An assessment of the effect of harvest time and harvest method on biomass loss for M iscanthus × giganteus
Open accessAbstract
This study examines the amount of biomass loss occurring in M iscanthus × giganteus crop at harvest. The study assesses loss incurred as a direct result of the harvest systems employed to collect the material along with examining how the time of harvest effects the amount of loss occurring over the spring harvest window. Pre harvest losses of 4.8–5.1% were measured prior to harvest. There was no significant difference between pre harvest loss and post harvest loss when a self‐propelled forage harvester fitted with a maize harvesting header was used to harvest the crop. The use of a conditioner mower and baler significantly increased crop losses to 9.4–14.1%. This demonstrates that correct selection of the harvest system can significantly increase biomass recovery. Additional losses were measured at headlands when the mower/baler system was used, but headland losses will not occur when self‐propelled forage harvesters are utilized. Losses were significantly greater in the area beside the swath after the baler pass when compared to prior to baling. This study has shown that correct selection of harvest systems can significantly increase biomass recovery, with no significant difference in pre harvest loss or harvest loss occurring as a result of cutting the M. × giganteus crop at different dates during the harvest window (M arch 1st, M arch 25th, A pril 21st).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The similarity of miscanthus TSOC to woody crops is probably a consequence of partial shedding of miscanthus leaves during the winter months, observed during the field trial and reported in other studies.
“This is probably a consequence of the partial shedding of miscanthus leaves during the winter months, that was observed during the field trial and that was reported in other studies (Clifton-Brown et al., 2007;Meehan et al., 2013).”
From Carbon sequestration potential in perennial bioenergy crops: the importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection (2016) · cites this paper as Meehan et al., 2013
Management of perennial systems greatly affects residue inputs because harvest practices vary the amount of aboveground biomass removed depending on harvest date and harvest method.
“The management of such systems greatly affects residue inputs as harvest practices vary the amount of aboveground biomass (AGB) removed depending on harvest date [19, 20] and harvest method [21, 22].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [21]
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
Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J. M. O., Lindvall, E., & Christou, M. (2003) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(03)00030-8 · Cited by 1,360 · see citing works
Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop
Lewandowski, I., Clifton-Brown, J. C., Scurlock, J. M. O., & Huisman, W. (2000) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(00)00032-5 · Cited by 988 · see citing works
Chemical properties of solid biofuels—significance and impact
Obernberger, I., Brunner, T., & Bärnthaler, G. (2006) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.06.011 · Cited by 774 · see citing works
Lewandowski, I. M., & Kicherer, A. (1997) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s1161-0301(96)02044-8 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Lewandowski, I., & Heinz, A. (2003) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s1161-0301(02)00018-7 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Brown, J. C., & Lewandowski, I. M. (2002) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s1161-0301(01)00120-4 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Biomass losses during harvest and storage of switchgrass
Sanderson, M. A., Egg, R. P., & Wiselogel, A. E. (1997) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/s0961-9534(96)00068-2 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Beuch, S., Boelcke, B., & Belau, L. (2000) · Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science · doi:10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00367.x · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Mechanization and Costs of Primary Production Chains forMiscanthus x giganteusin The Netherlands
Venturi, P., Huisman, W., & Bac-Molenaar, J. A. (1998) · Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research · doi:10.1006/jaer.1997.0239 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Buckmaster, D. R., & Heinrichs, A. J. (1993) · Transactions of the ASAE · doi:10.13031/2013.28346 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Booth, E., Halford, N. G., Sheild, I., et al. (2011) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Christian DG, Haase E, Schwarz H, Dalianis C, Clifton Brown JC, Cosentino S (2001) Agronomy of Miscanthus. In: Miscathus for Energy and Fibre (eds Jones MB, Walsh M), pp. 21-45. James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd, London.
- El Bassam N, Huisman W (2001) Harvesting and storage of Miscanthus. In: Miscan- thus for Energy and Fibre (eds Jones MB, Walsh M), pp. 86-108.
- Huisman W (2003) Optimising harvesting and storage systems for energy crops in The Netherlands. Proceedings of the International Conference on Crop Harvesting and Processing, February 9-11, 2003, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Available at: http:// elibrary.asabe.org/conference.asp?confid=chp2003.
- Venturi P, Huisman W, Molenaar J (1998) Mechanization and costs of primary pro- duction chains for Miscanthus 9 giganteus in the Netherlands. Journal of Agricul- tural Engineering Research, 69, 209-215.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Clifton‐Brown, J., Hastings, A., Mos, M., McCalmont, J. P., Ashman, C., Awty‐Carroll, D., Cerazy, J., Chiang, Y., Cosentino, S., Cracroft‐Eley, W., et al. (2017) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12357 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out?
Agostini, F., Gregory, A. S., & Richter, G. M. (2015) · BioEnergy Research · doi:10.1007/s12155-014-9571-0 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Chimento, C., Almagro, M., & Amaducci, S. (2016) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12232 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Switchgrass nitrogen response and estimated production costs on diverse sites
Fike, J. H., Pease, J. W., Owens, V. N., Farris, R. L., Hansen, J. L., Heaton, E. A., Hong, C. O., Mayton, H. S., Mitchell, R. B., & Viands, D. R. (2017) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12444 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
- Authors
- Meehan, P. G., McDonnell, K. P., & Finnan, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Meehan, Peter G.
- Venue
- GCB Bioenergy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-08-22
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 400-407
- ISSN
- 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-1707
- OpenAlex
- W2129687512
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 3.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Teagasc
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
- Keywords
- Miscanthus × giganteus, harvest time, harvesting methods, biomass loss, biomass recovery, forage harvester, balers, pre-harvest losses, post-harvest losses, harvest window, energy crops
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
