Cited by 243Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPasture and Agricultural Systems

Biomass and Carbon Partitioning in Switchgrass

Frank, A. B., Berdahl, J. D., Hanson, J. D., Liebig, M. A., Johnson, H. A.·2004·Crop Science

Abstract

Grasslands have an underground biomass component that serves as a carbon (C) storage sink. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) has potential as a biofuel crop. Our objectives were to determine biomass and C partitioning in aboveground and belowground plant components and changes in soil organic C in switchgrass. Cultivars Sunburst and Dacotah were field grown over 3 yr at Mandan, ND. Aboveground biomass was sampled and separated into leaves, stems, senesced, and litter biomass. Root biomass to 1.1‐m depth and soil organic C to 0.9‐m depth was determined. Soil C loss from respiratory processes was determined by measuring CO 2 flux from early May to late October. At seed ripe harvest, stem biomass accounted for 46% of total aboveground biomass, leaves 7%, senesced plant parts 43%, and litter 4%. Excluding crowns, root biomass averaged 27% of the total plant biomass and 84% when crown tissue was included with root biomass. Carbon partitioning among aboveground, crown, and root biomass showed that crown tissue contained approximately 50% of the total biomass C. Regression analysis indicated that soil organic C to 0.9‐m depth increased at the rate of 1.01 kg C m−2 yr−1 Carbon lost through soil respiration processes was equal to 44% of the C content of the total plant biomass. Although an amount equal to nearly half of the C captured in plant biomass during a year is lost through soil respiration, these results suggest that northern Great Plains switchgrass plantings have potential for storing a significant quantity of soil C.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2135/cropsci2004.1391

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Carbon sequestration by switchgrass has been nearly ubiquitous across a broad range of growing conditions throughout North America at rates of 1.7-10.1 Mg C ha-1 year-1.

    “Carbon sequestration by switchgrass has been nearly ubiquitous across a broad range of growing conditions throughout North America at rates of 1.7-10.1 Mg C ha -1 year -1 (6.2-37.0Mg CO 2 ha -1 year -1 ) [11,13,18,45].”

    From Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy (2008) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Increased soil organic carbon under switchgrass at depths below 30 cm is common, having been observed in other studies in the northern Great Plains.

    “Increased SOC under switchgrass at depths below 30 cm is common, having been observed in other studies in the northern Great Plains [11,18,20].”

    From Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy (2008) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Increases in soil organic carbon under switchgrass were likely caused by belowground carbon input from root biomass and rhizodeposition and decreased soil organic matter losses by erosion.

    “Increases in SOC under switchgrass were likely caused by belowground C input from root biomass and rhizodeposition [11,45] and decreased soil organic matter losses by erosion [6].”

    From Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy (2008) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Frank et al. (2004) found root biomass of switchgrass in the surface 0.3 m to account for nearly 50% of total root biomass over a 1.1 m soil depth.

    “Frank et al. (2004) found root biomass of switchgrass in the surface 0.3 m to account for nearly 50% of total root biomass over a 1.1 m soil depth.”

    From Field-scale soil property changes under switchgrass managed for bioenergy (2011) · cites this paper as Frank et al., 2004

  • Soil organic C increased at rates ranging from 1.7 to 10.1 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 after switchgrass establishment throughout North America.

    “Soil organic C increased at rates ranging from 1.7 to 10.1 Mg C ha À1 yr À1 after switchgrass establishment throughout North America (Garten & Wullschleger, 2000;Zan et al., 2001;Frank et al., 2004;Lee et al., 2007).”

    From Field-scale soil property changes under switchgrass managed for bioenergy (2011) · cites this paper as Frank et al., 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frank, A. B., Berdahl, J. D., Hanson, J. D., Liebig, M. A., & Johnson, H. A.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Service (US)
Corresponding author
Frank, A. B.
Venue
Crop Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-07
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
1391-1396
ISSN
  • 0011-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0653
OpenAlex
W1966515524
Cited by
243
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 19
FWCI
10.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Crop Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
switchgrass, carbon allocation, belowground biomass, root biomass, soil organic carbon, soil respiration, aboveground biomass, crown tissue, litter, energy crops, carbon sequestration, cultivar comparison

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