IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v41y2015icp845-854.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy performances of intensive and extensive short rotation cropping systems for woody biomass production in the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Njakou Djomo, S.
  • Ac, A.
  • Zenone, T.
  • De Groote, T.
  • Bergante, S.
  • Facciotto, G.
  • Sixto, H.
  • Ciria Ciria, P.
  • Weger, J.
  • Ceulemans, R.

Abstract

One of the strategies to ensure energy security and to mitigate climate change in the European Union (EU) is the establishment and the use of short rotation woody crops (SRWCs) for the production of renewable energy. SRWCs are cultivated in the EU under different management systems. Addressing the energy security problems through SRWCs requires management systems that maximize the net energy yield per unit land area. We assembled and evaluated on-farm data from within the EU, (i) to understand the relationship between the SRWC yields and spatial distribution of precipitation, as well as the relationship between SRWC yield and the planting density, and (ii) to investigate whether extensively managed SRWC systems are more energy efficient than their intensively managed counterparts. We found that SRWC yield ranged from 1.3 to 24tha−1y−1 (mean 9.3±4.2tha−1y−1) across sites. We looked for, but did not find a relationship between yield and annual precipitation as well as between yield and planting density. The energy inputs of extensively managed SRWC systems ranged from 3 to 8GJha−1y−1 whereas the energy ratio (i.e. energy output to energy input ratio) varied from 9 to 29. Although energy inputs (3–16GJha−1y−1) were larger in most cases than those of extensively managed SRWC systems, intensively managed SRWC systems in the EU had higher energy ratios, i.e. between 15 and 62. The low energy ratio of extensively managed SRWC systems reflected their lower biomass yield per unit area. Switching from intensively managed SRWC systems to extensively managed ones thus creates an energy gap, and will require more arable land to be brought into production to compensate for the yield loss. Consequently, extensification is not the most appropriate path to the success of the wide scale deployment of SRWC for bioenergy production in the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Njakou Djomo, S. & Ac, A. & Zenone, T. & De Groote, T. & Bergante, S. & Facciotto, G. & Sixto, H. & Ciria Ciria, P. & Weger, J. & Ceulemans, R., 2015. "Energy performances of intensive and extensive short rotation cropping systems for woody biomass production in the EU," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 845-854.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:41:y:2015:i:c:p:845-854
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114007345
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.058?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Srirangan, Kajan & Akawi, Lamees & Moo-Young, Murray & Chou, C. Perry, 2012. "Towards sustainable production of clean energy carriers from biomass resources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 172-186.
    2. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    3. Njakou Djomo, S. & El Kasmioui, O. & De Groote, T. & Broeckx, L.S. & Verlinden, M.S. & Berhongaray, G. & Fichot, R. & Zona, D. & Dillen, S.Y. & King, J.S. & Janssens, I.A. & Ceulemans, R., 2013. "Energy and climate benefits of bioelectricity from low-input short rotation woody crops on agricultural land over a two-year rotation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 862-870.
    4. Adam J. Liska & Haishun S. Yang & Virgil R. Bremer & Terry J. Klopfenstein & Daniel T. Walters & Galen E. Erickson & Kenneth G. Cassman, 2009. "Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn‐Ethanol," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(1), pages 58-74, February.
    5. Rowe, Rebecca L. & Street, Nathaniel R. & Taylor, Gail, 2009. "Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 271-290, January.
    6. Nemecek, Thomas & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Dubois, David & Gaillard, Gérard & Schaller, Britta & Chervet, Andreas, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 233-245, March.
    7. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xinhua Shen & Raghava R. Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2015. "The Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Power Generation from Lignocellulosic Biomass," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Knápek, Jaroslav & Králík, Tomáš & Vávrová, Kamila & Weger, Jan, 2020. "Dynamic biomass potential from agricultural land," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Schwerz, Felipe & Neto, Durval Dourado & Caron, Braulio Otomar & Nardini, Claiton & Sgarbossa, Jaqueline & Eloy, Elder & Behling, Alexandre & Elli, Elvis Felipe & Reichardt, Klaus, 2020. "Biomass and potential energy yield of perennial woody energy crops under reduced planting spacing," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1238-1250.
    4. Rugani, Benedetto & Golkowska, Katarzyna & Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Koster, Daniel & Benetto, Enrico & Verdonckt, Pieter, 2015. "Simulation of environmental impact scores within the life cycle of mixed wood chips from alternative short rotation coppice systems in Flanders (Belgium)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 449-464.
    5. Gibon, Thomas & Arvesen, Anders & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2017. "Life cycle assessment demonstrates environmental co-benefits and trade-offs of low-carbon electricity supply options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1283-1290.
    6. Piyarath Saosee & Boonrod Sajjakulnukit & Shabbir H. Gheewala, 2020. "Feedstock Security Analysis for Wood Pellet Production in Thailand," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, October.
    7. John Nyandansobi Simon & Narissara Nuthammachot & Kuaanan Techato & Kingsley Ezechukwu Okpara & Sittiporn Channumsin & Rungnapa Kaewthongrach & Md. Sujahangir Kabir Sarkar, 2022. "Para Rubber ( Hevea brasiliensis ) Feedstock for Livelihoods Opportunities in Southern Thailand: Analysis of Socioeconomic Productivity Potentials and Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Marzena Niemczyk & Margalita Bachilava & Marek Wróbel & Marcin Jewiarz & Giorgi Kavtaradze & Nani Goginashvili, 2021. "Productivity and Biomass Properties of Poplar Clones Managed in Short-Rotation Culture as a Potential Fuelwood Source in Georgia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Vanbeveren, Stefan P.P. & Spinelli, Raffaele & Eisenbies, Mark & Schweier, Janine & Mola-Yudego, Blas & Magagnotti, Natascia & Acuna, Mauricio & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Ceulemans, Reinhart, 2017. "Mechanised harvesting of short-rotation coppices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 90-104.
    10. Livingstone, David & Smyth, Beatrice M. & Lyons, Gary & Foley, Aoife M. & Murray, Simon T. & Johnston, Chris, 2022. "Life cycle assessment of a short-rotation coppice willow riparian buffer strip for farm nutrient mitigation and renewable energy production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    11. Kotchakarn Nantasaksiri & Patcharawat Charoen-amornkitt & Takashi Machimura & Kiichiro Hayashi, 2021. "Multi-Disciplinary Assessment of Napier Grass Plantation on Local Energetic, Environmental and Socioeconomic Industries: A Watershed-Scale Study in Southern Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Róger Moya & Carolina Tenorio & Gloria Oporto, 2019. "Short Rotation Wood Crops in Latin American: A Review on Status and Potential Uses as Biofuel," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, February.
    13. Pereira, S. & Costa, M., 2017. "Short rotation coppice for bioenergy: From biomass characterization to establishment – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1170-1180.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    3. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    4. Budzianowski, Wojciech M. & Postawa, Karol, 2016. "Total Chain Integration of sustainable biorefinery systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1432-1446.
    5. Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Rafiee, Shahin & Omid, Mahmoud & Yousefi, Marziye & Movahedi, Mehran, 2013. "Modeling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 333-338.
    6. Pradeleix, L. & Roux, P. & Bouarfa, S. & Bellon-Maurel, V., 2023. "Multilevel life cycle assessment to evaluate prospective agricultural development scenarios in a semi-arid irrigated region of Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Pradeleix, L. & Roux, P. & Bouarfa, S. & Bellon-Maurel, V., 2022. "Multilevel environmental assessment of regional farming activities with Life Cycle Assessment: Tackling data scarcity and farm diversity with Life Cycle Inventories based on Agrarian System Diagnosis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Houshyar, Ehsan & Grundmann, Philipp, 2017. "Environmental impacts of energy use in wheat tillage systems: A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study in Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 11-24.
    9. Liang, Long & Lal, Rattan & Ridoutt, Bradley G. & Zhao, Guishen & Du, Zhangliu & Li, Li & Feng, Dangyang & Wang, Liyuan & Peng, Peng & Hang, Sheng & Wu, Wenliang, 2018. "Multi-indicator assessment of a water-saving agricultural engineering project in North Beijing, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 34-46.
    10. Berti, Marisol & Johnson, Burton & Ripplinger, David & Gesch, Russ & Aponte, Alfredo, 2017. "Environmental impact assessment of double- and relay-cropping with winter camelina in the northern Great Plains, USA," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-12.
    11. El Chami, D. & Daccache, A., 2015. "Assessing sustainability of winter wheat production under climate change scenarios in a humid climate — An integrated modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 19-25.
    12. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    13. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    14. Rugani, Benedetto & Golkowska, Katarzyna & Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Koster, Daniel & Benetto, Enrico & Verdonckt, Pieter, 2015. "Simulation of environmental impact scores within the life cycle of mixed wood chips from alternative short rotation coppice systems in Flanders (Belgium)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 449-464.
    15. Murphy, Fionnuala & Devlin, Ger & McDonnell, Kevin, 2014. "Forest biomass supply chains in Ireland: A life cycle assessment of GHG emissions and primary energy balances," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Tate, Graham & Mbzibain, Aurelian & Ali, Shaukat, 2012. "A comparison of the drivers influencing farmers' adoption of enterprises associated with renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 400-409.
    17. Tendall, Danielle M. & Gaillard, Gérard, 2015. "Environmental consequences of adaptation to climate change in Swiss agriculture: An analysis at farm level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 40-51.
    18. Netshipale, A.J. & Raidimi, E.N. & Mashiloane, M.L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Oosting, S.J., 2022. "Farming system diversity and its drivers in land reform farms of the Waterberg District, South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Karim Naderi Mahdei & Seyed Mohammad Jafar Esfahani & Philippe Lebailly & Thomas Dogot & Steven Passel & Hossein Azadi, 2023. "Environmental impact assessment and efficiency of cotton: the case of Northeast Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10301-10321, September.
    20. Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza & Amiri, Zahra & Campbell, Daniel E., 2020. "Evaluation of the sustainability of four greenhouse vegetable production ecosystems based on an analysis of emergy and social characteristics”," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 424(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:41:y:2015:i:c:p:845-854. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.