Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves

Kaltsas, Apostolos M.; Mamolos, Andreas P.; Tsatsarelis, Constantinos A.; Nanos, George D.; Kalburtji, Kiriaki L.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.017

Cited by 119 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…amount of input energy in beet production. The findings of other studies were consistent with those of the present work in terms of assessing the input energy and the GWP obtained from it in various products (Kaltsas et al, 2007;Lal, 2004;Pathak and Wassmann, 2007). In this work, a direct relationship was found between the output energy and the input energy; in other words, the increase of input energy will increase the yield of the product and consequently the output energy and GHG emissions ( Table 5).…”

Section: Figure 10 Box Plot Of Ghg Emissions Resulting From Herbicidsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…6). In addition, similar research results on other crops showed that the use of chemical fertilizers (especially nitrogen fertilizer) and fossil fuels have the highest impact on GHG emissions and GWP (Tzilivakis et al, 2005a, 2005b; Kaltsas et al, 2007;Lal, 2004). Rajabi et al (2013) reported the amount of GHG emissions from nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers to produce wheat in Gorgan as 97, 67, and 64 kg, respectively, equivalent to CO 2 -carbon per ha.…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 57%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co2 Emission and GWP of Energy Consumption in the Cotton Production in Golestan Province of Iran

Arefi¹

2018

Appl. Ecol. Env. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Careful choosing of appropriate methods in farming operations reduces fuel consumption, energy, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in agricultural production. The present study was conducted to investigate the input and output energies and GHG emissions in cotton production in Golestan Province of Iran and the cities of Ali Abad Katool and Aqqala. For this purpose, agricultural operations were randomly selected from 100 farms for the years 2014 and 2015 and the related data on all farms were recorded. Various inputs and comprehensive information at every phase from planting to harvesting were collected, recorded, and processed and then extracted from multiple sources for each equivalence operation during different crop operations for cotton production using a conversion ratio of energy and GHG emissions. Afterward, the energy and GHG emissions for each input and operation were calculated. According to the obtained results, the mean power output was 154 GJ per ha, which is approximately six times of the average input energy (26 GJ/ha). The output and input energies for cotton production were 49 to 243 and 15 to 43 GJ/ha, respectively. Moreover, Global Warming Potential (GWP) of various activities in the cotton fields varied between 741 up to 7790 kg CO 2 equivalent per ha. The maximum GHG emissions were related to fertilizers with manure and fuel ranked in the next orders. The comparison between input energy and GWP revealed their direct relation in cotton production farms. Irrigation, feeding, and preparation operations had the highest fuel consumption and led to an increase in GHG release. Based on these results, it can be concluded that energy consumption and GHG emissions can be reduced by lowering fuel consumption and using chemical fertilizers.

show abstract

Section: Figure 10 Box Plot Of Ghg Emissions Resulting From Herbicidsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Greenhouse Gas Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Co2 Emission and GWP of Energy Consumption in the Cotton Production in Golestan Province of Iran

Arefi¹

2018

Appl. Ecol. Env. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of fruit production, there are various sets of guidelines ranging from those that attempt to optimise profitability (conventional production) to those that respect certain norms relative to sustainability (organic production) or that lead to intermediate systems, such as integrated production. Various studies have evaluated these three types of guidelines from an environmental perspective (Sanjuán et al, 2003;Kaltsas et al, 2007;La Rosa et al, 2008;De Barros et al, 2009). The conclusions do not always identify one system of production as best, as they depend, for example, on the assessment methods and environmental indicators employed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A life cycle assessment of non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with blueberry and raspberry production in northern Italy

Girgenti

Peano

Bounous

et al. 2013

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indicatively, work has been carried out for the case of vineyards [8], peaches [9], pears [10], apples [11,12], olive groves [13], white asparagus [14], sweet cherry [15], and willow [16]. All the aforementioned work either refers to specific production practices or makes use of averages for the estimation of the energy inputs related to the various field and logistics activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Web-Based Tool for Energy Balance Estimation in Multiple-Crops Production Systems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass production systems include multiple-crops rotations, various machinery systems, diversified operational practices and several dispersed fields located in a range of distances between the various facilities (e.g., storage and processing facilities). These factors diversify the energy and cost requirements of the system. To that effect, assessment tools dedicated a single-crop production based on average standards cannot provide an insight evaluation of a specific production system, e.g., for a whole farm in terms of energy and cost requirements. This paper is the continuation of previous work, which presents a web-based tool for cost estimation of biomass production and transportation of multiple-crop production. In the present work, the tool is extended to additionally provide the energy balance of the examined systems. The energy input includes the whole supply chain of the biomass, namely crop cultivation, harvesting, handling of biomass and transportation to the processing facilities. A case study involving a real crop production system that feeds a biogas plant of 200 kW was selected for the demonstration of the tool's applicability. The output of the tool provides a series of indexes dedicated to the energy input and balance. The presented tool can be used for the comparison of the performance, in terms of energy requirements, between various crops, fields, operations practices, and operations systems providing support for decisions on the biomass production system design (e.g., allocation of crops to fields) and operations management (e.g., machinery system selection).

show abstract

Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves

Cited by 119 publications

References 28 publications

Co2 Emission and GWP of Energy Consumption in the Cotton Production in Golestan Province of Iran

Co2 Emission and GWP of Energy Consumption in the Cotton Production in Golestan Province of Iran

A life cycle assessment of non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with blueberry and raspberry production in northern Italy

A Web-Based Tool for Energy Balance Estimation in Multiple-Crops Production Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About