ABSTRACT:The use of crop residues as a bioenergy feedstock is considered a potential strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, indiscriminate harvesting of crop residues can induce deleterious effects on soil functioning, plant growth and other ecosystem services. Here, we have summarized the information available in the literature to identify and discuss the main trade-offs and synergisms involved in crop residue management for bioenergy production. The data consistently showed that crop residue harvest and the consequent lower input of organic matter into the soil led to C storage depletions over time, reducing cycling, supply and availability of soil nutrients, directly affecting the soil biota. Although the biota regulates key functions in the soil, crop residue can also cause proliferation of some important agricultural pests. In addition, crop residues act as physical barriers that protect the soil against raindrop impact and temperature variations. Therefore, intensive crop residue harvest can cause soil structure degradation, leading to soil compaction and increased risks of erosion. With regard to GHG emissions, there is no consensus about the potential impact of management of crop residue harvest. In general, residue harvest decreases CO 2 and N 2 O emissions from the decomposition process, but it has no significant effect on CH 4 emissions. Plant growth responses to soil and microclimate changes due to crop residue harvest are site and crop specific. Adoption of the best management practices can mitigate the adverse impacts of crop residue harvest. Longterm experiments within strategic production regions are essential to understand and monitor the impact of integrated agricultural systems and propose customized solutions for sustainable crop residue management in each region or landscape. Furthermore, private and public investments/cooperations are necessary for a better understanding of the potential environmental, economic and social implications of crop residue use for bioenergy production.

No abstract

No abstract

Detrimental effects of glyphosate on plant mineral nutrition have been reported in the literature, particularly on Mn uptake and redistribution. However, in most of the experiments conducted so far glyphosate-susceptible plants were used. Effects of glyphosate on Mn absorption kinetics, accumulation, and distribution within the plant, as well as soybean response to Mn as affected by glyphosate were studied in three experiments. In the first experiment, in nutrient solution, the effect of glyphosate on soybean Mn uptake kinetic parameters (Imax, Km and Cmin) was determined. In a second experiment, also in nutrient solution, differential Mn accumulation and distribution were studied for a conventional soybean cultivar and its near-isogenic glyphosate-resistant counterpart as affected by glyphosate. In a third experiment, response of glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivars to Mn application was studied in the presence of glyphosate, in pots with Mn-deficient soil. Maximum Mn influx (Imax) was higher in the herbicide-resistant (GR) cultivar than in its conventional counterpart. Glyphosate applied to nutrient solution at low rates decreased Km and Cmin. A few days after herbicide treatment, RR soybean plants developed yellowish leaves, a symptom which, in the field, could be misinterpreted as Mn deficiency, but herbicide application had no effect on Mn uptake or distribution within the plant. In the soil experiment, soybean Mn uptake was increased by Mn application, with no effect of glyphosate. Under greenhouse conditions, there was no evidence of deleterious effects of glyphosate on Mn absorption, accumulation and distribution in the plant and on soybean cultivars response to Mn application.