1 s2.0 S0926669014005925 Main

Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Crops and Products

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indcrop
Review
Botanical characteristics, crop management and potential of Silphium

perfoliatum L. as a renewable resource for biogas production: A review
Markus Gansberger a,b,,1 , Lucy F.R. Montgomery c,1 , Peter Liebhard a
a
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Department of Crop Sciences, Division of Agronomy, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Division for Food Security, Institute for Seed and Propagating Material, Phytosanitary Service and Apiculture,
A-1220 Vienna, Austria
c
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Department for Agrobiotechnology IFA-Tulln, Institute for Environmental Biotechnology,
A-3430 Tulln, Austria
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 20 May 2014
Received in revised form 3 September 2014
Accepted 25 September 2014
Available online 17 October 2014
Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Biogas
Biomass
Cup plant
Energy crops
Renewable resources
Silphium perfoliatum L.
a b s t r a c t
The growing awareness of the importance of biodiversity in agroecosystems to increase and ensure
the supply of biomass has led to an interest from governments, farmers and biogas plant operators
in alternative crops for biogas production. This article reviews the available research results on one
such alternative crop, Silphium perfoliatum L., in terms of the requirements for biomass production and
relevance as a biogas substrate. S. perfoliatum L. is a tall, perennial, yellow owering plant with a high
ecological value that is particularly suitable as an energy crop owing to its low maintenance requirements
and high biomass and biogas yields. The crop is productive for around 15 years and is native to the
temperate latitudes (of North America) and can be adapted to regions with similar climate conditions,
like Europe. Currently, crop establishment is more successful when planted from seedlings as opposed
to sowing seeds directly, owing to poor seed quality and lack of seed technology. Weed management
measures are high in the year of establishment, but are not necessary in subsequent years. Harvesting
at the end of the owering season gives the best dry matter yields and provides material to make good
silage. From the small amount of data currently available, the annual harvest yield (dry matter) is around
15 t ha1 and the biomethane potential (35 days) is around 0.260 m3 kg1 on an organic dry matter basis
(around 20% lower than maize silage). There is still a great need for research on this crop, particularly
in developing a seed technology, investigating its susceptibility to potential plant pathogens, nding
a suitable herbicide for weed management in the establishment year, and investigating the effect of
this biomass in full-scale biogas plants. Overall, this crop is a very promising alternative crop for biogas
production.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Botanical characteristics of S. perfoliatum L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Climate and soil requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Expected productive life-span and choice of preceding and subsequent crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Soil preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Sowing versus planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.
Fertilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.
Weed management and phytosanitary measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author at: Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Spargelfeldstrasse 191, A-1220 Vienna, Austria. Tel.: +43 05 0555 34840.
E-mail addresses: markus.gansberger@ages.at, markus.gansberger@yahoo.de (M. Gansberger), lucy.montgomery@boku.ac.at (L.F.R. Montgomery),
peter.liebhard@boku.ac.at (P. Liebhard).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.09.047
0926-6690/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
363
363
364
365
365
365
365
366
366
5.
6.
7.
M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372
363
Current cultivation, harvesting and conversion of S. perfoliatum L. to biogas in comparison to other energy crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.
Harvesting process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.
Dry matter yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.
Dry matter content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.
Chemical composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.
Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.
Biomethane potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7.
Methane yield per hectare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.
Continuous anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.
Practical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further research and development needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
367
367
367
368
368
368
369
369
370
370
370
370
371
371
1. Introduction
Anaerobic digestion was initially a technology for wastewater sludge or manure stabilisation, but in the last 20 years it has
become a technology of renewable energy production in Europe
and increasingly in other parts of the world (Plchl and Heiermann,
2006). Agricultural biogas plants produce methane by co-digesting
manure, wastes and energy crops. According to the EurObservER
(2012) Barometer, Germany has more of such agricultural biogas plants than any other European country. In 2010, Germany
produced energy amounting to 6035 kt of oil equivalent (ktoe)
from agricultural and municipal solid waste biogas plants. The
Netherlands produced only 207 ktoe in the same year, while Italy,
Austria and the Czech Republic produced 150 ktoe, 144 ktoe, and
111 ktoe, respectively (EurObservER, 2012). Crops with a high
biomass yield and easily degradable substances are particularly
suitable for anaerobic digestion and give a high methane yield.
Crops that can be stored for long periods of time with minimal
losses are also favourable for biogas production, for example crops
that are easily ensiled (Aurbacher et al., 2012). The crops used in
agricultural biogas plants in the ve countries listed above have
been reported as being predominantly whole-plant silage of maize
(Zea mays) followed by grass silage (Poaceae), whole-plant silage
of other cereals such as sorghum, and other crops such as sugar
beet or potato (Amon et al., 2007; Gebrezgabher et al., 2010; Gersl
et al., 2014; Mela and Canali, 2014; Weiland, 2010). Exact numbers
are only available for Germany, where (in 2010) 46% of the input
into agricultural biogas plants was energy crops, of which 76% was
maize silage, 11% was grass silage, 7% was whole-plant silage of
other cereals, and 6% was other substrates (FNR, 2014). As a result,
the production of these crops has increased dramatically in these
countries in recent decades. The amount of land used for maize
silage in Germany almost doubled from 2003 to 2011 (Statistisches
Bundesamt, 2014). This is unpopular and newspaper headlines like
Corn-Mania are not uncommon (Klawitter, 2012). There are problems associated with the increase in cultivating high-yield annual
crops. It leads to changes in crop rotation, natural scenery, biodiversity and animal populations, and it increases the susceptibility to
crop diseases and pests (Fletcher et al., 2010; Robertson et al., 2008).
In many maize production areas, maize cultivation is problematic
because of the Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) (Schwabe et al., 2010), or the European corn borer (Ostrinia
nubilalis) (Gathmann and Rothmeier, 2005; Schmitz et al., 2002). In
addition, maize cultivation is associated with an increased risk of
soil erosion, particularly when cultivated on sloped land (Boardman
et al., 2009; Palmer and Smith, 2013), which leads to eutrophication
of waterways, poor quality soil and even ooding.
For the above-mentioned reasons, many agricultural biogas
plant operators are starting to use alternative crops or wastes
as substrates, although, particularly in Germany, it is not always
possible for biogas plant operators to switch to wastes owing to

the subsidy systems (EEG, 2014). One such alternative energy crop
is Silphium perfoliatum L., which has high biomass yields, has a low
care requirement compared to annual crops and ecological advantages over traditional energy crops such as maize (Biertmpfel et al.,
2013; Grebe et al., 2012).
S. perfoliatum L. (hereinafter referred to as silphium) is a tall,
perennial, yellow owering C3 plant (Stanford, 1990) and was
brought from North America to Europe in the 18th century as a
decorative plant in parks and gardens (Kowalski and Kedzia,

2007;
Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972; Stanford, 1990; Wrobel et al., 2013).
In the last decades, many experiments were carried out
regarding cultivation of silphium in the former USSR (Sokolov
and Gritsak, 1972), Japan (Kawahara et al., 1977a, 1977b), France
(Niqueux, 1981), Switzerland (Troxler and Daccord, 1982), Roma
nia (Puia and Szab, 1985), the Czech Republic (Vacek and Repka,
1992), the USA (Han et al., 2000a, 2000b; Lehmkuhler et al., 2007;
Stanford, 1990), Germany (Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Daniel and
Rompf, 1994; Neumerkel et al., 1978; Vetter et al., 2010), Hungary
(Kovcs, 2008), Poland (Majtkowski et al., 2009; Piat et al., 2007),
Chile (Pichard, 2012), China (Pan et al., 2011) and Austria (Mayr
et al., 2013). The results show that this crop provides valuable
ecological properties, and that an optimal growing process with
high yields can occur if the requirements of the crop are taken
into account. First studies considering silphium as a biogas substrate were carried out in recent years by Conrad et al. (2009),
Aurbacher et al. (2012), Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012), Siaudinis

et al. (2012a, 2012b), Slepetys et al. (2012), Vetter et al. (2010) and
Mast et al. (2014). Much of the available literature about this crop is
published in various languages other than English and available in
form of end-of-project reports, papers with specic research questions, conference papers or other communications. This work aims
to review the literature about the cultivation conditions of S. perfoliatum L. and biogas production from this crop, to summarise the
state of knowledge, to give a comparative overview of different
studies and make this information available in English. The nal
aim of this work is to determine the potential of silphium as an
alternative crop for biogas production.
2. Botanical characteristics of S. perfoliatum L.

S. perfoliatum L. is a perennial plant from the family Asteraceae
and genus Silphium, which also includes Silphium trifoliatum L.,
Silphium integrifolium Michx. and Silphium lacinatum L., Silphium
asteriseus L., Silphium radula L., which are widespread in North
America and Mexico (Clevinger and Panero, 2000; Clevinger, 2004;
Kowalski and Kedzia,

2007). Owing to the cup-shaped arrangement of the leaves, S. perfoliatum L. is also called cup plant (Hayek
and Hegi, 1918). Settle (1967) reported a diploid chromosome
364
(Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972). In contrast to non-owering crops, silphium provides valuable structures and food sources for insects and
thereby promotes bee health and an attractive agricultural landscape (Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Feldwisch, 2011; Franzaring et al.,
2013; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972).
After owering, silphium develops around 1820 (Neumerkel
and Mrtin, 1982) or 2030 fruits per ower head (Fig. 1e)
(Niqueux, 1981). The fruits (Fig. 1f) are green-brown, at ach
enes (Kowalski and Wiercinski,
2004; Wrobel et al., 2013), about
915 mm long, 69 mm wide, and at most 1 mm thick (Niqueux,
1981). The thousand grain weight is about 14 g (Neumerkel and
Mrtin, 1982) to 21.5 g (Kowalski and Wiercinski,

2004).
3. Climate and soil requirements

Fig. 1. Silphium perfoliatum L: (a) quadrangular stalk, (b) cup-shaped leaf axil, (c)
branched stalk with ower buds and ower heads, (d) ower head with tubular and
ligulate ray owers, (e) mature inorescence, and (f) fruits.
number of 14 for S. perfoliatum L. Currently, only seeds of different geographical origin are available, but no approved varieties
with typical characteristics (Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Grebe et al.,
2012). Thus, silphium has a wide genetic range and the plants are
heterogeneous.
S. perfoliatum L. prefers longer periods with alternating temperatures for the germination (Grebe et al., 2012; Trlenberg et al., 2012;
Vetter et al., 2010). After it sprouts in the spring, the plant grows
very slowly and forms around 1214 leaves in a rosette (Stanford,
1990) as well as a strong horizontal rootstock with many side roots
in the rst year (Neumerkel et al., 1978; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972;
Vacek and Repka,

1992). During the late summer, the vegetative
buds are formed for the coming vegetation period (Neumerkel et al.,
1978; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972), out of which the stalks form in
the second year.
From a temperature of around 5 C upwards, the growing processes start in the spring of the next year. After around 1215 leaves
(Grebe et al., 2012; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972), the plants form
many vertical quadrangular stalks (Fig. 1a) that are covered with
leaves and reach a height of up to 3 m (Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982;
Wrobel et al., 2013). The number of stalks per plant (1025 stalks)
increases with age. The stalks form 812 internodes with a length of
2030 cm and are lled with a spongy core (Wrobel et al., 2013). The
leaves are arranged in pairs on the nodes (Neumerkel and Mrtin,
1982) and are perfoliate as cups (Fig. 1b) (Hayek and Hegi, 1918).
The leaves are triangular to oval with serrated edges, up to 40 cm
long and 25 cm wide (Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982; Wrobel et al.,
2013) and the upper surface of the leaf is dark green and rough
hairy (Hayek and Hegi, 1918).
At the end of May in the northern hemisphere, silphium reaches
a height of 116131 cm at budding, as well as a complete ground
coverage (Daniel and Rompf, 1994). Depending on the growing
conditions, in Europe the plants produce bright yellow owers
(Fig. 1c) from the start of July to the end of September (Jabonski
and Kotowski, 2005; Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982; Wrobel et al.,
2013). The owering phase is long because new ower heads are
constantly being formed, and every head owers for around 1012
days. Around 810 ower heads develop per stalk (Neumerkel and
Mrtin, 1982), each with a diameter of 48 cm, and are composed
of hermaphrodite tubular owers and ligulate ray owers (Fig. 1d).
Silphium is a facultatively self-pollinating or cross-pollinating plant
(Neumerkel et al., 1978; Vacek and Repka,

1992). The nectar and
pollen of the owers is available as a source of food to bees
and other pollinators (Daniel and Rompf, 1994; Jabonski

and
Kotowski, 2005). The bees can produce up to 150 kg ha1 honey
The silphium crop is native to the temperate latitudes of North

America (north-eastern United States and south-eastern Canada)
and grows naturally mainly in places with high air humidity and
soil moisture content such as in the rich soils of river valleys,
river banks, lakesides, ravines (Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972; Vacek
and Repka,
1992), moist sandy bottomlands and oodplains, near
streambeds (Stanford, 1990), and in or adjacent to open woodland
(Huxley et al., 1992; Kowalski and Kedzia,

2007; Stanford, 1990),
for example in the Appalachian forest on open spaces (Sokolov
and Gritsak, 1972). The climate of this region has a subcontinental
1992). This crop is well adapted to difcharacter (Vacek and Repka,

ferent European climates (Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982). The best
growing temperature is about 20 C and full sun promotes optimal
growth (Stanford, 1990). Furthermore, silphium is a tough crop and
survives temperature as low as 30 C.
The characteristics for the places where the crop grows best are
fertile, humic soils, provision with moisture and low-lying land
(Aurbacher et al., 2012; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972) like woodland and along watercourses (Fisher, 1966). Hydromorphic soils
are unsuitable (Aurbacher et al., 2012).
Table 1 shows biomass yields at different locations in Germany
and describes the impact of different soil types and altitudes. There
is no clear inuence of the different climate and soil types on
the yield. However, with increasing altitude, the vegetation time
becomes shorter and the silphium yield is lower. In summary, silphium is tolerant regarding soil requirements, but good soils are
necessary to achieve high biomass yields (Franzaring et al., 2014;
Grebe et al., 2012). Another interesting feature worth considering
is that silphium can be used as a pioneer crop for recultivation of
degraded land (Wrobel et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2010).
Silphium possesses a strong root system, which allows deep soil
water to be used (Schoo et al., 2013) and the ability of the leaf
axils, which are also called cups, to store water like rain water and
condensation water (Hayek and Hegi, 1918; Kovcs, 2008). This
allows silphium to survive hot summers and count as a droughttolerant crop (Grebe et al., 2012; Schoo et al., 2013; Stanford,
1990). In particular, it is tolerant to dry periods from the spring
to early summer (April to June). The minimum water requirement is around 400 and 500 mm per year and around 200 and
250 mm during the vegetation period, similar to maize (Grebe et al.,
2012).
Silphium has shown to be very effective in terms of water
use efciency (Franzaring et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2011). In a 5year experimental study, Pan et al. (2011) observed that silphium
exceeds maize water use efciency in dry vegetation periods, while
maize exceeds silphium in years with normal or above-average
rainfall. Furthermore, this study indicates that silphium is able to
produce considerably more biomass under arid conditions than
maize. In comparison, maize produced slightly more biomass in
normal or wet years (Pan et al., 2011). Only in the experiments of
365
Table 1
Dry matter yield (t ha1 ) of Silphium perfoliatum L. under inuence of different soil types and altitudes in Germany.
Soil type
Altitude (m)
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Loam
Loam
Loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Loamy clay
11
25
75
190
310
342
445
475
Loamy sand
Loamy clay
Sandy loam
Clay loam/silty loam
117
350
545
720
a
b
c
d
Mean annual
precipitation (mm)
DM yield (t ha1 )
Site
References
8.0
8.2
8.8
8.6
7.6
7.7
6.2
6.6
534
515
469
506
580
744
722
777
16.8a
15.9a
13.4a
19.0c
17.7a
12.2a
9.6b
9.9a
Malchow
Christinenfeld
Biendorf
Bendeleben
Gotha
Berthelsdorf
Brenrode
Kalteneber
Neumerkel and
Mrtin (1982)
10.1
8.7
8.0
5.8
742
830
911
901
19.6d
11.5d
12.6d
7.3d
Rheinstetten-Forchheim
Kupferzell
Aulendorf
Marbach
Stolzenburg and
Monkos (2012)
Mean annual
temperature ( C)
Average over two harvest years.

Average over four harvest years.
Average over ve harvest years.
Second year of cultivation (one harvest year).
Troxler and Daccord (1982), a certain level of sensitivity to water

shortage was observed.
In addition, silphium contributes positively to climate, soil
and water protection. Owing to the year-round and multiple-year
ground coverage, the risk of soil erosion and nutrient leaching and
washout is reduced compared to annual energy crops (Aurbacher
et al., 2012; Franzaring et al., 2013), soil formation is promoted and
carbon sequestration takes place, leading to better soil fertility and
green-house-gas balance (Feldwisch, 2011; Franzaring et al., 2013).
4. Cultivation
4.1. Expected productive life-span and choice of preceding and
subsequent crop
Silphium is a perennial plant and can be used for around 15
years without replanting, depending on the location (Neumerkel
et al., 1978; Niqueux, 1981; Vacek and Repka,

1992).
Preceding crops with weed-suppressing properties are recommended, due to the low competitiveness against weeds in the rst
year of cultivation (Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Grebe et al., 2012).
The effect of the preceding crop is not so relevant for the subsequent years, because silphium can be used for many years. Root
crops, maize and cereals can be used as preceding crops (Aurbacher
et al., 2012; Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Neumerkel et al., 1978). Planting after winter catch crops is also possible. Cereals are suitable
as subsequent crops to control the regrowth of silphium after the
utilisation (Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Grebe et al., 2012).
4.2. Soil preparation
After harvesting the preceding crop, intensive soil tilling should
be carried out to reduce the weed pressure (Aurbacher et al., 2012;
Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972). Subsequently, a careful, moistureretaining pre-sowing treatment is necessary, as this allows optimal
conditions for eld emergence and early development of the
seedling. The seed and plant bed should contain nely structured
and crumbly soil that has settled well (Aurbacher et al., 2012). The
use of a roller either before or during sowing is benecial to ensure
good soil packing and uniform seed coverage (Neumerkel et al.,
1978; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972).
4.3. Sowing versus planting
The establishment of the crop can occur generatively by direct
sowing of seeds (Aurbacher et al., 2012; Kawahara et al., 1977b;
Neumerkel et al., 1978; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972; Troxler and
1992; Vetter et al., 2010) or by

Daccord, 1982; Vacek and Repka,
planting out from seed-drawn seedlings (Aurbacher et al., 2012;
Neumerkel et al., 1978) as well as vegetatively by splitting the
rhizome (Neumerkel et al., 1978).
Sokolov and Gritsak (1972) and Troxler and Daccord (1982) recommend sowing in late autumn, at the latest 1520 days before
the rst night frost using freshly gathered seeds or in spring with
seeds that have been stratied over 2 months. The experiments
of Vetter et al. (2010) showed that, in Germany, the earliest seed
sowing to obtain an acceptable seedling development was the middle of May. Sowing dates in mid-June, mid-July and mid-August
resulted in an incomplete ground coverage by the end of the vegetation season. The experiments that involved sowing without
covering crops and sowing in covering crops showed that sowing without covering crops led to stronger seedling development.
Covering crops led to weaker plant development (Neumerkel and
Mrtin, 1982; Vetter et al., 2010). Experiments to determine the
optimum sowing density by Neumerkel and Mrtin (1982) showed
that the highest biomass yield (average over 5 years) was achieved
with the variant 10 cm 50 cm (spacing in the rows: 10 cm; distance between the rows: 50 cm). When the sowing density was
reduced (25 cm 50 cm, 10 cm 75 cm, 25 cm 75 cm), the yield
decreased. Single grain precision seeders can be used for seed sowing (Biertmpfel et al., 2013; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972). Sokolov
and Gritsak (1972) suggest a sowing intensity (by seed weight) of
1520 kg ha1 , a depth of 1.52 cm and a row spacing of 70 cm.
The amount of seeds needed to obtain good coverage can be
signicantly reduced if high quality seeds are used. Biertmpfel
et al. (2013) recommend a sowing intensity (by seed weight) of
22.5 kg ha1 and Grebe et al. (2012) recommend 1215 viable
seeds per square metre. But there are currently various problems
associated with silphium seeds and a great need for research (see
Section 6).
Planting pre-cultured seedlings is currently the preferred
method, as it ensures a safe and even crop (Trlenberg et al., 2012;
Vetter et al., 2010). Under European climate conditions the planting
is typically carried out at the end of May or the beginning of June
with planting machines from the vegetable and gardening industries. Later planting dates (mid June to mid August) do not allow
proper row closing, but the young plants can still survive the winter. Optimal stand densities have been reported to be four plants
per square metre (Aurbacher et al., 2012; Stolzenburg and Monkos,
2012; Vetter et al., 2010). Experiments to optimise the plant density and plant distribution were not conclusive. Stolzenburg and
Monkos (2012) compared three plant densities and distributions.
366
The highest biomass yield and shoots per square metre at time of
harvest in the rst harvestable year was obtained at the highest
plant density and at an even plant distribution of 50 cm 50 cm.
The yield and the numbers of shoots per square metre were lower
at a plant density of 75 cm 30 cm and 75 cm 50 cm. However,
the experiments of Vetter et al. (2010) showed that their lowest
plant density (50 cm 75 cm, 75 cm 75 cm) gave a higher yield in
the rst harvestable year compared to the higher plant densities
(50 cm 50 cm). In the second harvestable year, the yields were
similar, regardless of the plant density.
The establishment of silphium is work and cost intensive.
Biertmpfel and Conrad (2013) compared the initial costs of planting and sowing in the rst year. According to the calculation of
Biertmpfel and Conrad (2013) the initial costs for planting are
between 5159 and 5190 euro per hectare. The initial costs for sowing are around 2000 euro per hectare lower, but there is a higher
risk that the crops do not sufciently develop. The high investment
costs are also partly caused by the increased plant protection costs
in the rst year (see additionally Section 4.5).
Furthermore, Biertmpfel and Conrad (2013) compared the raw
materials costs of maize and silphium (with a 10 year useful life).
The establishment of silphium by planting caused raw material
costs for silphium silage of 148161 euro per tonne (ODM) and
by sowing originated costs of 129138 euro per tonne (ODM).
Maize, with raw material costs between 118 and 124 euro per tonne
(ODM), was cheaper in comparison. There is still a need to optimise
the establishment of silphium and reduce the costs. The ecological
added value was not included in the calculation.
4.4. Fertilisation
The fertilizer requirement depends on the nutrient supply of the
soil and the expected nutrient uptake of the plants. An appropriate
fertilisation scheme is necessary, to obtain a well-developed stand
and a high yield. Silphium has a high capacity for nutrient acquisition and nutrient retention (Neumerkel et al., 1978; Niqueux,
1981).
To evaluate the yield-increasing effect of nitrogen, Neumerkel
and Mrtin (1982), Daniel and Rompf (1994), Vetter et al. (2010),
Aurbacher et al. (2012), Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012) and
Pichard (2012) carried out fertilisation experiments. Table 2 shows
that with increasing nitrogen availability, the biomass yield of silphium increases (Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982). Experiments by
Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012) and Pichard (2012) conrmed this
trend. In the experiments of Pichard (2012), the rst 100 kg ha1
(based on nitrogen weight) had a very strong inuence on the yield,
but after that the yield-increasing effect was less noticeable (Daniel
and Rompf, 1994; Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982; Pichard, 2012).
Very high nitrogen addition causes a yield reduction owing to
the toxicity effect (Pichard, 2012) and increases the risk of lodging
(plants bending over onto the ground) (Aurbacher et al., 2012).
Mineral and organic fertilisers are both suitable. Vetter et al.
(2010) used a mixture of mineral fertiliser as well as liquid digestate
from a biogas plant. The combination of the digestate and mineral fertilisers gave the highest yield. According to Conrad et al.
(2009), the crop needs 10 kg of nitrogen to produce 1 t of dry matter. Aurbacher et al. (2012) recommend an initial fertilisation of
50 kg ha1 (based on nitrogen weight) in the establishment year
and a single fertilisation per year at the start of the vegetation
period in the subsequent years, of around 130160 kg ha1 (based
on nitrogen weight), minus the current soil mineral nitrogen value
(Aurbacher et al., 2012; Conrad et al., 2009). A second fertilisation
at a later date is difcult owing to the growth height. Siaudinis

et al. (2012b) tested the effect of lime (with a CaCO3 load of 0, 3
and 6 t ha1 ) and nitrogen (with 0, 60 and 120 kg ha1 ) addition
on yield. With a liming rate of 6 t ha1 (based on CaCO3 weight),
they achieved an additional yield of 15.5%, 44.2% and 22.9% compared with the reference eld in three different years. The highest
nitrogen addition of 120 kg ha1 had the greatest effect and led to
a yield increase of 41.1%, 20.1% and 20.0%.
Depending on the nutrient supply of the soil, fertilisation with
phosphorus, magnesium and potassium is necessary. The phosphorus removal is about 30 kg ha1 , the magnesium removal is
60 kg ha1 , and the potassium removal is 250 kg ha1 (Conrad et al.,
2009).
4.5. Weed management and phytosanitary measures

During the rst year of growth, silphium develops slowly and
the ground coverage occurs in the summer. This means that a
sufciently early weed management system is essential for the successful establishment of a good crop. During the vegetative stage
the inter-row spaces must be chopped and loosened by machine
or by hand several times (Aurbacher et al., 2012; Neumerkel et al.,
1978; Niqueux, 1981; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972). Selective herbicides would reduce this effort considerably, but there are currently
no registered herbicides that are compatible with silphium (Grebe
et al., 2012; Vetter et al., 2010). Vetter et al. (2010) carried out
rst experiments to study the effect and compatibility of various
herbicides, but they only had partial success. From the second year
onwards, the crops rapidly reach full ground coverage so no more
weed management is necessary.
Individual larvae of the silver Y (Autographa gamma), mouse
moth (Amphipyra tragopogonis) and broad-barred white (Hecatera
bicolorata) have been reported on the leaves of silphium, as well
as larvae of other moths on the stem (Neumerkel et al., 1978).
Puia and Szab (1985) reported that some of their seedlings roots
were eaten by a ground-dwelling beetle. Recently, insect pests
were discovered in silphium in South Dakota and Wisconsin: the
larva of the giant eucosma moth (Eucosma giganteana Riley Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (Johnson and Boe, 2011; Johnson et al., 2012),
the larva of the tumbling ower beetle (Mordellistena cf. aethiops
Smith Coleoptera: Mordellidae), the larva of the tumbling ower
beetle (Mordellistena cf. aethiops Smith Coleoptera: Mordellidae) (Johnson et al., 2012), an aphid (Uroleucon cf. ambrosiae
Hemiptera: Aphidae) and a parasitoid wasp (Acanthocaudus n.sp.,
Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Johnson and Boe, 2011). In particular,
the larva of E. giganteana can cause massive damage of the apical
meristematic tissues, including oral buds, and the rhizome and
can lead to a total failure (Johnson and Boe, 2011; Johnson et al.,
2012).
Yield-reducing damage can also be caused by fungi. Wet
weather in the summer can encourage the stems to be infected by
Sclerotinia spp. (Aurbacher et al., 2012; Niqueux, 1981; Stolzenburg
and Monkos, 2012; Troxler and Daccord, 1982). Early harvesting
prevents the fungus from producing permanent fruiting bodies,
which reduces the spread of the fungus (Aurbacher et al., 2012;
Grebe et al., 2012). Other fungi that cause losses in the biomass
and seed yield are Fusarium spp., Alternaria spp. and Botrytis spp.,
to name a few. Data for the quantication of the loss are not
known. Generally, Fusarium spp. and Botrytis spp. affect the seeds
(Neumerkel and Mrtin, 1982). During cool and damp autumns, the
ower buds can be attacked by Botrytis spp., causing them to wilt
and turn black before they open (Niqueux, 1981; Stanford, 1990).
Specic fungal plant pathogens have also been diagnosed, including Uromyces silphii (Arthur, 1908, 1907), Uromyces junci (Arthur,
1908), Septoria silphii (Arthur, 1907; Martin, 1887), Puccinia silphii
(Arthur, 1907, 1906; Brenckle, 1918; Burrill, 1885), Puccinia obtecta
(Arthur, 1908), Puccinia albiperidia (Arthur, 1906) and Ascochyta
silphii sp. (Bedlan, 2014). Specic fungicides for application to silphium are not available (Biertmpfel et al., 2013). Stolzenburg and
367
Table 2
The effect of nitrogen fertilisation on dry matter yield (t ha1 ) of Silphium perfoliatum L.
Nitrogen level (kg ha1 )
Dry matter yield (t ha1 )

Neumerkel and
Mrtin (1982)c
0
89a
100
120
160/160b
200
240
300
400
480
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Daniel and
Rompf (1994)d
Vetter et al. (2010)e
10.6
Stolzenburg and
Monkos (2012)f
9.2
Pichard (2012)g
11.614.6
20.5
16.817.2
13.1
17.1/22.5
16.224.7
14.9
16.027.0
16.327.4
16.1
17.1
19.2
16.219.7
17.020.1
18.619.5
15.4
Digestate.
Mineral fertiliser and digestate.
Average over six harvest years (x 19741979).
Range over three harvest years (x 19851987).
Second year of cultivation (2009).
Second year of cultivation (2011).
Range over the second and third year.
Monkos (2012) also found a bacterial infection by Pseudomonas

syringae.
leaves can provide food and shelter for animals (including insects)
for a longer period of time.
5. Current cultivation, harvesting and conversion of S.

perfoliatum L. to biogas in comparison to other energy crops
5.2. Dry matter yield
Several studies have been carried out on silphium harvesting

and its conversion to biogas. There is currently a large interest in
using silphium as a crop for biogas, and many European biogas plant
operators and research groups are cultivating this crop (personal
communications). Several researchers have compared silphium to
maize and other alternative energy crops in terms of yield and biogas production. It is estimated that 400 ha of land in Germany was
used for silphium in 2013 (Biertmpfel et al., 2013). Data are not
available for other countries.
5.1. Harvesting process

Harvesting is currently carried out with common maizeharvesting technology and following the same collection process.
The crop is chopped with a forage harvester equipped with a direct
cut header, transported with a trailer and nally ensiled (Aurbacher
et al., 2012). Alternatively, the silphium could be chopped and left
to wilt before ensiling.
S. perfoliatum L. can be harvested once or twice a year. A single
harvest at the end of owering or the start of seed maturation is
more conventional, which is typically in September under normal
vegetation conditions in Europe (Aurbacher et al., 2012).
When harvested twice, the rst harvest point in Europe is typically in the middle of June, during the initial budding stage, and
the second harvest point is in September, before the rst frost
(Neumerkel et al., 1978; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972).
The idea behind a double harvest is to take advantage of the low
bre content of the plant material harvested earlier (see Section
5.3), which would in theory lead to a higher methane yield on a dry
matter basis, although the harvested material would have a lower
dry matter content and the total dry matter yield per hectare would
be low, as explained in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 (Aurbacher et al., 2012).
To compensate for the lower total dry matter yield, the silphium is
harvested a second time. However, Pichard (2012) showed that the
yield from a single harvest at the end of the season is higher than
the total yield from a double harvest. Moreover, a single harvest at
the end of owering has an ecological advantage, as the owers and
It is only worthwhile to use the biomass of silphium from the

second vegetation year onwards, as only leaf rosettes are formed
in the rst year, with a dry matter yield around 3.7 t ha1 (Troxler
and Daccord, 1982). The yield in the subsequent years has been
reported to be around 1122 t ha1 (Fig. 2) on a dry matter basis,
but there are also outliers with a yield of around 7 t ha1 (Puia and
Szab, 1985; Slepetys et al., 2012) and up to 36.6 t ha1 (Daniel and
Rompf, 1994). The KTBL, a German association for technology and
civil engineering in agriculture, and the German Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR), which compiles statistics related to biogas in
Germany, list low silphium yields as 1113 t ha1 , average yields
as 1315 t ha1 , and high yields as 1517 t ha1 . As a comparison,
the grass yields are listed from 7.512.5 t ha1 and the maize yields
from 14 to 21 t ha1 (Grebe et al., 2012).
There is a high variation in reported yield because many factors have an impact on the yield, including climate, soil, cultivation
measures and, most importantly, harvest time.
Pichard (2012) and Daniel and Rompf (1994) researched the
effect of harvesting at different times. The results showed that yield
increases from the budding stage through the owering stage to
the seed maturation stage, meaning that later harvests give higher
dry matter yields. However, Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012) highlight the importance of not harvesting too late. They observed that
the yield decreased from the middle of September onwards (in
Germany). This effect is probably due to the fact that the leaves fall
off towards the end of the growing season. In contrast to these studies, Vetter et al. (2010) did not observe any clear trend regarding
biomass yield and harvest stage between late August and early
October under European climate conditions.
Silphium yields (on a dry matter basis) have been reported to
be equal to maize yields or slightly lower. Conrad et al. (2009) and
Vetter et al. (2007) found that the dry matter yield per hectare of
silphium was approximately equal to that of maize. Aurbacher et al.
(2012) reported an approximately 20% lower yield per hectare for
silphium than for maize, and Stockmann and Fritz (2013) reported
a 2050% lower yield per hectare for silphium than for maize,
although they had very good results with one silphium eld.
Vetter et al. (2007) also compared sudangrass and forage
sorghum yields, and found that silphium dry matter yields per
368
Fig. 2. Range of the dry matter yield (t ha1 ) of Silphium perfoliatum L.
The point of harvest not only inuences the biomass yield, but
also the dry matter content of the freshly harvested silphium. A
low dry-matter content (i.e. a high water content) is disadvantageous for making silage and is inefcient for transporting and
processing. To obtain a high silage quality, a dry matter content
of 260300 g kg1 (Grebe et al., 2012) is desirable. The studies of
Pichard (2012), Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012), Piat et al. (2007),
Daniel and Rompf (1994) and Majtkowski et al. (2009) show that
the dry matter content increases with the maturation, as shown in
Table 3, and therefore highlight the importance of harvesting later,
to get the optimum dry matter content.
5.4. Chemical composition
The methane potential of a crop (or indeed any organic material)
is heavily inuenced by its chemical composition, as can be calculated using the Buswell equation (Buswell and Hateld, 1936). The
content of lignocellulose (bre) is particularly important because
cellulose degradation is extremely slow compared with other carbohydrates (Noike et al., 1985). Lignin cannot be broken down
Table 3
Dry matter content of Silphium perfoliatum L. at different points of harvest (vegetative stage or month).
Point of harvest
DM (g kg1 )
Vegetative 80 cm height
Vegetative 100 cm height
Bud stage
10% ower
50% our
Seed stage
Mid Augusta
Early Septembera
Mid Septembera
Early Octobera
Vegetative phase
Beginning of owering
Beginning of seed setting
Bud stage
Flowering
After owering
144
168
188
210
234
249
242
270
285
357
87.7115.5
208.1222.2
236.0256.6
113116
161185
212237
Germany.
Reference
Pichard (2012)
Stolzenburg and
Monkos (2012)
5.5. Storage
Ensiling, or silage making, is a lactic acid fermentation commonly carried out in Europe with grasses, cereals and other crops,
because the acid production makes the crop more resistant to
microbial decay, and because the alternative, drying, is not always
possible with European weather conditions (Wilkinson, 2005).
Ensiling of silphium was studied in the1980s and 1990s when
500
30
400
25
20
300
15
200
10
100
0
vegetative phase
Piat et al. (2007)

Daniel and Rompf
(1994)
crude protein
beginning of
flowering
ADF
beginning of seed
setting
NDF
dry matter in relation to fresh

matter (%)
5.3. Dry matter content
anaerobically and high levels of lignin can also prevent cellulose

from being broken down (Frigon and Guiot, 2010). This recalcitrance of plant material to biological breakdown increases with
age (Frigon and Guiot, 2010) because the bre content increases
with age (Aurbacher et al., 2012). Harvesting time and frequency,
therefore, have a great inuence on the biogas yield.
According to Majtkowski et al. (2009) the harvested silphium
biomass contains (on a dry matter basis) 5085 g kg1 crude protein, 2125 g kg1 crude fat, and 230300 g kg1 crude bre. The
content of these compounds is heavily inuenced by the harvest
date. Towards the end of the growing season, the ash content (indigestible) and bre content increases and the protein, nitrogen-free
extractives and fat content (all easily digestible) decreases. Fig. 3
shows how the dry matter content of silphium increases from the
vegetative phase to the beginning of seed setting, and how the
protein content decreases. The bre components neutral detergent
bre (NDF), which represents cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin,
and acid detergent bre (ADF), which represents cellulose and
lignin, increase with growing time. This means that older silphium
will be harder to break down.
With increasing age the concentration of easily available sugars
also decrease (Stolzenburg and Monkos, 2012). In summary, the
biomass yield increases during crop development, while the specic methane yield decreases, so determining the optimal harvest
time is very important to obtain high biogas yields. This is similar
in other energy crops such as maize (Amon et al., 2007) and grass
(Seppl et al., 2009).
mass on a dry matter basis

(gkg-1)
hectare were 1862% higher than sudangrass and equal to or 34%

higher than forage sorghum. Overall, this suggests that silphium
can compete with current energy crops in terms of dry matter yield.
There is considerably less information available about other
species of Silphium. Vetter et al. (2010) compared S. perfoliatum L.
with two other Silphium species, S. trifoliatum L. and S. lacinatum L.
They found that the other two species failed to provide complete
ground coverage at the end of the establishment year and did not
produce very many stalks in the second year. This meant that the
biomass yield per area of these other two Silphium species was less
than half of the biomass yield of S. perfoliatum L.
DM
Fig. 3. Change in crude protein, acid detergent bre (ADF), neutral-detergent bre
(NDF) and dry matter (DM) content over the different vegetation stages of Silphium
perfoliatum L.
Adapted from Majtkowski et al. (2009).
silphium was being considered as animal fodder. Ensiling is also

a good technique for storing energy crops. Silphium contains high
amounts of water-soluble carbohydrate, which is advantageous for
lactic acid fermentation, and many studies report a good pH drop
during ensiling (Daniel and Rompf, 1994; Neumerkel and Mrtin,
1982; Troxler and Daccord, 1982). However, the dry matter content
of the harvested silphium is often too low for high-quality ensiling,
and this can lead to high silage efuent and nutrient losses. Troxler
and Daccord (1982) ensiled silphium that was cut in early summer
(11% DM) and observed DM losses of around 11%, with additional
losses via leachate of up to 13%.
Wilting to increase the dry matter content is highly recommended to ensure higher quality silage, as shown by Han et al.
(2000a, 2000b), who demonstrated that wilting for 48 h greatly
improved lactic acid production and reduced acetate and butyrate
production. The harvest process would have to be modied to
incorporate a wilting stage. Han et al. (2000b) also observed some
DM losses (around 5%) after ensiling.
Losses can be minimised and the ensiling process can be helped
by supplying additional carbohydrate levels (Daniel and Rompf,
1994) and by using silage additives such as formic acid (Niqueux,
1981; Vetter et al., 2010). Niqueux et al. (1981) reported losses of
22% for the silage without additives and losses of 15% for silage
with 5 l t1 formic acid. In both cases, they attributed the loss to
leachate. Mixing the silphium with wheat, oats or maize can also
help the silage development (Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972).
5.6. Biomethane potential
The methane production from a substrate, called biomethane
potential (BMP) or specic methane yield (SMY), can be tested in
laboratory batch anaerobic digestion (BMP test). Laboratory continuous anaerobic digestion demonstrates that this methane potential
can be maintained and that the substrate does not cause inhibition
or process instability when used over a longer time period. Data
from pilot- or full-scale biogas plants conrm that this methane
yield can be achieved in practice, and highlights processing problems that are not observable at laboratory scale, such as oating
layer formation (Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2010). Batch anaerobic
digestion is relatively fast and simple, but more information can be
obtained about potential process inhibition and processing problems using lab-scale continuous or full-scale anaerobic digestion.
It is difcult to compare methane yields from different studies
as the methane yield varies depending on the substrate to inoculum
ration used, the duration of the test and the activity of the microbial
inoculum (Drosg et al., 2013).
Mast et al. (2014) carried out BMP tests with silphium, maize
and another potential energy crop, tall wheatgrass (Elymus elongatus). They measured the methane yield from silphium as between
0.232 and 0.275 m3 kg1 on an organic dry matter (ODM) basis
(after 35 days), which was about 21% lower than that of maize. Gas
volumes given in this study were under standard conditions (0 C,
1 atm/101.3 kPa). They found that their best harvest of tall wheatgrass had a better BMP, producing 7.4% more methane than maize
on a dry matter basis.
Vetter et al. (2010) carried out BMP tests with silphium silage
and found the methane yield was between 0.253 and 0.289 m3 kg1
on an ODM basis (after 35 days), although they did not compare with reference substrates. Unpublished results from Haag
et al. (personal communication) at the University of Hohenheim, Germany, show the methane yield after 35 days to be
0.251 0.0141 m3 kg1 on an ODM basis.
No data has been published on methane production for durations for time periods longer than 35 days.
No studies have investigated the effect of pretreatment on
biogas production from silphium. With other brous substrates,
369
Fig. 4. Methane yield per hectare (m3 ha1 ) of silphium in comparison to reference
energy crops (sorghum, grass, maize and sudangrass). Gas volume is given under
standard conditions (0 C, 1 atm).
Adapted from Dhler et al. (2013) (KTBL).
various types of pretreatment have been found to increase biogas

yield and prevent processing problems in the reactor (Montgomery
and Bochmann, 2014). These include mechanical pretreatment
with mills or grinders, thermal and high pressure pretreatment
with extruders or steam explosion, and biological pretreatment
using enzymes or microorganisms.
5.7. Methane yield per hectare
The methane yield on a dry matter basis only gives a small part
of the picture. The area of land needed to generate the biomass
inuences the cost of the methane subsequently produced (Walla
and Schneeberger, 2008). The two factors biomass dry matter yield
(kg ha1 ) and specic methane yield (m3 kg1 ) can be combined
to obtain the methane yield per hectare (expressed as m3 ha1 ).
To obtain a protable methane yield, various parameters have to
be optimised. These include parameters related to the crop, such
as the choice of location and care in the rst year, cultivation
and harvest, as well as parameters related to the anaerobic digestion, such as the choice of co-substrate and retention time in the
digester.
Mast et al. (2014) calculated the methane yield per hectare using
a specic methane yield (m3 kg1 ) obtained from BMP tests. They
found that the methane yield per hectare was up to 4301 m3 ha1 .
As mentioned in Section 5.6, Mast et al. (2014) found the methane
yield from silphium to be lower than from tall wheatgrass but,
owing to the low hectare yields of tall wheatgrass, they found the
two potential energy crops to be approximately equal in terms of
methane yield per hectare.
Several other studies report methane yields for silphium,
but the specic methane yield values were not obtained from
BMP tests, they were calculated from the chemical composition (Stolzenburg and Monkos, 2012; Vetter et al., 2010). This
is not an accurate way to determine methane yield, but the
results have been included to demonstrate the range of methane
yields per hectare that can be achieved, depending on the cultivation conditions. Vetter et al. (2010) reported very variable
calculated methane yields of around 27549030 m3 ha1 , depending on the location, year and origin of the seeds. However, they
also noted that their specic methane yields obtained from BMP
tests were, in general, about 15% lower than their calculated
methane yields, making the real values closer to between 2333 and
7675 m3 ha1 . Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012) achieved a theoretical methane yield per hectare of around 4800 m3 ha1 , which
would be around 4080 m3 ha1 using the correction of Vetter et al.
(2010).
Dhler et al. (2013) and Grebe et al. (2012) (of the FNR and KTBL)
give the methane yield for one hectare as 28713828 m3 (volume
under standard conditions), which is around 35% lower than for
maize silage. However, they note that their values for silphium
are based on very little data. Based on their values, a comparison
between silphium and other energy crops is shown in Fig. 4. More
370
measurements of the BMP of silphium are urgently needed to assess

the potential of silphium as a biogas crop.
Bochmann, 2014). Alternatively, other impellers or reactors can be

used.
5.8. Continuous anaerobic digestion
6. Further research and development needs
Vetter et al. (2007) measured methane yield from silphium

using continuous anaerobic digestion. Their results support the
theory that silphium takes longer to digest than other substrates.
Three reactors were fed with 80% cattle liquid manure and 20%
silphium, Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) or alfalfa
(Medicago sativa) (on an ODM basis) with an organic loading rate of
2 kg m3 d1 and a retention time of 40 days. The gas volumes are
given under standard conditions (0 C, 1 atm). The reactors showed
stable anaerobic digestion and pH for the duration of the test, which
was extremely short for such a study (60 days) and is not sufcient to draw conclusions about this crop. The biogas from all
three reactors had around 60% methane, but the methane yield
(on an organic dry matter basis) from silphium was relatively low
(0.185 m3 kg1 ), while Jerusalem artichoke had a medium methane
yield (0.209 m3 kg1 ) and alfalfa had the highest methane yield
(0.236 m3 kg1 ). This is likely due to the higher levels of protein
available in alfalfa, which gives more methane on an organic dry
matter basis than carbohydrate (Drosg et al., 2013). However, the
paper notes that these values should be viewed with caution, as
they are averages measured over a very short time (60 days) with
high variability in methane production from day to day. They also
suggest a longer retention time, as the organic dry matter content of the reactor increased over the 60 days despite a lack of
increase in methane yield. This suggests that silphium is slower to
break down than common substrates like maize. This means that
biogas plants with a single fermenter would benet from using
longer hydraulic retention times, and biogas plants with a secondary fermenter would nd greater gas production in the second
fermenter than with other substrates. Alternatively, Vetter et al.
(2007) could have experienced poor mixing and short-circuiting in
the fermenter.
In unpublished work, Haag et al. (personal communication)
from the University of Hohenheim, Germany, also carried out
continuous anaerobic digestion with silphium. After an 18-day
start-up phase, their reactor ran steadily for 45 days with
a methane yield of 0.227 0.0158 m3 kg1 on an ODM basis.
Longer continuous digestion tests with silphium are urgently
needed.
There is a great need for research to optimise the establishment of silphium and reduce the costs in the rst year. Functioning
seed technology and weed protection measures are necessary for a
competitive establishment of silphium. Some current problems are
directly related to sowing the seeds, including the low germination
rate of the seeds (Trlenberg et al., 2012), insufcient experience
about good sowing conditions, and uneven seed placement (deposit
accuracy) owing to the relatively poor ow properties of the seeds
(Biertmpfel et al., 2013). Other problems are related to crop establishment, including the higher plant protection measures needed
because of the slow seedling development and the lack of competitive advantage of the seedlings versus the weeds during the
crop establishment phase (Vetter et al., 2010). Finally, the lack of
seed providers is a major barrier (Aurbacher et al., 2012). Research
is currently being carried out on developing an appropriate seed
technology (Aurbacher et al., 2012; Mayr et al., 2013; Vetter et al.,
2010).
To control the weeds in the rst year, a specic herbicide would
be required (Vetter et al., 2010). Currently, the susceptibility to diseases and pests are low. However, Sclerotinia spp. (Aurbacher et al.,
2012; Niqueux, 1981; Stolzenburg and Monkos, 2012; Troxler and
Daccord, 1982) and the larva of the giant eucosma moth (Johnson
and Boe, 2011; Johnson et al., 2012) can cause bigger problems.
The threats posed by different pests should be further investigated,
including by targeted and controlled inoculation in the laboratory.
Silphium plants are genetically heterogeneous (own observations). It would be interesting to generate a tree of strain history
of silphium from the various geographic origins, as this could be
a valuable basis for plant breeding. The following characteristics
could be interesting for developing new varieties of silphium: early
development (slow or fast), biomass yield and height (high or low),
ripening time (early or late), leaf number (high or low), chemical
composition for methane yield (poor in lignin and ash) (Biertmpfel
and Conrad, 2013), and susceptibility to potential pathogens, lodging, drought or frost. In addition, it is worth developing strains that
give stable yields under various climate conditions, particularly in
terms of resistance to extreme weather conditions (drought, frost).
More research on the optimisation of harvest time would be
benecial, particularly as silphium has a tendency to shed leaves
towards the end of the owering season (own observations). In
other plants, the leaves are more easily converted into methane
than the stems (Motte et al., 2014), therefore leaf loss could have a
signicant impact on methane yield.
Only two laboratory investigation on the specic methane yield
of silphium have been carried out (Mast et al., 2014; Vetter et al.,
2010), so more data about the biogas yield from silphium is needed.
This is particularly important because methods vary from laboratory to laboratory. The only published continuous digestion
experiment (Vetter et al., 2007) is too short to be useful, so more
continuous digestion data is necessary to give information about
the long-term stability of biogas production from silphium. There
has been no research on the effect of pre-treatment on the methane
yield from silphium. Data from silphium digestion in full-scale biogas plants are also needed, as these give information about practical
problems and long-term stability issues.
5.9. Practical considerations

No publications are available on silphium digestion in fullscale biogas reactors. Nevertheless, some practical considerations
can be made based on other biogas substrates that are brous
and slower to break down than manure or maize (e.g. grass).
Thamsiriroj and Murphy (2010) investigated the problems associated with mono-digestion of grass silage in a 300-l biogas
reactor. Although grass and silphium may not seem similar
at rst glance, both can be considered as brous substrates
because they do not possess starch-rich grains like maize and
other cereals. Processing problems such as the accumulation of
grass bres on the impellers and the formation of a thick oating layer are common when high amounts of brous substrate
were used in biogas reactors designed for less brous substrates
(Thamsiriroj and Murphy, 2010). This could happen with silphium,
as oating layers of brous material have been observed in laboratory anaerobic digestion with silphium (own observations).
To prevent this, a pretreatment technology can be used, such as
mechanical pretreatment with mills or grinders, and biological pretreatment using enzymes or microorganisms (Montgomery and
7. Conclusions
S. perfoliatum L. has not yet been subjected to extensive breeding and has valuable properties for an alternative energy crop.
Silphium can be used for up to 15 years without replanting, is not

very susceptible to diseases and pests (according to current knowledge), and produces high amounts of biomass. Silphium prevents
nutrient leaching and erosion owing to its year-round ground coverage and root system, and thus contributes to the protection of soil
and waterways. The many yellow ower heads during the summer
months make it an attractive and important source of food for pollinator insects. Silphium is tolerant to different culture conditions
(including to dry conditions) but to take advantage of its high yield
it is necessary to optimise cultivation.
The planting-out phase and the initial crop care in the rst year
are particularly important for yield in subsequent years. Current
research shows that crop establishment is more successful when
planted from seedlings as opposed to sowing seeds directly, even
though this is more time intensive and expensive. Irrigation should
be carried out to maximise yield, taking into account the weather.
Weed control must be carried out several times until silphium has
fully covered the ground. From the second year onwards (i.e. the
rst harvestable year), the care requirements are much lower; a
single fertilisation is necessary in the spring, adjusted to the soil
quality and the yield.
A single harvest towards the end of the owering period is most
promising to obtain the highest dry matter yield per area and a high
dry matter content of around 250300 g kg1 . The annual harvest
yield (dry matter) is around 15 t ha1 and the biomethane potential (35 days) is around 0.260 m3 kg1 (0.2320.289 m3 kg1 ) on a
dry matter basis. The methane yield per hectare is around 3100 m3 ,
which is comparable to other brous biogas substrates such as grass
silage and sudangrass. However, many studies showed very good
silphium harvests and it may therefore be possible to obtain signicantly higher methane yields per hectare. Silphium has a high
bre content, which typically leads to slower digestion. This means
silphium is likely to be more suitable for biogas fermenters with
longer retention times or multiple digesters, or for biogas plants
equipped with substrate pretreatment technologies.
Disadvantages for the utilisation of silphium are the lack of harvestable biomass in the rst year, the effort required for planting
owing to the lack of adequate seeds, and the high care requirements in the rst year owing to the slow seedling development.
Research is needed to develop a suitable seed technology and to
nd a herbicide for weed control in the rst year. It is also necessary to determine the susceptibility of silphium to pathogens and to
develop varieties with specic characteristics. Data from silphium
digestion in full-scale biogas plants are also needed, as these give
practical information about processing problems and long-term
stability issues.
In conclusion, the promising biomass and biomethane yields
and the low care requirements and production costs after the rst
year, combined with the ecological advantages, make S. perfoliatum
L. a valuable, alternative energy crop for biogas production.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge Prof. Dr. J. Vollmann (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria) for
helpful advice and for the nal critical reading of this article.
References
Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Zollitsch, W., Mayer, K., Gruber, L., 2007. Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure inuence of biomass
composition on the methane yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 173182,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.007.
Arthur, J.C., 1906. Cultures of Uredineae in 1905. J. Mycol. 12, 1127, http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/3752702.
org/10.2307/3752588.
371
org/10.2307/3752603.
Aurbacher, J., Benke, M., Formowitz, B., Glauert, T., Heiermann, M., Herrmann, C.,
Idler, C., Kornatz, P., Nehring, A., Rieckmann, C., Rieckmann, G., Reus, D., Vetter,
A., Vollrath, B., Wilken, F., Willms, M., 2012. Energiepanzen fr Biogasanlagen
(Broschre No. 553). Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), Rostock.
Bedlan, G., 2014. Ascochyta silphii sp. nov. a new Ascochyta species on Silphium perfoliatum. J. Cultiv. Plants 66, 281283, http://dx.doi.org/10.5073/JFK.2014.08.03.
Biertmpfel, A., Conrad, M., 2013. Teilvorhaben 2: Optimierung des Anbauverfahrens und Bereitstellung von Selektionsmaterial (Abschlussbericht No.
FKZ-NR.: 22012809). Thringer Landesanstalt fr Landwirtschaft (TLL).
Biertmpfel, A., Reinhold, G., Gtz, R., Zorn, W., 2013. Leitlinie zur efzienten und
umweltvertrglichen Erzeugung von Durchwachsener Silphie (Leitlinie No. 1).
Leitlinien der Thringer Landesanstalt fr Landwirtschaft, Jena.
Boardman, J., Shepheard, M.L., Walker, E., Foster, I.D.L., 2009. Soil erosion and
risk-assessment for on- and off-farm impacts: a test case using the Midhurst
area, West Sussex, UK. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 25782588, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.018.
Brenckle, J.F., 1918. North Dakota fungi: II. Mycologia 10, 199221, http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/3753580.
Burrill, T.J., 1885. The Uredine of Illinois: a list of the species. Proc. Am. Soc. Microscopists 7, 93102, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3220591.
Buswell, A.M., Hateld, W.D., 1936. Anaerobic Fermentations. Division of Illinois
State Water Survey Bulletin, pp. 32.
Clevinger, J.A., 2004. New combinations in Silphium (Asteraceae: Heliantheae).
Novon 14, 275277.
Clevinger, J.A., Panero, J.L., 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of Silphium and subtribe
Engelmanniinae (Asteraceae: Heliantheae) based on ITS and ETS sequence data.
Am. J. Bot. 87, 565572, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2656600.
Conrad, M., Biertmpfel, A., Vetter, A., 2009. Durchwachsene Silphie (Silphium
perfoliatum L.) von der Futterpanze zum Koferment F.N.R. Glzower Fachgesprche. In: Presented at the 2nd Symposium Energiepanzen, Fachagentur
Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Glzow, pp. 281289.
Daniel, P., Rompf, R., 1994. Possibilities and limits in the utilization of Silphium perfoliatum as a fodder plant, renewable raw material and a landscape conservation
plant. Agribiol. Res. 47, 345353.
Dhler, H., Eckel, H., Frba, N., Grebe, S., Grube, J., Hartmann, S., Hauptmann, A., Horlacher, D., Horn, C., Hofmann, M., Huermann, U., Mller, K., Klages, S., Sauer,
N., Nakazi, S., Niebaum, A., Paterson, M., Roth, U., Schulthei, U., Stadelmann, M.,
Vandr, R., Wirth, B., Witzel, E., Wulf, S., 2013. Faustzahlen Biogas, 3rd ed. KTBL,
Darmstadt.
Drosg, B., Braun, R., Bochmann, G., Al Saedi, T., 2013. Analysis and characterisation
of biogas feedstocks. In: Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D. (Eds.), The Biogas
Handbook: Science, Production and Applications. Woodhead Publishing Ltd.,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 5284.
EEG, 2014. Gesetz fr den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-EnergienGesetz EEG), BGBl. I S. 1218.
EurObservER, 2012. Biogas barometer. Syst. Sol. J. nerg. Renouv. 212, 6678.
Feldwisch, N., 2011. Umweltgerechter Anbau von Energiepanzen. Schsisches Landesamt fr Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (LfULG), Dresden.
Fisher, T.R., 1966. The Genus Silphium in Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 66, 259263.
Fletcher, R.J., Robertson, B.A., Evans, J., Doran, P.J., Alavalapati, J.R., Schemske, D.W.,
2010. Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 161168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090091.
FNR, 2014. Bioenergy in Germany: Facts and Figures (No. 484). Fachagentur
Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), Germany.
Franzaring, J., Holz, I., Mller, M., Kauf, Z., Fangmeier, A., 2013. Reaktionen der
Energiepanzen Sida und Silphie auf erhhte Temperaturen, reduzierte Niederschlge und den CO2 -Dngeeffekt (Status Report No. FKZ 22400511). FNR.
Franzaring, J., Schmid, I., Buerle, L., Gensheimer, G., Fangmeier, A., 2014.
Investigations on plant functional traits, epidermal structures and the ecophysiology of the novel bioenergy species Sida hermaphrodita Rusby and
Silphium perfoliatum L. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 87, 3645, http://dx.doi.org/
10.5073/JABFQ.2014.087.006.
Frigon, J.-C., Guiot, S.R., 2010. Biomethane production from starch and lignocellulosic crops: a comparative review. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioren. 4, 447458,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.229.
Gathmann, A., Rothmeier, I., 2005. Dispersal of the European Corn Borer (Ostrinia
nubilalis Hbn.) in southern Rhineland results of the infestation assessment
2002 and 2003. J. Plant Dis. Protect. 112, 200203.
Gebrezgabher, S.A., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2010. Costs of producing biogas at dairy farms in The Netherlands. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 1, 2635.
Gersl, M., Gerslov, E., Marecek, J., Matysek, D., Vtez, T., 2014. Biogas production,
input substrates and its resulting digestate mineral composition (Abstract). In:
Presented at the Goldschmidt Conference, California, USA, p. 791.
Grebe, S., Beleu, T., Dhler, H., Eckel, H., Frisch, J., Frba, N., Funk, M., Grube, J., Hartmann, S., Horlacher, D., Horn, C., Kloepfer, F., Lorbacher, F.R., Sauer, N., Schroers,
J.O., Wirth, B., Witzel, E., 2012. Energiepanzen: Daten fr die Planung des
Energiepanzenanbaus, 2nd ed. KTBL, Darmstadt.
Han, K.J., Albrecht, K.A., Mertens, D.R., Kim, D.A., 2000a. Comparison of in vitro digestion kinetics of cup-plant and alfalfa. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 13, 641644.
Han, K.J., Albrecht, K.A., Muck, R.E., Kim, D.A., 2000b. Moisture effect on fermentation
characteristics of cup-plant silage. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 13, 636640.
Hayek, A., Hegi, G., 1918. Dicotyledones. In: Hegi, G. (Ed.), Illustrierte Flora von
Mittel-Europa. Mit Besonderer Bercksichtigung von sterreich, Deutschland
Und Der Schweiz. A. Pichlers Witwe & Sohn, Wien, pp. 495496.
372
Huxley, A.J., Grifths, M., Levy, M., 1992. The New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening. Macmillan Press, London, UK.
Jabonski,
B., Kotowski, Z., 2005. Nectar secretion and honey potential of honeyplants growing under Polands conditions Part XV. J. Apic. Sci. 49, 5963.
Johnson, P.J., Boe, A., 2011. Three interesting insects and the cause of reduced vigor
of cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum) in agronomic plantings. Proc. South Dakota
Acad. Sci. 90, 209 (Abstract).
Johnson, P.J., Boe, A., Albrecht, K.A., Torrez, V.C., 2012. Recent discoveries and development in the entomology of bioenergy crop production. In: Sun Grant (Ed.),
Science for Biomass Feedstock Production and Utilization. Presented at the Sun
Grant National Conference. New Orleans, p. 4.
Kawahara, E., Takai, S., Wakamatsu, T., Miura, Y., 1977a. Studies on a forage crop,
Silphium perfoliatum L., III. On the yield and chemical components of forage and
the silage quality. Bull. Akita Prefect. Coll. Agric., 3037.
Kawahara, E., Wakamatsu, T., Miura, Y., 1977b. Studies on a forage crop, Silphium
perfoliatum L., II. On the germination of seed. Bull. Akita Prefect. Coll. Agric.,
2329.
Klawitter, N., 2012. Biogas Subsidies in Germany Lead to Modern-Day Land Grab.
Spiegel Online.
Kovcs, P., (Master Thesis) 2008. Ways of achieving competitive gaseous transportation fuel (biomethane) production through anaerobic fermentation of
selected energy plants grown in Hungary. Vienna University of Technology,
Budapest.
Kowalski, R., Kedzia,

B., 2007. Antibacterial activity of Silphium perfoliatum extracts.
Pharm. Biol. 45, 494500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13880200701389409.
J., 2004. Evaluation of chemical composition of some SilKowalski, R., Wiercinski,

phium L. species seeds as alternative foodstuff raw materials. Pol. J. Food Nutr.
Sci. 13/54, 349354.
Lehmkuhler, J.W., Ramos, M.H., Albrecht, K.A., 2007. Cupplant silage as a replacement for corn silage in growing beef cattle diets. Forage Grazinglands 5,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/FG-2007-1107-01-RS.
Majtkowski, W., Piat, J., Szulc, P.M., 2009. Prospects of cultivation and utilization of
Silphium perfoliatum L. in Poland. Biul. IHAR 251, 283291.
Martin, G., 1887. Enumeration and description of the septorias of North America
(Continued). J. Mycol. 3, 8591, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3752631.
Mast, B., Lemmer, A., Oechsner, H., Reinhardt-Hanisch, A., Claupein, W., GraeffHnninger, S., 2014. Methane yield potential of novel perennial biogas crops
inuenced by harvest date. Ind. Crops Prod. 58, 194203, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.04.017.
Mayr, J., Gansberger, M., Leonhardt, C., Moosbeckhofer, R., Liebhard, P., 2013.
Durchwachsene Silphie (Silphium perfoliatum L.) eine neue Energiepanze in
sterreich. In: ALVA (Ed.), Panzenschutz als Beitrag zur Ernhrungssicherung,
ALVA-Jahrestagung. Presented at the 68th ALVA-Tagung, ALVA. Klosterneuburg,
pp. 150152.
Mela, G., Canali, G., 2014. How distorting policies can affect energy efciency and
sustainability: the case of biogas production in the Po Valley (Italy). AbBioForum
16, 194206.
Montgomery, L.F.R., Bochmann, G., 2014. Pretreatment of Feedstock for Enhanced
Biogas Production, Technical Brochure. IEA Bioenergy.
Motte, J.-C., Escudi, R., Beauls, N., Steyer, J.-P., Bernet, N., Delgens, J.-P.,
Dumas, C., 2014. Morphological structures of wheat straw strongly impacts its
anaerobic digestion. Ind. Crops Prod. 52, 695701, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.indcrop.2013.11.038.
Neumerkel, W., Mrtin, B., 1982. Silphium (Silphium perfoliatum L.) a new feed
plant. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 26, 261271.
Neumerkel, W., Mrtin, B., Linke, G., 1978. Silphium perfoliatum L. eine Nutzpanze?
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift. Math. Nat. Reihe 27, 3138.
Niqueux, M., 1981. A new forage plant: Silphium perfoliatum L. Fourrages 87,
119136.
Noike, T., Endo, G., Chang, J.-E., Yaguchi, J.-I., Matsumoto, J.-I., 1985. Characteristics
of carbohydrate degradation and the rate-limiting step in anaerobic digestion.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 27, 14821489, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bit.260271013.
Palmer, R.C., Smith, R.P., 2013. Soil structural degradation in SW England and its
impact on surface-water runoff generation. Soil Use Manage. 29, 567575,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12068.
Pan, G., Ouyang, Z., Luo, Q., Yu, Q., Wang, J., 2011. Water use patterns of forage
cultivars in the North China Plain. Int. J. Plant Prod. 5, 181194.
Pichard, G., 2012. Management, production, and nutritional characteristics of cupplant (Silphium perfoliatum) in temperate climates of southern Chile. Cien. Inv.
Agr. 39, 6177.
Piat, J., Majtkowski, W., Majtkowska, G., Mikoajczak, J., Gralska, A., 2007. The usefulness for ensiling of chosen plant forms of species of Silphium genus. J. Cent.
Eur. Agric. 8, 363368.
Plchl, M., Heiermann, M., 2006. Biogas farming in Central and Northern Europe: a
strategy for developing countries? Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGR J. VIII, 115.
Puia, I., Szab, A.T., 1985. Experimental cultivation of a new forage species - Silphium
perfoliatum L. in the Agrobotanical Garden from Cluj-Napoca. Not. Bot. Horti.
Agrobo. 15, 1520.
Robertson, G.P., Dale, V.H., Doering, O.C., Hamburg, S.P., Melillo, J.M., Wander,
M.M., Parton, W.J., Adler, P.R., Barney, J.N., Cruse, R.M., Duke, C.S., Fearnside, P.M., Follett, R.F., Gibbs, H.K., Goldemberg, J., Mladenoff, D.J., Ojima, D.,
Palmer, M.W., Sharpley, A., Wallace, L., Weathers, K.C., Wiens, J.A., Wilhelm,
W.W., 2008. Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322, 4950, http://dx.doi.org/

10.1126/science.1161525.
Schmitz, G., Rothmeier, I., Greib, G., Ross-Nickoll, M., Bartsch, D., 2002. Process and
potential of the spreading of the European Corn Borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hbn.)
in Northwest Germany. J. Plant Dis. Protect. 109, 624629.
Schoo, B., Wessel-Terharn, M., Schroetter, S., Schittenhelm, A., 2013. Vergleichende
Untersuchung von Wurzelmerkmalen bei Silphie und Mais. In: Pekrun, C.,
Wachendorf, M., Francke-Weltmann, L. (Eds.), Nachhaltige Erzeugung von
Nachwachsenden Rohstoffen, Mitt. Ges. Panzenbauwiss. Presented at the
Tagung der Gesellschaft fr Panzenbauwissenschaften e.V. Liddy Halm, Weihenstephan, pp. 241242.
Schwabe, K., Kunert, A., Heimbach, U., Zellner, M., Baufeld, P., Grabenweger, G., 2010.
The Western Corn Rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte) a danger
to cultivation of corn in Europe. J. Cultiv. Plants 62, 277286.
Seppl, M., Paavola, T., Lehtomki, A., Rintala, J., 2009. Biogas production
from boreal herbaceous grasses specic methane yield and methane yield
per hectare. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 29522958, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2009.01.044.
Settle, W.J., 1967. The chromosome morphology in the genus Silphium (compositae).
Ohio J. Sci. 67, 1019.
A., Karcauskiene,
D., 2012a. The evaluation
Siaudinis,
G., Jasinskas, A., Slepetien
e,
of biomass and energy productivity of common mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.)
and cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) in Albeluvisol. Zemdirbyste 99, 357362.
A., Karcauskiene,
D., 2012b. The evaluation of dry mass
Siaudinis,
G., Slepetien
e,
yield of new energy crops and their energetic parameters. In: Rivza, P., Rivza, S.
(Eds.), Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency. Presented at the International
Scientic Conference. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 2428.
Slepetys, J., Kadziuliene, Z., Sarunaite, L., Tilvikiene, V., Kryzeviciene, A., 2012.
Biomass potential of plants grown for bioenergy production. In: Rivza, P., Rivza,
S. (Eds.), Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency. Presented at the International
Scientic Conference. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 6672.
Sokolov, V.S., Gritsak, Z.I., 1972. Silphium a valuable fodder and nectariferous crop.
World Crops 24, 299301.
Stanford, G., 1990. Silphium perfoliatum (cup-plant) as a new forage. In: Smith, D.D.,
Jacobs, C.A. (Eds.), Recapturing a Vanishing Heritage. Presented at the 12th
North American Prairie Conference. University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,
pp. 3338.
Statistisches Bundesamt, 2014. Anbauche (Feldfrchte und Grnland): Deutschland, Jahre, Fruchtarten. GENESIS-Online, Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal
Statistical Ofce), Wiesbaden, Germany https://www-genesis.destatis.de
Stockmann, F., Fritz, M., 2013. Einuss von Standort und Herkunft auf das
Ertragspotenzial der Durchwachsenen Silphie (Silphium perfoliatum L.) unter
bayerischen Anbaubedingungen. In: Pekrun, C., Wachendorf, M., FranckeWeltmann, L. (Eds.), Nachhaltige Erzeugung von Nachwachsenden Rohstoffen,
Mitt. Ges. Panzenbauwiss. Presented at the Tagung der Gesellschaft fr
Panzenbauwissenschaften e.V. Liddy Halm, Weihenstephan, pp. 146147.
Stolzenburg, K., Monkos, A., 2012. Erste Versuchsergebnisse mit der Durchwachsenen Silphie (Silphium perfoliatum L.) in Baden-Wrttemberg. Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg, Karlsruhe.
Thamsiriroj, T., Murphy, J.D., 2010. Difculties associated with monodigestion of
grass as exemplied by commissioning a pilot-scale digester. Energy Fuels 24,
44594469, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef1003039.
Trlenberg, S.D., Kruse, M., Jonitz, A., 2012. Verbesserung der Saatgutqualitt
bei der Durchwachsenen Silphie (Silphium perfoliatum L.). In: VDLUFA (Ed.),
Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren fr die Landwirtschaft: Bestimmung und Eignung,
VDLUFA-Schriftenreihe. Presented at the 124th VDLUFA-Kongress. VDLUFAVerlag, Darmstadt, pp. 926933.
Troxler, J., Daccord, R., 1982. Silphium perfoliatum L.: an interesting fodder? Revue
Suisse Agric. 14, 279281.
Vacek, V., Repka,

R., 1992. Concise results of the experiment with Silphium perfoliatum L. Plant Genet. Resour. Charact. Util., 513.
Vetter, A., Conrad, M., Biertmpfel, A., 2007. Energiepanzen fr die Biogasproduktion Teilvorhaben 2: Optimierung der Verfahrenskette der Bereitstellung und
Nutzung von Energiepanzen zur Kofermentation im Biogasreaktor (Abschlussbericht No. 42.22.430). Thringer Landesanstalt fr Landwirtschaft (TLL), Jena.
Vetter, A., Conrad, M., Biertmpfel, A., 2010. Optimierung des Anbauverfahrens
fr Durchwachsene Silphie (Silphium perfoliatum L.) als Kofermentpanze in
Biogasanlagen sowie berfhrung in die landwirtschaftliche Praxis (Abschlussbericht No. 42.32.430). Thringer Landesanstalt fr Landwirtschaft (TLL), Jena.
Walla, C., Schneeberger, W., 2008. The optimal size for biogas plants. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 551557, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.009.
Weiland, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 849860, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7.
Wilkinson, J.M., 2005. Silage. Chalcombe Publications, Southhampton, UK.
Wrobel, M., Fraczek, J., Francik, S., Slipek, Z., Krzysztof, M., 2013. Inuence of degree
of fragmentation on chosen quality parameters of briquette made from biomass
of cup plant Silphium perfoliatum L. In: Latvia University of Agriculture (Ed.),
Engineering for Rural Development. Presented at the 12th International Scientic Conference. Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava, pp. 653657.
Zhang, X., Xia, H., Li, Z., Zhuang, P., Gao, B., 2010. Potential of four forage grasses
in remediation of Cd and Zn contaminated soils. Bioresour. Technol. 101,
20632066, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.065.

1 s2.0 S0926669014005925 Main

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 s2.0 S0926669014005925 Main

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops and Products

Botanical characteristics, crop management and potential of Silphium

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

possible for biogas plant operators to switch to wastes owing to

decorative plant in parks and gardens (Kowalski and Kedzia,

Aurbacher et al. (2012), Stolzenburg and Monkos (2012), Siaudinis

2. Botanical characteristics of S. perfoliatum L.

Kowalski and Kedzia,

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Mrtin, 1982) to 21.5 g (Kowalski and Wiercinski,

3. Climate and soil requirements

Vacek and Repka,

(Neumerkel et al., 1978; Vacek and Repka,

and other pollinators (Daniel and Rompf, 1994; Jabonski

The silphium crop is native to the temperate latitudes of North

(Huxley et al., 1992; Kowalski and Kedzia,

1992). This crop is well adapted to difcharacter (Vacek and Repka,

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Average over two harvest years.

Troxler and Daccord (1982), a certain level of sensitivity to water

et al., 1978; Niqueux, 1981; Vacek and Repka,

Neumerkel et al., 1978; Sokolov and Gritsak, 1972; Troxler and

1992; Vetter et al., 2010) or by

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

at a later date is difcult owing to the growth height. Siaudinis

4.5. Weed management and phytosanitary measures

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Dry matter yield (t ha1 )

Vetter et al. (2010)e

Monkos (2012) also found a bacterial infection by Pseudomonas

5. Current cultivation, harvesting and conversion of S.

5.2. Dry matter yield

Several studies have been carried out on silphium harvesting

5.1. Harvesting process

It is only worthwhile to use the biomass of silphium from the

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Fig. 2. Range of the dry matter yield (t ha1 ) of Silphium perfoliatum L.

Piat et al. (2007)

dry matter in relation to fresh

5.3. Dry matter content

anaerobically and high levels of lignin can also prevent cellulose

mass on a dry matter basis

hectare were 1862% higher than sudangrass and equal to or 34%

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

silphium was being considered as animal fodder. Ensiling is also

various types of pretreatment have been found to increase biogas

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

measurements of the BMP of silphium are urgently needed to assess

Bochmann, 2014). Alternatively, other impellers or reactors can be

5.8. Continuous anaerobic digestion

6. Further research and development needs

Vetter et al. (2007) measured methane yield from silphium

5.9. Practical considerations

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Silphium can be used for up to 15 years without replanting, is not

M. Gansberger et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 63 (2015) 362372

Kowalski, R., Kedzia,

J., 2004. Evaluation of chemical composition of some SilKowalski, R., Wiercinski,

W.W., 2008. Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322, 4950, http://dx.doi.org/

Vacek, V., Repka,

Вам также может понравиться