Ecological Impacts of Miscanthus x giganteus Production

Transcription

Ecological Impacts of Miscanthus x
giganteus Production
Tom Voigt
Department of Crop Sciences, University of
Illinois
Friday, December 14, 12
Outline
• Miscanthus x giganteus briefly.
• M. x giganteus/Switchgrass Sideby-Side Studies.
• Sun Grant/DOE M. x giganteus
Nitrogen Fertility Studies.
• EBI Studies
• Invasiveness Studies
Miscanthus x giganteus Briefly
• Rhizomatous, warm-season perennial.
• Sterile triploid 3X (M sinensis [2X] x M.
•
•
•
•
•
sacchariflorus [4X]) hybrid propagated asexually.
Photosynthesis occurs at temperatures as low as
54ºF.
Few known commercial pests or diseases
Low input, low maintenance
Appears to require cold weather for senescence.
Has survived -20°F air temperatures in central
Illinois.
M. x giganteus
at UIUC
Eastern US/Canada Side-by-Side Trials
Map: www.ﬁrstresearch.com
Eastern US/Canada Side-by-Side Trial Characteristics
Site
Latitude
(N)
Longitude (W)
Soil
Mean
Annual Mean Annual
Temp (°C) Precip. (cm)
IL
40.06
-88.19
silt loam
10.8
104.3
KY
38.12
-84.49
silt loams
12.9
116.6
LA
30.41
-91.10
silt
19.4
160.2
MI
42.39
-85.37
loam
8.9
89.3
MS
33.42
-88.79
16.8
140.8
NJ
40.46
-74.42
fine sandy loam
loam & sandy loam
complex
11.4
123.9
OK
35.99
-97.04
fine sandy loam
15.2
93.2
ON
43.64,
-80.41
clay loam
6.3
93.9
-96.79
silty clay loam and
silt loam complex
6.2
57.9
SD
44.36
6
Yield Over 2010 and 2011 Varied By Location
**
**
Species: p<0.0192
Loca;on: p<0.001
Species × Loca;on: p<0.001
**
**
**
n/a
2012 Arundale U. of I. Ph.D. Dissertation
7
Sun Grant/DOE Collaborative Sites
DOE
Sun Grant/DOE Sites
• 12-10 m x 10 m plots with
•
•
Plot Layout
•
100 plants on 1-m spacing.
4 reps.
Annual N fertility treatments
(0, 60, 120 kg N ha-1) using
urea.
Plants in IL, KY, NE, and NJ
planted in 2008 (75% IL
replanted in 2009); VA
planted in 2010.
Sun Grant/DOE Site Characteristics
Site
Latitude Longitude
(N)
(W)
Soil
silt loam &
silty clay
-88.19
loam
U. of IL
40.06
U. of KY
U. of NE
Rutgers
U.
38.12
41.17
-84.50
-96.46
40.22
-74.24
silt loams
silt loam
sandy
loam
-79.39
sandy
loam
VA Tech
36.93
Mean
Annual
Temp
(°C)
Mean
Annual
Precip.
(cm)
10.8
104.3
12.9
9.8
116.6
70.4
11.4
118.8
12.8
115.1
10
2009 – 2011 Biomass Yields
2009 Yield
Location
2010 Yield
(Dry Mg ha-1) (Dry Mg ha-1)
2011 Yield
(Dry Mg
15.6
27.4
-1
ha
31.2)
3.0
15.6
20.6
Kentucky
17.1
19.0
19.0
New Jersey
16.9
9.7
18.6
-
-
9.4
Nebraska
Illinois
Virginia
2010 IL Sustainability Results
• N2O and CO2 greenhouse gas flux
• Nitrate and ammonium leaching
• N in harvested biomass
Sun Grant/DOE - Illinois CO2 Results
Cumulative CO2 flux during 2009 and 2010
Cumulative CO2
Year
Treatment (kg N ha-1)
Flux (Mg-C ha-1)†
2009
0
8.62 ND
60
9.11
120
8.62
0
8.90 ND
60
9.16
120
8.96
2010
† Cumulative fluxes were calculated from measured fluxes corrected for temperature variations using
a Q10 = 2.
ND, means no difference among treatments within a given year (α = 0.05)
DOE - Illinois Yield and Biomass Data
Year
Treatment
(kg N ha-1)
Yield
(Mg ha-1)
2009
0
1.1 (0.7)ND
60
4.1 (3.7)
120
4.0 (2.2)
0
14.9 (2.9)ND
44.9 (9.0)**
60
15.8 (1.8)
53.5 (5.3)
120
17.0 (1.4)
66.6 (1.3)
2010
Biomass N
(kg ha-1)
ND, means no difference among treatments within a given year (α = 0.05)
** Treatments are different within a given year (α = 0.01)
IL Sustainability Conclusions
• 2009 biomass yields were low due to replanting
previous crop failure; there were no differences
in N in harvested biomass, N2O flux, and
increased NO3- leaching.
• In 2010, N fertilizer applications did not
increase biomass yields, but the 120 kg N ha-1
application did increase the amount of N removed
at harvest, increased the N2O flux, and
Sun Grant/DOE
• Winterkill can be an issue during the first
winter following planting.
• Dry growing seasons have reduced M. x
giganteus yields.
• Through the first four growing seasons, there
has not been a significant yield response to N.
• When it is determined that M. x giganteus
requires N fertilization, additional research will
be required to fine-tune the N rates based on
location and environment.
Energy Biosciences
Institute
• On-Site and Off-Site Energy Grass
•
•
•
•
Studies
Novel Woody Plants
SUNY Willows
U.S. Forest Service/Iowa St. U. and
University of Minnesota Poplar Studies
Prairie Forbs
EBI/UI Energy Farm Ecology Plots
Tallgrass prairie
Miscanthus x
giganteus
Cave-in-Rock
switchgrass
Corn-corn-soybean
rotation
2009 – 2011 EBI Energy Farm
Ecology Plot Biomass Yields
Biomass yields
(Dry Mg ha-1)
M. x
giganteus
P.
virgatum
Tallgrass
Prairie
Maize
(grain)
Soybeans
(grain)
2009
2010
2011
2009
2010
2011
1.3
11.0
11.9
494
4,180
4,522
2.4
9.4
9.1
912
3,572
3,458
2.3
6.1
3.4
874
2,318
1,292
8.8
3,879
9.5
*liters of biodiesel
Liters ethanol ha-1
2.8
3,621
94*
Potential Ecological Impacts of
Agricultural Intensification:
Invasiveness of Miscanthus Spp.
T. Voigt, B. Endres, L. Quinn,
J. Barney (VA Tech)
Project Objectives
• Identify initial Miscanthus spp. sold in
U.S.
• Describe naturalized Miscanthus spp.
populations
• Understand Miscanthus spp. seed
biology
• Relate naturalized Miscanthus spp.
populations to ornamental Miscanthus
Oldest Ornamental
Types Offered by
U.S.
Nurseries
M. sinensis ‘Variegatus’,
‘Zebrinus’, ‘Gracillimus’,
and M. sacchariflorus
Variegated Miscanthus
Zebra Grass
Maiden Grass
M. sacchariflorus
Differences between M. sinensis
and M. sacchariflorus
• M. sinensis – Miscanthus, Eulalia,
Japanese Silver Grass
– Clump former; variable height, leaf width,
variegation, flowering period, cold
hardiness
• M. sacchariflorus – Silver Banner
Grass, Amur Silver Grass
– Stout rhizomes and running habit forms
Summer 2011
Lauren Quinn and Ryan
Dougherty (M.S. student at Va.
Tech.) sampled 21 escaped
Miscanthus populations
Natural/
Conservation
Areas
Heckscher State Park,
NY
Transit
Areas
Quakertown, PA
M. sacchariflorus
Maine
Plant Size & Phenotype
Heckscher, NY
Invasive Ornamentals?
Extremely wide, droopy
leaves:
another ornamental trait?
Extremely thin, wiry
leaves: another
ornamental trait?
Striping from
ornamental origins?
Summer 2012
• Miscanthus sinensis sites visited again in 2012.
• In 88% of the populations, there were found
additional M. sinensis within a mile.
• While this information cannot elucidate the
source of the original invasion, it provides
evidence that our sampled sites do not
represent anomalous isolated populations, but
instead exist in a landscape matrix that
Where Should
Miscanthus x giganteus
Optimally Be Grown?
Miscanthus x giganteus Sweet Spot
Map: www.ﬁrstresearch.com
35
Questions?
Tom Voigt (tvoigt@illinois.edu)
37

Ecological Impacts of Miscanthus x giganteus Production

Transcription

Similar documents