IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v9y2020i5p57-d356859.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomethane Yield from Different European Phragmites australis Genotypes, Compared with Other Herbaceous Wetland Species Grown at Different Fertilization Regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Franziska Eller

    (Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ole Worms Alle 1, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark)

  • Per Magnus Ehde

    (Rydberg Laboratory for Applied Sciences, Halmstad University, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden)

  • Claudia Oehmke

    (Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Partner in the Greifswald Mire Center, University of Greifswald, Soldmannstrasse 15, 17487 Germany)

  • Linjing Ren

    (Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ole Worms Alle 1, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
    Biocenter Klein Flottbek, Hamburg University, Ohnhorststrasse 18, 22609 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Hans Brix

    (Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ole Worms Alle 1, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark)

  • Brian K. Sorrell

    (Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Ole Worms Alle 1, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark)

  • Stefan E. B. Weisner

    (Rydberg Laboratory for Applied Sciences, Halmstad University, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden)

Abstract

Phragmites australis , Typha latifolia , T. angustifolia and Arundo donax are tall wetland graminoids with the potential to replace fossil fuels under sustainable cultivation conditions. We investigated the biomethane (CH 4 ) production of these four species, including four different genotypes of P. australis , which represent the high intraspecific diversity of European reed. All plants were grown under three different macronutrient supplies (no nutrients added, an equivalent of 75 kg N ha −1 year −1 added and an equivalent of 500 kg N ha −1 year −1 added). Biomethane production was measured in four independent batch digestion tests. Across all experiments, fertilization regime had little effect on CH 4 yield, which was on average 222 ± 31 L kg −1 volatile solids (VS). The lowest yield was produced by T. angustifolia (140 L kg VS −1 ) receiving no nutrients, while the highest yield was produced by A. donax (305 L kg VS −1 ) in the highest nutrient treatment. The intraspecific diversity of P. australis did not affect biomethane production. All P. australis genotypes produced on average 226 ± 19 L CH 4 kg VS −1 , which, although high, was still lower than conventional biogas species. The biomass production of P. australis was less increased by fertilization than that of Typha sp. and A. donax , but all species had similar biomass without fertilization.

Suggested Citation

  • Franziska Eller & Per Magnus Ehde & Claudia Oehmke & Linjing Ren & Hans Brix & Brian K. Sorrell & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2020. "Biomethane Yield from Different European Phragmites australis Genotypes, Compared with Other Herbaceous Wetland Species Grown at Different Fertilization Regimes," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:57-:d:356859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/5/57/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/5/57/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dong Liu & Xu Wu & Jie Chang & Baojing Gu & Yong Min & Ying Ge & Yan Shi & Hui Xue & Changhui Peng & Jianguo Wu, 2012. "Constructed wetlands as biofuel production systems," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 190-194, March.
    2. Nkemka, V.N. & Murto, M., 2013. "Two-stage anaerobic dry digestion of blue mussel and reed," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 359-364.
    3. Kurtis Baute & Laura L. Van Eerd & Darren E. Robinson & Peter H. Sikkema & Maryam Mushtaq & Brandon H. Gilroyed, 2018. "Comparing the Biomass Yield and Biogas Potential of Phragmites australis with Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum Grown in Canada," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Franziska Eller & Xiao Guo & Siyuan Ye & Thomas J. Mozdzer & Hans Brix, 2020. "Suitability of Wild Phragmites australis as Bio-Resource: Tissue Quality and Morphology of Populations from Three Continents," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Robert Czubaszek & Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek & Wendelin Wichtmann & Grzegorz Zając & Piotr Banaszuk, 2023. "Common Reed and Maize Silage Co-Digestion as a Pathway towards Sustainable Biogas Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Czubaszek & Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek & Wendelin Wichtmann & Grzegorz Zając & Piotr Banaszuk, 2023. "Common Reed and Maize Silage Co-Digestion as a Pathway towards Sustainable Biogas Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Alberto Benato & Alarico Macor, 2019. "Italian Biogas Plants: Trend, Subsidies, Cost, Biogas Composition and Engine Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-31, March.
    3. Snyder, Brian F., 2019. "The Inclusion of Ecosystem Service Valuations in Bioenergy Cost Analysis: A Case Study of Constructed Wetlands in the Neotropics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 196-201.
    4. Ammenberg, Jonas & Feiz, Roozbeh, 2017. "Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part II—Results for strategic decision making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 388-404.
    5. Yanran Fu & Tao Luo & Zili Mei & Jiang Li & Kun Qiu & Yihong Ge, 2018. "Dry Anaerobic Digestion Technologies for Agricultural Straw and Acceptability in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Li, Wangliang & Gupta, Rohit & Zhang, Zhikai & Cao, Lixia & Li, Yanqing & Show, Pau Loke & Gupta, Vijai Kumar & Kumar, Sunil & Lin, Kun-Yi Andrew & Varjani, Sunita & Connelly, Stephanie & You, Siming, 2023. "A review of high-solid anaerobic digestion (HSAD): From transport phenomena to process design," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Shi, Yan & Ge, Ying & Chang, Jie & Shao, Hongbo & Tang, Yuli, 2013. "Garden waste biomass for renewable and sustainable energy production in China: Potential, challenges and development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 432-437.
    8. Moritz von Cossel & Anja Mangold & Yasir Iqbal & Iris Lewandowski, 2019. "Methane Yield Potential of Miscanthus ( Miscanthus × giganteus (Greef et Deuter)) Established under Maize ( Zea mays L.)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Aamir Mehmood Shah & Gengyuan Liu & Fanxin Meng & Qing Yang & Jingyan Xue & Stefano Dumontet & Renato Passaro & Marco Casazza, 2021. "A Review of Urban Green and Blue Infrastructure from the Perspective of Food-Energy-Water Nexus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, July.
    10. Avellán, Tamara & Gremillion, Paul, 2019. "Constructed wetlands for resource recovery in developing countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 42-57.
    11. Spyridon Achinas & Johan Horjus & Vasileios Achinas & Gerrit Jan Willem Euverink, 2019. "A PESTLE Analysis of Biofuels Energy Industry in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, October.
    12. Kothari, Richa & Pandey, A.K. & Kumar, S. & Tyagi, V.V. & Tyagi, S.K., 2014. "Different aspects of dry anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: An overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 174-195.
    13. Vasileios Takavakoglou & Eleanna Pana & Dimitris Skalkos, 2022. "Constructed Wetlands as Nature-Based Solutions in the Post-COVID Agri-Food Supply Chain: Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:57-:d:356859. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.