Farming Systems Design 2007 - International Environmental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-farm scale design and improvement the 2 nd and 3 rd year both irrigation and nitrogen exerted a significant effect upon dry biomass (Tab. 1). The reduction of the amount of water supplied (from 75 to 25% of Etc restoration) determined a yield decrease by 30.4 % in Miscanthus (17.6 t ha -1 vs. 12.2 t ha -1 ), 24.4 % in Arundo (from 28.9 to 21.8 t ha -1 ) and 20.3% in Cynara ( from 24 t ha -1 to 18.7 t ha -1 ), on average of the three years. In the 4 th year under no-input conditions, Arundo and Miscanthus maintained their productivity level because of exceptional rainfall occurred during summertime (300 mm). Cynara produced only 6.1 t ha -1 , being in the decreasing phase of growth (Gherbin et al., 2001). Table 1 – Net energy yield in studied crops (GJ ha -1 ) from the first to the third year. Values followed by the same letter do not differ at P ≤ 0.05 by SNK. Treat. Arundo donax Miscanthus x giganteus Cynara cardunculus I year II year III year Average I year II year III year Average II year III year Average I 25 31.8 b 384.5b 556.4a 324.2 -16.5 b 161.8 b 367.5 b 170.9 345.8 a 321.4 b 283.6 I 75 68.4 a 547.9a 633.9a 416.7 -2.4 a 265.7 a 446.0 a 236.4 379.8 a 338.6 a 359.2 N 50 54.3 a 405.1b 549.5b 336.3 -9.7 a 221.2 a 399.1 a 203.5 366.4 a 287.9 a 327.2 N 100 45.9 a 527.3a 640.8a 359.1 -9.2 a 206.3 a 414.4 a 203.8 359.2 a 272.1 a 315.7 Average 50.1 466.2 595.1 370.5 -9.4 213.8 406.7 203.7 362.8 280.0 321.4 In the average of the 2 nd and 3 rd years, the highest net energy yield was recorded in Arundo (530.6 GJ ha -1 ), compared to Miscanthus (340.3 GJ ha -1 ) and Cynara (321.4 GJ ha -1 ) (Tab. 1). The amount of energy introduced in the system with the increase of irrigation and nitrogen input was generally lower than that produced with the yield increase. This is generally true with irrigation in all crops, whereas low irrigation level reduced significantly the net energy yield by 22 % in Arundo and Cynara and 28% in Miscanthus. As far as nitrogen application is concerned, significant difference was recorded only in Arundo in the second and third years between N 50 (405.1 and 549.5 GJ ha -1 , respectively) and N 100 (527.3 and 640.8 GJ ha -1 , respectively) treatments. The 4 th year Arundo and Cynara exhibited the highest (552.4 GJ ha -1 ) and the lowest (92.84 GJ ha -1 ) net energy yield, respectively (Tab. 3). Table 2 – Energy ratio in the studied crops from the first to the third year. Values followed by the same letter do not differ at P ≤ 0.05 by SNK. Treat. Arundo donax Miscanthus x giganteus Cynara cardunculus I year II year III year Average I year II year III year Average II year III year Average I 25 1.9 a 17.6 a 24.8 a 14.7 0.6 b 8.1 a 16.8 a 8.5 11.8 a 15.5 b 13.6 I 75 2.2 a 13.4 b 15.1 b 10.2 1.0 a 7.1 a 10.9 b 6.3 8.8 b 23.2 a 16.0 N 50 2.1 a 14.2 a 19.1 a 11.8 0.7 a 8.1 a 14.2 a 7.7 10.8 a 21.4 a 16.1 N 100 1.9 a 16.8 a 20.8 a 13.2 0.8 a 7.0 a 13.5 a 7.1 9.9 a 17.2 a 13.5 Average 2.0 15.5 19.9 12.5 0.8 7.6 13.9 7.4 10.3 19.3 14.8 Energy ratio (output/ input) was the highest in the second and third year in Arundo (15.5 and 19.9 respectively) and in Cynara (10.3 and 19.3 respectively), while was the lowest in Miscanthus (7.6 and 13.9 in the second and third year, respectively). In the fourth year without any input (Tab. 3) Arundo exhibited the highest energy ratio (73.7) followed by Miscanthus (58.1) and Cynara (13.2). Table 3 –Net energy yield (b) (GJ ha -1 ) and energy ratio (c) in the fourth year Previous treatments Arundo donax L. Miscanthus x Giganteus Cynara cardunculus (b) ( c ) (b) ( c ) (b) ( c ) I 25 N 50 538.8 71.9 421.8 56.6 81.8 11.8 I 25 N 100 543.5 72.5 423.9 59.6 90.5 12.9 I 75 N 50 559.7 74.6 466.1 59.4 107.8 15.2 I 75 N 100 567.8 75.7 425.1 56.9 91.3 13.0 Average 552.4 73.7 434.2 58.1 92.8 13.2 Conclusions The studied crops showed high yield and energetic levels. Arundo performed better than the other two crops in terms of yield, net energy yield and energy ratio, and may represent a promising crop being endemic and adapted to the Mediterranean environment. Cynara moreover may be also used to the semi-arid environment conditions, being a winter-autumn crop. References Biomass Action Plan of the European Union, 2005. A. Combes, Elaboration d’un Referentiel pour le Calcule des Bilans Energetic en Agriculture, 1998. Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie. E. P Odum, Basi di ecologia, 1988. Piccin Ed., Padova, G. Fierotti Carta dei Suoli della Sicilia, 1988. Regione Siciliana Assessorato Territorio e Ambiente, Palermo. P. Gherbin et al., 2001. Five year evaluation on Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L. var. altilis) biomass production in a Mediterranean environment. Italian J. of Agronomy , 5 (1-2): 11-19. - 42 -
Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-farm scale design and improvement COMPARISON AMONG PERENNIAL LIGNOCELLULOSIC SPECIES FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION AND EFFICIENCY IN CENTRAL ITALY N. Nassi 1 , L. Ceccarini 1 , E. Bonari 2 , L. G. Angelini 1 1 Dep. of Agronomy, Pisa University, Italy, angelini@agr.unipi.it 2 Scuola Sup. S. Anna, Pisa, Italy, bonari@sssup.it Introduction Demand for bioenergy is increasing as concerns about climate change lead to implementation of policy measures that favour renewable energy sources over their fossil-fuel-based competitors. Perennial energy crops as giant reed (Arundo donax L.), miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) and cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) may represent a good source of biomass for solid bio-fuel production under new CAP conditions. Besides, these perennial species show some positive characteristics which include: adaptation to different climatic conditions, high yield, low nutrient and water requirement, few problems with cultivation, harvesting and risk from pests, long life cycle with increment in soil carbon content and biodiversity (Angelini et al., 2005 a, b; Lewandowski et al., 2003; Fernández et al., 2006). The aim of this study was to carry out a long-term experiment of three perennial bioenergy crops in order to compare their potentialities as energy crops and their energy balance under the climatic condition of Central Italy. Methodology Three experimental fields were planted in 1992 with giant reed (local ecotype), miscanthus and cardoon (var. altilis DC. cultivar Gigante di Romagna) at Pisa countryside, Italy (43°40’N, 10°19’E) from the 1 st to the 12 th year of crop cycle. The soil was a typical Xerofluvent, representative of the lower Arno River plan and it was characterized by a superficial water table. The three species were compared in a randomised block experimental design with four replications. Planting was carried out on March using rhizomes for giant reed and miscanthus and using three-four true leaves plants for cardoon. The plant density was 20,000 plants ha -1 . Soil tillage was conducted in the autumn before, and consisted of medium-depth ploughing (30-40 cm). Seedbed preparation was carried out in the spring, immediately before planting, by a pass with a double-disking harrow and a pass with a field cultivator. Plant fertiliser was distributed at a rate of 100 kg ha -1 of N-P-K before planting in the first year and before the start of vegetative re-growth in the following years of cultivation. Plots were kept weed-free by hoeing. No crop diseases were detected during the experimental period. Following each growing season, harvests were carried out in Autumn (beginning of October). Fresh and dry weight, plant height, stem diameter and stem density were determined. After sampling, all biomass was milled and calorific value was determined using a Leco AC 300 calorimeter according to the ASTM D2015 standard method. The energy balance was assessed considering the energy costs of production inputs and the energy output obtained by the transformation of the final product. Energy analysis of biomass was made according to the method described by Angelini et al. (2005a). The efficiency of crop energy production was evaluated as net energy yield (calculated as the difference between energy output and energy input per hectare) and as energy production efficiency (as ratio between energy output and energy input per hectare). Results Above ground dry yield of giant reed, miscanthus and cardoon, determined from the establishment year to the 12 th year of growth is reported in Figure 1. These perennial species showed a good adaptation to the pedo-climatic conditions of the Arno river plain characterized by deep and fertile soils and mild winter temperatures. In this environment giant reed was characterized by higher dry yield than miscanthus and cardoon (37 t ha -1 vs 27 and 18 t ha -1 ). For each species the crop yield was very poor in the first establishment year. Thereafter the biomass yield increased rapidly from the young to the mature stand. Each species displayed similar production trends characterized by three yielding phases: an increasing phase from the 1 st to the 2 nd year of growth, a maturity phase from the 2 rd to the 7 th and a decreasing phase from the 8 th to the 12 th year of growth. From 1 st to 2 nd year-old-crop giant reed and cardoon biomass dry yield increased +79% (from 10 to 48 t ha -1 - 43 -
Page 1 and 2: Farming Systems Design 2007 An Inte
Page 3 and 4: Foreword The Farming Systems Design
Page 5 and 6: Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-f
Page 17 and 18: Farming Systems Design 2007 How to
Page 45: Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-f
Page 49 and 50: Farming Systems Design 2007 SUSTAIN
Page 55 and 56: Farming Systems Design 2007 WEB BAS
Page 67 and 68: Stocking rate (Head hā 1 ) Total i
Page 77 and 78: Soil Organic C (t / ha) CO2 Equival
Page 81 and 82: Farming Systems design 2007 Field-f
Page 85 and 86: Farming Systems Design 2007 RICE-MA
Page 97 and 98:
Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-f
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Farming Systems Design 2007 it comb
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Farming Systems Design 2007 TASHUR
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Farming Systems Design 2007 ANALYSI
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Farming Systems Design 2007 simulat
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
show all

Farming Systems Design 2007 - International Environmental ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?