Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomass Quality Responses to Selection for Increased Biomass Yield in Perennial Energy Grasses

BioEnergy Research volume 16, pages 877–885 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Perennial grasses are candidates for biomass cropping systems that are focused on providing a wide range of ecosystem services in addition to sustainable bioenergy production. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) are two of the dominant grasses of the tallgrass prairie and both are candidates for development of multifunctional diverse production systems. Breeding programs for both species are aimed at increasing biomass yield as a mechanism of improving economic sustainability without increasing production costs. The objective of this study was to determine if long-term selection for increased biomass yield in these two species has had any adverse impacts on biomass quality, or the ability to convert biomass into bioenergy. Check cultivars and improved breeding populations of both species were evaluated for a wide range of biomass quality traits at 13 locations in the North Central and Northeastern USA, and a subset of these populations were also subjected to more intensive and detailed fermentation analyses. In general, lignin and ferulates either remained constant or decreased following selection for increased biomass yield in the various genetic pedigrees. These changes resulted in some increases in predicted ethanol production and in vitro digestibility. The prediction of increased digestibility was confirmed by higher glucose release by pretreatment and deconstruction of an advanced lowland population. However, bioreactor fermentations with two different biofuel-producing microbes showed no differences in ethanol production. Overall, these studies indicated that the improved switchgrass and big bluestem populations had greater biomass yields without significantly reducing biomass quality or conversion efficiency into ethanol, suggesting that selection can achieve increases in biomass productivity while maintaining consistent biomass quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Data Availability

Data and materials are available only by contacting the author.

References

  1. Blanch HW, Simmons BA, Klein-Marcuschamer D (2011) Biomass deconstruction to sugars. Biotech J 6:1086–1102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cammack KM, Austin KJ, Lamberson WR, Conant GC, Cunningham HC (2018) Tiny but mighty: the role of the rumen microbes in livestock production. J Anim Sci 96:752–770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cao Z, Dierks M, Clough MT, de Castro IBD, Rinaldi R (2018) A convergent approach for a deep converting lignin-first biorefinery rendering high-energy-density drop-in fuels. Joule 2:1118–1132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Capstaff NM, Miller AJ (2018) Improving the yield and nutritional quality of forage crops. Frontiers Plant Sci 9:535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Casler MD, Buxton DR, Vogel KP (2002) Genetic modification of lignin concentration affects fitness of perennial herbaceous plants. Theor Appl Genet 104:127–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Casler MD, Jung HG (2021) Agronomic fitness of three temperate forage grasses divergently selected for lignin concentration or ferulate cross-linking. Euphytica 217:149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-021-02873-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Casler MD, Lee DK, Mitchell RB, Adler PR, Sulc RM, Johnson KD, Kallenbach RL, Boe AR, Mathison RD, Cassida KA, Min DH, Moore KJ (2020) Nitrogen demand associated with increased biomass yield of switchgrass and big bluestem: implications for future breeding strategies. BioEnergy Res 13:120–131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Casler MD, Vogel KP (1999) Accomplishments and impact from breeding for increased forage nutritional value. Crop Sci 39:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Casler MD, Vogel KP, Lee DK, Mitchell RB, Adler PR, Sulc RM, Johnson KD, Kallenbach RL, Boe AR, Mathison RD, Cassida KA, Min DH, Crawford J, Moore KJ (2018) 30 Years of progress toward increasing biomass yield of switchgrass and big bluestem. Crop Sci 58:1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Englund O, Dimitriou I, Dale VH, Kline KL, Mola-Yudego B, Murphy F, English B, McGrath J, Busch G, Negri MC, Brown M, Goss K, Jackson S, Parish ES, Cacho J, Zumpf C, Quinn J, Mishra SK (2020) Multifunctional perennial production systems for bioenergy: performance and progress. WIREs Energy Enviro 9:e375. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garlock RJ, Balan V, Dale BE (2012) Optimization of AFEX™ pretreatment conditions and enzyme mixtures to maximize sugar release from upland and lowland switchgrass. Bioresource Technol 104:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.034

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hill GM, Gates RN, Burton GW (1993) Forage quality and grazing steer performance from Tifton 85 and Tifton 78 bermudagrass pastures. J Anim Sci 71:3219–3225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hill GM, Gates RN, West JW (2001) Advances in bermudagrass research involving new cultivars for beef and dairy production. J Anim Sci 79(E suppl):E48–E58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jahufer MZZ, Casler MD (2015) Application of the Smith-Hazel selection index for improving biomass yield and quality of switchgrass. Crop Sci 55:1212–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamra DN (2005) Rumen microbial ecosystem. Current Sci 89:124–135

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kan T, Strezov V, Evans TJ (2016) Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of product properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renew Sust Energy Reviews 57:1126–1140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Keating DH, Zhang Y, Ong IM, McIlwain S, Morales EH, Grass JA, Tremaine M, Bothfeld W, Higbee A, Ulbrich A, Balloon AJ, Westphall MS, Aldrich J, Lipton MS, Kim J, Moskvin OV, Bukhman YV, Coon JJ, Kiley PJ, Bates DM, Landick R (2014) Aromatic inhibitors derived from ammonia-pretreated lignocellulose hinder bacterial ethanologenesis by activating regulatory circuits controlling inhibitor efflux and detoxification. Front Microbiol 5:402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00402

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meehan TD, Gratton C, Diehl E, Hunt ND, Mooney DF, Ventura SJ, Barham BL, Jackson RD (2013) Ecosystem-service tradeoffs associated with switching from annual to perennial energy crops in riparian zones of the US Midwest. PLoS ONE 8(11):e80093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ong RG, Higbee A, Bottoms S, Dickinson Q, Xie D, Smith SA, Serate J, Pohlmann E, Jones AD, Coon JJ, Sato TK, Sanford GT, Eilert D, Oates LG, Piotrowski JS, Bates DM, Cavalier D, Zhang Y (2016) Inhibition of microbial biofuel production in drought-stressed switchgrass hydrolysate. Biotech Biofuels 9:237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0657-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Parreiras LS, Breuer RJ, Avanasi Narasimhan R, Higbee AJ, La Reau A et al (2014) Engineering and two-stage evolution of a lignocellulosic hydrolysate-tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain for anaerobic fermentation of xylose from AFEX pretreated corn stover. PLoS ONE 9(9):e107499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Perrin R, Vogel K, Schmer M, Mitchell R (2008) Farm-scale production cost of switchgrass for biomass. Bioenergy Res 1:91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Serate J, Xie D, Pohlmann E et al (2015) Controlling microbial contamination during hydrolysis of AFEX-pretreated corn stover and switchgrass: effects on hydrolysate composition, microbial response and fermentation. Biotechnol Biofuels 8:180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-015-0356-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Vogel KP, Dien BS, Jung HG, Casler MD, Masterson SD, Mitchell RB (2011) Quantifying actual and theoretical ethanol yields for switchgrass strains using NIRS analysis. Bioenergy Res 4:96–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vogel KP, Jung HG (2001) Genetic modification of herbaceous plants for feed and fuel. Crit Rev Plant Sci 20:15–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Weimer PJ, Hall MB (2020) The potential for biomimetic application of rumination to bioreactor design. Biomass Bioenergy 143:105822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105822

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Werling BP, Dickson TL, Isaacs R, Gaines H, Gratton C et al (2014) Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. PNAS 111:1652–1657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Woodfield DR, Easton HS (2004) Advances in pasture plant breeding for animal productivity and health. NZ Vet J 52:300–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2004.36446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang Y, Oates LG, Serate J, Xie D, Pohlmann E et al (2018) Diverse lignocellulosic feedstocks can achieve high field-scale ethanol yields while providing flexibility for the biorefinery and landscape-level environmental benefits. GCB Bioenergy 10:825–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted while the senior author was an employee of the USDA, U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, WI. We thank Anne Kinzel for her dedication, financial and personnel management, emotional support, and inspiration throughout the duration of the CenUSA project. We also thank Chris Kapp, Michigan State University, Chatham, MI; Roger Hintz, Iowa State University, Ames, IA; Danny England, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; John McCormick, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Joe Crawford, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL; Steve Masterson, USDA-ARS, Lincoln, NE; Matt Myers, USDA-ARS, University Park, PA; Nick Baker, USDA-ARS, Madison, WI; and Joe Halinar, USDA-ARS, Madison, WI for their expert assistance with planting, plot maintenance and management, data collection, and sample preparation throughout the course of this experiment. We also thank Jose Serate for the hydrolysate production and fermentation work; Edward Pohlmann and Dan Xie for the fermentation work; Mick McGee for the HPLC-RID analysis; Pete Donald for the AFEX pretreatment; Margie Kreuger for the compositional analysis; Gary Oates and Gregg Sanford for the feedstock processing; and Donna Bates, Chrislyn Particka, David Cavalier, and Eva Ziegelhoffer for the helpful discussions. We also acknowledge the contributions of Kenneth P. Vogel to this project, but he has declined the option of being a co-author due to his retirement from USDA. He was the original inspiration for the successful CenUSA CAP grant from USDA-NIFA.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011–68005-30411 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (CenUSA). This material is also based upon work supported in part by the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research under Award Numbers DE-SC0018409 and DE-FC02-07ER64494.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Dr, Madison, WI, 53706-1514, USA

    Michael D. Casler

  2. Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    DoKyoung Lee

  3. USDA-ARSSorghum, and Forage Research UnitUniversity of Nebraska, 251 Filey Hall, WheatLincoln, NE, 88583-0937, USA

    Robert B. Mitchell

  4. Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Kenneth J. Moore

  5. Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit, USDA-ARS, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Paul R. Adler

  6. Horticulture and Crop Science Department, The Ohio State University, Kottman Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    R. Mark Sulc

  7. Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Keith D. Johnson

  8. Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Robert L. Kallenbach

  9. Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Agricultural Hall, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    Arvid R. Boe

  10. North Central Research & Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744, USA

    Russell D. Mathison

  11. Department of Plant Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Kim A. Cassida

  12. Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    Doohong Min

  13. DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Yaoping Zhang & Trey K. Sato

  14. Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA

    Rebecca G. Ong

Authors
  1. Michael D. Casler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. DoKyoung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert B. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kenneth J. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul R. Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Mark Sulc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Keith D. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robert L. Kallenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Arvid R. Boe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Russell D. Mathison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kim A. Cassida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Doohong Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yaoping Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Rebecca G. Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Trey K. Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M. D. C. designed the field experiments, conducted experiments at the Wisconsin locations, conducted all statistical data analyses, and wrote most of the manuscript. Y. Z., R. G. O., and T. K. S. designed and conducted the pretreatment and deconstruction of the switchgrass samples, and the fermentation experiments, as well as assisted with writing the manuscript. All other authors conducted the field experiment at one of the 13 locations and provided data in support of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Casler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

There are no ethical issues associated with this manuscript.

Consent for Publication

All authors have approval to publish from their employers or organizations.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Casler, M.D., Lee, D., Mitchell, R.B. et al. Biomass Quality Responses to Selection for Increased Biomass Yield in Perennial Energy Grasses. Bioenerg. Res. 16, 877–885 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-022-10513-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-022-10513-2

Keywords

  • Panicum virgatum L.
  • Andropogon gerardii Vitman
  • Breeding
  • Genetics
  • Digestibility
  • Ethanol
  • Biofuels
  • Bioenergy

Search

Navigation