Search

Perennial energy grasses have gained attention in recent years as a promising resource for the bioeconomy because of their benign environmental profile, high stress tolerance, high biomass yields and low input requirements. Currently, strong breeding efforts are being made to extend the range of commercially available miscanthus and switchgrass genotypes. In order to foster farmers' acceptance of these crops, and especially of novel hybrids, more information is required about how they can be efficiently integrated into cropping rotations, how they can be removed at the end of their productive lifespan, and what effect they have on subsequently grown crops. Farmers in Europe are meanwhile increasingly constrained in the methods available to them to remove these crops, and there is a risk that the herbicide glyphosate, which has been used in many studies to remove them, will be banned in coming years. This study looks at the removal of seven‐year‐old stands of miscanthus and switchgrass over 1 year at an experimental site in Southern‐Germany. Three novel miscanthus genotypes were studied, alongside one variety of switchgrass, and the impact of each crop's removal on the yield of maize grown as a follow‐on crop was examined. A combination of soil tillage and grass herbicides for maize cultivation was successful in controlling miscanthus regrowth, such that yields of maize grown after miscanthus did not differ significantly from yields of maize grown in monoculture rotation (18.1 t dry biomass ha−1). Yields of maize grown after switchgrass (14.4 t dry biomass ha−1) were significantly lower than maize in monoculture rotation caused by insufficient control of switchgrass regrowth by the applied maize herbicide. Although some regrowth of miscanthus and switchgrass was observed in the follow‐on crop maize, complete eradication of both crops was achieved by subsequent winter wheat cultivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two major global challenges related to agriculture are climate change and the unbalanced nitrogen cycle. For both, national and international reduction targets have been defined to catalyse policy support for more sustainable farming systems. Miscanthus cultivation in water protection areas has been proposed as a contribution to achieving these targets. However, a thorough understanding of the underlying system dynamics at various spatial levels is required before recommendations for policy development can be provided. In this study, a model framework was established to provide economic and environmental indicator results at regional and sub-regional levels. It presents a consequential Life Cycle Assessment coupled with an agro-economic supply model (Economic Farm Emission Model) that simulates crop and livestock production, and an agricultural hydrology model (DAISY) that assesses effects on the nitrogen cycle. The framework is applied to Baden-Württemberg, a federal state in southwest Germany with eight agro-ecological regions. Scenarios investigating the differences between mandatory and voluntary miscanthus cultivation were also explored. While the results show the high potential of miscanthus cultivation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (-16% to -724%), the potential to reduce nitrate leaching (-4% to -44%) is compromised in some sub-regions and scenarios (+4% to +13%) by substantial effects on the crop rotation. Furthermore, the cultivation of miscanthus reduces gross margins in most sub regions (-0.1% to -9.6%) and decreases domestic food production (-1% to -50%). However, in regions with low livestock density and high yields, miscanthus cultivation can maintain or increase farmers' income (0.1%-5.8%) and improve environmental protection. The study shows that the heterogeneity of arable land requires a flexible promotion programme for miscanthus. Voluntary cultivation schemes were identified as most suitable to capture sub-regional differences. Policies should address the demand for miscanthus, for example, support the development of regional value chains, including farmers, water suppliers and the biobased industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]