EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT WATER STRESS LEVELS ON BIOMASS YIELD AND AGRONOMIC TRAITS OF SWITCHGRASS (Panicum virgatum L.) CULTIVARS UNDER ARID AND SEMI-ARID CONDITIONS

Year 2021, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 25 - 34, 29.06.2021

Erdal Gönülal , Süleyman Soylu , Mehmet Şahin

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.758010

Cited By: 3

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the effects of different water stress levels on biomass yield, plant height, number of stalks per unit area, single stalk weight, yield reduction ratios and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) values of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) cultivars under Central Anatolia conditions. Experiments were conducted for two years (2016 – 2017) in randomized blocks – split plots experimental design with three replications under Konya ecological conditions. Six switchgrass cultivars (Shelter, Alamo, Cave in rock, Shawnee, Kanlow and Trailblazer) and five different irrigation treatments (water stress levels: S1: Full irrigation; S2: 75% of full irrigation; S3: 50% of full irrigation; S4: 25% of full irrigation and S5: Rain-fed without irrigation) were used in present experiments.
Kanlow, Alamo and Trailblazer cultivars had greater biomass yields than the other cultivars in all water stress treatments. Under different water stress treatments, dry biomass yields varied between 48300 kg ha-1 (S5- Cave in rock) and 25120 kg ha-1 (S1- Kanlow); plant heights varied between 70 cm (S5) and 180 cm (S1); number of stalks per unit area (meter) varied between 221 (S5) and 356 (S1); stalk weights varied between 0.56 g (S5) and 2.25 g (S1). IWUE was calculated as 5.7 kg m-3 for the first harvest and as 2.1 kg m-3 for the second harvest. Considering the biomass yields from single harvest of rain-fed treatments (S5) and two harvests of the other irrigation treatments (S1-S4), IWUE values and water deficits of the region, it was concluded that single harvest was more suitable for switchgrass plants grown under ecological conditions

Keywords

Biomass yield, climate change, switchgrass, water stress, yield components

References

• Alexopoulou, E., N. Sharma, M. Christou, I. Piscioneri, M. Mardikis and V. Pigniatelli. 2002. Switchgrass in the Mediterranean region. Final Report. see www.switchgrass.nl. (Accessed 10.01.2020).
• Alexopoulou, E., F. Zanetti, E.G. Papazoglou, M. Christou, Y. Papatheohari, K. Tsiotas and I. Papamichael. 2017. Long-term studies on switchgrass grown on a marginal area in Greece under different varieties and nitrogen fertilization rates. Industrial Crops & Products. 107: 446–452.
• Aimar, D., M. Calafat, A.M. Andrade, L. Carassay, F. Bouteau, G. Abdala and M.L. Molas. 2014. Drought effects on the early development stages of Panicum virgatum L.: Cultivar differences. Biomass and Bioenergy. 66: 49-59.
• Araghi, S.G. and M.T. Assad. 1998. Evaluation of four screening techniques for drought resistance and their relationship to yield reduction ratio in wheat. Euphytica. 103: 293–299.
• Anonymous, 2009. Problems of Konya closed basin groundwater and solutions. Konya Chamber of Geological Engineers publications (News bulletin p: 78-81). (Accessed 01.10.2019).
• Barney, J.N., J.J. Mann, G.B. Kayser, E. Blumwald, A.V. Deynze and J.M. Ditomaso. 2009. Tolerance of switchgrass to extreme soil moisture stress: Ecological implications. Plant Science. 177: 732.
• Cassida, K.A., J.P. Muir, M.A. Hussey, J.C. Read, B.C. Venuto and W.R. Ocumpaugh. 2005. Biofuel component concentrations and yields of switchgrass in South Central U.S. Environments Crop Science. 45 (2): 682- 692.
• Cicek, F. 2017. The determination of G.D.D. for different morphological stages and physiological characteristics of cutting times of switchgrass varieties (Panicum virgatium L.). Selcuk University Natural an Applied Sciences Department Master Thesis. Pages: 24-43.
• Geren, H., Y.T. Kavut and G.D. Topcu. 2016. A preliminary study on the biomass yield and some agronomical characteristıcs of different switch grass genotypes grown under Bornova ecological conditions. 2. National Biofuels Symposium. Samsun/Turkey. Pages: 286-292.
• Giannoulis, K.D., T. Karyotis, M.M. Sakellariou, L. Bastiaans, P.C. Struik and N.G. Danalatos. 2016. Switchgrass biomass partitioning and growth characteristics under different management practices. NJAS- WageningenJ.LifeSci. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.011
• Howell, T.A., R.H. Cuencaand and K.H. Solomon. 1990. Crop yield response. "Manegement of farm ırrigation Systems. Edit. G.J. Hoffman., T.A. Howell., K.H. Solomon." Chap. 5. An ASAE Monograph. Pages: 93- 116.
• Kara, M. 2011. Irrigation and irrigation facilities. Selcuk University publications. Pages: 45-65.
• Liu, Y., X. Zhang, H. Tran, L. Shan, J. Kim, K. Childs, E.H. Ervin, T. Frazier and B. Zhao. 2015. Assessment of drought tolerance of 49 switchgrass genotypes using physiological and morphological parameters. Biotechnology for Biofuel, 8 (1): 152.
• Ma, Z., C.V. Wood and D.I. Bransby. 2000. Soil management impacts on soil carbon sequestration by switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy. 18 (6): 469-477.
• Madakadze, I.C., B.E. Coulman, P. Peterson, K.A. Stewart, R. Samson and D.L. Smith. 1998. Leaf area development, light ınterception, and yield among switchgrass populations in a short-season area. Crop Science. 38 (3): 827-834.
• Min, D., Y.N. Guragain, V. Prasad, P.V. Vadlaniand and J. Lee. 2017. Effects of different genotypes of switchgrass as a bioenergy crop on yield components and bioconversion potential. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems.7: 27-35.
• Muir, J.P., M.A. Sanderson, W.., Ocumpaugh, R.M. Jones and R.L. Reed. 2001. Biomass production of ‘Alamo’ switchgrass in response to nitrogen, phosphorus, and row spacing. Agronomy Journal. 93 (4): 896-901.
• Nasso, N.N.D., M.V. Lasorella, N. Roncucci and E. Bonari. 2015. Soil texture and crop management affect switchgrass productivity in the Mediterranean. Industrial Crops and Products. 65: 21-26.
• Parrish, D.J. and J.H. Fike. 2005. The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 24 (5-6): 423-459.
• Sanderson, M.A., J.C. Readand and R.L. Reed. 1999. Harvest management of switchgrass for biomass feedstock and forage production. Agronomy Journal. 91 (1): 5-10.
• Sauerbeck, G., W. Bacher, N. El Bassam, W. Elbersen, V. Pignatelli, I. Piscioneri and N. Sharma. 2002. Effects of different seeding rates, drilling dates and weed control on establishment of switchgrass varieties in nothern Germany and Southern Italy. Final Report FAIR 5-CT97-3701, www.switchgrass. nl. (Accessed 10.02.2020).
• Seflek, A. 2010. The determination of yield, some morphological,phenogical and physiologıcal characteristics of switchgrass varieties (Panicum virgatum L.). Selcuk University Natural and Applied Sciences Department Master Thesis. Pages: 26-42.
• Soylu, S., B. Sade, H. Ogut, F. Akınerdem, M. Babaoglu, R. Ada, T. Eryılmaz, O. Ozturk and H. Oguz. 2010. Investigation of agronomic potential of switchgrass as an alternative biofuel and biomass crop for Turkey. 18th European Biomass Conforence, Lyon Fransa.
• Vamvuka, D., V. Topouzi and S. Sfakiotakis. 2010. Evaluation of production yield and thermal processing of switchgrass as a bio-energy crop for the Mediterranean region. Fuel Processing Technology. 91 (9): 988-996.
• Wullschleger, S.D., E.B. Davis, M.E. Borsuk, C.A. Gunderson and L.R. Lynd. 2010. Biomass production in switchgrass across the United States: database description and determination of yield. Crop Sci. 102, 1158–1168.
• Xu, B., F., Li, L. Shan, Y. Ma, N. Ichızen and J. Huang. 2006. Gas exchange, biomass partition, and water relationships of three grass seedlings under water stress. Weed Biology and Management. 6 (2): 79-88.
• Zhu, Y., X., Fan, X. Hou, J. Wu and T. Wang. 2014. Effect of different levels of nitrogen deficiency on switchgrass seedling growth. The Crop Journal. 2 (4): 223-234.