AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONVENTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE BIOENERGY CROPPING SYSTEMS PROMOTING BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY

Highlights

● Agri-environmental assessment of food, feed and/or biogas cropping systems (CS).

● Four-year experiment for the agri-environmental assessment of two innovative CS.

● Biogas CS has equal soil returned biomass than food CS but higher exported biomass.

● Feed and biogas CS present higher biomass productivity, but higher CO₂ emissions.

● CO₂ emissions related to produced biomass are 26% (±5%) lower in biogas CS.

Abstract

Bioenergy, currently the largest renewable energy source in the EU (64% of the total renewable energy consumption), has sparked great interest to meet the 32% renewable resources for the 2030 bioeconomy goal. The design of innovative cropping systems informed by bioeconomy imperatives requires the evaluate of the effects of introducing crops for bioenergy into conventional crop rotations. This study aimed to assess the impacts of changes in conventional cropping systems in mixed dairy cattle farms redesigned to introduce bioenergy crops either by increasing the biomass production through an increase of cover crops, while keeping main feed/food crops, or by substituting food crops with an increase of the crop rotation length. The assessment is based on the comparison between conventional and innovative systems oriented to feed and biogas production, with and without tillage, to evaluate their agri-environmental performances (biomass production, nitrogen fertilization autonomy, greenhouse gas emissions and biogas production). The result showed higher values in the biogas cropping system than in the conventional and feed ones for all indicators, biomass productivity (27% and 20% higher, respectively), nitrogen fertilization autonomy (26% and 73% higher, respectively), methanogenic potential (77% and 41% higher, respectively) and greenhouse gas emissions (15% and 3% higher, respectively). There were no negative impacts of no-till compared to the tillage practice, for all tested variables. The biogas cropping system showed a better potential in terms of agri-environmental performance, although its greenhouse gas emissions were higher. Consequently, it would be appropriate to undertake a multicriteria assessment integrating agri-environmental, economic and social performances.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

alternative cropping systems / bioeconomy / biogas / biomass production / fertilization autonomy / greenhouse gas assessment

References

[1] Jordan N, Boody G, Broussard W, Glover J D, Keeney D, McCown B H, McIsaac G, Muller M, Murray H, Neal J, Pansing C, Turner R E, Warner K, Wyse D. Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science, 2007, 316( 5831): 1570–1571

[2] von Braun J. Bioeconomy—The global trend and its implications for sustainability and food security. Global Food Security, 2018, 19 : 81–83

[3] European Commission. A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Brussels, Belgium: European Union, 2018, 107. Available at European Union site on August 20, 2021

[4] Svoboda N, Taube F, Kluß C, Wienforth B, Sieling K, Hasler M, Kage H, Ohl S, Hartung E, Herrmann A. Ecological efficiency of maize-based cropping systems for biogas production. BioEnergy Research, 2015, 8( 4): 1621–1635

[5] von Cossel M, Steberl K, Hartung J, Pereira L A, Kiesel A, Lewandowski I. Methane yield and species diversity dynamics of perennial wild plant mixtures established alone, under cover crop maize (Zea mays L.), and after spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Global Change Biology: Bioenergy, 2019, 11( 11): 1376–1391

[6] Hamelin L, Møller H B, Jørgensen U. Harnessing the full potential of biomethane towards tomorrow’s bioeconomy: A national case study coupling sustainable agricultural intensification, emerging biogas technologies and energy system analysis. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 138 : 110506

[7] Adkins J, Jastrow J D, Morris G P, de Graaff M A. Effects of fertilization, plant species, and intra-specific diversity on soil carbon and nitrogen in biofuel cropping systems after five growing seasons. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2019, 130 : 105393

[8] Gaba S, Lescourret F, Boudsocq S, Enjalbert J, Hinsinger P, Journet E P, Navas M L, Wery J, Louarn G, Malézieux E, Pelzer E, Prudent M, Ozier-Lafontaine H. c Malézieux E, Pelzer E, Prudent M, Ozier-Lafontaine H. Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: from concepts to design. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35( 2): 607–623

[9] Zhang W, Ricketts T H, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton S M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 2007, 64( 2): 253–260

[10] Zhu X, Liang C, Masters M D, Kantola I B, DeLucia E H. The impacts of four potential bioenergy crops on soil carbon dynamics as shown by biomarker analyses and DRIFT spectroscopy. Global Change Biology: Bioenergy, 2018, 10( 7): 489–500

[11] Gao Y, Liang A, Zhang Y, McLaughlin N, Zhang S, Chen X, Zheng H, Fan R. Dynamics of microbial biomass, nitrogen mineralization and crop uptake in response to placement of maize residue returned to Chinese mollisols over the maize growing season. Atmosphere, 2021, 12( 9): 1166

[12] Nguyen T H, Tong Y A, Luc N T, Liu C. Effects of different ways to return biomass on soil and crop nutrient contents. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 2015, 14( 3): 733–738

[13] Wight J P, Hons F M, Storlien J O, Provin T L, Shahandeh H, Wiedenfeld R P. Management effects on bioenergy sorghum growth, yield and nutrient uptake. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012, 46 : 593–604

[14] Adler P R, Del Grosso S J, Parton W J. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecological Applications, 2007, 17( 3): 675–691

[15] Cadoux S, Ferchaud F, Demay C, Boizard H, Machet J M, Fourdinier E, Preudhomme M, Chabbert B, Gosse G, Mary B. Implications of productivity and nutrient requirements on greenhouse gas balance of annual and perennial bioenergy crops. Global Change Biology: Bioenergy, 2014, 6( 4): 425–438

[16] Davis S C, Parton W J, Dohleman F G, Smith C M, Grosso S D, Kent A D, Delucia E H. Comparative biogeochemical cycles of bioenergy crops reveal nitrogen-fixation and low greenhouse gas emissions in a miscanthus × giganteus agro-ecosystem. Ecosystems, 2010, 13( 1): 144–156

[17] Hudiburg T W, Davis S C, Parton W, Delucia E H. Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 2015, 7( 2): 366–374

[18] Jungers J M, Clark A T, Betts K, Mangan M E, Sheaffer C C, Wyse D L. Long-term biomass yield and species composition in native perennial bioenergy cropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 2015, 107( 5): 1627–1640

[19] Fazio S, Monti A. Life cycle assessment of different bioenergy production systems including perennial and annual crops. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, 35( 12): 4868–4878

[20] Jørgensen U. Benefits versus risks of growing biofuel crops: the case of Miscanthus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2011, 3( 1−2): 24–30

[21] Boehmel C, Lewandowski I, Claupein W. Comparing annual and perennial energy cropping systems with different management intensities. Agricultural Systems, 2008, 96( 1−3): 224–236

[22] de Vries S C, van de Ven G W J, van Ittersum M K, Giller K E. Resource use efficiency and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion techniques. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010, 34( 5): 588–601

[23] Tang C, Yang X, Chen X, Ameen A, Xie G. Sorghum biomass and quality and soil nitrogen balance response to nitrogen rate on semiarid marginal land. Field Crops Research, 2018, 215 : 12–22

[24] Hobbs P R, Sayre K, Gupta R. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 2008, 363( 1491): 543–555

[25] Mitchell J P, Reicosky D C, Kueneman E A, Fisher J, Beck D. Conservation agriculture systems. CAB Reviews, 2019, 14( 1): 1–25

[26] Denier J, Faucon M P, Dulaurent A M, Guidet J, Kervroëdan L, Lamerre J, Houben D. Earthworm communities and microbial metabolic activity and diversity under conventional, feed and biogas cropping systems as affected by tillage practices. Applied Soil Ecology, 2022, 169 : 104232

[27] Machet J M, Dubrulle P, Damay N, Duval R, Julien J L, Recous S. A Dynamic decision-making tool for calculating the optimal rates of N application for 40 annual crops while minimising the residual level of mineral N at harvest. Agronomy, 2017, 7( 4): 73

[28] Ribeiro T, Cresson R, Pommier S, Preys S, André L, Béline F, Bouchez T, Bougrier C, Buffière P, Cacho J, Camacho P, Mazéas L, Pauss A, Pouech P, Rouez M, Torrijos M. Measurement of biochemical methane potential of heterogeneous solid substrates: results of a two-phase French inter-laboratory study. Water, 2020, 12( 10): 2814

[29] Delesalle M, Scheurer O, Martin P, Saby N, Eglin T, Duparque A. ABC’Terre : integrating soil organic carbon variation into cropping systems greenhouse gases balance at a territorial scale. Colloquium “Food security and climate change. The 4 per thousand initiative: a new concrete challenge for soil”, Poitiers, France, 2019. Available at HAL (Science Ouverte) website on September 8, 2021

[30] Clivot H, Mouny J C, Duparque A, Dinh J L, Denoroy P, Houot S, Vertès F, Trochard R, Bouthier A, Sagot S, Mary B. Modeling soil organic carbon evolution in long-term arable experiments with AMG model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2019, 118 : 99–113

[31] Meki M N, Snider J L, Kiniry J R, Raper R L, Rocateli A C. Energy sorghum biomass harvest thresholds and tillage effects on soil organic carbon and bulk density. Industrial Crops and Products, 2013, 43 : 172–182

[32] Sauvadet M, Chauvat M, Fanin N, Coulibaly S, Bertrand I. Comparing the effects of litter quantity and quality on soil biota structure and functioning: application to a cultivated soil in Northern France. Applied Soil Ecology, 2016, 107 : 261–271

[33] Walter Stinner P, Deuker A, Schmalfuß T, Brock C, Rensberg N, Denysenko V, Trainer P, Möller K, Zang J, Janke L, Leandro W M, Oehmichen K, Popp D. Perennial and Intercrop Legumes as Energy Crops for Biogas Production. In: Meena R S, Das A, Yadav G S, Lal R, eds. Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management. Singapore: Springer, 2018, 139–171

[34] Kumar A, Sokhansanj S. Switchgrass (Panicum vigratum L.) delivery to a biorefinery using integrated biomass supply analysis and logistics (IBSAL) model. Bioresource Technology, 2007, 98( 5): 1033–1044

[35] Turhollow A F, Perlack R D. Emissions of CO₂ from energy crop production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1991, 1( 3): 129–135

[36] Cooper J M, Butler G, Leifert C. Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional food production systems, with and without bio-energy options. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2011, 58( 3-4): 185–192

[37] Goglio P, Bonari E, Mazzoncini M. LCA of cropping systems with different external input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012, 42 : 33–42

[38] Tidåker P, Sundberg C, Öborn I, Kätterer T, Bergkvist G. Rotational grass/clover for biogas integrated with grain production —A life cycle perspective. Agricultural Systems, 2014, 129 : 133–141

Supplementary materials

The online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021435 contains supplementary material (Fig. S1).

Acknowledgements

This study was a part of the project “Bioeconomy Demonstrator Network” (“Réseau de sites démonstrateurs IAR” in French) funded from 2015 to 2020 by the European Union (ERDF), the French State (Commissariat Général à l’Egalité des Territoires, CGET) and the “Hauts-de-France” Regional Council. We thank Benoit Detot (UniLaSalle), Olivier Rey (UniLaSalle), Vincent Hervé (UniLaSalle) and Virginie Metery (Chambre Régionale d’Agriculture des Hauts-de-France) for technical assistance and the experimental design; and Lucile Godart and Hélène Zub-Preudhomme for the project coordination.

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Léa Kervroëdan, David Houben, Julien Guidet, Julia Denier, Anne-Maïmiti Dulaurent, Elisa Marraccini, Amandine Deligey, Charlotte Journel, Justine Lamerre, and Michel-Pierre Faucon declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial conflicts to disclose. This article does not contain any study with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s) 2022. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)