4.5 Article

Intermediate Wheatgrass Grain and Forage Yield Responses to Nitrogen Fertilization

Journal

AGRONOMY JOURNAL
Volume 109, Issue 2, Pages 462-472

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2016.07.0438

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Institute for Renewable Energy and the Environment
  2. University of Minnesota [RL-0015-12]
  3. Perennial Agriculture Project
  4. Minnesota Institute of Sustainable Agriculture Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Perennial crops have fewer environmental impacts compared to annual crops, but there are no perennial grains available to replace the annual grains that occupy a majority of U. S. cropland. Here we report grain and biomass yields from an improved breeding population of intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) [Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Buckworth & Dewey], a perennial grass being domesticated to serve as the first widely grown perennial grain crop. Our objective was to measure grain and biomass yields of this improved grain- type IWG (TLI-C2), a forage variety of IWG (cultivar Rush), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) in response to N fertilization rates ranging from 0 to 200 kg N ha(-1). TLI-C2 grain yields responded quadratically to increasing N rates in all but one environment, but yields declined at high N rates due to lodging. TLI-C2 grain yields were highest during the first year of fertilization, yielding 961 and 893 kg ha(-1) when fertilized at agronomically optimum nitrogen rates (AONRs) of 61 and 96 kg N ha(-1) for stands seeded in fall of 2011 and spring of 2012, respectively. Grain yields declined with stand age. When fertilized with AONRs for grain, biomass yields of TLI-C2 harvested aft er grain ranged from 9.2 to 12.3 Mg ha(-1) and had similar forage and bioenergy quality characteristics compared to Rush, which demonstrates the potential to manage TLI-C2 as a dual-use cropping system for both grain and forage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available