IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p6978-d404845.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Production from Energy Crops in Crop Rotation Using Different Tillage System

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Vatsanidou

    (Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece)

  • Christos Kavalaris

    (Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece)

  • Spyros Fountas

    (Department of Natural Resources Management and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

  • Nikolaos Katsoulas

    (Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece)

  • Theofanis Gemtos

    (Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece)

Abstract

A three-year experiment was carried out in Central Greece to assess the use of different tillage practices (Conventional, Reduced, and No tillage) for seedbed preparation, in a double cropping per year rotation of irrigated and rainfed energy crops for biomass production for first- and second-generation biofuel production. A life cycle assessment (LCA) study was performed for the first year of crop rotation to evaluate the environmental impact of using different tillage practices, identifying the processes with greater influence on the overall environmental burden (hotspots) and demonstrating the potential environmental benefits from the land management change. LCA results revealed that fertilizer application and diesel fuel consumption, as well as their production stages, were the hot-spot processes for each treatment. In the present study, different tillage treatments compared using mass- and area-based functional unit (FU), revealing that reduced tillage, using strip tillage for spring crop and disc harrow for winter crops, and no tillage treatment had the best environmental performance, respectively. Comparison between the prevailing in the area monoculture cotton crop with the proposed double energy crop rotation adopting conservation tillage practices, using mass and energy value FU, showed that cotton crop had higher environmental impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Vatsanidou & Christos Kavalaris & Spyros Fountas & Nikolaos Katsoulas & Theofanis Gemtos, 2020. "A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Production from Energy Crops in Crop Rotation Using Different Tillage System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6978-:d:404845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6978/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6978/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Quintero, J.A. & Montoya, M.I. & Sánchez, O.J. & Giraldo, O.H. & Cardona, C.A., 2008. "Fuel ethanol production from sugarcane and corn: Comparative analysis for a Colombian case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 385-399.
    3. Michal Kulak & Thomas Nemecek & Emmanuel Frossard & Gérard Gaillard, 2013. "How Eco-Efficient Are Low-Input Cropping Systems in Western Europe, and What Can Be Done to Improve Their Eco-Efficiency?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(9), pages 1-22, September.
    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. Václav Voltr & Martin Hruška & Luboš Nobilis, 2021. "Complex Valuation of Energy from Agricultural Crops including Local Conditions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-25, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Evangelos Kallitsis & Anna Korre & Dimitris Mousamas & Pavlos Avramidis, 2020. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Mediterranean Sea Bass and Sea Bream," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-11, November.

    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. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, Ashkan & Azadi, Hossein & Van Passel, Steven & Saber, Zahra & Hosseini-Fashami, Fatemeh & Mostashari-Rad, Fatemeh & Ghasemi-Mobtaker, Hassan, 2021. "Prospects of solar systems in production chain of sunflower oil using cold press method with concentrating energy and life cycle assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    3. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    4. Kalim Shah & George Philippidis & Hari Dulal & Gernot Brodnig, 2014. "Developing biofuels industry in small economies: Policy experiences and lessons from the caribbean basin initiative," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 229-253, February.
    5. Sara Ilahi & Yongchang Wu & Muhammad Ahsan Ali Raza & Wenshan Wei & Muhammad Imran & Lyankhua Bayasgalankhuu, 2019. "Optimization Approach for Improving Energy Efficiency and Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emission of Wheat Crop using Data Envelopment Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Gasparatos, A. & von Maltitz, G.P. & Johnson, F.X. & Lee, L. & Mathai, M. & Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. & Willis, K.J., 2015. "Biofuels in sub-Sahara Africa: Drivers, impacts and priority policy areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 879-901.
    7. Saraly Andrade de Sá & Charles Palmer & Stefanie Engel, 2012. "Ethanol Production, Food and Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Ko, Chun-Han & Wang, Ya-Nang & Chang, Fang-Chih & Chen, Jia-Jie & Chen, Wen-Hua & Hwang, Wen-Song, 2012. "Potentials of lignocellulosic bioethanols produced from hardwood in Taiwan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 329-334.
    9. Zabed, H. & Sahu, J.N. & Suely, A. & Boyce, A.N. & Faruq, G., 2017. "Bioethanol production from renewable sources: Current perspectives and technological progress," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 475-501.
    10. Li Li & Wenliang Wu & Paul Giller & John O’Halloran & Long Liang & Peng Peng & Guishen Zhao, 2018. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Highly Diverse Vegetable Multi-Cropping System in Fengqiu County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Sultana, Arifa & Kumar, Amit, 2011. "Development of energy and emission parameters for densified form of lignocellulosic biomass," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2716-2732.
    12. Ahmad Dar, Rouf & Ahmad Dar, Eajaz & Kaur, Ajit & Gupta Phutela, Urmila, 2018. "Sweet sorghum-a promising alternative feedstock for biofuel production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 4070-4090.
    13. Im-orb, Karittha & Arpornwichanop, Amornchai, 2016. "Techno-environmental analysis of the biomass gasification and Fischer-Tropsch integrated process for the co-production of bio-fuel and power," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 121-132.
    14. Forleo, Maria Bonaventura & Palmieri, Nadia & Suardi, Alessandro & Coaloa, Domenico & Pari, Luigi, 2017. "Bioenergy crops production in Italy: environmental impacts and economic performances," 2017 Sixth AIEAA Conference, June 15-16, Piacenza, Italy 261276, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    15. Ghasemi-Mobtaker, Hassan & Kaab, Ali & Rafiee, Shahin, 2020. "Application of life cycle analysis to assess environmental sustainability of wheat cultivation in the west of Iran," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Martin Kügemann & Heracles Polatidis, 2019. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: A Systematic Review and Classification of the Literature," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    17. Rui Pacheco & Carla Silva, 2019. "Global Warming Potential of Biomass-to-Ethanol: Review and Sensitivity Analysis through a Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Eckert, C.T. & Frigo, E.P. & Albrecht, L.P. & Albrecht, A.J.P. & Christ, D. & Santos, W.G. & Berkembrock, E. & Egewarth, V.A., 2018. "Maize ethanol production in Brazil: Characteristics and perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3907-3912.
    19. Oumer, A.N. & Hasan, M.M. & Baheta, Aklilu Tesfamichael & Mamat, Rizalman & Abdullah, A.A., 2018. "Bio-based liquid fuels as a source of renewable energy: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 82-98.
    20. Hamed Rafiee & Milad Aminizadeh & Elham Mehrparvar Hosseini & Hanane Aghasafari & Ali Mohammadi, 2022. "A Cluster Analysis on the Energy Use Indicators and Carbon Footprint of Irrigated Wheat Cropping Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-19, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6978-:d:404845. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.