Influence of different methods of forage and energetic crops cultivation on the parameters of gray forest soil solid phase
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32636/01308521.2020-(68)-2-6Keywords:
gray forest soils, solid phase, soil texture, particle size distribution, microaggregates, dispersion factor, structure index, granulometric index of soil structure, soil-hydrologic constantsAbstract
A significant body of scientific literature exists on forage and energetic crops cultivation, but there seems to be a need to improve their practical applicability and usefulness in field experiments on gray forest soils of Ukrainian Forest-steppe.
We investigated the influence of different methods of forage and energetic crops cultivation on the main parameters of gray forest soils solid phase. Selection of forage and energetic crops consisted of Miscanthus x giganteus, Silphium perfoliatum L., Panicum virgatum L., Phleum pratense L., Medicago Sativa L., Trifolium pratense L. and Bromus inermis L. Science research was conducted using conventional methods. Author method submitted only in area of soil crack formation. In particular, shrinking of soil material was conducted on fine earth soil material (fraction <1 mm). The soil material was placed on a glass plate and moistured with distilled water. Then the soil material was dried at room temperature (~22 °C).
We found that soil texture is a conservative indicator that does not depend on the type of cultivated crop and aspect of a slope, but is determined by the genetic nature and peculiarities of the soil. Aggregation of the soil mass occurs in all size ranges evenly, which indicates the absence of active provocation of the soil mass disperse depending on the cultivated crop.
It has been established that high-stemmed energetic plants increase the disaggregation of the soil mass, and the root systems of herbaceous plants contribute to structuring, as evidenced by both structure index and texture index of soil aggregation. The analysis of the obtained results confirmed the genetic nature of the soil and its special status of fine materials distribution. It has been found that the type of vegetation does not influence the main soil-hydrologic indicators.
The special role of legumes and various grass mixtures in the formation of changes in the composition of the typical characteristics of the solid phase of gray forest soil has been shown. Conclusions have been made on the basis of application of correlation and cluster analyses.
It is our opinion that the final resolution of researched question requires further thought and examination.
References
1. ДСТУ ISO 10381-1:2004. Відбирання проб. Частина 1: Настанови щодо складання програм відбору проб (ISO 10381-1:2002, IDT). [Чинний від 2004-11-30]. Вид. офіц. Київ : Держспоживстандарт України, 2006. С. 68.
2. ДСТУ ISO 11464:2007. Попереднє обробляння зразків для фізико-хімічного аналізу (ISO 11464:2006, IDT). [Чинний від 2007-12-24]. Вид. офіц. Київ : Держспоживстандарт України, 2009. С. 52.
3. Шеин Е. В., Карпачевский Л. О. Теория и методы физики почв. Киев : Гриф и К, 2007. 620 с.
4. Biomass production in switchgrass across the United States: database description and determinants of yield / S. D. Wullschleger et al. Agronomy Journal. 2010. Vol. 102. P. 1158–1168.
5. Biomass yield of switchgrass cultivars under high-versus low-input conditions / M. D. Casler et al. Crop Sci. 2017. Vol. 57. P. 821–832.
6. Conversion of cropland to forage land and grassland increases soil labile carbon and enzyme activities in northeastern China / P. Yu et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2017. Vol. 245. P. 83‒91.
7. Distribution of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) aboveground biomass in response to nitrogen addition and across harvest dates / J. R. Miesel et al. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2017. Vol. 100. P. 74‒83.
8. Drought effects on the early development stages of Panicum virgatum L.: cultivar differences / D. Aimar et al. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2014. Vol. 66. P. 49‒59.
9. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency of energy use in crop production of Miscanthus / L. Ercoli et al. Field Crop Res. 1999. Vol. 63. P. 3–11.
10. Effects of soil water content and nitrogen supply on the productivity of Miscanthus× giganteus Greef et Deu. In a Mediterranean environment / S. L. Cosentino et al. Ind. Crops Prod. 2007. Vol. 25. P. 75–88.
11. Elgersma A., Søegaard K. Effects of species diversity on seasonal variation in herbage yield and nutritive value of seven binary grass-legume mixtures and pure grass under cutting. European Journal of Agronomy. 2016. Vol. 78. P. 73‒83.
12. Empirical geographic modeling of switchgrass yields in the United States / H. I. Jager et al. GCB Bioenergy. 2010. Vol. 2. P. 248–257.
13. Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture / K. E. Saxton et al. Soil Science Society America Journal. 1986. Vol. 50 (4). P. 1031‒1036.
14. Forage yield, soil water depletion, shoot nitrogen and phosphorus uptake and concentration, of young and old stands of alfalfa in response to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisation in a semiarid environment / J. W. Fan et al. Field Crops Research. 2016. Vol. 198. P. 247‒257.
15. Gansberger M., Montgomery L. F. R., Liebhard P. Botanical characteristics, crop management and potential of Silphium perfoliatum L. as a renewable resource for biogas production: A review. Industrial Crops and Products. 2015. Vol. 63. P. 362‒372.
16. Gee G. W., Bauder J. W. Particle-size analysis / Klute A. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd edition. Agronomy Monograph. Vol. 9. Madison, Wisconsin : ASA-SSSA, 1986. P. 427‒445.
17. Genesis and evolution of the fragipan in Albeluvisols in the Precarpathians in Ukraine / V. Nikorych et al. Catena. 2014. Vol. 119. P. 154‒165.
18. Georgescu M., Lobell D. B., Field C. B. Direct climate effects of perennial bioenergy crops in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011. Vol. 108. P. 4307–4312.
19. Heaton E. A., Dohleman F. G., Long S. P. Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Glob Chang Biol. 2008. Vol. 14. P. 2000–2014.
20. Heaton E., Voigt T., Long S. P. A quantitative review comparing the yields of two candidate C4 perennial biomass crops in relation to nitrogen, temperature and water. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004. Vol. 27. P. 21–30.
21. IEA. Technology roadmap: biofuels for transport. Paris, France : OECD Publishing, 2011. P. 56. URL: https://fiva.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Technology-Biofuels-for-Transport.pdf (last accessed: 21.10.2020).
22. Influence of degree of fragmentation on chosen quality parameters of briquette made from biomass of cup plant Silphium perfoliatum L. / M. Wrobel et al. ; Latvia University of Agriculture (Ed.). Engineering for Rural Development. Presented at the 12th International Scientific Conference. Jelgava : Latvia University of Agriculture, 2013. P. 653–657.
23. Influences of nitrogen fertilization and climate regime on the above-ground biomass yields of miscanthus and switchgrass: A meta-analysis / H. Chen et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2019. Vol. 108. P. 303‒311.
24. IPCC. Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Summary for policy-makers. 2011. P. 26. URL: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Summary-for-Policymakers-1.pdf (last accessed: 21.10.2020).
25. Is UK biofuel supply from Miscanthus water‐limited? / G. Richter et al. Soil Use Manag. 2008. Vol. 24. P. 235–245.
26. Knopf B., Nahmmacher P., Schmid E. The European renewable energy target for 2030 – An impact assessment of the electricity sector. Energy Policy. 2015. Vol. 85. P. 50–60.
27. Majtkowski W., Piłat J., Szulc P. M. Prospects of cultivation and utilization of Silphium perfoliatum L. in Poland. Biul. IHAR. 2009. Vol. 251. P. 283–291.
28. Miscanthus for biogas production: influence of harvest date and ensiling on digestibility and methane hectare yield / A. Mangold et al. GCB Bioenergy. 2019. Vol. 11. P. 50–62.
29. Miscanthus×giganteus productivity: the effects of management in different environments / M. Maughan et al. GCB Bioenergy. 2012. Vol. 4. P. 253–265.
30. Multi-parameter assessment of soil quality under Miscanthus x giganteus crop at marginal sites in Île-de-France / C. Brami et al. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2020. Vol. 142. P. 105793.
31. N2O emission from energy crop fields of Miscanthus “Giganteus” and winter rye / R. N. Jørgensen et al. Atmos Environ. 1997. Vol. 31. P. 2899–2904.
32. Nikorych V., Szymański W., Skiba M. Redoximorphic Features in Albeluvisols from South-Western Ukraine. Soil Science Working for a Living. Springer, Cham, 2017. P. 9‒28.
33. Nitrogen fertilization effects on biomass production and yield components of Miscanthus× giganteus / M.-S. Lee et al. Front Plant Sci. 2017. Vol. 8. P. 544.
34. Nutrient requirements of Miscanthus x giganteus: conclusions from a review of published studies / S. Cadoux et al. Biomass Bioenergy. 2012. Vol. 38. P. 14–22.
35. Overseeding legumes in natural grasslands: Impacts on root biomass and soil organic matter of commercial farms / V. Bondaruk et al. Science of The Total Environment. 2020. Vol. 743. P. 140771.
36. Palmer R. C., Smith R. P. Soil structural degradation in SW England and its impact on surface-water runoff generation. Soil Use Manage. 2013. Vol. 29. P. 567–575.
37. Pichard G. Management, production, and nutritional characteristics of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum) in temperate climates of southern Chile. Cien. Inv. Agr. 2012. Vol. 39. P. 61–77.
38. Polley H. W., Collins H. P., Fay P. A. Biomass production and temporal stability are similar in switchgrass monoculture and diverse grassland. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2020. Vol. 142. P. 105758.
39. Potential of four forage grasses in remediation of Cd and Zn contaminated soils / X. Zhang et al. Bioresour. Technol. 2010. Vol. 101. P. 2063–2066.
40. Response of switchgrass yield and quality to harvest season and nitrogen fertilizer / A. Sadeghpour et al. Agron. J. 2014. Vol. 106. P. 290–296.
41. Siaudinis G., Slepetien A., Karcauskien D. The evaluation of dry mass yield of new energy crops and their energetic parameters / Rivza ˇ P., Rivza ˇ S. (Eds.). Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Presented at the International Scientific Conference. Jelgava : Latvia University of Agriculture, 2012. P. 24–28.
42. Soil texture and crop management affect switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) productivity in the Mediterranean / N. N. O Di Nasso et al. Industrial Crops and Products. 2015. Vol. 65. P. 21‒26.
43. Springer T. L. Effect of nitrogen fertilization and residual nitrogen on biomass yield of switchgrass. Bioenergy Res. 2017. Vol. 10. P. 648–656.
44. Switchgrass yield response functions and profit-maximizing nitrogen rates on four landscapes in Tennessee / C. N. Boyer et al. Agron J. 2012. Vol. 104 (6). P. 1579–1588.
45. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe / I. Lewandowski et al. Biomass Bioenergy. 2003. Vol. 25. P. 335–361.
46. Towards high-biomass yielding bioenergy crop Silphium perfoliatum L.: phenotypic and genotypic evaluation of five cultivated populations / C. Wever et al. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2019. Vol. 124. P. 102‒113.
47. Water use patterns of forage cultivars in the North China Plain / G. Pan et al. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2011. Vol. 5. P. 181–194.
48. Yield and quality development comparison between miscanthus and switchgrass over a period of 10 years / Y. Iqbal et al. Energy. 2015. Vol. 89. P. 268–276.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Д. В. ОСАДЧУК, К. М. БЛАЖЕЙ, В. Д. ОСАДЧУК, В. А. НІКОРИЧ (Автор)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
