Agronomy Journal Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (27)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muir, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Muir, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Muir, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Forage Management
Right arrow Other Forage Crops
Agronomy Journal 93:896-901 (2001)
© 2001 American Society of Agronomy

FORAGES

Biomass Production of ‘Alamo’ Switchgrass in Response to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Row Spacing

James P. Muir*,a, Matt A. Sandersonb, William R. Ocumpaughc, Ronald M. Jonesa and Roderick L. Reedd

a Texas A&M Univ. Agric. Res. and Ext. Cent., Route 2, Box 00, Stephenville, TX 76401
b USDA-ARS, Pasture Syst. and Watershed Manage. Res. Unit, Bldg. 3702, Curtin Rd., University Park, PA 16802-3702
c Texas A&M Univ. Agric. Res. Stn., Beeville, TX
d San Angelo State Univ., San Angelo, TX

* Corresponding author (j-muir{at}tamu.edu)

Received for publication July 21, 2000.

   ABSTRACT
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Management practices for biomass production of bioenergy grasses may differ from management for forage. Our objective was to determine the yield and stand responses of ‘Alamo’ switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) to N and P fertilization as affected by row spacing. A combination of five rates each of N and P were applied to plots during 1992 to 1998 at Stephenville, TX and 1993 to 1995 at Beeville, TX. Three row-spacing treatments were applied as subplots. Biomass production was determined each year with a single harvest in late summer. Tiller density and tiller mass were measured during 1993 to 1996 at Stephenville. Biomass production was not influenced by the addition of P. Biomass production response to N at Beeville was greater in narrow rows than wide rows during the establishment year only. Biomass production responses to N were quadratic in 5 of 7 yr at Stephenville and linear at Beeville. A maximum yield of 22.5 Mg ha-1 occurred during 1995 at Stephenville at 168 kg N ha-1. Lodging occurred at both locations but only at the 224 kg N ha-1 rate. Tiller density and mass increased as row width increased. Tiller mass also increased with increasing N fertility at Stephenville. This response was more important in determining biomass production than was tiller density. Average biomass production at 168 kg N ha-1 yr-1 was 14.5 and 10.7 Mg ha-1 yr-1 at Stephenville and Beeville, respectively. Biomass production without applied N tended to decline over the years. Our data indicated that switchgrass biomass production is sustainable at Stephenville only with the application of at least 168 kg N ha-1 yr-1, but P application and row spacing are not crucial.

Abbreviations: NUE, N use efficiency


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
SWITCHGRASS is a warm-season perennial grass commonly grown in the U.S. Great Plains for harvested forage and grazing. Recent interest in the use of switchgrass for biomass energy feedstock production (McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998) has prompted questions about appropriate management practices for this use. Water and N are the principal resources limiting productivity in warm-season grass ecosystems (Epstein et al., 1996), and efficient use of these inputs in switchgrass production is critical. Many soils in the southern Great Plains are low in available P, which could limit biomass production (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975; Mays et al., 1980).

Fertility recommendations for switchgrass production apply mainly to harvested or grazed forage production where a compromise often is made between maximum herbage production and forage quality. Nitrogen recommendations typically are relatively low (50–110 kg ha-1 yr-1; Wolf and Fiske, 1995; Brejda, 2000). The compromise between yield and quality does not apply to biomass production for bioenergy feedstock because the goal generally is to maximize production of lignocellulose (Sanderson et al., 1999a). Thus, management practices that maximize biomass production may differ from that for herbage production. Annual yield of several switchgrass cultivars in Texas fertilized with 134 kg N ha-1 ranged from 8 to 20 Mg ha-1, depending mainly on seasonal rainfall variations (Sanderson et al., 1999b). Alamo switchgrass was the most adapted cultivar for the south-central USA.

Phosphorus fertilizer recommendations for switchgrass depend on soil pH, P supplying power of the soil, and soil test P (Brejda, 2000). In the central Great Plains, P recommendations for switchgrass ranged from 0 to 35 kg ha-1, depending on soil test P (Brejda, 2000). In Texas, there are many areas with low-P soils where intensive grass production responds to soil P amendments (Mangaroo, 1983); however, little information exists on the response of switchgrass to P fertilizer.

Seeding of forage grasses is typically done in narrow (10–15 cm) rows with conventional equipment such as Brillion seeders or other types of drills (Miller and Stritzke, 1995). Increased row spacing increased biomass yields of Alamo switchgrass in Alabama (Sladden et al., 1995), and wider rows increased seed yields of switchgrass in the Great Plains (Cornelius, 1950). On the other hand, wider rows reduced seed yields of ‘Cave-in-Rock’ switchgrass in Iowa (Kassel et al., 1985). It is not known if these responses of switchgrass to row spacing would be similar in lower rainfall environments.

One of the goals of the Regional Switchgrass Cultivar and Management Testing Center in Texas (part of the Biofuels Feedstock Dev. Progr. of the U.S. Dep. of Energy at Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.) is to develop recommendations for managing switchgrass for biomass feedstock production. We addressed two applied research questions: How much N and P fertilizer is needed for Alamo switchgrass production, and does row spacing affect biomass yield?


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Stephenville Site
Stephenville (32°13' N, 98°12' W; 399 m elevation) is located in north-central Texas in the Cross Timbers land physiographic region. The average yearly frost-free period is approximately 240 d. Soils are shallow and sandy with low P levels and low water-holding capacity. Soil at the research site is a Windthorst fine sandy loam (fine, mixed, thermic Udic Paleustalf).

Alamo switchgrass was planted at 4.5 kg ha-1 pure live seed on 9 Apr. 1992 on land that had been moldboard plowed, disked, and then harrowed. Row spacing was 18 cm. When sampled to a 15-cm depth soil pH was 6.6, with 5, 4, and 85 mg kg-1 NO3–N, available P (Texas A&M extractant), and available K, respectively.

Five rates of N (0, 56, 112, 168, and 224 kg ha-1) and five rates of P (0, 9.8, 19.6, 29.4, and 39.2 kg ha-1) were broadcast in June 1992 and April 1993. The experiment was re-established at a different site (same soil type) in April 1993, and fertilizer treatments were applied annually in April from 1994 to 1998. At the second site, soil pH was 5.3, with 1, 11, and 68 mg kg-1 NO3–N, available P, and available K, respectively. Fertility treatment main plots were 9.1 by 9.1 m. Within each fertility main plot, three row-spacing treatments (18, 36, and 54 cm) were established in 3 by 9.1 m subplots. Row spacings were established by spraying glyphosate [isopropylamine salt of N-(phosphoro-methyl)glycine] on the appropriate rows and by hand removal of surviving plants.

Biomass production was measured annually in late August to September. At each harvest, a 1.5- by 6-m strip perpendicular to the row direction was clipped to a 15-cm stubble height from the center of each subplot. Fresh weight was recorded, and a subsample (about 400 g) was dried at 55°C for 48 h and used to determine dry matter harvested per plot. In 1993 to 1996 at Stephenville, tillers were counted in three 1-m sections of row at each harvest, and a sample of 25 to 50 tillers was clipped to ground level to determine tiller mass. Degree of lodging was scored on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = no lodging and 5 = severe) in 1993, 1995, and 1996.

Beeville Site
Beeville (28°27' N, 97°42' W; 78 m elevation) is located in south Texas (about 515 km south of Stephenville) in the Rio Grande plain physiographic region. The frost-free period is approximately 287 d. Many of the soils under forage–livestock production in this region are shallow and calcareous. Phosphorus levels are low, and micronutrient deficiencies are common with low levels antagonized by high soil pH. Soil types at the research site are Parrita sandy clay loam (clayey, mixed, hyperthermic, shallow Petrocalcic Paleustolls) and Coy clay (fine, montmorillonitic, hyperthermic, Vertic Argiustolls).

The experimental procedures at Beeville were similar except that final row spacings were 25.4, 51, and 102 cm; main plots were 5 by 6 m; and subplots were 2 by 5 m. Row spacings were established by spraying with glyphosate and by hand removal as at Stephenville. The experiment was seeded in the fall of 1992 and harvested in 1993, 1994, and 1995. Soil pH was 6.7, with 5, 8, and 114 mg kg-1 NO3–N, available P, and available K, respectively. Lodging was scored in 1993 and 1994. Harvests at Beeville were typically taken in October or early November. Rainfall was recorded daily at each site.

The experimental design at each location was a five by five incomplete factorial with unequal replication of two or three replicates (Cochran and Cox, 1957). Data were analyzed first as response surfaces and then with regression procedures (SAS Inst., 1988).


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Phosphorus rate did not affect (P > 0.05) switchgrass production in any year at Beeville or Stephenville (data not shown). This data was in agreement with other research on low-P soils. Research in western Pennsylvania on a strongly acid soil showed little response of switchgrass to fertilizer P at rates of 20 or 40 kg ha-1 (Jung et al., 1988). A very high rate of 470 kg P ha-1 generated a weak switchgrass yield response on a low-P soil in central Pennsylvania (Morris et al., 1982). On the other hand, Virginia research showed P application to a low-P soil (4 mg kg-1 soil test level) increased switchgrass yields in 1 of 2 yr following establishment (McKenna and Wolf, 1990). Although not measured in this study, other research has shown that lack of response to P fertilization may be due to colonization of switchgrass roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorhizae, which increase plant uptake of P even at low soil P levels (Brejda et al., 1993).

Biomass production of switchgrass increased with increasing N rate during each year at Stephenville (Fig. 1). Yield generally peaked or began to level off when N application reached 168 kg ha-1. Production responses to N differed among years, with the highest yields measured in 1995, the year with the greatest growing-season (March–August) rainfall (Table 1). Indeed, biomass production was highly correlated to growing-season rainfall in nearly every year (Fig. 2). Growing-season (March–August) rainfall at Stephenville varied from a high of 676 mm in 1995 to a low of 353 mm in 1998 (Table 1). Yearly switchgrass biomass production at Stephenville from 1994 to 1998 was positively correlated with growing-season rainfall at various N fertilizer rates (Fig. 2). This correlation indicates that rainfall and N have discernable impacts on switchgrass biomass yield in the Stephenville climate. Stout et al. (1988) reported that N was the primary limiting factor for switchgrass production on two soils in south-central Pennsylvania. When rainfall was limited, however, soil factors related to water-holding capacity controlled yield. Switchgrass biomass production peaked following application of 180 kg N ha-1 (8900 kg ha-1 dry matter yield averaged for two soils and 3 yr).



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Biomass production response of Alamo switchgrass to N fertilizer during 7 yr at Stephenville, TX. Regression equations were Y = 22x + 6528, r2 = 0.43, and root mean square error (RMSE) = 2220 for 1992; Y = -0.19x2 + 110x + 3782, r2 = 0.86, and RMSE = 2369 for 1993; Y = -0.34x2 + 111x + 4492, r2 = 0.81, and RMSE = 1695 for 1994; Y = -0.61x2 + 208x + 4240, r2 = 0.85, and RMSE = 2948 for 1995; Y = -0.27x2 + 129x + 2433, r2 = 0.88, and RMSE = 2248 for 1996; Y = -0.22x2 + 124x + 2743, r2 = 0.94, and RMSE = 1666 for 1997; and Y = -0.07x2 + 67x + 1304, r2 = 0.91, and RMSE = 1394 for 1998.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Annual and seasonal total (March to August) rainfall at Stephenville and Beeville, TX.

 


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Relationship between annual biomass production of Alamo switchgrass and seasonal rainfall (March–August) for 1994 to 1998 at Stephenville, TX. R2 values for the 0, 56, and 224 kg N ha-1 rates were 0.56, 0.82, and 0.68, respectively.

 
At Stephenville, biomass production from plots receiving no N peaked the first harvest year (4.0 Mg ha-1 yr-1 average for Years 2–4 vs. 2.3 Mg ha-1 yr-1 average for Years 5–7), indicating that initial fertility was rapidly depleted. Biomass production from plots receiving N tended to be greater in later years, especially when N rates were 112 kg ha-1 yr-1 or more. Contrary to other research reported in the southern United States (Parrish et al., 1999), we have not found production of Alamo switchgrass to be sustainable without periodic N fertilizer. Tiller density (except 1995) and tiller mass generally increased with increasing N rates (Fig. 3 and 4) at Stephenville. Tiller density increased by 30 to 40% in 1994 and 1996 (the 2 yr when the N effect was significant) with increase in N application. Tiller mass exhibited a much greater response to N fertilizer, a 64% increase in 1994 and a 221% in 1995. This indicates that tiller mass may be more sensitive to N than tiller density although both contributed to higher production with greater N rates.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Tiller density in switchgrass plots as affected by N rate and row spacing at Stephenville, TX during 1993 to 1996.

 


View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Tiller mass of switchgrass as affected by N rate and row spacing at Stephenville, TX during 1993 to 1996.

 
Production increased (P < 0.05) more than 2000 kg ha-1 with wide rows compared with narrow rows in 1996 at Stephenville (data not shown); however, there was no response to row spacing in other years. Row spacing did not affect biomass production in most years at Stephenville, probably due to different responses of tiller numbers and tiller mass to spacing (Fig. 3 and 4). Increased row spacing reduced tiller number by an average of 37% for the 4 yr. Tiller mass increased approximately 23% in 1994 and 1996 as row spacing increased. This suggests that tiller density in switchgrass may be more sensitive to intraspecific competition than tiller mass. In Iowa, tiller density decreased from 872 to 390 m-2 (average of 2 yr and three cultivars) when row spacing was reduced from 100 to 20 cm (Kassel et al., 1985). In space-planted swards, tiller density generally influenced forage yield more than tiller mass until a dense, closed canopy formed (Montero and Jones, 1992). Sanderson and Reed (2000) reported a strong, positive relationship between tiller density per plant and plant spacing in an outdoor lysimeter study, but they did not observe an increase in tiller density per plant with increased N fertilizer.

Biomass production increased linearly with increased N rate each year at Beeville (Fig. 5). First-year production was likely restricted from plants that probably had not developed deep root systems since being seeded in the fall of 1992. As a result, the stand may not have been fully capable of responding to applied fertility. Conversely, rainfall in 1994 was similar to 1993, and there was a significant response to N. Production declined in 1995 but was probably limited by soil moisture because rainfall during the growing season was less than in the previous year. The experiment was terminated in 1996 because severe drought resulted in little or no switchgrass growth. This drought caused a severe loss of stand when evaluated in 1997 (data not shown); thus, continuation of the study was not considered prudent.



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Biomass production response of Alamo switchgrass to N fertilizer and row spacing during 3 yr at Beeville, TX.

 
Biomass production decreased as row spacing increased in 1993 and 1994 at Beeville, but this response did not occur in 1995 (Fig. 5). The row-spacing effect seemed to diminish each year with a production decrease of 3100 and 1600 kg ha-1 in 1993 and 1994, respectively, and no difference in 1995 when comparing 102- and 25-cm row spacing. Lodging was greatest at the 224 kg N rate at both locations (average score of 2.6 for 228 kg rate vs. average of 1.2 for all other rates), indicating that very high N rates may result in wasted biomass that could not be harvested.

Alamo switchgrass proved slow to establish at both sites. Biomass production at Beeville during the first year after fall establishment was only 40% of that obtained in the third year after establishment. At Stephenville, biomass production in the 1993 trial the first year after establishment (1994) was only 60% of that obtained in the third year (1996). Based on this data, producers should not count on full returns of N-fertilized Alamo switchgrass stands in the season following planting.

Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) values were derived to provide an idea of the percentage of applied N extracted from the soil by switchgrass using the control (0 N applied) as a base value. The NUE of switchgrass was greater at Stephenville than at Beeville. For example, 1994 values were 108, 76, 50, and 37 kg kg-1 at Stephenville and 30, 33, 23, and 22 kg kg-1 at Beeville for 56, 112, 168, and 224 kg N ha-1, respectively. Values were much lower for the first harvest (22 kg kg-1 averaged for all rates and both locations) than at subsequent harvests (e.g., 57 kg kg-1 average for the second harvest). The low NUE values in 1995 at Beeville (18) and 1998 at Stephenville (57), both low for nonestablishment years, may have been a result of low growing-season rainfall. Greatest NUE values were obtained with 56 and 112 kg N ha-1 at Stephenville and Beeville, respectively. This is comparable to data summarized by Brejda (2000), who reported NUE of 2 to 87 kg kg-1 from several N fertility trials.


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
Our data indicated N fertilizer and rainfall (particularly growing-season rainfall) controlled switchgrass production in the south-central USA. As a single, spring application, about 168 kg N ha-1 maximized switchgrass biomass production in most years in this region, resulting in nearly 13.4 Mg ha-1 yr-1 biomass production on average over all sites, experiments, and years. Plant response to increased N fertilizer was mostly in the form of greater tiller mass, with tiller density showing a much smaller response. The plots that received no N deteriorated over time, indicating that sustainable production of switchgrass biomass is not feasible without N fertilization. Switchgrass NUE was greatest at N levels of 56 to 112 kg ha-1 and was much greater at Stephenville than at Beeville.

Sustainable production of Alamo switchgrass in both north- and south-central Texas may not require P fertilizer. The soils at both sites were low in plant-available P, between 4 and 8 mg kg-1, yet the yearly application of P to the soil did not increase biomass production at any of the rates studied. This data, in conjunction with other findings in the literature, would indicate that switchgrass, native to the area, is sufficiently efficient at extracting soil-bound P to preclude the need to supply greater amounts of P to the soil as fertilizer.

The choice of row spacing may be important only in the southern areas of switchgrass adaptation, and then, only for establishment. Biomass decreased as row spacing increased only during establishment years at Beeville; at Stephenville, the wider spacing resulted in greater biomass production in only one postestablishment year. Tiller density decreased, whereas tiller mass increased with increased row spacing at Stephenville, indicating that row spacing may not be important because tillers (and possibly individual plants) increase production per tiller to occupy open canopy. In order to maximize production during establishment, it may be advantageous to plant in narrow rows (approximately 25 cm), especially in southern Texas. This will allow for quicker canopy closure and greater weed control. After establishment, however, narrow row spacing may decrease biomass production during some years. Because this decrease was observed in only 1 yr out of 10, the advantage of narrow row spacing during the establishment years may outweigh disadvantages in later years. Conventional planting techniques, such as drilling switchgrass in narrow (18 to 25 cm) rows, will result in the best switchgrass stands and greatest yields because tiller density cannot compensate for wide row spacing during establishment.

All our data suggest that there appeared to be a southern limit of adaptation for Alamo switchgrass lying somewhere between our two research locations. We speculate that the factor limiting sustainable production of Alamo switchgrass is something other than rainfall because average rainfall is similar at the two sites. Switchgrass is native throughout Texas but is usually found only in low, moist areas and prairies where soil moisture and fertility tends to be higher than normal (Diggs et al., 1999). Our data indicate that sustainable levels of switchgrass biomass production in north-central Texas over 13 Mg ha-1 yr-1 are possible. However, consistent production is likely only on soils with higher moisture retention and only with yearly applications of N to maintain soil fertility.


   NOTES
TOP
 NOTES
ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Research supported by the Biofuels Systems Division under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 to Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
A. H. Heggenstaller, K. J. Moore, M. Liebman, and R. P. Anex
Nitrogen Influences Biomass and Nutrient Partitioning by Perennial, Warm-Season Grasses
Agron. J., November 1, 2009; 101(6): 1363 - 1371.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
M. Haque, F. M. Epplin, and C. M. Taliaferro
Nitrogen and Harvest Frequency Effect on Yield and Cost for Four Perennial Grasses
Agron. J., November 1, 2009; 101(6): 1463 - 1469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
D. F. Mooney, R. K. Roberts, B. C. English, D. D. Tyler, and J. A. Larson
Yield and Breakeven Price of 'Alamo' Switchgrass for Biofuels in Tennessee
Agron. J., August 31, 2009; 101(5): 1234 - 1242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
J. R. Bow, J. P. Muir, D. C. Weindorf, R. E. Rosiere, and T. J. Butler
Integration of Cool-Season Annual Legumes and Dairy Manure Compost with Switchgrass
Crop Sci., July 1, 2008; 48(4): 1621 - 1628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Environ. Qual.Home page
T. W. Simpson, A. N. Sharpley, R. W. Howarth, H. W. Paerl, and K. R. Mankin
The New Gold Rush: Fueling Ethanol Production while Protecting Water Quality
J. Environ. Qual., March 1, 2008; 37(2): 318 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
D. K. Lee, V. N. Owens, and J. J. Doolittle
Switchgrass and Soil Carbon Sequestration Response to Ammonium Nitrate, Manure, and Harvest Frequency on Conservation Reserve Program Land
Agron. J., February 6, 2007; 99(2): 462 - 468.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
P. R. Adler, M. A. Sanderson, A. A. Boateng, P. J. Weimer, and H.-J. G. Jung
Biomass Yield and Biofuel Quality of Switchgrass Harvested in Fall or Spring
Agron. J., October 3, 2006; 98(6): 1518 - 1525.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
D. K. Lee and A. Boe
Biomass Production of Switchgrass in Central South Dakota
Crop Sci., October 27, 2005; 45(6): 2583 - 2590.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
K. A. Cassida, J. P. Muir, M. A. Hussey, J. C. Read, B. C. Venuto, and W. R. Ocumpaugh
Biomass Yield and Stand Characteristics of Switchgrass in South Central U.S. Environments
Crop Sci., February 23, 2005; 45(2): 673 - 681.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
M. R. McLaughlin, T. E. Fairbrother, and D. E. Rowe
Nutrient Uptake by Warm-Season Perennial Grasses in a Swine Effluent Spray Field
Agron. J., March 1, 2004; 96(2): 484 - 493.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
K. P. Vogel, J. J. Brejda, D. T. Walters, and D. R. Buxton
Switchgrass Biomass Production in the Midwest USA: Harvest and Nitrogen Management
Agron. J., May 1, 2002; 94(3): 413 - 420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (27)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muir, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Muir, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Muir, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, R. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Forage Management
Right arrow Other Forage Crops

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome