The effect of landscape position on biomass crop yield
Abstract
Integrating annual and perennial crops at the field scale creates new opportunities for increasing financial return while addressing important environmental and ecological issues. An understanding of biomass productivity on specific landscape positions is essential to realizing this goal. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of landscape position on the productivity of herbaceous and woody biomass crops. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), corn (Zea mays L.), willow (Salix spp.), cottonwood (Populus deltoides W. Bartram ex Marshall), poplar (Populus maximowiczii × P. nigra), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) were planted on seven landscape positions. Soil attributes were measured and included soil nitrogen, P, K, and profile darkness index (PDI). Terrain attributes included specific catchment area (SpecCat) and compound terrain index (CTI). A hierarchical Bayesian approach was used to analyze spatial data. Corn grain and stover yield was lowest in depositional and flat areas that retain water for longer periods of time and highest on well drained summit positions. Corn stover yield was positively correlated to nitrogen, PDI, SpecCat, and CTI, whereas corn grain yield was not correlated to any of the soil or terrain attributes tested. Conversely, willow productivity was among the highest at the depositional position and lowest at the summit position. For SX67 willow, growth was positively correlated to SpecCat, whereas 9882 willow growth was negatively correlated to PDI and CTI. Alfalfa and poplar productivity was highest at a site characterized by a relatively steep slope with potentially erosive soils.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 Thelemann et al., 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Thelemann, R., Johnson, G., Sheaffer, C., Banerjee, S., Cai, H., & Wyse, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Johnson, Gregg
- Venue
- Agronomy Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 513-522
- ISSN
- 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0645
- OpenAlex
- W2053778935
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Agronomy Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Minnesota
- 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 › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
- Keywords
- landscape position, maize grain yield, switchgrass, willow, poplar, alfalfa, cottonwood, soil nitrogen, specific catchment area, soil erosion
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