4.7 Article

Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus x giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 320-327

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.009

关键词

biofuel; Miscanthus x giganteus; yield; nitrogen; mineral composition; N balance

资金

  1. Agro-Industry Research (AIR) programme of the European Union's Directorate General for Agriculture (DG VI)
  2. UK Department of Trade and Industry (now Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform)
  3. AEA Technology Environment, Harwell, Oxfordshire, UK
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council of the UK
  5. EPSRC [EP/E039995/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/E039995/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Miscanthus x giganteus, a perennial rhizomatous grass commercially used as a biofuel crop was grown in a field experiment on a silty clay loam soil for 14 years. There were 3 rates of fertilizer nitrogen (N), none (control), 60 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) and 120 kgN ha(-1) yr(-1) as cumulative applications. The crop was harvested in winter and dry matter yield measured. N did not influence yield. Yield, which increased for the first 6 years, decreased in years 7 and 8, but then increased again and was highest in the 10th year averaging 17.7 tha(-1) across all treatments. Differences in total production over the 14 years were only 5% between the highest and lowest yielding treatments and averaged 178.9 tha(-1) equivalent to 12.8 tha(-1) yr(-1). In the first 10 harvests, 92% of dry matter was stem. Although the study showed N fertilizer was not required, it is considered that an application of 7 kg P ha(-1) yr(-1) and 100 kg K ha(-1) yr(-1) would avoid soil reserve depletion. Pesticides were not required every year and the crop can be considered as low input with a high level of sustainability for at least 14 years. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据