Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:37:25.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Age-Dependent Demographic Rates of the Bioenergy Crop Miscanthus × giganteus in Illinois

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David P. Matlaga ,
Brian J. Schutte  and
Adam S. Davis
David P. Matlaga*
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service
Brian J. Schutte
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, N-319 Turner Hall, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dmatlaga@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some plants being considered as bioenergy crops share traits with invasive species and have histories of spreading outside of their native ranges, highlighting the importance of evaluating the invasive potential before the establishment of large-scale plantings. The Asian grass Miscanthus × giganteus is currently being planted as a bioenergy crop in the north central region of the United States. Our goal was to understand the demographic rates and vegetative spread of this species in unmanaged arable lands in Illinois to compare with those of large-statured invasive grasses (LSIGs). We collected data from 13 M. × giganteus plantings in Illinois, ranging in age from 1 to 7 yr, recording tiller number, plant spatial extent, spikelet production, and plant survival over 4 yr. Additionally, to understand recruitment potential, we conducted a greenhouse germination experiment, and, to estimate establishment from rhizome fragments, field trials were performed. Miscanthus × giganteus demographic rates were age dependent. Spikelet production was high, with 1- and 4-yr plants producing an annual average of more than 10,000 and 180,000 spikelets plant−1, respectively; however, data from our germination trial suggested that none of these spikelets had the potential to yield seedlings. On average, plants expanded vegetatively 0.15 m yr−1. Tiller density within the center of a clone decreased with age, possibly leading to a “dead center” found among some LSIGs. Rhizome establishment increased with weight, ranging from 0 to 42%. Survival was low, 24%, for first-year plants but quickly climbed to an asymptote of 98% survival for 4-yr-old plants. Our results suggest that efforts should be made to eradicate plants that escape biomass production fields within a year of establishment, before the onset of high survival. Future work is needed to determine what types of natural and anthropogenic disturbances can fragment rhizomes, leading to regeneration.

Keywords

Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Deu ex Hodkinson et Renvoize, Giant miscanthusMiscanthus × giganteusbiofeedstockIllinoisrhizome establishment
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 238 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Al-Mufti, M., Sydes, C., Furness, S., Grime, J., and Band, S. 1977. A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J. Ecol. 65:759–791.Google Scholar
Anderson, E., Arundale, R., Maughan, M., Oladeinde, A., Wycislo, A., and Voigt, T. 2011. Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus × giganteus for biomass production. Biofuels 2:167–183.Google Scholar
Angelini, L. G., Ceccarini, L., Di Nassa, N. N. O., and Bonari, E. 2009. Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus × giganteus in a long-term field experiment in Central Italy: analysis of productive characteristics and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 33:635–643.Google Scholar
Barney, J. N. and DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. Nonnative species and bioenergy: are we cultivating the next invader? Bioscience 58:64–70.Google Scholar
Bell, G. P. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. Pages 103–113 in Brock, J. H., Wade, M., Pysek, P., and Green, D., eds. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands Backhuys Publishers.Google Scholar
Boland, J. M. 2006. The importance of layering in the rapid spread of Arundo donax (Giant reed). Madrono 53:303–312.Google Scholar
Boland, J. M. 2008. The roles of floods and bulldozers in the break-up and dispersal of Arundo donax (Giant reed). Madrono 55:216–222.Google Scholar
Briske, D. D. and Derner, J. D. 1998. Clonal biology of caespitose grasses. Pages 106–135 in Cheplick, G. P., ed. Population Biology of Grasses. New York Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chimera, C. G., Buddenhagen, C. E., and Clifford, P. M. 2010. Biofuels: the risks and dangers of introducing invasive species. Biofuels 1:785–796.Google Scholar
Christian, D. G. and Haase, E. 2001. Agronomy of Miscanthus . Pages 21–45 in Jones, M. B., and Walsh, M., eds. Miscanthus for Energy and Fibre. London James and James.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 2008. Risk assessment of potential biofuel species: an application for trait-based models for predicting weediness? Weed Sci. 56:873–882.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. C., Dytham, C., and Law, R. 2008. Dispersal in Plants: A Population Perspective. New York Oxford University.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 2007. The R book. Hoboken, NJ Wiley.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Cousens, R. D., Hill, J., Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., and Raghu, S. 2010. Screening bioenergy feedstock crops to mitigate invasion risk. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8:533–539.Google Scholar
Dohleman, F. G. and Long, S. P. 2009. More productive than maize in the midwest: how does Miscanthus do it? Plant Physiol. 150:2104–2115.Google Scholar
Dudley, T. L. 2000. Arundo donax L. Pages 53–58 in Bossard, C. C., and Randall, J. M., eds. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley University of California Press.Google Scholar
Genovesi, P. 2011. European biofuel policies may increase biological invasions: the risk of inertia. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainabil. 103:1–5.Google Scholar
Gervais, C., Trahan, R., Moreno, D., and Drolet, A. 1993. Phragmites australis in Quebec: geographical distribution, chromosome number and reproduction. Can. J. Bot. (J. Can. Bot.) 71:1386–1393.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R., Tancig, K. J., Onderdonk, D. A., and Gantz, C. A. 2011. Assessing the invasive potential of biofuel species proposed for Florida and the United States using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 35:74–79.Google Scholar
Greef, J. M. and Deuter, M. 1993. Syntaxonomy of Miscanthus × giganteus . Angew. Bot. 67:87–90.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Caldwell, NJ Blackburn.Google Scholar
Hayes, K. R. and Barry, S. C. 2008. Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success? Biol. Invasions 4:483–506.Google Scholar
Heaton, E., Voigt, T., and Long, S. P. 2004. A quantitative review comparing the yields of two candidate C-4 perennial biomass crops in relation to nitrogen, temperature and water. Biomass Bioenergy 27:21–30.Google Scholar
Heaton, E. A., Dohleman, F. G., and Long, S. P. 2008. Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus . Glob. Change Biol. 14:2000–2014.Google Scholar
Jessup, R. W. 2009. Development and status of dedicated energy crops in the United States. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim. 45:282–290.Google Scholar
Kettenring, K. M., McCormick, M. K., Baron, H. M., and Whigham, D. F. 2010. Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion in the Rhode River subestuary of the Chesapeake Bay: disentangling the effects of foliar nutrients, genetic diversity, patch size, and seed viability. Estuar. Coasts 33:118–126.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K. and Yokoi, Y. 2003. Spatiotemporal patterns of shoots within an isolated Miscanthus sinensis patch in the warm temperate region of Japan. Ecol. Res. 18:41–51.Google Scholar
Lambert, A. M., Dudley, T. L., and Saltonstall, K. 2010. Ecology and impacts of the large-statured invasive grasses Arundo donax and Phragmites australis in North America. Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 3:489–494.Google Scholar
Lavergne, S. and Molofsky, J. 2004. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a biological model in the study of plant invasions. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23:415–429.Google Scholar
League, M. T., Colbert, E. P., Seliskar, D. M., and Gallagher, J. L. 2006. Rhizome growth dynamics of native and exotic haplotypes of Phragmites australis (common reed). Estuar. Coasts 29:269–276.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J. M. O., Lindvall, E., and Christou, M. 2003. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25:335–361.Google Scholar
Lovett-Doust, L. 1981. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens). I. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. J. Ecol. 69:743–755.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. 2000. Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental stochasticity. Biol. Invasions 2:111–122.Google Scholar
Mariani, C., Cabrini, R., Danin, A., Piffanelli, P., Fricano, A., Gomarasca, S., Dicandilo, M., Grassi, F., and Soave, C. 2010. Origin, diffusion and reproduction of the giant reed (Arundo donax L.): a promising weedy energy crop. Ann. Appl. Biol. 157:191–202.Google Scholar
Marks, M., Lapin, B., and Randall, J. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management, and monitoring. Nat. Areas J. 14:285–294.Google Scholar
Matumura, M. and Yukimura, T. 1975. Fundamental studies on artificial propagation by seeding useful wild grasses in Japan. VI. Germination behaviors of three native species of genus Miscanthus: M. sacchariflorus, M. sinensis, and M. tinctorius. Res. Bull. Fac. Agric. Gifu Univ. 38:339–349.Google Scholar
Maurer, D. A. and Zedler, J. B. 2002. Differential invasion of a wetland grass explained by tests of nutrients and light availability on establishment and clonal growth. Oecologia 131:279–288.Google Scholar
McCormick, M. K., Kettenring, K. M., Baron, H. M., and Whigham, D. F. 2010. Extent and reproductive mechanisms of Phragmites australis spread in brackish wetlands in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (USA). Wetlands 30:67–74.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. H. and Tchida, C. L. 1999. Miscanthus Andress. produces viable seed in four USDA hardiness zones. J. Environ. Hortic. 17:137–140.Google Scholar
Minchinton, T. E. 2002. Disturbance by wrack facilitates spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 281:89–107.Google Scholar
Minchinton, T. E. and Bertness, M. D. 2003. Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol. Appl. 13:1400–1416.Google Scholar
Molofsky, J., Morrison, S. L., and Goodnight, C. J. 1999. Genetic and environmental controls on the establishment of the invasive grass, Phalaris arundinacea . Biol. Invasions 1:181–188.Google Scholar
Nechiporenko, N., Godovikova, V., and Shumny, V. 1997. Physiological and genetical basis for selection of Miscanthus. Asp. Appl. Biol 49:251–254.Google Scholar
Nielsen, P. N. 1987. Vegetativ formering af elefantgraes, Miscanthus sinensis ‘Giganteus’. Tidsskr. Planteavl 91:275–281.Google Scholar
Ostrem, L. 1988. Studies on genetic variation in reed canarygrass, Phalaris arundinacea L. Hereditas 108:103–113.Google Scholar
Pyter, R. J., Dohleman, F. G., and Voigt, T. B. 2010. Effects of rhizome size, depth of planting and cold storage on Miscanthus × giganteus establishment in the Midwestern USA. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1466–1470.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D., Allen, D. J., and Stewart, J. R. 2010. Invasiveness potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications for bioenergy production in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2:310–320.Google Scholar
Quinn, L. D., Matlaga, D. P., Stewart, J. R., and Davis, A. S. 2011. Empirical evidence of long-distance dispersal in Miscanthus sinensis and Miscanthus × giganteus . Inv. Plant Sci. Manag. 4:142–150.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team, eds. 2011. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Raghu, S., Anderson, R. C., Daehler, C. C., Davis, A. S., Wiedenmann, R. N., Simberloff, D., and Mack, R. N. 2006. Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 313:1742–1742.Google Scholar
Ramsey, J. and Schemske, D. W. 1998. Pathways, mechanisms, and rates of polyploid formation in flowering plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29:467–501.Google Scholar
Ridley, H. N. 1930. The Dispersal of Plants Throughout the World. London L. Reeve.Google Scholar
Ross, M. 2011. New miscanthus development possible biomass game-changer? FarmWeek, May 16, 2011. P. 9.Google Scholar
Sahramaa, M. H. and Leena Jauhiainen, L. 2004. Variation in seed production traits of reed canarygrass germplasm. Crop Sci. 44:988.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. R., Toma, Y., Fernandez, F. G., Nishiwaki, A., Yamada, T., and Bollero, G. 2009. The ecology and agronomy of Miscanthus sinensis, a species important to bioenergy crop development, in its native range in Japan: a review. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 1:126–153.Google Scholar
[USDA-FSA] U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. 2011. Environmental Assessment: Proposed BCAP Giant Miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) Establishment and Production in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Sponsored by Aloterra Energy LLC and MFA Oil Biomass LLC. Washington, DC USDA-FSA.Google Scholar
USDA, N. R. C. S. 2011. The PLANTS Database. (http://plants.usda.gov, 18 October 2011). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.Google Scholar
van der Toorn, J. 1972. Variability of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel in Relation to the Environment. Gravenhage, The Netherlands Staatskrukkerij- en Uitgeverijbedrijf.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. and White, J. 1986. Some life-history consequences of modular construction in plants. Philos. T. R. Soc. Lond. S.-B 313:31–51.Google Scholar
White, D. A., Hauber, D. P., and Hood, C. S. 2004. Clonal differences in Phragmites australis from the Mississippi River delta. Southeast Nat. 3:531–544.Google Scholar
Yu, C. Y., Kim, H. S., Rayburn, A. L., Widholm, J. M., and Juvik, J. A. 2009. Chromosome doubling of the bioenergy crop, Miscanthus × giganteus . Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 1:404–412.Google Scholar