Distribution of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) aboveground biomass in response to nitrogen addition and across harvest dates

被引:12
作者
Miesel, Jessica R. [1 ]
Jach-Smith, Laura C. [1 ]
Renz, Mark J. [1 ]
Jackson, Randall D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Dept Forestry, 480 Wilson Rd,Room 126, E Lansing, MI 48823 USA
关键词
Bioenergy crop; Sustainability; Reconstructed grassland; Crop residue; Wisconsin; BIOENERGY FEEDSTOCK PRODUCTION; MISCANTHUS X GIGANTEUS; SOIL CARBON; QUALITY; YIELD; MANAGEMENT; FERTILIZER; DYNAMICS; BIOFUELS; LAND;
D O I
10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.03.012
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Decisions about the harvest timing for switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) crops has important implications for economic and environmental objectives because there may be a significant trade-off between harvestable yield, bioenergy crop quality, and environmental cost or benefit. We investigated the effects of harvest timing and nitrogen (N) addition on switchgrass crops established in Wisconsin, USA to investigate the causes of biomass loss over time and to identify plant components that contribute to N loss or retention at each harvest date. We found that harvestable yield decreased over successive harvest dates, as a result of the physical loss of leaves and inflorescence biomass. Although N addition increased total aboveground biomass, it also increased the proportion of biomass occurring as leaves and infloresence. Leaf and infloresence biomass decreased over time and during harvest operations; however, this biomass became incorporated into the litter pool and increased on-site N retention. We conclude that although adding N to switchgrass is unlikely to increase harvestable yield when harvests are conducted after plant senescence, retention of high-N plant components will help maintain long-term site productivity and ecosystem function of bioenergy cropping systems, especially for sites targeted for low-input management. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:74 / 83
页数:10
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]   Biomass yield and biofuel quality of switchgrass harvested in fall or spring [J].
Adler, Paul R. ;
Sanderson, Matt A. ;
Boateng, Akwasi A. ;
Weimer, Paul J. ;
Jung, Hans-Joachim G. .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 2006, 98 (06) :1518-1525
[2]  
Aerts R., 2000, The Mineral Nutrition of Wild Plants Revisited: A Re-evaluation of Processes and Patterns
[3]   Nitrogen fertility and harvest management of switchgrass for sustainable bioenergy feedstock production in Illinois [J].
Anderson, Eric K. ;
Parrish, Allen S. ;
Voigt, Thomas B. ;
Owens, Vance N. ;
Hong, Chang-Ho ;
Lee, D. K. .
INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS, 2013, 48 :19-27
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2011, US BILL TON UPD BIOM
[5]   AGRONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BIOFUELS [J].
Bonin, Catherine ;
Lal, Rattan .
ADVANCES IN AGRONOMY, VOL 117, 2012, 117 :1-50
[6]   Lignocellulosic feedstocks: research progress and challenges in optimizing biomass quality and yield [J].
Bosch, Maurice ;
Hazen, Samuel P. .
FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE, 2013, 4
[7]   A review of carbon and nitrogen balances in switchgrass grown for energy [J].
Bransby, DI ;
McLaughlin, SB ;
Parrish, DJ .
BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 1998, 14 (04) :379-384
[8]   Changes in Mean and Genetic Variance During Two Cycles of Within- family Selection in Switchgrass [J].
Casler, Michael D. .
BIOENERGY RESEARCH, 2010, 3 (01) :47-54
[9]   Policy incentives for switchgrass production using valuation of non-market ecosystem services [J].
Chamberlain, Jim F. ;
Miller, Shelie A. .
ENERGY POLICY, 2012, 48 :526-536
[10]   INTERNAL CYCLING OF N-15 IN SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE [J].
CLARK, FE .
ECOLOGY, 1977, 58 (06) :1322-1333