IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i23p10160-d1525742.html

Perennial Forage Systems Enhance Ecosystem Quality Variables Compared with Annual Forage Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Ogechukwu Igboke

    (Department of Plant Sciences, Loftsgard Hall, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA)

  • Elisandra S. O. Bortolon

    (Department of Plant Sciences, Loftsgard Hall, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA)

  • Amanda J. Ashworth

    (Poultry Production and Product Safety Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

  • Joel Tallaksen

    (West Central Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris, MN 56267, USA)

  • Valentin D. Picasso

    (Department of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Marisol T. Berti

    (Department of Plant Sciences, Loftsgard Hall, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA)

Abstract

There is an intense argument about the environmental impact of annual vs. perennial forage production systems. In this study, a systematic review was employed to obtain 47 empirical studies from 13 published papers between the years 2017–2023 to help clarify the issue. The objective of this study was to determine how perennial and annual forage (business-as-usual, BAU) production systems affect dry matter yield (DM) and energy of production including specific environmental impact variables. Impact variables were classified into three main groups: human health, ecosystem quality, and resource consumption. Net energy of lactation (NEL) was considered as a functional unit. Overall, perennial forage production systems varied less in DM yield and energy production than annual monocrop systems, indicating stability in perennial production. There was no statistically significant difference in human health and resource consumption variables between perennial and annual forage production systems, except for ozone layer depletion potential. However, perennial forage systems significantly lowered variables within the ecosystem quality category. Ecotoxicity potential decreased by two and 18 times compared with BAU—control (only annual monoculture forages), and BAU—improved (any annual cropping system other than BAU—control), respectively. Perennial forage systems showed a significant effect size of −8.16, which was slightly less than the effect size of the BAU—improved system but two times less than BAU—control in terms of terrestrial acidification potential. While BAU—control showed an insignificant effect size in relation to eutrophication potential (EUP), perennial forage systems reduced EUP by approximately five and two times compared with BAU—control and BAU—improved, respectively. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of promoting perennial forage production system to foster resilience and stability in DM yield and energy production, with improvements in environmental human health (ozone layer depletion potential) and ecosystem quality variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Ogechukwu Igboke & Elisandra S. O. Bortolon & Amanda J. Ashworth & Joel Tallaksen & Valentin D. Picasso & Marisol T. Berti, 2024. "Perennial Forage Systems Enhance Ecosystem Quality Variables Compared with Annual Forage Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10160-:d:1525742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10160/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10160/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martínez-Blanco, Julia & Muñoz, Pere & Antón, Assumpció & Rieradevall, Joan, 2009. "Life cycle assessment of the use of compost from municipal organic waste for fertilization of tomato crops," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 340-351.
    2. 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.
    3. González-García, Sara & Baucells, Francesc & Feijoo, Gumersindo & Moreira, Maria Teresa, 2016. "Environmental performance of sorghum, barley and oat silage production for livestock feed using life cycle assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 28-41.
    4. Stanley, Paige L. & Rowntree, Jason E. & Beede, David K. & DeLonge, Marcia S. & Hamm, Michael W., 2018. "Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 249-258.
    5. Laurent, A. & Pelzer, E. & Loyce, C. & Makowski, D., 2015. "Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 41-50.
    6. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas & Weersink, Alfons & Janovicek, Ken & Deen, Bill, 2006. "Cost Efficient Tillage and Rotation Options for Mitigating GHG Emissions from Agriculture in Eastern Canada," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25485, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Joost F Wolfswinkel & Elfi Furtmueller & Celeste P M Wilderom, 2013. "Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 45-55, January.
    8. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Teodora Stillitano & Emanuele Spada & Nathalie Iofrida & Giacomo Falcone & Anna Irene De Luca, 2021. "Sustainable Agri-Food Processes and Circular Economy Pathways in a Life Cycle Perspective: State of the Art of Applicative Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-28, February.
    2. Patricia Akello & Nicole Lang Beebe & Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo, 2025. "A literature survey of security issues in Cloud, Fog, and Edge IT infrastructure," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 705-739, April.
    3. Cecchin, Andrea & Pourhashem, Ghasideh & Gesch, Russ W. & Lenssen, Andrew W. & Mohammed, Yesuf A. & Patel, Swetabh & Berti, Marisol T., 2021. "Environmental trade-offs of relay-cropping winter cover crops with soybean in a maize-soybean cropping system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    4. Kevin Friedrich, 2023. "A systematic literature review concerning the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-60, February.
    5. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    6. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    7. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    8. Adrián Salvador Morales García & Jorge Luis García‐Alcaraz & Julio Blanco Fernández & Eduardo Martínez Cámara, 2025. "Sustainability in Agave tequilana weber farming: A life cycle assessment," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 823-835, February.
    9. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    10. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    11. Sibilla Montanari & Evi Agostini & Denis Francesconi, 2023. "Are We Talking about Green Skills or Sustainability Competences? A Scoping Review Using Scientometric Analysis of Two Apparently Similar Topics in the Field of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-25, September.
    12. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    13. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    14. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    15. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Sarah H. Son-Theroux & Olivera J. Bogunovic, 2025. "Meeting Carer Health Information Needs in Mental Health: An Integrative Review," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 34(5), pages 244-254, June.
    18. Diamanta VITO & Maja KLUN & Iztok RAKAR, 2024. "A Concept Of Maturity Model For Gender Responsive Budgeting At Local Level," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2024(42), pages 76-98.
    19. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    20. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10160-:d:1525742. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.