Yield potential and stand establishment for 20 candidate bioenergy feedstocks |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, 435 Old Glade Road, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA;2. Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA;3. Mendel BioEnergy Seeds, Mendel Biotechnology Inc., 3935 Point Eden Way, Hayward, CA 94545, USA;1. Bioconversion Technology Division, Sardar Patel Renewable Energy Research Institute, Vallabh Vidyanagar, India;2. Post-Graduate Department of Biosciences, UGC-Centre of Advanced Study, Satellite Campus, Sardar Patel University, Anand, India;1. Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, RM, Italy;2. Department of BioScience and Territory, University of Molise, Contrada Fonte Lappone, 86090 Pesche, IS, Italy;1. Department of Environment & Life Sciences, Sherubtse College, Royal University of Bhutan, Kanglung, Bhutan;2. Department of Biotechnology, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj, India;3. Center for the Environment, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India;1. Department of Sustainable Crop Production, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, via Emilia Parmense 84, Piacenza 29122, Italy;2. Soil and Water Conservation Research Group, Spanish National Research Council, Murcia, Spain;3. Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, via Emilia Parmense 84, Piacenza 29122, Italy;1. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Lubicz 46, 31–512 Kraków, Poland;2. Institute of Botany, Faculty of Biology, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 3, 30–387 Kraków, Poland |
| |
| Abstract: | Here we assess 20 bioenergy crop accessions across 10 species, and examine the influence of weed management and annual harvest treatments over three growing seasons in Virginia and one season in Kentucky. Species in this study include: Andropogon gerardii, Arundo donax, Miscanthus × giganteus (sterile triploid and seeded tetraploid), Miscanthus sinensis (ornamental and naturalized), Miscanthus sacchariflorus, Panicum virgatum, Phalaris arundinacea, Saccharum sp., Sorghum bicolor and the unconventional choice of Sorghum halepense. There was a large difference in yield between locations at the end of the planting year, with all accessions producing equivalent or greater biomass in Kentucky. Weed management did not impact yield in the establishment year, as biomass was predictably low. After the third growing season, only A. gerardii and two accessions of naturalized M. sinensis had noticeable reductions in yield due to competition from weeds. After three growing seasons, we obtained the highest yields from M. × giganteus (63, 51 and 39 Mg ha?1 for ‘Illinois’, ‘PowerCane’ and ‘Nagara’ varieties, respectively), naturalized accessions of M. sinensis (54 Mg ha?1), and A. donax (39 Mg ha?1), using traditional cropping practices. Few accessions had low establishment rates limiting overall yields (<10 Mg ha?1); however, when aboveground biomass was calculated on an individual plant basis, yields were comparable to high yielding species, encouraging further examination at higher population densities. Our results indicate that site characteristics such as soil parameters and water availability may be more important for yield than weed competition, especially over time. |
| |
| Keywords: | Bioenergy Biomass Establishment Weed management Yield |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
