4.6 Article

Miscanthus giganteus productivity: the effects of management in different environments

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 253-265

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01144.x

关键词

bioenergy; biomass feedstock; biomass yield; environment effect; Miscanthus; N fertilization; plant growth

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Miscanthus x giganteus is a C4 perennial grass that shows great potential as a high-yielding biomass crop. Scant research has been published that reports M. x giganteus growth and biomass yields in different environments in the United States. This study investigated the establishment success, plant growth, and dry biomass yield of M. x giganteus during its first three seasons at four locations (Urbana, IL; Lexington, KY; Mead, NE; Adelphia, NJ) in the United States. Three nitrogen rates (0, 60, and 120 kg ha-1) were applied at each location each year. Good survival of M. x giganteus during its first winter was observed at KY, NE, and NJ (79100%), and poor survival at IL (25%), due to late planting and cold winter temperatures. Site soil conditions, and growing-season precipitation and temperature had the greatest impact on dry biomass yield between season 2 (2009) and season 3 (2010). Ideal 2010 weather conditions at NE resulted in significant yield increases (P < 0.0001) of 15.627.4 Mg ha-1 from 2009 to 2010. Small yield increases in KY of 17.1 Mg ha-1 in 2009 to 19.0 Mg ha-1 in 2010 could be attributed to excessive spring rain and hot dry conditions late in the growing season. Average M. xgiganteus biomass yields in NJ decreased from 16.9 to 9.7 Mg ha-1 between 2009 and 2010 and were related to hot dry weather, and poor soil conditions. Season 3 yields were positively correlated with end-of-season plant height ((rho)over-cap=0.91) and tiller density ((rho)over-cap=0.76). Nitrogen fertilization had no significant effect on plant height, tiller density, or dry biomass yield at any of the sites during 2009 or 2010.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据