Research article

Rainfall risk and the potential of reduced tillage systems to conserve soil water in semi-arid cropping systems of southern Africa

  • Received: 09 January 2016 Accepted: 23 February 2016 Published: 25 January 2016
  • Improvement of household food security in the Limpopo Basin has been elusive due to a combination of factors related to information and market constraints, but also farmers’ risk aversion induced by the high variability of rainfall during the growing season. The purpose of this study was to (1) characterize the rainfall and growing season patterns experienced by smallholder farmers, and (2) measure soil water dynamics in ripper and basin tillage systems being promoted in the semi-arid Limpopo Basin of southern Africa. The results show that the second half of the growing season receives more rainfall than the first half in the Limpopo Basin. However, rainfall is more variable during the January-March than the October-December period. Growing seasons start earlier and end later in the Mozambique part of the basin which is closer to the Indian Ocean. The Limpopo Basin is prone to two and three week dry spells with chances of 14 day spells higher (34–42%) than the 21 day spells (8–12%). The chances of 14 and 21 day dry spells increase substantially during the second half of the growing season. The 1980–1990 was one of the driest decades in the Limpopo Basin. Planting basin system conserved more soil water on sandy loam (18–24%) and clay loam (4–12%) soils than the conventional practice during flowering and grain filling maize growth stages. Ripper had 17–29% more soil water than conventional practice during flowering and grain filling maize growth stages. There is a high risk of dry spells and soil water deficits in smallholder cropping systems of the Limpopo basin. There is therefore scope in promoting rain and soil water management technologies, and good land husbandry in order to reduce risk of crop failure in the smallholder cropping systems.

    Citation: W. Mupangwa, S. Walker, E. Masvaya, M. Magombeyi, P. Munguambe. Rainfall risk and the potential of reduced tillage systems to conserve soil water in semi-arid cropping systems of southern Africa[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(1): 85-101. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.1.85

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mette Wik, Taoyuan Wei, Kristine Korneliussen, Rui Zhang, Solveig Glomsrød, Qinghua Shi . Drivers behind energy consumption by rural households in Shanxi. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(4): 576-591. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.4.576
    [2] Resham Thapa-Parajuli, Saurav Aryal, Majed Alharthi, Ramesh C Paudel . Energy consumption, export performance and economic growth in a landlocked developing country: The case of Nepal. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(3): 516-533. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021025
    [3] Svetlana Epshtein, Daria Gavrilova, Elena Kossovich, Valeria Nesterova, Izabella Nikitina, Sergey Fedorov . Technologies of coatings employment for coals oxidation resistance improvement. AIMS Energy, 2019, 7(1): 20-30. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.1.20
    [4] Agus Sugiyono, Irawan Rahardjo, Prima Trie Wijaya, Afri Dwijatmiko, Aminuddin, Erwin Siregar, Silvy Rahmah Fithri, Nona Niode, Ira Fitriana . Transitioning from coal to solar: A cost-benefit analysis for sustainable power generation in Indonesia. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(1): 152-166. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024007
    [5] Vladimir Kaminskii, Elena Kossovich, Svetlana Epshtein, Liudmila Obvintseva, Valeria Nesterova . Activity of coals of different rank to ozone. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(6): 960-973. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.6.960
    [6] Iulia Toropoc . The long and winding road of energy transition: A club convergence analysis. AIMS Energy, 2025, 13(3): 632-695. doi: 10.3934/energy.2025024
    [7] Vladimir A. Kaminsky, Nina Yu. Obvintseva, Svetlana A. Epshtein . The estimation of the kinetic parameters of low-temperature coal oxidation. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(2): 163-172. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.2.163
    [8] Hazrat Yousaf, Azka Amin, Waqar Ameer, Muhammad Akbar . Investigating the determinants of ecological and carbon footprints. Evidence from high-income countries. AIMS Energy, 2022, 10(4): 831-843. doi: 10.3934/energy.2022037
    [9] Gustavo Soutinho, Vítor Miguel Ribeiro, Isabel Soares . Dynamic correlation among title transfer facility natural gas, Brent oil and electricity EPEX spot markets: Spillover effects of economic shocks on returns and volatility. AIMS Energy, 2023, 11(6): 1252-1277. doi: 10.3934/energy.2023057
    [10] Yan Li, Yaheng Su, Qixin Zhao, Bala Wuda, Kaibo Qu, Lei Tang . An electricity price optimization model considering time-of-use and active distribution network efficiency improvements. AIMS Energy, 2025, 13(1): 13-34. doi: 10.3934/energy.2025002
  • Improvement of household food security in the Limpopo Basin has been elusive due to a combination of factors related to information and market constraints, but also farmers’ risk aversion induced by the high variability of rainfall during the growing season. The purpose of this study was to (1) characterize the rainfall and growing season patterns experienced by smallholder farmers, and (2) measure soil water dynamics in ripper and basin tillage systems being promoted in the semi-arid Limpopo Basin of southern Africa. The results show that the second half of the growing season receives more rainfall than the first half in the Limpopo Basin. However, rainfall is more variable during the January-March than the October-December period. Growing seasons start earlier and end later in the Mozambique part of the basin which is closer to the Indian Ocean. The Limpopo Basin is prone to two and three week dry spells with chances of 14 day spells higher (34–42%) than the 21 day spells (8–12%). The chances of 14 and 21 day dry spells increase substantially during the second half of the growing season. The 1980–1990 was one of the driest decades in the Limpopo Basin. Planting basin system conserved more soil water on sandy loam (18–24%) and clay loam (4–12%) soils than the conventional practice during flowering and grain filling maize growth stages. Ripper had 17–29% more soil water than conventional practice during flowering and grain filling maize growth stages. There is a high risk of dry spells and soil water deficits in smallholder cropping systems of the Limpopo basin. There is therefore scope in promoting rain and soil water management technologies, and good land husbandry in order to reduce risk of crop failure in the smallholder cropping systems.


    A variety of energy sources and technologies are used in the United States (U.S.) to generate electricity with sources and technologies changing over time based upon price, efficiency, and environmental impacts. As the U.S. gravitates towards more efficient and sustainable energy sources, natural gas is seen as a transition fossil fuel, with coal-to-gas substitution expected to drive decreased coal consumption [2,3]. Thus, understanding the possibility for substitution between energy sources and the sensitivity of power utilities to changes in the prices of energy sources is essential when examining energy markets as policy makers seek to promote cleaner energy and enhance energy efficiency.

    Electricity energy in the U.S. come from sources of coal (33%), natural gas (33%), nuclear (20%), hydropower (6%), and other renewable sources (7%) such as biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind [4]. Moreover, during 2011-2014 period, electricity from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) has increased by approximately three percent. In this study, we focus on the substitution patterns between coal and natural gas. From 2005 to 2014, the extraction of natural gas has increased by 42% in the U.S. because of developments in hydraulic fracturing technologies. On the other hand, coal production has decreased by 17% from 2008 to 2014 [4].

    Fuel switching, or the substitution of high-carbon with low-carbon energy sources, is one of the principal methods suggested to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [5]. According to the U.S. EIA, the amount of CO2 produced when coal is burned is almost twice that of natural gas. Thus, utilization of natural gas in place of coal leads to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions when generating electricity. Natural gas also exhibited significantly higher rates of energy to electricity conversion efficiency rates compared to coal, with rates of 62-90% and 25-33% respectively [6,7]. As the majority of CO2 emissions originate from coal consumption, the ability to switch from coal to natural gas becomes an important instrument for energy and environmental policy makers.

    The issue of energy demand and coal industry has also become the subject matter of scholarly studies that address various topics. For instance, Apergis and Payne (2012) examine renewable and non-renewable energy demand. They find that the demand for clean energy sources increases with the growth of an economy. Nonetheless, the relationship between economic growth and energy consumption remain a debate [8,9,10,11]. During early phase of economic development, environment degrades, and pollution increases with the income growth. However, environment enhances as economy depends on clean energy [12]. There exists literature about the linkage between energy prices and economic activity [13]. Apergis and Payne (2012) examined the relationship between coal consumption and economic growth for 25 OECD countries over 1980-2005. The findings show that there exists both short and long-term bidirectional causality between coal consumption and economic growth; however, the short run causality is negative. Policy towards lessening coal consumption might not have an adverse impact on economic growth. Economic growth reduces coal consumption as evident from the fact that proportion of coal use in electricity generation has been lessening around the world [14]. Using a panel of 10 hydrocarbon consuming nations, there exists short-run bidirectional causality between economic growth and energy consumption [15].

    Other studies have also been examined regarding coal and natural gas. For example, Arezki et al. (2017) has studied the surge in the generation of shale gas in the U.S. energy markets [16]. The study finds that the shale gas revolution resulted in change in long-term gas price in the U.S. However, the difference in natural gas prices of natural gas is due to differences in its endowment of natural gas which is difficult to trade. The introduction of shale gas led to increase in gas supply impacted the long-run trend in gas prices. Neighbouring countries such as Canada and Mexico may directly benefit from exports of the U.S. shale gas. This is particularly boon for the U.S. economy when decreasing supply of conventional natural gas sources begun to reduce [17]. Prices of coal are determined by long-run contracts, while natural gas prices are determined territorially and state level demand supply relations [18,19,20]. There is a considerable amount of literature highlighting the relationship between crude oil and natural gas prices. This is on the grounds that coal and natural gas are substitute as inputs and utilized in the same market as factors of production. The impacts of natural gas prices on economic activities have been studied, however the related research have lesser insights for natural gas price volatility and coal industry.

    There is some research [13,21] examining the link between energy prices, urbanization, and economic activity as well as several studies analyzing energy elasticities and fuel substitution in energy markets. Zhang and Lin (2012) investigate the impact of energy use and urbanization growth on CO2 emissions. Their findings from using an IPAT equation reveal that urbanization raises fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions gradually in provinces of China. Wang et al., (2019) argue that there has been a long-term co-integration relationship between energy prices, urbanization, and economic growth on energy consumption per capita in 186 countries. In this way, it is critical for policy makers and the coal industry to understand the evolving fuel-substitution capabilities at the national and state levels because of the electric power industry’s ability to respond to changes in the regulatory environment and relative fuel prices by adjusting fuel mix in electricity generation within and across utilities and states.

    The main contribution of this study is to develop an economic framework for estimating the dynamic long-run linkages between coal plus natural gas prices and coal consumption in the U.S. economy. In addition, an Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model is constructed to estimate these linkages. This research contributes to the literature of coal-natural gas linkages by utilizing a time series data model that allows exploration of both short and long-run relationships among variables. A novel contribution is estimating the responsiveness of coal consumption to natural gas price changes in the U.S energy market.

    The empirical findings of the study can provide essential ramifications in regard to government policy. The results of this research have important implications for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), aimed at cutting carbon emissions from power plants. Although the CPP is rejected by the current administration, it is critical to examine the natural gas-coal prices relationship since natural gas is expanding its share of the electricity generation market at the expense of coal given the continued coal to natural gas switching. Given this background, the present research investigates the long-run and short-run dynamic response of coal consumption in the U.S. coal industry due to changes in energy prices and GDP. It is important to know the potential impact of a price-based approach is suitable to reduce emissions for the U.S. economy. The estimation of short and long-run elasticity of prices, both own and cross prices will help frame a proper energy and environmental policy.

    Coal consumption is assumed to be a function of national income, coal and natural gas prices as well as exogenous factors such as weather, seasonality and efficiency. The functional relationship is assumed as follows:

    $ C{C_t} = f\left( {{Y_t},C{P_t},G{P_t},HD{D_t},CD{D_t},S{C_t},S{I_t}} \right) $ (1)

    where CCt is coal consumption in period t, Yt is the real GDP, CPt is the price of coal, GPt is the price of natural gas, HDD is heating degree-days, CDD is cooling degree-days, (SCt) is a control for solar energy use and SI is seasonality variable.

    All variables are converted into natural logs, which helps to reduce the variability of the data series. Logarithmic transformation of the above function takes the following form:

    $ {CC}_{t} = {\alpha }_{0}+{\alpha }_{1}{Y}_{t}+{\alpha }_{2}{CP}_{t}+{{\alpha }_{3}GP}_{t}+{\alpha }_{4}HDD+{{\alpha }_{5}CDD}_{t}+{{\alpha }_{6}SC}_{t}+{{\alpha }_{7}}_{t}si{dv}_{t}+{\varepsilon }_{t} $ (2)

    where $ {\varepsilon }_{t} $ is the stochastic disturbance term and sidvt is a dummy variable for seasonality. 1

    1 The seasonal dummy variable is one for winter (December, January and February) and summer months (June, July, and August) and zero for spring and autumn months.

    Following Engle and Granger, we first test the unit roots of the variables used in the study to confirm their stationarity by performing the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and the Phillips-Perron (PP) tests. If any variables are found to be non-stationary, a first difference is applied to estimate the long-run and short-run dynamics of the variables considered in our study. Tables 1 and 2 presents the results of ADF, PP and Bound tests for each variable considered at their levels and first difference. Zivot-Andrews [22] structural breaks are calculated to find unit roots and the structural break of the variables used, particularly CC and prices of coal and natural gas which are important with respect to the shale gas revolution. The most significant structural break occurred in July 2008 for CC, coal price, natural gas price and GDP.

    Table 1.  Tests for unit root test.
    Log of variables Level First difference Zivot-Andrews
    ADF PP ADF PP ZA
    Coal consumption 0.479 −3.97** −2.267** −3.98** −5.73***
    Coal price −1.871 −2.001 −13.585** −13.58** −4.52***
    Natural gas price −2.55 −2.795 −12.97** −12.97** −8.26***
    GDP −0.708 −0.769 −18.465** −18.390** −6.22***
    HDD −2.026 −6.080** −14.88** −6.604** −4.87**
    CDD −0.207 −1.862 −11.411** −5.235** −5.14***
    SC −2.76 −0.98 −13.56** 5.48** 4.99***
    Notes: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. For the Zivot-Andrews test; the critical values at 1%, 5% and 10% level are −4.93, −4.42 and −4.11 respectively.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Table 2 presents the results of F bound test, which indicate that calculated F-statistics for all variables are higher than the upper bound critical value at a 5% level. This indicates that a long-run cointegration exists linking the dependent and independent variables.Table 2. Results of F bound test.

    Table 2.  Results of F bound test.
    Study period F Statistics
    Total period (2000-2016) 22.012
    Pre shale gas revolution (2000-2008) 9.635
    Post shale gas revolution (2008-2016) 6.52
    Note: Critical value of bounds for all time periods are 2.62 bottom and 3.79 top.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The ARDL model is ideal for our analysis because it can be utilized whether the variables are stationary, non-stationary, or some combination of both. This helps to address the issue of spurious regression before testing for cointegration [23]. The ARDL model also avoids the problem of low power in detecting cointegrating relationships irrespective of the length of data. Using ordinary least square estimation technique the log-linear functional form of ARDL model can be represented as follows:

    $ ∆C = {\alpha }_{0}+\sum _{i = 1}^{m}{\beta }_{i}∆{C}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n1}{\gamma }_{i}∆{CP}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n2}{\phi }_{i}∆{GP}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n3}{\theta }_{i}∆{Y}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n4}{\rho }_{i}∆{HDD}_{t-i} +\\ \sum _{i = 0}^{n5}{\mu }_{i}∆{CDD}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n6}{ᴪ}_{i}∆{SC}_{t-i}{+\delta }_{1}{C}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{2}{CP}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{3}{GP}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{4}{Y}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{5}{HDD}_{t-1}+\\ {\delta }_{6}{CDD}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{7}{SC}_{t-1}+{{\delta }_{8}dv}_{t-1} +{\varepsilon }_{t} $ (3)

    where ∆ is the difference operator and $ {\varepsilon }_{t} $ is the error term. The optimal lag length for each variable is determined using Akaike’s information criterion [24]. Equation (3) was estimated utilizing the ARDL approach to determine if the dependent and independent variables in each model are cointegrated. A joint F-test was conducted on the lagged log-level variables while the differenced variables have no direct impact on the bounds cointegration test [23]. The F-statistic investigates the joint null hypothesis that the coefficients of the lagged log-levels are equal to zero which suggests that no cointegrating long-run relationship exists. The Wald test or joint F statistics is utilized to examine the null hypothesis of cointegrating linkages.

    The long-run dynamics are estimated as:

    $ ∆C = {\alpha }_{0}+{\delta }_{1}{C}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{2}{CP}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{3}{GP}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{4}{Y}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{5}{HDD}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{6}{CDD}_{t-1}+{\delta }_{7}{SC}_{t-1}+\\ {{\delta }_{8}SI}_{t-1} + {\varepsilon }_{t} $ (4)

    Parameters pertaining to short-run dynamics are estimated by an Error Correction Model (ECM) attached with the long-run estimates.

    $ ∆C = {\alpha }_{0}+\sum _{i = 1}^{m}{\beta }_{i}∆{C}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n1}{\gamma }_{i}∆{CP}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n2}{\phi }_{i}∆{GP}_{t-1}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n3}{\theta }_{i}∆{Y}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n4}{\rho }_{i}∆{HDD}_{t-i}+\\ \sum _{i = 0}^{n5}{\mu }_{i}∆{CDD}_{t-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n6}{ᴪ}_{i}∆{SC}_{□-i}+\sum _{i = 0}^{n7}{\oint }_{i}∆{SI}_{t-i}+\varnothing {ECT}_{t-1}+{\varepsilon }_{t} $ (5)

    where $ \varnothing $ is the coefficient of the error correction term, ECTt-1 is the lagged error correction term which is based on the residuals from the long-run equilibrating relationship. Thus, ECTt-1is the speed of adjustment for long-run equilibrium each period in the dependent variable when a change occurs in other variables, m is the lagged length, and $ {\varepsilon }_{t} $ is the serially uncorrelated error term.

    Following Brown et al. (1975), the cumulative sum (CUSUM) test and cumulative sum of squares (CUSUMSQ) are applied to assure the stability of the ECM. Stability of the model can be ensured if plots of CUSUM or CUSUMSQ measurements remain inside basic limits of the 5 percent significance level.

    Estimation is based on monthly data for January 2000 to June 2016. The dataset consists of 198 observations of the eight variables described in equation (2). The data was collected from the U.S. EIA, Federal Reserve Economic Data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics[25,26,27]. The dependent variable, monthly coal consumption, is measured in million British thermal unit (MBtu), coal and natural gas price are measured in U.S. dollar/MBtu. The amount of solar consumption in the U.S.’ energy market is measured in trillion Btu. Data for HDD and CDD were retrieved from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Time series data on real GDP came from Bureau of Economic Analysis. July 2008 was identified as the breakpoint for coal consumption data based on the shale gas revolution in the U.S.’ energy market and a Zivot-Andrews test. Therefore, we split the data into two subsamples: the pre-shale gas period of 2000-2008 and post shale gas period of 2009-2016. All nominal variables were converted into real. Table 3 presents the summary statistics of the data.

    Table 3.  Descriptive statistics.
    Variables Coal Consumption(MBTU) GDP(Million $) Coal Price($/MBTU) Natural Gas Price($/MBTU) Heating degree-days (HDD) Cooling degree-days (CDD) Solar consumption(TBTU)
    Mean 1700044 14520.82 1.04 2.85 362.1 132.15 11.41
    Std.Dev 150045.5 1169.42 0.53 1.24 316.61 150.06 11.37
    Minimum 845520 12294.89 0.442 1.014 2.98 1 2.91
    Maximum 2129983 16659.99 3.78 7.17 995.45 621 58.66
    Note: Number of observations = 198, All variables are converted to natural logarithms.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    At the same time, U.S. electricity generation from coal has decreased along with domestic coal consumption (Figure 1). As a result, the production of coal has decreased over past two decades. As shown in Figure 2, decreasing coal extraction has affected labor market and income for local and state economies in the most producing coal states in the U.S. 2[4]. Moreover, efficiency and lower natural gas prices have led to more consumption of natural gas and less production of coal due to the development of shale gas resources in the U.S. [4].

    2 There are 11 states including Wyoming, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Montana, Indiana, North Dakota, Colorado, and Ohio.

    Figure 1.  U.S. power generation from coal and natural gas (source: U.S. EIA (2016)).
    Figure 2.  Coal producing states and change in coal production (source: U.S. EIA (2017)).

    As far as trends of the variables are concerned, Figure 3 presents the monthly GDP of the U.S from 2000 to 2016. It can be observed that GDP witnessed upward trend till May 2008, then slowed down due to financial crisis. Since March 2009, GDP continued upward trend and continued till then. As indicated from the Figure 4, coal consumption exhibited a falling trend throughout the study period. On the other hand, coal prices did not show volatile price behavior except for a period in 2010 and 2011 (Figure 5). Lastly, natural gas prices followed a range bound pattern throughout the study period, varies between $1 and $7/MBTU (Figure 5). Figures 6 and 7 show the trend of monthly heating degree-days and cooling degree- days. Figure 8 is monthly solar consumption which increased dramatically towards the end of the time period.

    Figure 3.  Economic Growth (US$).
    Figure 4.  Coal consumption (MBTU).
    Figure 5.  Coal -natural gas prices ($/MBTU).
    Figure 6.  Heating degree-days.
    Figure 7.  Cooling degree-days.
    Figure 8.  Solar consumption (TBTU).
    Figure 9.  Plot of the cumulative sum of recursive residuals (CUSUM).

    We analyse the long-run and short-run linkage between coal consumption (CC) and its determinants separately from 2000 to 2008 for pre-shale and 2009 to 2016 for post-shale gas due to a structural break in the U.S. energy market.

    Long-run coefficients for all three time periods are reported in Table 4 where CC is treated as the dependent variable. For the entire period there exists dynamic long-run relationships between CC and all variables based upon statistically significant coefficient estimates. Although the observed elasticities of HDD and CDD are small, the results are the opposite of those expected. These findings suggest that other energy sources may be used during winter and summer time since there is negative relationships between HDD, CDD, and CC.

    Table 4.  Estimated long run coefficients.
    Dependent variable: coal consumption (CC) (2000-2016) (2000-2008) (2009-2016)
    Constant 34.89***(3.25) 17.07***(2.52) 28.45***(9.50)
    Coal price (CP) −0.21***(0.019) −0.05**(0.03) −0.01(0.03)
    Natural gas price (GP) 0.29***(0.03) 0.05*** (0.01) 0.002(0.02)
    GDP −0.41***(0.09) 0.08(0.07) 0.015(0.02)
    HDD −0.09***(0.01) −0.04* (0.03) −0.02(0.02)
    CDD −0.03***(0.009) −0.07**(0.02) −0.01(0.02)
    SC −0.02***(0.02) 0.02(0.05) 0.06(0.08)
    SIDV 0.06***(0.01) 0.01(0.02) −0.02(0.04)
    Adjusted R2 0.72 0.80 0.62
    F Statistics 23.62(0.00) 20.33(0.00) 7.99(0.00)
    Durbin-Watson 2.07 1.84 2.14
    Observations 197 107 89
    Note: All variables are measured as natural logs and *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. Standard errors are in parenthesis.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The income elasticity for the entire period is −0.41 and statistically significant so that an increase in GDP leads to a fall in CC. The results provide evidence that there is a significant negative impact of GDP on coal demand, implying that coal is an inferior good. Also, this finding implies that economic growth has stimulated declining CC via substitution toward more efficient and environment friendly energy sources.

    During the pre-shale period long-run linkages are found to exist between CC and coal price, natural gas price, HDD, and CDD. The other explanatory variables do not show long run linkages. There exists statistically significant own-price and cross-price elasticities for CC. During the post-shale gas period no statistically significant long run linkages are observed. While this result is difficult to explain, further discussion of this result will be provided in the conclusions.

    The coefficients for cross-price elasticities over the entire period and pre-shale are positive and statistically significant, suggesting that coal and natural gas are substitute goods in U.S. energy markets. Comparing this finding to the literature reveals that coal-natural gas cross-price elasticity during the entire period is higher than a previous estimate by the EIA (2012) at 0.17. Moreover, the own-price elasticity is lower than the cross-price elasticity over the entire period.

    Table 5 presents the short-run coefficient estimates for the ECM of ARDL equations. The ECT coefficient gives an indication of short run deviations from the long run equilibrium. As expected, the adjustment variable ECT(-1) in each of the three time periods is negative and statistically significant at the 1% level. These results ensure that stable long-run relationships exist among variables in the CC model. The magnitude of the error correction coefficient implies that disequilibria in the model is corrected by approximately 0.95 percent every month over the entire study period. During the pre-shale period, CC adjusts towards long-run equilibrium much faster compared to the post-shale revolution period. CC, coal-natural gas prices, GDP and other explanatory variables have a tendency to converge towards an equilibrium path in the long run.

    Table 5.  Estimated short run coefficients.
    Dependent variable: CC (2000-2016) (2000-2008) (2009-2016)
    Constant 0.003(0.004) −0.001(0.005) −9.13(15.94)
    ΔCP(-1) −0.13* (0.07) −0.05(0.06) −0.71***(0.013)
    ΔGP(-1) 0.12***(0.04) 0.03(0.03) 0.223***(0.012)
    ΔGDP(-1) −1.85*(0.83) -0.19(0.67) −2.52(1.63)
    ΔHDD(-1) −0.06***(0.008) −0.06***(0.01) −0.04(0.02)
    ΔCDD(-1) −0.005(0.008) −0.06***(0.02) −0.002(0.01)
    ΔC(-1) 0.69***(0.13) 1.17***(0.31) 0.49***(0.18)
    ΔSC(-1) −0.28***(0.06) 0.23(0.14) −0.39***(0.12)
    ECT(-1) −0.95***(0.05) −1.18***(0.20) −0.76***(0.19)
    Adjusted R2 0.62 0.67 0.68
    F Statistics 19.53(0.00) 12.20(0.00) 10.95(0.00)
    Durbin-Watson 2.31 2.38 2.25
    Observations 195 102 96
    Note: All variables are measured as natural logs and *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. Standard errors are in parenthesis.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Table 5 also shows that the estimated short-run elasticities of all variables, except for CDD, are statistically significant over the entire period. In the pre-shale period, the variable coefficients of coal price, the price of natural gas, GDP and solar consumption are not statistically significant. The results also show that HDD and CDD coefficients are statistically significant at 1% for the pre-shale period. In the post-shale period, coal price, natural gas price and solar consumption have statistically significant coefficients in determining CC. There is no statistical significance for CDD, HDD, and GDP coefficients.

    Table 6 provides the results of several diagnostic tests for serial correlation, stability, and normality. The results show that there exists normality, no serial correlation, and no zero coefficients. Figures 3-9 presents the results of CUSUM and CUSUMSQ tests for stability of the model proposed by Brown et al. (1975) to the residuals of the ECM. These tests suggest that the estimated parameters are stable over time and emphasize the existence of a dynamic long run linkage between CC and explanatory variables.

    Table 6.  Diagnostic tests statistics.
    Diagnostic tests (2000–2016) (2000–2008) (2009–2016)
    F Statistics (Wald test) 18.51(0.000) 19.38(0.000) 2.91(0.00)
    Durbin-Watson 2.07 1.84 2.14
    Serial Correlation 4.76 (0.11) 1.21(0.29) 1.93(0.16)
    Normality 0.49(0.75) 0.54(0.31) 0.23(0.17)
    Stability (CUSUM test) Yes Yes Yes
    Observations 198 108 90
    Note: Wald test represents for coefficient diagnostics. J-B test null is normality. B-G test null is no serial correlation up to the selected lag. Parentheses are p-value.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As a result, we can argue that there exists a long-run relationship among the coal consumption and the independent variables of coal price, the price of natural gas, economic growth, and weather conditions. The empirical results obtained in this study are consistent with previous studies. Therefore, these findings are in line with previous literature estimates [5,28], who found that natural gas is an alternative for coal in energy market and power plants.

    During the post-shale gas period of 2009-2016, there are not any statistically significant long run linkages between coal consumption and the independent variables. The cross-price elasticities of coal consumption and natural gas, as expected, are positive at 0.29 for entire period, 0.05 for pre-shale, and 0.002 for post-shale gas. The coefficients for the entire period and pre-shale are statistically significant which suggests that coal and natural gas are substitute goods in U.S. energy markets. For the entire period, a 1 percent decrease in natural gas price leads to 0.3 percent decrease in coal consumption. Comparing this finding to the literature reveals that coal-natural gas cross elasticity during the entire period is higher than a previous estimate by the EIA (2012) at 0.17. Moreover, the own price elasticity is lower than the cross-price elasticity over the entire period.

    Finally, the Impulse Response Function (IRF) is employed to investigate how coal consumption respond to shocks in other variables included in the model (Figure 10). Results of IRF in the period of 2000-2008 are reported in the panel B from Figure 10. The impulse is coal consumption, the responses from natural gas price and HDD shocks have a positive movement but obvious fluctuation during period 6. The responses to coal price and GDP shocks are negative and or positive, and there are distinct effects on the period 2 and 4. The response to CDD is positive until period 7 and decreasing into negative over the final three periods. The responses to solar energy consumption and seasonal dummy changes by coal consumption show fluctuation below and above zero throughout the time periods.

    Figure 10.  Impulse response function (combined).

    The IRFs in the period 2009-2016 in panel C from Figures 3-10 show that the response of coal consumption to a one standard deviation change in coal price as initially zero or negative through period 4 and positive thereafter until the end of the time horizon. Response of coal consumption to natural gas prices starts at zero and then remains positive throughout the entire period. The response of coal consumption to GDP changes also starts at zero and remains consistently negative throughout the entire period. The response of coal consumption to CDD changes is that it increases initially but later decreases and touches the zero line at period 7 and remains negative thereafter. The response of coal consumption to HDD changes is mostly negative or zero until period 8, after which it remains positive until the end. The response of coal consumption to solar consumption and the seasonal dummy variable both shows fluctuations between negative and positive throughout the entire period. Overall, the results provide evidence that there exists a consistency with the empirical results from ARDL model in the three periods of study.

    In this study, we have estimated long-run and short-run responses of coal consumption in the U.S. energy market to changes in coal and natural gas prices, GDP, HDD, CDD, solar usage, and seasonality. The main purpose of these results is to reveal the dynamic linkages among the variables by using an ARDL approach to examine energy switching from coal to natural gas. Long-run results show that the impact on coal consumption from natural gas prices is statistically significant and positive over 2000-2016, suggesting that these two energy inputs are substitutes. In addition, we observe that in the short-run and long-run, coal consumption is inelastic with respect to both coal and natural gas prices. The effect of solar energy consumption and economic growth on coal demand are statically significant and negative. Overall, the income elasticity estimate suggests that coal is an inferior good. This implies that economic growth prompts a decrease in CC and increases in other more efficient sources such as natural gas.

    Since there are not statistically significant, long-run impacts from any variables on coal consumption in the post-shale gas time period, this suggests the expansion of shale gas production has substantially changed the factors that determine coal consumption. However, decreasing natural gas prices relative to coal prices during this time period along with a statistically significant short-run impact might illustrate short term substitutions of natural gas for coal still exist. This substitution has resulted in important shifts in the U.S. energy market and a reduction in CO2 emissions. These results are in line with previous studies [5,7,28,29]. Lastly, economic growth and maintaining the growth of the U.S economy has led to a path of consuming more low carbon energy and less coal. To maintain this energy path, energy policies such as renewable portfolio standards implemented by states around the U.S. should aim at increasing the use of both natural gas and renewable energy.

    These empirical results not only contribute to advancing the current literature, but also deserve certain attention from energy policy makers in the U.S. market. As capacities of power plants are decreasing and new capacities are being established to replace them, power firms are promoting to use more efficient and cost-effective energy sources (i.e., natural gas) to build new power plants over coal-fired plants.

    Finally, this study only provides a primary interpretation of the dynamic response of coal consumption to energy prices and GDP in the U.S., hence, it excludes more explicit examining about the CO2 emissions and structural changes among various economic sectors. Future work could be more directly investigate the roles of economic activities, sectors of economy, and other excluded factors in explaining the substitution of energy resources not only in the U.S but also spillover effects of coal consumption among countries. We look forward to future study along these lines. Given the coal issue of the energy market in the U.S., more study needs to be undertaken to offer a comprehensive resource for policymakers pursuing actual solutions to alleged problems surrounding this industry.

    Neither author has any been affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

    [1] FAO (1986) African agriculture: The next 25 years. FAO, Rome, Italy
    [2] Rosegrant M, Cai X, Cline S, et al. (2002) The role of rainfed agriculture in the future of global food production. International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper No 90. Washington, D.C. February 2002.
    [3] Chilonda P, Machethe C, Minde I (2007) Poverty, food security and agricultural trends in Southern Africa. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (ReSAKSS-SA), Discussion Paper No1. ReSAKSS-SA, IWMI and ICRISAT, Pretoria, South Africa
    [4] Cooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao KPC, et al. (2008) Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: An essential first step in adapting to future climate change? Agric Ecosyst Environ 126: 24-35. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.007
    [5] Twomlow S, Mugabe FT, Mwale M, et al. (2008) Building adaptive capacity to cope with increasing vulnerability due to climatic change in Africa - A new approach. J Phys Chem Earth 33: 780-787. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.048
    [6] Graef F, Haigis J (2001) Spatial and temporal rainfall variability in the Sahel and its effects on farmers’ management strategies. J Arid Environ 48: 221-231 doi: 10.1006/jare.2000.0747
    [7] Rockström J, Falkenmark M (2000) Semiarid crop production from a hydrological perspective: gap between potential and actual yields. Crit Rev Plant Sci 19: 319-346. doi: 10.1080/07352680091139259
    [8] Tadross M, Hewitson BC, Usman MT (2005) The interannual variability of onset of the maize growing season over South Africa and Zimbabwe. J Clim 18: 3356-3372. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3423.1
    [9] Rockström J, Barron J, Fox P (2002) Rainwater management for increased productivity among smallholder farmers in drought prone environments. J Phys Chem Earth 27: 949-959. doi: 10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00098-0
    [10] Cook C, Reason CJ, Hewitson BC (2004) Wet and dry spells within particularly wet and dry summers in the South African rainfall region. Clim Res 26: 17-31. doi: 10.3354/cr026017
    [11] Usman MT, Archer E, Johnston P, et al. (2004) A conceptual framework for enhancing the utility of rainfall hazard forecasts for agriculture in marginal environments. Nat Haz 34: 111-129.
    [12] Chibulu B (2007) Effect of rainfall variability on crop yield under semi-arid conditions at sub-catchment level. MSc. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, Harare.
    [13] Oosterhout van SAM (1996) Coping strategies of smallholder farmers with adverse weather conditions regarding seed deployment of small grain crops during 1994/1995 cropping season in Zimbabwe. Volumes 1 to 3. SADC/GTZ, Harare.
    [14] Stewart JJ (1988) Response farming in rainfed agriculture. Wharf Foundation Press, Davis.
    [15] Rockström J (2000) Water resources management in smallholder farms in eastern and southern Africa: An overview. J Phys Chem Earth B 25: 275-283. doi: 10.1016/S1464-1909(00)00015-0
    [16] Rockström J, Barron J, Fox P (2003) Water productivity in rainfed agriculture: Challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmers in drought prone agroecosystems. In: Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. Kilne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds.). CAB International. pp145-162.
    [17] Mupangwa W, Love D, Twomlow SJ (2006) Soil-water conservation and rainwater harvesting strategies in the semi-arid Mzingwane Catchment, Limpopo Basin, Zimbabwe. J Phys Chem Earth 31: 893-900. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2006.08.042
    [18] Motsi KE, Chuma E, Mukamuri BB (2004) Rainwater harvesting for sustainable agriculture in communal lands of Zimbabwe. J Phys Chem Earth 29: 1069-1073. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2004.08.008
    [19] Mugabe F (2004) Evaluation of the benefits of infiltration pits on soil moisture in semi-arid Zimbabwe. J Agron 3: 188-190. doi: 10.3923/ja.2004.188.190
    [20] Keesstra SD, Geissen V, Mosse K, et al. (2012) Soil as a filter for groundwater quality. Cur Opin Environ Sust 4: 507-516. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.007
    [21] Brevik EC, Cerdà A, Mataix-Solera J, et al. (2015) The interdisciplinary nature of soil. Soil 1: 117-129. doi: 10.5194/soil-1-117-2015
    [22] de Moraes Sá JC, Séguy L, Tivet F, et al. (2015). Carbon depletion by plowing and its restoration by no-till cropping systems in oxisols of sub-Tropical and Tropical agro-ecosystems of Brazil. Land Degrad Develop 26: 531-543. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2218
    [23] Tesfahunegn GB (2016) Soil quality indicators response to land use and soil management systems in northern Ethiopia’s catchment. Land Degrad Develop 27: 438-448. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2245
    [24] Vogel H (1992) Tillage effects on maize yield, rooting depth and soil water content on sandy soils in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res 33: 376-384.
    [25] Enfors E, Barron J, Makurira H, et al. (2011) Yield and soil system changes from conservation tillage in dryland farming: A case study from North Eastern Tanzania. Agric Water Manage 98: 1687-1695. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2010.02.013
    [26] Laudicina VA, Novara A, Barbera V, et al. (2015) Long term tillage and cropping system effects on chemical and biochemical characteristics of soil organic matter in a Meditterrean semi-arid environment. Land Degrad Develop 26: 45-53. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2293
    [27] Makurira H, Savenije HHG, Uhlenbrook S, et al. (2011) The effect of system innovations on water productivity in subsistence rainfed agricultural systems in semi-arid Tanzania. Agric Water Manage 98: 1696-703. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.05.003
    [28] Mupangwa W, Twomlow S, Walker S (2012) Dead level contours and infiltration pits for risk mitigation in smallholder cropping systems of southern Zimbabwe. J Phys Chem Earth 47-48: 166-172. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2011.06.011
    [29] Mhizha A, Ndiritu JG (2013) Assessing crop yield benefits from in situ rainwater harvesting through contour ridges in semi-arid Zimbabwe. J Phys Chem Earth 66: 123-130. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2013.09.008
    [30] Adimassu Z, Mekonnen K, Yirgai C, et al. (2014) Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad Develop 25: 554-564. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2182
    [31] Nyagumbo I (2002) The effect of three tillage systems on seasonal water budgets and drainage of two Zimbabwean soils under maize. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering, University of Zimbabwe. 251pp.
    [32] Mupangwa W, Twomlow S, Walker S, et al. (2007) Effect of minimum tillage and mulching on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water content of clayey and sandy soils. J Phys Chem Earth 32: 1127-1134.
    [33] Mzezewa J, Gwata ET, van Rensburg LD (2011) Yield and seasonal water productivity of sunflower as affected by tillage and cropping systems under dryland conditions in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Agric Water Manage 98: 1641-1648. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.003
    [34] FAO (2004) Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin. Land and Water Discussion Paper 4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5744e/y5744e00.HTM.
    [35] Woltering L (2005) Estimating the influence of on-farm conservation practices on the water balance: Case of the Mzinyathini catchment in Zimbabwe. M.Sc. Thesis. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
    [36] Zhu T, Ringler C (2010) Climate change implications for water resources in the Limpopo River Basin. International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper No 00961. Washington, D.C. April 2010.
    [37] Stern R, Knock J, Rijks D, et al. (2006) INSTAT Climatic Guide. Available from http://www.reading.ac.uk/ssc/software/instat/climatic.pdf.
    [38] Evans LT (1979) Crop Physiology. Blackie & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Bombay.
    [39] Stern R, Knock J, Rijks D, et al. (2003) INSTAT Climatic Guide. Available from http://www.reading.ac.uk/ssc/software/instat/climatic.pdf.
    [40] Stern R, Dennett MD, Dale IC (1982) Analyzing daily rainfall measurements to give agronomically useful results. II. A modeling approach. Exp Agric 18: 237-253.
    [41] Stern R, Dennett MD, Garbutt DJ (1981) The start of the rains in West Africa. J Clim 1: 59-68.
    [42] Le Barbe L, Lebel T, Tapsoba D (2002) Rainfall variability in West Africa during the years 1950-90. J Clim 15: 187-202.
    [43] Hayes MJ, Svoboda MD, Wilhite DA, et al. (1999) Monitoring the 1996 drought using the Standardized Precipitation Index. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 80: 429-438.
    [44] Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1993) Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility. A Handbook of Methods. 2nd Edition. C.A.B. International, Wallingford, UK, 221pp.
    [45] Makuvaro V, Walker S, Munodawafa A, et al. (2014) An overview of current agronomic practices of smallholder farmers in semi-arid Central and Western Zimbabwe. Afr J Agric Res 9: 2710-2720. doi: 10.5897/AJAR11.606
    [46] Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, et al. (2014) Sources of vulnerability to a variable and changing climate among smallholder households in Zimbabwe: A participatory analysis. Clim Risk Manage 3: 65-78. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2014.05.004
    [47] Mason SJ, Lindesay JA, Tyson PD (1994) Simulating drought in southern Africa using sea surface temperature variations. Water SA 20: 15-22.
    [48] Lyon B, Mason JJ (2007) The 1997-98 summer rainfall season in southern Africa. Part 1. Observations. J Clim 20: 5134-5148.
    [49] Thierfelder C, Wall PC (2009) Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on infiltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil Till Res 105: 217-227. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2009.07.007
    [50] Mkoga ZJ, Tumbo SD, Kihupi N, et al. (2010) Extrapolating effects of conservation tillage on yield, soil moisture and dry spell mitigation using simulation modelling. J Phys Chem Earth 35: 686-698. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2010.07.036
    [51] Bouma JA, Hegde SS, Lasage R (2016) Assessing the returns to water harvesting: A meta-analysis. Agric Water Manage 163: 100-109. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.08.012
    [52] Shumba EM, Waddington SR, Rukuni M (1992) Use of tine tillage with attrazine weed control to permit earlier planting of maize by small-holder farmers in Zimbabwe. Exp Agric 28: 443-452. doi: 10.1017/S0014479700020159
    [53] Milgroom J, Giller KE (2013) Courting the rain: Rethinking seasonality and adaptation to recurrent drought in semi-arid southern Africa. Agric Syst 118: 91-104. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.03.002
    [54] Funk C, Budde ME (2008) Phenologically-tuned MODIS NDVI-based production anomaly estimates for Zimbabwe. Rem Sens Environ 113: 115-125.
    [55] Mupangwa W (2008) Water and nitrogen management for risk mitigation in semi-arid cropping systems. PhD Thesis (unpublished). University of Free State, South Africa.
    [56] Dennett MD (1987) Variation of rainfall: the background to soil and water management in dryland regions. Soil Use Manage 3: 47-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1987.tb00709.x
    [57] Tesfaye K, Gbegbelegbe S, Cairns JE, et al. (2015) Maize systems under climate change in sub-Saharan Africa Potential impacts on production and food security. Int J Clim Change Strat Manage 7: 247-271. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2014-0005
    [58] Thierfelder C, Rusinamhodzi L, Ngwira AR, et al. (2014) Conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: Advances in knowledge. Ren Agric Food Syst 30: 328-348.
    [59] Patt A, Suarez P, Gwata C (2005) Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 12623-12628. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506125102
    [60] Füssel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75: 301-329. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3
    [61] Archer E, Mukhala E, Walker S, et al. (2007) Sustaining agricultural production and food security in southern Africa: An improved role for climate prediction? Clim Change 83: 287-300. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9192-5
    [62] Landman WA, Klopper E (1998) 15 year simulation of the December-March rainfall season of the 1980s and 1990s using canonical correlation analysis (CCA). Water SA 24: 281-286
    [63] Bonifacio R (2015) Southern Africa Growing Season 2015-2016: Facing El Nino in Difficult Circumstances. What to Expect: Historical Evidence and Context. VAM Food Security Analysis. World Food Programme. Available from: www.wfp.org.
    [64] FAO (2015) The 2015-2016 El Niño Early action and response for agriculture, food security and nutrition. Working Report, 14 December 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: www.fao.org/resilience.
    [65] IPCC (2007) In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (Eds), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Group II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 273-313.
    [66] Cairns JE, Hellin J, Sonder K, et al. (2013). Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Sec 5: 345-360. doi: 10.1007/s12571-013-0256-x
    [67] Rockström J, Karlberg L, Wani SP, et al. (2010) Managing water in rainfed agriculture - The need for a paradigm shift. Agric Water Manage 97: 543-550. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009
    [68] Mupangwa W, Twomlow S, Walker S (2008) The influence of conservation tillage methods on soil water regimes in semi-arid southern Zimbabwe. J Phys Chem Earth 33: 762-767. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.049
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Mousa Tawfeeq, The spillover impacts of urbanization and energy usage on CO2 emissions: A regional analysis in the United States, 2023, 0144-5987, 014459872311581, 10.1177/01445987231158145
    2. Jay Kumar Pandey, 2023, Prediction for Solar Energy Different Climatic Conditions to Harvest Maximum Energy, 979-8-3503-3600-9, 1, 10.1109/ICNWC57852.2023.10127523
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(8507) PDF downloads(1507) Cited by(8)

Figures and Tables

Figures(6)  /  Tables(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog