Global Change Biology (2004) 10, 509–518, doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00749.

Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe

and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil
fuel carbon emissions
J O H N C . C L I F T O N - B R O W N *, P A U L F . S T A M P F L w and M I C H A E L B . J O N E S *
*Botany Department, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland, wGeography Department and Centre for
Environment, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

Abstract
Field trials throughout Europe over the past 15 years have confirmed the potential for
high biomass production from Miscanthus, a giant perennial rhizomatous grass with C4
photosynthesis. However, policies to promote the utilization of biomass crops require
yield estimates that can be scaled up to regional, national and continental areas. The only
way in which this information can be reliably provided is through the use of productivity
models. Here, we describe MISCANMOD, a productivity model, which was used in
conjunction with a GIS to plot potential, non-water-limited yields across Europe.
Modelled rainfed yields were also calculated using a water balance approach based on
FAO estimates of plant available water in the soil. The observed yields were consistent
with modelled yields at 20 trial sites across Europe. We estimate that if Miscanthus was
grown on 10% of suitable land area in the European Union (EU15), 231 TWh yr
1 of
electricity could be generated, which is 9% of the gross electricity production in 2000.
Using the same scenario, the total carbon mitigation could be 76 Mt C yr
1, which is about
9% of the EU total C emissions for the 1990 Kyoto Protocol baseline levels.
Keywords: biomass, carbon substitution, GIS, Miscanthus, model

Received 14 July 2003; revised version received and accepted 15 October 2003

consumption by 2010 (European Commission, 1997). As

Introduction
Miscanthus, a genus with C4 photosynthesis and a
native of E. Asia, has good potential as a biomass
energy crop (Jones & Walsh, 2001). Field trials in
Europe during the last 15 years with the sterile, triploid
hybrid M.  giganteus (Hodkinson & Renvoize, 2001)
have shown that this genotype can, from its second to
third year following establishment, produce annual
harvestable yields from 10 to 40 t dry matter (DM)
ha
1 yr
1 (Lewandowski et al., 2000a). Reports of plant
losses of this hybrid during winter in some climates
have led to field trials to test other hybrid Miscanthus
genotypes. However, where no over-wintering pro-
blems have occurred, M.  giganteus has proven to be
among the most productive of all genotypes tested to
date (Clifton-Brown et al., 2001b).
The European Union (EU15) has recently set a target
of 12% for the contribution of renewable sources of
energy to the European Union’s gross inland energy
Correspondence: John Clifton-Brown, tel. 00 353 1 6083740,
fax 00 353 1 6081147, e-mail: jcbrown@tcd.ie
expected EU15 primary energy demand by 2010 will be
1556 Mtoe (18096 TWh) (European Commission, 1999),
187 Mtoe (2172 TWh) of energy generation from renew-
able energy sources will be required in order to meet
the target. According to the scenario outlined by the EU
in its ‘White paper’ (European Commission, 1997), it is
likely that biomass, with a projected share of 135 Mtoe
(1570 TWh) by 2010, will be one of the major con-
tributors to the renewable energy mix. It is projected
that 27 Mtoe (314 TWh) of this share will be met from
solid cellulosic energy crops such as Miscanthus. Under
the Kyoto protocol, the EU is committed to a reduction
in CO2 emission to 92% of baseline (1990) levels during
the first commitment period (2008–2012). The Kyoto
Protocol allows carbon emissions to be offset by
demonstrable removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Recently, Smith et al. (2000) have examined agricultural
options for carbon mitigation and concluded that of all
the options examined, bioenergy crops show the great-
est potential. They also state that ‘in order to exploit
fully the bioenergy option the infrastructure for bio-
energy production needs to be significantly enhanced

r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 509

510 J . C . C L I F T O N - B R O W N et al.
before the beginning of the first Kyoto commitment
period in 2008’.
Policy decisions to exploit different biomass energy
crops are dependent on reliably predicting potential
yields over large geographical domains up to the
continental scale. Using this information, it is possible
to calculate the amounts of fossil fuel CO2 emissions
that could be avoided by the use of biomass energy.
Carbon mitigation also includes carbon stored in soils
in which the energy crops are growing. Direct measure-
ments of yields are few and most estimates of carbon
mitigation made so far have assumed the same
productivity throughout the geographical region under
consideration (Smith et al., 1997, 2000). However, it will
be necessary to move beyond these broad general-
izations and recognize the need for decision-making
based on estimates of the spatial variability in yield
over large geographic areas and at fine spatial resolu-
tions. Such macro-scale questions require simple
growth models that can be scaled up to a large
geographic domain.
Here, we describe a productivity model, parameter-
ized for M.  giganteus and combined with broad-scale
climate and soil data, which is used to predict potential
yields for Miscanthus across Europe. Such a model for
predicting the potential yield from M.  giganteus has
already been produced for Ireland (Clifton-Brown et al.,
2000) but the model, which is now referred to as
MISCANMOD, is further developed here to predict
yields under rainfed conditions and verified for scaling
up to continental scales. We use modelled productiv-
ities to estimate the contribution that Miscanthus
biomass production might make to displacing fossil
fuels in energy (electricity) generation and to carbon
emission mitigation in each of the EU15 states.
Materials and methods
Model description
The productivity of M.  giganteus has been modelled
for Ireland (Clifton-Brown et al., 2000). In MISCAN-
MOD, the estimation of potential, non water-limited,
yield is based on daily climate data and has the
following three main components: (i) the use of thermal
time to estimate leaf area index, which is then used to
calculate the radiation interception efficiency of the
canopy, (ii) the radiation use efficiency (ec) of the
intercepted radiation, and (iii) an estimate of the end of
growing season, which is determined either by the time
of flowering, or if this has not occurred, when the mean
temperature falls below 10 1C. A thermal time of 1800
degree days above a base temperature of 10 1C is used
to calculate thermal time to flowering (Lewandowski
r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518
& Clifton-Brown, 2000b). Radiation intercepted by the
leaf canopy is converted into above-ground DM at a
fixed radiation use efficiency (ec) according to the
principles established by Monteith (1977) as long as
water is non-limiting for growth. Published ec values
for well-watered Miscanthus crops range from 2.1 to
3.2 g MJ
1 Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)
(Beale & Long, 1995; Van der Werf et al., 1993;
Vleeshouwers, 1998). We use 2.4 g MJ
1 PAR, based on
Clifton-Brown et al. (2000). No partitioning factor for
harvest index is included as all above-ground biomass
production is assumed to be harvestable.
Water-limited growth
The soil water available for crop growth was assumed
to be the balance between monthly rainfall and
potential evaporation (PE) calculated using the Pen-
man–Monteith formula (Arnell, 1999a). Since the model
operates at daily time steps, monthly data were
disaggregated into daily data by simple linear inter-
polation. Soil moisture holding capacities (Smax) for
different regions were obtained from the FAO Digital
Soil Map of the World (Subsection Derived Soil
Properties) (FAO, 1995). Soil moisture deficits (SMD,
mm), calculated on daily time steps from the balance
between rainfall and evaporation, were derived and
compared with Smax in the corresponding regions. The
following assumptions were then made. If SMD was
o30% of Smax then potential and actual evaporation
(AE) were assumed to be identical. When SMD was
430% of Smax, AE was calculated as a proportion of
PE, declining to zero when soil water was exhausted.
This point occurs when SMD is numerically equal to
Smax. This follows an approach developed by Aslyng
(1965) for Danish grasslands.
Running the model
Although MISCANMOD runs on daily time steps, the
best available European wide climate data set (Climate
Research Unit (CRU) data base; Hulme et al., 1995)
contains average monthly values for air temperature
(1C), rainfall (mm) and incident daily radiation
(MJ m
2 day
1) for each 0.510.51 grid square between
31175 0 W; 25125 0 N and 65175 0 E; 80175 0 N. These values
were calculated from 30 years of data (from 1960–1990)
and were corrected for the mean altitude within each
grid square that covers land. To produce daily tem-
perature values, MISCANMOD linearly interpolates
the monthly values. This was found to be as satisfactory
as a fitted sine curve used elsewhere (e.g. Arnell,
1999b). The generation of daily precipitation from
monthly precipitation was made with a simple model,
 MISCANTHUS BIOMASS PRODUCTION
which assumes that rainfall is evenly distributed on
every day throughout the month. When rainfall exceeds
evaporation (e.g. during winter), excess water drains or
runs off the soil. A simple linear interpolation of
average monthly incident radiation was used to obtain
daily values. In a Geographic Information System (GIS),
the polygons for soil moisture holding capacity (Smax)
from the FAO derived soil properties were rasterized to
produce Smax values that aligned with the 0.510.51
grids of the climate data.
Model validation
Many field trials using M.  giganteus have been
planted in Europe over the past 20 years. The yields
obtained from these field trials depend not only on local
climate and soil conditions but also on agronomic
practices. Harvest time is a particularly critical compo-
nent of this, because losses due to senescence following
crop maturation can account for up to 50% of the yield
(Jrgensen, 1997). Five trials established in 1997 as part
of the European Miscanthus Improvement (EMI) project
(Lewandowski & Clifton-Brown, 2000b) have well-
documented harvest time, yield and climate data
(Clifton-Brown et al., 2001b; Lewandowski et al., 2003).
In these trials, yields were determined after harvests in
both the autumn of the growing season and in the
following spring, which is the time at which a
Miscanthus crop would normally be harvested (Jones
& Walsh, 2001). In 1999, these stands were into their
third growing season, which is considered long enough
to assess optimum genotype productivity levels at these
sites. Yield predictions derived from running MIS-
CANMOD using weather data from these five sites
were compared with observed autumn yields in three
ways. Firstly, autumn yields predicted with MISCAN-
MOD, run on daily climatic data, were compared with
observed autumn yields. Secondly, since the continental
scale climate data are only available monthly, a test was
carried out to compare yields based on monthly
summaries of the real 1999 climate data collected at
the five sites. Thirdly, yield estimates for the 0.510.51
grid squares in the CRU database, covering the five
locations for which field data were available, were
compared with the observed yields. In addition,
autumn yields from sites distributed throughout
Europe were compared with model estimates generated
for the same locations from the CRU gridded database,
as described in the following section.
Mapping of Miscanthus yields across Europe
GIS was used to (i) configure some of the data sets
incorporated into MISCANMOD (ii) visualize and
r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518
511
analyse the outputs of MISCANMOD and (iii) integrate
information produced with additional data sets in order
to produce further maps and statistics that can be used
for modelling in and outside a GIS environment.
The GIS software applied was ArcGIS (ArcGISTM
Version 8.2, ESRI, Inc., Redlands, CA, USA). All model-
ling and analyses were performed in ArcGIS-Spatial
Analyst, an optional available extension of the ArcGIS
software package. The outputs of MISCANMOD are
longitude and latitude coordinates with corresponding
calculated Miscanthus yield values.
The tabular Miscanthus yield data set along with the
Pan-European Land Cover Monitoring (PELCOM) Grid
(Mücher et al., 2000) and the European Base Map (ESRI,
2001) were imported into ArcGIS to create a digital
database.
Data preparation included (i) the creation of a yield
point layer from the tabular MISCANMOD yield data
set (ii) the conversion of the European Base Map to a
layer consisting of the administrative boundaries of the
current 15 EU member states and (iii) the conversion of
all data sets and map themes to the Albers-Equal-Area-
Conic map projection (Kennedy & Kopp, 2001).
The ordinary kriging interpolation method (spherical
semivariogram model, variable search radius, 12 input
points), (Johnston et al., 2001; McCoy & Johnston, 2001)
with a spatial resolution of 20  20 km2, was applied to
generate a thematic raster surface representing Mis-
canthus yield across Europe from the Miscanthus yield
point layer.
Further spatial data analysis included (i) the removal
of any grid-cell of the Miscanthus yield layer represent-
ing yield values lower than 10 t ha
1 yr
1 (ii) the ex-
clusion of any grid-cell of the PELCOM Grid belonging
to land cover classes that are not available for culti-
vation of Miscanthus and (iii) the syntheses of both
thematic maps in order to derive a final grid layer
consisting of those grid cells that represent yield values
higher than 10 t ha
1 yr
1 and land classified as suitable
for Miscanthus production. Finally, by applying the Zonal
Statistics function (McCoy & Johnston, 2001), the area
available for cultivation, and average values of yield
were calculated for each of the 15 EU member states.
Results and discussion
Model validation of potential yield at EMI sites
The observed yields and modelled estimates of poten-
tial yield at the five field sites used in the EMI study
are shown in Table 1. The observed yield values are
both the ‘peak yield’ at the end of the growing season
and the ‘delayed-harvest yield’ in the spring of the
following year. Model estimates of peak yield were
512 J . C . C L I F T O N - B R O W N et al.
Table 1 Observed and modelled yields of Miscanthus (t ha
1) at the ‘European Miscanthus Improvement’ sites
Country Longitude Latitude
Sweden 14.0 56.0
Denmark 9.6 56.5
England
0.4 51.8
Germany 9.0 48.7
Portugal
9.2 38.7
*Observed yields are the mean of the three most productive genotypes at each location in autumn (peak) and in late winter/early
spring (delayed) following the 1999 growing season.
w
Modelled peak yields from actual daily climate are compared with those generated from mean monthly data for each site in 1999.
determined using either daily values or monthly means
of temperature and radiation recorded in 1999 at local
weather stations. The differences between the two
modelled estimates of yield at each site were small,
with the mean discrepancy being less than 0.4 t ha
1
(Table 1). Good agreements between observed peak
yields and modelled potential yields, obtained using
monthly mean climate data, were found for Sweden,
Denmark, Germany and Portugal with a mean differ-
ence of less than 10%. However, there was a large
difference between the observed and modelled yields in
England, where the model gave an overestimate of the
observed peak yield by 27% (Table 1).
Model validation from additional European trials
Table 2 shows the results from 27 additional sites, as
well as the EMI sites, where M.  giganteus has been
grown in productivity trials in Europe. At all sites, we
used weather data from the GIS mapping of climate,
which uses long-term (30 year average) means of
weather data. Both the modelled non-water-limited
yield and rainfed peak yields for each site as well as the
observed yields are shown. At some locations (15 sites),
it was possible to extract from the literature the obser-
ved autumn ‘peak yield’. Figure 1 shows a plot of
measured peak yields against predicted yields obtained
using MISCANMOD. The closeness of most of the points
to the 1 : 1 line shows that, in broad terms, MISCAN-
MOD can reliably predict yields across Europe based on
easily available climate data.
Figure 2a shows the MISCANMOD estimates of
‘peak’ autumn yield throughout Europe when nutrient
and water resources are assumed to be non-limiting, i.e.
the crops are fertilized and irrigated when nutrients
and water are limiting for growth. Peak yields range
from zero in some parts of Scandinavia and Scotland to
60 t DM ha
1 yr
1 in parts of Mediterranean countries.
In practice, however, it is not economic to irrigate fully
biomass crops in drought-prone regions and it is
Observed yield* Modelled peak yieldw
Peak Delayed Daily data Monthly data
21.5 13.1 21.5 20.4
16.8 9.7 17.3 16.6
17.8 12.4 23.1 22.7
26.4 19.9 23.1 22.7
38.5 26.0 41.1 41.6
unlikely that there would be any economic advantage
in using irrigation for biomass production from Mis-
canthus. Figure 2b shows the modelled peak yields
throughout Europe under average rainfall or ‘rainfed’
conditions. Here, it is evident that the Mediterranean
regions are too dry to achieve the highest yields in
Europe and the most productive regions are in Central
Europe, particularly lowland areas surrounding the Alps.
There are a number of sites listed in Table 2 where
there is a substantial discrepancy between the observed
and modelled yields. The reasons for this are complex
but are most likely due to one or a combination of the
following. Firstly, when upscaling to predict yields for
the EU15 countries, mean climate data were used from
the CRU for the period 1960–1990. These mean values
of climate data give no indication of the interannual
variation in yield that is actually observed and it may
be that yields are measured in a year when the climate
is more or less conducive for growth than the mean
year used in the model. Also, yields are greatly
influenced by the length of the growing season, which
is dependent on occurrence of the first and last frosts
below
2 1C, and this also shows large inter-annual
variation. In Ireland, for example, a mature stand has
shown inter-annual variations in delayed harvestable
yield from 10 to 15 t DM ha
1. These variations can be
directly linked to the climate for the growing season in
question (J. C. Clifton-Brown, unpublished results).
Secondly, the importance of the delay between the
end of the growing season and harvest time in reducing
harvestable yield was not fully appreciated when
European field trials began in the early 1990s. The
earliest published reports of yield reduction due to
delayed harvest came from Danish trials, and showed
that yield losses could be as severe as 50% (Jrgensen,
1997). Trials in Germany showed that 23–51% of the
biomass grown could not be harvested (Kahle et al.,
2001). Trials within the EMI project, which started in
1997, were harvested twice, in autumn immediately
following the end of the growing season (Peak yield)
r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518
 MISCANTHUS BIOMASS PRODUCTION 513

Table 2 Miscanthus  giganteus modelled and observed yields for a selection of sites in Europe; observed yields were obtained
from the literature

Modelled yields Observed

Location (t ha
1)* yields (t ha
1)

Country Site name Longitude Latitude Irrigated Rainfed Peakw Delayedz Irrigated Source

EMI field trials

Sweden Svalöf Weibull 14.0 56.0 23.0 10.9 22 13 No Lewandowski el al. (2003)
Denmark Foulum 9.6 56.5 21.6 21.8 17 10 No Lewandowski et al. (2003)
England Rothamsted
0.4 51.8 22.9 22.5 18 12 No Lewandowski et al. (2003)
Germany Ihinger Hof 9.0 48.7 28.2 27.4 26 20 No Lewandowski et al. (2003)
Portugal Évora
9.2 38.7 48.9 16.4 39 26 Yes Lewandowski et al. (2003)
Additional European field trials
Austria Atzenbrug 15.9 48.3 32.9 23.3 30 22 No Schwarz & Liebhard (1995)
Austria Markgrafneusiedl 16.6 48.3 34.3 17.6 17 nd No Schwarz et al. (1994)
Austria Steinbrunn 16.2 48.5 33.5 20.7 24 nd No Schwarz et al. (1994)
Belgium Stree 5.3 50.5 27.1 24.9 nd 16 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
France Grignon 2.0 48.0 32.9 18.8 42 nd Yes Tayot et al. (1995)
France Lusignan 1.0 44.0 41.9 20.5 49 30 Yes Tayot et al. (1995)
Germany Boitzenhagen 10.8 52.6 24.9 21.9 22 11 No Kahle et al. (2001)
Germany Braunschweig 10.4 52.3 24.4 22.1 26 nd No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Germany Durmersheim 8.1 49.0 31.1 25.2 17 nd No Lewandowski et al. (2003)
Germany Gunterslebenl 9.9 49.9 25.9 20.9 30 18 No Kahle et al. (2001)
Germany Gutenzell 10.0 48.0 26.7 23.5 20 nd No Lewandowski & Heinz (2003a)
Germany Klein Markow 12.6 53.9 25.7 23.8 21 10 No Kahle et al. (2001)
Greece Cefalonia 20.5 38.2 53.9 16.4 nd 20 Yes Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Greece CRES-Kopias 23.1 38.4 49.6 11.4 nd 26 Yes Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Ireland Cashel
7.8 52.7 18.0 18.2 18 14 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Italy Catania 15.0 37.4 50.4 14.2 nd 27 Yes Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Italy ENEA-Trisaia 11.1 44.1 36.1 27.3 nd 15 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Italy ENEA-Brasimone 16.6 40.2 47.6 11.0 nd 19 Yes Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Netherlands Lelystad-BTG 5.9 50.9 25.3 22.7 25 17 No Vleeshouwers (1998)
Netherlands Ter Apel (NE) 7.1 52.9 22.3 22.7 25 nd No Van der Werf et al. (1993)
Netherlands Valthermond 7.0 52.9 22.3 22.6 nd 13 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Netherlands Wijnandsrade 5.4 52.5 23.0 23.0 nd 15 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Portugal UNINOVA
9.0 38.7 48.4 15.2 nd 30 Yes Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
Spain Santiago
8.4 42.9 40.8 17.6 nd 14 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
UK Arthur Rickwood 0.1 52.4 21.3 21.6 nd 14 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)
UK Essex, Writtle 0.4 51.7 23.8 23.4 28 17 Yes Beale & Long (1995)
UK Rothamsted
0.4 51.8 22.9 22.5 nd 11 No Clifton-Brown et al. (2001e)

*Modelled irrigated (non water limited) and rainfed yields are based on mean climate data from the CRU dataset (1960–1990).
w
Peak yields are those yields obtained within 1–2 months of the end of the growing season.
z
Delayed yields are those obtained after the crop has ripened longer than 2 months (typically 4 months) after the end of the growing
season.
nd, not determined.

and in late winter/early spring (Delayed-harvest yield).
The strict protocol adopted in EMI quantified yield
reductions and showed that yields fall between 10%
and 50% depending on the genotype and local site
conditions (Lewandowski et al., 2003). At present, we
have used MISCANMOD to predict the peak standing
biomass at the end of the growing season. However, a
linear relationship between yield loss and the length of
the period between the first and second harvests has
been found for the five EMI sites (0.36% per day delay
in harvest time) and this is remarkably similar to rates
of yield loss recorded in Ireland (0.3% per day delay in
harvest time reported in Clifton-Brown et al. (2001a)).
This information can therefore be used as a parameter
in future MISCANMOD simulations to predict delayed
harvest yields. Unfortunately, the dates for the end of
the growing season (first frost below
2 1C) and the
days until harvest are not recorded at most field trial
sites, so it is difficult to apply this correction with any
reliability for validation purposes.

r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518

514 J . C . C L I F T O N - B R O W N et al.
60
r 2 = 0.6
50
Observed yield (t ha-1)
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Modelled yield (t ha-1)
Fig. 1 Relationship between observed ‘Peak’ yield at the end of
the growing season and modelled ‘Peak’ yield using MISCAN-
MOD. Sites that received irrigation have open symbols and
rainfed sites have closed symbols. The 1 : 1 line is shown with
the regression coefficient.
Thirdly, MISCANMOD uses gridded climate and
estimates of soil moisture holding capacity (Smax).
These grids, at 0.51  0.51, allow broad generalizations
but this can lead to serious predictive errors at the site
scale. In particular, Smax is an important parameter for
the rainfed yield in drought-prone climates, but is likely
to be heterogenous within the grids.
Finally, when scaling up to predict European Mis-
canthus yields, the parameters used for MISCANMOD
have been derived from the single genotype,
M.  giganteus, and we have assumed that this crop is
grown throughout the EU15. However, we know that
the rhizomes of this genotype do not have sufficient
cold tolerance to survive severe winters with soil
temperatures at 5 cm below about
3 1C, so different
genotypes should be selected for colder regions
(Clifton-Brown & Lewandowski, 2000). Consequently,
the observed yields for Sweden, shown in Table 1, were
not for M.  giganteus but were for a newly bred M.
sinensis hybrid with improved rhizome frost tolerance.
A future improvement will be to parameterize
MISCANMOD for the genotypes that are selected for
each geographical region.
Biomass energy offset in the EU15
The potential for biomass energy offsets under various
scenarios can now be assessed using the modelled
yields of Miscanthus throughout the European Union.
For example, we have chosen to calculate the potential
energy offset if Miscanthus is grown on 10% of the land
area currently used for grass and arable crop produc-
tion. This is considered to be a realistic use of land for
bioenergy purposes if EU15 targets are to be met. GIS
analysis on the PELCOM land use data showed that
France and Germany have the largest land resources
within the EU15 countries. Table 3 shows the predicted
rainfed delayed-harvest yields averaged for each EU15
country. This value has been derived from the modelled
peak yields, assuming that 33% of the DM is lost
between peak yield and delayed harvest. Assuming
that 10% of the grassland and arable cropland in each
irrigated country is used to grow Miscanthus, we derived the
total achievable biomass production for each country.
rainfed
The energy content of Miscanthus at a combustion
40 50 60
moisture content of 16% is assumed to average 15 GJ t
1
(Hall & Scurlock, 1993; Visser & Pignatelli, 2001). Using
this value, Table 3 shows the potential energy produc-
tion for each country assuming an efficiency of
combustion and conversion to thermal energy of 35%
(Cannell, 2003).
In this scenario, only areas within each country that
produce a peak yield of more than 10 t DM ha
1 are
included. Yield levels below this were considered
economically unfeasible and were discounted from
further calculations. The choice of the optimum harvest
time is still a major area of uncertainty, since delaying
harvest time after the end of the growing season causes
significant reductions in the harvestable yield, although
this may be partly compensated by improvements in
biomass ‘quality’ (lower ash content and gaseous
emissions) for combustion purposes (Lewandowski et
al., 2003). In the present analysis, harvest was assumed
to be delayed until late winter/early spring and peak
yields were reduced to harvestable yields by the fixed
amount of 33%, which was the mean value determined
for the five sites in the EMI trials (Lewandowski et al.,
2003). Through a combination of large areas available
for Miscanthus cultivation and climatic conditions
conducive to producing high yields, the achievable
biomass was highest for France (51194 kt yr
1). Gross
electricity generation (GEG) obtained for the year 2000
(European Commission, 2001) is shown in Table 3, and
the potential contribution from Miscanthus combustion
for energy is calculated. Our calculations indicate that,
at best, Miscanthus could substitute 37% of GEG in
Ireland, but as little as 1.5% in Spain. The contribution
that Miscanthus could make in the EU15 to total GEG in
2000 is about 9%.
Carbon mitigation by Miscanthus biomass production in
the EU15
Calculation of the carbon mitigation potential as a
result of using energy from biomass rather than from
fossil fuels is not straightforward because carbon is
emitted during production and transport and the
r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518
 MISCANTHUS BIOMASS PRODUCTION 515

Fig. 2 Modelled yields of Miscanthus in Europe at the end of the growing season. (a) Potential non-water-limited yield and (b) rainfed
yield (t ha
1). Positions of EMI field trials are indicated by  and other field trials by  .

amount of mitigation depends on whether it is Soil carbon sequestration

calculated on energy provided to the primary or end
user (Cannell, 2003). Here, we use values by Cannell
(2003) where 1 t of dry biomass used to generate
electricity prevents 0.5 t C being emitted from coal,
and we assume that Miscanthus substitutes for coal in
electricity generation. Table 3 lists for each EU15
country the amount of carbon that would be displaced
by burning Miscanthus biomass rather than coal and is
therefore a measure of the carbon mitigation possible if
Miscanthus combustion substitutes for coal.
In addition to offsetting energy and CO2 production
from fossil fuel combustion, the growing of biomass
crops has the potential to sequester carbon in the soil.
Above-ground material lost before harvest can be
incorporated in the soil, and the live and dead roots
and rhizomes also constitute a substantial carbon stock.
Although MISCANMOD has been developed to predict
above-ground production only, an approximate
calculation can be made of the below-ground C

r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518

 Table 3 Estimates of energy production and carbon substitution from Miscanthus in the EU15 when the crop is rainfed

Area of Gross Electricity

Miscanthus Yield suitable Achievable Energy electricity from Miscanthus Coal displace- C sequestra- C mitigat-
peak delayed land biomass contact generation generation share of ment tion rate ion rate
Country (t ha
1 yr
1)* (t ha
1 yr
1) (ha  103)w (t  103 yr
1)z (PJ
1)§ (TWh yr
1)} (TWh yr
1)k GEG (%)** (mt C yr
1)ww (mt C yr
1)zz (mt C yr
1)§§

Austria 22.8 15.3 240 3672 55 61.8 5.4 8.7 1.49 0.27 1.76
Belgium 25.8 17.3 209 3616 54 83.9 5.3 6.3 1.46 0.27 1.73
Denmark 21.9 14.7 335 4925 74 36.2 7.2 19.8 1.99 0.36 2.36
Finland 13.0 8.7 496 4315 65 70 6.3 9.0 1.75 0.32 2.07
France ‘ 22.7 15.2 3368 51 194 768 540.7 74.6 13.8 20.73 3.79 24.52
516 J . C . C L I F T O N - B R O W N et al.

Germany 21.3 14.3 2184 31 231 468 571.6 45.5 8.0 12.65 2.30 14.95
Greece 14.0 9.4 431 4051 61 53.6 5.9 11.0 1.64 0.30 1.94
Irish Republic 17.4 11.6 529 6136 92 24 8.9 37.3 2.49 0.46 2.94
Italy 22.0 14.8 1252 18 530 278 276.6 27.0 9.8 7.50 1.37 8.87
Luxembourg 18.0 12.1 17 206 3 1.2 0.3 25.0 0.08 0.02 0.10
Netherlands 23.4 15.7 293 4600 69 89.6 6.7 7.5 1.86 0.34 2.20
Portugal 13.4 9.0 213 1917 29 43.8 2.8 6.4 0.78 0.14 0.92
Spain 14.1 9.5 239 2271 34 225.1 3.3 1.5 0.92 0.17 1.09
Sweden 13.2 8.8 329 2895 43 145.9 4.2 2.9 1.17 0.21 1.39
UK 18.6 12.4 1509 18 712 281 374.9 27.3 7.3 7.58 1.39 8.97
EU15 18.8}} 12.6}} 11 644 kk 158 270 kk 2374 kk 2599 kk 231 kk 9 }} 64 kk 12 kk 76 kk

*Delayed harvest yields are 33% lower than the autumn peak yield predicted by MISCANMOD at the end of the growing season.
w
10% of grassland and crop land (as identified in the PELCOM grid) is provided for production of Miscanthus.
z
Achievable biomass is the product of suitable land area and harvestablc yield.
§
Energy content is 15 GJ t
1 (Hall et al., 1993; Visser & Pignatelli, 2001).
}
Eurostat figures for 2000 (European Commission, 2001).
k
Total electrical energy generation assuming an efficiency of combustion and conversion into thermal energy is 35% (Cannell, 2003).
**Share of gross energy generation (GEG) in each country for 2000.
ww
Coal substituted by Miscanthus (1 GJ produced from coal releases 27 kg C, Cannell, 2003).
zz
Carbon sequestration to the soil is 18% of carbon input based on data of Matthews & Grogan (2001).
§§
Carbon Mitigation potential (sequestration 1 coal displacement).
}}
Average for EU15.
kk
Sum for EU15.

r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518

 MISCANTHUS BIOMASS PRODUCTION
accumulation using a model developed by Matthews &
Grogan (2001). They derived a general relationship
between the annual carbon input and the carbon
sequestration rate for Miscanthus and short rotation
coppice. The slope of the relationship indicated about
18% of the carbon entering the soil contributes to the
annual increase, the rest returning to the atmosphere as
CO2 from microbial respiration. For Miscanthus, this is
equivalent to 0.93 t C ha
1 yr
1 according to our model.
Observed C sequestration in Germany on a Luvisol was
1.63 t C ha
1 yr
1 (Kahle et al., 2001). Using the same
sequestration factor as Matthews & Grogan (2001) to
calculate the amount of carbon sequestered from the
modelled productivities for each country, annual total
sequestration potentials have been estimated for the
EU15 (Table 3). This calculation shows that Miscanthus
could sequester 12 Mt C yr
1 in the EU15 using the
current scenario until soil organic matter levels reach
saturation at a particular site. There are no experi-
mental data as yet from European trials that indicate
when soils under Miscanthus become C saturated.
Total carbon mitigation potential for EU15
Our scenario assumes that almost 12 Mha of agricultur-
al land are made available for growing Miscanthus. To
estimate the total carbon mitigation potential for the
EU15, we have added the carbon displaced in energy
production to the value for C sequestration to provide
an overall carbon mitigation potential of 76 Mt C yr
1.
In 1990, total C emissions were 840 Mt C yr
1 (European
Commission, 1999). This means that Miscanthus could
mitigate 9% of the total C emissions in 2000. The Kyoto
agreement to reduce emissions by 9% below 1990 levels
by 2008–2012 could therefore potentially be met entirely
by growing Miscanthus.
Conclusion
We have shown that a simple growth model for the
perennial rhizomatous grass, Miscanthus, can reliably
predict rainfed yields throughout Europe. The pre-
dicted annual production of Miscanthus scaled up using
GIS for each of the EU15 countries shows that peak
yield ranges from 25.8 t ha
1 in Belgium to 13 t ha
1
in Finland and Sweden. Displacement of carbon
released by burning fossil fuels to produce electri-
city and sequestration to the soil showed that 9% of
the total European C emissions in 1990 could be
mitigated by growing and burning Miscanthus for
electricity production.
Acknowledgements
We thank David Viner for providing access to the European
climate data and Nigel Arnell for the European-wide estimates
r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518
517
of the Penman–Monteith evaporation. Iris Lewandowski and
Peter Lohr are thanked for assisting in this project in its early
stages. The authors are grateful to all those who participated in
the European Miscanthus Network and the European Miscanthus
Improvement projects. This work was in part funded by the EU
contracts FAIR3-CT96-1392 and FAIR3-CT96-1707.
References
Arnell NW (1999a) The effect of climate change on hydrological
regimes in Europe: a continental perspective. Global Environ-
mental Change, 9, 5–23.
Arnell NW (1999b) A simple water balance model for the
simulation of streamflow over a large geographic domain.
Journal of Hydrology, 217, 314–335.
Aslyng HC (1965) Evaporation, evapotranspiration and water
balance investigations at Copenhagen 1955–64. Acta Agricul-
turae Scandinavica, 15, 284–300.
Beale CV, Long SP (1995) Can perennial C4 grasses attain high
efficiencies of radiant energy conversion in cool climates?
Plant, Cell and Environment, 18, 641–50.
Cannell MR (2003) Carbon sequestration and biomass
energy offset: theoretical, potential and achievable capacities
globally, in Europe and the UK. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24,
97–116.
Clifton-Brown JC, Jones MB, Breuer J (2001a) Yield performance
of M.  giganteus during a 10 year field trial in Ireland. Aspects
of Applied Biology, 65, 153–160.
Clifton-Brown JC, Lewandowski I (2000) Overwintering pro-
blems of newly established Miscanthus plantations can be
overcome by identifying genotypes with improved rhizome
cold tolerance. New Phytologist, 148, 287–294.
Clifton-Brown JC, Lewandowski I et al. (2001b) Performance of
15 Miscanthus genotypes at five sites in Europe. Agronomy
Journal, 93, 1013–1019.
Clifton-Brown JC, Long SP, Jrgensen U (2001c) Miscanthus
productivity. In: Miscanthus – for Energy and Fibre (eds Jones
MB, Walsh M), pp. 46–67. James and James (Science Publish-
ers), London.
Clifton-Brown JC, Neilson BM, Lewandowski I et al. (2000) The
modelled productivity of Miscanthus  giganteus (GREEF et
DEU) in Ireland. Industrial Crops and Products, 12, 97–109.
ESRI (2001) ESRI Data and Maps 2000, Media Kit CD1. Redlands,
California.
European Commission (1997) Energy for the Future: Renewable
sources of Energy, White Paper for Community Strategy and Action
Plan (COM(97)). Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission (1999) Energy in Europe: European Union
Energy Outlook to 2020. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2001) EU Energy and Transport Figures.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
FAO (1995) Digital Soil Map of the World and Derived Soil
Properties. FAO-Publications, Rome.
Hall DO, Scurlock JMO (1993) Appendix C: biomass production
data. In: Photosynthesis and Production in a Changing Environ-
ment. A Field and Laboratory Manual (eds Hall DO, Scurlock
518 J . C . C L I F T O N - B R O W N et al.
JMO, Bolhar-Nordenkampf HR, Leegood RC, Long SP), pp.
425–444. Chapman & Hall, London.
Hodkinson TR, Renvoize S (2001) Nomenclature of Mis-
canthus  giganteus (Poaceae). Kew Bulletin, 56, 759–760.
Hulme M, Conway D, Jones PD et al. (1995) Construction of a
1961–1990 European climatology for climate change model-
ling and impact applications. International Journal of Climatol-
ogy, 15, 1333–1363.
Johnston K, VerHoef JM, Krivoruchko K, Lucas N (2001) Using
ArcGISTM Geostatistical Analyst. Redlands, California.
Jones MB, Walsh M (eds) (2001) Miscanthus – for Energy and Fibre.
James and James (Science Publishers), London.
Jrgensen U (1997) Genotypic variation in dry matter accumula-
tion and content of N, K and Cl in Miscanthus in Denmark.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 12, 155–169.
Kahle P, Beuch S, Boelcke B et al. (2001) Cropping of Miscanthus
in Central Europe: biomass production and influence on
nutrients and soil organic matter. European Journal of Agron-
omy, 15, 171–184.
Kennedy M, Kopp S (2001) Understanding Map Projections
www.esri.com, Redlands, California.
Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown JC (eds) (2000b) European
Miscanthus Improvement Project (EMI), FAIR3 CT-96-1392.
Final Report, 260 pp.
Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown JC, Andersson B et al. (2003)
Environment and harvest time affects the combustion
qualities of Miscanthus genotypes. Agronomy Journal, 95,
1274–1280.
Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown JC, Scurlock JMO et al. (2000a)
Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 19, 209–277.
Lewandowski I, Heinz A (2003) Delayed harvest of miscanthus
– influences on biomass quantity and quality and environ-
mental impacts of energy production. European Journal of
Agronomy, 19, 45–63.
Matthews RB, Grogan P (2001) Potential C sequestration rates
under short-rotation coppiced willow and Miscanthus biomass
crops: a model study. Aspects of Applied Biology, 65, 303–312.
McCoy J, Johnston K (2001) Using ArcGISTM Spatial Analyst
www.esri.com, Redlands, California.
r 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Global Change Biology, 10, 509–518
Monteith JL (1977) Climate and the efficiency of crop production
in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B281,
277–294.
Mücher S, Steinkocher K, Champeaux JL et al. (2000) Esta-
blishment of a 1-km Pan-European Land Cover Database for
Environmental Monitoring (www.gis.wageningen-ur.nl/cgi,
Amsterdam.
Schwarz H, Liebhard P (1995) Fertilisation effects on production
of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’. In: Biomass for Energy,
Environment, Agriculture and Industry (eds Chartier P, Beenack-
ers AACM, Grassi G), pp. 523–529. Elsevier, Oxford.
Schwarz KU, Murphy DPL, Schnug E (1994) Studies of the
growth and yield of Miscanthus  giganteus in Germany.
Aspects of Applied Biology, 40, 533–540.
Smith P, Powlson DS, Glendining MJ et al. (1997) Potential for
carbon sequestration in European soils: preliminary estimates
for five scenarios using results from long-term experiments.
Global Change Biology, 3, 67–79.
Smith P, Powlson DS, Smith JU et al. (2000) Meeting Europe’s
climate change commitments: quantitative estimates of the
potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture. Global Change
Biology, 6, 525–539.
Tayot X, Chartier M, Varlet-Grancher C, Lemaire G (1995)
Potential above-ground dry matter production of Miscanthus
in north-central France compared to sweet sorghum. In:
Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry (eds
Chartier P, Beenackers AACM, Grassi G), pp. 556–564.
Elsevier, Oxford.
Van der Werf HMG, Meijer WJM, Mathijssen EWJM, Darwinkel
A (1993) Potential dry matter production of Miscanthus
sinensis in The Netherlands. Industrial Crops and Products, 1,
203–210.
Visser P, Pignatelli V (2001) Utilisation of Miscanthus. In:
Miscanthus – for Energy and Fibre (eds Jones MB, Walsh M),
pp. 109–154. James and James (Science Publishers), London.
Vleeshouwers LM (1998) Potential yield of Mis-
canthus  giganteus in the Netherlands. In: Biomass for Energy
and Industry – Proceedings of the 10th European Bioenergy
Conference (eds Kopetz H, Weber T, Palz W, Chartier P, Ferrero
GL), pp. 1017–1019. C.A.R.M.E.N., Würzburg.