Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Critical Control Points of Post-Harvest Diseases in the Material Flow of Nam Dok Mai Mango Exported to Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
Interspecific Variations in the Growth, Water Relations and Photosynthetic Responses of Switchgrass Genotypes to Salinity Targets Salt Exclusion for Maximising Bioenergy Production
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Harvest Time Determines Quality and Usability of Biomass from Lowland Hay Meadows
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Performance of Mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum Grassland under Different Cutting Frequency Regimes for Biomass Production in Southwest Germany

Department of Biobased Products and Energy Crops (340b), Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2019, 9(9), 199; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090199
Submission received: 31 July 2019 / Revised: 7 September 2019 / Accepted: 8 September 2019 / Published: 11 September 2019

Abstract

:
Biogas production is a key renewable energy pathway for a more sustainable future bioeconomy. However, there is a crucial trade-off between biomass productivity and social-ecological sustainability of available biogas cropping systems. Permanent grassland has been frequently promoted as a promising perennial cropping system for biomass production. Three- and four-cut regimes are usually the highest-yielding and thus preferable for biogas production. A three-year field trial in southwest Germany investigated biomass yield and biochemical composition of mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum grassland under three cutting regimes (two-, three- and four-cut). For the three-cut regime, a preliminary biogas batch test was conducted. The three-cut regime had the highest annual accumulated dry matter yield (11.8–14.8 Mg ha−1), an average specific methane yield of 0.289 m3N kg−1 volatile solids−1 and an accumulated annual methane yield of 3167–3893 m³N ha−1. The four-cut regime performed least favorably due to a lower dry matter yield than the three-cut regime, the highest ash content and the highest nitrogen content. Thus, the three-cut regime promises the best yield performance, whereas the two-cut regime can potentially provide more ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation and wild-game protection. Consequently, the two-cut regime could help improve the social-ecological sustainability of biogas crop cultivation.

1. Introduction

Grassland-based provision of biomass for bioenergy offers the opportunity to reduce the trade-off between climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation [1,2,3,4,5]. In general, permanent grassland (PGL) is used as feed for dairy cattle, beef cattle and other ruminants [6,7,8]. However, the sufficiency of PGL as feed source for animal production is limited [9]. Together with other species-rich perennial systems such as perennial wild plant mixtures [10,11,12,13], PGL—in particular grassland mixtures [14]—are considered promising cropping systems for an environmentally more sustainable biomass supply of biogas substrate [15,16].
Grassland can provide regulating services such as biodiversity conservation, erosion reduction and greenhouse gas mitigation [17]. In extensively managed hay meadows, fertilization (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) leads to reduced species richness due to the promotion of tall-growing grasses [18]. Likewise, a deviation from traditional cutting dates can reduce biodiversity and lead to a loss of important ecosystem services [19]. For example, species-rich Arrhenatherion meadows are protected within the Natura 2000 network because they serve as habitat for many plant and animal species. To preserve the habitat function of these Arrhenatherion meadows, a two-cut regime and an extensive fertilization every two years are recommended [20]. In this case, the time of the first cut can be crucial for the botanical composition [21].
The use of PGL for biogas production has become increasingly attractive to farmers [22,23], whereby various management scenarios are possible. For example, as the number of farms with livestock husbandry decreases [24], biogas provides a suitable option for the use of grasslands no longer needed for feed. Those farms with livestock husbandry frequently use the late summer and autumn growths of low quality that are not required for feeding purposes in biogas plants [25]. The biogas substrate quality of PGL also decreases towards anthesis in summer [22]. Depending on the site conditions, fertilization with digestates can have a considerable environmental advantage compared to mineral fertilizers. However, the use of digestates is less efficient in PGL than annual cropping systems in terms of biomass yield and nitrogen recovery [26,27,28,29,30]. This could impede the use of intensively managed PGL cutting regimes, even though they enable a higher accumulated methane yield per hectare (MYH) than less intensive cutting regimes [22,31,32].
The quality of PGL as biogas substrate, represented here by the substrate-specific methane yield (SMY), greatly depends on the management scenario. Generally, the SMY of PGL ranges from 0.164 to 0.443 m3N kg−1 volatile solids−1 (VS) (on average 0.310 m3N kg−1 VS−1) [33]. This wide variation is mainly caused by the harvest date [34,35,36]. The later the harvest, the higher the amount of non-digestible biochemical components such as lignin and cellulose in the PGL biomass [22,34,37]. Another reason for the high SMY variance is the differing species composition of the PGL [22]. As a harvest delay may increase the fresh matter yield but also reduce the biogas substrate quality [15,38], more information is required on the biogas potentials of PGL under different cutting regimes [22].
This study aims at optimizing the use of PGL for biogas production. For this purpose, yield and quality parameters of three PGL cutting systems were investigated. Both annual means and cut-specific values were determined and discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

A PGL field trial with three cutting regimes was initiated in 2013 at the experimental station ‘Ihinger Hof’ near Renningen (southwest Germany) [39] and conducted over three years (2013–2015). Prior to establishment of the trial, the PGL was a mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum grassland (traditional hay meadow) managed in a non-fertilized two-cut regime. The field trial design was a randomized block design with four replicates (Figure 1). The basic soil characteristics of the site are shown in Table 1, and weather conditions in Figure 2.

2.1. Fertilization and Harvest Management

All cutting regimes received the same initial dosage of mineral nitrogen fertilizer (60 kg ha−1) in spring each year (Table 2) and then 30 kg nitrogen ha−1 immediately after each harvest, except for the last harvest in October (Table 2). In addition, all regimes were uniformly fertilized with phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and sulfur in 2013, 2014 and 2015 as shown in Table 3.
Harvest was conducted multiple times each year according to the number of cuts and best practice for grassland harvest date determination. The variation in harvest date determination over the years was ±10 days (Table 2). Details of harvest dates are given in Table 2. For the determination of the fresh matter yield (FMY) in Mg ha−1, plant samples were harvested by hand from of 1-m2 subplots. The rest of each plot was harvested using a forage harvester (Haldrup, Logstor, Denmark) immediately afterwards. From each plot, a sub-sample of about 500 g fresh matter was weighed, dried at 60 °C till constant weight, and then weighed again to determine the dry matter content (DMC) in percent of fresh matter. The dry matter yield (DMY), in Mg ha−1, was calculated as shown in Equation (1):
D M Y   = F M Y   × D M C .

2.2. Fiber Analysis and Preliminary Biogas Batch Test

The fiber analysis and the preliminary biogas batch test were conducted according to Von Cossel et al. (2017) [39]. Whereas, the preliminary biogas batch test was conducted with milled subsamples of the dry matter samples under mesophilic conditions (39 °C) according to VDI directive 4630 [44]. Here, 200 mg milled (<1 mm) VS from the plant samples of the three-cut regime were mixed with 30 g inoculum (4% DMC, originating from a farm biogas plant) in 100-ml airtight bottles and kept in water baths (Figure 3) at 39 °C for 35 days.
For each sample, there were four replicates in the batch test. Gas was collected on the third, 10th, 22nd and last day of the batchtest (day 35). The gas production was measured via pressure increase using an HND-P pressure meter (Kobold Messring GmbH, Hofheim, Germany). The frequency of these measurements decreased towards the end of the batch test, because the biogas production also decreases. The pressure increase was measured on a daily basis until day 7, every second day until day 17, and then every third day until the end of the batchtest, resulting in a total of 19 measurements. For each of these measurements, the surrounding atmospheric pressure was also documented to standardize the values (norm conditions: 0 °C and 1013 hPa). The accumulated substrate-specific biogas yield (SBY) was related to the biogas production of the control (inoculum without plant material) and the daily atmospheric pressure of the lab in which the batch test was conducted. The methane content (MC) of the collected biogas was determined using a GC-2014 gas chromatograph (Shimadzu, Kyoto). The substrate-specific methane yield (SMY), in m3N kg−1 VS−1, was calculated using Equation (2):
S M Y = S B Y × M C .
The biochemical composition (lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose and ash) of the biomass samples was measured according to Von Cossel et al. (2017) [39].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of the biogas batch test was conducted in accordance with Von Cossel et al. (2017) [39]. The model for analyzing the effects of the cutting regimes on both DMY and fiber contents is given in Equation (3):
γ i j = μ + φ j + τ i + ( τ φ ) i j + e i j ,
where μ denotes the intercept and e i the error of observation with cutting regime specific variance. φ j , τ i and ( τ φ ) i j are the fixed effects for the jth year, the ith cutting regime and their interaction effects. Here, e i j is the error of observation γ i j with cutting regime-specific variance. For the analysis of cut-specific data, Equation (4) was applied:
γ i j k = μ + ω k + φ j + ( φ ω ) j k +   τ i + ( τ φ ) i j +   ( τ ω ) i k + ( τ φ ω ) i j k + e i j k ,
where ω k and ( φ ω ) j k denote the fixed across-year and year-specific effect of the kth cut number. ( τ ω ) i k denote the fixed cutting regime-specific effects of the kth cut number, and ( τ φ ω ) i j k the interactions of the ith year, the jth cutting regime and the kth cut number. Here, e i j k is the error of observation γ i j k with cutting regime and cut-number-specific variance. Random row and column effects are included in the model if they decreased the Akaike information criterion (AIC) [45]. These analyses were run using the PROC MIXED procedure of the SAS® Proprietary Software 9.4 TS level 1M5 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., USA). Both degrees of freedom and standard errors were approximated using the Kenward–Roger method [46].

3. Results

Yield and quality parameter results are presented in two sub-sections:
  • accumulated annual values (yield) and mean values (quality parameters) for each cutting regime and year.
  • values for the individual cuts of each cutting regime and year.

3.1. Accumulated Yield and Mean Quality Parameter Values per Cutting Regime and Year

For the dry matter yield (DMY), the dry matter content (DMC) and the lignin content, a significant interaction was found between cutting regime and year (Table 4). For this reason, the accumulated DMY is shown for each cutting regime and year (Figure 4). Table 5 presents the DMC and lignin content values averaged across cuts for each cutting regime and year. The other quality parameters were also included in Table 5 for clarity reasons.
In 2013, the two- and three-cut regimes yielded highest, and the four-cut regime lowest (significantly lower than the three-cut regime) (Figure 4). Both the two- and three-cut regime showed a tendency for accumulated DMY to decrease from 2013 to 2015. This can be seen by significant differences between the years within the cutting regimes (Figure 4). For the four-cut regime, no clear trend was observed (Figure 4). This is also true of the relation between the DMYs of the individual cuts: In the three-cut regime, the DMY of the second cut is higher than that of the third cut each year, while in the four-cut regime it varies considerably (Figure 4).
For the methane yield performance, a preliminary biogas batch test revealed a similar trend as was shown for the DMY within the three-cut regime (Figure A1). The accumulated MYH decreased over time with significant differences between 2013 and 2015 (Figure A1).

3.2. Cut-Specific Values per Cutting Regime and Year

For all cutting regimes, there was a significant interaction effect of year and cut number on both dry matter yield and dry matter content (Table 6). Furthermore, both year (2013–2015) and cut number (1–3) had significant (non-interactive) effects on the biochemical components ash, lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose and nitrogen (Table 6 and Table 7).
Within the three-cut regime, there was a significant interaction between the year and the cutting regime (Table 6). Across years, the cut-specific MYH ranged from 438.2 m³N·ha−1 (second cut in year 2015) to 2338.4 m³N·ha−1 (first cut in year 2015) (Table 8). Whereas the cut-specific SMY ranged from 0.281 m3 N·kg−1·VS−1 to 0.297 m3N·kg−1·VS−1, and no significant differences were found for the methane content of the biogas produce (Table 6 and Table 8).

4. Discussion

The basic findings of this study are that a medium cutting frequency (three cuts) leads to the highest DMY, with the DMY of the first cut being similar in all cutting regimes. Based on these basic findings, it can be expected that the medium cutting frequency also enables the highest MYH, because the DMY is known to be the major determinant for the MYH [39]. This is in line with the findings of Benke and Elsaesser (2009) [23], who investigated grassland performance under similar soil and weather conditions. However, this has not been reported so far for mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum grassland under the specific environmental conditions of the region around Renningen, Southwest Germany. The trend of decreasing accumulated DMY within cutting regimes over the years (Figure 4) could be explained by the negative climatic balance in the years 2014 and 2015 (Figure 2). Accordingly, the accumulated MYH of the three-cut regime also decreased over time. This also indicates that the DMY is the most important determinant for the MYH.
The SMY of the three-cut regime (Figure A1) is similar to that of other alternative biogas crops such as amaranth [39], miscanthus [47], cup plant [48,49,50,51], and wild plant mixtures [10,11]. However, there are large differences in the biochemical composition of grassland and the other biogas substrates [33,52,53] (Table 4). First, the contents of ash and lignin are lower in grassland biomass than in amaranth [39,54], cup plant [11,48,51], miscanthus [33,47,55,56] and wild plant mixtures [10]. Second, the nitrogen content is higher in grassland than other perennial cropping systems due to the less-advanced maturity of the grassland stands at harvest. For all cutting frequencies, the nitrogen content of the subsequent cuts is higher, because in summer months plant-available nitrogen supplies in the soil increase and growth rates decrease. A comparison of the two- and four-cut regimes shows the extent to which the nitrogen content can be decreased by delaying the second cut (Table 8). In protein-rich substrates, nitrogen can accumulate in the fermenter, leading to the release of ammonia, which inhibits microbial activity [15].
As the fiber fractions (lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose) do not differ significantly between the three- and four-cut regime (Table 5), it is to be expected that the SMY yields will also be similar. This is because, there is a strong correlation between lignocellulosic composition and SMY of grassland biomass [33,57]. However, the ash contents are significantly higher in the four-cut regime than in the three-cut regime. As the ash content negatively affects the SMY [33], the SMY of the four-cut regime is expected to be lower than the three-cut regime. The higher ash content in the four-cut regime can be explained by the decreasing maturation of grassland when cut in spring, summer or autumn. In the literature, a dry matter content not lower than 28% is recommended to allow for successful ensiling of the biogas substrate [39,58,59], making pre-wilting before ensiling standard procedure for grassland biomass. The estimated methane yields of the four-cut regime was similar or even lower to that of the three-cut regime, that of the two-cut regime was significantly lower due to significantly lower DMY (Figure 4).
As the PGL was managed without fertilization in a two-cut regime for a long period prior to the field trial, the results should be interpreted carefully. The previous management may have influenced the PGL species community and thus its ability to adapt to higher cutting frequencies. PGL is known to develop species compositions best adapted to both cutting regime and site-specific conditions [14]. The effects of the cutting frequency on the species community were not assessed in this study. However, it can be assumed that there was no site-specific limitation to the development of high-yielding PGL species communities, because (i) the soil characteristics (Table 1) meet the requirements of intensively managed PGL [15,20], and (ii) the climatic conditions were also very suitable for PGL (Figure 2) [15,32]. The average annual precipitation of 739 mm is sufficient for two-cut grasslands with corresponding species composition [15,32]. With more frequent cutting, an at least temporary limitation to growth is to be expected through water shortage, as the stands require a more uniform water supply [32]. This is due to the fact that the rooting depth of grassland species decreases with increasing cutting frequency, and consequently water demand increases [60]. Additionally, a well-adapted four-cut regime may require more time to develop than that of the study period. Therefore, it remains unclear whether a three-cut regime would still outperform the four-cut regime in the long term. This is especially relevant because an increased frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts and heavy rain is projected for European grassland areas [61,62,63,64,65] and therefore their management needs to become less intensive with regard to cutting frequencies.
The mean nitrogen removal with the biomass was approximately 136 (two-cut regime), 247 (three-cut regime) and 306 kg ha−1 year−1 (four-cut regime) and thus 46, 127 and 156 kg ha−1 year−1 higher than the fertilization. This is a well-known phenomenon in grassland systems due to nitrogen fixation by leguminous species and nitrogen being supplied by other sources such as the soil. An increased cutting frequency results in a higher nitrogen level of the entire system and an increased risk of unwanted losses, in particular through the recycling of nitrogen to grassland by digestate application. Therefore, from an ecological viewpoint, a low cutting frequency is to be recommended.
Since the quality requirements for biogas substrates are lower than for animal feed, a higher cutting frequency is more suitable for biogas production than for animal feed [15]. However, the use of grassland of lower quality (e.g., higher contents of cellulose and lignin) in biogas plants increase the dwell time of the substrate in the fermenter [15]. A study by Guetzloe et al. (2014) [32] found the highest GHG substitution potential of biogas from grassland to be achievable with lower cutting frequencies. The results indicate that a three-cut regime could have the highest potential biogas yield and at the same time more favorable ecological functions than a four-cut regime. With a two-cut regime, lower SMY and technical problems in the biogas plant can be expected due to higher fiber contents. On the other hand, the two-cut regime may be more desirable than the three-cut regime in social-ecological terms such as biodiversity conservation and wild game protection [21]. The first cut of the two-cut regime can be late enough to accommodate the whole of the open land animals’ breeding season, thus helping to reduce wild game losses during harvest [66]. Moreover, grassland diversity is expected to increase with decreasing cutting frequency [21]. This is because more grassland species (grasses, forbs and legumes) are able to reproduce and remain part of the grassland vegetation for longer [67].
Grasslands with high plant diversity also enable higher biomass productivity in the long term than less diverse grasslands [68]. However, the importance of higher species diversity for the resilience [69] of the grassland system is currently the subject of controversy [8,70], especially in view of the expected severe effects of climate change on agriculture [62,63,71,72].

5. Conclusions

This study compared the biomass yield performance of mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum grassland under three different cutting regimes (two-, three-, four-cut) in Renningen, Southwest Germany. In addition, the biochemical composition (lignocellulosic composition, ash and nitrogen content) was determined for all cutting regimes. The substrate-specific methane yield and the methane yield per hectare were determined for the three-cut regime only. Both the two- and three-cut regimes were found to be potentially suitable for biogas production depending on the site conditions. While the three-cut regime promises the highest long-term accumulated dry matter yields, the two-cut regime provides more ecosystem services in terms of biodiversity conservation and wild game protection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., I.L. and M.v.C.; Data curation, M.v.C.; Formal analysis, M.v.C.; Funding acquisition, I.L., A.B.; Investigation, M.v.C.; Methodology, A.B., M.v.C.; Project administration, M.v.C., A.B. and I.L.; Resources, M.v.C.; Supervision, I.L.; Validation, M.v.C., A.B., M.B., M.E. and U.T.; Visualization, M.v.C.; Writing—original draft, M.v.C., U.T., M.E., A.B., M.B. and I.L.; Writing—review and editing, M.v.C.

Funding

This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), project number 03EK3525A. The APC was funded by the University of Hohenheim.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the staff of the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Hohenheim for providing technical support for the field trials, and to Herbert Grözinger, Martin Zahner, Dagmar Mezger, Astrid Stadtaus, Andreas Kiesel, Kathrin Steberl and Walter Schneider for their assistance with field, laboratory and preparatory work. Special thanks go to Nicole Gaudet for improving the language quality of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Results from the preliminary biogas batch tests: accumulated annual methane yields (MYH) of the three-cut (3CT) regime of permanent grassland. For the two- (2CT) and four-cut (4CT) regimes, no biogas batch tests were conducted. The average MYH of the first, second and third cut are indicated by different colors (Standard errors and significant differences are provided in Table 8). The error bars show standard errors for accumulated MYH per year; identical letters denote non-significant (p < 0.05) differences between years.
Figure A1. Results from the preliminary biogas batch tests: accumulated annual methane yields (MYH) of the three-cut (3CT) regime of permanent grassland. For the two- (2CT) and four-cut (4CT) regimes, no biogas batch tests were conducted. The average MYH of the first, second and third cut are indicated by different colors (Standard errors and significant differences are provided in Table 8). The error bars show standard errors for accumulated MYH per year; identical letters denote non-significant (p < 0.05) differences between years.
Agriculture 09 00199 g0a1

References

  1. Tilman, D.; Reich, P.B.; Knops, J.M. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 2006, 441, 629–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tilman, D.; Hill, J.; Lehman, C. Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass. Science 2006, 314, 1598–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Gibon, A. Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2005, 96, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fernando, A.L.; Boléo, S.; Barbosa, B.; Costa, J.; Duarte, M.P.; Monti, A. Perennial grass production opportunities on marginal Mediterranean land. BioEnergy Res. 2015, 8, 1523–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fernando, A.L.; Barbosa, B.; Costa, J.; Alexopoulou, E. Perennial Grass Production Opportunities and Constraints on Marginal Soils; ETA-Florence Renewable Energies: Florence, Italy, 2016; Volume 2016, pp. 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Herrero, M.; Havlík, P.; Valin, H.; Notenbaert, A.; Rufino, M.C.; Thornton, P.K.; Blümmel, M.; Weiss, F.; Grace, D.; Obersteiner, M. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 20888–20893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Styles, D.; Gonzalez-Mejia, A.; Moorby, J.; Foskolos, A.; Gibbons, J. Climate mitigation by dairy intensification depends on intensive use of spared grassland. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wang, D.; Wang, L. A new perspective on the concept of grassland management. Kexue Tongbao Chin. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Greenhalgh, J.F.D. Factors limiting animal production from grazed pasture. Grass Forage Sci. 1975, 30, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Von Cossel, M.; Lewandowski, I. Perennial wild plant mixtures for biomass production: Impact of species composition dynamics on yield performance over a five-year cultivation period in southwest Germany. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 79, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Von Cossel, M.; Steberl, K.; Hartung, J.; Agra Pereira, L.; Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I. Methane yield and species diversity dynamics of perennial wild plant mixtures established alone, under cover crop maize (Zea mays L.) and after spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). GCB Bioenergy 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schmidt, A.; Lemaigre, S.; Delfosse, P.; von Francken-Welz, H.; Emmerling, C. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of six perennial energy crops cultivated at three different locations in W-Germany. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2018, 8, 873–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carlsson, G.; Mårtensson, L.-M.; Prade, T.; Svensson, S.-E.; Jensen, E.S. Perennial species mixtures for multifunctional production of biomass on marginal land. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Finn, J.A.; Kirwan, L.; Connolly, J.; Sebastia, M.T.; Helgadottir, A.; Baadshaug, O.H.; Bélanger, G.; Black, A.; Brophy, C.; Collins, R.P.; et al. Ecosystem function enhanced by combining four functional types of plant species in intensively managed grassland mixtures: A 3-year continental-scale field experiment. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Messner, J.; Elsaesser, M. Gas aus Gras-Welche Gruenlandaufwuechse eignen sich für die Biogaserzeugung? Landinfo 2012, 4, 28–31. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nitsche, M.; Hensgen, F.; Wachendorf, M. Using Grass Cuttings from Sports Fields for Anaerobic Digestion and Combustion. Energies 2017, 10, 388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Isselstein, J.; Michaelis, T. Innovative Use of Grassland for Resource Protection. The DAFA Research Strategy; Technical Report for the Grassland Expert Forum; Deutsche Agrarforschungsallianz (DAFA) c/o Thünen-Institut: Braunschweig, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Schellberg, J.; Moseler, B.M.; Kuhbauch, W.; Rademacher, I.F. Long-term effects of fertilizer on soil nutrient concentration, yield, forage quality and floristic composition of a hay meadow in the Eifel mountains, Germany. Grass Forage Sci. 1999, 54, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smith, R.S.; Buckingham, H.; Bullard, M.J.; Shiel, R.S.; Younger, A. The conservation management of mesotrophic (meadow) grassland in northern England. 1. Effects of grazing, cutting date and fertilizer on the vegetation of a traditionally managed sward. Grass Forage Sci. 1996, 51, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tonn, B.; Elsaesser, M. Wie bewirtschafte ich eine FFH-Wiese; Infoblatt Natura 2000; Ministerium für Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz: Stuttgart, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  21. Boob, M.; Truckses, B.; Seither, M.; Elsäßer, M.; Thumm, U.; Lewandowski, I. Management effects on botanical composition of species-rich meadows within the Natura 2000 network. Biodivers. Conserv. 2019, 28, 729–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Prochnow, A.; Heiermann, M.; Plöchl, M.; Linke, B.; Idler, C.; Amon, T.; Hobbs, P.J. Bioenergy from permanent grassland—A review: 1. Biogas. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4931–4944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Benke, M.; Elsaesser, M. Evolution des systèmes fourragers en Allemagne: Compétition ou complémentarité entre le lait et le biogaz? Fourrages 2009, 197, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  24. Destatis Landwirtschaftliche Betriebe. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Landwirtschaftliche-Betriebe/Tabellen/ausgewaehlte-merkmale-zv.html (accessed on 31 July 2019).
  25. Elsaesser, M.; Keymer, U.; Roßberg, R. Biogas aus Gras-Wie Grünlandaufwüchse zur Energieerzeugung beitragen können; DLG-Merkblätter; DLG e.V.: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sieling, K.; Herrmann, A.; Wienforth, B.; Taube, F.; Ohl, S.; Hartung, E.; Kage, H. Biogas cropping systems: Short term response of yield performance and N use efficiency to biogas residue application. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 47, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Melts, I.; Lanno, K.; Sammul, M.; Uchida, K.; Heinsoo, K.; Kull, T.; Laanisto, L. Fertilising semi-natural grasslands may cause long-term negative effects on both biodiversity and ecosystem stability. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 1951–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walsh, J.J.; Jones, D.L.; Chadwick, D.R.; Williams, A.P. Repeated application of anaerobic digestate, undigested cattle slurry and inorganic fertilizer N: Impacts on pasture yield and quality. Grass Forage Sci. 2018, 73, 758–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ehmann, A.; Thumm, U.; Lewandowski, I. Fertilizing Potential of Separated Biogas Digestates in Annual and Perennial Biomass Production Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Virkajärvi, P.; Hyrkäs, M.; Kykkänen, S.; Pyykkönen, V.; Laakso, J.; Kekkonen, P.; Ervasti, S.; Luostarinen, S. Effect of digestate application, N fertilisation and forage species on biomass and biogas production. In Proceedings of the 27th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Cork, Ireland, 17–21 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. Elsaesser, M. Two cuts-and afterwards?—Effects of adapted management on permanent grassland. In Proceedings of the 14th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation; Belgian Society for Grassland and Forage Crops: Ghent, Belgium, 2007; Volume 12, pp. 580–583. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gützloe, A.; Thumm, U.; Lewandowski, I. Influence of climate parameters and management of permanent grassland on biogas yield and GHG emission substitution potential. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 64, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Von Cossel, M.; Möhring, J.; Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I. Optimization of specific methane yield prediction models for biogas crops based on lignocellulosic components using non-linear and crop-specific configurations. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 120, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Herrmann, C.; Prochnow, A.; Heiermann, M.; Idler, C. Biomass from landscape management of grassland used for biogas production: Effects of harvest date and silage additives on feedstock quality and methane yield. Grass Forage Sci. 2014, 69, 549–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Amon, T.; Amon, B.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Machmüller, A.; Hopfner-Sixt, K.; Bodiroza, V.; Hrbek, R.; Friedel, J.; Pötsch, E.; Wagentristl, H.; et al. Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various energy crops grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3204–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chiumenti, A.; Boscaro, D.; Da Borso, F.; Sartori, L.; Pezzuolo, A. Biogas from fresh spring and summer grass: Effect of the harvesting period. Energies 2018, 11, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rodriguez, C.; Alaswad, A.; Benyounis, K.Y.; Olabi, A.G. Pretreatment techniques used in biogas production from grass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 1193–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Seppälä, M.; Paavola, T.; Lehtomäki, A.; Rintala, J. Biogas production from boreal herbaceous grasses–Specific methane yield and methane yield per hectare. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 2952–2958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Von Cossel, M.; Möhring, J.; Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I. Methane yield performance of amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus L.) and its suitability for legume intercropping in comparison to maize (Zea mays L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 103, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kerschberger, M.; Deller, B.; Hege, U.; Heyn, J.; Kape, H.E.; Krause, O.; Pollehn, J.; Rex, M.J.; Severin, K. Bestimmung des Kalkbedarfs von Acker-und Grünlandböden. In Standpunkte des VDLUFA; Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs-und Forschungsanstalten: Speyer, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wiesler, F.; Appel, T.; Dittert, K.; Ebertseder, T.; Müller, T.; Nätscher, L.; Olfs, H.W.; Rex, M.; Schweitzer, K.; Steffens, D.; et al. Phosphordüngung nach Bodenuntersuchung und Pflanzenbedarf; Standpunkte des VDLUFA; Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs und Forschungsanstalten e.V.: Speyer, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. Baumgärtel, G.; Früchtenicht, K.; Hege, U.; Heyn, J.; Orlovius, K. Kalium-Düngung nach Bodenuntersuchung und Pflanzenbedarf Richtwerte für die Gehaltsklasse C. In Standpunkte des VDLUFA; Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs-und Forschungsanstalten: Speyer, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nordrhein-Westfalen, L. Düngung mit Phosphat, Kali, Magnesium. Ratgeber 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. VDI. VDI 4630: Fermentation of Organic Materials—Characterization of the Substrate, Sampling, Collection of Material Data, Fermentation Tests; Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V.—Gesellschaft Energie und Umwelt: Dusseldorf, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wolfinger, R. Covariance structure selection in general mixed models. Commun. Stat.-Simul. Comput. 1993, 22, 1079–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kenward, M.G.; Roger, J.H. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997, 53, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I. Miscanthus as biogas substrate—Cutting tolerance and potential for anaerobic digestion. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mast, B.; Lemmer, A.; Oechsner, H.; Reinhardt-Hanisch, A.; Claupein, W.; Graeff-Hönninger, S. Methane yield potential of novel perennial biogas crops influenced by harvest date. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 58, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stolzenburg, K.; Bruns, H.; Monkos, A.; Ott, J.; Schickler, J. Produktion von Kosubstraten für die Biogasanlage-Ergebnisse der Versuche mit Durchwachsener Silphie (Silphium perfoliatum L.) in Baden-Württemberg. Informationen für die Pflanzenproduktion; Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2016; Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEi-O6_d7hAhVFaFAKHdNiDzIQFjAAegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.landwirtschaft-bw.info%2Fpb%2Fsite%2Fpbs-bw-new%2Fget%2Fdocuments%2FMLR.LEL%2FPB5Documents%2Fltz_ka%2FService%2FSchriftenreihen%2FInformationen%2520f%25C3%25BCr%2520die%2520Pflanzenproduktion%2FIfPP_2016-04_Silphie%2FIFPP%252004-2016%2520Durchwachsene%2520Silphie.pdf%3Fattachment%3Dtrue&usg=AOvVaw1vx30z5MhNcKkiu3d4Tptk (accessed on 31 July 2019).
  50. Haag, N.L.; Nägele, H.-J.; Reiss, K.; Biertümpfel, A.; Oechsner, H. Methane formation potential of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum). Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 75, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 63, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Herrmann, C.; Plogsties, V.; Willms, M.; Hengelhaupt, F.; Eberl, V.; Eckner, J.; Strauß, C.; Idler, C.; Heiermann, M. Methane production potential of various crop species grown in energy crop rotations. Landtechnik 2016, 71, 194–209. [Google Scholar]
  53. Herrmann, C.; Idler, C.; Heiermann, M. Biogas crops grown in energy crop rotations: Linking chemical composition and methane production characteristics. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 206, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Eberl, V.; Fahlbusch, W.; Fritz, M.; Sauer, B. Screening und Selektion von Amarantsorten und -linien als spurenelementreiches Biogassubstrat. In Berichte aus dem TFZ; Technologie- und Förderzentrum im Kompetenzzentrum für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe: Straubing, Germany, 2014; p. 120. Available online: www.tfz.bayern.de/mam/cms08/service/dateien/37_bericht.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2019).
  55. Mangold, A.; Lewandowski, I.; Hartung, J.; Kiesel, A. Miscanthus for biogas production: Influence of harvest date and ensiling on digestibility and methane hectare yield. GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Von Cossel, M.; Mangold, A.; Iqbal, Y.; Hartung, J.; Lewandowski, I.; Kiesel, A. How to Generate Yield in the First Year—A Three-Year Experiment on Miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus (Greef et Deuter)) Establishment under Maize (Zea mays L.). Agronomy 2019, 9, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dandikas, V.; Heuwinkel, H.; Lichti, F.; Drewes, J.E.; Koch, K. Correlation between Biogas Yield and Chemical Composition of Grassland Plant Species. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 7221–7229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vetter, A.; Barthelmes, G.; Benke, M.; Deumlich, D.; Deiglmayr, K.; Ebel, G.; Fritz, M.; Glemnitz, M.; Grunewald, J.; Gurgel, A.; et al. Standortangepasste Anbausysteme für Energiepflanzen, 3rd ed.; Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR): Gultsov, Germany, 2010; ISBN 978-3-942147-02-6. [Google Scholar]
  59. Herrmann, A.; Rath, J. Biogas production from maize: Current state, challenges, and prospects. 1. Methane yield potential. BioEnergy Res. 2012, 5, 1027–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Küchenmeister, F.; Küchenmeister, K.; Kayser, M.; Wrage-MAlnnig, N.; Isselstein, J. Effects of drought stress and sward botanical composition on the nutritive value of grassland herbage. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2014, 16, 1560–8530. [Google Scholar]
  61. Buttler, A.; Mariotte, P.; Meisser, M.; Guillaume, T.; Signarbieux, C.; Vitra, A.; Preux, S.; Mercier, G.; Quezada, J.; Bragazza, L.; et al. Drought-induced decline of productivity in the dominant grassland species Lolium perenne L. depends on soil type and prevailing climatic conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 132, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pachauri, R.K.; Allen, M.R.; Barros, V.R.; Broome, J.; Cramer, W.; Christ, R.; Church, J.A.; Clarke, L.; Dahe, Q.; Dasgupta, P. Climate Chang. 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  63. Von Cossel, M.; Wagner, M.; Lask, J.; Magenau, E.; Bauerle, A.; Von Cossel, V.; Warrach-Sagi, K.; Elbersen, B.; Staritsky, I.; Van Eupen, M.; et al. Prospects of Bioenergy Cropping Systems for a more Social-Ecologically Sound Bioeconomy. Agronomy. under review.
  64. Samaniego, L.; Thober, S.; Kumar, R.; Wanders, N.; Rakovec, O.; Pan, M.; Zink, M.; Sheffield, J.; Wood, E.F.; Marx, A. Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Teuling, A.J. A hot future for European droughts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 364–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kuhn, W.; Zeller, J.; Bretschneider-Herrmann, N.; Drenckhahn, K. Energy from Wild Plants-Practical Tips for the Cultivation of Wild Plants to Create Biomass for Biogas Generation Plants; Netzwerk Lebensraum Feldflur: Berlin, Germany, 2014; Volume 1, ISBN 978-3-936802-16-0. Available online: www.cic-wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/English_Praxisratgeber2014.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2019).
  67. Čop, J.; Vidrih, M.; Hacin, J. Influence of cutting regime and fertilizer application on the botanical composition, yield and nutritive value of herbage of wet grasslands in Central Europe. Grass Forage Sci. 2009, 64, 454–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hector, A.; Schmid, B.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Caldeira, M.C.; Diemer, M.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.; Finn, J.A.; Freitas, H.; Giller, P.S.; Good, J.; et al. Plant Diversity and Productivity Experiments in European Grasslands. Science 1999, 286, 1123–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35, 557–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Siebert, J.; Thakur, M.P.; Reitz, T.; Schädler, M.; Schulz, E.; Yin, R.; Weigelt, A.; Eisenhauer, N. Extensive grassland-use sustains high levels of soil biological activity, but does not alleviate detrimental climate change effects. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2019, 60, 25–58. [Google Scholar]
  71. Von Cossel, M.; Lewandowski, I.; Elbersen, B.; Staritsky, I.; Van Eupen, M.; Iqbal, Y.; Mantel, S.; Scordia, D.; Testa, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; et al. Marginal agricultural land low-input systems for biomass production. Energies 2019, 12, 3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Van Oijen, M.; Bellocchi, G.; Höglind, M. Effects of Climate Change on Grassland Biodiversity and Productivity: The Need for a Diversity of Models. Agronomy 2018, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Size and arrangement of field trial with three grassland cutting regimes. The treatment numbers (2–4) denote two-cut (2), three-cut (3) and four-cut (4) regime.
Figure 1. Size and arrangement of field trial with three grassland cutting regimes. The treatment numbers (2–4) denote two-cut (2), three-cut (3) and four-cut (4) regime.
Agriculture 09 00199 g001
Figure 2. Overview of climatic conditions at field trial near Renningen (southwest Germany) for years 2012 to 2015: (a) monthly average temperature and global radiation; (b) monthly precipitation and the climatic balance (precipitation minus evaporation). Data provided by LTZ Augustenberg, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Figure 2. Overview of climatic conditions at field trial near Renningen (southwest Germany) for years 2012 to 2015: (a) monthly average temperature and global radiation; (b) monthly precipitation and the climatic balance (precipitation minus evaporation). Data provided by LTZ Augustenberg, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Agriculture 09 00199 g002
Figure 3. Setup of preliminary biogas batch test approach used in this study. A water bath is shown, containing 192 100-ml bottles (96 samples, each in two replicates) with 200 mg plant material and 30 g inoculum. The bottles are fixed and covered in circulating water at a temperature of 39 °C. The water baths are usually covered by a 3 cm thick styrofoam plate. The picture was taken after a measurement for which the baths need to be uncovered.
Figure 3. Setup of preliminary biogas batch test approach used in this study. A water bath is shown, containing 192 100-ml bottles (96 samples, each in two replicates) with 200 mg plant material and 30 g inoculum. The bottles are fixed and covered in circulating water at a temperature of 39 °C. The water baths are usually covered by a 3 cm thick styrofoam plate. The picture was taken after a measurement for which the baths need to be uncovered.
Agriculture 09 00199 g003
Figure 4. Accumulated annual dry matter yields (DMY) of the three permanent grassland cutting regimes two-cut (2CT), three-cut (3CT) and four-cut (4CT). The average DMY of first, second, third and fourth cut are indicated by different colors. (Standard errors and significant differences are provided in Table 8). The error bars show standard errors for accumulated DMY. Identical upper-case letters denote non-significant (p < 0.05) differences between cutting regimes within years; identical lower-case letters denote non-significant differences between years within treatments.
Figure 4. Accumulated annual dry matter yields (DMY) of the three permanent grassland cutting regimes two-cut (2CT), three-cut (3CT) and four-cut (4CT). The average DMY of first, second, third and fourth cut are indicated by different colors. (Standard errors and significant differences are provided in Table 8). The error bars show standard errors for accumulated DMY. Identical upper-case letters denote non-significant (p < 0.05) differences between cutting regimes within years; identical lower-case letters denote non-significant differences between years within treatments.
Agriculture 09 00199 g004
Table 1. Soil characteristics of field trial.
Table 1. Soil characteristics of field trial.
ParameterUnitValue
Sand%14.9
Silt%60.7
Clay%24.4
Humus%4.7 a
pH-5.8 a
Nmin b in spring 2013kg ha−18.8
Nmin b in spring 2014kg ha−14.6
Phosphorusmg CAL-P (100 g soil)−17.7 c
Potassiummg CAL-K(100 g soil)−114.0 d
Magnesiummg (100 g soil)−111.5 e
a Supply level C (medium) [40]; b Nmin = mineral nitrogen, here from 0–90 cm soil depth; c Supply level D (high) [41]; d Supply level C (medium) [42]; e Supply level E (very high) [43].
Table 2. Harvest dates (1 = first cut; 2 = second cut; 3 = third cut; 4 = fourth cut) and nitrogen fertilizer applications conducted within the three cutting regimes (two-cut, three-cut and four-cut) each year 2013–2015.
Table 2. Harvest dates (1 = first cut; 2 = second cut; 3 = third cut; 4 = fourth cut) and nitrogen fertilizer applications conducted within the three cutting regimes (two-cut, three-cut and four-cut) each year 2013–2015.
Two-cut RegimeThree-cut RegimeFour-cut Regime
DateAnnual Cut NumberNitrogen Fertilization (kg ha−1)Annual Cut NumberNitrogen Fertilization (kg ha−1)Annual Cut NumberNitrogen Fertilization (kg ha−1)
21.03.2013 60 60 60
21.05.2013 130
04.06.2013 130
17.06.2013130
25.06.2013 230
31.07.2013 230
14.08.2013 330
01.10.20132 3 4
20.03.2014 60 60 60
09.05.2014 130
04.06.2014 130
16.06.2014 230
27.06.2014130
01.08.2014 230
22.08.2014 330
14.10.20142 3 4
17.032015 60 60 60
11.05.2015 130
01.06.2015 130
22.06.2015 230
06.07.2015130
30.07.2015 230
27.08.2015 330
12.10.20152 3 4
Total per year29031204150
Table 3. Fertilizer application (in kg ha−1) of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and sulfur (S) in 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Table 3. Fertilizer application (in kg ha−1) of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and sulfur (S) in 2013, 2014 and 2015.
DatePKMgS
21.03.2013606000
11.03.2014442082460
17.03.2015442082460
Table 4. Fixed effects (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001) for yield and quality parameters per cutting regime and year across cuts.
Table 4. Fixed effects (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001) for yield and quality parameters per cutting regime and year across cuts.
ParameterYearCutting RegimeYear × Cutting Regime
Dry matter yield- a-*
Dry matter content--***
Ash contentn.s. b***n.s.
Lignin content--***
Cellulose content****n.s.
Hemicellulose content***n.s.
Nitrogen content*****n.s.
Methane content of biogasn.s.n.a. cn.a.
Specific methane yieldn.s.n.a.n.a.
Methane yield per hectaren.s.n.a.n.a.
a Irrelevant due to significant interaction effect; b Non-significant; c Not assessed.
Table 5. Quality parameters of each cutting regime and year shown as weighted means of single cuts with standard errors.
Table 5. Quality parameters of each cutting regime and year shown as weighted means of single cuts with standard errors.
Cutting regimeYearDry matterAshLigninCellulose
% of fresh matter% of dry matter% of dry matter% of dry matter
2CT201329.3 ± 0.5 Ac6.8 ± 0.6 Ba5.0 ± 0.2 Bb31.1 ± 0.9 Aa
201437.7 ± 0.5 Ab6.7 ± 0.6 Ba6.8 ± 0.2 Aa33.1 ± 0.9 Aa
201542.5 ± 0.5 Aa6.6 ± 0.6 Ba7.0 ± 0.2 Aa32.2 ± 0.9 Aa
3CT201325.9 ± 0.5 Bc8.6 ± 0.5 Aa5.7 ± 0.1 Ab27.9 ± 0.8 Ba
201425.1 ± 0.5 Bb7.8 ± 0.6 Ba5.9 ± 0.2 Ba29.9 ± 1.0 Ba
201529.7 ± 0.5 Ba7.5 ± 0.5 Ba6.1 ± 0.1 Ba28.3 ± 0.9 Ba
4CT201320.7 ± 0.5 Cc10.0 ± 0.6 Aa5.3 ± 0.2 ABb23.7 ± 0.9 Ca
201421.9 ± 0.5 Bb11.7 ± 0.6 Aa4.9 ± 0.2 Ca24.5 ± 0.9 Ca
201521.9 ± 0.5 Ca9.9 ± 0.6 Aa5.9 ± 0.2 Ba21.8 ± 1.0 Ca
Cutting regimeYearHemicelluloseNitrogenMethaneSpecific methane yield
% of dry matter% of dry matter%m3N kg−1 volatile solids−1
2CT201321.7 ± 1.2 Ab1.5 ± 0.1 Can.a. an.a.
201422.3 ± 1.2 Ab1.0 ± 0.1 Cbn.a.n.a.
201526.3 ± 1.2 Aa1.0 ± 0.1 Cbn.a.n.a.
3CT201320.3 ± 1.0 Ab1.8 ± 0.1 Ba53.1 ± 0.50.290 ± 0.003
201420.3 ± 1.2 Ab1.6 ± 0.1 Bb53.0 ± 0.50.289 ± 0.003
201524.2 ± 1.0 Aa1.8 ± 0.1 Bb52.5 ± 0.50.294 ± 0.003
4CT201320.6 ± 1.2 Ab2.6 ± 0.1 Aan.a.n.a.
201421.0 ± 1.2 Ab2.2 ± 0.1 Abn.a.n.a.
201520.8 ± 1.2 Ba2.3 ± 0.1 Abn.a.n.a.
Identical letters denote non-significant differences between cutting regimes within years (upper-case letters) and between years within treatments (lower-case letters) (p < 0.05). a not assessed.
Table 6. Fixed effects (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001) for cut-specific yield and quality parameters of the three-cut regime.
Table 6. Fixed effects (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001) for cut-specific yield and quality parameters of the three-cut regime.
ParameterYearCut NumberYear × Cut Number
Dry matter yield- a-***
Dry matter content--***
Ash contentn.s. b***n.s.
Lignin content****n.s.
Cellulose content******n.s.
Hemicellulose content***n.s.n.s.
Nitrogen contentn.s.***n.s.
Methane content of biogas producen.s.n.s.n.s.
Specific methane yieldn.s.*n.s.
Methane yield per hectare--**
a Irrelevant due to significant interaction effect; b Non-significant.
Table 7. Cut-specific biochemical composition parameters listed by cutting regime and year.
Table 7. Cut-specific biochemical composition parameters listed by cutting regime and year.
Dry MatterAshLigninCelluloseHemicelluloseNitrogen
YearCutting RegimeCut Number% of Fresh Matter% of Dry Matter% of Dry Matter% of Dry Matter% of Dry Matter% of Dry Matter
20132CT127.7 ± 0.8Ab6.5 ± 0.8Ba5.5 ± 0.3Aa31.1 ± 0.8Aa21.8 ± 1.3Aa1.3 ± 0.1Ba
231.4 ± 0.8Aa7.1 ± 1.2Aa4.3 ± 0.4Bb30.2 ± 1.1Aa20.9 ± 1.8Aa1.7 ± 0.2Ba
3CT124.0 ± 0.8Bb8.1 ± 0.9ABa4.7 ± 0.3Bb30.5 ± 0.8Aa20.7 ± 1.4Aa1.7 ± 0.1Bb
229.9 ± 0.8Aa9.1 ± 0.9Aa6.7 ± 0.3Aa25.7 ± 0.8Bb20.5 ± 1.4Aa1.8 ± 0.1Bab
325.0 ± 0.8Ab9.1 ± 1.0Aa6.7 ± 0.3Aa24.8 ± 0.9Ab19.0 ± 1.5Aa2.2 ± 0.2Ba
4CT119.1 ± 0.8Cb9.3 ± 0.8Ab5.0 ± 0.3ABa28.0 ± 0.8Ba20.2 ± 1.3Aa2.4 ± 0.1Ab
218.6 ± 0.8Bb9.6 ± 1.2Aab5.8 ± 0.4Aa23.4 ± 1.1Bb20.7 ± 1.8Aa2.5 ± 0.2Aab
322.7 ± 0.8Ba10.0 ± 0.8Aab5.4 ± 0.3Ba23.3 ± 0.8Ab22.2 ± 1.3Aa2.7 ± 0.1Aab
424.1 ± 0.8a12.2 ± 0.8a5.6 ± 0.3a21.7 ± 0.8b19.5 ± 1.3a2.9 ± 0.1a
20142CT145.2 ± 0.8Aa6.6 ± 0.8Ba7.0 ± 0.3Aa33.5 ± 0.8Aa23.0 ± 1.3Aa1.0 ± 0.1Ca
223.7 ± 0.8Cb6.0 ± 1.2Ba6.3 ± 0.4Aa30.7 ± 1.1Ab20.8 ± 1.9Aa1.2 ± 0.2Aa
3CT127.5 ± 0.8Ba7.0 ± 0.9ABb5.5 ± 0.3Bb31.9 ± 0.8Aa21.3 ± 1.4Aa1.4 ± 0.1Bb
220.1 ± 0.8Cc9.5 ± 0.9Ba6.7 ± 0.3Aa28.8 ± 0.8Ab22.2 ± 1.4Aa2.2 ± 0.1Aa
322.9 ± 0.8Ab10.1 ± 1.2Ba6.2 ± 0.4Aab26.0 ± 1.1Ac21.0 ± 1.8Aa2.3 ± 0.2Aa
4CT120.5 ± 0.8Cc9.1 ± 0.8Ac4.3 ± 0.3Cc25.8 ± 0.8Ba19.7 ± 1.3Aa2.1 ± 0.1Ab
226.2 ± 0.8Aa16.8 ± 1.2Aa6.1 ± 0.4Aa23.9 ± 1.1Bab21.8 ± 1.8Aa2.2 ± 0.2Ab
323.7 ± 0.8Ab14.1 ± 0.8Aa5.0 ± 0.3Bbc24.6 ± 0.8Aab22.8 ± 1.3Aa2.2 ± 0.1Ab
418.5 ± 0.8c11.5 ± 0.8b5.7 ± 0.3ab23.6 ± 0.8b21.5 ± 1.3a2.8 ± 0.1a
20152CT147.0 ± 0.8Aa6.4 ± 0.8Ba7.4 ± 0.3Aa32.5 ± 0.8Aa26.4 ± 1.3Aa0.9 ± 0.1Ca
227.0 ± 0.8Bb6.3 ± 1.2Ba5.6 ± 0.4Bb29.6 ± 1.1Ab24.2 ± 1.8ABa1.3 ± 0.2Ba
3CT129.7 ± 0.8Bb7.3 ± 0.9Bb5.7 ± 0.3Bb29.3 ± 0.8Ba25.2 ± 1.4Aa1.5 ± 0.1Bb
234.7 ± 0.8Aa9.8 ± 0.9Aa7.3 ± 0.3Aa21.7 ± 0.8Bb25.4 ± 1.4Aa2.4 ± 0.1Aa
324.1 ± 0.8Bc8.9 ± 1.0Aab7.7 ± 0.3Aa20.4 ± 0.9Ab24.5 ± 1.5Aa2.9 ± 0.2Aa
4CT122.4 ± 0.8Cb11.2 ± 0.8Aa5.5 ± 0.3Bb23.4 ± 0.8Ca21.1 ± 1.3Bb2.2 ± 0.1Ab
218.6 ± 0.8Cc9.3 ± 0.8Aab6.9 ± 0.3Aa20.4 ± 0.8Bb21.9 ± 1.3Bab2.6 ± 0.1Ab
328.1 ± 0.8Aa9.3 ± 1.2Aab7.1 ± 0.4Aa19.2 ± 1.1Abc26.0 ± 1.8Aa3.2 ± 0.2Aa
421.4 ± 0.8b8.8 ± 0.8b6.2 ± 0.3ab17.0 ± 0.8c22.3 ± 1.3ab3.2 ± 0.1a
Standard errors are shown. Identical letters denote non-significant differences between cutting regimes within cut numbers (upper-case letters) and between cut numbers within cutting regimes (lower-case letters) (p < 0.05).
Table 8. Cut-specific dry matter and methane yield parameters listed by cutting regime and year.
Table 8. Cut-specific dry matter and methane yield parameters listed by cutting regime and year.
Dry Matter YieldMethaneSpecific Methane YieldMethane Yield
YearCutting RegimeCut NumberMg ha−1%m3N kg−1 volatile solids−1N ha−1
20132CT17.8 ± 0.2 Aan.a. an.a.n.a.
25.1 ± 0.2 Abn.a.n.a.n.a.
3CT16.8 ± 0.2 Ba52.6 ± 0.8 a0.296 ± 0.004 a1903.7 ± 95.3 a
24.0 ± 0.2 Bb53.4 ± 0.8 a0.281 ± 0.004 b1081.1 ± 95.3 b
33.6 ± 0.2 Ab53.8 ± 0.8 a0.286 ± 0.004 ab938.2 ± 95.3 b
4CT15.5 ± 0.2 Can.a.n.a.n.a.
22.2 ± 0.2 Cbn.a.n.a.n.a.
32.6 ± 0.2 Bbn.a.n.a.n.a.
42.5 ± 0.2 bn.a.n.a.n.a.
20142CT17.8 ± 0.2 Ban.a.n.a.n.a.
24.2 ± 0.2 Bbn.a.n.a.n.a.
3CT18.8 ± 0.2 Aa52.4 ± 0.8 a0.289 ± 0.004 a2254.3 ± 95.3 a
23.1 ± 0.2 Bb53.7 ± 0.8 a0.290 ± 0.004 a803.1 ± 95.3 b
32.8 ± 0.2 Bb54.0 ± 0.8 a0.287 ± 0.004 a723.2 ± 95.3 b
4CT17.0 ± 0.2 Can.a.n.a.n.a.
22.1 ± 0.2 Ccn.a.n.a.n.a.
33.8 ± 0.2 Abn.a.n.a.n.a.
42.1 ± 0.2 cn.a.n.a.n.a.
20152CT17.1 ± 0.2 Ban.a.n.a.n.a.
22.1 ± 0.2 Abn.a.n.a.n.a.
3CT18.2 ± 0.2 Aa52.8 ± 0.8 a0.297 ± 0.004 a2338.4 ± 95.3 a
21.9 ± 0.2 Ab54.0 ± 0.8 a0.281 ± 0.004 b438.2 ± 95.3 b
31.7 ± 0.2 Ab54.0 ± 0.8 a0.297 ± 0.004 a460.4 ± 95.3 b
4CT16.7 ± 0.2 Ban.a.n.a.n.a.
22.2 ± 0.2 Abn.a.n.a.n.a.
30.8 ± 0.2 Bcn.a.n.a.n.a.
40.7 ± 0.2 cn.a.n.a.n.a.
Standard errors are shown. Identical letters denote non-significant differences between cutting regimes within cut numbers (upper-case letters) and between cut numbers within cutting regimes (lower-case letters) (p < 0.05). a not assessed.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

von Cossel, M.; Bauerle, A.; Boob, M.; Thumm, U.; Elsaesser, M.; Lewandowski, I. The Performance of Mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum Grassland under Different Cutting Frequency Regimes for Biomass Production in Southwest Germany. Agriculture 2019, 9, 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090199

AMA Style

von Cossel M, Bauerle A, Boob M, Thumm U, Elsaesser M, Lewandowski I. The Performance of Mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum Grassland under Different Cutting Frequency Regimes for Biomass Production in Southwest Germany. Agriculture. 2019; 9(9):199. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090199

Chicago/Turabian Style

von Cossel, Moritz, Andrea Bauerle, Meike Boob, Ulrich Thumm, Martin Elsaesser, and Iris Lewandowski. 2019. "The Performance of Mesotrophic Arrhenatheretum Grassland under Different Cutting Frequency Regimes for Biomass Production in Southwest Germany" Agriculture 9, no. 9: 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090199

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop