Pest suppression potential varies across 10 bioenergy cropping systems

Haan, Nathan L.; Landis, Douglas A.

doi:10.1111/gcbb.13053

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regional or national scale collection of accurate, systematic biodiversity data and top-down targets (policy-driven approaches based what is possible in a socio-political context) can be useful for management at smaller scales [201]. In addition, at the field level, biodiversity data need to be collected, for example, by the non-lethal recording of the activity of individual animal species groups by motion-sensitive camera traps [202,203], territory mapping [204], or caterpillar mimics [205].…”

Section: Benefits and Limitations Of Biodiversity Evaluation On Margi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Managing Biodiversity of European Marginal Agricultural Land for Biodiversity-Friendly Biomass Production

Burland,

von Cossel

2023

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of marginal land, especially that which has already been used for agricultural purposes in the past two decades, for biomass cultivation is seen as an important approach for the transition to a sustainable bioeconomy. Marginal land can provide many other important ecosystem services than biomass provisioning for bioenergy and biobased products such as erosion mitigation, groundwater protection and nursery services to promote biodiversity. However, marginal land is also often subject to dynamic processes, mostly soil degradation and climate change, which make its fauna and flora particularly vulnerable to land-use changes. This study provides insights into marginal land’s potential biodiversity characterization and critically discusses further steps towards applicable management approaches. Not all commonly used indicators apply to all types of marginal land, especially regarding the site-specific biophysical constraints and the landscape heterogeneity. This is because both the biodiversity and biophysical constraints are sensitive to disturbances. Therefore, when marginal lands are used for biomass production, all available measures should be taken to allow for predominantly positive impacts on local biodiversity, such as a survey of the status quo using camera traps, area mapping, or caterpillar mimics and a forecast of potential biophysical and agrobiological impacts of management.

show abstract

Section: Benefits and Limitations Of Biodiversity Evaluation On Margi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Managing Biodiversity of European Marginal Agricultural Land for Biodiversity-Friendly Biomass Production

Burland,

von Cossel

2023

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many works related to energy crops are of the nature of model studies, or even field experiments which are usually small-plot trials at sheltered experimental workplaces where the natural occurrence of pests is limited in various ways. the occurrence of pests in the cultivation of energy crops was dealt with by Cagáň et al (2006), Purger et al (2008), Pszczółkowska et al (2012), Haan and landis (2023), and others. Purger et al (2008) found out that small mammal abundance was twenty times higher in wheat Triticum spp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study – The occurrence of pests in stands of newly introduced energy crops in large-scale pilot experiments in conditions of Central Europe

Tóth,

Tancik,

Šoltysová

et al. 2023

Agriculture (Pol'nohospodárstvo)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this paper is to document the occurrence of pests recorded in a large-scale pilot field experiment, where a unique set of newly-introduced herbaceous energy crops was tested under conditions of eastern Slovakia. The set consisted of Elymus elongatus, Secale cereanum, Silphium perfoliatum, Galega orientalis, Sida hermaphrodita, Panicum virgatum, Amaranthus spp., Panicum miliaceum, Sorghum sudanense, and Sorghum bicolor. A total of 14 cultivars were tested on 4 sites during 4 crop years (2016 – 2020). At least 17 species of pests were recorded in total, as some of the species may represent the identity of the couple or several relative ones, which was rare only as usually a fower common species. The occurred pests list consists of Anisoplia lata Erichson, Agriotes lineatus L., Capreolus capreolus L., Deroceras agreste L., Oulema gallaeciana Heyden, Lepisma saccharinum L., Lepus europaeus Pallas, Meloe proscarabaeus L., Metcalfa pruinosa Say, Microtus arvalis Pallas, Philaenus spumarius L., Psylliodes chrysocephala L., Rhopalosiphum padi L., stemborers as any insect larva or arthropod boring into plant stem, Sus scrofa L., Aleyrodes proletella L., Tettigonia viridissima L., and Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood. Overall, the occurrence of pests was regular and scattered, and damages caused by them were negligible usually, but a total destruction of the crop stand even cultivar-specific was recorded too. Most of the meaningful pests are primarily field hunting animals and only secondarily commonly occurring insect species, which for further observations are desirable in order to capture the tendency of important pests’ overpopulation, confirming respectively. Although even rare finding of the single caterpillar of Xylena exsoleta exsoleta L. was recorded in a buffer zone, within the experiment no newly introduced pest species was recorded.

show abstract

Exploring the Potential of Perennial Nectar‐Producing Wild Plants for Pellet Combustion

von Cossel,

Heinzel,

Patiño Lordello

et al. 2024

Advanced Sustainable Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perennial nectar‐producing wild plant species (WPS) cultivation for biogas production helps improve ecosystem services such as habitat functioning, erosion mitigation, groundwater protection, and carbon sequestration. These ecosystem services could be improved when WPS are harvested in late winter to produce pellets and briquettes as solid energy carriers for heat production. This study aims for gaining first insights into the use of WPS biomass as resource for pellet and briquette combustion with focus on two perennial WPS common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare L.) and mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.), and two biennial WPS yellow melilot (Melilotus officinalis L.) and wild teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.). All WPS are found economically viable for pellet combustion. The main drivers are i) low cultivation costs, ii) subsidies, and iii) low pellet production costs due to low moisture contents. However, high ash contents in WPS biomass justify the need of i) blending with woody‐biomass or ii) supplementing with additives to attain international standards for household stoves. This approach appears technically feasible providing a research field with significant potential impacts. As 70% of the pellet market is demanded as household level, public concern about the legal framework of alternative plant biomass pellets must be overcome to develop this market.

show abstract

Pest suppression potential varies across 10 bioenergy cropping systems

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 4 publications

References 53 publications

Towards Managing Biodiversity of European Marginal Agricultural Land for Biodiversity-Friendly Biomass Production

Towards Managing Biodiversity of European Marginal Agricultural Land for Biodiversity-Friendly Biomass Production

A case study – The occurrence of pests in stands of newly introduced energy crops in large-scale pilot experiments in conditions of Central Europe

Exploring the Potential of Perennial Nectar‐Producing Wild Plants for Pellet Combustion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About