Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:11:28.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Miscanthus × giganteus growth and control in simulated upland and wetland habitats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2022

Gray Turnage Open the ORCID record for Gray Turnage [Opens in a new window] ,
John D. Byrd Open the ORCID record for John D. Byrd [Opens in a new window]  and
John D. Madsen Open the ORCID record for John D. Madsen [Opens in a new window]
Gray Turnage*
Affiliation:
Assistant Research/Extension Professor, GeoSystems Research Institute, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
John D. Byrd
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
John D. Madsen
Affiliation:
Research Biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Davis, CA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Gray Turnage, GeoSystems Research Institute, Mississippi State University, Box 9627, Mississippi State, MS39762.Email: Gturnage@gri.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Globally, giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus J.M. Greef & Deuter ex Hodkinson & Renvoize [sacchariflorus × sinensis]) is used as a biofuel crop due to its ability to persist in a wide range of climates. However, little work has assessed this plant’s ability to invade and persist in wetland habitats. In outdoor mesocosms, we examined M. × giganteus’s ability to grow in simulated wetland versus upland habitats and examined chemical control strategies for both habitats using aquatic-labeled herbicides. Miscanthus × giganteus growth was consistently greater in simulated wetland habitats, with wetland plants 2.4 to 3 times taller than upland plants at 6 wk after treatment (WAT) and 2.8 to 3.3 times taller than upland plants at 12 WAT. Miscanthus × giganteus aboveground biomass was 12.7 to 17.7 times greater in wetland- versus upland-grown plants at 6 WAT and 9.6 to 12.5 times greater at 12 WAT. Belowground biomass was 4.5 to 10.7 times greater in wetland versus upland grown plants at 6 WAT and 4.0 to 6.1 times greater at 12 WAT. Miscanthus × giganteus belowground biomass was always greater than aboveground in both habitats at 6 (6.0 times greater in wetlands and 2.9 times greater in uplands) and 12 WAT (3.8 times greater in wetlands and 1.3 times greater in uplands). Generally, all herbicide treatments reduced M. × giganteus height (66% to 100% reduction) and biomass (84% to 100%) compared with nontreated plants at 12 WAT; however, glyphosate (5,716.3 g ai ha−1) and imazapyr (1,120.8 g ai ha−1) performed better than imazamox (560.4 g ai ha−1) and penoxsulam (98.6 g ai ha−1). This is the first work to provide evidence that M. × giganteus can be chemically controlled in wetland habitats. Furthermore, this is the first work to show that penoxsulam (an acetolactate synthase–inhibiting herbicide) can reduce M. × giganteus growth in upland or wetland habitats.

Keywords

Chemical controlgiant miscanthussimulated habitatwetland growth
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 25 - 32
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Ryan M. Wersal, Minnesota State University

References

Anderson, E, Arundale, R, Maughan, M, Oladeinde, A, Wycislo, A, Voigt, T (2011a) Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus x giganteus for biomass production. Biofuels 2:71–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, EK, Voight, TB, Bollero, GA, Hager, AG (2010) Miscanthus x giganteus response to pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides. Weed Technol 24:453–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, EK, Voight, TB, Bollero, GA, Hager, AG (2011b) Miscanthus x giganteus response to tillage and glyphosate. Weed Technol 25:356–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barksdale, DN (2016) Application Timing of Herbicides for Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) Control and Effects of Mowing on Rhizome Initiation and Production. Master’s thesis. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University. 94 pGoogle Scholar
Barksdale, N, Byrd, JD, Zaccaro, MLM, Russell, DP (2020) Evaluation of herbicide efficacy and application timing for giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) biomass reduction. Weed Technol 34:371–376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, JN, Mann, JJ, Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Assessing habitat susceptibility and resistance to invasion by the bioenergy crops switchgrass and Miscanthus x giganteus in California. Biomass Bioenerg 40:143–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, CV, Bint, DA, Long, SP (1996) Leaf photosynthesis in the C4 grass Miscanthus x giganteus, growing in the cool temperate climate of southern England. J Exp Bot 47:267–273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, A, Kaiser, J, Cordiesmon, R (2011) Planting and managing giant miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) in Missouri for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). Elsberry, MO: USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Plant Materials Center. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Clifton-Brown, JC, Lewandowski, I, Bangerth, F, Jones, MB (2002) Comparative responses to water stress in stay-green, rapid- and slow senescing genotypes of the biomass crop, Miscanthus. New Phytol 154:335–345 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derr, JF (2008) Common reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:12–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohleman, FG, Heaton, EA, Arundale, RA, Long, SP (2012) Seasonal dynamics of above- and below-ground biomass and nitrogen partitioning in Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum across three growing seasons. Global Change Biol Bioenergy 4:534–544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Netherland, MD (2017) Evaluation of three grass-specific herbicides on torpedograss (Panicum repens) and seven nontarget, native aquatic plants. J Aquat Plant Manage 55:65–70 Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Netherland, MD, Lauer, DK (2018a) Can low rates of imazapyr or glyphosate improve graminicide activity on torpedograss?. J Aquat Plant Manage 56:13–17 Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Netherland, MD, Lauer, DK (2018b) Evaluation of sethoxydim for torpedograss control in aquatic and wetland sites. J Aquat Plant Manage 56:93–100 Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Quincy, KH, Netherland, MD, Lauer, DK (2020) Evaluation of fluazifog-P-butyl for para grass and torpedograss control in aquatic and wetland sites. J Aquat Plant Manage 58:36–40 Google Scholar
Everman, WJ, Lindsey, AJ, Henry, GM, Glaspie, CF, Phillips, K, McKenney, C (2011) Response of Miscanthus x giganteus and Miscanthus sinensis to post-emergence herbicides. Weed Technol 25:398–403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, A, Glick, P (2012) Growing Risk Addressing the Invasive Potential of Bioenergy Feedstocks. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. 56 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardion, L, Verlaque, R, Saltonstall, K, Leriche, A, Vila, B (2014) Origin of the invasive Arundo donax (Poaceae): a trans-Asian expedition in herbaria. Ann Bot 114:455–462 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heaton, EA, Dohleman, FG, Long, SP (2008) Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus . Global Change Biol 14:2000–2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, AD (2021) Investigating miscanthus water use efficiency using UAVs and in-situ sensors. Master’s thesis. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 132 pGoogle Scholar
Hu, S, Niu, Z, Chen, Y (2017a) Global wetland datasets: a review. Wetlands 37:807–817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, S, Niu, Z, Chen, Y, Li, L, Zhang, H (2017b) Global wetlands: potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Sci Total Environ 586:319–327 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junk, WJ, Brown, M, Campbell, IC, Finlayson, M, Gopal, B, Ramberg, L, Warner, BG (2006) The comparative biodiversity of seven globally important wetlands: a synthesis. Aquat Sci 68:400–414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, SJ, Kim, MY, Jeong, SJ, Jang, MS, Chung, IM (2012) Analysis of the biomass content of various Miscanthus genotypes for biofuel production in Korea. Ind Crops Prod 38:46–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowski, I, Clifton-Brown, JC, Scurlock, JMO, Huisman, W (2000) Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenerg 19:209–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowski, I, Heinz, A (2003) Delayed harvest of Miscanthus influences on biomass quantity and quality and environmental impacts of energy production. Eur J Agron 19:45–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X, Grey, TL, Blanchett, BH, Lee, RD, Webster, TM, Vencill, WK (2013) Tolerance evaluation of vegetatively established Miscanthus x giganteus to herbicides. Weed Technol 27:735–740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, JJ, Barney, JN, Kyser, GB, DiTomaso, JM (2012) Miscanthus x giganteus and Arundo donax shoot and rhizome tolerance of extreme moisture stress. Global Change Biol Bioenergy 5:693–700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maucieri, C, Borin, M, Milani, M, Cirelli, GL, Barbera, AC (2019) Plant species effect on CO2 and CH4 emissions from pilot constructed wetland in Mediterranean area. Ecol Eng 134:112–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCalmont, JP, Hastings, A, McNamara, NP, Richter, GM, Robson, P, Donnison, IS, Clifton-Brown, J (2017) Environmental costs and benefits of growing Miscanthus for bioenergy in the UK. Global Change Biol Bioenergy 9:489–507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIsaac, GF, David, MB, Mitchell, CA (2010). Miscanthus and switchgrass production in central Illinois: impacts on hydrology and inorganic nitrogen leaching. J Environ Qual 39:1790–1799 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miguez, FE, Zhu, X, Humphries, S, Bollero, GA, Long, SP (2009) A semimechanistic model predicting the growth and production of the bioenergy crop Miscanthus x giganteus: description, parameterization and validation. Global Change Biol Bioenergy 1:282–296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitra, S, Wassmann, R, Viek, PLG (2005) An appraisal of global wetland area and its organic carbon stock. Curr Sci 88:25–35 Google Scholar
Naidu, SL, Moose, SP, Al-Shoaibi, AK, Raines, CA, Long, SP (2003) Cold tolerance of C-4 photosynthesis in Miscanthus x giganteus: adaptation in amounts and sequence of C-4 photosynthetic enzymes. Plant Physiol 132:1688–1697 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilu, R, Bucci, A, Badone, FC, Landoni, M (2012) Giant reed (Arundo donax L.): A weed plant or a promising energy crop? Afr J Biotechnol 11:9163–9174 Google Scholar
Pilu, R, Manca, A, Landoni, M (2013) Arundo donax as an energy crop: pros and cons of the utilization of this perennial plant. Maydica 25:54–59 Google Scholar
Pittman, SE, Muthukrishnan, R, West, NM, Davis, AS, Jordan, NR, Forester, JD (2015) Mitigating the potential for invasive spread of the exotic biofuel crop, Miscanthus x giganteus . Biol Invasions 17:3247–3261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Robinson, AB, Robinson, NE, Soon, W (2007) Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Am Phys Surg 12:79–90 Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 p Google Scholar
Smith, LL, Barney, JN (2014) The relative risk of invasion: evaluation of Miscanthus x giganteus seed establishment. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:93–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornby, D, Spencer, D, Hanan, J, Sher, A (2007) L-DONAX, a growth model of the invasive weed species Arundo donax L. Aquat Bot 87:275–284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, D, Opperman, JJ, Abell, R, Acreman, M, Arthington, AH, Bunn, SE, Cooke, SJ, Dalton, J, Darwall, W, Edwards, G, Garrison, I, Hughes, K, Jones, T, Leclere, D, Lynch, AJ, et al. (2020) Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: an emergency recovery plan. BioScience 70:330–342 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnage, G, Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM, Byrd, JD (2019) Simulated mechanical control of flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus L.) under mesocosm conditions. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 57:56–61 Google Scholar
Van der Weijde, T, Huxley, LM, Hawkins, S, Sembiring, EH, Farrar, K, Dolstra, O, Visser, RGF, Trindade, LM (2017) Impact of drought stress on growth and quality of miscanthus for biofuel production. Global Change Biol Bioenergy 9:770–782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanloocke, A, Bernacchi, CJ, Twines, TE (2010) The impacts of Miscanthus x giganteus production on the Midwest US hydrologic cycle. Global Change Biol Bioenergy 2:180–191 Google Scholar
Williams, MJ, Douglas, J (2011) Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop. USDA NRCS Technical Note No 4. 30 pGoogle Scholar