Advertisement

Multi-year and Multi-site Establishment of the Perennial Biomass Crop Miscanthus × giganteus Using a Staggered Start Design to Elucidate N Response

  • Mauricio Tejera
  • Nicholas Boersma
  • Andy Vanloocke
  • Sotirios Archontoulis
  • Philip Dixon
  • Fernando Miguez
  • Emily HeatonEmail author
Article
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

Much field research on perennial bioenergy crops confounds effects of plant age with those of the growing season, which increases uncertainty and the potential for erroneous conclusions, particularly in maturing stands. Most studies rely on stands planted in a single year and measured across multiple subsequent seasons. These “single-start” designs lack statistical power to separate temporal from environment effects. We used a staggered start experimental design to learn if increased statistical power clarified understanding of Miscanthus × giganteus nitrogen (N) needs. We conducted a staggered start experiment with three planting years and five N rates during the M. × giganteus yield-building phase at three sites across IA, USA. Third-year yields were 21.0, 25.0, and 27.1 Mg dry matter (DM) ha−1 at the northwest (NW), central, and southeast (SE) sites, respectively. Nitrogen fertilization effects changed with establishment conditions, but not with plant age. At the most N responsive site, N fertilizer changed yields at all stand ages, but not in every year. Yield increases of 150%, 36%, and 40% were observed in 1-, 2-, and 3-year-old stands, respectively, with N addition. Nitrogen effects on 1-year-old stands were positive in SE IA (2.7 kg DM kg−1 N added), negative (− 2.3 kg DM kg−1 N) in NW IA, and variable in central IA (− 2.2–9.6 kg DM kg−1 N), suggesting a site–year-specific response. Yield increases between the first and second years varied by > 100% depending on establishment conditions, highlighting the need for repeated planting before determining economic and agronomic crop viability.

Keywords

Bioenergy Perennial grasses Staggered start Replicated planting year Age effect Experimental design Environmental effect 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Cathi Hunt, Valeria Cano-Camacho, and Collin De Graff for their help on designing the experiment, data collection, and processing; Lyle Rossiter, Mike Fiscus, Myron Rees, and general staff at the research farms for their support with on-farm management and data collection.

Funding Information

This project was funded by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch grant 1008969; the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture; the Iowa Energy Center; the Iowa State University Department of Agronomy; and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research DE-SC0018420.

Supplementary material

12155_2019_9985_MOESM1_ESM.docx (146 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 141 kb)
12155_2019_9985_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (112 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 111 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Whitaker J, Field JL, Bernacchi CJ, Cerri CEP, Ceulemans R, Davies CA, DeLucia EH, Donnison IS, McCalmont JP, Paustian K, Rowe RL, Smith P, Thornley P, McNamara NP (2018) Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy 10:150–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loughin TM, Roediger MP, Milliken GA, Schmidt JP (2007) On the analysis of long-term experiments. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics Soc) 170:29–42.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00435.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Piepho HP, Eckl T (2014) Analysis of series of variety trials with perennial crops. Grass Forage Sci 69:431–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casler MD (1999) Repeated measures vs. repeated plantings in perennial forage grass trials: an empirical analysis of precision and accuracy. Euphytica 105:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003476313826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loughin TM (2006) Improved experimental design and analysis for long-term experiments. Crop Sci 46:2492–2502.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.04.0271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groves AM, Brudvig LA (2018) Interannual variation in precipitation and other planting conditions impacts seedling establishment in sown plant communities. Restor Ecol 27:128–137. 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacDougall AS, Wilson SD, Bakker JD (2008) Climatic variability alters the outcome of long-term community assembly. J Ecol 96:346–354.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01333.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stuble KL, Fick SE, Young TP (2017) Every restoration is unique: testing year effects and site effects as drivers of initial restoration trajectories. J Appl Ecol 54:1051–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arnoult S, Mansard MC, Brancourt-Hulmel M (2015) Early prediction of Miscanthus biomass production and composition based on the first six years of cultivation. Crop Sci 55:1104–1116.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2014.07.0493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexopoulou E, Zanetti F, Scordia D, Zegada-Lizarazu W, Christou M, Testa G, Cosentino SL, Monti A (2015) Long-term yields of switchgrass, giant reed, and Miscanthus in the Mediterranean Basin. Bioenergy Res 8:1492–1499.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9687-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arundale RA, Dohleman FG, Heaton EA, Mcgrath JM, Voigt TB, Long SP (2014) Yields of Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum decline with stand age in the Midwestern USA. GCB Bioenergy 6:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramburan S, Wettergreen T, Berry SD, Shongwe B (2013) Genetic, environmental and management contributions to ratoon decline in sugarcane. F Crop Res 146:105–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jungers JM, Clark AT, Betts K, Mangan ME, Sheaffer CC, Wyse DL (2015) Long-term biomass yield and species composition in native perennial bioenergy cropping systems. Agron J 107:1627–1640.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olff H, Bakker JP (1991) Long-term dynamics of standing crop and species composition after the cessation of fertilizer application to mown grassland. J Appl Ecol 28:1040.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2404224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radrizzani A, Dalzell SA, Kravchuk O, Shelton HM (2010) A grazier survey of the long-term productivity of leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala)-grass pastures in Queensland. Anim Prod Sci 50:105–113.  https://doi.org/10.1071/AN09040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH (1997) Age-related decline in forest productivity: pattern and processGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH, Giardina CP, Senock RS (2004) An experimental test of the causes of forest growth decline with stand age. Ecol Monogr 74:393–414.  https://doi.org/10.1890/03-4037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witzel CP, Finger R (2016) Economic evaluation of Miscanthus production - a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 53:681–696.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Conaghan P, Casler MD, McGilloway DA et al (2008) Genotype x environment interactions for herbage yield of perennial ryegrass sward plots in Ireland. Grass Forage Sci 63:107–120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.2007.00618.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sripathi R, Conaghan P, Grogan D, Casler MD (2018) Modeling genotype × environment correlation structures in long-term multilocation forage yield trials. 11:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2017.05.0292
  21. 21.
    Vaughn KJ, Young TP (2010) Contingent conclusions: year of initiation influences ecological field experiments, but temporal replication is rare. Restor Ecol 18:59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00714.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arnoult S, Brancourt-Hulmel M (2015) A review on Miscanthus biomass production and composition for bioenergy use: genotypic and environmental variability and implications for breeding. Bioenergy Res 8:502–526.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9524-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Christian DG, Riche AB, Yates NE (2008) Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests. Ind Crop Prod 28:320–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clifton-Brown JC, Breuer J, Jones MB (2007) Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Glob Chang Biol 13:2296–2307.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01438.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heaton EA, Dohleman FG, Long SP (2008) Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Glob Chang Biol 14:2000–2014.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01662.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miguez FE, Villamil MB, Long SP, Bollero GA (2008) Meta-analysis of the effects of management factors on Miscanthus × giganteus growth and biomass production. Agric For Meteorol 148:1280–1292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    LeBauer D, Kooper R, Mulrooney P, Rohde S, Wang D, Long SP, Dietze MC (2017) Betydb: a yield, trait, and ecosystem service database applied to second-generation bioenergy feedstock production. GCB Bioenergy 10:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12420 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boehmel C, Lewandowski I, Claupein W (2008) Comparing annual and perennial energy cropping systems with different management intensities. Agric Syst 96:224–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arundale RA, Dohleman FG, Voigt TB, Long SP (2014) Nitrogen fertilization does significantly increase yields of stands of Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum in multiyear trials in Illinois. Bioenergy Res 7:408–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9385-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shield IF, Barraclough TJP, Riche AB, Yates NE (2014) The yield and quality response of the energy grass Miscanthus × giganteus to fertiliser applications of nitrogen, potassium and sulphur. Biomass Bioenergy 68:185–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Christian DG, Riche AB, Yates NE (2008) Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests. Ind Crop Prod 28:320–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davis MP, David MB, Voigt TB, Mitchell CA (2015) Effect of nitrogen addition on Miscanthus × giganteus yield, nitrogen losses, and soil organic matter across five sites. GCB Bioenergy 7:1222–1231.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haines SA, Gehl RJ, Havlin JL, Ranney TG (2015) Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer effects on establishment of giant Miscanthus. Bioenergy Res 8:17–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9499-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Głowacka K, Clark LV, Adhikari S, Peng J, Stewart JR, Nishiwaki A, Yamada T, Jørgensen U, Hodkinson TR, Gifford J, Juvik JA, Sacks EJ (2015) Genetic variation in Miscanthus × giganteus and the importance of estimating genetic distance thresholds for differentiating clones. GCB Bioenergy 7:386–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iowa Environmental Mesonet (2001) Iowa Ag. Climate Network. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/agclimate. Accessed 8 Mar 2018
  36. 36.
    Kaiser CM, Sacks EJ (2015) Cold-tolerance of Miscanthus seedlings and effects of spring and autumn frosts on mature clonally replicated cultivars. Crop Sci 55:2401–2415.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2014.10.0679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Farrell AD, Clifton-Brown JC, Lewandowski I, Jones MB (2006) Genotypic variation in cold tolerance influences the yield of Miscanthus. Ann Appl Biol 149:337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2006.00099.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tejera MD, Heaton EA (2019) Miscanthus x giganteus yield in a REpeated PLAnting Year (REPLAY) experiment across three sites in Iowa, USA. Mendeley Data v2.  https://doi.org/10.17632/zff2yzfmx9.2
  39. 39.
    R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. 67:.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  41. 41.
    Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, Second. Sage, Thousan Oaks CAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lenth R, Singmann H, Love J, et al (2018) emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares meansGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Segura V, Cilas C, Costes E (2008) Dissecting apple tree architecture into genetic, ontogenetic and environmental effects: mixed linear modelling of repeated spatial and temporal measures. New Phytol 178:302–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02374.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yost MA, Randall BK, Kitchen NR, Heaton EA, Myers RL (2017) Yield potential and nitrogen requirements of Miscanthus × giganteus on eroded soil. Agron J 109:684–695.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.10.0582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schwarz H, Liebhard P, Ehrendorfer K, Ruckenbauer P (1994) The effect of fertilization on yield and quality of Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’. Ind Crop Prod 2:153–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6690(94)90031-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stolarski MJ, Krzyżaniak M, Warmiński K, Tworkowski J, Szczukowski S (2017) Perennial herbaceous crops as a feedstock for energy and industrial purposes: organic and mineral fertilizers versus biomass yield and efficient nitrogen utilization. Ind Crop Prod 107:244–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.05.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Strullu L, Cadoux S, Preudhomme M, Jeuffroy MH, Beaudoin N (2011) Biomass production and nitrogen accumulation and remobilisation by Miscanthus × giganteus as influenced by nitrogen stocks in belowground organs. F Crop Res 121:381–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Terravesta (2018) Growing Miscanthus. https://www.terravesta.com/miscanthus/#growing. Accessed 9 Dec 2018
  49. 49.
    McCalmont JP, Hastings A, McNamara NP et al (2017) Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. GCB Bioenergy 9:489–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Palmer IE, Gehl RJ, Ranney TG, Touchell D, George N (2014) Biomass yield, nitrogen response, and nutrient uptake of perennial bioenergy grasses in North Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 63:218–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Angelini LG, Ceccarini L, Nassi o Di Nasso N, Bonari E (2009) Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus x giganteus in a long-term field experiment in Central Italy: analysis of productive characteristics and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 33:635–643.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wang Z, Jot Smyth T, Crozier CR, Gehl RJ, Heitman AJ (2018) Yield and nitrogen removal of bioenergy grasses as influenced by nitrogen rate and harvest management in the Coastal Plain Region of North Carolina. BioEnergy Res 11:44–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9876-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Larsen SU, Jørgensen U, Kjeldsen JB, Lærke PE (2014) Long-term Miscanthus yields influenced by location, genotype, row distance, fertilization and harvest season. Bioenergy Res 7:620–635.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9389-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Langholtz MH, Stokes BJ, Eaton LM (2016) 2016 billion-ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy. I:  https://doi.org/10.2172/1271651
  55. 55.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Biofuels and the environment: second triennial report to congress. 203. EPA/600/R-10/183FGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hastings A (2017) Economic and environmental assessment of seed and rhizome propagated Miscanthus in the UK. Front Plant Sci 8:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Simons RG, Gross ATH (1985) Growth of four grass species as affected by rate of nitrogen application and year of establishment on two soil types. Can J Plant Sci 65:581–588.  https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps85-080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wilson SD (2015) Managing contingency in semiarid grassland restoration through repeated planting. Restor Ecol 23:385–392.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Puntel LA, Sawyer JE, Barker DW, Thorburn PJ, Castellano MJ, Moore KJ, VanLoocke A, Heaton EA, Archontoulis SV (2018) A systems modeling approach to forecast corn economic optimum nitrogen rate. Front Plant Sci 9:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Martinez-Feria RA, Castellano MJ, Dietzel RN, Helmers MJ, Liebman M, Huber I, Archontoulis SV (2018) Linking crop- and soil-based approaches to evaluate system nitrogen-use efficiency and tradeoffs. Agric Ecosyst Environ 256:131–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hastings A, Clifton-Brown J, Wattenbach M et al (2009) The development of MISCANFOR, a new Miscanthus crop growth model: towards more robust yield predictions under different climatic and soil conditions. Glob Chang Biol - Bioenergy 1:154–170.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01007.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu Y, Liu S (2012) Impacts of biofuels production alternatives on water quantity and quality in the Iowa River Basin. Biomass Bioenergy 36:182–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    VanLoocke A, Twine TE, Kucharik CJ, Bernacchi CJ (2017) Assessing the potential to decrease the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone with Midwest US perennial cellulosic feedstock production. GCB Bioenergy 9:858–875.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Trybula EM, Cibin R, Burks JL, Chaubey I, Brouder SM, Volenec JJ (2015) Perennial rhizomatous grasses as bioenergy feedstock in SWAT: parameter development and model improvement. GCB Bioenergy 7:1185–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jain AK, Khanna M, Matthew E, Huang H (2010) An integrated biogeochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States. GCB Bioenergy 2:217–234.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01041.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Miguez FE, Zhu X, Humphries S et al (2009) A semimechanistic model predicting the growth and production of the bioenergy crop Miscanthus × giganteus: description, parameterization and validation. GCB Bioenergy 1:282–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01019.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Vanloocke A, Bernacchi CJ, Twine TE (2010) The impacts of Miscanthus × giganteus production on the Midwest US hydrologic cycle. GCB Bioenergy no-no.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01053.x

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauricio Tejera
    • 1
  • Nicholas Boersma
    • 1
  • Andy Vanloocke
    • 1
  • Sotirios Archontoulis
    • 1
  • Philip Dixon
    • 2
  • Fernando Miguez
    • 1
  • Emily Heaton
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of AgronomyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations