|
|||||
|
|
Economics of intercropping loblolly pine and switchgrass for bioenergy markets in the southeastern United States |
|
| Authors: | Andres Susaeta Pankaj Lal Janaki Alavalapati Evan Mercer Douglas Carter |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 315 Newins Ziegler Hall, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA 2. Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, 358?N Mallory Hall, Montclair, NJ, 07043, USA 3. Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 313 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 240601, USA 4. Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, P.O. Box 12254, Durham, NC, 27709, USA 5. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 357 Newins Ziegler Hall, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA |
| Abstract: | The main objective of this study was to assess the economics of alley cropping of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) in the southern United States. Assuming a price range of switchgrass between $15 and $50?Mg?1 and yield of 12?Mg?ha?1 year?1, we investigated the effect of switchgrass production on the optimal forest management for loblolly pine stands under different stumpage prices. We considered the following potential scenarios: no competition between species for resources; reduced loblolly pine productivity due to competition with switchgrass; and reduced productivity of both species due to competition for nutrients, water and light. Findings also suggested that the optimal system would depend on the competitive interactions between switchgrass and loblolly pine crops, and the expected prices for each crop. Loblolly pine monoculture would be the most profitable option for landowners compared to intercropping systems with switchgrass below $30?Mg?1. However, when switchgrass prices are ??$30?Mg?1, landowners would be financially better off adopting intercropping if competitive interaction between crops were minimal. In order to realize higher economic returns for intercropping system, forest landowners must make some efforts in order to diminish the decline of productivity. |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ | |