Eva Lewin, John Clifton Brown, Elena Magenau, Elaine Jensen, Anja Mangold, Iris Lewandowski, Andreas Kiesel
{"title":"Yield development and nutrient offtake in contrasting miscanthus hybrids under green and brown harvest regimes","authors":"Eva Lewin, John Clifton Brown, Elena Magenau, Elaine Jensen, Anja Mangold, Iris Lewandowski, Andreas Kiesel","doi":"10.1111/gcbb.13149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Harvest time is an important variable that determines the yield of miscanthus biomass, its possible end uses, and the nutrient offtake from the field. Green harvests result in a higher yield and greater nutrient removal from the field. Brown miscanthus harvests, carried out in late winter or early spring, result in lower yields and a lower nutrient offtake, whereby the harvested biomass is better suited to use in combustion. To look at the long-term impact of green harvests on miscanthus, this experiment followed the yield development of two miscanthus hybrids subjected to green and brown harvests over a period of seven years at one site in Southern Germany. The standard commercial hybrid <i>Miscanthus × giganteus</i> (<i>Mxg</i>) was compared with a novel late-ripening <i>Miscanthus sinensis</i> hybrid: <i>Syn55</i>. Average yields of <i>Mxg</i> were 19.9 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for green harvests and 13.2 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for brown harvests compared to 13.9 and 12.9 t ha<sup>−1</sup> for green and brown harvested <i>Syn55</i>, respectively. Yields of <i>Mxg</i> were very different for green and brown harvests; green harvested <i>Mxg</i> had very high nutrient offtake, while brown harvested <i>Mxg</i> had the lowest nutrient offtakes of all treatments. <i>Syn55</i> showed a less marked difference between green and brown harvests likely due to its tendency to retain its leaves over winter. <i>Syn55</i> was however not tolerant of a green harvest, with yields of brown harvested stands surpassing the yield of green harvested stands in several years. Although <i>Mxg</i> demonstrated consistently high yields when harvested in October, some signs of yield decline were detected in both hybrids when harvested green, which was due to insufficient carbohydrate relocation. Alternating green and brown harvests are recommended to allow stands to replenish carbohydrate stores and to form a litter layer.</p>","PeriodicalId":55126,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","volume":"16 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcbb.13149","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.13149","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Harvest time is an important variable that determines the yield of miscanthus biomass, its possible end uses, and the nutrient offtake from the field. Green harvests result in a higher yield and greater nutrient removal from the field. Brown miscanthus harvests, carried out in late winter or early spring, result in lower yields and a lower nutrient offtake, whereby the harvested biomass is better suited to use in combustion. To look at the long-term impact of green harvests on miscanthus, this experiment followed the yield development of two miscanthus hybrids subjected to green and brown harvests over a period of seven years at one site in Southern Germany. The standard commercial hybrid Miscanthus × giganteus (Mxg) was compared with a novel late-ripening Miscanthus sinensis hybrid: Syn55. Average yields of Mxg were 19.9 t ha−1 for green harvests and 13.2 t ha−1 for brown harvests compared to 13.9 and 12.9 t ha−1 for green and brown harvested Syn55, respectively. Yields of Mxg were very different for green and brown harvests; green harvested Mxg had very high nutrient offtake, while brown harvested Mxg had the lowest nutrient offtakes of all treatments. Syn55 showed a less marked difference between green and brown harvests likely due to its tendency to retain its leaves over winter. Syn55 was however not tolerant of a green harvest, with yields of brown harvested stands surpassing the yield of green harvested stands in several years. Although Mxg demonstrated consistently high yields when harvested in October, some signs of yield decline were detected in both hybrids when harvested green, which was due to insufficient carbohydrate relocation. Alternating green and brown harvests are recommended to allow stands to replenish carbohydrate stores and to form a litter layer.
期刊介绍:
GCB Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers, review articles and commentaries that promote understanding of the interface between biological and environmental sciences and the production of fuels directly from plants, algae and waste. The scope of the journal extends to areas outside of biology to policy forum, socioeconomic analyses, technoeconomic analyses and systems analysis. Papers do not need a global change component for consideration for publication, it is viewed as implicit that most bioenergy will be beneficial in avoiding at least a part of the fossil fuel energy that would otherwise be used.
Key areas covered by the journal:
Bioenergy feedstock and bio-oil production: energy crops and algae their management,, genomics, genetic improvements, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation, integrated logistics, production modeling, composition and its modification, pests, diseases and weeds of feedstocks. Manuscripts concerning alternative energy based on biological mimicry are also encouraged (e.g. artificial photosynthesis).
Biological Residues/Co-products: from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (stover, sugar, bio-plastics, etc.), algae processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW).
Bioenergy and the Environment: ecosystem services, carbon mitigation, land use change, life cycle assessment, energy and greenhouse gas balances, water use, water quality, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.
Bioenergy Socioeconomics: examining the economic viability or social acceptability of crops, crops systems and their processing, including genetically modified organisms [GMOs], health impacts of bioenergy systems.
Bioenergy Policy: legislative developments affecting biofuels and bioenergy.
Bioenergy Systems Analysis: examining biological developments in a whole systems context.