AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONVENTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE BIOENERGY CROPPING SYSTEMS PROMOTING BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2021435

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

2022, Vol. 9

Issue (2) : 284-294 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021435

RESEARCH ARTICLE

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONVENTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE BIOENERGY CROPPING SYSTEMS PROMOTING BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY

Léa KERVROËDAN¹(

), David HOUBEN¹, Julien GUIDET¹, Julia DENIER¹, Anne-Maïmiti DULAURENT¹, Elisa MARRACCINI^2,³, Amandine DELIGEY^2,⁴, Charlotte JOURNEL⁴, Justine LAMERRE⁴, Michel-Pierre FAUCON¹

¹. UniLaSalle Polytechnic Institute, AGHYLE (SFR Condorcet FR CNRS 3417), 19 rue Pierre Waguet, 60026 Beauvais, France
². UniLaSalle Polytechnic Institute, InTerACT (UP 2018.C102), 19 rue Pierre Waguet, 60026 Beauvais, France
³. Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100, Udine, Italy
⁴. Agro-Transfert Ressources et Territoires, 2 Chaussée de Brunehaut, 80200 Estrées Mons, France

Download: PDF(3609 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Agri-environmental assessment of food, feed and/or biogas cropping systems (CS).

● Four-year experiment for the agri-environmental assessment of two innovative CS.

● Biogas CS has equal soil returned biomass than food CS but higher exported biomass.

● Feed and biogas CS present higher biomass productivity, but higher CO₂ emissions.

● CO₂ emissions related to produced biomass are 26% (±5%) lower in biogas CS.

Bioenergy, currently the largest renewable energy source in the EU (64% of the total renewable energy consumption), has sparked great interest to meet the 32% renewable resources for the 2030 bioeconomy goal. The design of innovative cropping systems informed by bioeconomy imperatives requires the evaluate of the effects of introducing crops for bioenergy into conventional crop rotations. This study aimed to assess the impacts of changes in conventional cropping systems in mixed dairy cattle farms redesigned to introduce bioenergy crops either by increasing the biomass production through an increase of cover crops, while keeping main feed/food crops, or by substituting food crops with an increase of the crop rotation length. The assessment is based on the comparison between conventional and innovative systems oriented to feed and biogas production, with and without tillage, to evaluate their agri-environmental performances (biomass production, nitrogen fertilization autonomy, greenhouse gas emissions and biogas production). The result showed higher values in the biogas cropping system than in the conventional and feed ones for all indicators, biomass productivity (27% and 20% higher, respectively), nitrogen fertilization autonomy (26% and 73% higher, respectively), methanogenic potential (77% and 41% higher, respectively) and greenhouse gas emissions (15% and 3% higher, respectively). There were no negative impacts of no-till compared to the tillage practice, for all tested variables. The biogas cropping system showed a better potential in terms of agri-environmental performance, although its greenhouse gas emissions were higher. Consequently, it would be appropriate to undertake a multicriteria assessment integrating agri-environmental, economic and social performances.

Keywords alternative cropping systems bioeconomy biogas biomass production fertilization autonomy greenhouse gas assessment

Corresponding Author(s): Léa KERVROËDAN

Just Accepted Date: 11 March 2022 Online First Date: 11 April 2022 Issue Date: 25 May 2022

Cite this article:

Léa KERVROËDAN,David HOUBEN,Julien GUIDET, et al. AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONVENTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE BIOENERGY CROPPING SYSTEMS PROMOTING BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(2): 284-294.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2021435
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2022/V9/I2/284

Fig.1 Experimental design of the study site, locating the conventional cropping system (Conv), the feed cropping system (Feed) and the biogas cropping system integrating high biomass productivity (Biom), as well as the tillage and no tillage treatments.

Fig.2 Detailed crop rotations of each tested cropping systems, integrating the harvested time and the amendment type for each crop. Reprinted from Denier et al.^[²⁶^], with permission from Elsevier.

Fig.3 Differences between each cropping system under tillage/no tillage conditions within a full crop rotation (4 years) for the total aboveground biomass productivity (A); returned aboveground biomass (B); and exported biomass (C). The bars represent the mean ± standard error. The letters represent the significant differences between each cropping system according to Tukey post-hoc tests. The significance level “ns” means not significant.

Tab.1 Mean values of the soil N residual (kg·ha⁻¹ (mean ± SE)) at the beginning and the end of winter for each cropping and tillage/no tillage conditions

Fig.4 Differences between each cropping system within a full crop rotation (4 years) for the exported N quantity in the biomass (A); the returned N quantity in the biomass (B); the relation between the returned N (from crop residues) and the exported N quantities in the biomass (C). The bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. The letters represent the significant differences between each cropping system according to Tukey post-hoc test. The significance level “ns” means not significant.

Fig.5 Differences between each cropping system within a full crop rotation (4 years) for the total greenhouse gas emissions (A); and the greenhouse gas emissions per ton of dried biomass produced (B). The bars represent the mean ± standard deviation. The letters represent the significant differences between each cropping system according to Tukey post-hoc tests. The significance level “ns” means not significant.

Fig.6 Agri-environmental assessment identifying the relative part of each cropping system for the four main services (green) and disservices (red)–biomass productivity (overall productivity at the crop rotation level), N fertilization autonomy (relation between the N returned and N exported, both from the biomass), methanogenic potential (weighted with the biomass productivity for each crop and reported at the system level) and greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions per hectare for the overall system).

1	N, Jordan G, Boody W, Broussard J D, Glover D, Keeney B H, McCown G, McIsaac M, Muller H, Murray J, Neal C, Pansing R E, Turner K, Warner D Wyse . Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science, 2007, 316( 5831): 1570–1571 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141700
2	Braun J von . Bioeconomy—The global trend and its implications for sustainability and food security. Global Food Security, 2018, 19 : 81–83 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.003
3	Commission European . A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Brussels, Belgium: European Union, 2018, 107. Available at European Union site on August 20, 2021
4	N, Svoboda F, Taube C, Kluß B, Wienforth K, Sieling M, Hasler H, Kage S, Ohl E, Hartung A Herrmann . Ecological efficiency of maize-based cropping systems for biogas production. BioEnergy Research, 2015, 8( 4): 1621–1635 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9614-1
5	Cossel M, von K, Steberl J, Hartung L A, Pereira A, Kiesel I Lewandowski . Methane yield and species diversity dynamics of perennial wild plant mixtures established alone, under cover crop maize (Zea mays L.), and after spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Global Change Biology: Bioenergy, 2019, 11( 11): 1376–1391 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12640
6	L, Hamelin H B, Møller U Jørgensen . Harnessing the full potential of biomethane towards tomorrow’s bioeconomy: A national case study coupling sustainable agricultural intensification, emerging biogas technologies and energy system analysis. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 138 : 110506 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110506
7	J, Adkins J D, Jastrow G P, Morris Graaff M A de . Effects of fertilization, plant species, and intra-specific diversity on soil carbon and nitrogen in biofuel cropping systems after five growing seasons. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2019, 130 : 105393 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105393
8	S, Gaba F, Lescourret S, Boudsocq J, Enjalbert P, Hinsinger E P, Journet M L, Navas J, Wery G, Louarn E, Malézieux E, Pelzer M, Prudent H Ozier-Lafontaine . c Malézieux E, Pelzer E, Prudent M, Ozier-Lafontaine H. Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: from concepts to design. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35( 2): 607–623 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0272-z
9	W, Zhang T H, Ricketts C, Kremen K, Carney S M Swinton . Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 2007, 64( 2): 253–260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
10	X, Zhu C, Liang M D, Masters I B, Kantola E H DeLucia . The impacts of four potential bioenergy crops on soil carbon dynamics as shown by biomarker analyses and DRIFT spectroscopy. Global Change Biology: Bioenergy, 2018, 10( 7): 489–500 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12520
11	Y, Gao A, Liang Y, Zhang N, McLaughlin S, Zhang X, Chen H, Zheng R Fan . Dynamics of microbial biomass, nitrogen mineralization and crop uptake in response to placement of maize residue returned to Chinese mollisols over the maize growing season. Atmosphere, 2021, 12( 9): 1166 https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091166
12	T H, Nguyen Y A, Tong N T, Luc C Liu . Effects of different ways to return biomass on soil and crop nutrient contents. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 2015, 14( 3): 733–738
13	J P, Wight F M, Hons J O, Storlien T L, Provin H, Shahandeh R P Wiedenfeld . Management effects on bioenergy sorghum growth, yield and nutrient uptake. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012, 46 : 593–604 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.036
14	P R, Adler Grosso S J, Del W J Parton . Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecological Applications, 2007, 17( 3): 675–691 https://doi.org/10.1890/05-2018
15	S, Cadoux F, Ferchaud C, Demay H, Boizard J M, Machet E, Fourdinier M, Preudhomme B, Chabbert G, Gosse B Mary . Implications of productivity and nutrient requirements on greenhouse gas balance of annual and perennial bioenergy crops. Global Change Biology: Bioenergy, 2014, 6( 4): 425–438 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12065
16	S C, Davis W J, Parton F G, Dohleman C M, Smith S D, Grosso A D, Kent E H Delucia . Comparative biogeochemical cycles of bioenergy crops reveal nitrogen-fixation and low greenhouse gas emissions in a miscanthus × giganteus agro-ecosystem. Ecosystems, 2010, 13( 1): 144–156 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9306-9
17	T W, Hudiburg S C, Davis W, Parton E H Delucia . Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2015, 7( 2): 366–374 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12152
18	J M, Jungers A T, Clark K, Betts M E, Mangan C C, Sheaffer D L Wyse . Long-term biomass yield and species composition in native perennial bioenergy cropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 2015, 107( 5): 1627–1640 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0014
19	S, Fazio A Monti . Life cycle assessment of different bioenergy production systems including perennial and annual crops. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, 35( 12): 4868–4878 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.014
20	U Jørgensen . Benefits versus risks of growing biofuel crops: the case of Miscanthus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2011, 3( 1−2): 24–30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.003
21	C, Boehmel I, Lewandowski W Claupein . Comparing annual and perennial energy cropping systems with different management intensities. Agricultural Systems, 2008, 96( 1−3): 224–236 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.08.004
22	Vries S C, de de Ven G W J, van Ittersum M K, van K E Giller . Resource use efficiency and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion techniques. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010, 34( 5): 588–601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.001
23	C, Tang X, Yang X, Chen A, Ameen G Xie . Sorghum biomass and quality and soil nitrogen balance response to nitrogen rate on semiarid marginal land. Field Crops Research, 2018, 215 : 12–22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.09.031
24	P R, Hobbs K, Sayre R Gupta . The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 2008, 363( 1491): 543–555 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2169
25	J P, Mitchell D C, Reicosky E A, Kueneman J, Fisher D Beck . Conservation agriculture systems. CAB Reviews, 2019, 14( 1): 1–25 https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201914001
26	J, Denier M P, Faucon A M, Dulaurent J, Guidet L, Kervroëdan J, Lamerre D Houben . Earthworm communities and microbial metabolic activity and diversity under conventional, feed and biogas cropping systems as affected by tillage practices. Applied Soil Ecology, 2022, 169 : 104232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104232
27	J M, Machet P, Dubrulle N, Damay R, Duval J L, Julien S Recous . A Dynamic decision-making tool for calculating the optimal rates of N application for 40 annual crops while minimising the residual level of mineral N at harvest. Agronomy, 2017, 7( 4): 73 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7040073
28	T, Ribeiro R, Cresson S, Pommier S, Preys L, André F, Béline T, Bouchez C, Bougrier P, Buffière J, Cacho P, Camacho L, Mazéas A, Pauss P, Pouech M, Rouez M Torrijos . Measurement of biochemical methane potential of heterogeneous solid substrates: results of a two-phase French inter-laboratory study. Water, 2020, 12( 10): 2814 https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102814
29	M, Delesalle O, Scheurer P, Martin N, Saby T, Eglin A Duparque . ABC’Terre : integrating soil organic carbon variation into cropping systems greenhouse gases balance at a territorial scale. Colloquium “Food security and climate change. The 4 per thousand initiative: a new concrete challenge for soil”, Poitiers, France, 2019. Available at HAL (Science Ouverte) website on September 8, 2021
30	H, Clivot J C, Mouny A, Duparque J L, Dinh P, Denoroy S, Houot F, Vertès R, Trochard A, Bouthier S, Sagot B Mary . Modeling soil organic carbon evolution in long-term arable experiments with AMG model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2019, 118 : 99–113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.04.004
31	M N, Meki J L, Snider J R, Kiniry R L, Raper A C Rocateli . Energy sorghum biomass harvest thresholds and tillage effects on soil organic carbon and bulk density. Industrial Crops and Products, 2013, 43 : 172–182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.07.033
32	M, Sauvadet M, Chauvat N, Fanin S, Coulibaly I Bertrand . Comparing the effects of litter quantity and quality on soil biota structure and functioning: application to a cultivated soil in Northern France. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, 107 : 261–271 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.06.010
33	Stinner P, Walter A, Deuker T, Schmalfuß C, Brock N, Rensberg V, Denysenko P, Trainer K, Möller J, Zang L, Janke W M, Leandro K, Oehmichen D Popp . Perennial and Intercrop Legumes as Energy Crops for Biogas Production. In: Meena R S, Das A, Yadav G S, Lal R, eds. Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management. Singapore: Springer, 2018, 139–171
34	A, Kumar S Sokhansanj . Switchgrass (Panicum vigratum L.) delivery to a biorefinery using integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics (IBSAL) model. Bioresource Technology, 2007, 98( 5): 1033–1044 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.04.027
35	A F, Turhollow R D Perlack . Emissions of CO2 from energy crop production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1991, 1( 3): 129–135 https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(91)90021-4
36	J M, Cooper G, Butler C Leifert . Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional food production systems, with and without bio-energy options. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2011, 58( 3-4): 185–192 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2011.05.002
37	P, Goglio E, Bonari M Mazzoncini . LCA of cropping systems with different external input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012, 42 : 33–42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.03.021
38	P, Tidåker C, Sundberg I, Öborn T, Kätterer G Bergkvist . Rotational grass/clover for biogas integrated with grain production —A life cycle perspective. Agricultural Systems, 2014, 129 : 133–141 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.015

[1]

FASE-21435-OF-KL_suppl_1

Download

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed