**6.2 Fungi**

286 Sustainable Growth and Applications in Renewable Energy Sources

Regarding the life form distribution of the weeds in the different cultures, energy grass fields resembled annual crops the most, considering all life form categories. However, geophytes were more representative, while therophytes were less common. In alfalfa, a higher proportion of geophytes and hemicryptophytes were found, while therophytes were even more underrepresented than in energy grass fields. Considering the observed life form distribution of the characteristic weed community of each crop, energy grass took an

The characteristic species composition of the different cultures is shown in Table 4. There was only one species (*Convolvulus arvensis*) which could be regarded as uniformly common in every culture. There were 12 species characterizing the cereals, six the row crops, two in case of alfalfa and only one (*Bromus japonicus*) in case of energy grass. *Bromus japonicus* as a problematic weed was already present from the first year of sowing, and despite its annual life form, it has been continuously present and infesting the fields. On the other hand, energy grass fields are often characterized by a lack or a decreased importance of several serious weed species which are quite dominant in other arable crops: *Amaranthus* spp*., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Apera spica-venti, Artemisia vulgaris, Cirsium arvense, Echinochloa crus-*

n=60

*Cirsium arvense* 81.7 48.3 6.7 31.8 *Capsella bursa-pastoris* 73.3 10 - 22.7 *Papaver rhoeas* 73.3 - - - *Artemisia vulgaris* 70 35 26.7 4.5 *Consolida regalis* 58.3 1.7 - 9.1 *Stellaria media* 58.3 10 6.7 - *Veronica persica* 53.3 13.3 6.7 - *Galium aparine* 48.3 3.3 - 4.5 *Apera spica-venti* 35 - - - *Bromus sterilis* 30 - - - *Viola arvensis* 30 - - - *Veronica polita* 28.3 - - - *Setaria pumila* 40 86.7 13.3 - *Echinochloa crus-galli* 36.7 81.7 26.7 - *Amaranthus chlorostachys* 1.7 50 13.3 - *Digitaria sanguinalis* 1.7 46.7 13.3 - *Persicaria maculosa* 10 45 - - *Solanum nigrum* 11.7 41.7 6.7 - *Taraxacum officinale* 40 13.3 93.3 22.7 *Lolium perenne* 45 16.7 93.3 - *Bromus japonicus* 10 - - 81.8

*Convolvulus arvensis* 98.3 88.3 66.7 68.2 *Ambrosia artemisiifolia* 98.3 88.3 40 13.6 *Chenopodium album* 76.7 75 33.3 13.6

Table 4. Frequencies of the weed species in different crops

Row crops n=60

Alfalfa n=15

Energy grass n=22

intermediate position between annual crops and the perennial alfalfa.

*galli,* and *Galium aparine*.

Frequent species

**Differential species** Cereals

Studies on the pests of Szarvasi-1 energy grass are in progress in Hungary, but it is already clear that the plant is sensitive to many of the most common fungal infections typical for cereals. At our experimental sites the most important fungal infection was mildew (*Blumeria* 

Tall Wheatgrass Cultivar Szarvasi–1 (*Elymus elongatus* subsp. *ponticus* cv. Szarvasi–1)

the processability and energetic characteristics of the material.

The application forms of energy grass used as fuel are:

The characteristics are summarized in Table 5.

**8. Utilization** 


Abrasion

Caloric

the mixed wood-pellet is 1080 C.

as a Potential Energy Crop for Semi-Arid Lands of Eastern Europe 289

The moisture content of the energy grass at harvest can highly influence the possibilities for storage, processing and utilization. Appropriate logistic and storage conditions can be provided by harvesting at the optimal time and the use of bales. In this manner the processing, chopping and direct energetic utilization of low moisture content of the baled fuel can be solved easily. High moisture content causes quality loss and negatively affects

The physical and some of the energetic characteristics of the listed fuel forms are different.

Energy grass (abs. dry condition)\* (Governing standards: MSZ EN 14961:2005) Unit Bale Chips/Chaff Pellet Carbon % 46.594 44.938 45.815 Hydrogen % 3.487 4.322 3.733 Nitrogen % 0.988 1.151 1.26 Sulphur % 0.214 0.258 0.234 Oxygen % 44.156 44.636 42.551 Chlorine % 0.211 0.115 0.385 Ash % 4.35 4.58 6.02 Density kg/dm3 0.110-0.140 - 1.114 – 1.225

index % - - 97.7

Value MJ/kg 17.983 17.597 17.645

Table 5. The physical and some of the energetic characteristics of the listed fuel assortment Data show that independently of its form the energy grass has high ash content. It is necessary to mention however that based on technological and laboratorial investigations we have found that the high ash content is mainly caused by external physical contaminants. This can be significantly reduced e.g. by training the operators in maintaining technological discipline and by using the appropriate harvest-, loading-, and storing processes of the raw material. The elemental compositions of the investigated fuels are also different from the ligneous fuels. Chlorine and sulphur content were investigated by CHNS analysis which shows several times higher values compared to premium quality fuels (according to standards). This factor must be considered for energetic utilization. Herbaceous fuels (such as the energy grass) have low ash melting point, which greatly restricts their energetic utilization. The results, which clearly show the change in amount of ash sample plotted against temperature for ligneous and herbaceous fuels, are summarized in Fig. 17. Based on the results of the measurements it can be stated that the ash melting point of the energy grass is 690 C, while the ash melting point of

\* values were determined based on the average of several measurements

*graminis*). Szarvasi-1 energy grass proved to be sensitive to mildew particularly on those sites where intensive growth of the plant occurred due to optimal nutrient and water availability. The mildew infection can cause severe damage on the leaf structure of the plant resulting in total devastation of whole patches. Proper chemical plant protection is needed to avoid significant biomass production loss. Infection of mildew was mediated by old hay bales deposited along the edge of energy grass fields, so the prompt collection and transportation of bales can contribute to lowering the chance of energy grass fields being reinfected. According to our results, chemical protection of energy grass fields must be taken into account similarly to that in the case of any other traditional agricultural crops.
