The Economics of Arundo donax—A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Bioenergy from Perennial Crops
3.1.1. Biomass Production—Global Studies
3.1.2. Biomass Production—Country and Crop Specific Studies
3.1.3. Giant Reed as Biofuel Input
3.1.4. Food vs. Fuel
3.2. Agronomy
3.3. Invasiveness
3.4. Phytoremediation/Waste Management
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Popp, J.; Harangi-Rakos, M.; Gabnai, Z.; Balogh, P.; Antal, G.; Bai, A. Biofuels and Their Co-Products as Livestock Feed: Global Economic and Environmental Implications. Molecules 2016, 21, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fernando, A.L.; Barbosa, B.; Costa, J.; Papazoglou, E.G.; Prasad, M.N.V. Chapter 4—Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.): A Multipurpose Crop Bridging Phytoremediation with Sustainable Bioeconomy. Bioremed. Bioecon. 2016, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nocentini, A.; Field, J.; Monti, A.; Paustian, K. Biofuel production and soil GHG emissions after land-use change to switchgrass and giant reed in the U.S. Southeast. Food Energy Secur. 2018, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohapatra, S.; Mishra, C.; Behera, S.S.; Thatoi, H. Application of pretreatment, fermentation and molecular techniques for enhancing bioethanol production from grass biomass—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1007–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monti, A.; Zegada-Lizarazu, W.; Zanetti, F.; Casler, M.; Sparks, D.L. Nitrogen Fertilization Management of Switchgrass, Miscanthus and Giant Reed: A Review. Adv. Agron. 2019, 153, 87–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prochnow, A.; Heiermann, M.; Plöchl, M.; Amon, T.; Hobbs, P.J. Bioenergy from permanent grassland—A review: 2. Combustion. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4945–4954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venturi, P.; Venturi, G. Analysis of energy comparison for crops in European agricultural systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, 235–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, V.K.; Potumarthi, R.; O’Donovan, A.; Kubicek, C.P.; Sharma, G.D.; Tuohy, M.G.; Gupta, V.K.; Tuohy, M.G.; Kubicek, C.P.; Saddler, J.; et al. Chapter 2—Bioenergy Research: An Overview on Technological Developments and Bioresources. Bioenergy Res. Adv. Appl. 2014, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nackley, L.L.; Quinn, L.D.; Matlaga, D.P.; Barney, J.N. Good Intentions vs Good Ideas: Evaluating Bioenergy Projects that Utilize Invasive Plant Feedstocks; Cabi Publishing-C a B Int: Wallingford, UK, 2015; Volume 5, pp. 134–153. [Google Scholar]
- Soldatos, P. Economic Aspects of Bioenergy Production from Perennial Grasses in Marginal Lands of South Europe. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 1562–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alderucci, V.; Giordano, A.; Iovino, A.; Giordano, N.; Phillips, V.D. Potential biomass resources of Sicily for electric-power generation. Appl. Energy 1993, 45, 219–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinnici, G.; D’Amico, M.; Rizzo, M.; Pecorino, B. Analysis of biomass availability for energy use in Sicily. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1025–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milovanovic, J.; Drazic, G.; Ikanovic, J.; Jurekova, Z.; Rajkovic, S. Sustainable production of biomass through miscanthus giganteus plantation development. Ann. Fac. Eng. Hunedoara 2012, 10, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, M.P.; Erickson, J.E.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Woodard, K.R.; Vendramini, J.M.B.; Gilbert, R.A. Mineral composition and removal of six perennial grasses grown for bioenergy. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panoutsou, C. Socio-economic impacts of energy crops for heat generation in Northern Greece. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 6046–6059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulighe, G.; Bonati, G.; Colangeli, M.; Morese, M.M.; Traverso, L.; Lupia, F.; Khawaja, C.; Janssen, R.; Fava, F. Ongoing and emerging issues for sustainable bioenergy production on marginal lands in the Mediterranean regions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 103, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiaramonti, D.; Grimm, H.-P.; Bassam, N.E.; Cendagorta, M. Energy crops and bioenergy for rescuing deserting coastal area by desalination: feasibility study. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 72, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulighe, G.; Bonati, G.; Fabiani, S.; Barsali, T.; Lupia, F.; Vanino, S.; Nino, P.; Arca, P.; Roggero, P.P. Assessment of the Agronomic Feasibility of Bioenergy Crop Cultivation on Marginal and Polluted Land: A GIS-Based Suitability Study from the Sulcis Area, Italy. Energies 2016, 9, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulas, L.; Franca, A.; Sanna, F.; Re, G.A.; Melis, R.; Porqueddu, C. Biomass characteristics in Mediterranean populations of Piptatherum miliaceum—A native perennial grass species for bioenergy. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 75, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodias, E.; Berruto, R.; Bochtis, D.; Busato, P.; Sopegno, A. A computational tool for comparative energy cost analysis of multiple-crop production systems. Energies 2017, 10, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pari, L.; Assirelli, A.; Acampora, A.; Del Giudice, A.; Santangelo, E. A new prototype for increasing the particle size of chopped Arundo donax (L.). Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 74, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pari, L.; Curt, M.D.; Sánchez, J.; Santangelo, E. Economic and energy analysis of different systems for giant reed (Arundo donax L.) harvesting in Italy and Spain. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 84, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzanakakis, V.A.; Chatzakis, M.K.; Angelakis, A.N. Energetic environmental and economic assessment of three tree species and one herbaceous crop irrigated with primary treated sewage effluent. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 47, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zema, D.A.; Bombino, G.; Andiloro, S.; Zimbone, S.M. Irrigation of energy crops with urban wastewater: Effects on biomass yields, soils and heating values. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 115, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seshadri, B.; Bolan, N.S.; Thangarajan, R.; Jena, U.; Das, K.C.; Wang, H.; Naidu, R.; Prasad, M.N.V. Chapter 5—Biomass Energy from Revegetation of Landfill Sites*. Bioremediat. Bioecon. 2016, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liguori, R.; Ventorino, V.; Pepe, O.; Faraco, V. Bioreactors for lignocellulose conversion into fermentable sugars for production of high added value products. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 597–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stichnothe, H.; Meier, D.; de Bari, I.; Lamers, P.; Searcy, E.; Hess, J.R.; Stichnothe, H. Chapter 3—Biorefineries: Industry Status and Economics. Dev. Glob. Bioecon. 2016, 41–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villegas Calvo, M.; Colombo, B.; Corno, L.; Eisele, G.; Cosentino, C.; Papa, G.; Scaglia, B.; Pilu, R.; Simmons, B.; Adani, F. Bioconversion of Giant Cane for Integrated Production of Biohydrogen, Carboxylic Acids, and Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) in a Multistage Biorefinery Approach. Acs Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 15361–15373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Accardi, D.S.; Russo, P.; Lauri, R.; Pietrangeli, B.; Di Palma, L.; Pierucci, S.; Klemes, J.J. From soil remediation to biofuel: Process simulation of bioethanol production from Arundo donax. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015, 43, 2167–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sgroi, F.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Foderà, M.; Testa, R.; Tudisca, S. Economic performance of biogas plants using giant reed silage biomass feedstock. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 81, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sgroi, F.; Foderà, M.; Trapani, A.M.D.; Tudisca, S.; Testa, R. Economic evaluation of biogas plant size utilizing giant reed. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fengmin, L.; Mingquan, Z. Technological Parameters of Biomass Briquetting of Macrophytes in Nansi Lake. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 2449–2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gong, L.; Wang, Z.Y.; Zhang, M.Q.; Li, F.M.; Tang, X.F.; Wu, Y.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, Z.Z. Properties and Benefits of Biomass Briquetting of Macrophytes in Nansi Lake. Mater. Sci. Forum 2013, 743–744, 797–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesur-Dumoulin, C.; Laurent, A.; Reau, R.; Guichard, L.; Ballot, R.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Loyce, C. Co-design and ex ante assessment of cropping system prototypes including energy crops in Eastern France. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 116, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantaleo, A.; Gennaro, B.D.; Shah, N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic co-digestion plants: An application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paschalidou, A.; Tsatiris, M.; Kitikidou, K. Energy crops for biofuel production or for food?—SWOT analysis (case study: Greece). Renew. Energy 2016, 93, 636–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, R.; Foderà, M.; Di Trapani, A.M.; Tudisca, S.; Sgroi, F. Giant reed as energy crop for Southern Italy: An economic feasibility study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexopoulou, E.; Zanetti, F.; Scordia, D.; Zegada-lizarazu, W.; Christou, M.; Testa, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; Monti, A. Long-Term Yields of Switchgrass, Giant Reed, and Miscanthus in the Mediterranean Basin. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 1492–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonfante, A.; Impagliazzo, A.; Fiorentino, N.; Langella, G.; Mori, M.; Fagnano, M. Supporting local farming communities and crop production resilience to climate change through giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cultivation: An Italian case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601, 603–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappelli, G.; Yamaç, S.S.; Stella, T.; Francone, C.; Paleari, L.; Negri, M.; Confalonieri, R. Are advantages from the partial replacement of corn with second-generation energy crops undermined by climate change? A case study for giant reed in northern Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 80, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caffrey, K.R.; Chinn, M.S.; Veal, M.W. Biomass supply chain management in North Carolina (part 1): predictive model for cropland conversion to biomass feedstocks. Aims Energy 2016, 4, 256–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentini, M.; Martelli, R. Prototype for the harvesting of cultivated herbaceous energy crops, an economic and technical evaluation. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 57, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentini, M.; Martelli, R. Giant reed (Arundo donax L.) harvesting system, an economic and technical evaluation. J. Agric. Eng. 2013, 44, 607–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martelli, R.; Bentini, M.; Monti, A. Harvest storage and handling of round and square bales of giant reed and switchgrass: An economic and technical evaluation. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 83, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Munar, A.; Tauler, M.; Gulías, J.; Baraza, E. Nursery preconditioning of Arundo donax L. plantlets determines biomass harvest in the first two years. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2018, 119, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazio, S.; Barbanti, L. Energy and economic assessments of bio-energy systems based on annual and perennial crops for temperate and tropical areas. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, X.C.; Fan, X.F.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, J.Y.; Zhao, C.Q.; Zheng, S.S. Ecological-economic values of Lignocellulosic herbaceous plant on contaminated land. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 852, 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lychnaras, V.; Schneider, U.A. Multi-farm economic analysis of perennial energy crops in Central Greece, taking into account the CAP reform. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 700–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehmood, M.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Rashid, U.; Nawaz, M.; Ali, S.; Hussain, A.; Gull, M. Biomass production for bioenergy using marginal lands. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 9, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassi O Di Nasso, N.; Roncucci, N.; Bonari, E. Giant reed (Arundo donax L.) as energy crop in Central Italy: A review. Ital. J. Agron. 2013, 8, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
- Ascenso, L.; d’Amore, F.; Carvalho, A.; Bezzo, F. Assessing multiple biomass-feedstock in the optimization of power and fuel supply chains for sustainable mobility. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2018, 131, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pindozzi, S.; Faugno, S.; Cervelli, E.; Capolupo, A.; Sannino, M.; Boccia, L. Consequence of land use changes into energy crops in Campania region. J. Agric. Eng. 2013, 44, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, H.J.; Hall, K.M.; Lee, K.D.; Taleghan, M.A.; Dietterich, T.G. The Role of Restoration and Key Ecological Invasion Mechanisms in Optimal Spatial-Dynamic Management of Invasive Species. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J.N.; DiTomaso, J.M. Nonnative Species and Bioenergy: Are We Cultivating the Next Invader? Bioscience 2008, 58, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goolsby, J.A.; Moran, P.J.; Racelis, A.E.; Summy, K.R.; Jimenez, M.M.; Lacewell, R.D.; Perez de Leon, A.; Kirk, A.A. Impact of the biological control agent Tetramesa romana (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) on Arundo donax (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) along the Rio Grande River in Texas. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2016, 26, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seawright, E.K.; Rister, M.E.; Lacewell, R.D.; McCorkle, D.A.; Sturdivant, A.W.; Yang, C.; Goolsby, J.A. Economic implications for the biological control of arundo donax: Rio Grande Basin. Southw. Entomol. 2009, 34, 377–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, D.R.; Tancig, K.J.; Onderdonk, D.A.; Gantz, C.A. Assessing the invasive potential of biofuel species proposed for Florida and the United States using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkuna, K.V.; Visser, V.; Wilson, J.R.U.; Kumschick, S. Global environmental and socio-economic impacts of selected alien grasses as a basis for ranking threats to South Africa. NeoBiota 2018, 41, 19–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rumlerová, Z.; Vilà, M.; Pergl, J.; Nentwig, W.; Pysek, P. Scoring environmental and socioeconomic impacts of alien plants invasive in Europe. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 3697–3711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Cervelli, E.; Pindozzi, S.; Capolupo, A.; Okello, C.; Rigillo, M.; Boccia, L. Ecosystem services and bioremediation of polluted areas. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 87, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervelli, E.; Pindozzi, S.; Sacchi, M.; Capolupo, A.; Cialdea, D.; Rigillo, M.; Boccia, L. Supporting land use change assessment through Ecosystem Services and Wildlife Indexes. Land Use Pol. 2017, 65, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cristaldi, A.; Conti, G.O.; Jho, E.H.; Zuccarello, P.; Grasso, A.; Copat, C.; Ferrante, M. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils by heavy metals and PAHs. A brief review. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2017, 8, 309–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nsanganwimana, F.; Marchand, L.; Douay, F.; Mench, M. Arundo donax L., a Candidate for Phytomanaging Water and Soils Contaminated by Trace Elements and Producing Plant-Based Feedstock. A Review. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiarawatchai, N.; Heers, M.; Otterpohl, R. Criteria for determining alternative plants to improve the resource recovery efficiency in constructed wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 58, 1665–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jin, Q.; Yang, L.; Poe, N.; Huang, H. Integrated processing of plant-derived waste to produce value-added products based on the biorefinery concept. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 74, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelegrín, M.; Sáez-Tovar, J.A.; Andreu-Rodríguez, J.; Pérez-Murcia, M.D.; Martínez-Sabater, E.; Marhuenda-Egea, F.C.; Pérez-Espinosa, A.; Bustamante, M.A.; Agulló, E.; Vico, A.; et al. Composting of the invasive species Arundo donax with sewage and agri-food sludge: Agronomic, economic and environmental aspects. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 730–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salzman, S.; Scarborough, H.; Allinson, G. Exploring the economic viability of using constructed wetlands to manage waste-water in the dairy industry. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Venturi-Venturi (2003) | Raw fibre biomass production in Europe | Europe | Review of literature | Among crops produced in European agricultural systems, Arundo donax had the best characteristics among perennial crops, followed by Miscanthus giganteus |
Gupta et al. (2014) | Bioenergy potentials | Global | Review of literature | The most often used perennial energy crops are giant reed, switch grass, Miscanthus, canary grass and alfalfa |
Prochnow et al. (2009) | Permanent grasslands as venue of producing biomass for combusting purposes | Global | Review of literature | 1. Giant reed is among the most promising grass species 2. For sustainable production extensive management, low level of inputs and using conventional machineries are required |
Nackley et al. (2015) | Bioenergy production from invasive species | Global | Review of literature | 1. Miscanthus giganteus and Arundo donax are the most promising biomass crop 2. Giant reed can be considered sustainable in terms of economics and social development, however because of the invasiveness the environmental aspects should considered |
Soldatos (2015) | Giant reed vs. Miscanthus and switchgrass | Mediterranean countries | Mixed | 1. In case of all the selected plants fertilisation, irrigation, harvesting and transport are the dominant cost items 2. The cost per dry tonne of giant reed is the lowest 3. Propagation with rhizomes makes giant reed and Miscanthus plant establishment more costly |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alderucci et al. (1993) | Energy supply from biomass in Sicily | Italy | Theoretical modelling | Arundo donax is an important biomass plant of Sicily, together with other plants can contribute up to 20% of energy supply |
Chinnici et al. (2015) | Availability of biomass to produce thermal or Bio-methane electricity | Italy | Theoretical modelling | 1. After livestock sewage, dedicated bioenergy crops represent the second highest amount of biomass potential in Sicily 2. Among the perennials giant reed can offer a valid alternative to arable farming, especially on marginal lands |
Milovanovic et al. (2012) | Biomass production | Serbia | Field experiment | 1. In Serbia, Miscanthus proved to be the best solution for biomass production 2. Country specific conditions require different multi-seasonal species |
Nocentini et al. (2018) | Switchgrass vs. giant reed comparison | USA | Theoretical modelling | 1. Switchgrass together with giant reed are both considered as ideal input candidates for biomass production 2. Even though giant reed allures with higher yield, the better social acceptance helps switchgrass to be produced more |
Singh et al. (2015) | Giant reed vs. sugarcane, sweetcane, energycane and elephant grass | USA | Field experiment | In terms of dry biomass yield, several plants can exceed giant reed under specific conditions |
Panoutsou (2007) | Cardoon vs. giant reed comparison | Greece | Mixed | 1. The total annual equivalent cost of giant reed is almost 60% higher than cardoon 2. Cardoon also resulted in higher profitability ratio 3. Both plants can be economically feasible compared to conventional crop production if they are well integrated |
Pulighe et al. (2019) | Sustainability aspects of energy crops | Italy | Review of literature | 1. Switchgrass, Miscanthus, cardoon and giant reed are the most promising candidates to produce biomass in less favoured and marginal agricultural areas of Europe 2. Incentives are required in order to gain the farmers’ willingness to grow |
Chiaramonti et al. (2000) | Rescuing desalinated areas by bioenergy and crops | Spain | Field experiment | Sorghum and giant reed demonstrated the best growth rate on coastal and arid area of the Mediterranean region |
Pulighe et al. (2016) | Biomass production on marginal and contaminated areas | Italy | Mixed | Beside native perennial grass species, giant reed had very good comparative performances in terms of yield, irrigation needs, water-use efficiency and fertilizer use |
Sulas et al. (2015) | Perennial grasses for bioenergy production | Italy | Field experiment | Under rainfed Mediterranean conditions native breeds can also achieve the high biomass output level of Arundo donax |
Rodias et al. (2017) | Energy balance of Miscanthus, Arundo donax and switchgrass production | Italy | Mixed | Giant reed required the highest energy input, but the energy balance was also the highest |
Pari et al. (2015) | Arundo donax harvesting systems | Italy, Spain | Field experiment | In case of Arundo donax, two passes system of baling is more favourable than single pass system (chipping and loading) and two passes system of chipping and loading |
Pari et al. (2016) | Arundo donax logistics | Italy | Field experiment | 1. Transportation has a great influence on the profitability of this value chain 2. Harvesting and storage methods have to be adjusted for the benefit of logistics |
Tzanakakis et al. (2012) | Giant reed vs. other non-grass biomass candidates for producing biomass using wastewater | Greece | Field experiment | Using pre-treated sewage effluent for irrigation, Arundo donax had the second highest energy production cost but the highest nutrient-use efficiency for nitrogen and phosphorus |
Zema et al. (2012) | Giant reed vs. other biomass candidates for producing biomass using wastewater | Italy | Field experiment | 1. Using effluents of an urban wastewater increases the yield of biomass production 2. Giant reed had the highest energy yield per unit |
Seshadri et al. (2016) | Biomass production on landfills | Global | Review of literature | Giant reed is the most promising breed with the highest biomass yield |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mohapatra et al. (2017) | Second generation biofuel production | Global | Review of literature | For effective bioethanol production the pre-treatment of the grass biomass is required. |
Liguori et al. (2016) | Second generation biofuel production | Global | Review of literature | For biofuel production, the biomass of giant reed requires pre-treatment which is the most energetic intensive part of the production |
Stichnothe et al. (2016) | Biomass pretreatment for fermentation | Global | Theoretical modelling | Currently the biomass pre-treatment technology available for fermentation of giant reed is not cost competitive |
Villegas et al. (2018) | Pre-treatment of Arundo donax for biorefineries | Italy | Mixed | Chemically and enzymatically pre-treated biomass of Arundo donax consumed by a multistage biorefinery approach was more sustainable than the most common feedstock of the lignocellulose biorefinery |
Accardi et al. (2015) | Second generation bioethanol production | Italy | Theoretical modelling | 1. Giant reed is one of the most promising biomass production candidates 2. Giant reed’s moisture content and the holocellulosic–lignin ratio is in favour of bioethanol production |
Sgroiet al. (2015a) | Biogas prodcution | Italy | Theoretical modelling | Under Mediterranean circumstances giant reed is a promising solution for feeding biogas plants. |
Sgroi et al. (2015b) | Biogas prodcution | Italy | Theoretical modelling | In profitability terms, plant size of 300 kW is the most beneficial for producing bioenergy from Arundo donax |
Fengmin and Mingquan (2011) | Effects of binder content and biomass content on properties of biomass briquetting | China | Field experiment | 1. Giant reed-based briquette has better calorific value than the reed based 2. A mixture of 45% giant reed together with 55% coal has the best calorific value |
Gong et al. (2013) | Biomass briquetting for combustion purposes | China | Field experiment | Mixing giant reed and coal in briquette can result in 25% cost reduction and additional environmental benefits |
Lesur-Dumoulin et al. (2018) | Biofuel production | France | Theoretical modelling | Combining perennial and/or annual energy crops with annual arable crops might end up with best solution in biofuel production |
Pantaleo et al. (2013) | Producing bioenergy from manure and energy crops | Italy | Theoretical modelling | 1. For bioenergy potential, only manure feedstock is more profitable than the integration with energy crops 2. Giant reed has significant establishment costs that is balanced with the relatively low maintenance costs |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Paschalidou et al. (2016) | Food vs. fuel dilemma | Greece | Theoretical modelling | Giant reed is one of the non-edible energy crops that are most suitable for Mediterranean circumstances |
Popp et al. (2016) | Biofuels and their co-products as livestock feed | Global | Review of literature | Giant reed seems to offer a viable solution, but the high biomass potential also accompanies an invasiveness hazard that should be treated properly |
Testa et al. (2016) | Profitability of Arundo donax production vs. conventional crops | Italy | Mixed | 1. Gross margin of production giant reed for biomass is higher than for silage 2. Gross margin of giant reed production exceeds the production of conventional crops (wine grape, melon and tomato) |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alexopoulou et al. (2015) | Long term yield comparisons | Greece, Italy | Field trials | 1. Giant reed outperformed switchgrass in yields under northern Italy environment 2. Compared with switchgrass and Miscanthus, giant reed also showed lower yield variability over time and across locations |
Bonfante et al. (2017) | Economic potential of giant reed production under climate change | Italy | Simulation model | 1. Giant reed is profitable and climate-smart in marginal areas 2. Woodchip production found to be the most profitable option for farmers, though yielding a gross margin 50% lower than ordinary high input maize cultivation |
Cappelli et al. (2015) | Climate change impact on giant reed productivity | Italy | Simulation model | Giant reed is a suitable option for local production in terms of biomass production |
Caffrey et al. (2016) | potentials in cropland conversion to biomass feedstocks | USA | Economic modelling | Switchgrass was found to be the most profitable compared to giant reed, miscanthus and sorghum |
Monti et al. (2019) | Optimal nitrogen supply of switchgrass, Miscanthus and giant reed | Global | Review of literature | 1. Current literature does not provide a sufficiently well-defined picture about the real needs of N fertilization of Miscanthus, giant reed and switchgrass. 2. Maximized yields are reached with about 100–120 kg N/ha−1 in giant reed and switchgrass |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bentini and Martelli (2013a) | Economic and technical analysis of a harvesting machine, biotriturator | Italy | Field experiment | The system represents an effective solution for not very large areas and is therefore suitable for the Italian environment where average farm sizes are slightly over seven hectares |
Bentini and Martelli (2013b) | Economic and technical analysis of a harvesting machine, biotriturator | Italy | Field experiment | The system represents an effective solution for not very large areas and small farm sizes |
Martelli et al. (2015) | Harvest and handling costs evaluation of giant reed and switchgrass | Italy | Field experiment | Costs of harvesting, handling, in-field storage and delivery to the conversion plant were lower for giant reed for square bales but not for round bales |
Romero et al. (2018) | Effects of preconditioning on giant reed harvest | Spain | Field experiment | 1. Small cell preconditioning resulted in smaller sizes in field compared to large cells. 2. Better nursery conditions resulted in healthier giant reed plants that produced more biomass during the first and second years of cultivation |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fazio and Barbanti (2014) | Energy and economic assessment of biomass production | Italy | Simulation model | 1. Complementary use of crop residues enhanced net energy and energy efficiency, but net profit decreased because of higher costs 2. Giant reed was found to be the best lignocellulosic crop in the standard scenario |
Hou et al. (2014) | Energy and economic assessment of biomass production | China | Field experiment | 1. Switchgrass, silver reed, giant reed and hybrid Pennisetum have enormous ecological values 2. Hybrid Pennisetum is optimal in ecological value on contaminated lands, while giant reed in economic value. |
Fernando et al. (2016) | Environmental, economic and socio-economic assessment of perennial grass production | Italy | Economic modelling | 1. Perennials were found to be more environmentally friendly than annual crops. 2. Economic impacts were dependent on exact yields and end use options 3. In socioeconomic terms, perennials were found to have positive impacts on job creation and the rural economy |
Lychnaras and Schneider (2011) | Economic analysis of perennial crop production | Greece | Economic modelling | 1. Switchgrass is the most preferable option in terms of profitability, while giant reed is the least preferable one (due to its high specific machinery costs). 2. Perennial crop production is just an economic option is small farms |
Mehmood et al. (2017) | Overview of biomass production potentials on marginal lands | Global | Review of literature | Giant reed is suitable for production in the Mediterranean region and has impressive bioenergy feedstock indices |
Nassi et al. (2013) | Environmental and economic assessment of giant reed production | Italy | Review of literature | 1. Giant reed has high production level 2. It has relatively low nutrient requirements 3. Positive energy balance and lowest GHG emissions 4. Lowest cost per ton of dry biomass or per unit of energy |
Ascenso et al. (2018) | Profitability and environmental impacts of biomass selection | Italy | Linear programming | 1. In terms of economic optimisation, a mix of corn-based first generation biorefineries and Arundo donax-fed power plants constitutes the best technological option 2. Miscanthus, poplar, and wood residues are never considered by the solver as a feasible alternative to Arundo donax or stover for both economic and environmental optimizations |
Accardi et al. (2015) | Evaluation of giant reed production for biofuel | Italy | Simulation model | Giant reed production for biofuel has high economic potential, which may create a potential competitor for oil and other fossil fuels |
Pindozzi et al. (2013) | Effects of land use change for perennial crops production | Italy | Economic modelling | 1. Perennial crop production in hilly areas would be favourable in all economic dimensions. 2. In the Campania region, giant reed production above 750 m would yield about 12.6 t/ha. 3. Giant reed production would massively decrease soil erosion (10 million of tons of CO2 would be saved per year). |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Albers et al. (2018) | Invasive species and habitat management | Global | Bioeconomic modelling | More aggressive invasive species and more invasion-susceptible ecosystems require greater investment in habitat restoration despite its relative expense |
Barney and DiTomaso (2008) | Invasive characteristics of non-native species | USA | Weed Risk Assessment | Switchgrass was found to be highly invasive in California, giant reed in Florida, while Miscanthus was not found to be invasive |
Goolsby et al. (2016) | Impact of biological control on giant reed | USA | Field experiment | Biological control can be an effective way of managing invasiveness of giant reed, though it has serious economic consequences through decreased yields |
Seawright et al. (2009) | Economic implications of biological control for giant reed | USA | Economic modelling | Biological control can be an effective way of invasiveness management. $4.38 of benefits for every dollar of public investment for a biological control project for giant reed |
Gordon et al. (2011) | Invasive potential of twelve biofuel species | USA | Field experiment | Giant reed has a high probability to become invasive and its cultivation should be avoided |
Nkuna et al. (2018) | Environmental impacts of selected alien grasses | South Africa | Generic Impact Scoring System | After Cortaderia selloana, giant reed was the second most invasive plant in South Africa |
Rumlerova et al. (2016) | Categorisation of alien invasive plants | Europe | Generic Impact Scoring System | Giant reed is the second most invasive species after Lantana camara with the highest environmental impact |
Richardson and Blanchard (2011) | Problems with invasive biofuel plants | Global | Literature Review | The cultivation of high-risk species like giant reed should ideally be avoided. When used, biological control or other mitigation measures, such as the development of sterile plants, could potentially be applied |
Study | Topic | Country | Method | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cervelli et al. (2016) | Bioremediation of contaminated areas | Italy | Economic modelling | Poplar and giant reed can serve as tools for bioremediation of contaminated soils and their use increase the value of ecosystem services |
Cervelli et al. (2017) | Land use change and ecosystems services | Italy | Economic modelling | Combining ecological assessment with land use change scenarios provide useful input for future regional development and conservation |
Cristaldi et al. (2017) | Phytoremediation of contaminated soils by heavy metals | Global | Literature review | Giant reed was found to improve soil biological fertility in assisted phytoremediation of an industrial polluted soil |
Fernando et al. (2016) | Phytoremediation potential of giant reed | Global | Literature review | Giant reed was a perfect candidate to improve the quality of water-polluted bodies and contaminated soils |
Nsanganwimana et al. (2014) | Phytoremediation potential of giant reed | Global | Literature review | Giant reed has high potentials to improve soil and water quality and thereby increasing land availability |
Chiarawatchai et al. (2008) | Improvement of resource recovery efficiency in constructed wetlands | Global | Literature review | Giant reed can improve resource recovery efficiency in constructed wetlands in warm areas of Southern Europe and subtropical areas in South Africa |
Jin et al. (2018) | Production from plant-derived wastes | Global | Literature review | Giant reed waste is among potential candidates to be used in food, chemical and biofuel production |
Pelegrín et al. (2018) | Composting of giant reed with sewage and agri-food sludge | Spain | Field experiment | Giant reed is viable to be part of a composting process for the stabilization of organic wastes |
Salzman et al. (2017) | Economic viability of using constructed wetlands to manage wastewater in the dairy industry | Australia | Field experiment | Giant reed has high potentials in wastewater management |
© 2019 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
Jámbor, A.; Török, Á. The Economics of Arundo donax—A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154225
Jámbor A, Török Á. The Economics of Arundo donax—A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2019; 11(15):4225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154225
Chicago/Turabian StyleJámbor, Attila, and Áron Török. 2019. "The Economics of Arundo donax—A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 11, no. 15: 4225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154225