Agronomy and Horticulture Department

 

Authors

DoKyoung Lee, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignFollow
Ezra Aberle, North Dakota State UniversityFollow
Eric K. Anderson, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignFollow
William Anderson, USDA-ARSFollow
Brian S. Baldwin, Mississippi State UniversityFollow
David Baltensperger, Texas A&M UniversityFollow
Michael Barrett, University of KentuckyFollow
Jurg Blumenthal, Texas A&M University
Stacy Bonos, Rutgers UniversityFollow
Joe Bouton, University of GeorgiaFollow
David I. Bransby, Auburn UniversityFollow
Charlie Brummer, University of GeorgiaFollow
Pane S. Burks, Chromatin, Inc.
Chengci Chen, Montana State University
Christopher Daly, Oregon State University
Jose Egenolf, University of Georgia
Rodney L. Farris, Oklahoma State University
John H. Fike, Virginia Tech
Roch E. Gaussoin, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
John R. Gill, AgriReliant Genetics
Kenneth Gravois, Louisiana State University Sugar Research Station
Michael D. Halbleib, Oregon State University
Anna Hale, USDA-ARS
Wayne Hanna, University of Georgia
Keith Harmoney, Kansas State University
Emily A. Heaton, Iowa State University
Ron W. Heiniger, North Carolina State University
Lindsey Hoffman, Rutgers University
Chang O. Hong, Pusan National University
Gopal Kakani, Oklahoma State University
Robert Kallenbach, University of Missouri
Bisoondat Macoon, Mississippi State University
James C. Medley, Texas A&M Agri- Life
Ali Missaoui, University of Georgia
Robert B. Mitchell, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Ken J. Moore, Iowa State University
Jesse I. Morrison, Mississippi State University
Gary N. Odvody, Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center
Jonathan D. Richwine, Mississippi State University
Richard Ogoshi, University of Hawaii
Jimmy Ray Parrish, Mississippi State University
Lauren Quinn, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Ed Richard, USDA-ARS
William L. Rooney, Texas A&M University
J. Brett Rushing, Mississippi State University
Ronnie Schnell, Texas A&M University
Matt Sousek, University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Scott A. Staggenborg, Chromatin, Inc.
Thomas Tew, USDA-ARS
Goro Uehara, University of Hawaii
Donald R. Viands, Cornell University
Thomas Voigt, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
David Williams, University of Kentucky
Linda Williams, University of Kentucky
Lloyd Ted Wilson, Texas A&M Agri- Life
Andrew Wycislo, Waypoint Analytical
Yubin Yang, Texas A&M Agri- Life
Vance Owens, South Dakota State UniversityFollow

Date of this Version

2018

Citation

Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2018), doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12493.

Comments

© 2018 The Authors. Global Change Biology Bioenergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.

Abstract

Current knowledge of yield potential and best agronomic management practices for perennial bioenergy grasses is primarily derived from small-scale and short-term studies, yet these studies inform policy at the national scale. In an effort to learn more about how bioenergy grasses perform across multiple locations and years, the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE)/Sun Grant Initiative Regional Feedstock Partnership was initiated in 2008. The objectives of the Feedstock Partnership were to (1) provide a wide range of information for feedstock selection (species choice) and management practice options for a variety of regions and (2) develop national maps of potential feedstock yield for each of the herbaceous species evaluated. The Feedstock Partnership expands our previous understanding of the bioenergy potential of switchgrass, Miscanthus, sorghum, energycane, and prairie mixtures on Conservation Reserve Program land by conducting long-term, replicated trials of each species at diverse environments in the U.S. Trials were initiated between 2008 and 2010 and completed between 2012 and 2015 depending on species. Field-scale plots were utilized for switchgrass and Conservation Reserve Program trials to use traditional agricultural machinery. This is important as we know that the smaller scale studies often overestimated yield potential of some of these species. Insufficient vegetative propagules of energycane and Miscanthus prohibited farm-scale trials of these species. The Feedstock Partnership studies also confirmed that environmental differences across years and across sites had a large impact on biomass production. Nitrogen application had variable effects across feedstocks, but some nitrogen fertilizer generally had a positive effect. National yield potential maps were developed using PRISM-ELM for each species in the Feedstock Partnership. This manuscript, with the accompanying supplemental data, will be useful in making decisions about feedstock selection as well as agronomic practices across a wide region of the country.

Share

COinS