Cited by 46Bioenergy crop production and managementAgricultural Productivity and Crop ImprovementPasture and Agricultural Systems

Biomass and seed yields of big bluestem, switchgrass, and intermediate wheatgrass in response to manure and harvest timing at two topographic positions

Open access
LEE, DOKYOUNG, OWENS, VANCE N., BOE, ARVID, KOO, BON‐CHEOL·2009·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Abstract A principle attribute of perennial grasses for biomass energy is the potential for high yields on marginal lands. Objectives of this study were to compare biomass and seed production of intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium [Host] Barkworth and D.R. Dewey), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) as affected by harvest timing and manure application on two topographic positions (footslope and backslope). Footslope is the hillslope position that forms the inclined surface at the base of a slope and backslope forms the steepest, middle position of the hillslope. Grasses were harvested for biomass at anthesis (summer), after a killing frost (autumn), or the following spring after overwintering in the field. Seed was harvested at maturity during 2003 and 2004. Two rates of beef cattle (Bos taurus L.) manure (target rates of 0 and 150 kg total‐N ha−1) were surface applied annually. Maximum annual biomass yield ranged from 4.4 to 5.2, 2.7 to 4.2, and 3.7 to 5.6 Mg ha−1 for intermediate wheatgrass, big bluestem, and switchgrass, respectively. Biomass yields were not different between fall and spring harvest treatments. Biomass yields of big bluestem and switchgrass at the backslope position were 86% and 96% of biomass yields at the footslope position with normal precipitation, respectively. Manure application increased biomass yield approximately 30% during the second year on both topographic positions. The highest seed yield was obtained from intermediate wheatgrass, followed by switchgrass and big bluestem. Utilizing these management practices in our environment, it appears that switchgrass and big bluestem could be allowed to overwinter in the field without suffering appreciable loss of biomass.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01008.x

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Switchgrass aboveground biomass yields have shown little variation when evaluated across landscape features in the Central US.

    “Switchgrass aboveground biomass yields have shown little variation when evaluated across landscape features in the Central US (Lee et al., 2009;Schmer et al., 2010;Thelemann et al., 2010).”

    From Field-scale soil property changes under switchgrass managed for bioenergy (2011) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Volenec JJ, Nelson CJ (2007) Physiology of forage plants. In: Forage, Vol. II; The Science of Grassland Agriculture (eds Barnes RF et al.), pp. 37-53. Blackwell Publishing.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LEE, D., OWENS, V. N., BOE, A., & KOO, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • South Dakota State University (US)
  • Rural Development Administration (KR)
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
171-179
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W1989644984
Cited by
46
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
  • Open PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
big bluestem, Andropogon gerardii, switchgrass, Thinopyrum intermedium, biomass yield, seed yield, manure application, beef cattle manure, harvest time, topographic position, perennial grasses, marginal land, biomass energy, overwintering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review