Advertisement

Partial modelling of the perennial crop cycle misleads LCA results in two contrasted case studies

  • Cecile BessouEmail author
  • Claudine Basset-Mens
  • Cynthia Latunussa
  • Alice Vélu
  • Hadrien Heitz
  • Henri Vannière
  • Jean-Pierre Caliman
LCA FOR AGRICULTURE

Abstract

Purpose

As highlighted in recent reviews, there is a need to harmonise the way life cycle assessment (LCA) of perennial crops is conducted. In most published LCA on perennial crops, the modelling of the agricultural production is based on data sets for just one productive year. This may be misleading since performance and impacts of the system may greatly vary year by year. The purposes of this study are to analyse how partial modelling of the perennial cycle through non-holistic data collection may affect LCA results and to make recommendations.

Methods

Three modelling choices for the perennial crop cycle were tested in parallel in two contrasted LCA case studies: oil palm fruits from Indonesia, and small citrus from Morocco. Modelling choices tested were as follows: (i) a chronological modelling over the complete crop cycle of orchards, (ii) a 3-year average from the productive phase, and (iii) various single years from the productive phase. In both case studies, the system boundary was a cradle-to-farm gate with a functional unit of 1 kg fresh fruits. LCA midpoint impacts were calculated with ReCiPe 2008 in Simapro©V.7. We first analysed how inputs, yields and potential impacts varied over time. We then analysed process contributions in the baseline model, i.e. the chronological modelling, and finally compared LCA results for the various perennial modelling choices.

Results and discussion

Agricultural practices, yields and impacts varied over the years especially during the first 3–9 years depending on the case study. In both case studies, the modelling choices to account or not for the whole perennial cycle drastically influenced LCA results. The differences could be explained by the inclusion or not of the yearly variability and the accounting or not of the immature phase, which contributed to 7–40 or 6.5–29 % of all impact categories for oil palm fruit and citrus, respectively.

Conclusions

The chosen approach to model the perennial cycle influenced the final LCA results for two contrasted case studies and deserved specific attention. Although data availability may remain the limiting factor in most cases, assumptions can be made to interpolate or extrapolate some data sets or to consolidate data sets from chronosequences (i.e. modular modelling). In all cases, we suggest that the approach chosen to model the perennial cycle and the representativeness of associated collected data should be made transparent and discussed. Further research work is needed to improve the understanding and modelling of perennial crop functioning and LCA assessment.

Keywords

Chronological modelling Citrus LCA Oil palm fruit Perennial crop 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the French National Research Agency (ANR) for its support to fieldwork in Indonesia, within the frame of the SPOP project (http://spop.cirad.fr/) Agrobiosphere program. They are also very grateful to their local partners in Morocco and Indonesia who provided the data used in these studies. In particular, the authors want to thank Mr. Albertus Magnus C.K. and Mr. Rudy Harto Widodo for their fieldwork support. Finally, the authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments allowed for improving the quality of the paper.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1030_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. ISBN 92-5-104219-5Google Scholar
  2. Audsley E (Coord.), Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard G et al (1997) Harmonisation of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture. Final Report. Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028. European Commission. DG VI Agriculture. SRI, Silsoe, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger M, van der Ent R, Eisner S, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2014) Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE): considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 48(8):4521–4528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessou C, Basset-Mens C, Tran T, Benoist A (2013) LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:340–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart J-B, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouwman AF, Boumans LJM, Batjes NH (2002) Modeling global annual N2O and NO emissions from fertilized fields. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 16:11Google Scholar
  7. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2000) Methods to estimate on field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. Int J Life Cycle Asses 5(6):349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caliman JP (1992) Oil palm and water deficit: production, adapted cropping techniques. Oléagineux 47(5):205–216Google Scholar
  9. Carr MKV (2011) The water relations and irrigation requirements of oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis): a review. Experimental Agriculture 47:629–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carron MP, Pierrat M, Snoeck D et al (2015) Temporal variability in soil quality after organic residue application in mature oil palm plantations. Soil Res 53:205–215Google Scholar
  11. Cerutti AK, Bruun S, Beccaro GL, Bounous G (2011) A review of studies applying environmental impact assessment methods on fruit production systems. J Environ Manage 92:2277–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerutti AK, Beccaro GL, Bruun S et al (2013) LCA application in the fruit sector: state of the art and recommendations for environmental declarations of fruit products. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.017 Google Scholar
  13. Choo YM, Muhamad H, Hashim Z et al (2011) Determination of GHG contributions by subsystems in the oil palm supply chain using the LCA approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:669–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Combres JC, Pallas B, Rouan L et al (2013) Simulation of inflorescence dynamics in oil palm and estimation of environment-sensitive phenological phases: a model based analysis. Funct Plant Biol 40:263–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corley RHV, Tinker PB (2003) The oil palm. Fourth Edition by Blackwell Scien Ltd, UK, p 562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dufour O, Frere JL, Caliman JP, Hornus P (1988) Description of a simplified method of production forecasting in oil palm plantations based on climatology. Oléagineux 43(7):271–278Google Scholar
  17. Fazio S, Barbanti L (2014) Energy and economic assessments of bio-energy systems based on annual and perennial crops for temperate and tropical areas. Renew Energy 69:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freiermuth R (2006) Modell zur Berechnung der Schwermetallflüsse in der Landwirtschaftlichen Ökobilanz. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, 42 pp. www.art.admin.ch
  19. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level - First edition (version 1.08), Report I: Characterisation. Ministry of Housing, Spatial planning, and Environment, the Netherlands, pp 126Google Scholar
  20. IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) The national greenhouse gas inventories programme, IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon SD, Qin M, Manning Z, Chen M, Marquis KB, Averyt M, Tignor, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 18 pGoogle Scholar
  22. Khalid H, Zin ZZ, Anderson JM (2000) Decomposition processes and nutrient release patterns of oil palm residues. J Oil Palm Res 12:46–63Google Scholar
  23. Kheong LV, Rahman ZA, Mohamed HM, Aminudin H (2010) Empty fruit bunch application and oil palm root proliferation. J Oil Palm Res 22:750–757Google Scholar
  24. Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1265–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mithraratne N, McLaren S, Barber A (2008) Carbon footprinting for the Kiwifruit supply chain—report on methodology and scoping study. Landcare research Contract Report LC0708/156, prepared for New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand, p 61Google Scholar
  26. Monti A, Fazio S, Venturi G (2009) Cradle-to-farm gate life cycle assessment in perennial energy crops. Eur J Agron 31:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nemecek T, Kägi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zürich and Dübendorf, Switzerland, retrieved from: www.econivent.ch
  28. Newell JP, Vos RO (2012) Accounting for forest carbon pool dynamics in product carbon footprints: challenges and opportunities. Env Impact Assess Rev 37:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pallas B, Soulié J-C, Aguilar G et al (2013) X-Palm, a functional structural plant model for analysing temporal, genotypic and inter-tree variability of oil palm growth and yield. In: of the Seventh International Conference on Functional Structural Plant ModelGoogle Scholar
  30. Payen S (2015) Toward a consistent accounting of water as a resource and a vector of pollution in the LCA of agricultural products: Methodological development and application to a perennial cropping system. PhD thesis, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 186 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrin A, Basset-Mens C, Gabrielle B (2014) Life cycle assessment of vegetable products: a review focusing on cropping systems diversity and the estimation of field emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1247–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prasuhn V (2006) Erfassung der PO4- Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung SALCA Phosphor. Agroscope Reckanholz-Tänikon ART, Switzerland, 20 pGoogle Scholar
  33. Steduto P, Hsiao TC, Fereres E, Raes D (2012) Crop yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 66. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. ISBN 978-92-5-107274-5Google Scholar
  34. Stehfest E, Bouwman L (2006) N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 74:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stichnothe H, Schuchardt F (2011) Life cycle assessment of two palm oil production systems. Biomass Bioenerg 35:3976–3984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vannière H (1992) Essai porte-greffe nutrition du clémentinier en Corse (Station de Recherches Agronomiques de San Giuliano INRA CIRAD – IRFA). Fruits 47(1)Google Scholar
  37. Zulkifli H, Halimah M, Mohd Basri W, Choo YM (2009) Life cycle assessment for FFB production. PIPOC Conference 2009 Palm oil— balancing ecologies with economics, MPOB, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 9-12 November 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRAD, UPR Systèmes de pérennes, pôle ELSAMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.CIRAD, UPR Hortsys, pôle ELSAMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.SMART Research InstitutePekanbaruIndonesia

Personalised recommendations