Advertisement

Production of Energy Crops in Heavy Metals Contaminated Land: Opportunities and Risks

  • Bruno Barbosa
  • Jorge Costa
  • Ana Luisa Fernando
Chapter

Abstract

An increasing global awareness that the supply and security of petroleum-based materials is diminishing, coupled with environmental concerns related to climate change, water availability, and soil degradation, has increased demand for more renewable, diversified, and sustainable systems, of which biomass resources are one of the pillars. Yet, the demand for biomasses may increase sharply, thus increasing the risk of conflicts on land use due to competition for food and feed. Hence, segregating the growth of dedicated biomass crops on contaminated land is considered a suitable option to overcome these conflicts. In fact, most of energy crops are considered tolerant to soil contamination, and the cultivation of those crops can be considered an approach to restore or attenuate and stabilize contaminated soils while bringing additional revenue to owners. But, is it sustainable to produce energy crops in contaminated land? Yields and biomass quality can be affected by the contamination, reducing the energy and the greenhouse savings and compromising its economic exploitation. Nonetheless the production of energy crops on contaminated land may contribute also to improve the quality of soil and the biological and landscape diversity. In this context, studies on the production of energy crops in heavy metals contaminated land are reviewed, taking into account environmental, economic and socio-economic aspects. In the end, a critical assessment of the literature is made and opportunities and risks are pointed out.

Keywords

Energy crops Bioenergy Land use change Heavy metals contaminated land Phytoremediation Sustainability 

References

  1. Arora K, Sharma S, Monti A (2016) Bio-remediation of Pb and Cd polluted soils by switchgrass: a case study in India. Int J Phytoremediation 18:704–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird C (1999) Environmental chemistry, 2nd edn. WH Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Balan V, Kumar S, Bals B, Chubdawat S, Jin M, Dale B (2012) Biochemical and Thermochemical conversion of switchgrass to biofuels. In: Monti A (ed) Switchgrass, a valuable biomass crop for energy. Green Energy and Technology, Springer-Verlag, London, pp 153–185Google Scholar
  4. Bandarra V, Fernando AL, Boléo S, Barbosa B, Costa J, Sidella S, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2013) Growth, productivity and biomass quality of three Miscanthus genotypes irrigated with Zn and cu contaminated wastewaters. In: Eldrup A, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 21th European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies and WIP-Renewable Energies, Copenhagen, pp 147–150Google Scholar
  5. Barbosa B, Boléo S, Sidella S, Costa J, Duarte MP, Mendes B, Cosentino SL, Fernando AL (2015a) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils using the perennial energy crops Miscanthus spp. and Arundo donax L. BioEnerg Res 8:1500–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbosa B, Costa J, Boléo S, Duarte MP, Fernando AL (2016) Phytoremediation of inorganic compounds. In: Ribeiro AB, Mateus EP, Couto N (eds) Electrokinetics across disciplines and continents - new strategies for sustainable development. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 373–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa B, Costa J, Fernando AL, Papazoglou EG (2015b) Wastewater reuse for fiber crops cultivation as a strategy to mitigate desertification. Ind Crop Prod 68:17–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbosa B, Fernando AL, Lino J, Costa J, Sidella S, Boléo S, Bandarra V, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2013) Phytoremediation response of Arundo donax L. in soils contaminated with zinc and chromium. In: Eldrup A, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 21st European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies and WIP-Renewable Energies, Copenhagen, pp 315–318Google Scholar
  9. Benjamin M, Honeyman B (1992) Trace metals. In: Butcher S, Charlson R, Orians G, Wolfe G (eds) Global biogeochemical cycles. Academic Press Limited, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. Beringer T, Lucht W, Schaphoff S (2011) Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. GCB Bioenerg 3:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berti MT, Gesch RW, Eynck C, Anderson J, Cermak S (2016) Camelina uses, genetics, genomics, production and management. Ind Crop Prod 94:690–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biewinga EE, Van Der Bijl G (1996) Sustainability of energy crops in Europe: a methodology developed and applied. CLM, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Bini C, Wahsha M, Fontana S, Maleci L (2012) Effects of heavy metals on morphological characteristics of Taraxacum officinale web growing on mine soils in NE Italy. J Geochem Explor 123:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bjelková M, Tejklová E, Griga M, Zajíková I, Genurová V (2001) Flax, linseed and hemp in phytoremediation, natural Fibres (Poznan) – special edition:In: Proceeding of the 2nd global workshop Bast plants in the new millennium. Borovets, Bulgaria, p 285Google Scholar
  15. Boléo S, Fernando AL, Barbosa B, Costa J, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2015) Remediation of soils contaminated with zinc by Miscanthus. In: Vilarinho C, Castro F, Russo M (eds) WASTES 2015–solutions, treatments and opportunities: selected papers from the 3rd edition of the international conference on wastes: solution, treatments and opportunities. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Viana do Castelo, pp 37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boléo S, Fernando AL, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2013) Environmental and socio-economic impact assessment of the Miscanthus production in Zn contaminated soils. In: Castro F, Vilarinho C, Carvalho J, Castro A, Araújo J, Pedro A (eds) Book of proceedings 2nd international conference: wastes: solutions, treatments and opportunities. CVR, Centro de Valorização de Resíduos, Braga, pp 657–662Google Scholar
  17. Börjesson P (1999) Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden—I: identification and quantification. Biomass Bioenergy 16:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bosco S, o Di Nasso NN, Roncucci N, Mazzoncini M, Bonari E (2016) Environmental performances of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cultivated in fertile and marginal lands: a case study in the Mediterranean. Eur J Agron 78:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Clift R (2010) Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2323–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Catroga A, Fernando A, Oliveira JS (2005) Effects on growth, productivity and biomass quality of Kenaf of soils contaminated with heavy metals. In: Sjunnesson L, Carrasco JE, Helm P, Grassi A (eds) Biomass for energy, industry and climate protection - proceedings of the 14th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition. ETA-Florence and WIP-Munich, Paris, pp 149–152Google Scholar
  21. Chiaramonti D, Grimm H, El Bassam N, Cendagorta M (2000) Energy crops and bioenergy for rescuing deserting coastal area by desalination: feasibly study. Bioresour Technol 72:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clemente R, Walker DJ, Bernal MP (2005) Uptake of heavy metals and as by Brassica juncea grown in a contaminated soil in Aznalcóllar (Spain): the effect of soil amendments. Environ Pollut 138:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cortina J, Amat B, Castillo V, Fuentes D, Maestre F, Padilla F, Rojo L (2011) The restoration of vegetation cover in the semi-arid Iberian southeast. J Arid Environ 75:1377–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cosentino SL, Copani V, Scalici G, Scordia D, Testa G (2015) Soil Erosion mitigation by perennial species under Mediterranean environment. Bioenergy Res 8:1538–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Costa C, Jesus-Rydin C (2001) Site investigation on heavy metals contaminated ground in Estarreja – Portugal. Eng Geol 60:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Costa J, Fernando AL, Coutinho M, Barbosa B, Sidella S, Boléo S, Bandarra V, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2013) Growth, productivity and biomass quality of Arundo irrigated with Zn and Cu contaminated wastewaters. In: Eldrup A, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 21st European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies and WIP-Renewable Energies, Copenhagen, pp 308–310Google Scholar
  27. Dauber J, Brown C, Fernando AL, Finnan J, Krasuska E, Ponitka J, Styles D, Thrän D, Van Groeningen KJ, Weih M, Zah R (2012) Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications. BioRisk 7:5–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Domac J, Richards K, Risovic S (2005) Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Biomass Bioenergy 28:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duggan J (2005) The potential for landfill leachate treatment using willows in the UK—A critical review. Resour Conserv Recy 45:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. EPA (2000) Introduction to phytoremediation, Cincinnati. EPA/600/R-99/107Google Scholar
  31. Epelde L, Mijangos I, Becerril JM, Garbisu C (2009) Soil microbial community as bioindicator of the recovery of soil functioning derived from metal phytoextraction with sorghum. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1788–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. European Commission (2009) Towards a better targeting of the aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps, SEC (2009) 450. COM 2009:161Google Scholar
  33. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2013) Assessing the risk of farmland abandonment in the EU, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, report EUR 25783 EN. Luxembourg Publications, Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  34. Evangelou MW, Robinson BH, Günthardt-Goerg MS, Schulin R (2013) Metal uptake and allocation in trees grown on contaminated land: implications for biomass production. Int J Phytoremediation 15:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fernando A, Oliveira JS (2004) Effects on growth, productivity and biomass quality of Miscanthus x giganteus of soils contaminated with heavy metals. In: Van Swaaij WPM, Fjällström T, Helm P, Grassi A (eds) Biomass for energy, industry and climate protection - proceedings of the 2nd world biomass conference, Rome ETA-Florence and WIP-Munich, p 387-390Google Scholar
  36. Fernando AL (2013) Miscanthus for a sustainable development: how much carbon is captured in the soil? In: Eldrup A, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 21st European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies and WIP-Renewable Energies, Copenhagen, pp 1842–1843Google Scholar
  37. Fernando AL, Barbosa B, Costa J, Alexopoulou E (2016a) Perennial grass production opportunities and constraints on marginal soils. In: Faaij APC, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 24rd European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Florence Renewable Energies, Amsterdam, pp 133–137Google Scholar
  38. Fernando AL, Barbosa B, Costa J, Papazoglou EG (2016b) Giant reed (Arundo donax L.): a multipurpose crop bridging phytoremediation with sustainable bio-economy. In: Prasad MNV (ed) Bioremediation and bioeconomy. Elsevier Inc, UK, pp 77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fernando AL, Boléo S, Barbosa B, Costa J, Duarte MP, Monti A (2016c) Assessment of site-specific environmental impacts of bioenergy and bio-based products from perennial grasses cultivated on marginal land in the Mediterranean region. In: APC F, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 24rd European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Florence Renewable Energies, Amsterdam, pp 1525–1529Google Scholar
  40. Fernando AL, Boléo S, Barbosa B, Costa J, Duarte MP, Monti A (2015) Perennial grass production opportunities on marginal Mediterranean land. Bioenergy Res 8:1523–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fernando AL, Boléo S, Barbosa B, Costa J, Lino J, Tavares C, Sidella S, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2014) How sustainable is the production of energy crops in heavy metal contaminated soils? In: Hoffmann C, Baxter D, Maniatis K, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 22th European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies, Hamburg, pp 1593–1596Google Scholar
  42. Fernando AL, Costa J, Barbosa B, Monti A, Rettenmaier N (2018) Environmental impact assessment of perennial crops cultivation on marginal soils in the Mediterranean region. Biomass Bioenergy 111:174–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fernando AL, Duarte MP, Almeida J, Boléo S, Di Virgilio N, Mendes B (2010a) The influence of crop management in the environmental impact of energy crops production. In: Spitzer J, Dallemand JF, Baxter D, Ossenbrink H, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 18th European biomass conference and exhibition, from research to industry and markets, Lyon ETA-Renewable Energies and WIP-Renewable Energies, p 2275-2279Google Scholar
  44. Fernando AL, Duarte MP, Almeida J, Boléo S, Mendes B (2010b) Environmental impact assessment (EIA) of energy crops production in Europe. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 4:594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fernando AL, Duarte MP, Almeida J, Boléo S, Mendes B (2011) Environmental pros and cons of energy crops cultivation in Europe. In: Faulstich M, Ossenbrink H, Dallemand JF, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 19th European biomass conference and exhibition, from research to industry and markets. ETA-Florence Renewable Energies, Berlin, pp 38–42Google Scholar
  46. Fernando AL, Oliveira JFS (2005) Caracterização do potencial da planta Miscanthus x giganteus em Portugal para fins energéticos e industriais. Biologia Vegetal e Agro-Industrial 2:195–204Google Scholar
  47. Fernando ALAC (2005) Fitorremediação por Miscanthus x giganteus de solos contaminados com metais pesados, PhD thesis. FCT/UNL, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  48. Fischer G, Prieler S, van Velthuizen H, Berndes G, Faaij A, Londo M, de Wit M (2010) Biofuel production potentials in Europe: sustainable use of cultivated land and pastures, part II: land use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 34:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ghosh M, Singh S (2005) A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of its byproducts. Appl Ecol Environ Res 3:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Giachetti G, Sebastiani L (2006) Metal accumulation in poplar plant grown with industrial wastes. Chemosphere 64:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ginneken LV, Meers E, Guisson R, Ruttens A, Elst K, Tack FMG, Vangronsveld J, Diels L, Dejonghe W (2007) Phytoremediation for heavy metal-contaminated soils combined with bioenergy production. J Environ Eng Landsc 15:227–236Google Scholar
  52. Giuseppe DD, Antisari LV, Ferronato C, Branchini G (2014) New insights on mobility and bioavailability of heavy metals in soils of the Padanian alluvial plain (Ferrara Province, northern Italy). Chem Erde – Geochem 74:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Grabowska L, Baraniecki P (1997) Three year results on utilization soil polluted by copper-producing industry. In: Proceedings of the flax and other bast plants Symp. Natural Fibres Spec. Ed. INF, Poznan, pp 123–131Google Scholar
  54. Guo ZH, Miao XF (2010) Growth changes and tissues anatomical characteristics of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) in soil contaminated with arsenic, cadmium and lead. J Cent S Univ Technol 17:770–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hammer D, Kayser A, Keller C (2003) Phytoextraction of Cd and Zn with Salix viminalis in field trials. Soil Use Manage 3:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Herpin U, Berlekamp J, Markert B, Wolterbeek B, Grodzinska K, Siewers U, Lieth H, Weckert V (1996) The distribution of heavy metals in a transect of the three states the Netherlands, Germany and Poland, determined with the aid of moss monitoring. Sci Total Environ 187:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ho W, Ang L, Lee D (2008) Assessment of Pb uptake, translocation and immobilization in kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) for phytoremediation of sand tailings. J Environ Sci 20:1341–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hüffmeyer N, Klasmeier J, Matthies M (2009) Geo-referenced modeling of zinc concentrations in the Ruhr river basin (Germany) using the model GREAT-ER. Sci Total Environ 407:2296–2305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kabata-Pendias A (2011) Trace elements in soils and plants, 4th edn. CRC Press, INc., Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  60. Leung HM, Ye ZH, Wong MH (2007) Survival strategies of plants associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on toxic mine tailings. Chemosphere 66:905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lewandowski I, Schmidt U, Londo M, Faaij A (2006) The economic value of the phytoremediation function – assessed by the example of cadmium remediation by willow (Salix ssp). Agric Syst 89:68–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Linger P, Müssig J, Fischer H, Kobert J (2002) Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growing on heavy metal contaminated soil: fibre quality and phytoremediation potential. Ind Crop Prod 16:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lino J, Fernando AL, Barbosa B, Boléo S, Costa J, Duarte MP, Mendes B (2014) Phytoremediation of Cd and Ni contaminated wastewaters by Miscanthus. In: Hoffmann C, Baxter D, Maniatis K, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 22th European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies, Hamburg, pp 303–307Google Scholar
  64. Lips SJJ, Van Dam JEG (2013) Kenaf fibre crop for bioeconomic industrial development. In: Monti A and Alexopoulou E (ed) Kenaf: a multi-purpose crop for several industrial applications, green energy and technology, Springer-Verlag, London, p 105-143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Livingston B, Babcock M (2006) Ash related issues in biomass combustion. ThermalNet workshop, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  66. McIntyre T (2003) Phytoremediation of heavy metals from soils. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 78:97–123Google Scholar
  67. Meers E, Ruttens A, Hopgood M, Lesage E, Tack F (2005) Potential of Brassica rapa, Cannabis sativa, Helianthus annuus and Zea mays for phytoextraction of heavy metals from calcareous dredged sediment derived soils. Chemosphere 61:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Meers E, Vandecasteele B, Ruttens A, Vangronsveld J, Tack F (2007) Potential of five willow species (Salix spp.) for phytoremediation of heavy metals. Environ Exp Bot 60:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mirza N, Pervez A, Mahmood Q, Shah M, Shafqat M (2011) Ecological restoration of arsenic contaminated soil by Arundo donax L. Ecol Eng 37:1949–1956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Monti A, Zegada-Lizarazu W (2016) Sixteen-year biomass yield and soil carbon storage of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) grown under variable nitrogen fertilization rates. Bioenergy Res 9:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nicoletti G, Arcuri N, Nicoletti G, Bruno R (2015) A technical and environmental comparison between hydrogen and some fossil fuels. Energy Convers Manag 89:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Niu Z, Sun L, Sun T, Li Y, Wang H (2007) Evaluation of phytoextracting cadmium and lead by sunflower, ricinus, alfalfa and mustard in hydroponic culture. J Environ Sci 19:961–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nsanganwimana F, Marchand L, Douay F, Mench M (2014a) Arundo donax L., a candidate for phytomanaging water and soils contaminated by trace elements and producing plant-based feedstock. A review. Int J Phytoremediation 16:982–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nsanganwimana F, Pourrut B, Mench M, Douay F (2014b) Suitability of Miscanthus species for managing inorganic and organic contaminated land and restoring ecosystem services. A review. J Environ Manag 143:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pandey VP, Bajpai O, Singh N (2016) Energy crops in sustainable phytoremediation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Papazoglou E, Karantounias G, Vemmos S, Bouranis D (2005) Photosynthesis and growth responses of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) to the heavy metals Cd and Ni. Environ Int 31:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Papazoglou EG, Fernando AL (2017) Preliminary studies on the growth, tolerance and phytoremediation ability of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) grown on heavy metal contaminated soil. Ind Crop Prod 107:463–471.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pidlisnyuk V, Stefanovska T, Lewis EE, Erickson LE, Davis LC (2014) Miscanthus as a productive biofuel crop for Phytoremediation. Crit Rev Plant Sci 33:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Prasad M (2004) Heavy metal stress in plants, from biomolecules to ecosystems, 2nd edn. Springer, HyderabadCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pratas J, Favas PJC, D’Souza R, Varun M, Paul MS (2013) Phytoremedial assessment of flora tolerant to heavy metals in the contaminated soils of an abandoned Pb mine in Central Portugal. Chemosphere 90:2216–2225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2008) Influence of metal resistant-plant growth-promoting bacteria on the growth of Ricinus communis in soil contaminated with heavy metals. Chemosphere 71:834–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Redovniković IR, De Marco A, Proietti C, Hanousek K, Sedak M, Bilandžić N, Jakovljević T (2017) Poplar response to cadmium and lead soil contamination. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 144:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Russell DJ, Alberti G (1998) Effects of long-term, geogenic heavy metal contamination on soil organic matter and microarthropod communities, in particular Collembola. Appl Soil Ecol 9:483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sabra N, Dubourguier H, Hamieh T (2011) Sequential extraction and particle size analysis of heavy metals in sediments dredged from the Deûle Canal, France. The Open Environ Eng J 4:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmidt T, Fernando AL, Monti A, Rettenmaier N (2015) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy and bio-based products from perennial grasses cultivated on marginal land in the Mediterranean region. BioEnerg Res 8:1548–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schröder P, Herzig R, Bojinov B, Ruttens A, Nehnevajova E, Stamatiadis S, Memon A, Vassilev A, Caviezel M, Vangronsveld J (2008) Bioenergy to save the world. Producing novel energy plants for growth on abandoned land. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 15:196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shcheglov AI, Olga B, Tsvetnova OB, Klyashtorin A (2014) The fate of Cs-137 in forest soils of Russian Federation and Ukraine contaminated due to the Chernobyl accident. J Geochem Explor 142:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sheng XF, Xia JJ, Jiang CY, He LY, Qian M (2008) Characterization of heavy metal-resistant endophytic bacteria from rape (Brassica napus) roots and their potential in promoting the growth and lead accumulation of rape. Environ Pollut 156:1164–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sidella S, Barbosa B, Costa J, Cosentino SL, Fernando AL (2016) Screening of Giant reed clones for Phytoremediation of lead contaminated soils. In: Barth S, Murphy-Bokern D, Kalinina O, Taylor G, Jones M (eds) Perennial biomass crops for a resource constrained world. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sidella S, Fernando AL, Barbosa B, Costa J, Boléo S, Bandarra V, Duarte MP, Mendes B, Cosentino SL (2013) Phytoremediation response of Arundo donax in soils contaminated with lead. In: Eldrup A, Baxter D, Grassi A, Helm P (eds) Proceedings of the 21st European biomass conference and exhibition, setting the course for a biobased economy. ETA-Renewable Energies and WIP-Renewable Energies, Copenhagen, pp 385–387Google Scholar
  91. Skevas T, Hayden NJ, Swinton SM, Lupi F (2016) Landowner willingness to supply marginal land for bioenergy production. Land Use Policy 50:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Soldatos P (2015) Economic aspects of bioenergy production from perennial grasses in marginal lands of South Europe. Bioenergy Res 8:1562–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Stewart CE, Follett RF, Pruessner EG, Varvel GE, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2015) Nitrogen and harvest effects on soil properties under rainfed switchgrass and no-till corn over 9 years: implications for soil quality. GCB Bioenerg 7:288–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. UWE (2013) Science for environment policy in-depth report: soil contamination: impacts on human health. Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment. September 2013Google Scholar
  95. Van de Weijde T, Kiesel A, Iqbal Y, Muylle H, Dolstra O, Visser RGF, Lewandowski I, Trindade LM (2017) Evaluation of Miscanthus sinensis biomass quality as feedstock for conversion into different bioenergy products. GCB Bioenerg 9:176–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vystavna Y, Rushenko L, Diadin D, Klymenko O, Klymenko M (2014) Trace metals in wine and vineyard environment in southern Ukraine. Food Chem 146:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wang Z, Zhang Y, Huang Z, Huang L (2008) Antioxidative response of metal-accumulator and non-accumulator plants under cadmium stress. Plant Soil 310:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wuana RA, Okieimen FE (2011) Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology.  https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/402647
  99. Yang X, Feng Y, He Z, Stoffella P (2005) Molecular mechanisms of heavy metal hyperacumulation and phytoremediation. J Trace Elem Med Bio 18:339–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Yordanova I, Staneva D, Misheva L, Bineva T, Banov M (2014) Technogenic radionuclides in undisturbed Bulgarian soils. J Geochem Explor 142:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zárubová P, Hejcman M, Vondráčková S, Mrnka L, Száková J, Tlustoš P (2015) Distribution of P, K, Ca, Mg, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb and Zn in wood and bark age classes of willows and poplars used for phytoextraction on soils contaminated by risk elements. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:18801–18813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zatta A, Clifton-Brown J, Robson P, Hastings A, Monti A (2014) Land use change from C3 grassland to C4 Miscanthus: effects on soil carbon content and estimated mitigation benefit after six years. GCB Bioenergy 6:360–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zegada-Lizarazu W, Monti A (2011) Energy crops in rotation. A review. Biomass Bioenergy 35:12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Barbosa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorge Costa
    • 1
  • Ana Luisa Fernando
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Departamento de Ciências e Tecnologia da Biomassa, MEtRiCSCaparicaPortugal
  2. 2.Universidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations