Cited by 133Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology

How do soil emissions of N2O, CH4 and CO2 from perennial bioenergy crops differ from arable annual crops?

Open access
Drewer, Julia, Finch, Jon W., Lloyd, Colin R., Baggs, Elizabeth M., Skiba, Ute·2012·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

It is important to demonstrate that replacing fossil fuel with bioenergy crops can reduce the national greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint. We compared field emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH4) and soil respiration rates from the C 4 grass Miscanthus × giganteus and willow (salix) with emissions from annual arable crops grown for food production. The study was carried out in NE England on adjacent fields of willow, Miscanthus, wheat (Triticum aetivum) and oilseed rape (Brassica napus). N 2 O, CH4 fluxes and soil respiration rates were measured monthly using static chambers from June 2008 to November 2010. Net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon dioxide (CO2) was measured by eddy covariance on Miscanthus from May 2008 and on willow from October 2009 until November 2010. The N 2 O fluxes were significantly smaller from the bioenergy crops than that of the annual crops. Average fluxes were 8 and 32 μg m−2 h−1 N 2 O‐N from wheat and oilseed rape, and 4 and 0.2 μg m−2 h−1 N 2 O‐N from Miscanthus and willow, respectively. Soil CH4 fluxes were negligible for all crops and soil respiration rates were similar for all crops. NEE of CO2 was larger for Miscanthus (−770 g C m−2 h−1) than willow (−602 g C m−2 h−1) in the growing season of 2010. N 2 O emissions from Miscanthus and willow were lower than for the wheat and oilseed rape which is most likely a result of regular fertilizer application and tillage in the annual arable cropping systems. Application of 15 N‐labelled fertilizer to Miscanthus and oil seed rape resulted in a fertilizer‐induced increase in N 2 O emission in both crops. Denitrification rates (N 2 O + N 2) were similar for soil under Miscanthus and oilseed rape. Thus, perennial bioenergy crops only emit less GHG s than annual crops when they receive no or very low rates of N fertilizer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01136.x

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Management and inputs largely influence the difference in carbon accumulation between perennial and annual crops.

    “with the management and inputs largely influencing this difference [72,76].”

    From Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions (2015) · cites this paper as [76]

    The discussion (pp. 22–23) attributes the difference in greenhouse-gas balances largely to nitrogen fertiliser application, and the introduction (p. 5) suggests cultivation practices may affect litter decomposition. But the paper does not establish that management and inputs largely explain a difference in carbon accumulation; it says net carbon exchange was not measured for the annual crops. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Drewer, J., Finch, J. W., Lloyd, C. R., Baggs, E. M., & Skiba, U.
Affiliations
  • CEH Edinburgh Bush Estate Penicuik EH26 0QB UK
  • CEH Wallingford Maclean Building Benson Lane Crowmarsh Gifford Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BB UK
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Drewer, Julia
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-10-27
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
408-419
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2112861482
Cited by
133
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
18.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Agilent Technologies
  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/F015682/1, NE/F014961/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Keywords
nitrous oxide emissions, methane emissions, soil respiration, greenhouse gas emissions, perennial energy crops, Miscanthus × giganteus, willow, wheat, oilseed rape, net ecosystem exchange, denitrification, nitrogen fertilization, 15N-labelled fertilizer, soil CO2 flux

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review