Hopp til hovedinnholdet

Publications

NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.

2012

To document

Abstract

Riverine inputs and direct discharges to Norwegian coastal waters in 2011 have been estimated in accordance with the requirements of the OSPAR Commission. Due to high water discharges in 2011, the riverine inputs of both nutrients and metals were greater than 2010. Analyses of data since 1990 from nine main rivers in the program revealed downward trends both for nutrients and metals, with an exception of upwards trends for nitrogen in one river. Fish farming continued to be a major source of nutrients and copper to coastal waters. Inputs of PCBs and the pesticide lindane were, as in previous years, insignificant.

To document

Abstract

Abstract Strict control of morphogenesis is essential in production of potted poinsettia. Commonly, this is obtained by the use of plant growth retardants (PGRs), often in combination with early morning temperature drops. Due to negative effects on human health and the environment, the use of PGRs is becoming restricted. Also, energy-saving growth regimes and periods of high temperatures limit effective use of temperature drops. In the present study the use of a high proportion of blue (B) light provided by light emitting diodes [LEDs, 20% blue (B), 80% red (R)] was compared with traditional high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps (5% B) providing similar phytochrome photostationary state to produce compact poinsettia plants. Both in the greenhouse and growth chamber, all cultivars were 20–34% shorter for LED compared to HPS grown plants. Also, leaf and bract area as well as chlorophyll content and total dry matter accumulation were lower under LED. The LED did not delay bract color formation, visible cyathia and flowering compared to HPS, and no difference in post production performance (cyathia/bract abscission or necrosis) between the two light treatments was found. The effect of end of day-red (EOD-R) lighting combination with LED and HPS supplemental lamps during the photoperiod in the greenhouse was also investigated. Reduced stem extension (13%) was observed under HPS only and for one of the two cultivars tested, whereas under the LED regime, there was no effect of EOD-R lighting.

Abstract

This report has been prepared in the frame of Work Package 3 (Policy) of the Interreg IVB project Bioenergy Promotion. The main rationale of this work package is to support the development of coherent national and (sub)regional policies promoting the sustainable production and consumption of bioenergy. The purpose of the country policy assessment report is to describe the main promotional policies and support schemes for bioenergy and to assess to what extent national policy frameworks contribute to Sustainable Development and integrate related sustainability principles and criteria. At present and in the foreseeable future, the main source of raw materials for bioenergy in Norway is likely to be the forests. However, waste from agriculture, households and industry is another promising source. Investment support needs to be continued, at least at present levels. The main bottlenecks for increased use of bioenergy in Norway are economic, so economic support is necessary. Further development of the standard for sustainable forestry is required, in order to take into account aspects that are not yet covered (see above under Point 3.5). However, there is currently disagreement between the parties to the Living Forests standard, so revision is not likely to take place soon. Current research is being carried out, for example in CenBio and the project “Ecological consequences of increased biomass removal from forests in Norway” on the effects of whole-tree harvesting compared to stem-only harvesting on soil nutrients, carbon stocks, ground vegetation and regeneration). In addition, work is being carried out to study the applicability under Norwegian conditions of the guidelines of other countries such as Sweden, Finland, the UK and Ireland and to prepare preliminary guidelines for Norwegian forestry. There is disagreement on the likely short-term effects of biomass harvesting for bioenergy on carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems (see above under 5.2) and this needs to be further studied. In their present form, the binding EU sustainability criteria for biofuels/bioliquids should not be extended to solid/gaseous biomass used for electricity and heating/cooling. Some changes are necessary to take account of specific conditions e.g. in forestry. For example, it is stated in Point 4 of Article 17 of the Renewable Energy Directive that biofuels and bioliquids shall not be obtained from land that was continuously forested in January 2008 and is no longer continuously forested. It is unclear how this would affect clear-cuts. Also, in Point C7 of Annex V, the 20-year period for calculating carbon stock changes is completely unrealistic for forestry (although this refers to land-use change and it could be argued that felling is not land-use change if the land is used for forest afterwards; this should be clarified). These aspects of the Renewable Energy Directive are already problematic if forest biomass is to be used for biofuels or bioliquids.