Next Article in Journal
Mapping Online Geographical Indication: Agri-Food Markets on E-Retail Shelves
Next Article in Special Issue
A Critical Review on Lignocellulosic Biomass Yield Modeling and the Bioenergy Potential from Marginal Land
Previous Article in Journal
Potential of Sunflower-Legume Intercropping: A Way Forward in Sustainable Production of Sunflower in Temperate Climatic Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Role of Rhizosphere Soil Microbes in Adapting Ramie (Boehmeria nivea L.) Plants to Poor Soil Conditions through N-Fixing and P-Solubilization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/agronomy11122382
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Industrial Crop Yield Performances on Unfavorable Soil Types

by
Jana Reinhardt
†,
Pia Hilgert
† and
Moritz Von Cossel
*
Biobased Resources in the Bioeconomy (340b), Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstr. 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2021, 11(12), 2382; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122382
Submission received: 8 November 2021 / Revised: 18 November 2021 / Accepted: 20 November 2021 / Published: 24 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social-Ecologically More Sustainable Agricultural Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Industrial crop cultivation on marginal agricultural land limits indirect land-use change effects that pose a threat to food security. This review compiles results from 91 published crop-specific field trial datasets spanning 12 relevant industrial crops and discusses their suitability for cultivation on unfavorable soil types (USTs). It was shown that the perennial species Miscanthus (Miscanthus Andersson) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) performed well on USTs with both high clay and/or high sand contents. Information on stoniness (particles sizes > 2 mm), where mentioned, was limited. It was found to have only a small impact on biological yield potential, though it was not possible to assess the impact on mechanization as would be used at a commercial scale. For soils with extreme clay or sand contents, half of the crops showed moderate suitability. The large yield variations within and between crops revealed large knowledge gaps in the combined effects of crop type and agronomy on USTs. Therefore, more field trials are needed on diverse USTs in different climates with better equipment and more consistent measurements to improve the accuracy of potential yield predictions spatially and temporally. Additionally, larger trials are needed to optimize cultivation and harvesting.

1. Introduction

A large proportion of marginal farmlands in Europe are characterized by unfavorable soil types (USTs). However, there are no precise estimates of UST land areas in the literature, as USTs and stoniness are often mentioned in connection with other limiting site factors, such as low rooting depth (LRD) [1,2]. However, LRD and USTs account for nearly half of marginal farmland [1]. This is of great agricultural relevance because the soil type directly influences basic agronomic factors, such as water storage capacity and the plant nutrient availability of the soil. Moreover, the soil type affects the infiltration, runoff, and movement of water in the soil [3]. The grain size fractions of the soil are divided into coarse soil (with equivalent diameters of > 2 mm) and fine soil (equivalent diameter of ≤ 2 mm) [3,4].
Sandy and loamy-sandy soils have a low water storage capacity [5] and, therefore, reduced soil fertility [3]. For these reasons, there is a loss of yield on sandy soils for food crops. For example, at a site near Jyndevad (Denmark), where the sand content is 88%, maize achieved a 4-year average biomass yield of 10.9 Mg DM ha−1 [6]. This is considerably lower than yields that can be achieved on non-sandy soils of 20 Mg ha−1 and more [6].
The tiny particles in clay soils both bind water tightly and hinder root penetration, making it harder for plants to establish rapidly [3]. In this study, sites are classified as marginal if they contain soils with the soil type clay (UST-CL) or sand (UST-S) according to the definition of [7] (if soils consist of either ≥ 40% of the grain size fraction clay (silty clay, loamy clay, clay) or ≥ 70% of the grain size fraction sand (loamy sand)).
High proportions of coarse fragments or stones > 2 mm in the soil can also have negative effects on plant growth. A share of more than 15% coarse soil reduces the water holding capacity of soil by at least 40% and aggravates seasonal droughts in most European climate zones. In addition, a high proportion of coarse fragments, such as stones, can severely restrict the space available for root development, which in turn reduces the absorption of water and nutrients. Moreover, coarse fragments larger than 10 cm damage tillage equipment, and boulders could be a barrier to tillage in general [3]. For this reason, a site is classified as a marginally unfavorable soil type and stoniness-stones (UST-St) if its soil has a share of ≥ 15% of coarse soil.
The relevance of agricultural marginality constraints can be expressed by the area of agricultural land affected. The assumed total area of available European marginal cropland that is characterized solely by UST is < 1 Mha [1], but the actual area is likely much larger, as already noted above. However, this would correspond to tremendous potential for the production of non-food biomass [8], which is urgently required to successfully and promptly manage the transition to a bioeconomy [9,10]. Therefore, among many socio-economic challenges [11,12,13,14,15], the success of cultivating industrial crops under UST conditions is critical, with biomass yield being one of the most important components [16,17]. Furthermore, there is still much uncertainty about the link between USTs and both biomass yield and quality of industrial crops [1,18]. Hence, Gerwin et al. [1] call for this to be investigated more thoroughly in the future, which is also currently being done in projects such as MAGIC [2]. Therefore, this study focuses on the following main research question: How do industrial crops perform in terms of biomass yield on European marginal farmland characterized by UST?

2. Material and Methods

In this study, the biomass yield of industrial crops on farmland that is not marginal (e.g., favorable climate and fertile soils) [19,20] was used as a reference for the industrial crops’ yield performance on marginal farmland. This was intended to enable a first relevant insight into the future potential of biomass production on marginal farmland. The selection and evaluation of industrial crops were performed as explained in the following sections (Figure 1).

2.1. Identification of Most Relevant Industrial Crops in Europe

For identifying the most relevant industrial crops in Europe, only those industrial crops were selected that were involved at least four times in one of the EU projects that started or ended in the period 1 January 2014 to 6 December 2019. Using the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) [21], 24 EU projects were found and considered for this purpose. In this way, twelve industrial crops were found relevant (Table A1), which is mostly in line with the crop selections in other studies [2,23].

2.2. Literature Search on the Performance of Industrial Crops under UST Conditions

An extensive literature search was conducted in the Scopus® database (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) to obtain robust information on the yield performance of the selected industrial crops under both UST and favorable conditions. For this purpose, the advanced search function was used in Scopus® using a complex search sequence including Boolean operators [23]. After documents were identified in which the plant name occurred in the title, abstract, or keywords. For each plant species, both the English trivial name and the botanical name were used in this process. Subsequently, articles containing terms such as “model”, “gis”, or “gene” were identified and excluded to reduce the search results to original articles with field trial results. In the remaining search results, articles with the marginality factor UST were searched for using common synonyms (adverse soil texture, sandy soil, stoniness, etc.). The studies found were then further selected to determine the location of the trial, any agronomic information, and harvest time and type (whole crop biomass or just seed). Soil properties and weather conditions had to be sufficiently specified to exclude, for example, sites with high salinity, heavy metal contamination, steep slope, or acidic soils. This is because if UST occurs in combination with drought, the effect of drought on yield performance might overshadow the effect of USTs. Therefore, the yield-UST combination has been placed in a broader perspective here and is discussed in more detail when interpreting anomalies in the yield performances of the crops. Non-European sites were excluded only if their climatic conditions were not comparable to any of the European agro-ecological zones.

2.3. Suitability Ranking

Based on the yield data for each industrial crop trial and further meta-data in the literature, a classification of the cultivation suitability according to a classification of Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] was conducted. If no sites were found that met the criteria described above, the classification was estimated from indirectly related literature. This information is then given in brackets. The classifications are denoted as follows: 4 = very good, a much higher yield than on favored sites; 3 = good, the yields of the sites were approximately equivalent to the average yields on favored sites; 2 = average, a lower yield was shown compared to the average yields on favored sites; 1 = low, much lower yields observed compared to yields on favorable sites. If the plant is classified as 0, it means that it is considered unsuitable, i.e., it cannot grow on sites with UST [2,8].

3. Results and Discussion

According to the methodology described above, 91 crop-specific field trial datasets were found that comply with the threshold values (Table A1). However, since only EU projects were searched for relevant industrial crops in this study (in order to narrow the focus of the study somewhat), it cannot be ruled out that other industrial crops not taken into account might also be relevant for European growing conditions, but have not yet been considered in EU projects. High variations in dry matter yield performances were revealed for most of the crops and each of the three major USTs, sandy, clayey, and stony soil (Figure 2).
Some sites and the respective tests on them, which also meet the criteria of this paper, could not be identified using the methodology described. The reason for this is that in order to classify a site into marginal, certain information about the site is required. However, this information is often missing in papers. The selected sites per plant with the respective yields and information on agricultural marginality constraints can be found in Table A1. In the following Section 3.1, Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4, Section 3.5, Section 3.6, Section 3.7, Section 3.8, Section 3.9, Section 3.10, Section 3.11 and Section 3.12, the yield performances of the selected industrial crops are presented and discussed as yield per year (biomass, stalk, oil, grain, and ethanol yields). Only the aboveground biomass of the crops is considered.

3.1. Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz)

On favorable sites, Camelina has an average grain yield of about 1.5 Mg ha−1, usually ranging from 0.9 to 2.2 Mg ha−1 [24]. Under very favorable conditions, the grain yield can be up to 3 Mg ha−1 [25]. The average oil content of the grains is 42% [26], usually ranging from 35–45% [24]. The thousand-grain mass is between 0.8 and 1.8 g [27]. At a favorable location in Austria, an average oil yield of 807 kg ha−1, a grain yield of 1.9 Mg ha−1, and a thousand grain mass of 1.4 g was achieved [28]. The results of a trial in Poland on a fertile site showed a grain yield of 1.7 Mg ha−1 to 2.2 Mg ha−1, oil content of 39.3–42.2%, and an oil yield of 690–930 kg ha−1 [29]. The amount of the yield is mainly influenced by the environment and, to a lesser extent, by the genotype [30].
Two locations, each meeting the criteria UST-clay (El centro and West Side) and UST-sand (Güterfelde and Wilmersdorf), were found (Table 1 and Table A1).
Summer Camelina was grown on the Güterfelde and Wilmersdorf sites and winter Camelina on the El centro and West Side sites. The grain yields on all four sites are lower (Table 1) compared to the stated average grain yield of 1.5 Mg ha−1; however, the yields of West Side, Güterfelde, and Wilmersdorf are in the yield range on favorable sites [24]. The oil content in Güterfelde was 40%, which corresponds to the figures in Panacea [26]. The oil yield of 364 kg ha−1 at this site is lower than the oil yield of 807 kg ha−1 found by Vollmann et al. [28]. In Güterfelde and Wilmersdorf, the soil type is loamy sand. The grain yield on the site Güterfelde comes from a trial with different fertilization variants. The stated yield was achieved without fertilization. It was found that the variant without fertilization leads to a nitrogen deficiency on this site, which is why the leaves become small, pale yellow-green, and ripen prematurely [31]. A higher fertilization (120 N kg ha−1) level led to a higher grain yield of 1.8 Mg ha−1. The oil content decreased significantly with the increase of the nitrogen fertilizer to 38% [31]. In the trial, years 2003 and 2004, Wilmersdorf was affected by a severe drought in spring, and in 2005, heavy rainfall occurred in May [32]. The yield was probably, therefore, lower compared to the average yield on favored sites [24]. According to the classification in Von Cossel et al. [2,34], Camelina is well suited for cultivation on sandy soils. This is also confirmed by the results found under sufficient nitrogen and water supply.
In El centro, the grain yield of 0.73 Mg ha−1 was lower than the grain yield on the West Side with 1.02 Mg ha−1. This difference in grain yield can be explained by the fact that the clay content of 57.5% at El centro is higher than that of 45.4% at West Side.
Consequently, Camelina can be cultivated on a wide variety of soils, with the exception of heavy clay soils [27,29,35,36]. With 57.5% clay content, the El centro soil is still clay soil according to the FAO classification of soil types but close to the border with heavy clay soil, which may explain the lower yield. According to the classification in Von Cossel et al. [2,34], Camelina has a good cultivation tendency for clay soils and a medium cultivation tendency on heavy clay soils. However, in view of the above results, the suitability of Camelina on UST-CL is moderate to good.

3.2. Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.)

In Europe, cardoon achieves an above-ground biomass yield of 10–30 Mg ha−1 DM and a grain yield of 0.6–4.3 Mg ha−1 under different irrigation and fertilization options [37,38,39,40,41]. On favorable sites, cardoon achieves an average aboveground DM yield of 20 Mg ha−1 DM [42]. This is also shown by Fernández et al. [38], who indicate that cardoon produced a DM yield of 24.2 Mg ha−1, averaged over four different favored sites in Europe. A field trial over three years in Catania, Italy, on a favored site, investigated the yield of different genotypes. A maximum yield of 36.2 Mg ha−1 aboveground DM biomass and 2.8 Mg ha−1 grain yield was achieved. On average, over all of the test years and genotypes, 20.6 Mg ha−1 above-ground DM biomass, 1.37 Mg ha−1 grain yield, and a thousand-grain mass of 29.3 g were determined [43]. In an experiment by Angelini et al. [44], cardoon was grown for eleven years on a favored site without irrigation. An average yield of 12.6 Mg ha−1 DM was achieved over all of the eleven growing years. The yield results under UST conditions are only from trials determined from the 1st to 3rd year of cultivation. In comparison, Angelini et al. [44] reported an average above-ground DM yield of cardoon of 19.4 Mg ha−1 in the 2nd to 4th year.
Three different locations were found for this agricultural marginality constraint (Table 2 and Table A1).
The Enna site was classified as marginal due to its sandy soil. The Catania site is marginal due to a clay content of 45% in the soil, and the Daganzo site is also marginal due to its clay soil. The Enna site achieved an average yield of 19.3 Mg ha−1 DM in the first three years of cultivation (first year 26.1, second year 22.5, and third year 9.2 Mg ha−1) [38,43]. The Catania location also produced a yield comparable to a favorable location with 20.3 Mg ha−1 DM and 1.2 Mg ha−1 grain yield. Five different genotypes were grown on fields in Catania, with globe artichoke × wild cardoon in the second year with a DM yield of 27.6 Mg ha−1 and globe artichoke × cultivated cardoon in the third year with 27.7 Mg ha−1. Only the Daganzo site had a much lower DM yield of 4.6 Mg ha−1. This was probably due to the negative effects of the combination of steep slope (SSL) and UST-CL. UST-CL soils have a low water infiltration capacity. On sloping terrain, low infiltration leads to rainwater run-off, which in turn leads to reduced soil moisture and thus increases the risk of drought [5].
After a classification in Von Cossel et al. [2,34], cardoon has: medium cultivation suitability for sandy soils as well as for clay soils, very good cultivation suitability for silt soils, and is unsuitable for heavy clay soils. Ţîţei [48] reports that the cultivation of cardoon on clay and heavy clay soils is not recommended. In contrast, the yield on the Catania site indicates that cardoon is relatively well-suited for cultivation on clay soils. The yield of cardoon on the Enna site additionally contradicts the assessment in Von Cossel et al. [2,34] and shows a good suitability for cultivation on sandy soils.

3.3. Crambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst. Ex R.E.Fr.)

Only two sites were found for the plant Crambe, and these were found for the agricultural marginality constraint UST-CL (Table 3 and Table A1). The grain yield of Crambe can range from 0.2–3.2 Mg ha−1, depending on soil, climate conditions, and crop management [49].
At favorable locations in Poland, Crambe achieved a grain yield of 1.2–3.2 Mg ha−1 [50]. In Legnaro in northern Italy, Crambe achieved a grain yield of 2.7 Mg ha−1, an oil yield of 837 kg ha−1, and a thousand-grain mass of 6.12 g [51]. In Europe, Crambe achieved an average grain yield of 2.4 Mg ha−1 and an average oil yield of 846 kg ha−1 [52]. The average oil content of the grains was 38% [53] and the thousand-grain mass was 6–10 g [52].
The site in Rosa et al. [54] was classified as marginal, as it is an Oxisol soil with a high clay content. In Viana et al. [55], the soil was described as Red Latosol with a high clay content. The clay content in Rosa et al. [54] was much lower than in Viana et al. [55] and on favored sites [52,56,57]. The oil yield was also significantly lower than the oil yield on favored sites [51,52]. The grain yield in Viana et al. [55] was within the grain yield range of favored locations in Poland [57] but was almost 1 Mg ha−1 lower compared to the average European grain yield of 2.4 Mg ha−1 [52]. In Zanetti et al. [51], a field trial in Pozzallo Italy with winter-annual Crambe was described. With a clay content of 38%, this site does not meet the described criteria of a marginal agricultural land, but has a high clay content. With a grain yield of 1.9 Mg ha−1, it is comparable with favorable sites in Poland [50]. However, it is below the average grain yield of Crambe in Europe [52]. The thousand-grain weight of 5.8 g is below that of favored sites (even if only slightly), as is the oil yield of 500 kg ha−1 [51,52]. According to Zhu [49], Crambe needs fertile soils with a moderately coarse to fine texture to achieve high yields. According to Von Cossel et al. [2,34], Crambe is very suitable for clay and sandy soils. In contrast, the results described above show a rather mediocre suitability of Crambe for cultivation on UST-CL, most likely due to a combination of limitations in the field trials. Furthermore, Crambe can only grow poorly on stony soils [52], with the main limitation being low fertility, and higher susceptibility to drought events may further reduce the suitability of stony soils for Crambe.

3.4. Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.)

Under good growing conditions, cup plant DM yields from the 2nd year of cultivation onwards are 11–22 Mg ha−1 [58,59,60]. Usually, the DM yield is about 15 Mg ha−1 [59]. In a study by the Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony, a DM yield of 15.8 Mg ha−1 was determined for cup plants in the 3rd year of harvest (average over three trial locations) [61].
Five locations were found for the agricultural marginality constraint UST-S (Table 4 and Table A1).
The determined yields were between 13 and 16.1 Mg DM ha−1 for the 2nd year of cultivation. This corresponds to the yields on favorable sites [59]. At the Lipnik site, a high yield of 19.8 Mg DM ha−1 was achieved in the 3rd year of cultivation. The review of Gansberger et al. [59] concludes that the soil type has no clear influence on the yield. The cup plant is tolerant to different soil types and has, therefore, a good cultivation suitability for sites with UST-S. However, maximum yields can only be achieved on nutrient-rich soils with good water availability [58,59,60].

3.5. Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.)

It was reported that 50% of all DM yield data of giant reed are in the range of 25–40 Mg ha−1 [65] (Figure 2). Under favorable growing conditions, giant reed shows very high yields of 33.8 Mg ha−1 [66] to 37.7 Mg ha−1 [67]. This is in line with Pilu et al. [68], who report DM yields of 36–55 Mg ha−1. Four marginal agricultural lands with the factor UST-S were found for giant reed (Table 5 and Table A1).
Compared to the other sites with this factor, the DM yield was lowest in Casale Monterrato with 11 Mg ha−1. This site was the only one not fertilized. Furthermore, the sand content of this soil is very high at 90% [71]. This is probably why the yield was lower. At the San Piero a Grade site, the sand content is 77.8%, and the conditions in summer 2011 were extremely dry. Giant reed was not irrigated in this trial, unlike the other sites with this factor. The high sand content of the soil reduces its ability to retain water, which has an effect on plant development, especially in dry summers when precipitation is low [70]. Probably for this reason, the DM yield of giant reed was lower with 17 Mg ha−1 compared to the Citra and Enna sites and compared to favorable sites [67,68]. At 29.1 Mg ha−1 DM and 26.8 Mg ha−1 DM, respectively, the yield at the Citra and Enna sites was only slightly below that of favored sites [66,67,68]. At the Enna site, the DM yield with sufficient irrigation was 36.5 Mg ha−1, which is very similar to the yield of Angelini et al. [67] with 37.7 Mg ha−1 on a clay soil, i.e., a favored site. With higher fertilization and sufficient irrigation, a significantly higher DM yield of 42 Mg ha−1 can be achieved on the Enna site compared to the experimental variant with low fertilization and little irrigation [45].
Giant reed can grow in all soil types, from clay to sandy, and also on soils with a high stone content [72]. However, the best conditions are sandy and peaty soils with a sufficiently high groundwater level [73]. According to the division made by von Cossel et al. [2,34], giant reed is well suited for clay soils, medium for sand, and very well-suited to clay soils. Parenti et al. [74] classify the suitability for cultivation as follows: very good for a sandy or loamy sandy soil, medium for a soil with more than 50% clay content, and good for a stony soil. The results confirm that giant reed is well suited for cultivation on sandy soils, provided that sufficient precipitation falls or that irrigation is applied.

3.6. Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

On favorable sites, fiber hemp achieves an average stalk yield of 10 Mg ha−1 DM [75]. Struik et al. [76] investigated five different varieties of hemp grown for fiber on three favored sites in Europe (Italy, The United Kingdom, and The Netherlands) over three years with different fertilization and plant density variants. A maximum above-ground biomass yield of 22.5 Mg ha−1 DM and a stalk yield of 18.5 Mg ha−1 DM were achieved. The average aboveground DM biomass yield over all of the locations, years, varieties, and trial variants was 14 Mg ha−1 with a stalk DM yield of 11 Mg ha−1. Furthermore, on a sandy loamy soil in Foulum, Denmark, an above-ground biomass yield of 13–15 Mg ha−1 DM was achieved [6]. For industrial processing of the fibers, the optimum stem length was 200–250 cm [75]. Six different locations were found for UST (Table 6 and Table A1).
The Michamps site was classified as marginal, as it has very stony soil. Five different monoecious varieties were cultivated on it, which had an average yield of 8.3 Mg ha−1 DM and a grain yield of 0.26 Mg ha−1 over one year. The variety Epsilon 68 achieved the highest yield on this site with 10.5 Mg ha−1 DM [79]. The stem yield was somewhat lower compared to yields on favored sites, although for the variety Epsilon 68, only very little [76]. The suitability of growing hemp on stony soil is therefore good.
For the unfavorable soil type sand, the sites Potsdam-Bormin (loamy sand) and Jyndevad (sandy soil) were found. The soil of Jyndevad has a very high sand content (88%) and achieved an above-ground biomass yield of 5 Mg ha−1 DM. This is very bad in comparison to the favored site Foulum, which was also investigated by Manevski et al. [6] and achieved an above-ground biomass yield of 13–15 Mg ha−1 DM. Jyndevad was described in Manevski et al. [6] and classified as unsuitable for hemp cultivation, as only a low yield was achieved. The monoecious varieties Fedora 19 and Fedrina 74 were grown at the Potsdam-Bornim site. Under the fertilization variant 0 N kg ha−1, an average above-ground biomass yield of 9.4 Mg ha−1 DM was achieved [80]. This is also lower than on a favored site [6,76]. With a fertilization of 150 N kg ha−1, the yield increased to 11.8 Mg ha−1 DM. Overall, the yields on sites with UST-S show a medium suitability for cultivation, but hemp is only slightly suitable for cultivation on soils with very high sand content.
The Randwijk and Jokioninen sites were classified as marginal agricultural lands due to the heavy clay soil, and the Jokioninen site due to its silty clay soil. In addition to this agricultural marginality constraint, Jokioinen and Jokioinen met the criteria of location factor low temperature (LT) [2,34]. With 15.2 Mg ha−1 DM stalk yield and 17.8 Mg ha−1 DM above-ground biomass yield, the Randwijk site yield was approximately twice as high as Jokioinen and Jokioinen and also higher than the average yield on favorable sites [76]. Three different dioecious varieties were grown on the Randwijk site and various monoecious and dioecious varieties on the Jokioinen and Jokioinen sites. These two locations probably yielded lower yields compared to Randwijk, as the location factors LT and UST-CL have a negative synergy [5]. Hemp thrives best on medium-heavy soils, especially on silty loam, clay loam, and sandy loam [82]. Furthermore, Bócsa et al. [75] list the following soils as suitable for hemp cultivation: loamy sand, highly loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, and heavy loam. This is somewhat in line with Von Cossel et al. [2,34], especially in the early growth phases, hemp reacts sensitively to poor soil structures [76]. Even though Von Cossel et al. [2,34] classify heavy clay soils as having low suitability for cultivation, Randwijk’s yield shows that soil with heavy clay can also achieve high yields. Hemp is therefore well suited for cultivation in UST-CL locations.

3.7. Miscanthus (Miscanthus Andersson)

Under favorable conditions, 50% of all Miscanthus (Miscanthus Andersson) DM yields are in the range of 13–28 Mg ha−1 DM (Figure 2) [65]. With irrigation, yields of over 30 Mg ha−1 DM can be achieved on sites in Southern Europe (average temperatures of 15.4 °C) [83]. In Central and Northern Europe (from Austria to Denmark), where global irradiation and average temperatures are lower (7.3–8.0 °C), yields without irrigation are typically 10–25 Mg ha−1 DM [83]. In a long-term test of Angelini et al. [67] without irrigation on a favored site near Pisa, the average yield over the 2nd–12th year of cultivation was 28.7 Mg ha−1 DM. As with Amaducci et al. [71], the yield of the first year of cultivation of this experiment was much lower than in the following years. From the first to second year, their yield increased; in the 3rd–8th year, the highest yields were achieved; and from the 9th–12th year, the yield decreased [67]. The complete establishment of a Miscanthus population took three to five years [83,84].
For Miscanthus, 14 locations were found where field trials were conducted under UST conditions (Table 7 and Table A1). Of these, seven locations meet the criteria of a UST-S, three locations meet the criteria of a UST-ST, and five locations meet the criteria of a UST-CL.
The Hohenheim site fulfills the criteria of UST-CL and UST-ST; it has a high clay and stone content. Coarse fragments lead to high wear of tillage equipment, and clay also contributes to poorer tillage. On the other hand, the poor soil quality of clay can be positively influenced by a high stone content, since better aeration and better water infiltration is possible. In addition, the high stone content can accelerate the warming of the soil in spring, depending on the local conditions [5]. With a DM yield of 19.9 Mg ha−1, the Hohenheim site is in the upper half of the yield range of Miscanthus on favored sites in northern and central Europe [83]. It should be noted that this yield was determined in the first two years of cultivation. Therefore, it can be assumed that in the following years, higher or lower yields can be achieved at this location. This suggests that Miscanthus is well suited for cultivation on sites that meet the two factors UST-CL and UST-ST. The Near Leck Kill site has a soil with 31.7% rock content. The Aberystwyth site also has a high stone content of 35% and has a depth of only 50 cm [89]. In addition, the Aberystwyth site meets the criteria of LRD (Reinhardt, Hilgert, and Von Cossel, 2021), while the Near Leck Kill site also has SSL. Despite this, Miscanthus achieved a yield of 10.8 Mg ha−1 in Near Leck Kill and 16 Mg ha−1 DM in Aberystwyth. However, this is a scientific yield from a small quadrat in a favorable year.
Two locations in Germany, examined by Clifton-Brown et al. [86] and Lewandowski et al. [87] (Table 7), achieved very similar yields of 25.5 and 24.3 Mg ha−1 DM (both in the 3rd year of cultivation). Both locations are characterized by soils with UST-CL. These are in accordance with the upper-end yield range for Central Europe mentioned by Lewandowski et al. [83]. At 7.4 Mg ha−1 DM, the yield at Gütersleben (also UST-CL) was significantly below that of the two locations mentioned above. This was probably due to the lower annual precipitation of 603 mm. At the German location of Clifton-Brown et al. [86] (Table 7), the annual PR was 687 mm and 779 mm at the Stuttgart site. At the Rainton Bridge site, an extremely low yield of 0.02 Mg ha−1 DM was achieved due to the presence of not only the UST-CL factor, but also low soil drainage (LSD) conditions. This was due to poor establishment caused by the UST at this site. With developments in agronomy (e.g., a stone burier), it may well be possible to establish crops on such a site.
The yields determined on the UST-S sites vary widely, ranging from 0 to 32.1 Mg ha−1 DM. The Swedish site in Clifton-Brown et al. [86] did not produce any yields, as Miscanthus did not survive the first winter after planting. The reasons for this were probably (i) the low soil temperature which fell below the plant’s required minimum, and (ii) that the in vitro plants may not grow sufficient rhizomes for the plant to overwinter well. On the site in Portugal, which also meets the factor UST-S, high average yields of 32.1 Mg ha−1 DM were achieved in the second and third years of cultivation. This site was irrigated. In the 3rd year of cultivation, the yield was 36.4 Mg ha−1 DM, which is comparable to the data of Lewandowski et al. [83] for a site in Southern Europe with irrigation, and higher compared to an unirrigated site in Southern Europe [67]. Compared to the location in Portugal, the yield in Denmark was much lower, with 9.7 Mg ha−1 DM. With 657 mm annual rainfall and no irrigation, the water supply of Miscanthus in Denmark was lower compared to Portugal, and in addition, the annual average temperature was only 8 °C in Denmark, compared to 15.4 °C in Portugal. Furthermore, the sand content in Portugal was lower with 76.2% compared to Denmark with 84.4%. The Casale Monferrato site (in Italy) achieved a lower yield than Portugal with 12.5 Mg ha−1 DM due to rainfed conditions. This could also be due to a high sand content of 90% in Casale Monferrato. Another site with sandy soil is Gutenzell. On this site, Miscanthus achieved a yield of 14.4 Mg ha−1 DM, which is lower than in Portugal, but within the yield range of sites in Central Europe [83]. The Enna site, along with Portugal, achieved the highest yield of all UST-S sites found, with 24.4 Mg ha−1 DM, under an irrigation of 75% ET (Table A1).
Following Von Cossel et al. [2,34], Miscanthus showed low suitability for cultivation on sandy soils (depending on precipitation and irrigation conditions), good suitability for cultivation on clay soils, and medium suitability for cultivation on heavy clay soils. Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] indicate that Miscanthus is moderately suitable for cultivation on sandy and clay soils (provided they make it through the first few months after planting) and poorly suitable for cultivation on heavy clay soils. The most important requirement that Miscanthus places on the soil is its water holding capacity [93]. Although it is easier to establish on light soils, it produces higher yields on heavy soils over several years [83]. Even though Panacea [94] indicates that Miscanthus can only grow poorly on stony soils, the published plot trials show this is not always the case. These sites each meet the criteria for another marginal factor and still achieved mediocre yields. This suggests that Miscanthus is well suited for cultivation on sites with only UST-ST. In addition, the sites found indicate that this plant is very suitable for cultivation on UST-CL sites in Central Europe with a good water supply. For UST-S sites in Southern Europe, Miscanthus shows good suitability for cultivation, provided sufficient irrigation is provided. A very high sand content (>75%) in the soil results in lower and more variable annual yields than a site with a reduced sand fraction.

3.8. Poplar (Populus L.)

The yield results from the systematic literature search with the corresponding indication of the respective agricultural marginality constraints are listed in Table 8. In order to better assess the suitability of poplar cultivation on marginal agricultural lands, the yield figures determined are compared with those on favored sites. In a systematic literature search and meta-analysis of Laurent et al. [65] on poplar yields, it was found that 50% of all yield data are in the range of 7–10 Mg ha−1 DM (Figure 2). Berendonk et al. [61] indicate that a yield of 8–12 Mg ha−1 DM can be expected for short rotation plantations. On a favorable location in Mira in Northern Italy, a yield of 20 Mg ha−1 DM in the second rotation and 15 Mg ha−1 DM in the first rotation was achieved [95]. Seven sites with UST were found for poplar, five of which are UST-S and two of which are UST-CL (Table 8 and Table A1).
The Lochchristi site also shows low soil drainage (LSD), while the Rutigliano site meets the criteria for DR. The Casale Monferrato site has a very high sand content of over 90%. Here, poplar achieved a yield of 7.2 Mg ha−1 DM. At the Soria site, a very similar yield of 7.3 Mg ha−1 DM was obtained over three rotations (9 Mg ha−1 DM in the first and second rotation and 4 Mg ha−1 DM in the third) [97]. At the Potsdam-Bornim site, a yield of 7.7 Mg ha−1 DM was achieved. The yield of the genotype Japan 105 was over 9 Mg ha−1 DM [80]. The Olsztyn site achieved the lowest yield of 5.5 Mg ha−1 DM of all UST-S sites investigated with poplar. It also has a very high sand content of 90% of the soil. On this site, however, a yield of 10.6 Mg ha−1 DM could be achieved with lignin and mineral fertilization [98,99]. The Lochchristi site achieved the highest yield of all UST-S sites at 8.1 Mg ha−1 DM. The yields of four of the five sites found are slightly below the yield in Berendonk et al. [61]. An exception is Lochchristi; the yield achieved on this corresponds to the yield on favored sites [61].
Eight different genotypes were grown on the Bigarello site. These yielded an average of 6.1 Mg ha−1 DM over two rotations, which was slightly below the yield of Berendonk et al. [61] for poplar. The highest yield in the second rotation was achieved by the genotype 83,148,041 (P. x canadensis) with 11.1 Mg ha−1. The Rutigliano site achieved a yield of 1.8 Mg ha−1 DM, which is much lower than the yield stated in Berendonk et al. [61]. Optimum conditions for poplar are soils with a maximum clay content of 30% [95].
According to Von Cossel et al. [2,34], poplar has a low suitability for cultivation in sandy soils, very good to medium suitability for clay soils and, low suitability for heavy clay soils. Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] also classify the suitability for cultivation in this way. Only heavy clay soils are classified as unsuitable for poplar cultivation. For soils with UST-CL, this information can be confirmed with the yields of the identified sites. They show a medium suitability for cultivation. The yields of the locations found for UST-S do not match the classifications of Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] and Von Cossel et al. [34]. It can be assumed that poplar also has medium suitability for cultivation in soils with UST-S, provided it has a high water table or high precipitation.

3.9. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.)

Reed canary grass achieves biomass yields of 5–13 Mg ha−1 DM under favorable conditions [93,102,103]. For example, reed canary grass achieved an average yield of 8 Mg ha−1 DM (yields of 3.9–13.8 Mg ha−1 DM were measured) on four different favored sites in the Czech Republic from the 2nd–6th year of cultivation [104]. Eight locations were found that meet the criteria for UST (Table 9 and Table A1).
Of these, three are UST-S, four are UST-CL, and one is UST-ST. The Carlow site (Far Avenue Meadow) also meets the criteria for the LRD factor. The Willsboro (SCL), Rainton Bridge, and Burlington sites also have low soil drainage. Willsboro (lS) also has the factor UST-S. Furthermore, Willsboro (lS) and Willsboro (SCL) fulfill the criteria of factor LT. The soil at the Jyndevad site has a sand content of 88% and a yield of 14.3 Mg ha−1. The Foulum site has a slightly lower sand content of 78% and achieved a higher yield of 16 Mg ha−1. Both yields are higher than the yield on favored sites [93]. At the Willsboro (lS) site, a low yield of 3 Mg ha−1 DM was achieved. With NPK fertilization, however, the yield could be increased to 9 Mg ha−1. The Carlow site (Far Avenue Meadow) achieved a yield of 13 Mg ha−1 DM, which corresponds to the yield on favored sites [93].
The soil at the Carlow site (Farrels field) has a clay content of over 45% and yielded 14 Mg ha−1 DM [106]. This yield is higher than the yield on favored sites [17]. On Willsboro (SCL), a yield of 5 Mg ha−1 DM could be achieved without fertilization and 11 Mg ha−1 with N-fertilization [105]. Furthermore, in Burlington, a higher fertilization level with 253 kg N ha−1 resulted in a higher crop yield of 10.5 Mg ha−1 DM [107].
The assessments of the suitability for the cultivation of reed canary grass in Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] and in Von Cossel et al. [2,34] agree. They state that this crop’s suitability for cultivation on sand is low, on loam very good, on clay moderate, and on heavy clay low. The results of this work partly contradict these statements. They rather indicate good suitability for cultivation on soils with high sand content and also on soils with high clay content. That the soil type influences the yield and that soil with less than 15% clay has higher yields than clay soil [108] could not be confirmed with the yield results of the locations found. A greenhouse trial in Freiberg showed that reed canary grass could also grow in pots with 100% sand and be fertilized with an NPK solution [109,110]. Reed canary grass can grow in a variety of soils [104] and shows good suitability for cultivation on sites with UST-S, UST-CL, and UST-ST, as long as enough water and nutrients are available.

3.10. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench)

Under favorable conditions, Sorghum reaches above-ground DM yields of 15–20 Mg DM ha−1 [111]. For example, on a favored site in Cadriano, Italy, fiber and sweet Sorghum yielded an average of 20.8 Mg DM ha−1 [112]. Three sites were found, which meet the criteria of a UST-S and one site, which meets the criteria of a UST-CL (Table 10 and Table A1).
Ganquika, like the Wushen site, also meets the criteria of a DR site. The Big Spring site achieved a yield of 23 Mg ha−1 DM in the trial version with irrigation. This yield is comparable to the yield on favored sites [111] and is slightly higher than the yield achieved in Cadriano, Italy (favored location) [112]. The theoretical ethanol yield at Big Spring was 3000 L ha−1. This is comparable to a favorable location on a silty clayey loamy soil with 3209 L ha−1 [117]. Compared to the favored site in Weslaco, USA, with a clayey loamy soil, on which a theoretical ethanol yield of 2601 L ha−1 was achieved [118], the amount of ethanol produced at Big Spring is higher. The biomass yield at Ganquika was lower compared to Big Spring and also compared to favored sites [111]. The theoretical ethanol yield (2491 L ha−1) was also lower in Ganquika compared to Big Spring. Presumably, the yield on Ganquika is lower because the location factors DR and UST-S show a negative synergy [5]. For this reason, and because the Wushen site also has the factor LT, the yield at this site is much lower than at the favored sites [111]. The ethanol content of Wushen, at 2135 L ha−1, is also below that of Big Spring. At the El Centro site, Sorghum was grown in one year over three growing seasons, with a yield of 16.2 Mg ha−1 DM in the second growing season [116]. This yield is more or less equal to that obtained in favored locations [111,112].
As shown, Sorghum can grow in a wide variety of soils, including clay and sandy soils [119]. Clay soils are ideal for the cultivation of Sorghum [119,120,121]. According to the division elaborated by Von Cossel et al. [2,34], Sorghum is unsuitable for cultivation on sandy soils and is very suitable for cultivation on clay and heavy clay soils. The yield results at the sites with UST-S contradict this classification, whereas it is confirmed by the results at the sites with UST-CL. Sorghum has good suitability for cultivation on sites with UST-S and very good suitability for cultivation on sites with UST-CL.

3.11. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)

For switchgrass grown under favorable conditions, 50% of all DM yields are in the range of 7–12 Mg ha−1 (Figure 2) [65]. In Europe, switchgrass DM yields range from 5–23 Mg ha−1 [93]. According to Parrish et al. [122], switchgrass produces DM yields of about 15 Mg ha−1 on favored sites over a longer period of time. Panacea [123] reported switchgrass DM yields of 10–25 Mg ha−1 on favorable sites. Nine locations were found for the agricultural marginality constraint UST (Table 11 and Table A1).
Of these, two fulfill the marginality thresholds of UST-CL, five of UST-S, and two of UST-ST. The Near Leak Kill site has a stone content of 31.7% in the soil and additionally an SSL. Switchgrass achieved a yield of 11 Mg ha−1 DM in the first year of cultivation. This corresponds to the yields on favored sites [123]. Switchgrass grown on sites with only UST-ST could achieve even higher yields in further growing years than in the first growing year on the Near Leck Kill site. On the Mason site, the lowland variety Nebraska 29 yielded 15 Mg ha−1 DM. This corresponds to the yield on favored sites [122]. The described results confirm the statement of Parenti et al. [74] that switchgrass has a good cultivation suitability for sites with UST-ST.
On the Willsboro (SCL) with UST-CL and Willsboro (lS) with UST-S sites, the Cave-in-Rock (Upland) variety was cultivated. The yield on Willsoboro (lS) was 10 Mg ha−1 DM, which is slightly below the yield of 12.5 Mg ha−1 DM on Willsboro (SCL). Higher yields were produced on both sites with NPK fertilization: Willsboro (lS) 12.5 Mg ha−1 DM and Willsoboro (SCL) 14.5 Mg ha−1 DM [105]. The Ganquika site has UST-S and DR. At this site, the Blackwell upland variety achieved a yield of 9.8 Mg ha−1 DM. This is slightly lower than the yields on favored sites [123]. At the Becker site, the Shawnee and Sunburst upland varieties and the Liberty lowland variety were cultivated. In the first three years of cultivation, Liberty achieved a mediocre yield of 3.5 Mg ha−1 DM without fertilization, while Shawnee and Sunburst yielded 4.5 Mg ha−1 DM. With a fertilization of 112 kg ha−1 N, the yield of Liberty at 7 Mg ha−1 and of Sunburst and Shawnee at 11 Mg ha−1 DM was significantly higher than without fertilization. The marginal agricultural land Becker also has low soil moisture. Lowland varieties like Liberty are sensitive to water stress, whereas upland varieties are better adapted to dry conditions [125]. The soil of the Casale Monferrato site has a 90% sand content. The Lowland variety Alamo produced a yield of 7.5 Mg ha−1 DM on this site. This yield is slightly lower than the yield on the other site [123].
According to Parenti et al. [74], switchgrass is very suitable for sandy soils and only slightly suitable for clay soils. Von Cossel et al. [34] and Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] indicate that switchgrass has medium cultivation suitability for sandy soils, very good suitability for clay soils, and medium suitability for clay soils. Switchgrass is declared unsuitable for cultivation on heavy clay soils Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8]. In general, the ecotype Upland is suitable for sandy soils, and the Lowland ecotype is only moderately suitable for clay soils. Upland varieties are moderately suitable for cultivation on clay soils.

3.12. Willow (Salix L.)

For willow, 50% of all DM yield data are in the range of 8–13 Mg ha−1 [65]. According to [61], a DM yield of 8–12 Mg ha−1 is expected for short rotation plantations. Under optimal conditions, willow can achieve DM yields of 20–30 Mg ha−1 DM [42]. On a favored site in Poland, willow produced an average yield of 13.7 Mg ha−1 DM and a maximum yield of 16 Mg ha−1 DM [127].
For willow grown under UST conditions, 19 locations were found (Table 12 and Table A1).
Of these, eleven have a UST-S, seven a UST-CL, and one a UST-ST. The yields on sites with UST-S are in the range of 2 to 8.2 Mg DM ha−1. With the exception of the Foulum site with a yield of 8.2 Mg ha−1 DM, all yields of the sites with UST-S are lower than those on favorable sites [61]. At the Saint Roch (Sandy) site, the unfertilized trial variant achieved 2 Mg DM ha−1, while the other variant with a fertilization of 75 kg N ha−1 produced a significantly higher yield of 3 Mg DM ha−1 [133]. This site has the third-highest sand content of all sites found, at 89%. The Foersom site has the highest sand content (95%) and achieved a DM yield of 4.2 Mg ha−1. The results of all sites with UST-S show that a high sand content leads to yield losses in comparison to favored sites. It can therefore be assumed that willow is suitable for medium cultivation at sites with UST-S.
The yields on sites with UST-CL range from 0 to 13 Mg DM ha−1. The Rainton Bridge site has LSD in addition to UST-CL. The Tora (SW910007) and Torhild (SW930725) genotypes of Salix schwerinii x Salix viminalis cultivated on it grew very poorly. For this reason, a very low DM yield of 0.04 Mg ha−1 was achieved [92]. The Beloeil and La Pocatiere sites both have a UST-CL only and achieved a DM yield of 11.5 Mg ha−1 each, which is comparable to the yield in Berendonk et al. [61] and corresponds to the yield mentioned above. At the Alma site, willow achieved a yield of 13 Mg DM ha−1 despite UST-CL and additional LSD. These results show that willow is well suited for cultivation on sites with UST-CL.
The soil of the Saint Roch (Rocky) site contains 30% stones (1–5 cm in size). Salix miyabeana Seeman SX64 and SX61 were grown on it, and a DM yield of 1 Mg ha−1 (without fertilization) was achieved. With a fertilization of 75 kg N ha−1, a significantly higher yield of 1.5 Mg DM ha−1 was achieved on this site [133]. Both yield values are far below those on favored sites [61]. On Saint Roch (Rocky), willow produced little biomass because the soil was too difficult for the roots of this plant to penetrate due to its high stone content [133]. Sites with a UST-ST are only slightly suitable for the cultivation of willow.
According to the division into the categories established by Von Cossel et al. [2,34], willow is suitable for growing on sandy soils, very well suited on clay soils, moderately suited on clay soils, and poorly suited on heavy clay soils. The categorization reported by Ramirez-Almeyda et al. [8] is in accordance with Von Cossel et al. [2,34], except for heavy clay soil, which is considered unsuitable for willow cultivation.

4. Suitability Ranking of Industrial Crops for Cultivation on USTs

Based on the results from the literature review, some contrasting objective cultivation suitability values were derived for the selected industrial crops on unfavorable soil types sandy, clayey, and stony soil (Table 13).
Industrial crops whose suitability for cultivation on sites with a certain marginality is rated as good or very good may be recommended for cultivation. Good and very good suitability for cultivation means that yields comparable to favorable locations can be achieved on marginal sites. The expected yields are listed below.
The following plants are well suited for cultivation on sites with a marginality due to UST-S: Camelina, cardoon, giant reed, Miscanthus, upland switchgrass, reed canary grass, cup plant, and Sorghum showed well suitability for sites characterized by sandy soil (UST-S) (Table 13). The highest yields can be expected with the cultivation of giant reed, cardoon, and Sorghum under UST-S conditions. Other cultivation parameters, such as the temperature and the sunshine duration, are also important. Considering these, the best recommendation would be to grow cardoon and giant reed in southern Europe, Sorghum in southern and central Europe, reed canary grass in central and northern Europe, whereas Miscanthus, camelina, and switchgrass could grow on UST-S sites throughout Europe [134]. UST-S conditions, however, can place great demands on agricultural practices, depending on the location, as already mentioned to some extent in the previous sections. For example, great importance must be placed on site-specific fertilization and water supply, as sandy soils tend to be low in nutrients and have low field capacity. Depending on other site conditions, such as steep slopes or close proximity to groundwater protection areas, the requirement of fertilization or irrigation may preclude the cultivation of the industrial crops mentioned above, even if they are suitable in principle.
On marginal agricultural land characterized by UST-CL (clayey soil), the following industrial crops show good suitability for cultivation: hemp, cardoon, Sorghum, reed canary grass, and willow (Table 13). For the industrial crop Miscanthus, a very good suitability for cultivation was revealed. But again, other growth conditions than the soil type are, of course, important as well. Thus, high yields of Miscanthus on sites with UST-CL can only be expected under warm climatic conditions with a long growing season and sufficient water supply. Hemp is suitable for cultivation throughout Europe, but care must be taken to select only varieties approved in the EU [135] in order to meet not only the growing conditions but also the respective legal requirements. Cardoon is suitable for cultivation in southern Europe, Sorghum in southern and central Europe, reed canary grass and willow in central and northern Europe, and Miscanthus throughout Europe [134].
For UST-ST, based on the results of the literature review, the selection of suitable industrial crops is much lower compared to UST-S and UST-CL (Table 13). Only the industrial crops hemp, Miscanthus, switchgrass, and reed canary grass are considered suitable, with the lowest DM yield level expected for hemp (Figure 2).

5. Outlook

The sparse data on UST-ST (Table 13, Figure 2) is a good example of how much information is still lacking on the adaptive capabilities and resulting performance spectra of the known industrial crops on marginal agricultural land. In order to avoid data patchworks, such as those uncovered in this review, in the future, research institutions should be better networked and coordinated with each other. This applies to research networks that serve food security, for example, the European Consortium for Open Field Experimentation (ECOFE), and those that serve biomass security. Biomass security here refers to the long-term availability of biomass types other than those used for food and feed supply. Even though biomass security does not have the same priority as food security, a sustainable transition to a bioeconomy may only be possible if long-term planning research networks that deal with industrial crops are created. A carefully thought-out and well-coordinated network of field trial stations such as ECOFE [136] may be necessary to provide a clearer picture of where which industrial crops are performing well, especially considering the currently accelerating dynamics of climate change [137,138] and the growing conflicts of interest over the use of available land [139]. Therefore, it should be thoroughly investigated whether such networks should become part of a permanent state-funded infrastructure in order to run as successfully as possible. It is true that there are already a large number of long-term field trials with industrial crops in the EU [140,141], some of which could be passed on from one project to the next. However, this is not the rule, with the consequence that many field trials cannot be monitored continuously over several years or, in the worst case, have to be abandoned despite their great potential for use as long-term studies. In addition, the number of participating institutions that can conduct representative field trials is severely limited in such short-term projects (duration of up to five years). This is because, in addition to crop-related tasks, there are always a variety of other areas of work that must be included in the proposal (e.g., sustainability assessment, value chain development, dissemination, etc.) without which an acceptance of the proposals is not realistic. As already mentioned, it is important to cover as broadly as possible the marginality constraints to identify relevant combined effects and to develop possible agronomic solutions, including, for example, the site-specific selection of the most suitable crop or crop rotation. An important first approach could be to establish a good database of all trial sites (at EU and global level) with accurate information on the crops and genotypes used, the soil and climatic characteristics of the sites, the exact yields per year, and the exact management measures. This will allow better comparisons and informed decisions on where to grow which crops, or where there are synergies in field trials and possible networks that could be formed to start joint long-term planning.
The present study should thus be considered as only one part of the necessary basis to enable sustainable biomass production from industrial cropping systems on marginal agricultural land characterized by UST conditions in the future. The development of site-specific industrial cropping systems must always take into account the overall site conditions, including environmental conditions (especially other marginality constraints) and socio-economic requirements.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: J.R. and M.V.C.; methodology: J.R. and M.V.C.; validation, J.R., P.H. and M.V.C.; investigation: J.R.; writing—original draft: J.R., P.H. and M.V.C.; writing—review and editing: M.V.C.; resources: J.R.; visualization: J.R. and M.V.C.; funding acquisition, M.V.C.; supervision: M.V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 727698, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01PL16003), and the University of Hohenheim.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sets for this research are included in the references.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Iris Lewandowski for making this work possible. Special thanks to Eva Lewin for the linguistic improvement of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 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

Table
Table A1. Overview of growing season and meteorological conditions data from the field trial datasets used in this study.
Table A1. Overview of growing season and meteorological conditions data from the field trial datasets used in this study.
CropReferenceField
Trial Start		Field
Trial End		SowingHarvestLength of Vegetation Period (Days)Annual Average Temperature (°C)Vegetation Period Average Temperature (°C)Annual Precipitation (mm)Precipitation within Vegetation Period (mm)Vegetation PeriodAnnual Irrigation (mm)
Giant reed[45]2002200710 April 2002February/March xxx463.64March–January137
Giant reed[45]2002200710 April 2002February/March xxx463.64March–January443
Giant reed[69]20082010November 2008End of November x241228741April–November417.5
Giant reed[70]200920117 May 20093 July 2011 xx626.4315.3April–November0
Giant reed[71]20072014April 2007End of winter 13.618.2818519x70
Camelina[31]1993199522 March 1993, 11 March 1994, 13 March 199530 July 1993,
19 July 1994,
27 July 1995		 8.6x595xx0
Camelina[32]20032005Springx xxxxx0
Camelina[33]201320152 October 2013,
13 November 2014		12 March 2014,
14 April 2015		 xxx30x465
Camelina[33]2012201528 November 2012,
28 October 2013,
28 October 2014		06 May 2013,
01 May 2014,
13 May 2015		 xxx105x133
Hemp[6]20132013MaySeptemberxxx800.0xx175
Hemp[77]2003200423 and 17 MayOctoberxx11.7x454.6May–October0
Hemp[78]1995199531 MaySeptxx13.2x370.1May–September 0
Hemp[79]2008200823 April to 16 July3 October to 12 November xxxx675.3April–November0
Hemp[80]19941999xxxx9.3x523.0x0
Hemp[81]1991199220 April 1991, 24 April 199216 September 91,
14 September 92		xxxxxx0
Crambe[54]2011xAugust 2011xx19x1600xx0
Crambe[55]2012xApril 2012xx17.91x1800445April–August0
Crambe[51]20062008End November 2006 and 2007May 2007 and 2008xx16.4x397November–May0
Cardoon[45]2002200730 May2002August/Septemberxxxx541.45August–July53
Cardoon[45]2002200730 May2002August/Septemberxxxx541.45August–July155
Cardoon[46]1998200225 September 1998End of July/early Augustxxxxxx50
Cardoon[47]20092012December 2009Septemberxx14.1x485.6September 10–August 110
Miscanthus[45]2002200710 April 2002February/Marchxxxx489.0March–January 148
Miscanthus[71]20072014April 2007End of winter x13.618.2818.0519.0x70
Miscanthus[85]19932012May 1993xx8.0x657.0xx0
Miscanthus[86]1997199917 June12 November,
24 November,
18 October		x7.913.0696.0359.0April–September0
Miscanthus[86]1997199921 March27 October,
15 October,
6 October		x15.419.6665.0156.0April–September396
Miscanthus[87]19911995May 1991February 1995x10.5x801.0576.0March–OctoberFirst two years
Miscanthus[87]19931995May 1993February 1995x8.3x988.0687.0March–October0
Miscanthus[88]20122013Spring 2012Early November 2013x9.2x1060.0xxx
Miscanthus[89]2012201518 May 2012February–Aprilx9.712.61038.0475.0April–September 2012–2015, (Lewandowski et al. 2016: annual temp. and annual precipitation)0
Miscanthus[90]20162017xMid–September to mid-October 2016 and 2017x10.0x830.0xx0
Miscanthus[91]19941997xxx9.5x603.0xx0
Miscanthus[86]1997199921 May11 November,
23 November,
21 November		x7.913.3687.0425.0April–September0
Miscanthus[87]19921995May 1992February 1995x9.7x779.0599.0March–OctoberIn first Year
Miscanthus[92]20072010Spring 2007, 20 cmFebruary–March 2009;
February 2010		x9.3x630.0xx0
Switchgrass[92]20072010Spring 2007, 20 cmFebruary–March 2009;
February 2010		x9.3x630xx0
Switchgrass[105]200920122006Early October150 days freeze-free growing seasonxxx699March–October0
Switchgrass[105]200920122006Early October150 days freeze-free growing seasonxxx698March–October0
Switchgrass[114]2012201620087 Octoberx5.8x451.1xx0
Switchgrass[125]20122015May 2012Post–frostx5.9x704512May–October150 (in establishment year)
Switchgrass[125]20122015May 2012Post–frostx5.9x704512May–October150 (in establishment year)
Switchgrass[71]20072014April 2007End of winterx13.618.2818519x70
Switchgrass[126]20082011May 2009September/October 2010xxx177xx120
Switchgrass[88]20122013Spring 2012Early November 2013x9.2x1060xxx
Reed canary grass[105]200920122006Early July and early October150 days freeze-free growing seasonxxx698March–October0
Reed canary grass[105]200920122006Early July and early October151 days freeze-free growing seasonxxx699March–October0
Reed canary grass[6]20122015May 20122012 (August and October), 2013 (May, August, and October), 2014 (May, July, August, October), 2015 (May, October)xxx1000xx20–50
Reed canary grass[6]20122015May 20122012 (August and October), 2013 (May, August, and October), 2014 (May, July, August, October), 2015 (May, October)xxx800xx150–200
Reed canary grass[106]2012201424 May 20122013 (4–7 June, 29–31 July, 24–23 September), 2014 (27–29 June, 29–31 July, 18 September) (A cut took place at the end of the 2012 growth period)xx12.2x370March–September0
Reed canary grass[106]2012201424 May 20122013 (4–7 June, 29–31 July, 24–23 September),
2014 (27–29 June, 29–31 July, 18 September)		xx12.2x370March–September0
Reed canary grass[92]20072009Spring 2007, 20 cmNovember–December 08; Oct 09x9.3x630xx0
Reed canary grass[107]19961997x3 cut (6–9 June, 22–23 July,
13 September/13 October		xx16x494May–October0
Poplar[96]20102012March 2010, 22 cm long and 1.5–2 cm diameterMarch 2012xx 530xxIn first Year 175
Poplar[95]20032007Spring 20032005 and 2007x13.6x639.5189May–August 70
Poplar[71]20072014April 2007End of years 2, 4, 6x13.618.2818519May–August 70
Poplar[97]20062014March 2006, 25 cm longEnd of years 2008, 2011 and 2014x10.4x494xxIn the dry months May to September
Poplar[80]19941999xTwo-year rotation cycle (1995/1996), (1997/1998), (1999/2000)x9.3x523xx0
Poplar[98]20102013Early April 2010December 2013x7.713.85694521May–October 0
Poplar[101]201020147–10 April 2010February 2012, 2014x1014730430x0
Willow[128]19952000Spring 1995November 1997, November 2000182 frost-free days 6.417954427May–September 0
Willow[129]20072013Spring 2007, 25 cmCoppiced at the end of the first growing season, and first-rotation biomass was harvested 3 years later 1122x375xx0
Willow[128]19952000Spring 1995November 1997, November 2001182 frost-free days 6.417954427May–September 0
Willow[131]20122014Spring 20112014 (cut back in fall 2011)x3.715.2810465May–September 0
Willow[131]20122014Spring 2012 (due to high mortality at the first planting in 2011 had to be planted again)2014x1.513.7714423May–September 0
Willow[131]20122014Spring 20112014 (cut back in fall 2011)x7.317.9952468May–September 0
Willow[131]20122014Spring 20122014 (cut back in fall 2011)x5.415.7728383May–September 0
Willow[71]20072014April 2007End of year 2, 4, 6x13.618.2818519x70
Willow[80]19941999xTwo-year rotation cycle (1995/1996), (1997/1998), (1999/2000) xx9.3x523x0
Willow[98]20102013Early April 2010, at 25 cm length and 0.9–1.1 cm diameterDecember 2013x7.713.85694521May–October0
Willow[127]2008201220–21 April 2008Early January 2012; end of 2008 vegetation period was harvested to increase the number of shootsx7.8x650xx0
Willow[132]201020125 May 2010, 20 cm13 November 2012 x813.9896503May–September 0
Willow[132]2010201221 May 2010, 20 cm19 November 2012 (cut-back after first growth year)x7.813.8596320May–September 0
Willow[132]2010201210–17 May 2010, 20 cm11 February 2013x7.513.6673341May–September 0
Willow[132]2010201210 May 2010, 20 cm5 February 2013x8.114.5858453May–September 0
Willow[133]201020112010Early December 2011xxxxxx0
Willow[133]201020112010Early December 2011xxxxxx0
Willow[92]20072010Spring 2007January 2008, December 2009–February 2010x9.3x630xx0
Willow[132]201020126 May 201013 November 2012x813.9896503May–September 0
Cup plant[62]201620172016October 2017x9x768xx0
Cup plant[60]201420152014Early September 2015xx14.5x356March–September 0
Cup plant[60]201420152014Early September 2015xx13.6x383March–September 0
Cup plant[63]20162018May 16Early October 2017 and 2018x8.216536434April–October0
Cup plant[64]20122013xxxxxxxx215
Sorghum[113]201320147 May 2013, 12 May 2014SeptemberFrost-free period 130–1606.2x348.3xx156
Sorghum[114]201220137 May7 Octoberx5.8x451.1xx0
Sorghum[115]200920103 June 2009, 24 May 201021 August 2009, 19 August 2010x17.127549255May–August0
Sorghum[115]200920104 June 2009, 24 May 201022 August 2009, 19 August 2010x17.127594255May–August219
Sorghum[116]201220125 June14 Augustxxx20xxYes

References

  1. Gerwin, W.; Repmann, F.; Galatsidas, S.; Vlachaki, D.; Gounaris, N.; Baumgarten, W.; Volkmann, C.; Keramitzis, D.; Kiourtsis, F.; Freese, D. Assessment and Quantification of Marginal Lands for Biomass Production in Europe Using Soil-Quality Indicators. Soil 2018, 4, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Von Cossel, M.; Iqbal, Y.; Scordia, D.; Cosentino, S.L.; Elbersen, B.; Staritsky, I.; Van Eupen, M.; Mantel, S.; Prysiazhniuk, O.; Maliarenko, O.; et al. Low-Input Agricultural Practices for Industrial Crops on Marginal Land; University of Hohenheim: Stuttgart, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rossiter, D.; Schulte, R.; van Velthuizen, H.; Le-Bas, C.; Nachtergaele, F.; Jones, R.; van Orshoven, J. Updated Common Bio-Physical Criteria to Define Natural Constraints for Agriculture in Europe; Terres, J., Toth, T., Van Orshoven, J., Eds.; EUR, Scientific and Technical Research Series; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2014; Volume 26638, ISBN 92-79-38190-3. [Google Scholar]
  4. Scheffer, F.; Schachtschabel, P.; Blume, H.-P.; Brümmer, G.W.; Horn, R.; Kandeler, E.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Kretzschmar, R.; Stahr, K.; Thiele-Bruhn, S.; et al. 16. Auflage. In Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde; Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; ISBN 978-3-8274-1444-1. [Google Scholar]
  5. Confalonieri, R.; Jones, B.; Van Diepen, K.; Van Orshoven, J. Scientific Contribution on Combining Biophysical Criteria Underpinning the Delineation of Agricultural Areas Affected by Specific Constraints. In Methodology and Factsheets for Plausible Criteria Combinations; Terres, J., Hagyo, A., Wania, A., Eds.; JRC Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Manevski, K.; Lærke, P.E.; Jiao, X.; Santhome, S.; Jørgensen, U. Biomass Productivity and Radiation Utilisation of Innovative Cropping Systems for Biorefinery. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 233, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jahn, R.; Blume, H.P.; Asio, V.B.; Spaargaren, O.; Schad, P. Guidelines for Soil Description, 4th ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; ISBN 978-92-5-105521-2. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ramirez-Almeyda, J.; Elbersen, B.; Monti, A.; Staritsky, I.; Panoutsou, C.; Alexopoulou, E.; Schrijver, R.; Elbersen, W. Chapter 9-Assessing the Potentials for Nonfood Crops. In Modeling and Optimization of Biomass Supply Chains; Panoutsou, C., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 219–251. ISBN 978-0-12-812303-4. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dahmen, N.; Lewandowski, I.; Zibek, S.; Weidtmann, A. Integrated Lignocellulosic Value Chains in a Growing Bioeconomy: Status Quo and Perspectives. GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Lange, L.; Connor, K.O.; Arason, S.; Bundgård-Jørgensen, U.; Canalis, A.; Carrez, D.; Gallagher, J.; Gøtke, N.; Huyghe, C.; Jarry, B.; et al. Developing a Sustainable and Circular Bio-Based Economy in EU: By Partnering Across Sectors, Upscaling and Using New Knowledge Faster, and For the Benefit of Climate, Environment & Biodiversity, and People & Business. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 8, 1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Panoutsou, C.; Singh, A. A Value Chain Approach to Improve Biomass Policy Formation. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 464–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Fernando, A.L.; Rettenmaier, N.; Soldatos, P.; Panoutsou, C. Sustainability of Perennial Crops Production for Bioenergy and Bioproducts. In Perennial Grasses for Bioenergy and Bioproducts; Alexopoulou, E., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 245–283. ISBN 978-0-12-812900-5. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, J.A.; Brancoli, P.; Agnihotri, S.; Bolton, K.; Taherzadeh, M.J. A Review of Integration Strategies of Lignocelluloses and Other Wastes in 1st Generation Bioethanol Processes. Process. Biochem. 2018, 75, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ubando, A.T.; Felix, C.B.; Chen, W.-H. Biorefineries in Circular Bioeconomy: A Comprehensive Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 299, 122585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vogelpohl, T. Transnational Sustainability Certification for the Bioeconomy? Patterns and Discourse Coalitions of Resistance and Alternatives in Biomass Exporting Regions. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021, 11, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baum, G. Betriebswirtschaftliche Betrachtung der Wildpflanzennutzung für Biogasbetriebe 2019. Available online: https://baden-wuerttemberg.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/badenwuerttemberg/vortraege/baum_betriebswirtschaftl_wildpflanzen_f__r_biogas_ver__ffentlichung.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  17. Winkler, B.; Mangold, A.; Von Cossel, M.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Pogrzeba, M.; Lewandowski, I.; Iqbal, Y.; Kiesel, A. Implementing Miscanthus into Farming Systems: A Review of Agronomic Practices, Capital and Labour Demand. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 132, 110053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Haberzettl, J.; Hilgert, P.; Von Cossel, M. A Critical Review on Lignocellulosic Biomass Yield Modeling and the Bioenergy Potential from Marginal Land. Agronomy 2021, 11. (in press). [Google Scholar]
  19. BMEL. Agrarexporte Verstehen-Fakten Und Hintergründe; BMEL: Berlin, Germany, 2018. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/Agrarexporte-verstehen.pdf;jsessionid=A391E0A1B2016894D23176E8A8D57E2E.internet2852?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  20. UBA (Umweltbundesamt). Toward Ecofriendly Farming. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/soil-agriculture/toward-ecofriendly-farming (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  21. European Commission CORDIS EU Research Results. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/projects/en (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  22. Elsevier. How Can I Best Use the Advanced Search? Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11365/c/10546/supporthub/scopus/ (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  23. 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] [Green Version]
  24. Moser, B.R. Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) Oil as a Biofuels Feedstock: Golden Opportunity or False Hope? Lipid Technol. 2010, 22, 270–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Panacea. Scientific Papers and Training Materials-Panacea. Summary Factsheet Camelina Sativa; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2020; Available online: http://www.panacea-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SUMMARY-FACTSHEET_camelina.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  26. Panacea. Scientific Papers and Training Materials-Panacea. Summary Factsheet HEAR; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2020; Available online: http://www.panacea-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SUMMARY-FACTSHEET_HEAR.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  27. Zubr, J. Oil-Seed Crop: Camelina Sativa. Ind. Crop. Prod. 1997, 6, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vollmann, J.; Moritz, T.; Kargl, C.; Baumgartner, S.; Wagentristl, H. Agronomic Evaluation of Camelina Genotypes Selected for Seed Quality Characteristics. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2007, 26, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Krzyżaniak, M.; Stolarski, M.J.; Tworkowski, J.; Puttick, D.; Eynck, C.; Załuski, D.; Kwiatkowski, J. Yield and Seed Composition of 10 Spring Camelina Genotypes Cultivated in the Temperate Climate of Central Europe. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2019, 138, 111443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zanetti, F.; Eynck, C.; Christou, M.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Righini, D.; Alexopoulou, E.; Stolarski, M.J.; Van Loo, E.N.; Puttick, D.; Monti, A. Agronomic Performance and Seed Quality Attributes of Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) in Multi-Environment Trials across Europe and Canada. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2017, 107, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Agegnehu, M.; Honermeier, B. Effects of Seeding Rates and Nitrogen Fertilization on Seed Yield, Seed Quality and Yield Components of False Flax (Camelina Sativa Crtz.). Die Bodenkult. 1997, 15, 1. [Google Scholar]
  32. Paulsen, H.M. Organic mixed cropping systems with oilseeds 1. Yields of mixed cropping systems of legumes or spring wheat with false flax (Camelina sativa L. Crantz). Landbauforsch. Völkenrode 2007, 57, 107–117. [Google Scholar]
  33. George, N.; Hollingsworth, J.; Yang, W.-R.; Kaffka, S. Canola and Camelina as New Crop Options for Cool-Season Production in California. Crop. Sci. 2017, 57, 693–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. 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 2019, 9, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Zubr, J. Qualitative Variation of Camelina Sativa Seed from Different Locations. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2003, 17, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zanetti, F.; Alberghini, B.; Marjanović Jeromela, A.; Grahovac, N.; Rajković, D.; Kiprovski, B.; Monti, A. Camelina, an Ancient Oilseed Crop Actively Contributing to the Rural Renaissance in Europe. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boari, F.; Schiattone, M.I.; Calabrese, N.; Montesano, F.F.; Cantore, V. Effect of Nitrogen Management on Wild and Domestic Genotypes of Cardoon for Agro-Energy Purpose. Acta. Hortic. 2016, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fernández, J.; Curt, M.D.; Aguado, P.L. Industrial Applications of Cynara cardunculus L. for Energy and Other Uses. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2006, 24, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Francaviglia, R.; Bruno, A.; Falcucci, M.; Farina, R.; Renzi, G.; Russo, D.E.; Sepe, L.; Neri, U. Yields and Quality of Cynara cardunculus L. Wild and Cultivated Cardoon Genotypes. A Case Study from a Marginal Land in Central Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 72, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gominho, J.; Curt, M.D.; Lourenço, A.; Fernández, J.; Pereira, H. Cynara cardunculus L. as a Biomass and Multi-Purpose Crop: A Review of 30 Years of Research. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 109, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grammelis, P.; Malliopoulou, A.; Basinas, P.; Danalatos, N.G. Cultivation and Characterization of Cynara Cardunculus for Solid Biofuels Production in the Mediterranean Region. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2008, 9, 1241–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Panoutsou, C.; Singh, A.; Christensen, T. D7.1–Good Practices; Zenodo: Genève, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Foti, S.; Mauromicale, G.; Raccuia, S.A.; Fallico, B.; Fanella, F.; Maccarone, E. Possible Alternative Utilization of Cynara Spp.: I. Biomass, Grain Yield and Chemical Composition of Grain. Ind. Crop. Prod. 1999, 10, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Angelini, L.G.; Ceccarini, L.; Nassi o Di Nasso, N.; Bonari, E. Long-Term Evaluation of Biomass Production and Quality of Two Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) Cultivars for Energy Use. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 810–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mantineo, M.; D’Agosta, G.M.; Copani, V.; Patanè, C.; Cosentino, S.L. Biomass Yield and Energy Balance of Three Perennial Crops for Energy Use in the Semi-Arid Mediterranean Environment. Field Crop. Res. 2009, 114, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mauromicale, G.; Ierna, A. Biomass and Grain Yield in Cynar cardunculus L. Genotypes Grown in a Permanent Crop with Low Input. Acta Hortic. 2004, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Curt, M.D.; Mosquera, F.; Sanz, M.; Sánchez, J.; Sánchez, G.; Esteban, B.; Fernández, J. Effect of Land Slope on Biomass Production of Cynara cardunculus L. In Proceedings of the 20th EU Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Milan, Italy, 18–22 June 2012; pp. 186–190. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ţîţei, V. The Evaluation of the Biomass Quality of Cardoon, Cynara Cardunculus, and Prospects of Its Use in Moldova. Sci. Papers. Ser. A Agron. 2019, 62, 159–166. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhu, L.-H. Crambe (Crambe abyssinica). In Industrial Oil Crops; McKeon, T., Hayes, D., Hildebrand, D., Weselake, R., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 195–205. ISBN 978-1-893997-98-1. [Google Scholar]
  50. Krzyżaniak, M.; Stolarski, M.J. Life Cycle Assessment of Camelina and Crambe Production for Biorefinery and Energy Purposes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zanetti, F.; Scordia, D.; Vamerali, T.; Copani, V.; Dal Cortivo, C.; Mosca, G. Crambe Abyssinica a Non-Food Crop with Potential for the Mediterranean Climate: Insights on Productive Performances and Root Growth. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 90, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Falasca, S.L.; Flores, N.; Lamas, M.C.; Carballo, S.M.; Anschau, A. Crambe Abyssinica: An Almost Unknown Crop with a Promissory Future to Produce Biodiesel in Argentina. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 5808–5812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zoz, T.; Steiner, F.; Zoz, A.; Castagnara, D.D.; Witt, T.W.; Zanotto, M.D.; Auld, D.L. Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Density on Grain Yield and Yield Components of Crambe Abyssinica Hochst. SCA 2018, 39, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rosa, H.A.; Secco, D.; Santos, R.F.; Ciotti de Marins, A.; Fornasari, C.H.; Veloso, G. Structuring potential of cover crops in a clayey oxisol and their effect on crambe grain yield and oil content. RSA 2018, 19, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Viana, O.H.; Santos, R.F.; de Oliveira, R.C.; Secco, D.; de Souza, S.N.M.; Tokura, L.K.; da Silva, T.R.B.; Gurgacz, F. Crambe (“Crambe Abyssinica” H.) Development and Productivity under Different Sowing Densities. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2015, 9, 690. [Google Scholar]
  56. Krzyżaniak, M.; Stolarski, M.J.; Graban, Ł.; Lajszner, W.; Kuriata, T. Camelina and Crambe Oil Crops for Bioeconomy—Straw Utilisation for Energy. Energies 2020, 13, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Stolarski, M.J.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Tworkowski, J.; Szczukowski, S. Energy and Economic Efficiency of Camelina and Crambe Biomass Production on a Large-Scale Farm in North-Eastern Poland. Energy 2018, 150, 770–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chrestensen, N.L. Anbauanleitung Für Die Durchwachsene Silphie (Silphium Perfoliatum). 2012. Available online: http://www.rekulta.org/fileadmin/downloads/Ziel3-Projektstatus/2013_07_10_Feldtag/Silphie_Anbauanleitung_2013.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  59. 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. Crop. Prod. 2015, 63, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hartmann, A.; Lunenberg, T. Yield Potential of Cup Plant under Bavarian Cultivation Conditions. J. Fur Kult. 2016, 68, 385–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Berendonk, C.; Dahlhoff, A.; Dickeduisberg, M.; Dissemond, A.; Erhardt, N.; Gruber, W.; Hartmann, H.-B.; Holz, J.; Jacobs, G.; Kasten, P.; et al. Nachwachsende Rohstoffe Vom Acker; Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen: Münster, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  62. Facciotto, G.; Bury, M.; Chiocchini, F.; Cumplido Marín, L.; Czyż, H.; Graves, A.; Kitczak, T.; Martens, R.; Morhart, C.; Paris, P. Performance of Sida Hermaphrodita and Silphium Perfoliatum in Europe: Preliminary Results. Proceedings of 26th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition Proceedings, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14 May 2018; pp. 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Siwek, H.; Włodarczyk, M.; Możdżer, E.; Bury, M.; Kitczak, T. Chemical Composition and Biogas Formation Potential of Sida Hermaphrodita and Silphium Perfoliatum. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Schittenhelm, S.; Schoo, B.; Schroetter, S. Yield physiology of biogas crops: Comparison of cup plant, maize, and lucerne-grass. J. Für Kult. 2016, 68, 378–384. [Google Scholar]
  65. Laurent, A.; Pelzer, E.; Loyce, C.; Makowski, D. Ranking Yields of Energy Crops: A Meta-Analysis Using Direct and Indirect Comparisons. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Scordia, D.; Testa, G.; Cosentino, S.L. Perennial Grasses as Lignocellulosic Feedstock for Second-Generation Bioethanol Production in Mediterranean Environment. Ital. J. Agron. 2014, 9, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Angelini, L.G.; Ceccarini, L.; Di Nassi o Nasso, N.; Bonari, E. Comparison of Arundo conax L. and Miscanthus × Giganteus in a Long-Term Field Experiment in Central Italy: Analysis of Productive Characteristics and Energy Balance. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pilu, R.; Manca, A.; Landoni, M. Arundo Donax as an Energy Crop: Pros and Cons of the Utilization of This Perennial Plant. Maydica 2013, 58, 54–59. [Google Scholar]
  69. Erickson, J.E.; Soikaew, A.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Bennett, J.M. Water Use and Water-Use Efficiency of Three Perennial Bioenergy Grass Crops in Florida. Agriculture 2012, 2, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Di Nassi o Nasso, N.; Roncucci, N.; Bonari, E. Seasonal Dynamics of Aboveground and Belowground Biomass and Nutrient Accumulation and Remobilization in Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.): A Three-Year Study on Marginal Land. Bioenergy Res. 2013, 6, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Amaducci, S.; Facciotto, G.; Bergante, S.; Perego, A.; Serra, P.; Ferrarini, A.; Chimento, C. Biomass Production and Energy Balance of Herbaceous and Woody Crops on Marginal Soils in the Po Valley. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Impagliazzo, A.; Mori, M.; Fiorentino, N.; Di Mola, I.; Ottaiano, L.; Gianni, D.; Nocerino, S.; Fagnano, M. Crop Growth Analysis and Yield of a Lignocellulosic Biomass Crop (Arundo Donax L.) in Three Marginal Areas of Campania Region. Ital. J. Agron. 2017, 12, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Hanzhenko, O. Catalogue for Bioenergy Crops and Their Suitability in the Categories of MagLs; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Available online: http://seemla.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/D2.2-Catalogue-for-bioenergy-crops-and-their-suitability-in-the-categories-of-MagLs.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  74. Parenti, A.; Lambertini, C.; Monti, A. Areas with Natural Constraints to Agriculture: Possibilities and Limitations for The Cultivation of Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) and Giant Reed (Arundo donax L.) in Europe. In Land Allocation for Biomass Crops: Challenges and Opportunities with Changing Land Use; Li, R., Monti, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 39–63. ISBN 978-3-319-74536-7. [Google Scholar]
  75. Bócsa, I.; Karus, M.; Lohmeyer, D. Vollst. überarb. und erg. 2. Aufl. In Der Hanfanbau; Landwirtschaftsverlag: Münster-Hiltrup, Germany, 2000; ISBN 3-7843-3066-5. [Google Scholar]
  76. Struik, P.C.; Amaducci, S.; Bullard, M.J.; Stutterheim, N.C.; Venturi, G.; Cromack, H.T.H. Agronomy of Fibre Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) in Europe. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2000, 11, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pahkala, K.; Pahkala, E.; Syrjälä, H. Northern Limits to Fiber Hemp Production in Europe. J. Ind. Hemp 2008, 13, 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sankari, H.S.; Mela, T.J.N. Plant Development and Stem Yield of Non-Domestic Fibre Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) Cultivars in Long-Day Growth Conditions in Finland. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 1998, 181, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Faux, A.-M.; Draye, X.; Lambert, R.; d’Andrimont, R.; Raulier, P.; Bertin, P. The Relationship of Stem and Seed Yields to Flowering Phenology and Sex Expression in Monoecious Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.). Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 47, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Scholz, V. The Growth Productivity, and Environmental Impact of the Cultivation of Energy Crops on Sandy Soil in Germany. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 23, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Van der Werf, H.M.G.; Wijlhuizen, M.; Schutter, J.A.A. Plant Density and Self-Thinning Affect Yield and Quality of Fibre Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.). Field Crop. Res. 1995, 40, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ranalli, P. Agronomical and Physiological Advances in Hemp Crops. In Advances in Hemp Research; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999; ISBN 978-0-429-07626-8. [Google Scholar]
  83. Lewandowski, I.; CLIFTON-BROWN, J.C.; Scurlock, J.M.O.; Huisman, W. Miscanthus: European Experience with a Novel Energy Crop. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 19, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bufe, C.; Korevaar, H. Evaluation of Additional Crops for Dutch List of Ecological Focus Area; Wageningen Research Foundation (WR) Business Unit Agrosystems Research: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 793. [Google Scholar]
  85. Larsen, S.U.; Jørgensen, U.; Kjeldsen, J.B.; Lærke, P.E. Long-Term Miscanthus Yields Influenced by Location, Genotype, Row Distance, Fertilization and Harvest Season. Bioenergy Res. 2014, 7, 620–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Clifton-Brown, J.C.; Lewandowski, I.; Andersson, B.; Basch, G.; Christian, D.G.; Kjeldsen, J.B.; Jørgensen, U.; Mortensen, J.V.; Riche, A.B.; Schwarz, K.-U. Performance of 15 Miscanthus Genotypes at Five Sites in Europe. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1013–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Lewandowski, I.; Kicherer, A. Combustion Quality of Biomass: Practical Relevance and Experiments to Modify the Biomass Quality of Miscanthus x Giganteus. Eur. J. Agron. 1997, 6, 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Saha, D.; Rau, B.M.; Kaye, J.P.; Montes, F.; Adler, P.R.; Kemanian, A.R. Landscape Control of Nitrous Oxide Emissions during the Transition from Conservation Reserve Program to Perennial Grasses for Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 783–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kalinina, O.; Nunn, C.; Sanderson, R.; Hastings, A.F.S.; van der Weijde, T.; Özgüven, M.; Tarakanov, I.; Schüle, H.; Trindade, L.M.; Dolstra, O.; et al. Extending Miscanthus Cultivation with Novel Germplasm at Six Contrasting Sites. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Mangold, A.; Lewandowski, I.; Möhring, J.; Clifton-Brown, J.; Krzyżak, J.; Mos, M.; Pogrzeba, M.; Kiesel, A. Harvest Date and Leaf:Stem Ratio Determine Methane Hectare Yield of Miscanthus Biomass. GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kahle, P.; Beuch, S.; Boelcke, B.; Leinweber, P.; Schulten, H.-R. Cropping of Miscanthus in Central Europe: Biomass Production and Influence on Nutrients and Soil Organic Matter. Eur. J. Agron. 2001, 15, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lord, R.A. Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Outperforms Miscanthus or Willow on Marginal Soils, Brownfield and Non-Agricultural Sites for Local, Sustainable Energy Crop Production. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 78, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Lewandowski, I.; Scurlock, J.M.O.; Lindvall, E.; Christou, M. The Development and Current Status of Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses as Energy Crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, 335–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Panacea. Scientific Papers and Training Materials-Panacea. Summary Factsheet Miscanthus; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2020; Available online: http://www.panacea-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SUMMARY-FACTSHEET_miscanthusV2.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  95. Paris, P.; Mareschi, L.; Sabatti, M.; Pisanelli, A.; Ecosse, A.; Nardin, F.; Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. Comparing Hybrid Populus Clones for SRF across Northern Italy after Two Biennial Rotations: Survival, Growth and Yield. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1524–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Navarro, A.; Facciotto, G.; Campi, P.; Mastrorilli, M. Physiological Adaptations of Five Poplar Genotypes Grown under SRC in the Semi-Arid Mediterranean Environment. Trees 2014, 28, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fernández, M.J.; Barro, R.; Pérez, J.; Losada, J.; Ciria, P. Influence of the Agricultural Management Practices on the Yield and Quality of Poplar Biomass (a 9-Year Study). Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 93, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Stolarski, M.J.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Szczukowski, S.; Tworkowski, J.; Załuski, D.; Bieniek, A.; Gołaszewski, J. Effect of Increased Soil Fertility on the Yield and Energy Value of Short-Rotation Woody Crops. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 1136–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Stolarski, M.J.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Tworkowski, J.; Szczukowski, S.; Niksa, D. Analysis of the Energy Efficiency of Short Rotation Woody Crops Biomass as Affected by Different Methods of Soil Enrichment. Energy 2016, 113, 748–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Navarro, A.; Portillo-Estrada, M.; Arriga, N.; Vanbeveren, S.P.P.; Ceulemans, R. Genotypic Variation in Transpiration of Coppiced Poplar during the Third Rotation of a Short-Rotation Bio-Energy Culture. GCB Bioenergy 2018, 10, 592–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Verlinden, M.S.; Broeckx, L.S.; Ceulemans, R. First vs. Second Rotation of a Poplar Short Rotation Coppice: Above-Ground Biomass Productivity and Shoot Dynamics. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 73, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Tilvikiene, V.; Kadziuliene, Z.; Dabkevicius, Z.; Venslauskas, K.; Navickas, K. Feasibility of Tall Fescue, Cocksfoot and Reed Canary Grass for Anaerobic Digestion: Analysis of Productivity and Energy Potential. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 84, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Usťak, S.; Šinko, J.; Muňoz, J. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) as a Promising Energy Crop. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2019, 20, 1143–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Strašil, Z. Evaluation of Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Grown for Energy Use. Res. Agr. Eng. 2012, 58, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Cherney, J.H.; Ketterings, Q.M.; Davis, M.; Cherney, D.J.R.; Paddock, K.M. Management of Warm- and Cool-Season Grasses for Biomass on Marginal Lands: I. Yield and Soil Fertility Status. Bioenergy Res. 2017, 10, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Meehan, P.; Burke, B.; Doyle, D.; Barth, S.; Finnan, J. Exploring the Potential of Grass Feedstock from Marginal Land in Ireland: Does Marginal Mean Lower Yield? Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 107, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Carter, J.E.; Jokela, W.E.; Bosworth, S.C. Grass Forage Response to Broadcast or Surface-Banded Liquid Dairy Manure and Nitrogen Fertilizer. Agron. J. 2010, 102, 1123–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Jensen, E.F.; Casler, M.D.; Farrar, K.; Finnan, J.M.; Lord, R.; Palmborg, C.; Valentine, J.; Donnison, I.S. Reed Canary Grass: From Production to End Use. In Perennial Grasses for Bioenergy and Bioproducts; Alexopoulou, E., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-12-812900-5. [Google Scholar]
  109. Reinhardt, J. Einfluss von organischen Säuren auf die Bioverfügbarkeit von Germanium im Pflanze-Boden System. Bachelor Thesis, Technical University of Freiberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  110. Wiche, O.; Tischler, D.; Fauser, C.; Lodemann, J.; Heilmeier, H. Effects of Citric Acid and the Siderophore Desferrioxamine B (DFO-B) on the Mobility of Germanium and Rare Earth Elements in Soil and Uptake in Phalaris arundinacea. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2017, 19, 746–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Panacea. Scientific Papers and Training Materials-Panacea. Summary Factsheet Sorghum; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2020; Available online: http://www.panacea-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SUMMARY-FACTSHEET_sorgho.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  112. Barbanti, L.; Grandi, S.; Vecchi, A.; Venturi, G. Sweet and Fibre Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor (L.) Moench), Energy Crops in the Frame of Environmental Protection from Excessive Nitrogen Loads. Eur. J. Agron. 2006, 25, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Diallo, B.; Li, M.; Tang, C.; Ameen, A.; Zhang, W.; Xie, G.H. Biomass Yield, Chemical Composition and Theoretical Ethanol Yield for Different Genotypes of Energy Sorghum Cultivated on Marginal Land in China. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2019, 137, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fu, H.M.; Meng, F.Y.; Molatudi, R.L.; Zhang, B.G. Sorghum and Switchgrass as Biofuel Feedstocks on Marginal Lands in Northern China. Bioenergy Res. 2016, 9, 633–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Cotton, J.; Burow, G.; Acosta-Martinez, V.; Moore-Kucera, J. Biomass and Cellulosic Ethanol Production of Forage Sorghum Under Limited Water Conditions. Bioenergy Res. 2013, 6, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Oikawa, P.Y.; Jenerette, G.D.; Grantz, D.A. Offsetting High Water Demands with High Productivity: Sorghum as a Biofuel Crop in a High Irradiance Arid Ecosystem. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Smith, G.A.; Buxton, D.R. Temperate Zone Sweet Sorghumethanol Production Potential. Bioresour. Technol. 1993, 43, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wiedenfeld, R.P. Nutrient Requirements and Use Efficiency by Sweet Sorghum. Energy Agric. 1984, 3, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zegada-Lizarazu, W.; Monti, A. Are We Ready to Cultivate Sweet Sorghum as a Bioenergy Feedstock? A Review on Field Management Practices. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 40, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Panoutsou, C.; Singh, A. Training Materials for Agronomists and Students; Imperial College: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zeller, F.J. Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor L. Moench): Utilization, Genetics, Breeding. Bodenkultur 2000, 51, 71–85. [Google Scholar]
  122. Parrish, D.J.; Fike, J.H. The Biology and Agronomy of Switchgrass for Biofuels. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 423–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Panacea. Scientific Papers and Training Materials-Panacea. Summary Factsheet Switchgrass; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2020; Available online: http://www.panacea-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SUMMARY-FACTSHEET_switchgrass.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  124. Ameen, A.; Tang, C.; Han, L.; Xie, G.H. Short-Term Response of Switchgrass to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium on Semiarid Sandy Wasteland Managed for Biofuel Feedstock. Bioenergy Res. 2018, 11, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sawyer, A.; Rosen, C.; Lamb, J.; Sheaffer, C. Nitrogen and Harvest Management Effects on Switchgrass and Mixed Perennial Biomass Production. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 1260–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Porensky, L.M.; Davison, J.; Leger, E.A.; Miller, W.W.; Goergen, E.M.; Espeland, E.K.; Carroll-Moore, E.M. Grasses for Biofuels: A Low Water-Use Alternative for Cold Desert Agriculture? Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 66, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Krzyżaniak, M.; Stolarski, M.J.; Szczukowski, S.; Tworkowski, J.; Bieniek, A.; Mleczek, M. Willow Biomass Obtained from Different Soils as a Feedstock for Energy. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 75, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Labrecque, M.; Teodorescu, T.I. High Biomass Yield Achieved by Salix Clones in SRIC Following Two 3-Year Coppice Rotations on Abandoned Farmland in Southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Amichev, B.Y.; Hangs, R.D.; Bélanger, N.; Volk, T.A.; Vujanovic, V.; Schoenau, J.J.; van Rees, K.C.J. First-Rotation Yields of 30 Short-Rotation Willow Cultivars in Central Saskatchewan, Canada. Bioenergy Res. 2015, 8, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Amichev, B.Y.; Volk, T.A.; Hangs, R.D.; Bélanger, N.; Vujanovic, V.; van Rees, K.C.J. Growth, Survival, and Yields of 30 Short-Rotation Willow Cultivars on the Canadian Prairies: 2nd Rotation Implications. New For. 2018, 49, 649–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Lafleur, B.; Lalonde, O.; Labrecque, M. First-Rotation Performance of Five Short-Rotation Willow Cultivars on Different Soil Types and Along a Large Climate Gradient. Bioenergy Res. 2017, 10, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Larsen, S.U.; Jørgensen, U.; Lærke, P.E. Willow Yield Is Highly Dependent on Clone and Site. Bioenergy Res. 2014, 7, 1280–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pray, T.; Guidi Nissim, W.; St-Arnaud, M.; Labrecque, M. Investigating the Effect of a Mixed Mycorrhizal Inoculum on the Productivity of Biomass Plantation Willows Grown on Marginal Farm Land. Forests 2018, 9, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Pari, L.; Scarfone, A. Inventory on Available Harvesting Technology for Industrial Crops on Marginal Lands; CREA: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Scordia, D.; Cosentino, S.L. Perennial Energy Grasses: Resilient Crops in a Changing European Agriculture. Agriculture 2019, 9, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Stützel, H.; Brüggemann, N.; Inzé, D. The Future of Field Trials in Europe: Establishing a Network Beyond Boundaries. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 92–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Boers, N. Observation-Based Early-Warning Signals for a Collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Teuling, A.J. A Hot Future for European Droughts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Winkler, K.; Fuchs, R.; Rounsevell, M.; Herold, M. Global Land Use Changes Are Four Times Greater than Previously Estimated. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Reinhardt, J.; Hilgert, P.; von Cossel, M. Biomass Yield of Selected Herbaceous and Woody Industrial Crops across Marginal Agricultural Sites with Shallow Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Reinhardt, J.; Hilgert, P.; Von Cossel, M. Yield Performance of Dedicated Industrial Crops on Low-Temperature Characterized Marginal Agricultural Land in Europe—A Review. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining. (in press). [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 02382 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the methodological approach of this study (a [21], b [22], c [8]), d [2]).
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the methodological approach of this study (a [21], b [22], c [8]), d [2]).
Agronomy 11 02382 g001
Agronomy 11 02382 g002 550
Figure 2. Overview of annual average dry matter yield performances (minimum and maximum values) of the selected industrial crops grown in field trials under unfavorable soil types sandy (Sand), clayey (Clay), and stony soil (Stoniness), finding 3–13 studies per crop (total 91 studies from 16 countries worldwide). The bars show the ranges between the minimum, median, and maximum values per culture, and "n" is the number of values used for the calculation. For Camelina and Crambe, grain yields are shown, for hemp, stem yields are shown, for all other crops, it’s the whole aboveground dry matter.
Figure 2. Overview of annual average dry matter yield performances (minimum and maximum values) of the selected industrial crops grown in field trials under unfavorable soil types sandy (Sand), clayey (Clay), and stony soil (Stoniness), finding 3–13 studies per crop (total 91 studies from 16 countries worldwide). The bars show the ranges between the minimum, median, and maximum values per culture, and "n" is the number of values used for the calculation. For Camelina and Crambe, grain yields are shown, for hemp, stem yields are shown, for all other crops, it’s the whole aboveground dry matter.
Agronomy 11 02382 g002
Table
Table 1. Grain yields per year of Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) under unfavorable soil types (USTs) conditions (S = sand, Cl = clay).
Table 1. Grain yields per year of Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) under unfavorable soil types (USTs) conditions (S = sand, Cl = clay).
Marginality FactorGrain Yield [Mg ha−1]PlaceCountrySource
Summer-annual Camelina
UST-S0.91GüterfeldeGermany[31]
UST-S1.01WilmersdorfGermany[32]
Winter-annual Camelina
UST-Cl0.73El centroUSA[33]
UST-Cl1.02West SideUSA[33]
Table
Table 2. Grain and biomass yields per year of cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) under varying unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, SSL = steep slope, DM = dry matter).
Table 2. Grain and biomass yields per year of cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.) under varying unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, SSL = steep slope, DM = dry matter).
Marginality FactorDM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		Grain Yield [Mg ha−1]PlaceCountrySource
DR; UST-S15.1 EnnaItaly[45]
UST-S19.3 EnnaItaly[45]
UST-CL20.31.2CataniaItaly[46]
SSL, UST-CL 4.6 DaganzoSpain[47]
Table
Table 3. Grain and oil yields per year of Crambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst. Ex R.E.Fr.) on marginal agricultural lands with unfavorable soil types (UST) (CL = clay).
Table 3. Grain and oil yields per year of Crambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst. Ex R.E.Fr.) on marginal agricultural lands with unfavorable soil types (UST) (CL = clay).
Marginality FactorGrain Yield [Mg ha−1]Oil Yield
[kg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
UST-CL0.49104Cascavel-ParanáBrazil[54]
UST-CL1.7 Cascavel-Paraná Brazil[55]
Table
Table 4. Annual biomass yields of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) grown under unfavorable soil type (UST) conditions (S = sand, DM = dry matter).
Table 4. Annual biomass yields of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) grown under unfavorable soil type (UST) conditions (S = sand, DM = dry matter).
Marginality ConstraintDM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
UST-S14.6WerlteGermany[62]
UST-S13.0Danube-
Gravel plain		Germany[60]
UST-S13.0Altitude
Bavarian Forest		Germany[60]
UST-S14.6LipnikPoland[63]
UST-S16.1BrunswickGermany[64]
Table
Table 5. Annual biomass yields of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) on marginal agricultural lands prone to unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, DM = dry matter).
Table 5. Annual biomass yields of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) on marginal agricultural lands prone to unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, DM = dry matter).
Marginality
Constraint		Year of
Cultivation		DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
UST-S;
DR		2.–3.26.8EnnaItaly[45]
UST-S2.–3.36.5EnnaItaly[45]
UST-S2.29.1CitraUSA[69]
UST-S2.–3.17.0San Piero a GradoItaly[70]
UST-S1.–8.11.0Casale MonferratoItaly[71]
Table
Table 6. Annual stalk and whole above-ground biomass yields of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) on various types of unfavorable soil types (USTs) (S = sand, ST = stoniness, CL = clay, DM = dry matter).
Table 6. Annual stalk and whole above-ground biomass yields of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) on various types of unfavorable soil types (USTs) (S = sand, ST = stoniness, CL = clay, DM = dry matter).
Marginality FactorDM Stem Yield [Mg ha−1]DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		Plant Height
[cm]		PlaceCountrySource
UST-S 5 JyndevadDenmark[6]
Monoecious
UST-CL7.1 182Jokioinen
(Tu)		Finland[77]
UST-CL 5.4 130Jokioinen
(Tt)		Finland[78]
UST-ST8.3 MichampsBelgium[79]
UST-S 9.4 Potsdam-BornimGermany[80]
Dioecious
UST-CL8.0 208Jokioinen (Tu)Finland[77]
UST-CL7.4 183Jokioinen (Tt)Finland[78]
UST-CL15.217.8277RandwijkNetherlands[81]
Table
Table 7. Annual biomass yields of Miscanthus (Miscanthus Andersson) on various unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter, LRD = low rooting depth).
Table 7. Annual biomass yields of Miscanthus (Miscanthus Andersson) on various unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter, LRD = low rooting depth).
Marginal FactorYear of
Cultivation		DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
DR;
UST-S		2.–3.17.8EnnaItaly[45]
UST-S2.–3.24.4EnnaItaly[45]
UST-S1.–8.12.5Casale
Monferrato		Italy[71]
UST-S4.–19.9.7FoulumDenmark[85]
UST-S2.–3.0.0 Sweden[86]
UST-S2.–3.32.1 Portugal[86]
UST-S; LRD 4.8.9DurmersheimGermany[87]
UST-S2.14.4GutenzellGermany[87]
UST-ST; 1.10.8Near Leak KillUSA[88]
UST-ST; LRD 4.16AberystwythGreat Britain[89]
UST-CL;
UST-ST		1.–2.19.9Hohenheim “Unterer Lindenhof”Germany[90]
UST-CL6.–8.7.4GüterslebenGermany[91]
UST-CL3.25.5 Germany[86]
UST-CL3.24.3Stuttgart,
Ihingen court		Germany[87]
UST-CL2.–30.02Rainton BridgeGreat Britain[92]
Table
Table 8. Annual biomass yields of poplar (Populus L.) under unfavorable soil type (USTs) conditions (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, LSD = low soil drainage, DM = dry matter).
Table 8. Annual biomass yields of poplar (Populus L.) under unfavorable soil type (USTs) conditions (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, LSD = low soil drainage, DM = dry matter).
Marginal
Factor		Age of Tree (Trunk)DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
DR;
UST-CL		21.8RutiglianoItaly[96]
UST-CL26.1BigarelloItaly[95]
UST-S27.2Casale
Monferrato		Italy[71]
UST-S37.3SoriaSpain[97]
UST-S27.7Potsdam-BornimGermany[80]
UST-S45.5OlsztynPoland[98,99]
LSD; UST-S28.1LochristiBelgium[100,101]
Table
Table 9. Annual biomass yields of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) under unfavorable soil types (USTs) conditions (S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter, LRD = low rooting depth).
Table 9. Annual biomass yields of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) under unfavorable soil types (USTs) conditions (S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter, LRD = low rooting depth).
Marginal FactorYear of
Cultivation		DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
UST-S3.–7.3Willsboro (lS)USA[105]
UST-CL3.–7.5Willsboro (SCL)USA[105]
UST-S2.–4.14.3JyndevadDenmark[6]
UST-S2.–4.16FoulumDenmark[6]
UST-CL2.–3.14Carlow (Farrell’s Field)Ireland[106]
UST-S;
UST-ST;
LRD 		2.–3.13Carlow (Far Avenue Meadow)Ireland[106]
UST-CL2.–3.5.5Rainton BridgeGreat Britain[92]
UST-CL1.–2.5.6BurlingtonUSA[107]
Table
Table 10. Annual stalk and biomass yields of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) on marginal sites characterized by unfavorable soil types (USTs) (LT = low temperature; DR = drought, S = sand, DM = dry matter, tE = theoretical ethanol).
Table 10. Annual stalk and biomass yields of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) on marginal sites characterized by unfavorable soil types (USTs) (LT = low temperature; DR = drought, S = sand, DM = dry matter, tE = theoretical ethanol).
Marginality ConstraintsDM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		Stem DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		tE Yield
[L ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
LT; DR; UST-S6.74.52135WushenChina[113]
DR;
UST-S		13.911.82491GanquikaChina[114]
DR;
UST-S		17.0 2150Big SpringUSA[115]
UST-S23.0 3000Big SpringUSA[115]
UST-S16.2 4212El CentroUSA[116]
Table
Table 11. Annual biomass yields of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) on different types of marginal agricultural land characterized inter alia by unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter).
Table 11. Annual biomass yields of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) on different types of marginal agricultural land characterized inter alia by unfavorable soil types (USTs) (DR = drought, S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter).
Marginal
Factor		Year of
Cultivation		DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		EcotypePlaceCountrySource
UST-CL3.–5.0UplandRainton BridgeGreat Britain[92]
UST-CL3.–7.12.5UplandWillsboro (SCL)USA[105]
UST-S3.–7.10UplandWillsboro (lS)USA[105]
UST-S;
DR		5., 6., 8., 9.9.8UplandGanqikaChina[114,124]
UST-S1.–3.4.5UplandBeckerUSA[125]
UST-S1.–3.3.5LowlandBeckerUSA[125]
UST-S1.–8.7.5LowlandCasale MonferratoItaly[71]
UST-ST2.15LowlandMasonUSA[126]
UST-ST1.11 Near Leak KillUSA[88]
Table
Table 12. Annual biomass yields of willow (Salix L.) on marginal sites prone to unfavorable soil types (USTs) (S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter).
Table 12. Annual biomass yields of willow (Salix L.) on marginal sites prone to unfavorable soil types (USTs) (S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stoniness, DM = dry matter).
Marginality FactorAge of Tree (Trunk)DM Yield
[Mg ha−1]		PlaceCountrySource
UST-S36.7St. Lawrence (sL)Canada[128]
UST-CL33.1SaskatoonCanada[129,130]
UST-CL312.8St. Lawrence (SCL)Canada[128]
UST-CL313.0AlmaCanada[131]
UST-CL22.5La MorandiereCanada[131]
UST-CL311.5BeloeilCanada[131]
UST-CL311.5La PocatiereCanada[131]
UST-S24.8Casale MonferratoItaly[71]
UST-S26.0Potsdam-BornimGermany[80]
UST-S45.1OlsztynPoland[98,99]
UST-S32.9LezanyPoland[127]
UST-S34.0HojmarkDenmark[132]
UST-S24.0OdumDenmark[132]
UST-S38.2FoulumDenmark[132]
UST-S35.3JyndevadDenmark[132]
UST-S22.0Saint-Roch-de-l Achigan, Sandy fieldCanada[133]
UST-ST21.0Saint-Roch-de-l Achigan, Rocky fieldCanada[133]
UST-CL20.0Rainton BridgeGreat Britain[92]
UST-S34.2FoersomDenmark[132]
Table
Table 13. Classification of cultivation suitability per crop and soil type: 4 = very good suitability for cultivation (dark green), 3 = good suitability for cultivation (light green), 2 = moderate suitability for cultivation (orange), 1 = poor suitability for cultivation (red). Suitability values in brackets were derived from other literature because no references were found that provide the exact combination of the crop and soil type (UST = unfavorable soil type, S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stones, Lo = lowland, Up = upland). Where no alternative literature was found either, the field was left blank as no conclusions about suitability could be made.
Table 13. Classification of cultivation suitability per crop and soil type: 4 = very good suitability for cultivation (dark green), 3 = good suitability for cultivation (light green), 2 = moderate suitability for cultivation (orange), 1 = poor suitability for cultivation (red). Suitability values in brackets were derived from other literature because no references were found that provide the exact combination of the crop and soil type (UST = unfavorable soil type, S = sand, CL = clay, ST = stones, Lo = lowland, Up = upland). Where no alternative literature was found either, the field was left blank as no conclusions about suitability could be made.
CropUST
SCLST
Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz)32–3
Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.)33
Crambe (Crambe abyssinica Hochst. Ex R.E.Fr.)(3)2(1)
Cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.)3
Giant reed (Arundo donax L.)32(3)
Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)233
Miscanthus (Miscanthus Andersson)343
Poplar (Populus L.)22
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.)333
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench)33
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)Lo2(2)3
Up323
Willow (Salix L.)231
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Reinhardt, J.; Hilgert, P.; Von Cossel, M. A Review of Industrial Crop Yield Performances on Unfavorable Soil Types. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2382. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122382

AMA Style

Reinhardt J, Hilgert P, Von Cossel M. A Review of Industrial Crop Yield Performances on Unfavorable Soil Types. Agronomy. 2021; 11(12):2382. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122382

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reinhardt, Jana, Pia Hilgert, and Moritz Von Cossel. 2021. "A Review of Industrial Crop Yield Performances on Unfavorable Soil Types" Agronomy 11, no. 12: 2382. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122382

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