Abstract
Abstract The replacement of silage maize with giant reed as energy crop has been proposed as a mean for reducing the need of irrigation water as well as monetary and environmental costs of cultivation. Little is known about giant reed response to within‐season harvesting, and its effect on the methane production in anaerobic digestion. The effect of three harvest schedules on yield, biomass composition and methane production of giant reed was evaluated at one site of the Po Valley, northern Italy, for three consecutive years. In a completely randomized block design with four replicates the treatments applied annually were: (i) double harvest 1: first cut at the end of June + second cut at the beginning of October (DH1); (ii) double harvest 2: first cut at the end of July + second cut at the beginning of October (DH2); (iii) single harvest at the beginning of October (SH). The crop stand was established in the year 2015 and treatments were repeatedly applied in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The SH treatment determined the highest average annual dry matter (DM) yield (59.0 Mg DM ha −1 ). The DM yield for treatments with double harvest was significantly lower, that is, −30% for DH1 and −15% for DH2. In terms of specific methane yield there was little advantage in harvesting biomass twice during the growing season. The average specific methane yield varied substantially between years (i.e. from 144 to 233 ml CH 4 g −1 VS), and in every year the values tended to decrease with the ageing of harvested biomass. Methane yield per hectare, however, was driven by DM yield, thus SH also determined the highest average value (9110 m 3 CH 4 ‐STP ha −1 ). In conclusion, the single annual harvest at the end of the growing season is an ideal strategy for maximizing methane production from giant reed.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Single harvest gave the highest annual dry matter yield of 59.0 Mg DM ha −1.
- Taxon
- giant reed
Arundo donaxt0 - Treatment
- SH treatmente0
- Outcome
- average annual dry matter (DM) yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 59.0 Mg DM ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SH treatment determined the highest average annual dry matter (DM) yield (59.0 Mg DM ha −1 ).”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
DH1 had 30% lower dry matter yield than single harvest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The DM yield for treatments with double harvest was significantly lower, that is, −30% for DH1 and −15% for DH2.”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
DH2 had 15% lower dry matter yield than single harvest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The DM yield for treatments with double harvest was significantly lower, that is, −30% for DH1 and −15% for DH2.”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvesting twice gave little specific methane yield advantage.
- Taxon
- giant reedArundo donaxt0
- Treatment
- harvesting biomass twicee0
- Outcome
- specific methane yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In terms of specific methane yield there was little advantage in harvesting biomass twice during the growing season.”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
Average specific methane yield varied from 144 to 233 ml CH 4 g −1 VS between years.
- Taxon
- giant reedArundo donaxt0
- Outcome
- average specific methane yielde0
- Value
- 144 to 233 ml CH 4 g −1 VSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average specific methane yield varied substantially between years (i.e. from 144 to 233 ml CH 4 g −1 VS)”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
Specific methane yield tended to fall as harvested biomass aged.
- Taxon
- giant reedArundo donaxt0
- Organ / stage
- ageing of harvested biomasse0
- Outcome
- valuese0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in every year the values tended to decrease with the ageing of harvested biomass”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
Methane yield per hectare was driven by dry matter yield.
- Taxon
- giant reedArundo donaxt0
- Material
- DM yielde0
- Outcome
- Methane yield per hectaree0
- Qualifier
- DM yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Methane yield per hectare, however, was driven by DM yield”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
Single harvest produced the highest methane yield per hectare, averaging 9110 m 3 CH 4 ‐STP ha −1.
- Taxon
- giant reedArundo donaxt0
- Treatment
- SHe0
- Outcome
- average valuee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 9110 m 3 CH 4 ‐STP ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“thus SH also determined the highest average value (9110 m 3 CH 4 ‐STP ha −1 )”
t0“giant reed”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend single annual harvest at the end of the growing season to maximize methane production.
- Taxon
- giant reedArundo donaxt0
- Outcome
- single annual harvest at the end of the growing seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the single annual harvest at the end of the growing season is an ideal strategy for maximizing methane production from giant reed”
t0“giant reed”