Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Vol. 13 No. 4 (2026)

Agronomic management strategies for optimising biogas yield in lignocellulosic energy crops

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.17257
Submitted
6 August 2026
Published
28-10-2026

Abstract

Lignocellulosic energy crops are promising feedstocks for anaerobic digestion, but their biogas potential depends on biomass productivity, composition and digestibility. This systematic review evaluates the effects of agronomic management on biomass production, feedstock quality and biogas/methane yield in lignocellulosic energy crops and identifies key research gaps. A systematic literature search was conducted in the Scopus database for English-language journal articles published from 2005–26, using predefined Boolean terms covering lignocellulosic energy crops, anaerobic digestion/biogas production and agronomic management. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 89 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The evidence indicates that nutrient management, irrigation, planting density, harvest timing and frequency and genotype selection strongly influence biomass yield and feedstock characteristics, thereby affecting methane production. Optimised nutrient management can improve biomass productivity and substrate quality, whereas excessive nutrient inputs may reduce nutrient-use efficiency and adversely affect digestion performance. Harvest timing is critical because increasing biomass yield with maturity may be associated with greater lignification and reduced digestibility. Ensiling, pretreatment and co-digestion can further improve feedstock accessibility and methane recovery. However, evidence remains heterogeneous, with limited integration of agronomic performance, methane productivity, environmental impacts and economic feasibility. Future research should prioritise standardised methods, long-term field-to-digester studies and integrated environmental and economic assessments. Overall, coordinated optimisation of agronomic practices and anaerobic digestion is essential for sustainable biomethane production.

References

  1. 1. Rahman A, Murad SW, Mohsin AK, Wang X. Does renewable energy proactively contribute to mitigating carbon emissions in major fossil fuels consuming countries? J Clean Prod. 2024;452:142113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142113
  2. 2. Rogelj J, Geden O, Cowie A, Reisinger A. Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nature. 2021;591(7850):365–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00662-3
  3. 3. Shivanna KR. Climate change and its impact on biodiversity and human welfare. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad. 2022;88(2):160–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00073-6
  4. 4. United Nations. World population prospects: the 2017 revision: key findings and advance tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2017.
  5. 5. KPMG International. Turning the tide in scaling renewables (TTSR): addressing the barriers and opportunities to accelerate the global energy transition. KPMG International; 2023.
  6. 6. International Energy Agency. Tracking clean energy progress 2023: assessing critical energy technologies for global clean energy transitions. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2023.
  7. 7. Emmanuel JK, Ngabala FJ. Global energy demand and the role of technological innovation towards renewable energy generation for economic growth and a cleaner environment: a review. Sustain Environ. 2026;12(1):2633481. https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2026.2633481
  8. 8. Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;85(4):849–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7
  9. 9. Zielińska M, Bułkowska K. Sustainable management and advanced nutrient recovery from biogas energy sector effluents. Energies. 2024;17(15):3705. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153705
  10. 10. Mittal S, Ahlgren EO, Shukla PR. Barriers to biogas dissemination in India: a review. Energy Policy. 2018;112:361–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.027
  11. 11. Kering MK, Rahemi A, Temu VW. Effect of harvest management on biomass yield, forage quality and nutrient removal by bioenergy grasses in mid-central Virginia. Agronomy. 2024;14(4):825. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14040825
  12. 12. Xu R, Zhang K, Liu P, Khan A, Xiong J, Tian F, et al. A critical review on the interaction of substrate nutrient balance and microbial community structure and function in anaerobic co-digestion. Bioresour Technol. 2018;247:1119–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.095
  13. 13. Yadav P, Priyanka P, Kumar D, Yadav A, Yadav K. Bioenergy crops: recent advances and future outlook. In: Prospects of renewable bioprocessing in future energy systems. 2019. p.315–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14463-0_12
  14. 14. Debnath D, Das A. Third-generation biofuels and food security. In: 3rd generation biofuels. Woodhead Publishing; 2022. p.757–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90971-6.00041-3
  15. 15. Cavelius P, Engelhart-Straub S, Mehlmer N, Lercher J, Awad D, Brück T. The potential of biofuels from first to fourth generation. PLoS Biol. 2023;21(3):e3002063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002063
  16. 16. Javed MR, Noman M, Shahid M, Ahmed T, Khurshid M, Rashid MH, et al. Current situation of biofuel production and its enhancement by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome engineering of microbial cells. Microbiol Res. 2019;219:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2018.10.010
  17. 17. Gowik U, Bräutigam A, Weber KL, Weber AP, Westhoff P. Evolution of C4 photosynthesis in the genus Flaveria: how many and which genes does it take to make C4? Plant Cell. 2011;23(6):2087–105. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.111.086264
  18. 18. Byrt CS, Grof CPL, Furbank RT. C4 plants as biofuel feedstocks: optimising biomass production and feedstock quality from a lignocellulosic perspective. J Integr Plant Biol. 2011;53(2):120–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.01023.x
  19. 19. Somerville C, Youngs H, Taylor C, Davis SC, Long SP. Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Science. 2010;329(5993):790–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189268
  20. 20. van der Weijde T, Alvim Kamei CL, Torres AF, Vermerris W, Dolstra O, Visser RGF, et al. The potential of C4 grasses for cellulosic biofuel production. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4:107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00107
  21. 21. Mast B, Lemmer A, Oechsner H, Reinhardt-Hanisch A, Claupein W, Graeff-Hönninger S. Methane yield potential of novel perennial biogas crops influenced by harvest date. Ind Crops Prod. 2014;58:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.04.017
  22. 22. Schievano A, D'Imporzano G, Orzi V, Colombo G, Maggiore T, Adani F. Biogas from dedicated energy crops in Northern Italy: electric energy generation costs. GCB Bioenergy. 2015;7(4):899–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12186
  23. 23. D'Imporzano G, Pilu R, Corno L, Adani F. Arundo donax L. can substitute traditional energy crops for more efficient, environmentally-friendly production of biogas: a life cycle assessment approach. Bioresour Technol. 2018;267:249–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.053
  24. 24. Ferchaud F, Vitte G, Mary B. Changes in soil carbon stocks under perennial and annual bioenergy crops. GCB Bioenergy. 2016;8(2):290–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12249
  25. 25. Ferchaud F, Marsac S, Mary B. Conversion of arable land to perennial bioenergy crops increases soil organic carbon stocks on the long term. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2025;388:109637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2025.109637
  26. 26. Ferchaud F, Vitte G, Bornet F, Strullu L, Mary B. Soil water uptake and root distribution of different perennial and annual bioenergy crops. Plant Soil. 2015;388(1):307–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2335-y
  27. 27. Panoutsou C, Alexopoulou E. Costs and profitability of crops for bioeconomy in the EU. Energies. 2020;13(5):1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051222
  28. 28. Propheter JL, Staggenborg S. Performance of annual and perennial biofuel crops: nutrient removal during the first two years. Agron J. 2010;102(2):798–805. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0462
  29. 29. Mankar AR, Pandey A, Modak A, Pant KK. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass: a review on recent advances. Bioresour Technol. 2021;334:125235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125235
  30. 30. Sawatdeenarunat C, Nguyen D, Surendra K, Shrestha S, Rajendran K, Oechsner H, et al. Anaerobic biorefinery: current status, challenges and opportunities. Bioresour Technol. 2016;215:304–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.074
  31. 31. Laureano-Perez L, Teymouri F, Alizadeh H, Dale BE. Understanding factors that limit enzymatic hydrolysis of biomass: characterization of pretreated corn stover. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2005;124(1–3):1081–99. https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:124:1-3:1081
  32. 32. Hendriks A, Zeeman G. Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.05.027
  33. 33. Ahring BK, Biswas R, Ahamed A, Teller PJ, Uellendahl H. Making lignin accessible for anaerobic digestion by wet-explosion pretreatment. Bioresour Technol. 2015;175:182–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.082
  34. 34. Xu N, Liu S, Xin F, Zhou J, Jia H, Xu J, et al. Biomethane production from lignocellulose: biomass recalcitrance and its impacts on anaerobic digestion. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00191
  35. 35. Triolo JM, Pedersen L, Qu H, Sommer SG. Biochemical methane potential and anaerobic biodegradability of non-herbaceous and herbaceous phytomass in biogas production. Bioresour Technol. 2012;125:226–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.079
  36. 36. Sivakumar P, Saravanane R, Govindradjane S. Enhancement of methane potential in fractionated biogas stream through composite-hybrid biochemical pathway processes: a review. Int J Energy Water Resour. 2024;8(2):279–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-023-00239-y
  37. 37. Ganjifar A, Karrabi M, Shahnavaz B, Dewil R. A new concept for bioenergy yield in anaerobic digestion process: highlighting current yield challenges. Fuel. 2024;375:132558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2024.132558
  38. 38. Martínez-Gutiérrez E. Biogas production from different lignocellulosic biomass sources: advances and perspectives. 3 Biotech. 2018;8(5):233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1257-4
  39. 39. Cabrita TM, Santos MT. Biochemical methane potential assays for organic wastes as an anaerobic digestion feedstock. Sustainability. 2023;15(15):11573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511573
  40. 40. Pilarski K, Pilarska AA, Pietrzak MB. Biogas production in agriculture: technological, environmental and socio-economic aspects. Energies. 2025;18(21):5844. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18215844
  41. 41. Weinberg ZG. The ensiling fermentation of forage crops. In: Microbial fermentations in nature and as designed processes. 2023. p.353–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119850007.ch14
  42. 42. Liu S, Li X, Wu S, He J, Pang C, Deng Y, et al. Fungal pretreatment by Phanerochaete chrysosporium for enhancement of biogas production from corn stover silage. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2014;174(5):1907–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-1185-7
  43. 43. Haag NL, Nägele HJ, Fritz T, Oechsner H. Effects of ensiling treatments on lactic acid production and supplementary methane formation of maize and amaranth—an advanced green biorefining approach. Bioresour Technol. 2015;178:217–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.048
  44. 44. Franco RT, Buffière P, Bayard R. Ensiling for biogas production: critical parameters. A review. Biomass Bioenergy. 2016;94:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.014
  45. 45. Amin FR, Khalid H, Zhang H, Rahman SU, Zhang R, Liu G, et al. Pretreatment methods of lignocellulosic biomass for anaerobic digestion. AMB Express. 2017;7(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-017-0375-4
  46. 46. Rooni V, Raud M, Kikas T. The freezing pre-treatment of lignocellulosic material: a cheap alternative for Nordic countries. Energy. 2017;139:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.146
  47. 47. Guerrero-Fajardo CA, Ramirez-Cabrera PA. Physical pretreatments applied to lignocellulose biomass: a review. Preprints. 2024. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202412.1066.v1
  48. 48. Li H, Qu Y, Yang Y, Chang S, Xu J. Microwave irradiation—a green and efficient way to pretreat biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2016;199:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.099
  49. 49. Rahmani AM, Gahlot P, Moustakas K, Kazmi A, Ojha CSP, Tyagi VK. Pretreatment methods to enhance solubilization and anaerobic biodegradability of lignocellulosic biomass (wheat straw): progress and challenges. Fuel. 2022;319:123726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123726
  50. 50. Tiwari A, Chen CW, Haldar D, Patel AK, Dong CD, Singhania RR. Laccase in biorefinery of lignocellulosic biomass. Appl Sci. 2023;13(8):4673. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13084673
  51. 51. Atelge MR, Atabani AE, Banu JR, Krisa D, Kaya M, Eskicioglu C, et al. A critical review of pretreatment technologies to enhance anaerobic digestion and energy recovery. Fuel. 2020;270:117494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117494
  52. 52. Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;45:540–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032
  53. 53. Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Zollitsch W, Mayer K, Gruber L. Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure—influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2007;118(1–4):173–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.007
  54. 54. Yang J, Zhang J, Du X, Gao T, Cheng Z, Fu W, et al. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion of organic waste: a review. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2025;22(5):3927–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-06029-1
  55. 55. Yang Q, Wu B, Yao F, He L, Chen F, Ma Y, et al. Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge: co-substrates and influencing parameters. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2019;18(4):771–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-019-09515-y
  56. 56. Agregán R, Lorenzo JM, Kumar M, Shariati MA, Khan MU, Sarwar A, et al. Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulose components: challenges and novel approaches. Energies. 2022;15(22):8413. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228413
  57. 57. Kulichkova GI, Ivanova TS, Köttner M, Volodko OI, Spivak SI, Tsygankov SP, et al. Plant feedstocks and their biogas production potentials. Open Agric J. 2020;14(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874331502014010219
  58. 58. Singh D, Garg AK, Chauhan A. Fodder yield and quality assessment of different bajra napier hybrids in central Gujarat of India. Range Manag Agrofor. 2018;39(2):269–73.
  59. 59. Krishna C, Babu AS, Raju S, Kumar BS. Comparative evaluation of various hybrid Napier Bajra and multicut sorghum green fodders for proximate composition, fodder quality and digestibility parameters. Int J. 2025;9(2S):09–13. https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2025.v9.i2sa.3683
  60. 60. Islam MR, Garcia SC, Sarker NR, Islam MA, Clark CE. Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum) management strategies for dairy and meat production in the tropics and subtropics: yield and nutritive value. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1269976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1269976
  61. 61. Sivamani S, Saikat B, Naveen Prasad BS, Baalawy AA, Al-Mashali SM. A comprehensive review on microbial technology for biogas production. In: Bioenergy research: revisiting latest development. 2021. p.53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4615-4_3
  62. 62. Kasinath A, Fudala-Ksiazek S, Szopinska M, Bylinski H, Artichowicz W, Remiszewska-Skwarek A, et al. Biomass in biogas production: pretreatment and codigestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021;150:111509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111509
  63. 63. Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL. Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol. 2008;99(17):7928–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.044
  64. 64. Kasulla S, Malik SJ. Potential of biogas generation from hybrid Napier grass. Zenodo. 2022.
  65. 65. Janke L, Leite A, Nikolausz M, Schmidt T, Liebetrau J, Nelles M, et al. Biogas production from sugarcane waste: assessment on kinetic challenges for process designing. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(9):20685–703. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms160920685
  66. 66. Kupryś-Caruk M, Lisowski A, Chomontowski C. The effect of silage additive on the kinetics of biogas production from lignocellulosic perennial crops. J Water Land Dev. 2023;(56):58–66. https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2023.143745
  67. 67. Murphy J, Braun R, Weiland P, Wellinger A. Biogas from crop digestion. IEA Bioenergy Task 37. Paris: IEA; 2011. p.1–23.
  68. 68. Nimmanterdwong P, Chalermsinsuwan B, Østergård H, Piumsomboon P. Environmental performance assessment of Napier grass for bioenergy production. J Clean Prod. 2017;165:645–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.126
  69. 69. Brózda A, Kazimierowicz J, Dębowski M. Seasonal changes in biomass composition of giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) and their impact on methane fermentation performance. Energies. 2026;19(7):1669. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19071669
  70. 70. Oleszek M, Matyka M. Determination of the efficiency and kinetics of biogas production from energy crops through nitrogen fertilization levels and cutting frequency. BioResources. 2018;13(4):8505–28. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.13.4.8505-8528
  71. 71. Dokbua B, Waramit N, Chaugool J, Thongjoo C. Biomass productivity, developmental morphology and nutrient removal rate of hybrid Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum × Pennisetum americanum) in response to potassium and nitrogen fertilization in a multiple-harvest system. Bioenergy Res. 2021;14(4):1106117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-020-10212-w
  72. 72. Meincken M, Tyhoda L. Biomass quality. In: Bioenergy from wood: sustainable production in the tropics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013. p.169–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7448-3_8
  73. 73. Kering M, Butler T, Biermacher J, Guretzky JA. Biomass yield and nutrient removal rates of perennial grasses under nitrogen fertilization. Bioenergy Res. 2012;5(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-011-9167-x
  74. 74. Bama KS. Cumbu napier hybrid grass: yield, quality and soil fertility status as influenced by different nutrient sources. Forage Res. 2017;43(3):213–18.
  75. 75. Borisoot K, Kullavanijaya P, Maneewan S, Punlek C, Suksri A, Wongwuttanasatian T. Multi-factor assessment for energy production of various Napier grasses: influence of species, maturity stage and fertilization. Energy Nexus. 2026;100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2026.100790
  76. 76. Tilvikiene V, Venslauskas K, Povilaitis V, Navickas K, Zuperka V, Kadziuliene Z. The effect of digestate and mineral fertilisation of cocksfoot grass on greenhouse gas emissions in a cocksfoot-based biogas production system. Energy Sustain Soc. 2020;10(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00245-6
  77. 77. Piccitto A, Iurato A, Ciaramella BR, Cosentino SL, Testa G. Improving biomethane production from giant reed: effect of agronomic strategies and fungal pretreatment under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions. Ital J Agron. 2025;20(1):100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijagro.2025.100032
  78. 78. Habte E, Gari AT, Muktar MS, Assefa Y, Negawo AT, Machado JC, et al. Productivity and feed quality performance of Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus) genotypes growing under different soil moisture levels. Plants. 2022;11:2549. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11192549
  79. 79. Prasanth RC, Yassin MM, Singh RD, Sivakumar SD, Thiyageshwari S, Djanaguiraman M, et al. Growth and yield response of Bajra Napier hybrid under different irrigation regimes with fertigation levels and sources. Asian J Dairy Food Res. 2023;42(2):242–46. https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DR-2010
  80. 80. Schmidt F, Böhm H, Piepho HP, Urbatzka P, Wachendorf M, Graß R. Management effects on the performance of double cropping systems-results from a multi-site experiment. Agronomy. 2022;12(9):2104. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092104
  81. 81. Tilahun G, Asmare B, Mekuriaw Y. Effects of harvesting age and spacing on plant characteristics, chemical composition and yield of desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) in the highlands of Ethiopia. Trop Grassl Forrajes Trop. 2017;5(2):77–84. https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(5)77-84
  82. 82. Onjai-Uea N, Paengkoum S, Taethaisong N, Thongpea S, Sinpru B, Surakhunthod J, et al. Effect of cultivar, plant spacing and harvesting age on yield, characteristics, chemical composition and anthocyanin composition of purple Napier grass. Animals. 2022;13(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010010
  83. 83. Dinsa NG, Yalew KD. The effect of intercropping of lablab (Lablab purpureus L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) at different planting densities on in vitro and in sacco dry matter digestibility of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum). Agric Sci Dig. 2022;42(3):249–59. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.df-390
  84. 84. Weerathunga D, Udagama D, Campbell S, Barber D, Weerasinghe P. Performance of the Napier hybrid cultivars CO-5 (Pennisetum glaucum × P. purpureum Schumach) and Sampoorna (Pennisetum pedicellatum × P. americanum) harvested at five intervals. Grasses. 2023;2(3):156–67. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses2030013
  85. 85. Oluwadele JF, Ekeocha AH, Aganga AA. Forage growth biomass, yield and quality responses of three varieties Napier at cutting intervals in the South West Nigeria. Sci Agric Bohem. 2024;55(3):88–94. https://doi.org/10.7160/sab.2024.550309
  86. 86. Siri Prieto G, Ernst O, Bustamante M. Impact of harvest frequency on biomass yield and nutrient removal of elephantgrass, giant reed and switchgrass. Bioenergy Res. 2017;10(3):853–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9847-2
  87. 87. Kapoor R. Genetic variability and association studies in Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) for green fodder yield and quality traits. Electron J Plant Breed. 2017;8(3):885–91. https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-928X.2017.00147.8
  88. 88. Surendra KC, Ogoshi R, Reinhardt-Hanisch A, Oechsner H, Zaleski HM, Hashimoto AG, et al. Anaerobic digestion of high-yielding tropical energy crops for biomethane production: effects of crop types, locations and plant parts. Bioresour Technol. 2018;262:194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.062
  89. 89. Pardang P, Sonwai A, Pholchan P, Nuntaphan A, Juangjandee P, Totarat N. Potential of lignin-rich grass, Pennisetum purpureum × Pennisetum typhoideum, as a feedstock for biogas production. J Environ Eng. 2020;146(8):04020074. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001741
  90. 90. Pazhany AS, Henry RJ. Genetic modification of biomass to alter lignin content and structure. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2019;58(35):16190–203. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01163
  91. 91. Zhu C, Qu R, Li X, Zuo X, Yuan H. Investigates of substrate mingling ratio and organic loading rate of KOH pretreated corn stover and pig manure in batch and semi-continuous system: anaerobic digestion performance and microbial characteristics. Chin J Chem Eng. 2023;62:114–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2023.04.014
  92. 92. Shi Z, Marinello F, Ai P, Pezzuolo A. Assessment of bioenergy plant locations using a GIS-MCDA approach based on spatio-temporal stability maps of agricultural and livestock byproducts: a case study. Sci Total Environ. 2024;947:174665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174665
  93. 93. Esteves EMM, Herrera AMN, Esteves VPP, Morgado CdRV. Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: a review. J Clean Prod. 2019;219:411–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.091
  94. 94. Markou G, Brulé M, Balafoutis A, Kornaros M, Georgakakis D, Papadakis G. Biogas production from energy crops in northern Greece: economics of electricity generation associated with heat recovery in a greenhouse. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2017;19(4):1147–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1314-9
  95. 95. Gissén C, Prade T, Kreuger E, Nges IA, Rosenqvist H, Svensson SE, et al. Comparing energy crops for biogas production-yields, energy input and costs in cultivation using digestate and mineral fertilisation. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014;64:199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.061
  96. 96. Bužinskienė R. Optimizing grassland anaerobic digestion: a dual perspective on economic and environmental outcomes. Environ Dev Sustain. 2025:1–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06946-2
  97. 97. Zhao Y, Chen L, Liu W, Yang H, Li S, Cui X, et al. Multi-source straw used as a resource can reduce environmental and economic burdens. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2026;118:108313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108313
  98. 98. Nekmahmud M. Food consumption behavior, food supply chain disruption and food security crisis during the COVID-19: the mediating effect of food price and food stress. J Foodserv Bus Res. 2024;27(3):227–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2022.2090802
  99. 99. Grabovskyi M, Kucheruk P, Pavlichenko K, Roubík H. Influence of macronutrients and micronutrients on maize hybrids for biogas production. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023;30(27):70022–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27235-3
  100. 100. Mondylaksita K, Ferreira JA, Budhijanto W, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ, Millati R. Enhanced volatile fatty acid production from oil palm empty fruit bunch through acidogenic fermentation-a novel resource recovery strategy for oil palm empty fruit bunch. Fermentation. 2021;7(4):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040263

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.