Impacts on soil nitrogen availability of converting managed pine plantation into switchgrass monoculture for bioenergy
Not Available
Cacho, Julian F. (ORCID:0000000262312128)↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Bioenergy”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Conversion to bioenergy crops alters the amount and age of microbially-respired soil carbon
Not Available
Szymanski, Laura M. (ORCID:0000000292823076)↗
Bioenergy Supply and Environmental Impacts on Cropland: Insights from Multi‐market Forecasts in a Great Lakes Subregional Bioeconomic Model
Abstract Using subregional models of crop production choices in central Wisconsin and southwest Michigan, we predict biomass production, land use, and environmental impacts with details that are unavailable from national scale models. When biomass prices are raised exogenously, we find that the subregional models overestimate the supply, the land use, and the beneficial environmental aspects of perennial biomass crops. Multi‐market price feedbacks tied to realistic policy parameters predict high threshold absolute prices for biomass to enter production, resulting in intensified production of biomass from annual grain crops with damaging environmental impacts. Multi‐market feedbacks also predict regional specialization in energy biomass production in areas with lower yields of food crops. Policies promoting biofuels will not necessarily generate environmental benefits in the absence of environmental regulations.
Egbendewe‐Mondzozo, Aklesso↗
Long-term variability of root production in bioenergy crops from ingrowth core measurements
Long-term determination of root biomass production upon land-use conversion to biofuel crops is rare. To assess land-use legacy influences on belowground biomass accumulation, we converted 22-year-old Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands and 50+-year-old agricultural (AGR) lands to corn (C), switchgrass (Sw) and restored prairie (Pr) biofuel crops. We maintained one CRP grassland as a reference (Ref). We hypothesized that land-use history and crop type have significant effects on root density, with perennial crops on CRP grasslands having a higher root biomass productivity, while corn grown on former agricultural lands produce the lowest root biomass. Methods The ingrowth core method was used to determine in situ ingrowth root biomass, alongside measurements of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP). Ancillary measurements, including air temperature, growing season length and precipitation were used to examine their influences on root biomass production. Important Findings Root biomass productivity was the highest in unconverted CRP grassland (1716 g m-2 yr-1) and lowest in corn fields (526 g m-2 yr-1). All perennial sites converted from CRP and AGR lands had lower root biomass and ANPP in the first year of planting but peaked in 2011 for switchgrass and a year later for restored prairies. Ecosystem stability was higher in restored prairies (AGR-Pr: 4.3 ± 0.11; CRP-Pr: 4.1 ± 0.10), with all monocultures exhibiting a lower stability. Root biomass production was positively related to ANPP (R2 = 0.40). Overall, attention should be given to root biomass accumulation in large-scale biofuel production as it is a major source of carbon sequestration.
Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
Identification of the core set of carbon-associated genes in a bioenergy grassland soil
Despite the central role of soil microbial communities in global carbon (C) cycling, little is known about soil microbial community structure and even less about their metabolic pathways. Efforts to characterize soil communities often focus on identifying differences in gene content across environmental gradients, but an alternative question is what genes are similar in soils. These genes may indicate critical species or potential functions that are required in all soils. Here we identified the “core” set of C cycling sequences widely present in multiple soil metagenomes from a fertilized prairie (FP). Of 226,887 sequences associated with known enzymes involved in the synthesis, metabolism, and transport of carbohydrates, 843 were identified to be consistently prevalent across four replicate soil metagenomes. This core metagenome was functionally and taxonomically diverse, representing five enzyme classes and 99 enzyme families within the CAZy database. Though it only comprised 0.4% of all CAZy-associated genes identified in FP metagenomes, the core was found to be comprised of functions similar to those within cumulative soils. The FP CAZy-associated core sequences were present in multiple publicly available soil metagenomes and most similar to soils sharing geographic proximity. In soil ecosystems, where high diversity remains a key challenge for metagenomic investigations, these core genes represent a subset of critical functions necessary for carbohydrate metabolism, which can be targeted to evaluate important C fluxes in these and other similar soils.
Howe, Adina↗
Techno-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment for Guiding Bioenergy Pathway Development
The Center for Bioenergy Innovation (CBI) is a bioenergy research center recently launched by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science's Biological and Environmental Research program. CBI's objective is to enable innovations across the bioenergy supply chain through development of poplar and switchgrass phenotypes, microorganisms for consolidated bio-processing (CBP), in which biomass fermentation and conversion is accomplished in a single unit operation, and lignin valorization processes. In addition to basic science, CBI's activities involve the application of techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) to the bioenergy pathways under study. TEA and LCA is used to quantify the impacts that research and development breakthroughs have on the economic viability and sustainability of a bioenergy pathway, and to identify drivers for reducing costs and improving sustainability through targeted research efforts. Combining TEA and LCA allows for understanding the economic and sustainability benefits and trade-offs of these integrated bioenergy systems. The focus of this presentation is a parameterized, integrated TEA-LCA model, which will be discussed along with an application to bioenergy pathways currently under study. The model combines data and information developed by CBI researchers into a superstructure of potential bioenergy pathways and their life cycles. Model parameters include feedstock species and phenotype, farming, harvesting, storage and transportation practices, and the microbes used for biomass conversion and lignin valorization, among others. The parameterized TEA-LCA model allows for the rapid quantification of pathway economic and sustainability metrics such as minimum fuel selling price, payback period, fossil fuel consumption and net greenhouse gas emissions. To demonstrate the model, economic and sustainability metrics for a bioenergy pathway utilizing CBP will be quantified and compared to the same metrics for a conventional bioenergy pathway. Results of the comparison will be used to identify and prioritize high-impact research areas within the CBP pathway. fermentation and conversion is accomplished in a single unit operation, and lignin valorization processes. In addition to basic science, CBI's activities involve the application of techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) to the bioenergy pathways under study. TEA and LCA is used to quantify the impacts that research and development breakthroughs have on the economic viability and sustainability of a bioenergy pathway, and to identify drivers for reducing costs and improving sustainability through targeted research efforts. Combining TEA and LCA allows for understanding the economic and sustainability benefits and trade-offs of these integrated bioenergy systems. The focus of this presentation is a parameterized, integrated TEA-LCA model, which will be discussed along with an application to bioenergy pathways currently under study. The model combines data and information developed by CBI researchers into a superstructure of potential bioenergy pathways and their life cycles. Model parameters include feedstock species and phenotype, farming, harvesting, storage and transportation practices, and the microbes used for biomass conversion and lignin valorization, among others. The parameterized TEA-LCA model allows for the rapid quantification of pathway economic and sustainability metrics such as minimum fuel selling price, payback period, fossil fuel consumption and net greenhouse gas emissions. To demonstrate the model, economic and sustainability metrics for a bioenergy pathway utilizing CBP will be quantified and compared to the same metrics for a conventional bioenergy pathway. Results of the comparison will be used to identify and prioritize high-impact research areas within the CBP pathway.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy
Abstract The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy‐making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system‐level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short‐term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium‐ to long‐term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
How willing are landowners to supply land for bioenergy crops in the Northern Great Lakes Region?
Abstract Land to produce biomass is essential if the United States is to expand bioenergy supply. Use of agriculturally marginal land avoids the food vs. fuel problems of food price rises and carbon debt that are associated with crop and forestland. Recent remote sensing studies have identified large areas of US marginal land deemed suitable for bioenergy crops. Yet the sustainability benefits of growing bioenergy crops on marginal land only pertain if land is economically available. Scant attention has been paid to the willingness of landowners to supply land for bioenergy crops. Focusing on the northern tier of the Great Lakes, where grassland transitions to forest and land prices are low, this contingent valuation study reports on the willingness of a representative sample of 1124 private, noncorporate landowners to rent land for three bioenergy crops: corn, switchgrass, and poplar. Of the 11% of land that was agriculturally marginal, they were willing to make available no more than 21% for any bioenergy crop (switchgrass preferred on marginal land) at double the prevailing land rental rate in the region. At the same generous rental rate, of the 28% that is cropland, they would rent up to 23% for bioenergy crops (corn preferred), while of the 55% that is forestland, they would rent up to 15% for bioenergy crops (poplar preferred). Regression results identified deterrents to land rental for bioenergy purposes included appreciation of environmental amenities and concern about rental disamenities. In sum, like landowners in the southern Great Lakes region, landowners in the Northern Tier are reluctant to supply marginal land for bioenergy crops. If rental markets existed, they would rent more crop and forestland for bioenergy crops than they would marginal land, which would generate carbon debt and opportunity costs in wood product and food markets.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use
Perennial bioenergy crops have significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation by substituting for fossil fuels; yet delivering significant GHG savings will require substantial land-use change, globally. Over the last decade, research has delivered improved understanding of the environmental benefits and risks of this transition to perennial bioenergy crops, addressing concerns that the impacts of land conversion to perennial bioenergy crops could result in increased rather than decreased GHG emissions. For policymakers to assess the most cost-effective and sustainable options for deployment and climate change mitigation, synthesis of these studies is needed to support evidence-based decision making. In 2015, a workshop was convened with researchers, policymakers and industry/business representatives from the UK, EU and internationally. Outcomes from global research on bioenergy land-use change were compared to identify areas of consensus, key uncertainties, and research priorities. Here, we discuss the strength of evidence for and against six consensus statements summarizing the effects of land-use change to perennial bioenergy crops on the cycling of carbon, nitrogen and water, in the context of the whole life-cycle of bioenergy produc-tion. Our analysis suggests that the direct impacts of dedicated perennial bioenergy crops on soil carbon and nitrous oxide are increasingly well understood and are often consistent with significant life cycle GHG mitiga-tion from bioenergy relative to conventional energy sources. We conclude that the GHG balance of perennial bioenergy crop cultivation will often be favourable, with maximum GHG savings achieved where crops are grown on soils with low carbon stocks and conservative nutrient application, accruing additional environmental benefits such as improved water quality. The analysis reported here demonstrates there is a mature and increasingly comprehensive evidence base on the environmental benefits and risks of bioenergy cultivation which can support the development of a sustainable bioenergy industry.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international bioenergy trade
Most climate change mitigation scenarios rely on increased use of bioenergy to decarbonize the energy system. Here we use results from the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33) to investigate projected international bioenergy trade for different integrated assessment models across several climate change mitigation scenarios. Results show that in scenarios with no climate policy, international bioenergy trade is likely to increase over time, and becomes even more important when climate targets are set. More stringent climate targets, however, do not necessarily imply greater bioenergy trade compared to weaker targets, as final energy demand may be reduced. However, the scaling up of bioenergy trade happens sooner and at a faster rate with increasing climate target stringency. Across models, for a scenario likely to achieve a 2 °C target, 10–45 EJ/year out of a total global bioenergy consumption of 72–214 EJ/year are expected to be traded across nine world regions by 2050. While this projection is greater than the present trade volumes of coal or natural gas, it remains below the present trade of crude oil. This growth in bioenergy trade largely replaces the trade in fossil fuels (especially oil) which is projected to decrease significantly over the twenty-first century. As climate change mitigation scenarios often show diversified energy systems, in which numerous world regions can act as bioenergy suppliers, the projections do not necessarily lead to energy security concerns. Nonetheless, rapid growth in the trade of bioenergy is projected in strict climate mitigation scenarios, raising questions about infrastructure, logistics, financing options, and global standards for bioenergy production and trade.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
The role of bioenergy in a climate-changing world
Bioenergy has been under intense scrutiny over the last ten years with significant research efforts in many countries taking place to define and measure sustainable practices. We describe here the main challenges and policy issues and provide policy recommendations for scaling up sustainable bioenergy approaches globally. The 2016 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs defined under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP21) will not reach global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission targets of 2 °C. Sustainable biomass production can make a significant contribution. Substantive evidence exists that many bioenergy cropping systems can bring multiple benefits and off-set environmental problems associated with fossil fuels usage as well as intensive food production and urbanization. We provide evidence that there are many approaches to land use for bioenergy expansion that do not lead to competition for food or other needs. We should focus on how to manage these approaches on a synergistic basis and how to reduce tradeoffs at landscape scales. Priorities include successful synergies between bioenergy and food security (integrated resource management designed to improve both food security and access to bioenergy), investments in technology, rural extension, and innovations that build capacity and infrastructure, promotion of stable prices to incentivize local production and use of double cropping and flex crops (plants grown for both food and non-food markets) that provide food and energy as well as other services. The sustainable production of biomass requires appropriate policies to secure long-term support to improve crop productivity and also to ensure environmental as well as economic and social benefits of bioenergy cropping systems. Continuous support for cropping, infrastructure, agricultural management and related policies is needed to foster positive synergies between food crops and bioenergy production. In comparison to fossil fuels, biofuels have many positive environmental benefits. Potential negative effects caused by land-use change and agriculture intensification can be mitigated by agroecological zoning, best management practices, the use of eco-hydrology and biodiversity-friendly concepts at field, watershed and landscape scales. Global climate and environmental changes related to the use of fossil fuels and inequitable development make it unethical not to pursue more equitable energy development that includes bioenergy. Here, to achieve sustainable development, competitiveness and costs of bioenergy production need to be addressed in a manner that considers not only economic gains but also development of local knowledge and social and environmental benefits.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Bioenergy for climate change mitigation: Scale and sustainability
Many global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of biomass for bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We review the literature on bioenergy, including the modelling of bioenergy in integrated assessment models (IAMs) and bottom-up modelling and non-modelling studies on the implications of bioenergy use. We summarise the limitations of existing modelling studies and what is known about the potential co-benefits and adverse side-effects of bioenergy systems. We find that the implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and the counterfactual land use and energy system. However, due to limitations of the existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence availability of biomass and land resources, it is not possible to precisely quantify the sustainability implications for different scales of bioenergy implementation. Given these uncertainties, the dependence on large-scale deployment of bioenergy in mitigation scenarios carries risks. The deployment of bioenergy technologies and the evolution of biomass supply chains at a scale that achieves significant mitigation and carbon sequestration requires integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms. As a result, bioenergy, and the use of land to produce biomass, is an essential part of many climate mitigation strategies but there are limits to its use due to trade-offs with sustainability.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Food security under high bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals
Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the achievement of stringent climate-change mitigation targets requiring the application of negative emissions technology. Using a multi-model framework, we assess the effects of high bioenergy demand on global food production, food security, and competition for agricultural land. Various scenarios simulate global bioenergy demands of 100, 200, 300, and 400 exajoules (EJ) by 2100, with and without a carbon price. Six global energy-economy-agriculture models contribute to this study, with different methodologies and technologies used for bioenergy supply and greenhouse-gas mitigation options for agriculture. We find that the large-scale use of bioenergy, if not implemented properly, would raise food prices and increase the number of people at risk of hunger in many areas of the world. For example, an increase in global bioenergy demand from 200 to 300 EJ causes a -11% to +40% change in food crop prices and decreases food consumption from -45 to -2 kcal person -1 day -1 , leading to an additional 0 to 25 million people at risk of hunger compared with the case of no bioenergy demand (90th percentile range across models). This risk does not rule out the intensive use of bioenergy but shows the importance of its careful implementation, potentially including regulations that protect cropland for food production or for the use of bioenergy feedstock on land that is not competitive with food production.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system
In order to understand the climate effects of a bioenergy system, a comparison between the bioenergy system and a reference system is required. The reference system describes the situation that occurs in the absence of the bioenergy system with respect to the use of land, energy, and materials. The importance of reference systems is discussed in the literature but guidance on choosing suitable reference systems for assessing climate effects of bioenergy is limited. The reference system should align with the purpose of the study. Transparency of reference system assumptions is essential for proper interpretation of bioenergy assessments. This paper presents guidance for selecting suitable reference systems. Particular attention is given to choosing the land reference. If the goal is to study the climate effects of bioenergy as a part of total anthropogenic activity the reference system should illustrate what is expected in the absence of human activities. In such a case the suitable land reference is natural regeneration, and energy or material reference systems are not relevant. If the goal is to assess the effect of a change in bioenergy use, the reference system should incorporate human activities. In this case suitable reference systems describe the most likely alternative uses of the land, energy and materials in the absence of the change in bioenergy use. The definition of the reference system is furthermore subject to the temporal scope of the study. In practice, selecting and characterizing reference systems will involve various choices and uncertainties which should be considered carefully. As a result, it can be instructive to consider how alternative reference systems influence the results and conclusions drawn from bioenergy assessments.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Modeling Pollinator Community Response to Contrasting Bioenergy Scenarios
In the United States, policy initiatives aimed at increasing sources of renewable energy are advancing bioenergy production, especially in the Midwest region, where agricultural landscapes dominate. While policy directives are focused on renewable fuel production, biodiversity and ecosystem services will be impacted by the land-use changes required to meet production targets. Using data from field observations, we developed empirical models for predicting abundance, diversity, and community composition of flower-visiting bees based on land cover. We used these models to explore how bees might respond under two contrasting bioenergy scenarios: annual bioenergy crop production and perennial grassland bioenergy production. In the two scenarios, 600,000 ha of marginal annual crop land or marginal grassland were converted to perennial grassland or annual row crop bioenergy production, respectively. Model projections indicate that expansion of annual bioenergy crop production at this scale will reduce bee abundance by 0 to 71%, and bee diversity by 0 to 28%, depending on location. In contrast, converting annual crops on marginal soil to perennial grasslands could increase bee abundance from 0 to 600% and increase bee diversity between 0 and 53%. Our analysis of bee community composition suggested a similar pattern, with bee communities becoming less diverse under annual bioenergy crop production, whereas bee composition transitioned towards a more diverse community dominated by wild bees under perennial bioenergy crop production. Models, like those employed here, suggest that bioenergy policies have important consequences for pollinator conservation.
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
Can the Results of Biodiversity-Ecosystem Productivity Studies Be Translated to Bioenergy Production?
Biodiversity experiments show that increases in plant diversity can lead to greater biomass production, and some researchers suggest that high diversity plantings should be used for bioenergy production. However, many methods used in past biodiversity experiments are impractical for bioenergy plantings. For example, biodiversity experiments often use intensive management such as hand weeding to maintain low diversity plantings and exclude unplanted species, but this would not be done for bioenergy plantings. Also, biodiversity experiments generally use high seeding densities that would be too expensive for bioenergy plantings. Here we report the effects of biodiversity on biomass production from two studies of more realistic bioenergy crop plantings in southern Michigan, USA. One study involved comparing production between switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) monocultures and species-rich prairie plantings on private farm fields that were managed similarly to bioenergy plantings. The other study was an experiment where switchgrass was planted in monoculture and in combination with increasingly species-rich native prairie mixtures. Overall, we found that bioenergy plantings with higher species richness did not produce more biomass than switchgrass monocultures. The lack of a positive relationship between planted species richness and production in our studies may be due to several factors. Non-planted species (weeds) were not removed from our studies and these non-planted species may have competed with planted species and also prevented realized species richness from equaling planted species richness. Also, we found that low seeding density of individual species limited the biomass production of these individual species. Finally, production in future bioenergy plantings with high species richness may be increased by using a high density of inexpensive seed from switchgrass and other highly productive species, and future efforts to translate the results of biodiversity experiments to bioenergy plantings should consider the role of seeding density.
59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
An overview of the Energy Modeling Forum 33rd study: Assessing large-scale global bioenergy deployment for managing climate change
Previous studies have projected a significant role for bioenergy in decarbonizing the global economy and helping realize international climate goals such as limiting global average warming to 2°C or 1.5°C. However, with significant variability in bioenergy results and significant concerns about potential environmental and social implications, greater transparency and dedicated assessment of the underlying modeling and results and more detailed understanding of the potential role of bioenergy are needed. Stanford University’s Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) initiated a 33rd study (EMF-33) to explore the viability of large-scale bioenergy as part of a comprehensive climate management strategy. This special issue presents the papers of the EMF-33 study—a multi-year inter-model comparison project designed to understand and assess global, long-run, biomass supply and bioenergy deployment potentials and related uncertainties. Using a novel scenario design with independent biomass supply and bioenergy demand protocols, EMF-33 separately elucidates and explores the modeling of biomass feedstock supplies and bioenergy technologies and their deployment—revealing, comparing, and assessing the modeling that is suggesting that bioenergy could be a key climate containment strategy. This introduction provides an overview of the EMF-33 study design and the overview, thematic, and individual modeling team papers and types of insights that make up this special issue. By providing enhanced transparency and new detailed insights, we hope to inform policy dialogue about the potential role of bioenergy and facilitate new research.
Rose, Steven K.↗
Data from: Can the results of biodiversity-ecosystem productivity studies be translated to bioenergy production?
Biodiversity experiments show that increases in plant diversity can lead to greater biomass production, and some researchers suggest that high diversity plantings should be used for bioenergy production. However, many methods used in past biodiversity experiments are impractical for bioenergy plantings. For example, biodiversity experiments often use intensive management such as hand weeding to maintain low diversity plantings and exclude unplanted species, but this would not be done for bioenergy plantings. Also, biodiversity experiments generally use high seeding densities that would be too expensive for bioenergy plantings. Here we report the effects of biodiversity on biomass production from two studies of more realistic bioenergy crop plantings in southern Michigan, USA. One study involved comparing production between switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) monocultures and species-rich prairie plantings on private farm fields that were managed similarly to bioenergy plantings. The other study was an experiment where switchgrass was planted in monoculture and in combination with increasingly species-rich native prairie mixtures. Overall, we found that bioenergy plantings with higher species richness did not produce more biomass than switchgrass monocultures. The lack of a positive relationship between planted species richness and production in our studies may be due to several factors. Non-planted species (weeds) were not removed from our studies and these non-planted species may have competed with planted species and also prevented realized species richness from equaling planted species richness. Also, we found that low seeding density of individual species limited the biomass production of these individual species. Production in future bioenergy plantings with high species richness may be increased by using a high density of inexpensive seed from switchgrass and other highly productive species, and future efforts to translate the results of biodiversity experiments to bioenergy plantings should consider the role of seeding density.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗