The Impact of Harvest Timing on Biomass Yield from Native Warm‐Season Grass Mixtures

McIntosh, David W.; Bates, Gary E.; Keyser, Patrick D.; Allen, Fred L.; Harper, Craig A.; Waller, John C.; Birckhead, Jessie L.; Backus, William M.

doi:10.2134/agronj15.0251

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This BH treatment produced the greatest biomass yield of all the harvest treatments in Fig. 2 of McIntosh et al (2015). Data reported here indicate that biomass from this treatment contained the greatest ADF, NDF, and cellulose and the least N and P (Table 2).…”

Section: Biomass Qualitymentioning

confidence: 65%

“…The objectives of this study were to determine (i) the effect of two early-season harvest timings (early-boot [EB] and early-seedhead harvest [ESH]) on forage nutritive values of native grasses in monoculture and mixtures and (ii) the effect of forage harvest timing on biomass quality in a dual-use system. Yield data from this study (forage and biomass) have been previously reported in McIntosh et al (2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forage Harvest Timing Impact on Biomass Quality from Native Warm‐Season Grass Mixtures

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he development of renewable bioenergy resources has become increasingly important over the last three decades (Lynd et al., 1991; McLaughlin and Kszos, 2005; Sanderson et al., 1996). Switchgrass has often been a primary species investigated for bioenergy (Lynd et al., 1991; Sanderson et al., 1996), with a single late fall or early winter harvest resulting in the greatest sustainable biomass yield (Parrish and Fike, 2005). There is the potential to remove an early-season forage harvest in a biomass system, which may provide more options to producers from the same crop (Mosali et al., 2013; Sanderson and Adler, 2008). Research has indicated that an early-season forage harvest followed by a fall biomass harvest will result in a reduced biomass yield but will also result in an increase in total yield influenced by the forage harvest timing (McIntosh et al., 2015). Just as harvest timing influences yield, timing is a major factor influencing forage nutritive value (Ball et al., 2015). In hay production, nutritive value is an important consideration when using native warm-season grasses (NWSGs) in mixture and can be affected by plant maturity (Springer et al., 2001). As harvest is delayed from early to late seedhead production, nutritive value decreases dramatically, making it important to include plant maturity as one of the considerations for hay production instead of yield alone (Waramit et al., 2012). With proper management, switchgrass (SG) in monoculture can produce good nutritive values before maturity causes reduced values, usually after the vegetative stage at late boot when the head is emerging (Mitchell et al., 2001; Richner et al., 2014). Species mixtures that include SG provided good quality forage with increased yields, depending on the management system (

show abstract

Section: Biomass Qualitymentioning

confidence: 65%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forage Harvest Timing Impact on Biomass Quality from Native Warm‐Season Grass Mixtures

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…S witchgrass is an important prospective bioenergy (Sanderson et al, 1996;McLaughlin and Kszos, 2005), forage (Anderson and Matches, 1983;Burns and Fisher, 2013) or dual-use, foragebiomass crop (Guretzky et al, 2011;Mosali et al, 2013;McIntosh et al, 2015). However, switchgrass is considered difficult to establish (Panciera and Jung, 1984;Aiken and Springer, 1995;Parrish and Fike, 2005).…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Small Grain Cover Crops to Enhance Switchgrass Establishment

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishment failures are a challenge to wide‐scale use of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) for biomass feedstock and/or forage production. Small grain cover crops, because of their allelopathic properties, may inhibit (direct allelopathy) or enhance (competition reduction) switchgrass establishment, and provide indirect benefits such as soil conservation and forage/grain production during the establishment year. Objectives of this study were to evaluate stand density and yield based on seeding switchgrass into (i) four small grain cover crops: wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cereal rye (Secale cereale L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), and fallow control at (ii) three dates (15 March, 1 May, and 10 June) that approximated typical timing for removal of small grain cover, haylage, or grain crops in Tennessee, respectively. Treatments were assigned in a split‐plot design with three replications at three locations in Tennessee in 2008 and repeated in 2009. Small grain cover crops influenced (P = 0.002) switchgrass seedling density at only one location (wheat > other small grains > control) and interacted with year at another, but was never related (P < 0.05) to yield. Planting date affected switchgrass density and yield, but always in the context of an interaction with year; yield varied by location and year with no clear pattern. Density also varied by year and location, with fewer plants occurring during May seeding dates. Therefore, switchgrass can be planted following small grains without an apparent penalty or advantage to switchgrass stand density or yield, while offsetting lost production during establishment.

show abstract

“…Research is accumulating that demonstrates that NWSGs have many compelling attributes that can contribute to more sustainable forage production in the Fescue Belt. For example, animal performance is strong (0.80–0.95 kg/day average daily gains; Keyser et al , Backus et al ), and yields are high (9–11 Mg DM/ha; Olson et al , McIntosh et al ), with consistently positive economic returns (Lowe et al , ; Monroe et al ). In addition, use of NWSGs, which do not have toxicity issues, during summer could reduce cattle exposure to fescue toxins while improving drought resiliency (Buttrey et al , Burns and Fisher , Caldwell et al ).…”

Section: A Working‐lands Model For Eastern Grasslandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have found that grassland‐dependent birds may exploit switchgrass biomass production fields at some level (Murray and Best , Roth et al , West et al , Conkling et al ). Modifications to a native‐based biomass model could be developed, including incorporation of legumes as an alternate nitrogen source (Ashworth et al ), multispecies mixes (McIntosh et al , Conkling et al ), or grazing (Harper et al , Backus et al ) that could enhance wildlife habitat quality. Regardless, the sheer scale of a prospective biomass energy industry mandates that conservationists remain engaged and work toward a best‐case scenario for grasslands wildlife.…”

Section: Barriers To Implementing a Working‐lands Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eastern grasslands: Conservation challenges and opportunities on private lands

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasslands were once common in the eastern United States and provided habitat for numerous grassland-dependent wildlife. However, native grasslands in this region have largely been eliminated as a result of conversion to other land uses (e.g., urban development, row-crops), altered disturbance regimes (e.g., lack of fire and grazing), or conversion to introduced grasses for livestock production. Consequently, many wildlife species adapted to these environments have experienced protracted population declines, notably, northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and other grassland-dependent bird species. Restoration of native grasslands with appropriate native plant species composition, structure, and disturbance regimes will be key to restoring at-risk wildlife. Indeed, the region still includes >20 million ha of grasslands, but these are dominated by introduced grass species and focused on cattle (Bos taurus) production. Any successful restoration strategy must engage the agricultural community, provide profitable forage production, and benefit habitat for wildlife. Furthermore, grassland ecosystems in humid regions (i.e., >95 cm annual rainfall) require frequent disturbance to prevent succession to forested conditions. Historically, these native grasslands were maintained by fire, herbivory, and their interaction. Consequently, wildlife communities in humid, native grasslands are adapted to those same disturbances and the conditions they create. Improving species composition by replacing introduced, sod-forming grass species commonly used in production agriculture (e.g., tall fescue [Schedonorus arundinaceus] and bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon]) with native grasses can be beneficial but must be accompanied by appropriate disturbance to achieve and maintain improved habitat. Therefore, developing a business case for producers to incorporate native grasses into regional agro-grasslands that include disturbance through grazing may foster large-scale improvements in habitat quality. Although Farm Bill conservation practices can make important contributions to conservation of eastern grassland-dependent wildlife, such programs are dependent on uncertain and limited federal budgets and, to provide appropriate disturbance, require management intervention at a net cost to landowners and Farm Bill programs. Thus, there exists an opportunity to improve habitat at a scale that has the potential to sustain viable populations of grassland-dependent wildlife. Therefore, we discuss the potential of a new conservation paradigm, one based on grazing systems that utilize native grasses, for filling that conservation gap.

show abstract

The Impact of Harvest Timing on Biomass Yield from Native Warm‐Season Grass Mixtures

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Forage Harvest Timing Impact on Biomass Quality from Native Warm‐Season Grass Mixtures

Forage Harvest Timing Impact on Biomass Quality from Native Warm‐Season Grass Mixtures

Evaluation of Small Grain Cover Crops to Enhance Switchgrass Establishment

Eastern grasslands: Conservation challenges and opportunities on private lands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About