Abstract
Biomass yields of five commonly grown bioenergy crops, miscanthus, switchgrass, poplar (2293-19), willow (SX 67) and a mix of native grasses (polyculture) were assessed on a marginal land. When long-term yield responses were examined, miscanthus yield significantly increased from 5.96 ± 1.06 odt ha−1 y−1 in 2011 to 17.03 ± 8.1 odt ha−1 y−1 in 2014. Willow yield also increased from 3.21 ± 2.92 odt ha−1 y−1 in 2011 to 12.15 ± 4.94 odt ha−1 y−1 in 2014. However, for willow at this stage, we only compared the 1st year yields between 2011 and 2014, hence, three-year mature average yield in 2016 (mature stage) may not be much different from 12.15 odt ha−1 y−1, as willow yield increase over time is not linear. Among all other tested biomass species; polyculture, switchgrass and poplar, they recorded numerically higher yields during the mature growth stage (2013/2014) but, failed to reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). In this study, we separated the growth stages as; early (2010/2011) and mature (2013/2014) stages. At the early stage, poplar and polyculture recorded significant yield differences (p = 0.005) and poplar biomass yield was significantly higher (7.71 ± 2. odt ha−1 y−1) than polyculture (2.96 ± 0.43 odt ha−1 y−1). At the mature stage (2013/2014), miscanthus biomass yield was significantly higher than the two other tested herbaceous species (polyculture and switchgrass). Miscanthus yield was 17.03 ± 8.10 odt ha−1 y−1, which was almost three times higher than polyculture (5.64 ± 0.40 odt ha−1 y−1) and switchgrass (5.99 ± 0.46 odt ha−1 y−1) biomass yields. In relation to fertilization effect, miscanthus, polyculture and willow significantly and positively responded to fertilization. The significant yield increases between unfertilized and fertilized treatments were: 12.06, 10.61, and 8.8 odt ha−1 y−1 for willow, miscanthus and polyculture, respectively. Miscanthus, willow and polyculture yields as influenced by fertilizer treatment were 23.81 ± 3.55, 21.80 ± 5.99, 12.13 ± 0.66 odt ha−1 y−1, respectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cardinael R, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Clinch RL, Mohammed I, Sidders D (2012) Growing woody biomass for bioenergy in a tree-based intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 86(2):279–286. doi:10.1007/s10457-012-9572-y
Clinch RL, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Volk TA, Sidders D (2009) Biophysical interactions in a short rotation willow intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131(1–2):61–69. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.01.018
Cole CV, Cerri C, Minami K, Mosier A, Rosengerg N, Sauerbeck D (1996) Agricultural options for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds) Climate cange 1995. Impacts, adaptions and mitigation of climate change: scientific technical analysis. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 745–771
Deen B, Young D, Rowsell J, Tubeileh A, Engbers H, Rosser B (2011) A comparative study assessing variety and management effects on C4 perennial grasses in a northern climate. Asp Appl Biol 112:205–211
Engbers HM (2012) Evaluation of nitrogen fertilization in C4 grasses grown for bioenergy. M. Sc, University of Guelph
Ercoli L, Mariotti M, Masoni A, Bonari E (1999) Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency of energy use in crop production of Miscanthus. Field Crops Res 63(1):3–11. doi:10.1016/S0378-4290(99)00022-2
Guillot S (2014) Assessment of factors influencing the sustainable production of biomass (feedstock) for bioenergy in Southern Ontario. Internship report, University of Guelph, Canada
Kauter D, Lewandowski I, Claupein W (2003) Quantity and quality of harvestable biomass from Populus short rotation coppice for solid fuel use—a review of the physiological basis and management influences. Biomass Bioenergy 24(6):411–427. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00177-0
Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(5–6):385–406. doi:10.1080/07352680500316334
Kopp R, Abrahamson L, White E, Volk T, Nowak C, Fillhart R (2001) Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenergy 20(1):1–7. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00063-5
Labrecque M, Teodorescu T (2005) Field performance and biomass production of 12 willow and poplar clones in short-rotation coppice in southern Quebec (Canada). Biomass Bioenergy 29:1–9
Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(1):1–21. doi:10.1080/07352680590910393
Lewandowski I, Scurlock JMO, Lindvall E, Christou M (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25(4):335–361. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00030-8
Mann J (2012) Comparison of yield, calorific value and ash content in woody and herbaceous biomass used for bioenergy production in southern Ontario, Canada. M. Sc, University of Guelph
McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83(1):37–46. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00118-3
Ontario Power Generation (2014) Atikokan station biomass conversion project. Ontario Power Generation Inc. http://www.opg.com/generating-power/thermal/stations/atikokan-station/pages/atikokan-station-biomass-conversion-project.aspx. Accessed 16 Dec 2015
Oo A, Kelley J, Lalonde C (2012) Assessment of biomass case for purpose-grown biomass in Ontario. http://www.ofa.on.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/assessment%20of%20business%20case%20for%20purpose-grown%20biomass%20in%20ontario%20march%202012.pdf. Accessed on 16 Dec 2015
Quaye AK, Volk TA (2013) Biomass production and soil nutrients in organic and inorganic fertilized willow biomass production systems. Biomass Bioenergy 57:113–125. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.002
Sage RB (1998) Short rotation coppice for energy: towards ecological guidelines. Biomass Bioenergy 15(1):39–47. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10055-1
Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Simpson J, Peng X, Silim S, Soolanayakanahally R, de Gooijer H (2014) Sustainability indicators of biomass production in agroforestry systems. Open Agric J 8:1–11
Yue D, You F, Snyder SW (2014) Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain optimization: overview, key issues and challenges. Comput Chem Eng 66:36–56. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.11.016
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge funding received from several programs including the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, Canadian Forest Service (CFS), NRCan, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (AAFC) and three years of student placement by AgroParisTech., France. We would also like to especially thank the field staff Brent Coleman, Sean Simpson, Jordan Graham, Sarah Pratt and Idris Mohamad for laboratory assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marsal, F., Thevathasan, N.V., Guillot, S. et al. Biomass yield assessment of five potential energy crops grown in southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforest Syst 90, 773–783 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9893-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9893-3