Cited by 56Bioenergy crop production and managementCrop Yield and Soil FertilityForest Biomass Utilization and Management

The effect of landscape position on biomass crop yield

Thelemann, Ryan, Johnson, Gregg, Sheaffer, Craig, Banerjee, Sudipto, Cai, Haowen, Wyse, Donald·2010·Agronomy Journal

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

Crossref · 10.2134/agronj2009.0058

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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