Screening Potential Bioenergy Production of Tree Species in Degraded and Marginal Land in the Tropics
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IEA World Energy Outlook 2015. Available online: http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2015/november/world-energy-outlook-2015.html (accessed on 30 September 2016).
- Faaij, A.P.C. Bio-energy in Europe: Changing technology choices. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 322–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bioenergy–Chances and Limits; Anton, C.; Steinicke, H. (Eds.) German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina: Halle, Germany, 2012; Available online: http://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/?publication%5Bpublication%5D=434&cHash=9daf8d722e71e30bf2901cf01ee800d1 (accessed on 30 September 2016).
- Nijsen, M.; Smeets, E.; Stehfest, E.; van Vuuren, D.P. An evaluation of the global potential of bioenergy production on degraded lands. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4, 130–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- REPORT–REthinking Energy 2017: Accelerating the Global Energy Transformation. 2017. Available online: http://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/irena_rethinking_energy_2017.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2016).
- Balat, M.; Balat, H. Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 2273–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proskurina, S.; Junginger, M.; Heinimö, J.; Tekinel, B.; Vakkilainen, E. Global biomass trade for energy—Part 2: Production and trade streams of wood pellets, liquid biofuels, charcoal, industrial roundwood and emerging energy biomass: Biomass trade for energy. Biofuel Bioprod. Biorefining 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dislich, C.; Keyel, A.C.; Salecker, J.; Kisel, Y.; Meyer, K.M.; Auliya, M.; Barnes, A.D.; Corre, M.D.; Darras, K.; Faust, H.; et al. A review of the ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, using forests as a reference system. Biol. Rev. 2017, 92, 1539–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ashraf, M.; Zulkifli, R.; Sanusi, R.; Tohiran, K.A.; Terhem, R.; Moslim, R.; Norhisham, A.R.; Ashton-Butt, A.; Azhar, B. Alley-cropping system can boost arthropod biodiversity and ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 260, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duke, J.A. Handbook of Energy Crops. 1983. Available online: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/refa-f.html (accessed on 30 September 2016).
- Abel, S.; Couwenberg, J.; Dahms, T.; Joosten, H. The Database of Potential Paludiculture Plants (DPPP) and results for Western Pomerania. Plant Divers. Evol. Vol. 2013, 130, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, B.; Scott, P.T.; Gresshoff, P.M. Tree legumes as feedstock for sustainable biofuel production: Opportunities and challenges. J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 168, 1877–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Atabani, A.E.; Silitonga, A.S.; Ong, H.C.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Masjuki, H.H.; Badruddin, I.A.; Fayaz, H. Non-edible vegetable oils: A critical evaluation of oil extraction, fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine performance and emissions production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 211–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darabant, A.; Haruthaithanasan, M.; Atkla, W.; Phudphong, T.; Thanavat, E.; Haruthaithanasan, K. Bamboo biomass yield and feedstock characteristics of energy plantations in Thailand. Energy Procedia 2014, 59, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfister, J. Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal–Linking Soil Properties, Crops Physiology and Land Use; Humboldt Universität zu Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wi, S.G.; Lee, D.-S.; Nguyen, Q.A.; Bae, H.-J. Evaluation of biomass quality in short-rotation bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) for bioenergy products. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uman, L.S. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J. Can. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2011, 20, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Saito, H.; Shibuya, M.; Tuah, S.J.; Turjaman, M.; Takahashi, K.; Jamal, Y.; Segah, H.; Putir, P.E.; Limin, S.H. Initial screening of fast-growing tree species being tolerant of dry tropical peatlands in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Indones. J. For. Res. 2005, 5, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohibbe Azam, M.; Waris, A.; Nahar, N.M. Prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in India. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 29, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mekala, N.K.; Potumarthi, R.; Baadhe, R.R.; Gupta, V.K. Current Bioenergy Researches: Strengths and Future Challenges. In Bioenergy Research: Advances and Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Edmeades, D.C.; Wheeler, D.M. Measurement of pH in New Zealand soils: An examination of the effect of electrolyte, electrolyte strength, and soil solution ratio. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1990, 33, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavriloaiei, T. The influence of electrolyte solutions on soil pH measurements. Rev. Chim. 2012, 63, 396–400. [Google Scholar]
- Penman, J.; Gytarsky, M.; Hiraishi, T.; Krug, T.; Dina, K.; Pipatti, R.; Buendia, L.; Miwa, K.; Todd, N.; Tanabe, K. IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Technical Support Unit: Kamiyamaguchi Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Meher, L.C.; Vidya Sagar, D.; Naik, S.N. Technical aspects of biodiesel production by transesterification—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2006, 10, 248–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstrand, D. Liquid Fuel Measurements and Conversions; Lowa State University of Science and Techonology: Ames, IA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Demİrbas, A. Bioethanol from cellulosic materials: A renewable motor fuel from biomass. Energy Sources 2005, 27, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crosson, P. The on-farm economic costs of soil erosion. In Advances in Soil Science: Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation; Lal, R., Blum, W.H., Valentine, C., Stewart, B.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997; pp. 495–511. [Google Scholar]
- Borchard, N.; Artati, Y.; Lee, S.-M.; Baral, H. Sustainable forest management for land rehabilitation and provision of biomass-energy. CIFOR Br. 2017, 41, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramachandran Nair, P.K.; Mohan Kumar, B.; Nair, V.D. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, D.L.M.; Holl, K.D.; Peneireiro, F.M. Agro-Successional Restoration as a Strategy to Facilitate Tropical Forest Recovery. Restor. Ecol. 2009, 17, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruenewald, H.; Brandt, B.K.V.; Schneider, B.U.; Bens, O.; Kendzia, G.; Hüttl, R.F. Agroforestry systems for the production of woody biomass for energy transformation purposes. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 29, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wichtmann, W.; Schröder, C.; Joosten, H. Paludiculture as an inclusive solution. In Paludiculture-Cultivation of Wet Peatlands: Climate Protection-Biodiversity-Regional Economic Benefits; Wichtmann, W., Schröder, C., Joosten, H., Eds.; Schweizerbart Science Publishers: Stuttgart, Germany, 2016; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
- Chazdon, R.L. Tropical forest recovery: Legacies of human impact and natural disturbances. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 6, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, A.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Leimbach, M.; Knopf, B.; Beringer, T.; Bauer, N.; Bodirsky, B. On sustainability of bioenergy production: Integrating co-emissions from agricultural intensification. Biomass Bioenerg 2011, 35, 4770–4780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chimera, C.; Buddenhagen, C.; Clifford, P.M. Biofuels: The risks and dangers of introducing invasive species. Biofuels 2010, 1, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziller, S.; Howard, G. Alien alert-biofuel plants may be invasive. Bioenergy Business 2008, 14–16. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, D.M.; Blanchard, R. Learning from our mistakes: Minimizing problems with invasive biofuel plants. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wicke, B.; Sikkema, R.; Dornburg, V.; Junginger, M.; Faaij, A. Drivers of land use change and the role of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia: Overview of past developments and future projections. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2008, 44, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
- Wahid, M.B.; Abdullah, S.N.A.; Henson, I.E. Oil Palm—Achievements and Potential. Plant Prod. Sci. 2005, 8, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verheye, W. Growth and production of oil palm. In Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences; Verheye, W., Ed.; UNESCO-EOLSS Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Tata, H.L.; van Noordwijk, M.; Jasnari; Widayati, A. Domestication of Dyera polyphylla (Miq.) Steenis in peatland agroforestry systems in Jambi, Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 617–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuri, S.; Brack, C.; Noor’an, F.; Rusolono, T.; Anggraini, S.M.; Dotzauer, H.; Kumara, I. Improved allometric equations for tree aboveground biomass estimation in tropical dipterocarp forests of Kalimantan, Indonesia. For. Ecosyst. 2016, 3, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Günther, B.; Gebauer, K.; Barkowski, R.; Rosenthal, M.; Bues, C.-T. Calorific value of selected wood species and wood products. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2012, 70, 755–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirbaş, A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel 1997, 76, 431–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Species | Soil pH | Soil Texture | Soil Moisture | Soil Fertility | Additional Adaptations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species that tolerate poor soils, moist and dry environments | |||||
Agathis borneensis (Warb.) | <7 | -/- | -/- | -/- | Deep, well-drained, acidic soil |
Aleurites moluccana (L.) | 5.0–8.0 | -/- | Moist to dry | Poor | Tolerates droughts |
Arenga pinnata (Wurmb.) | -/- | Sand | Moist to dry | -/- | Tolerates dry environments |
Azadirachta indica (A. Juss.) | 6.0–7.0 | -/- | -/- | Poor | -/- |
Borassus flabellifer (L.) | 5.0–6.0 | -/- | Moist to dry | -/- | Tolerates droughts and short-term flooding |
Calliandra calothyrsus (Meisn.) | 5.0–6.5 | -/- | Moist to dry | Poor | Pioneer species, tolerates droughts |
Calophyllum inophyllum (L.) | 4.0–7.5 | -/- | Moist to dry | -/- | Xerophytic species, tolerates droughts |
Ceiba pentandra (L.) | -/- | Sandy | Moist | -/- | Deep, well-drained, light soil, Andosol |
Croton megalocarpus (Hutch.) | -/- | Sandy | Moist | -/- | Pioneer species; deep, well-drained, light soil |
Croton tiglium (L.) | 4.5–7.5 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) | 4.5–8.5 | Various | Moist | -/- | Pioneer species, deep, well-drained soil |
Neolamarckia cadamba (Roxb.) | -/- | -/- | Moist | -/- | Deep, alluvial soils |
Pongamia pinnata (L.) | -/- | Sandy | Moist to dry | -/- | Deep soils, tolerates droughts and acidity |
Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) | 5.4–7.1 | -/- | -/- | Poor | -/- |
Vernicia fordii (Hemsl.) | 6.0–6.5 | Sandy | Moist to dry | -/- | Deep, well-drained, light soils |
Zapoteca tetragona (Willd.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Species that tolerate permanently wet and waterlogged or temporarily flooded soils | |||||
Calamus caesius (Blume) | -/- | Peat, clayish, silty | Moist to wet | -/- | Margins of peat and swamp land, tolerates flooding |
Cerbera manghas (L.) | -/- | -/- | Moist to wet | -/- | Riparian, swamp and mangrove environment |
Combretocarpus rotundatus (Miq.) | 3.0–4.5 | Peat | Wet | -/- | Peat-swamp forest (Shorea spp.), tolerates waterlogged soils |
Dyera polyphylla (Miq.) | 3.0–4.5 | Peat | Wet | -/- | Peat-swamp forest, wet soils, peat |
Erythrina excelsa (Baker) | -/- | Various | Moist to wet | -/- | Riparian and swamp land, high water table |
Euterpe oleracea (Mart.) | -/- | Sandy | Moist | -/- | Light soils, tolerates flooding |
Melaleuca cajuputi (Powell) | -/- | Sandy | -/- | Poor | Poor, well-drained soils, brackish and acidic sulfate soils |
Metroxylon sagu (Rottb.) | >4.5 | Various | Moist to wet | -/- | Tolerates flooding |
Fleroya ledermannii (K.Krause) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | Anemochory, tolerates flooding |
Nypa fruticans (Wurmb.) | 5.0 | Clayish | Moist to wet | -/- | Mangrove species |
Palaquium ridleyi (King & Gamble) | 3.0–4.5 | Peat | Wet | -/- | Peat-swamp forest |
Pentadesma butyracea (Sabine | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | Riparian forests, deep soils |
Phoenix reclinata (Jacq.) | -/- | Various | -/- | -/- | Medium-to-fine textured soil, tolerates flooding |
Sandoricum koetjape (Burm.f.) | ≥7 | Various | -/- | Poor | Pioneer species, riparian areas |
Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) | <10 | Various | Dry to wet | -/- | Alkaline soils, riparian areas, tolerates droughts |
Spondias mombin (L.) | 4.3–8.0 | Various | -/- | -/- | Various mineral soils, tolerates flooding |
Symphonia globulifera (L.f.) | -/- | -/- | Moist to wet | -/- | Lowland rainforest to swamp forest |
Species | Biomass | Bio-Oil and Biodiesel | Sugar or Starch and Bioethanol | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mg ha−1 yr−1 | GJ ha−1 yr−1 | Mg ha−1 yr−1 | kL ha−1 yr−1 | GJ ha−1 yr−1 | Mg ha−1 yr−1 | kL ha−1 yr−1 | GJ ha−1 yr−1 | |
Species that tolerate poor soils, moist and dry environments | ||||||||
Agathis borneensis (Warb.) | 1.0–1.7 | 19–31 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Aleurites moluccana (L.) | 3.6–5.7 | 67–105 | 0.5–6.0 | 0.5–6.0 | 16–194 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | 20 (Su) | 2.0–12.8 | 43–268 |
Azadirachta indica (A.Juss.) | -/- | -/- | 0.1–2.7 | 0.1–2.7 | 4–87 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Borassus flabellifer (L.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | 20 (Su) | 1.2–12.8 | 25–268 |
Calliandra calothyrsus (Meisn.) | 6.0–24.0 | 111–444 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Calophyllum inophyllum (L.) | -/- | -/- | 2.0–6.0 | 2.0–5.9 | 65–194 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Ceiba pentandra (L.) | -/- | -/- | 1.3–4.8 | 1.3–4.8 | 42–155 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Croton megalocarpus (Hutch) | -/- | -/- | 1.6–4.5 | 1.6–4.5 | 52–145 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Croton tiglium (L.) | -/- | -/- | 0.2–0.9 | 0.2–0.9 | 6–29 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) | 2.0–12.0 | 37–222 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Neolamarckia cadamba (Roxb.) | 1.8–12.9 | 33–239 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Pongamia pinnata (L.) | -/- | -/- | 0.9–9.0 | 0.9–8.9 | 29–290 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) | -/- | -/- | Yes | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Vernicia fordii (Hemsl.) | -/- | -/- | 0.3–1.0 | 0.2–1.0 | 8–32 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Zapoteca tetragona (Willd.) | Yes | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Species that tolerate continuously wet and waterlogged or temporarily flooded soils | ||||||||
Calamus caesius (Blume) | 1.5–3.0 | 28–56 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Cerbera manghas (L.) | -/- | -/- | 2.2 | 2.2 | 71 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Combretocarpus rotundatus (Miq.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Dyera polyphylla (Miq.) | 5.4–14.0 | 100–259 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Erythrina excelsa (Baker) | Yes | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Euterpe oleracea (Mart.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | 0.2–3.8 (Su) | 0.1 –2.4 | 2–50 |
Melaleuca cajuputi (Powell) | Yes | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Metroxylon sagu (Rottb.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | 15–24 (St) | 9.6–15.3 | 201–321 |
Fleroya ledermannii (K.Krause) | 2.7–3.2 | 49–59 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Nypa fruticans (Wurmb.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | 3–22 (Su) | 1.9–14.0 | 40–295 |
Palaquium ridleyi (King & Gamble) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Pentadesma butyracea (Sabine) | -/- | -/- | 0.6–8.0 | 0.6–7.9 | 20–258 | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Phoenix reclinata (Jacq.) | Yes | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Sandoricum koetjape (Burm.f.) | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | Yes | -/- | -/- |
Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) | 8.0–17.0 | 148–315 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Spondias mombin (L.) | 0.2–0.6 | 4–10 | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
Symphonia globulifera (L.f.) | Yes | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- | -/- |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Borchard, N.; Bulusu, M.; Hartwig, A.-M.; Ulrich, M.; Lee, S.M.; Baral, H. Screening Potential Bioenergy Production of Tree Species in Degraded and Marginal Land in the Tropics. Forests 2018, 9, 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100594
Borchard N, Bulusu M, Hartwig A-M, Ulrich M, Lee SM, Baral H. Screening Potential Bioenergy Production of Tree Species in Degraded and Marginal Land in the Tropics. Forests. 2018; 9(10):594. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100594
Chicago/Turabian StyleBorchard, Nils, Medha Bulusu, Ann-Michelle Hartwig, Matthias Ulrich, Soo Min Lee, and Himlal Baral. 2018. "Screening Potential Bioenergy Production of Tree Species in Degraded and Marginal Land in the Tropics" Forests 9, no. 10: 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100594