Biblid: 1821-4487 (2014) 18; 2; p 62-64
UDK: 631.559633.15:
Original Scientific Paper
Originalni naučni rad
YIELD OF Miscanthus×giganteus DURING CROP ESTABLISHMENT
AT TWO LOCATIONS IN SERBIA
PRINOS Miscanthus×giganteus, GAJENOG NA DVE LOKACIJE U
SRBIJI U FAZI ZASNIVANJA USEVA
*
Željko DŽELETOVIĆ*, Jelena MAKSIMOVIĆ**, Iva ŽIVANOVIĆ***
University of Belgrade, INEP - Institute for the Application of Nuclear Energy, Banatska 31-b, 11080 Zemun, Serbia
**
Institute of Soil Science, T. Drajzera 7, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
***
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Zemun, Serbia
e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Miscanthus (Miscanthus×giganteus Greef et Deu.) represents one of the best sources for low input bioenergy production in Europe. Miscanthus is a rhizomatous perennial C4 grass with a long life-span (15-20 years). It is harvested each year and is characterized with very high potential yield. In this field trial, we compared miscanthus yields from two different soil types in the vicinity of
Belgrade: leached chernozem and eutric cambisol. The crop establishment phase lasted 2 years, after which maximum yield was
reached in the third season of growing. In the first season of growing, a relatively low yield of aboveground biomass was obtained
(0.45-1.33 t dry matter ha-1, for the harvest at the beginning of October). In the first two years of growing, a considerably higher
yield was produced by the crop on cambisol than by that on chernozem. However, from the third season on, a higher and more uniform yield was obtained from the crop on chernozem. The average yield losses from the harvest in October till the harvest in February due to leaf shedding and falling of stem tops was 33-38%.
Key words: Miscanthus yield, bioenergy crop, leached chernozem, eutric cambisol.
REZIME
Miskanthus (Miscanthus×giganteus Greef et Deu.) je rizomatozna višegodišnja C4 trava, koja predstavlja jedan od najboljih izvora niskog inputa za proizvodnju bioenergije u Evropi. Visoko je perzistentna i dugovečna (15-20 godina). Žanje se svake godine i odlikuje se veoma visokim potencijalom prinosa biomase. U našem poljskom ogledu upoređeni su prinosi miskantusa na dva različita
tipa zemljišta u okolini Beograda: (I) izluženi černozem (Zemun), koji se smatra visoko produktivnim zemljištem; i (II) eutrični kambisol (Ralja), koji se smatra nisko produktivnim zemljištem. Faza zasnivanja useva traje 2 godine, nakon čega se u trećoj godini gajenja dostiže maksimalan prinos. U prvoj godini gajenja miskantus proizvodi relativno nizak prinos nadzemne biomase (na
černozemu 0,45 t suve materije ha-1, a na kambisolu 1,33 t s.m. ha-1, za žetvu izvedenu početkom oktobra). Usev na kambisolu prve
dve godine gajenja proizvodi znatno viši prinos nego usev na černozemu. Međutim, od treće godine usev na černozemu proizvodi viši
i ujednačeniji prinos (27,5-37,5 t s.m. ha-1 za žetvu izvedenu početkom oktobra), nego na kambisolu (15,5-25,7 t s.m. ha-1 za žetvu izvedenu početkom oktobra). Ispoljene razlike u visini prinosa preporučuju gajenje miskantusa na plodnijem zemljištu (černozem).
Prosečan gubitak prinosa od žetve u oktobru do žetve u februaru nastao opadanjem lišća i vrhova stabala iznosi 33-38%.
Ključne reči: prinos miskantusa, bioenergetski usev, izluženi černozem, eutrični kambisol.
INTRODUCTION
Miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Deu.) is identified as one of the best options for low input bioenergy production in Europe (Khanna et al., 2008). It is a non-invasive perennial grassy crop for biomass production, one which possesses
very good quality for combustion and whose entire aboveground
biomass can be utilized as energy raw material. Miscanthus is a
very tall grass, with a long-life span (15-20 years). It is harvested
every year and has a very high potential yield, which is the basic
pre-requisite for economic bioenergy production (Dželetović et
al., 2013а). Due to efficient biomass production, this grass can
have an important role in sustainable agricultural production of
fuel biomass in the near future (Ericsson et al., 2009).
In Serbia comparatively good agroecological conditions for
miscanthus cultivation are present. The area under miscanthus is
continuously expanding. Nowadays in addition to marginal and
less productive soils the production on highly productive soils is
increasing so that the higher profit can be obtained. At present,
miscanthus in Serbia is cultivated in plains and river valleys at
lower altitudes on various soil types (Dželetović et al., 2013а).
Harvesting of miscanthus is performed once a year by mowing the entire aboveground biomass. Frequent mowing exhausts
and destroys the crop (Dragoni et al., 2011). Experiments carried out in Serbia, showed that the largest aboveground biomass
was formed by miscanthus during September in northern
Šumadija (Dželetović et al., 2009а) and at the beginning of October, in lowland Srem (Živanović et al., 2013). At the time of
maximum biological yield, the crop is green and its moisture
62
content high. Miscanthus biomass harvested at the end of September or at the beginning of October can be used as raw material for biogas production (Dragoni et al., 2011). By delaying the
harvest after that period, biomass quality for combustion is improved due to reduction of moisture content and content of undesired biomass components (Mos et al., 2013). Late harvest at
moisture content <30% is recommended first of all for economic
reasons because the cost of harvest and biomass drying increases
with miscanthus moisture content. However, delaying the harvest causes biomass losses due to leaf shedding and falling of
stem tops. The decrease in yield from the time of formation of
maximum aboveground biomass until the time of harvest at the
end of February differs from year to year. Deciding the date of
harvest represents a compromise between the yield that can be
harvested and the quality thereof (Miguez et al., 2008). In addition to this, optimal harvest dates may vary from region to region, depending on weather conditions. Delaying the harvest period has the most pronounced effect at locations where there is a
high potential of dry biomass yield. In the agroecological conditions of Serbia, intense and abundant rainfall during autumn and
winter can soak a crop, but the crop drying process in spite of
this transpires during intervals without rainfall (Živanović et al.,
2013).
The aim of our study was to compare miscanthus yields obtained in the crop establishment phase on two different soil types
under agroecological conditions of the wider surroundings of
Belgrade, Serbia. For comparing the yield, two harvest periods
were selected: the harvest at the beginning of October, when
maximum biomass yield was obtained; and the harvest in the
Journal on Processing and Energy in Agriculture 18 (2014) 2
Dželetović, Željko et al. / Yield of Miscanthus×Giganteus During Crop Establishment at Two Locations in Serbia
middle of February, when high-quality biomass yield was obtained for combustion in boilers.
a long drought in 2008, with regular occurrence of heat waves
during the summer, when maximal temperatures were >35ºC for
several days in succession, very likely induced drying and decay
MATERIAL AND METHOD
of the still very shallow root system in the first year of cultivaThe experiment was performed in the middle of May 2008 at tion. Frequent irrigation during the summer ensured only maintwo locations in the surroundings of Belgrade under agroecolog- tenance of the crop because growth during the drought was
ical conditions of moderate-continental climate. Field trials were slower, and high summer temperatures.
In the first two years of growing on cambisol, a considerably
established at two locations in the vicinity of Belgrade: Zemun
(44°51’N, 20°22’E, 82 m a.s.l.) and Ralja (44°34’N, 20°34’E, higher biomass yield was obtained than on chernozem. In the
190 m a.s.l.). According to the FAO system of soil classification second year of growing the miscanthus biomass yield was 6.05 t
-1
-1
(FAO, 1983), the Zemun soil is a leached chernozem formed on d.m. ha on chernozem and 10.37 t d.m. ha on cambisol for the
performed at the beginning of October and 4.48 t d.m.
loess, while the Ralja soil is a eutric cambisol formed on lake harvest
-1
-1
sediments, lessived. The most important chemical characteristics ha and 7.68 t d.m. ha , respectively for the harvest performed
in February (Table 2). In relation to the result obtained in the
are given in Table 1.
Trial plots measuring 5×4 m2, were randomTable 2. Average yields of miscanthus cultivated on two different soil types
ly placed at each location in three replications. (t d.m. ha-1 ± Standard deviations)
The experimental crop was established by plantChernozem (Zemun)
Cambisol (Ralja)
Aver. yield loss from
Years
ing vital rhizomes a depth of 10 cm, on preof
Harvest in Harvest in Harvest in Harvest in the harvest in Oct.
viously prepared land. A planting density of 2
breeding
October
February
October
February till the harvest in Feb.
rhizomes
I (2008/09) 0.45±0.12a* 0.34±0.09a 1.33±1.07b 1.01±0.79b
33%
-2
m is considered by Lewandowski et al. (2000)
II (2009/10) 6.05±1.35 a 4.48±1.00a 10.37±8.72b 7.68±6.46b
35%
and Miguez et al. (2008) to be the optimal plant- III (2010/11) 27.50±1.71a 20.22±1.26b 21.08±12.95c 15.50±9.52c
36%
ing density for miscanthus. Only in the first IV (2011/12) 38.47±0.60a 28.29±0.44b 25.69±8.90c 18.89±6.54c
36%
growing season (the year was 2008) the crop irV (2012/13) 30.17±1.86a 21.86±1.35b 15.54±4.38c 11.26±3.18c
38%
rigated according to need, with the aim of proAver. III-V 32.05±1.39a 23.46±1.02b 20.77±8.74c 15.22±6.41d
36%
viding sufficient quantity of water in the soil for *Values followed by the same letter within rows are not significantly different ccording to
growth and development of the planted rhi- Fisher’s protected LSD values; LSD – least significant difference at P  0.05.
0.05
zomes. Fertilization was performed every year
-1
-1
first
year,
the
biomass
yield thus increased approximately 13by the application of 100 kg N hа , 100 kg P2О5 ha and 100 kg
К2О hа-1 immediately before the appearance of shoots (1st to fold for the crop grown on chernozem and 8-fold for the one
grown on cambisol. In the second year, Riche et al. (2008) ob10th April).
tained a yield that was similar to ours, but in a slightly more liTable 1. Chemical properties of the soils
mited range, i.e. from 1.78 to 3.53 t d.m. ha-1.
Total
Available Available
pH
Maximum biomass yields of miscanthus were obtained in the
Soil type
Total
organic
P2O5
K2O
H2O KCl C (%) N (%) (mg/100g) (mg/100g)
third year of growing. From the third year on, the crop on chernozem produced both a higher and a more even yield (27.5-37.5
Chernozem
6.7 5.5 1.71 0.141
6.0
17.8
t d.m. ha-1 for the harvest performed at the beginning of October)
Eutric cambisol 5.3 4.2 1.38 0.114
5.0
11.8
than the one on cambisol (15.5-25.7 t d.m. ha-1 for that harvest).
The crop was harvest in two periods: at the beginning of OcFull establishment of miscanthus stands is usually achieved from
tober, when the maximum biomass yield was obtained, and in the second to fifth year, depending on climatic conditions. The
the middle of February. The first half of each trial plot was maximum yield is generally reached during the second year in
mowed at the beginning of October and the second half in Feb- South Europe, but not until the fifth year in Northern Europe
ruary. After the harvest, the crop was air dried to relatively sta- (Clifton-Brown et al., 2001). Our experiment in Serbia was conble moisture content (10-14%), and the dry mass yield was then ducted in a region of middle latitudes (44-45°N), with the result
measured (d.m.). The yields obtained at the two locations were that maximum yields were obtained in the third year of growing.
analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the effect was
Comparison with numerous published data on miscanthus
determined according to Fischer's least significant difference biomass yield indicates that we obtained relatively high average
procedure. Meteorological data were obtained from the Meteoro- yields on chernozem in the period from the 3rd to 5th year of
logical Yearbooks (Republic Hydrometeorological Service of growing (23.46 t d.m. ha-1 for the harvest performed in FebruSerbia).
ary). On the other hand, no more than usual miscanthus yields
(15.22 t d.m. ha-1 for the harvest performed in February) were
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
obtained on cambisol in the period from the 3rd to 5th year of
In the first year emergence of shoots and initial growth were growing. In countries situated at lower latitudes (Greece and Itauneven. At the beginning of October, relatively low yield of ly), higher yields were obtained due to the longer growing seabiomass (0.45 t d.m. ha-1) was produced on chernozem, while the son and higher temperatures, while in countries at higher latiyield on cambisol was 1.33 t d.m. ha-1. For the harvest per- tudes (Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland and the Netherformed in February, the obtained yields were 0.34 t d.m. ha-1 on lands) lower yields are due to the shorter growing season (Michernozem and 1.01 t d.m. ha-1 on cambisol (Table 2). For the guez et al., 2008). According to Price et al. (2004), variable
harvest performed in February-March, Riche et al. (2008) ob- space (area) and weather conditions result in yields that vary
tained biomass yields of 0.24-0.42 t d.m. ha-1 in the first year. from 7 to 24 tons hа-1. For example, according to Lewandowski
Schwarz et al. (1994) cultivated miscanthus at 11 locations in and Schmidt (2006), the miscanthus biomass yield varies beGermany and in the first year obtained a yield that was in the tween 8 and 38 t d.m. ha-1 at different locations. They obtained
range of 0.1-3.7 t ha-1. We assume that the main cause of low the lowest and the highest miscanthus biomass yields on the
yields in the first year is the undeveloped root system of miscan- same type of soil, on the haplic luvisol, but at different locations,
whereas on gleyosol they obtained average yields. Mishra et al.
thus (Dželetović et al., 2013аb).
Relatively favorable climatic-weather conditions, with an (2013) consider that sustainable production will be economically
average annual temperatures from 11.7°C (Zemun) and 10.7°C justifiable if the miscanthus yield is >10 tons hа-1 per year with(Ralja); and enough annual amount of precipitation, with an av- out additional irrigation, the average annual yield being 13 tons
-1
erage 669 mm (Zemun) and 649 mm (Ralja), doesn't represent hа in croplands of the USA croplands. It is considered that sealimiting factors for succesfully growing mischantus. Meantime, sonal differences in miscanthus biomass yields are mainly a re-
Journal on Processing and Energy in Agriculture 18 (2014) 2
63
Dželetović,Željko et al. / Yield of Miscanthus×Giganteus During Crop Establishment at Two Locations in Serbia
sult of water stress (Price et al., 2004; Dželetović et al., 2013b).
With appropriate nitrogen supply, the highest yield increase is
obtained when water is not a limiting factor. The level of water
supply from precipitation has a strong effect on the formation of
miscanthus aboveground biomass yields in agroecological conditions in the wider surroundings of Belgrade (Dželetović et al.,
2013b). A statistically significant difference between the soil
types was recorded in the 5th year of cultivation, when the yield
on chernozem was higher. In our experiment, the yield loss from
the harvest at the beginning of October until the harvest in February due to leaf shedding and falling of stem tops was 33-38%;
36% on the average for the first 5 years of growing (Table 2). In
Serbia, the pattern of miscanthus harvest biomass decrease during autumn and winter established by Dželetović et al. (2009b)
was identical to that in the Netherlands as stated by Lewandowski et al. (2000). At two locations in Northern Ireland, Easson et
al. (2011) obtained an autumn yield of 18-20 t d.m. ha-1 in the
fourth year of growing, while the yield of 11-12 t d.m. ha-1 recorded in the early spring indicates losses of about 35% during
the winter. Climatic-meteorological conditions during the autumn and winter are what mostly affect the value of yield losses,
and they can differ from year to year (Lewandowski et al., 2000).
Fallen leaves and stem tops for the most part remain on the plot
on which miscanthus is grown and thereby contribute to the input of organic matter and nutrients in the soil under the miscanthus stand (Christian et al., 2008; Dželetović, 2012).
CONCLUSION
Very low yields of miscanthus biomass were obtained by us
in the first season of growing on two different soil types in the
agroecological conditions of the wider surroundings of Belgrade.
Maximum yields of miscanthus biomass were obtained in the
third year of growing. From the third year on, the crop on chernozem produced both a higher and a more even yield than the
one on cambisol. Upon reaching maximum yields (from the 3rd
to 5th year of growing) on chernozem, which is a highly productive type of soil, relatively high average yields were obtained in
our experiment. One the other hand, no more than usual miscanthus yields were on cambisol, which is a less productive type of
soil. The yield loss due to leaf shedding and falling of stem tops
from the harvest in October, when the crop forms the maximum
yield of biomass, until the harvest in February, when highquality biomass for combustion is formed, ranged from 33 to
38%; 36% on the average for 5 years of growing.
REFERENCES
Baize, D. (1993). Soil science analyses. Pub: John Wiley and
sons, Chichester, England.
Christian, D. G., Riche, A.B., Yates, N.E. (2008). Growth, yield
and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a
biofuel for 14 successive harvests. Industrial Crops and
Products, 28 (1), 320–327.
Clifton-Brown, J.C., Long, S.P., Jørgensen, U. (2001).
Miscanthus productivity. In: Miscanthus — for Energy and
Fibre (Eds. Jones MB and Walsh M), James & James (Science
Publishers), London, 46–67.
Dragoni, F., Ragaglini, G., Nassi o di Nasso, N., Tozzini, C.,
Bonari, E. (2011). Suitability of giant reed and miscanthus for
biogas: Preliminary investigations on harvest time and ensiling.
Aspects of Applied Biology, 112, 291-296.
Dželetović, Ž., Mihailović, N., Glamočlija, Đ., Dražić, G.
(2009а). Postponed harvest of Miscanthus×giganteus–
influence on the quality and quantity of accumulated biomass.
Journal on Processing and Energy in Agriculture (former
PTEP), 13 (2), 170-173.
Dželetović, Ž., Mihailović, N., Glamočlija, Đ., Dražić, G.,
Đorđević, S., Milovanović, M. (2009b). Harvesting and storage
of Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Deu. Poljoprivredna
tehnika, 34 (3), 9-16.
64
Dželetović, Ž. S. (2012). Miskantus (M. × Giganteus Greef et
Deu.) - proizvodne odlike i produktivnost biomase. Zadužbina
Andrejević, Beograd, Srbija.
Dželetović, Ž., Mihailović, N., Živanović, I. (2013а). Prospects
of using bioenergy crop Miscanthus × giganteus in Serbia. In:
Materials and processes for energy: communicating current
research and technological developments (Ed. A. MéndezVilas), Formatex Research Center, Badajoz, Spain, 360-370.
Dželetović, Ž., Živanović, I., Pivić, R., Maksimović, J. (2013b).
Water supply and biomass production of Miscanthus ×
giganteus. In: Soil - Water - Plant (Proceedings the 1st
International Congress on Soil Science and XIII National
Congress in Soil Science, September 23-26th, 2013., Belgrade,
Serbia), Ed. Saljnikov, E.R., Publisher: Soil Science Society of
Serbia/Soil Science Institute, Belgrade, 435-450.
Easson, D.L., Forbes, E.G.A., McCracken, A.R. (2011).
Growing and utilizing miscanthus as a biomass fuel in
Northern Ireland. Aspects of Applied Biology, 112, 309-314.
Ericsson, K., Rosenqvist, H., Nilsson, L.J. (2009). Energy crop
production costs in the EU. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33 (11),
1577-1586.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (1983). Guidelines:
Land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin No. 52.
Rome: FAO
Khanna, M., Dhungana, B., Clifton-Brown, J. (2008). Costs of
producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 32 (6), 482-493.
Lewandowski, I., Clifton-Brown, J.C., Scurlock, J.M.O.,
Huisman, W. (2000). Miscanthus: European experience with a
novel energy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19 (4), 209–227.
Lewandowski, I., Schmidt, U. (2006). Nitrogen, energy and land
use efficiencies of miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale
as determined by the boundary line approach. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 112 (4), 335–346.
Miguez, F.E., Villamil, M.B., Long, S.P., Bollero, G.A. (2008).
Meta-analysis of the effects of management factors on
Miscanthus×giganteus growth and biomass production.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 148 (8-9), 1280–1292.
Mishra, U., Torn, M.S., Fingerman, K. (2013). Miscanthus
biomass productivity within US croplands and its potential
impact on soil organic carbon. GCB Bioenergy, 5 (4), 391–399.
Mos, М., Banks, S.W., Nowakowski, D.J., Robson, P.R.H.,
Bridgwater, A.V., Donnison, I.S. (2013). Impact of Miscanthus
× giganteus senescence times on fast pyrolysis bio-oil quality.
Bioresource Technology, 129, 335-342.
Price, L., Bullard, M., Lyons, H., Anthony, S., Nixon, P. (2004).
Identifying the yield potential of Miscanthus×giganteus: an
assessment of the spatial and temporal variability of
M.×giganteus biomass productivity across England and Wales.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 26 (1), 3–13.
Riche, A.B., Yates, N.E., Christian, D.G. (2008). Performance of
15 different Miscanthus species and genotypes over 11 years.
Aspects of Applied Biology, 90, 207-212.
Republic
Hydrometeorological
Service
of
Serbia,
Meteorological Yearbooks for the period 2008-2012.
Schwarz, H., Liebhard, P., Ehrendorfer, K., Ruckenbauer, P.
(1994). The effect of fertilization on yield and quality of
Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’. Industrial Crops and
Products, 2 (3), 153-159.
Živanović, I., Dželetović, Ž., Lazić, M., Lazić, G. (2013).
Autumn and winter losses of Miscanthus × giganteus biomass
yield due to delaying of harvest. In: 3rd International
conference sustainable postharvest and food technologies INOPTEP 2013 and 25th National Conference Processing and
Energy in Agriculture – PTEP 2013, Proceeding (April 21st –
26th, 2013, Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia). National Society of
Processing and Energy in Agriculture (Ed.), Novi Sad, Serbia,
366-367.
Received: 28.02.2014.
Accepted: 26.03.2014.
Journal on Processing and Energy in Agriculture 18 (2014) 2