Evaluation of additional crops for Dutch list of ecological focus area : evaluation of Miscanthus, Silphium perfoliatum, fallow sown in with melliferous plants and sunflowers in seed mixtures for catch crops

Bufe, Conny; Korevaar, H.

doi:10.18174/444086

Cited by 13 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is a perennial biogas crop with a rapidly increasing cultivation area in Germany (about 3,000 ha in 2018; TFZ, 2019). The reasons for this are (a) its positive effects on both biodiversity and the environment (Bufe & Korevaar, 2018), (b) its high MYH potential (Gansberger, Montgomery, & Liebhard, 2015;Haag, Nägele, Reiss, Biertümpfel, & Oechsner, 2015;Mast et al, 2014;Šiaudinis et al, 2015;Ustak & Munoz, 2018), (c) it has been accepted as a greening measure since 2018 (Bufe & Korevaar, 2018), and (d) there has been a breakthrough in establishment procedure (sowing instead of planting) which makes its cultivation more cost-efficient. It is also commonly established under maize (Stolzenburg, Bruns, Monkos, Ott, & Schickler, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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.)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cultivation of perennial wild plant mixtures (WPMs) in biogas cropping systems dominated by maize (Zea mays L.) restores numerous ecosystem functions and improves both spatial and temporal agrobiodiversity. In addition, the colorful appearance of WPM can help enhance landscape beauty. However, their methane yield per hectare (MYH) varies greatly and amounts to only about 50% that of maize. This study aimed at decreasing MYH variability and increasing accumulated MYH of WPM by optimizing the establishment method. A field trial was established in southwest Germany in 2014, and is still running. It tested the effects of three WPM establishment procedures (E1: alone [without maize, in May], E2: undersown in cover crop maize [in May], E3: WPM sown after whole‐crop harvest of spring barley [Hordeum vulgare L.] in June) on both MYH and species diversity of two WPMs [S1, S2]). Mono‐cropped maize and cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) were used as reference crops. Of the WPM treatments tested, S2E2 achieved the highest (19,296 normalmnormalN3/ha, 60.5% of maize) and S1E1 the lowest accumulated MYH (8,156 normalmnormalN3/ha, 25.6% of maize) in the years 2014–2018. Cup plant yielded slightly higher than S2E2 (19,968 normalmnormalN3/ha, 62.6% of maize). In 2014, the WPM sown under maize did not significantly affect the cover crop performance. From 2015 onward, E1 and E2 had comparable average annual MYH and average annual number of WPM species. With a similar accumulated MYH but significantly higher number of species (3.5–10.2), WPM S2E2 outperformed cup plant. Overall, the long‐term MYH performance of WPM cultivation for biogas production can be significantly improved by undersowing with maize as cover crop. This improved establishment method could help facilitate the implementation of WPM cultivation for biogas production and thus reduce the trade‐off between bioenergy and biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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.)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If research in this field is intensified by EPH, it might allow for an increase in both methane yields and the generation of additional income through seed‐based cup‐plant establishment . But the central argument for the choice of cup plant is its numerous ecological advantages compared with maize and similar annual energy crops . Moreover, it can be well adapted to European sites and has low cultivation requirements …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…131 But the central argument for the choice of cup plant is its numerous ecological advantages compared with maize and similar annual energy crops. 71 Moreover, it can be well adapted to European sites and has low cultivation requirements. 86 A lot of information is still missing regarding the quantity of soy imported at EPH and the current animal feed composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 A promising alternative to maize as energy crop is cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.), which not only has similar properties in terms of biogas generation [68][69][70] but stands out due to its ecological benefits such as soil protection and the provision of food for pollinators. 71,72 Cup plant is compatible with the recent European law on advanced biofuels, 5 and it was added to greening measures in 2018. 73 Cup plant is discussed in greater detail below.…”

Section: The Biogas Plant As a Hub In The Sustainable Bioeconomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The replacement of maize (Zea mays L.) by cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) as biogas substrate and its implications for the energy and material flows of a large biogas plant

Cossel

Amarysti

Wilhelm

et al. 2020

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excessive cultivation of maize (Zea mays L.) as a biogas substrate has fired debate about potential land‐use change effects of bioenergy cropping systems. Cup plant ( Silphium perfoliatum L.) is a perennial biogas crop that provides more environmental services than maize. This study investigated (i) how to replace maize with cup plant as a biogas substrate in a large‐scale biogas plant located in southwest Germany, and (ii) how to optimize the energy and material cycles of such a biogas plant given the new feedstock. The biogas plant produces 1000 m3 biogas per hour with plans for it to be combined with a large dairy farm (1000 dairy units). It was found that the substitution of maize with cup plant as a biogas substrate results in a methane yield reduction of 10% to 20% due to lower biomass yields. However, there exists a strong potential to increase both biomass yields and biogas substrate quality of cup plant by optimizing establishment procedures and better genotypes. Furthermore, cup plant provides food and shelter for open land animals, including birds and insects, and could hence be a suitable alternative to maize for large biogas plants, being more environmentally beneficial. Extracting proteins from cup‐plant biomass could also help replace soy with locally produced protein for feeding cattle. Hydrothermal carbonization is a promising tool for closing nutrient cycles and for extracting phosphate from digestate, but more research is needed before it can be put into practice. © 2020 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…The use of Miscanthus spp. might have additional negative effects if it becomes an invasive species, as has already been documented in America and The Netherlands (Bufe & Korevaar, ). Crops of S. perfoliatum seem to benefit generalist insects and soil fauna (see in Bufe & Korevaar, ).…”

Section: Perverse Effect Of the Weighting Scores Of Efas On Fallows Amentioning

confidence: 81%

Changing the fallow paradigm: A win–win strategy for the post‐2020 Common Agricultural Policy to halt farmland bird declines

Tarjuelo

Margalida

Mougeot

2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmland bird populations have declined sharply due to agricultural intensification. In Europe, these negative population trends have been linked to the loss of semi‐natural vegetation types, particularly fallow land. The work of Sanz‐Pérez et al. (2019) has far‐reaching implications for the conservation of farmland biodiversity. We argue that it supports a new paradigm for the understanding and management of fallows that should be integrated into the forthcoming post‐2020 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Following the abolition of mandatory set‐aside by the European Union in 2008, fallows declined steadily in Europe until 2015, when the CAP implemented greening measures. These restored the requirement to leave 5% of arable land as ecological focus areas (EFAs) to enhance biodiversity. While fallows are one of the most beneficial forms of EFA for farmland birds, farmers prefer the less conservation effective planting of nitrogen‐fixing and catch crops (currently more than 70% of EFAs). CAP incentives have been insufficient to make unproductive EFAs such as fallows more attractive to farmers. Sanz‐Pérez et al. (2019) evaluated the impact of different fallow land management practices on the abundance of specialist farmland birds. They concluded that extensive practices – such as tilling or shredding once or twice per year before the breeding season – were more beneficial to these declining species than leaving fallows unmanaged and recommended their incorporation into agri‐environment schemes. But such schemes have had low uptake, and thus a limited potential to drive the widespread recovery of farmland birds at either national or European levels. The post‐2020 CAP, currently under development, should integrate simple fallow management practices within new conditionalities or eco‐schemes to address this problem. Synthesis and applications. The loss of fallow land underlies the decline of farmland birds. The post‐2020 CAP must overcome past mismatches between incentives to farmers and biodiversity benefits and increase farmers’ uptake of the most beneficial options for biodiversity, including fallows. Promoting light management of fallow land within the new CAP eco‐schemes is a win–win strategy because it would simultaneously allow farmers to continue extensive weed control and enhance habitat quality for farmland birds.

show abstract

Evaluation of additional crops for Dutch list of ecological focus area : evaluation of Miscanthus, Silphium perfoliatum, fallow sown in with melliferous plants and sunflowers in seed mixtures for catch crops

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

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.)

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.)

The replacement of maize (Zea mays L.) by cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) as biogas substrate and its implications for the energy and material flows of a large biogas plant

Changing the fallow paradigm: A win–win strategy for the post‐2020 Common Agricultural Policy to halt farmland bird declines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About