No abstract

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.

Grasslands have an underground biomass component that serves as a carbon (C) storage sink. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) has potential as a biofuel crop. Our objectives were to determine biomass and C partitioning in aboveground and belowground plant components and changes in soil organic C in switchgrass. Cultivars Sunburst and Dacotah were field grown over 3 yr at Mandan, ND. Aboveground biomass was sampled and separated into leaves, stems, senesced, and litter biomass. Root biomass to 1.1‐m depth and soil organic C to 0.9‐m depth was determined. Soil C loss from respiratory processes was determined by measuring CO2 flux from early May to late October. At seed ripe harvest, stem biomass accounted for 46% of total aboveground biomass, leaves 7%, senesced plant parts 43%, and litter 4%. Excluding crowns, root biomass averaged 27% of the total plant biomass and 84% when crown tissue was included with root biomass. Carbon partitioning among aboveground, crown, and root biomass showed that crown tissue contained approximately 50% of the total biomass C. Regression analysis indicated that soil organic C to 0.9‐m depth increased at the rate of 1.01 kg C m−2 yr−1 Carbon lost through soil respiration processes was equal to 44% of the C content of the total plant biomass. Although an amount equal to nearly half of the C captured in plant biomass during a year is lost through soil respiration, these results suggest that northern Great Plains switchgrass plantings have potential for storing a significant quantity of soil C.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is often the largest single component of the greenhouse‐gas budget of individual cropping systems, as well as for the US agricultural sector as a whole. Here, we highlight the factors that make mitigating N2O emissions from fertilized agroecosystems such a difficult challenge, and discuss how these factors limit the effectiveness of existing practices and therefore require new technologies and fresh ideas. Modification of the rate, source, placement, and/or timing of nitrogen fertilizer application has in some cases been an effective way to reduce N2O emissions. However, the efficacy of existing approaches to reducing N2O emissions while maintaining crop yields across locations and growing seasons is uncertain because of the interaction of multiple factors that regulate several different N2O‐producing processes in soil. Although these processes have been well studied, our understanding of key aspects and our ability to manage them to mitigate N2O emissions remain limited.

No abstract