Long‐term yield and performance of 15 different Miscanthus genotypes in southwest Germany

A field experiment with 15 Miscanthus genotypes including M. × giganteus, M. sacchariflorus, M. sinensis and M. sinensis hybrids was conducted for 14 years at the experimental Ihinger Hof station of the University of Hohenheim in southwest Germany to evaluate interannual yield performance stability over 14 years of harvests of the different genotypes. In this article, a simple formula is presented which could be used to forecast late winter yields using morphological traits in autumn. The data obtained indicated a shorter establishment period to reach a yield plateau of M. × giganteus and M. sacchariflorus than M. sinensis hybrids and M. sinensis genotypes. The best performing genotype was M. × giganteus (Gig-2, No. 16.21) with a mean spring harvestable yield of 14.1 t DM ha−1 year−1. A correlation analysis with climatic parameters revealed precipitation during the growing period as the key factor for high yields at this site. Likewise, but to a lesser degree, heat sum during the growing period was positively correlated with yields. It could be shown that precipitation/snow during the winter correlated with yield losses, until the harvest date in February/March. Phenological measurements indicated that a high yield potential of the tested genotypes is associated with either an absence of flowering or late flowering. Also, height of the plants and shoot diameter were indicators for high yield potential. Shoot density and plant height at senescence were found to be solid parameters to estimate harvestable biomass in late winter. Yield approximations with a mean accuracy of 80.9% for M.× giganteus genotypes were obtained using the newly developed equation. Yields of M. sinensis hybrid (Sin-H7) were projected most accurately with this simple formula, resulting in a mean accuracy of 84.5%.

[1]  M. Chase,et al.  Characterization of a genetic resource collection for Miscanthus (Saccharinae, Andropogoneae, Poaceae) using AFLP and ISSR PCR. , 2002, Annals of botany.

[2]  J. Lammel,et al.  Cultivation of Miscanthus under West European conditions: Seasonal changes in dry matter production, nutrient uptake and remobilization , 1997, Plant and Soil.

[3]  S. Anthony,et al.  Identifying the yield potential of Miscanthus x giganteus: an assessment of the spatial and temporal variability of M. x giganteus biomass productivity across England and Wales , 2004 .

[4]  C. Jung,et al.  Genetic diversity of European Miscanthus species revealed by AFLP fingerprinting , 1997, Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution.

[5]  John Clifton-Brown,et al.  Genotypic variation in cold tolerance influences the yield of Miscanthus , 2006 .

[6]  Andrew B. Riche,et al.  Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests , 2008 .

[7]  Uffe Jørgensen,et al.  Benefits versus risks of growing biofuel crops: the case of Miscanthus , 2011 .

[8]  John Clifton-Brown,et al.  Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus , 2007 .

[9]  John Clifton-Brown,et al.  The modelled productivity of Miscanthus×giganteus (GREEF et DEU) in Ireland. , 2000 .

[10]  H. Zub,et al.  Key traits for biomass production identified in different Miscanthus species at two harvest dates. , 2011 .

[11]  H. Zub,et al.  Agronomic and physiological performances of different species of Miscanthus, a major energy crop. A review , 2010, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[12]  Isabelle Bertrand,et al.  Quality and decomposition in soil of rhizome, root and senescent leaf from Miscanthus x giganteus, as affected by harvest date and N fertilization , 2010, Plant and Soil.

[13]  Günther Fischer,et al.  Biomass potentials of miscanthus, willow and poplar: results and policy implications for Eastern Europe, Northern and Central Asia , 2005 .

[14]  Thomas B. Voigt,et al.  A quantitative review comparing the yields of two candidate C4 perennial biomass crops in relation to nitrogen, temperature and water , 2004 .

[15]  Uffe Jørgensen,et al.  Environment and harvest time affects the combustion qualities of Miscanthus genotypes , 2003 .

[16]  M B Jones,et al.  Comparative responses to water stress in stay-green, rapid- and slow senescing genotypes of the biomass crop, Miscanthus. , 2002, The New phytologist.

[17]  Enrico Bonari,et al.  Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus x giganteus in a long-term field experiment in Central Italy: Analysis of productive characteristics and energy balance , 2009 .

[18]  A V Bridgwater,et al.  Variation in Miscanthus chemical composition and implications for conversion by pyrolysis and thermo-chemical bio-refining for fuels and chemicals. , 2011, Bioresource technology.

[19]  D. G. Christian,et al.  Performance of 15 Miscanthus genotypes at five sites in Europe , 2001 .

[20]  J. Clifton-Brown,et al.  Miscanthus biomass production for energy in Europe and its potential contribution to decreasing fossil fuel carbon emissions , 2004 .

[21]  John Clifton-Brown,et al.  Genotypic and environmentally derived variation in the cell wall composition of Miscanthus in relation to its use as a biomass feedstock , 2010 .

[22]  Thomas B. Voigt,et al.  Miscanthus: A Promising Biomass Crop , 2010 .

[23]  John Clifton-Brown,et al.  Screening Miscanthus genotypes in field trials to optimise biomass yield and quality in Southern Germany , 2002 .

[24]  David M. Richardson,et al.  Biosecurity in the new bioeconomy , 2011 .

[25]  Iris Lewandowski,et al.  Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiencies of miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line approach , 2006 .