEN Js = 0






Appendix Table A3 (continued)

395 R = R1 + R2 SIN(t* .523)
400Lr=L/(1 +Kl1 *S*B)
401 J5 = KS (((S / Sl) hO) ((A / Al) hi))
402J7 = K7 Lr S B
403 J3 = K3 S
404 J11 = K11 Lr* S B
410 DA = JG (K A) + K5 (((S / S) hO) ((A / Al) hi))
420 DS = R + Js k6 S K7* Lr S B K3 S J5
430DB = K30 Lr S B K31 Lr S* B k32 B k33 B
431 J30 = K30 Lr S B
432 J32 = k32 B
440 REM CHAngING EQUATIONS
450A=A+DA*DT
455 IFA < 0 THEN A = 0
460 S = S + DS DT
465 IF S < 0 THEN S = 0
470 B = B + DB DT
475IF B < THENB=0
480 REM PRINT #1, USING "#############"; R; L; Jc; S; S / SI; B; Js; J5; J7; 13;
J30; J32; A; A / A1; 11
490 REM PLOTTING EQUATIONS
500 PSET (t / tO, 400 A / Al 10), 3
510 PSET (t / tO, 240 S / SO), 2
520 PSET (t / tO, 240 B / BO), 1
525 PSET (t / tO, 90 J30 /j40), 3
526 PSET (t / tO, 400 JG / JGO), 2
528 REM PRINT j5
530 t = t+ DT
540 IF t / tO < 320 GOTO 380









Appendix B
Calculation of Transformities

Transformities of Global Water Flows

Global chemical potential fresh water flows transformities were estimated
following the same rationale that was applied for H.T. Odum (1996) in
calculating transformities for other Earth processes (such as wind, rain,
streams, waves, etc.). It is understood is that all these Earth processes are
interdependent of each other and they require the whole empower budget
contributing to the Earth (9.44 E24 sej/yr) to operate each individual
process. As aggregated in Figure Bla, all the fresh water pathways are
necessary to the global system and thus are coproducts of the total
geobiospheric system.

A global water budget done by L'vovich, 1974 (in Gleick, 1993) was used to
identify the average annual water flows in the pathways. According to the
data, the global average flows are: Precipitation- 110,305 km3/yr,
evaporation- 71,475 km3/yr, groundwater runoff- 11,885 km3/yr, and
surface water runoff- 26,945 km3/yr (Figure Blb).

The chemical potential energy of the water flows was then calculated from
the volume flows using the following equations:
Evapotranspiration (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.94 J/g)
River flows (J/yr) = (volume/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs Free Energy, 4.93 J/g)
Groundwater (J/yr) = (m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(Gibbs free energy, 4.89 J/g).

The Gibbs Free Energy in the flows was estimated considering the free
energy of the fresh water relative the to salty ocean water (Figure B2c).
Concentrations of dissolved solids were assumed to be about 5 mg/1 for
precipitated/evaporated water, around 150 mg/l for river waters and
around 342 mg/l for the groundwater (Lee and Fetter, 1994).

Transformities were calculated as emergy divided by energy.
Evapotranspired rain = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(3.53 E20 J/yr) = 26,735 sej/J

River waters = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(1.88 E20 J/yr) =48,850 sej/J

Groundwater = (9.44 E24 sej/yr)/(5.82 E19 J/yr) = 162,165 sej/J





















(a) Empower: E24 sej/yr


(b) Global Water Cycle: E3 km3/year 12 /iNC'2 2
by L'vovic (Gleik, 1993) ro
Water


.88
3.52
Atomosphere 5.45
& Ocean
& Oc n 1.88 Rivers


(c) Flow of Chemical Potential Energy 0.58 roun 58
of Water: E20 Joules/year Wat


Figure Bl. Diagram of global hydrology for evaluating transformities. (a)
Global emergy basis; (b) global water flows from L'vovich (1974); (c)
energy flows.






Transformities of Migrant Birds

Preliminary transformities of migrant birds were estimated by estimating
the emergy required to support the birds in a hectare of northern nesting
area in summer (Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire) and a winter support area
in Florida. Energy flows in the birds were estimated from respiration rates.
See Appendix Table B1.

Transformities for Agricultural Commodities

Transformities for agricultural products rice, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, corn,
and broiler chickens were evaluated in Appendix Tables B2-B7. The emergy
signatures of these inputs to each of these production processes are shown in
graphical form in Figures B2-B7.






Appendix Table B1
Emergy of a Migrant Bird


Note Item Emergy use Energy use Transformity
sej J sej/J


1 Bird inWinter months 2.49 El 3

2 Bird in Summer months 2.60 E13

3 Annual Support 5.09 E13 5.27 E7 9.7 E5


1. Chemical potential energy of rain transpiration per hectare in 6
months as approximation for ecosystem productivity in southern
wintering area: Rainfall = 140 cm/yr; 35% in fall and winter
Transpiration = 75% of rainfall; Seasonal transpiration
= (140 cm/yr)(0.35/season)(0.75 transpired) = 0.37 m/season
Energy = (0.37 m/season)(1 E4 m2/ha)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94J/g)
= 1.83 E10 J/6 months
Emergy support per bird the product of energy use and the solar
transformity of rain over land, multiplied by 43% going into
migrants, and divided by 5.75 birds/ha
(1.83 E10 J/yr)(1.82 E4 sej/J)(0.43)/5.75 = 2.49 E13 sej/6 mo/bird

2. As in note #1 except with data for summer months using data from
Hubbard Brook, New Hampshire: Energy =
(130 cm rain/yr)(0.40 transp/season)(1 E8 cm2/ha)(4.94J/g)
= 2.57 E10 J/ha/season; Emergy =
(2.57 E10 J/6 mo)(1.82 E4 sej/J)(0.84 migrants)/(15 birds/ha)
= 2.6 E13 sej/6 months/bird

3. Annual emergy basis per migrant bird sum of winter and summer.
Bird energy used from annual respiration:
63% of annual consumption of bird 9.5 g
Energy = (annual respiration per bird)(5.6 kcal/dry wt)(4186 J/kcal)






Appendix Table B2
Emergy Evaluation of Rice Production
Annual Rates per Hectare


Note Items Data Emergy/Unit Emergy
unit/yr sej/J E13 sej/yr


1 Sun, J 1.05 E13 1 1
2 Rain transpired, J 1.48 E10 1.82 E4 27
3 Soil used up, J 9.92 E8 6.30 E4 6
4 Groundwater 3.72 E10 1.60 E5 596
5 Fuel 1.35 E10 6.60 E4 89
6 Machinery, oil equiv. 2.87 E8 6.60 E4 2
7 Pesticide, oil equiv. 3.97 E9 6.60 E4 26
8 Nitrogen 2.92 E8 1.90 E6 55
9 Potassium 2.36 E7 3.00 E6 7
10 Seed, oil equiv. 2.63 E9 6.60 E4 17
11 Electricity 3.78 E9 1.70 E5 64
12 Service, US $ 1977 730 4.40 E12 321


13 Rice production 6.95 E10 1211
14 Transformity 1.76 E5 sej/J


Footnotes
Data on rice plantation at Grand Prairie,


AR, (Pimentel, 1980, p. 95)


1. Solar insolation = 1.00 E6 kcal/m2/yr
Growing season = 3 months = 0.25 yr
(1 E6 kcal/m2/yr)(1 E4 m2/ha)(0.25 yr)(4186 kcal/J)
= 1.05 E13 J/yr

2. Transpiration Energy = (3000 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.94 J/g)
= 1.48 E10 J/yr

3. Soil used up assumed 10 ton/ha/yr (as in Odum, 1996)
Organic Fraction = 0.44% of dry matter
Energy = (weight)(0.0044 org)(5.4 kcal/J)(4186 J/kcal)
= 9.95 E8 J/yr






Footnotes for Appendix Table B2 (continued)

4. Groundwater irrigation = 0.76 m/ha = 7600 m3/yr
Chemical potential energy
= (7600 m3/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(4.90 J/g) = 3.72 El0 J/yr

5. Fuel (Pimentel, 1980): Gasoline 8.70 E5 + Diesel 2.34 E6 kcal/ha
Energy = (3.21 E6 kcal)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.35 +10 J/yr

6. Machinery (embodied fuel in the machinery, Pimentel 1980)
Energy = (6.86 E5 kcal)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.87 E8 J/yr

7. Pesticide
1.1 kg of 2,4,5-T =1.10 E5 kcal/ha
4.5 kg propanil = 4.50 E5 kcal/ha
3.4 kg molinate = 2.94 E5 kcal/ha
Total 9.50 E5 = kcal/ha
Energy = (9.5 E5)(4186 J/kcal) = 3.97 E9 J/yr

8. Nitrogen fertilizer = 134.5 kg/ha
Chemical potential = 2.17 E6 J/kg
Energy = (134.5 kg/yr)(2.17 E6 J/kg) = 2.92 E8 J/yr

9. Potassium fertilizer = 33.6 kg/ha
Chemical potential = 702 J/g
Energy = (33.6 E3 g/yr)(702 J/g) = 2.36 E7 J/yr

10. Seed 156.9 kg; embodied fuel 6.28 E5 kcal/ha
Energy equivalent: (6.28 E5 kcal/yr)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.63 E9 J/yr

11. Electricity in irrigation fuel 0.76 m/ha pumped up 38.1 m
Energy = (7600 m3)(38.1 m)(9.8 m/s2)(1000 kg/m3)/(0.75 eff.)
3.78 E9 J/yr

12. Service as price = 7.02 $/Cwt (CYB, 1978) = $ 0.154 $/kg
(4742 kg production)(0.154 $/kg) = $730

13. Production = 4742 kg/ha
Energy = (4.72 E6 g)(3.5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.95 E10 J/yr

14. Transformity = (1.22 E16 sej/yr)/(6.95 E10 J/yr) = 1.76 E5 sej/J




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs