Loading…

Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons

Many crops are candidate sources of renewable energy. Energy crop yields vary between species, but no global study has been carried out to rank energy crops on the basis of existing yield data. In this study, we analyzed a large set of yield data obtained for 36 energy crop species and ranked these...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Renewable & sustainable energy reviews 2015-06, Vol.46, p.41-50
Main Authors: Laurent, A., Pelzer, E., Loyce, C., Makowski, D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053
container_end_page 50
container_issue
container_start_page 41
container_title Renewable & sustainable energy reviews
container_volume 46
creator Laurent, A.
Pelzer, E.
Loyce, C.
Makowski, D.
description Many crops are candidate sources of renewable energy. Energy crop yields vary between species, but no global study has been carried out to rank energy crops on the basis of existing yield data. In this study, we analyzed a large set of yield data obtained for 36 energy crop species and ranked these species according to their productivity. We carried out a systematic literature review and extracted 856 yield data from 28 published papers for 36 different crop species. A statistical analysis, based on direct and indirect comparisons, was performed to compare the mean yield values of the species included in the database. For direct comparisons, the difference between crops grown at the same site was determined, whereas indirect comparisons involved estimation of the differences between crops grown at different sites (making use of a third reference crop grown at the same sites as the crops to be compared). Overall, direct and indirect comparisons generated similar crop species rankings. Miscanthus x giganteus was significantly more productive than most of the other energy crops included in our database. Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum were significantly more productive than Miscanthus x giganteus, but both were studied at a limited number of sites. By contrast, Erianthus, Phragmites australis, Phalaris arundinacea, Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Miscanthus sinensis were the least productive crop species. Our database is made freely available and could be updated with additional yield data in the future.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.023
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>elsevier_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01589814v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1364032115001112</els_id><sourcerecordid>S1364032115001112</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UMtKAzEUDaJgrf6Aq2xdzJjHZB7iphRfUBDErsNNJqmp00xJamH-3gxTXAoH7uucC-cgdEtJTgkt77d5iCbkjFCRE5bAz9CM1lWTkbIh56nnZZERzugluopxSxKxrvgMrT_Afzu_wYMzXRtxb7HxJmwGrEO_jw94gXfmABl46IboIv6JI7t1wegDBt9i50-D7nd7CC72Pl6jCwtdNDenOkfr56fP5Wu2en95Wy5Wmea8OGTKggJVKUKMEGVZKq2KknPgFReaM86EASXA1sxY2hBRN5YqsMZQoSgQwefobvr7BZ3cB7eDMMgenHxdrOS4G202NS2ONHHZxE3GYgzG_gkokWOIcivHEOUYoiQsgSfR4yQyycXRpWvUznhtJs-y7d1_8l_bd3ui</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Laurent, A. ; Pelzer, E. ; Loyce, C. ; Makowski, D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Laurent, A. ; Pelzer, E. ; Loyce, C. ; Makowski, D.</creatorcontrib><description>Many crops are candidate sources of renewable energy. Energy crop yields vary between species, but no global study has been carried out to rank energy crops on the basis of existing yield data. In this study, we analyzed a large set of yield data obtained for 36 energy crop species and ranked these species according to their productivity. We carried out a systematic literature review and extracted 856 yield data from 28 published papers for 36 different crop species. A statistical analysis, based on direct and indirect comparisons, was performed to compare the mean yield values of the species included in the database. For direct comparisons, the difference between crops grown at the same site was determined, whereas indirect comparisons involved estimation of the differences between crops grown at different sites (making use of a third reference crop grown at the same sites as the crops to be compared). Overall, direct and indirect comparisons generated similar crop species rankings. Miscanthus x giganteus was significantly more productive than most of the other energy crops included in our database. Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum were significantly more productive than Miscanthus x giganteus, but both were studied at a limited number of sites. By contrast, Erianthus, Phragmites australis, Phalaris arundinacea, Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Miscanthus sinensis were the least productive crop species. Our database is made freely available and could be updated with additional yield data in the future.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1364-0321</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0690</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.023</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural sciences ; Agronomy ; Biomass ; Energy crops ; Life Sciences ; Lignocellulosic crops ; Meta-analysis</subject><ispartof>Renewable &amp; sustainable energy reviews, 2015-06, Vol.46, p.41-50</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3126-8141 ; 0000-0001-6385-3703 ; 0000-0002-8510-9536 ; 0000-0002-6154-0065</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,778,782,883,27911,27912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://agroparistech.hal.science/hal-01589814$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Laurent, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pelzer, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loyce, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makowski, D.</creatorcontrib><title>Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons</title><title>Renewable &amp; sustainable energy reviews</title><description>Many crops are candidate sources of renewable energy. Energy crop yields vary between species, but no global study has been carried out to rank energy crops on the basis of existing yield data. In this study, we analyzed a large set of yield data obtained for 36 energy crop species and ranked these species according to their productivity. We carried out a systematic literature review and extracted 856 yield data from 28 published papers for 36 different crop species. A statistical analysis, based on direct and indirect comparisons, was performed to compare the mean yield values of the species included in the database. For direct comparisons, the difference between crops grown at the same site was determined, whereas indirect comparisons involved estimation of the differences between crops grown at different sites (making use of a third reference crop grown at the same sites as the crops to be compared). Overall, direct and indirect comparisons generated similar crop species rankings. Miscanthus x giganteus was significantly more productive than most of the other energy crops included in our database. Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum were significantly more productive than Miscanthus x giganteus, but both were studied at a limited number of sites. By contrast, Erianthus, Phragmites australis, Phalaris arundinacea, Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Miscanthus sinensis were the least productive crop species. Our database is made freely available and could be updated with additional yield data in the future.</description><subject>Agricultural sciences</subject><subject>Agronomy</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Energy crops</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Lignocellulosic crops</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><issn>1364-0321</issn><issn>1879-0690</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UMtKAzEUDaJgrf6Aq2xdzJjHZB7iphRfUBDErsNNJqmp00xJamH-3gxTXAoH7uucC-cgdEtJTgkt77d5iCbkjFCRE5bAz9CM1lWTkbIh56nnZZERzugluopxSxKxrvgMrT_Afzu_wYMzXRtxb7HxJmwGrEO_jw94gXfmABl46IboIv6JI7t1wegDBt9i50-D7nd7CC72Pl6jCwtdNDenOkfr56fP5Wu2en95Wy5Wmea8OGTKggJVKUKMEGVZKq2KknPgFReaM86EASXA1sxY2hBRN5YqsMZQoSgQwefobvr7BZ3cB7eDMMgenHxdrOS4G202NS2ONHHZxE3GYgzG_gkokWOIcivHEOUYoiQsgSfR4yQyycXRpWvUznhtJs-y7d1_8l_bd3ui</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Laurent, A.</creator><creator>Pelzer, E.</creator><creator>Loyce, C.</creator><creator>Makowski, D.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3126-8141</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6385-3703</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8510-9536</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6154-0065</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons</title><author>Laurent, A. ; Pelzer, E. ; Loyce, C. ; Makowski, D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agricultural sciences</topic><topic>Agronomy</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Energy crops</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Lignocellulosic crops</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Laurent, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pelzer, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loyce, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makowski, D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Renewable &amp; sustainable energy reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Laurent, A.</au><au>Pelzer, E.</au><au>Loyce, C.</au><au>Makowski, D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons</atitle><jtitle>Renewable &amp; sustainable energy reviews</jtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>46</volume><spage>41</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>41-50</pages><issn>1364-0321</issn><eissn>1879-0690</eissn><abstract>Many crops are candidate sources of renewable energy. Energy crop yields vary between species, but no global study has been carried out to rank energy crops on the basis of existing yield data. In this study, we analyzed a large set of yield data obtained for 36 energy crop species and ranked these species according to their productivity. We carried out a systematic literature review and extracted 856 yield data from 28 published papers for 36 different crop species. A statistical analysis, based on direct and indirect comparisons, was performed to compare the mean yield values of the species included in the database. For direct comparisons, the difference between crops grown at the same site was determined, whereas indirect comparisons involved estimation of the differences between crops grown at different sites (making use of a third reference crop grown at the same sites as the crops to be compared). Overall, direct and indirect comparisons generated similar crop species rankings. Miscanthus x giganteus was significantly more productive than most of the other energy crops included in our database. Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum were significantly more productive than Miscanthus x giganteus, but both were studied at a limited number of sites. By contrast, Erianthus, Phragmites australis, Phalaris arundinacea, Miscanthus sacchariflorus and Miscanthus sinensis were the least productive crop species. Our database is made freely available and could be updated with additional yield data in the future.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.023</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3126-8141</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6385-3703</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8510-9536</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6154-0065</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1364-0321
ispartof Renewable & sustainable energy reviews, 2015-06, Vol.46, p.41-50
issn 1364-0321
1879-0690
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01589814v1
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Agricultural sciences
Agronomy
Biomass
Energy crops
Life Sciences
Lignocellulosic crops
Meta-analysis
title Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T09%3A44%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-elsevier_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ranking%20yields%20of%20energy%20crops:%20A%20meta-analysis%20using%20direct%20and%20indirect%20comparisons&rft.jtitle=Renewable%20&%20sustainable%20energy%20reviews&rft.au=Laurent,%20A.&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=46&rft.spage=41&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=41-50&rft.issn=1364-0321&rft.eissn=1879-0690&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.023&rft_dat=%3Celsevier_hal_p%3ES1364032115001112%3C/elsevier_hal_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c334t-bfabab7b00e55666bcb4633a3735c32325eab5af82ef190589f1bafee15b1a053%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true