Abstract
Integrating bioenergy feedstock production with existing agricultural production systems and available land, resources, economic systems, and communities is critical for long-term sustainability of production systems. The ability of an agroforestry system of loblolly pine and switchgrass to produce biomass feedstock in flood prone sites are strategies to advance towards. The specific objective of this study is to assess and compare the performance of agroforestry against monoculture systems based on land use and production yield, by measuring various efficiency indices. Results across plots indicated biomass yield of switchgrass and loblolly pine grown in monoculture system were consistently higher in comparison to those grown in agroforestry system, where an average of 2.27 Mg/ha year−1 and 2.50 Mg/ha year−1 were seen respectively. The combined analysis of land equivalent ratio (LER) for loblolly pine and switchgrass intercrops, however, was a ratio ranging 1.25–1.74, which shows that pure strand or monoculture system would require 25–74 % more land to produce the same amount of yield relative to intercropping (agroforestry) system. An Agroforestry system has great potential for producing biomass feedstock for bioenergy. Using agroforestry intercropping of woody and perennial herbaceous bioenergy crops enhances combined biomass yield, decreases the need for input, and therefore reduces the cost of biomass production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albaugh JM, Sucre EB, Leggett ZH, Domec J-C (2012) Evaluation of intercropped switchgrass establishment under a range of experimental site preparation treatments in a forested setting on the lower coastal Plain of North Carolina, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 46:673–682
Bhatti IH, Ahmad R, Jabbar A, Nazir MS, Mahmood T (2006) Competitive behavior of component crops in different sesame-legume intercropping systems. Int J Agric Biol (Pakistan) 8:165–167
Borough CJ (1979) Agroforestry in New Zealand-the current situation. Aust For 42(1):23–29
Bragg DC (2011) Modelling Loblolly pine in above ground live biomass in mature pine-hardwood stand: a cautionary tale. J Arkansas Acad Sci 65:31–38
De Wit CT (1960) On competition. Verslag Landbouw-Kundige Onderzoek 66:1–28
Dhima KV, Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dordas CA (2007) Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Res 100:249–256
Fan F, Zhang F, Song Y, Sun J, Bao X, Guo T, Li L (2006) Nitrogen fixation of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) interacting with a non-legume in two contrasting intercropping systems. Plant Soil 283:275–286
Filho BC, Neto FB, Rezende BLA, Grangeiro LC, Silva de Lima JS (2013) Indices of Competitive and bio-agroeconomic efficiency of lettuce and tomato intercrops in greenhouses. Aust J Crop Sci 7(6):809–819
Holzmueller EJ, Jose S (2012) Biomass production for biofuels using agroforestry: potential for the North Central Region of the United States. Agrofor Syst 85:305–314
Jenkins, J. C., D. C. Chojnacky, L. S. Heath, and R. Birdsey. 2004. Comprehensive database of diameter-based biomass regressions for North American tree species. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-319. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station
Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey R (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49(1):12–35
Jokela E, Dougherty P, Martin T (2004) Production of dynamics of intensely managed loblolly pine strands in the southern United States: a synthesis of seven long-term experiments. For Ecol Manag 1:117–130
Jokela E, Martin T, Vogel J (2010) Twenty –five years of intensive forest management with southern pines: important lessons learned. J Forest 108(7):338–347
Jose S, Bardham S (2012) Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: an overview. Agrofor Syst 86:105–111
Li L, Sun J, Zhang F, Li X, Yang S, Rengel Z (2001) Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Field Crop Research 71:123–137
Lin C, McGraw R, George M, Garret H (1999) Shade effects on forage crops with potential in temperate agroforestry practices. Agrofor Syst 44:109–119
Lundgren BO, Raintree JB (1982) Sustained agroforestry. In: Nestel B (ed.) Agricultural research for development: potentials and challenges in Asia. ISNAR, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 37–49
Mbah EU, Ogbodo EN (2013) Assessment of intercropped sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata) and vegetable cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata (L.Walp) using competitive indices in the derived savannah of south-eastern Nigeria. J Biol Agric Healthcare 3:84–93
McGilchrist CA (1971) A revised analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics 21:975–985
McLaughlin SB (1993) New switchgrass biofuels research program for the southeast. In: Proceedings of 1992 Annual Automotive Technology Development Contractors Coordinating Meeting, pp 111–115
Megawer EA, Sharaan AN, El-Sherif AM (2010) Effect of intercropping patterns on yield and its components of barley, lupin or chickpea grown in newly reclaimed soil, Egypt. J Appl Sci 25(9):437–452
Minick KJ, Strahm BD, Fox TR, Sucre EB, Leggett ZH, Zerpa JL (2014) Switchgrass intercropping reduces soil inorganic nitrogen in a young loblolly pine plantation located in coastal North Carolina. For Ecol Manag 319:161–168
Muhammad AE, Umer EM, Karim A (2008) Yield and competition indices of intercropping cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) using different planting patterns. Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi 14:326–333
Nobel IR, Dirzo R (1997) Forests as human-dominated ecosystems. Science 277:522–525
Schultz RP (1997) Loblolly pine: the ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 713
Spurgeon D (1980) Agroforestry: a promising system of improved land management for Latin American. Interciencia 5:176
Susaeta A, Lal P, Alavalapati J (2012) Economics of intercropping loblolly pine and switchgrass for bioenergy markets in the southern United States. Agrofor Syst 86:287–298
Vogel K (1996) Energy production from forages (or American Agriculture-back to the future). J Soil Water Conserv 51(2):137–139
Wahla IH, Ahmad R, Ehsanullah AA, Jabbar A (2009) Competitive functions of component crops in some barley based intercropping systems. Int J Agric Biol (Pakistan) 11:69–71
Wiley RW (1979) Intercropping its importance and research needs. I: competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstr 32:1–10
Wiley RW, Rao MR (1980) A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Exp Agric 16(02):117–125
Zhang G, Yang Z, Dong S (2011) Interspecific competitiveness affects the total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crop Res 10:1–8
Zhao D, Kane M, Borders B, Harrison H (2008) Pine growth response to different site-preparation methods with or without post-plant herbaceous weed control on north Florida’s lower coastal plain. For Ecol Manag 7:2512–2523
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haile, S., Palmer, M. & Otey, A. Potential of loblolly pine: switchgrass alley cropping for provision of biofuel feedstock. Agroforest Syst 90, 763–771 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9921-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9921-3