Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficient Methods of Estimating Switchgrass Biomass Supplies

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is being developed as a biofuel feedstock for the United States. Efficient and accurate methods to estimate switchgrass biomass feedstock supply within a production area will be required by biorefineries. Our main objective was to determine the effectiveness of indirect methods for estimating biomass yields and composition of switchgrass fields. Indirect measurements were conducted in eastern Nebraska from 2003 to 2007 in which switchgrass biomass yields were manipulated using three nitrogen rates (0 kg N ha-1, 60 kg N ha-1, and 120 kg N ha-1) and two harvest periods (August and post-killing frost). A modified Robel pole was used to determine visual obstruction, elongated leaf height, and canopy height measurements. Prediction models from the study showed that elongated leaf height, visual obstruction, and canopy height measurements accounted for > 91%, > 90%, and > 82% of the variation in switchgrass biomass, respectively. Regression slopes were similar by cultivar (“Cave-in-Rock” and “Trailblazer”), harvest period, and across years indicating that a single model is applicable for determining biomass feedstock supply within a region, assuming similar harvesting methods. Sample numbers required to receive the same level of precision were as follows: elongated leaf height<canopy height<visual obstruction. Twenty to 30 elongated leaf height measurements in a field could predict switchgrass biomass yield within 10% of the mean with 95% confidence. Visual obstruction is recommended on switchgrass fields with low to variable stand densities while elongated leaf height measurements would be recommended on switchgrass fields with high, uniform stand densities. Incorporating an ocular device with a Robel pole provided reasonable frequency estimates of switchgrass, broadleaf weeds, and grassy weeds at the field scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Trade and company names or commercial products is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation of endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Abbreviations

CRP:

Conservation reserve program

GAT:

Grassland assessment tool

References

  1. Benkobi L, Uresk DW, Schenbeck GS, King RM (2000) Protocol for monitoring standing crop in grasslands using visual obstruction. J Range Manag 53:627–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brummer JE, Nichols JT, Engel RK, Eskridge KM (1994) Efficiency of different sizes and shapes for sampling standing crop. J Range Manag 47:84–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Casler MD, Boe AR (2003) Cultivar x environment interactions in switchgrass. Crop Sci 43:2226–2233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ganguli AC, Vermeire LT, Mitchell RB, Wallace MC (2000) Comparision of four nondestructive techniques for estimating standing crop in shortgrass plains. Agron J 92:1211–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harmoney KR, Moore KJ, George R, Brummer EC, Russell JR (1997) Determination of pasture biomass using four indirect methods. Agron J 89:665–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson RD, Paine LK (2006) Revisiting Robel’s visual obstruction method for estimation of standing crop in grasslands. Forage and Grazinglands. doi:10.1094/FG-2006-1213-01-RS

    Google Scholar 

  8. Liebig MA, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2008) Soil carbon storage of switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bioenerg Res 1:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Madakadze IC, Stewart K, Peterson PR, Coulman BE, Smith DL (1999) Switchgrass biomass and chemical composition for biofuel in eastern Canada. Agron J 91:696–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McLaughlin SB, De La Torre Ugarte DG Jr, Garten CT, Lynd LR, Sanderson MA, Tolbert VR et al (2002) High-value renewable energy from prairie grasses. Environ Sci Technol 36:2122–2129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Michalk DL, Herbert PK (1977) Assessment of four techniques for estimating yield on dryland pastures. Agron J 69:864–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mitchell RB, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Vermeire LT, Derner JD (2005) The grassland assessment tool: a new technique for monitoring grasslands. Society for Range Management Meeting Proceedings Feb. 4–11. Ft. Worth, TX

  13. Mitchell RB, Vogel KP, Sarath G (2008) Managing and enhancing switchgrass as a bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 2:530–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moore KJ, Moser LE, Vogel KP, Waller SS, Johnson BE, Pedersen JF (1991) Describing and quantifying growth stages of perennial forage grasses. Agron J 83:1073–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Perrin RK, Vogel KP, Schmer MR, Mitchell RB (2008) Farm-scale production cost of switchgrass for biomass. Bioenerg Res 1:91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Robel RJ, Briggs JN, Dayton AD, Hulbert LC (1970) Relationships between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. J Range Manag 23:295–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Moser LE, Eskridge KE, Perrin RK (2006) Establishment stand thresholds for switchgrass grown as a bioenergy crop. Crop Sci 46:157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:464–469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmer MR, Mitchell RB, Vogel KP, Schacht WH, Marx DB (2010) Spatial and temporal effects on switchgrass stands and yields in the Great Plains. Bioenerg Res. doi:10.1007/s12155-009-9045-y

    Google Scholar 

  20. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stein C (1945) A two-sample test for a linear hypothesis whose power is independent of the variance. Ann Math Stat 16:243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Varvel GE, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Follet RF, Kimble JM (2008) Comparison of corn and switchgrass on marginal soils for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 32:18–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vermeire LT, Gillen RL (2001) Estimating herbage standing crop with visual obstruction in tallgrass prairie. J Range Manag 54:57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Virgilio ND, Monti A, Venturi G (2007) Spatial variability of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) yield as related to soil parameters in a small field. Field Crops Res 101:232–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vogel KP, Masters RA (2001) Frequency grid—a simple tool for measuring grassland establishment. J Range Manag 54:653–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vogel KP, Brejda JJ, Walters DT, Buxton DR (2002) Switchgrass biomass production in the Midwest USA: harvest and nitrogen management. Agron J 94:413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Volesky JD, Schacht WH, Reece PE (1999) Leaf area, visual obstruction, and standing crop relationships on Sandhills rangeland. J Range Manag 52:494–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Walsh ME, De La Torre Ugarte DG, Shapouri H, Slinsky SP (2003) Bioenergy crop production in the United States. Envir And Resource Econ 24:313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wright MM, Brown RC (2007) Comparative economics of biorefineries based on the biochemical and thermochemical platforms. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 1:49–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA-ARS, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 459, Mandan, ND, 58554, USA

    Marty R. Schmer

  2. USDA-ARS, Grain, Forage, and Bioenergy Research Unit, University of Nebraska, P.O. Box 830737, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    Robert B. Mitchell & Kenneth P. Vogel

  3. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 377L Plant Science Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915, USA

    Walter H. Schacht

  4. Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 340 Hardin Hall North, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0963, USA

    David B. Marx

Authors
  1. Marty R. Schmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert B. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth P. Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Walter H. Schacht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David B. Marx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marty R. Schmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmer, M.R., Mitchell, R.B., Vogel, K.P. et al. Efficient Methods of Estimating Switchgrass Biomass Supplies. Bioenerg. Res. 3, 243–250 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-009-9070-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-009-9070-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation