Table 4. Top three best-supported models of bioenergy potential measured from conservation grasslands in Minnesota, USA.
| Response | Model | Parameters (K) | ΔAICc |
| Biomass Yield | Intercept+Location×Forb+May+Legume | 12 | 0.00 |
| Intercept+Location×Forb+Legume+May+June | 13 | 1.56 | |
| Intercept+Location×Forb+Forb+May | 10 | 2.06 | |
| Ethanol conversion efficiency | Intercept+Location+C4+PlantN+Forb | 14 | 0.00 |
| Intercept+Location+C4+PlantN | 13 | 0.69 | |
| Intercept+Location+C4+Forb+NO3+PlantN | 15 | 1.86 | |
| Plant N | Intercept+Location×Legume+C4+NO3 | 12 | 0.00 |
| Intercept+Location×Legume+C4+NO3 +pH | 13 | 0.28 | |
| Intercept+Location+C4+NO3 | 9 | 0.42 |