Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing Biomass Yields of Low-Input High-Diversity Communities with Managed Monocultures Across the Central United States

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biofuel cropping expansion is increasing pressure on food, grazing, and conservation lands. Debate over the efficacy of converting diverse native plant communities to managed monocultures prompted us to explore the extensive crop and ecological site productivity databases maintained by US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. We compared annual net primary productivity (ANPP) of diverse native plant communities to ANPP of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma; to coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon [L.] Pers.) in northern and central Texas; and to buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare [L.] Link.) in extreme southern Texas. In only 21% of the 1,238 sites in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma did native communities produce more or equivalent ANPP compared with managed alfalfa or coastal bermudagrass. In contrast, southern Texas native communities had greater ANPP than did buffelgrass at 81% of the sites. Regression analyses based on these results suggested that managed switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) ANPP would consistently exceed native community ANPP. We identified the type of sites that could remain in diverse communities or be converted to diverse communities and have productivity as great as or greater than highly managed monocultures of alfalfa, coastal bermudagrass, or buffelgrass. However, because of the low ANPP on these sites, biomass production may not be the optimal use of such sites. These lands may be better suited to providing other ecosystem services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ANPP:

annual aboveground net primary productivity

CRP:

Conservation Reserve Program

LIHD:

low-input, high-diversity system

References

  1. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow A, Graham RL, Stokes B, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R et al (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Heaton EA, Dohleman FG, Long SP (2008) Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Glob Change Biol 14:2000–2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Robertson GP, Dale VH, Doering OC, Hamburg SP, Melillo JM, Wander MM et al (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322:49–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van der Broek R (2002) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenerg 25:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:11206–11210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Secchi S, Babcock BA (2007) “Impact of high crop prices on environmental quality: a case of Iowa and the Conservation Reserve Program” Report No. 07-WP-447, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

  9. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C et al (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production of earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:12942–12947

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Landis DA, Gardiner MA, van der Werf W, Swinton SM (2008) Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:20552–20557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Field CB, Campbell JE, Lobell DB (2007) Biomass energy: the scale of the potential resources. Trends Ecol Evol 23:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:464–469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell JE, Lobell DB, Genova RC, Field CB (2008) The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Envir Sci Tech 42:5791–5794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Willms WD, Entz T, Beck R, Hao X (2009) Do introduced grasses improve forage production on the northern mixed prairie? Rangeland Ecol Manag 62:53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S et al (2005) ESA report: effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Eco Monographs 75:3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grace JB, Anderson TM, Smith MD, Seabloom E, Andelman SJ, Meche G et al (2007) Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? Eco Lett 10:680–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adler PR, Sanderson MA, Goslee SC (2004) Management and composition of lands in the Northeastern United States. In Barnes TG, Kiesel LR (eds) Proc. Fourth Eastern Native Grass Symposium 2004 Oct 3-6. University of Kentucky, Department of Forestry, Lexington, KY, pp. 187–200, http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Forestry/TBarnes/Assets/Proceeding.pdf

  21. Adler PR, Sanderson MA, Weimer PJ, Vogel KP (2009) Plant species composition and biofuel yields of conservation grasslands. Eco App 19:2202–2209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Knapp AK, Fay PA, Blair JM, Collins SL, Smith MD, Carlisle JD et al (2002) Rainfall variability, carbon cycling, and plant species diversity in a mesic grassland. Science 298:2202–2205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Foley JA, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Zaks D (2007) Our share of the planetary pie. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:12585–12586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Matson PA, Vitousek PM (2006) Agricultural intensification: will land spared from farming be land spared for nature? Conserv Biol 20:709–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson JMF, Allmaras RR, Reicosky DC (2006) Estimating source carbon from crop residues, roots, and rhizodeposits using the national grain-yield database. Agron J 98:622–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ceotto E (2008) Grasslands for bioenergy production. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Walsh ME, de la Torre Ugarte DG, Shapouri H, Slinsky SP (2003) Bioenergy crop production in the United States. Environ Res Econ 24:313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sanderson MA, Adler PR (2008) Perennial forages as second generation bioenergy crops. Int J Mol Sci 9:768–788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov

  30. Kiniry JR, Sanderson MA, Williams JR, Tischler CR, Hussey MA, Ocumpaugh WR et al (1996) Simulating Alamo switchgrass with the ALMANAC model. Agron J 88:602–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kiniry JR, Cassida KA, Hussey MA, Muir JP, Ocumpaugh WR, Read JC et al (2005) Switchgrass simulation by the ALMANAC model at diverse sites in the southern U.S. Biomass Bioenerg 29:419–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Casler MD, Vogel KP, Taliaferro CM, Wynia RL (2004) Latitudinal adaptation of switchgrass populations. Crop Sci 44:293–303

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Moser LE, Eskridge KM, Perrin RK (2006) Establishment stand thresholds for switchgrass grown as a bioenergy crop. Crop Sci 46:157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kiniry JR, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2008) Switchgrass biomass simulation at diverse sites in the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. BioEnergy Res 1:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kiniry JR, Lynd L, Greene N, Johnson M-VV, Casler M, Laser MS (2009) Biofuels and water use: comparison of maize and switchgrass and general perspectives. In: Wright JH, Evans DA (eds) New research in biofuels. Nova Science Publisher, Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. McLaughlin SB, de la Torre Ugarte DG, Garten CT Jr, Lynd LR, Sanderson MA, Tolbert VR et al (2002) High-value renewable energy from prairie grasses. Envir Sci Tech 36:2122–2129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gonzalez-Hernadez JL, Sarath G, Stein JM, Owens V, Gedye K, Boe A (2009) A multiple species approach to biomass production from native herbaceous perennial feedstocks. Plant 45:267–281

    Google Scholar 

  38. Walsh ME, De La Torre Ugarte DG, Shapouri I, Slinsky SP (2003) Bioenergy crop production in the United States. Environ Res Econ 24:313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mulkey VR, Owen VN, Lee DK (2006) Management of switchgrass-dominated conservation reserve program lands for biomass production in South Dakota. Crop Sci 46:712–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Jewett JG, Sheaffer CC, Moon RD, Martin NP, Barnes DK, Breitbach DD et al (1996) A survey of CRP land in Minnesota. 1. legume and grass persistence. J Prod Agric 9:528–534

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels and low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science Supporting Online Material. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5805/1598/DCI

  42. Russelle MP, Morey RV, Baker JM, Porter PM, Jung HGH (2007) Comment on “carbon negative biofuels from low input high diversity grassland biomass”. Science 316:1567b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Baer SG, Kitchen DJ, Blair JM, Rice CW (2002) Changes in ecosystem structure and function along a chronosequence of restored grasslands. Eco App 12:1688–1701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Huang X, Skidmore EL, Tibke GL (2002) Soil quality of two Kansas soils as influenced by the Conservation Reserve Program. J Soil Water Conserv 57:344–350

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lee DK, Owens VN, Doolittle JJ (2007) Switchgrass and soil carbon sequestration response to ammonium nitrate, manure, and harvest frequency on Conservation Reserve Program Land. Agron J 99:462–468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Fargione JE, Cooper TR, Flaspohler DJ, Hill J, Lehman C, McCoy T et al (2009) Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for grassland conservation. BioScience 59:767–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Piñeiro G, Jobbágy EG, Baker J, Murray BC, Jackson RB (2009) Set-asides can be better climate investment than corn ethanol. Eco App 19:277–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mulkey VR, Owen VN, Lee DK (2008) Management of warm-season grass mixtures for biomass production in South Dakota, USA. Bioresource Technol 99:609–617

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Florine SE, Moore KJ, Fales SL, White TA, Burras CL (2006) Yield and composition of herbaceious biomass harvested from naturalized grassland in southern Iowa. Biomass Bioenerg 30:522–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Venuto BC, Daniel JA (2010) Biomass feedstock harvest from conservation reserve program land in Northwestern Oklahoma. Crop Sci 50:737–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Struhsaker TT (1998) A biologist’s perspective on the role of sustainable harvest in conservation. Conserv Biol 12:930–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Milder JC, McNeely JA, Shames SA, Scherr SJ (2008) Biofuels and ecoagriculture: can energy production enhance landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods? Int J Agric Sustain 6:105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Erin M. Witherington for her assistance in the preparation of the data for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mari-Vaughn V. Johnson.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

To illustrate how this meta-analysis was conducted, we felt it would be appropriate to demonstrate how data were collected for a representative soil in a representative county. First, the Web Soil Survey was accessed (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov) and initiated by clicking the green “START WSS” button on the homepage. Under the “Quick Navigation Navigate By...” toolbar on the left side of the page, click the “Soil Survey Area” tab to expand it. Select the appropriate State and County from the drop down menus. For example, choose Oklahoma and Woodward County from the list. The Soil Survey Area is now “Woodward County, Oklahoma.” Click the “Set AOI” button in the upper right corner of the Soil Survey Area box. It may take a moment while the program clips the soils needed for your area of interest (AOI). The “Area of Interest Properties” will expand once the soils are clipped. It contains a “Soil Data Available from Web Soil Survey” tab, which should be expanded by default. This contains data about when the Soils Maps and Soil Data were updated for this county; in this case, Soil Maps are Version 1, March 30, 2004, and Soil Data are Version 6, September 16, 2008. The AOI is mapped on the right side of the page, with crosshatches delineating its area.

To determine yields on the soils in this AOI, click on the “Soil Data Explorer” tab at the top of the page. The default setting should have the “Suitabilities and Limitations for Use” menu already expanded. From the dropdown list, choose “Vegetative Productivity,” which will expand that category. In this example, to find alfalfa yield data, click “Yields of Non-Irrigated Crops (Component),” which will open a drop down box. In this box, choose “Alfalfa hay” as the crop in the “Basic Options” dropdown. Click the “View Rating” button in the corner of the box. This will produce a table titled “Tables—Yields of Non-Irrigated Crops (Component): Alfalfa hay (Tons)—Summary By Map Unit.” When alfalfa hay production is reported for a given soil series, the average tonnage is listed in the “Rating” column. At the time of this publication, there was no reported alfalfa hay production for Delwin fine sand with 1% to 3% slopes, so this soil in this county was excluded from our comparative analysis. The next soil on the list reports alfalfa hay yields: the Carey silt loam with 1% to 3% slopes (CaB) averages 2.38 tons of alfalfa acre-1.

To see the native community productivity data reported for CaB in this county, select the “Soils Reports” tab at the top of the page. On the left hand side of the page, click on the “Vegetative Productivity” tab. It will open up a dropdown menu. Choose “Rangeland Productivity and Plant Composition” from the list and click the “View Soil Report” button. This will create a table under the map titled “Report—Rangeland Productivity and Plant Composition” detailing range yields on favorable, normal, and unfavorable years. It also gives information on the ecological site description and dominant plant species. The CaB soils support loamy prairie, and miscellaneous perennial grasses make up 35% of the rangeland plants, followed by little bluestem (15%), sideoats grama (10%), and others.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, MV.V., Kiniry, J.R., Sanchez, H. et al. Comparing Biomass Yields of Low-Input High-Diversity Communities with Managed Monocultures Across the Central United States. Bioenerg. Res. 3, 353–361 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-010-9094-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-010-9094-2

Keywords

Navigation