Effects of Row Spacing, Seeding Rate, and Planting Date on Establishment of Switchgrass

Foster, Jamie L.; Guretzky, John A.; Huo, Chengjun; Kering, Maru K.; Butler, Twain J.

doi:10.2135/cropsci2012.03.0171

Cited by 19 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foster et al (2013) reported greater lowland switchgrass yields resulting from February vs. May plantings. Based on combinations of year and location, May plantings provided slightly more consistent second-year yields (greatest in 3 of 6 and least in 1 of 6 instances), with those in June being the least consistent (greatest in 2 and least in 3 of 6 instances), and those in March being intermediate between these two.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Evaluation of Small Grain Cover Crops to Enhance Switchgrass Establishment

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishment failures are a challenge to wide‐scale use of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) for biomass feedstock and/or forage production. Small grain cover crops, because of their allelopathic properties, may inhibit (direct allelopathy) or enhance (competition reduction) switchgrass establishment, and provide indirect benefits such as soil conservation and forage/grain production during the establishment year. Objectives of this study were to evaluate stand density and yield based on seeding switchgrass into (i) four small grain cover crops: wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cereal rye (Secale cereale L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), and fallow control at (ii) three dates (15 March, 1 May, and 10 June) that approximated typical timing for removal of small grain cover, haylage, or grain crops in Tennessee, respectively. Treatments were assigned in a split‐plot design with three replications at three locations in Tennessee in 2008 and repeated in 2009. Small grain cover crops influenced (P = 0.002) switchgrass seedling density at only one location (wheat > other small grains > control) and interacted with year at another, but was never related (P < 0.05) to yield. Planting date affected switchgrass density and yield, but always in the context of an interaction with year; yield varied by location and year with no clear pattern. Density also varied by year and location, with fewer plants occurring during May seeding dates. Therefore, switchgrass can be planted following small grains without an apparent penalty or advantage to switchgrass stand density or yield, while offsetting lost production during establishment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Evaluation of Small Grain Cover Crops to Enhance Switchgrass Establishment

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Treatments were (i) UTC, (ii) Proceed MD (prothioconazole + tebuconazole + metalaxyl), (iii) Gaucho 600 (imidacloprid), (iv) Gaucho XT [(tebuconazole + metalaxyl) + imidacloprid], (v) Proceed MD + Poncho 600 [(prothioconazole + tebuconazole + metalaxyl) + clothianidin], (vi) Proceed MD + Gaucho 600 “Low” Rate [(prothioconazole + tebuconazole + metalaxyl) + imidacloprid], and (vii) Proceed MD + Gaucho 600 “High” Rate. Plot size was 5 by 20 ft, and switchgrass was planted at 4 lb pure live seed (PLS)/acre (5 lb/acre bulk seed at 80% PLS) in early May of each year on 15 inch row spacing (Foster et al, 2013) into existing vegetation (native range pastures sprayed with glyphosate the autumn before planting) with a Hege 1000 (Colwich, KS) small plot no‐till drill. At planting, 0.4 oz/acre of FirstRate [cloransulam‐methyl: N ‐(2‐carbomethoxy‐6‐chlorophenyl)‐5‐ethoxy‐7‐fluoro(1,2,4)triazolo‐[1,5‐c]pyrimidine‐2‐sulfonamide)] and 2.0 qt/acre of glyphosate [( N ‐(phosphonomethyl)glycine] were applied to the plot area to reduce weed competition.…”

Section: Sites Seed Treatments and Data Collection And Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Switchgrass Establishment and Biomass Yield Responses to Fungicide and Insecticide Seed Treatments

Interrante

Hancock

Butler

2015

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is being evaluated for both forage and bioenergy in the Great Plains of the USA. Management strategies to improve switchgrass seedling vigor and emergence may result in more successful switchgrass stands due to better competitive advantage for switchgrass seedlings over weedy species. The objectives of this field experiment were to determine the effects of seven broad-spectrum fungicide and insecticide seed treatments on the establishment and yield of lowland type 'EG1101' switchgrass. The combination of fungicide + insecticide (regardless of formulation) tended to result in taller seedlings and greater seedling densities and stands of switchgrass as compared to untreated control (UTC), fungicide only, and insecticide only. These advantages didn't result in greater switchgrass dry matter (DM) yield, probably due to adequate stands (>1-2 plants per ft 2 ) that were achieved by all fungicide -insecticide seed treatments including UTC. However, given the relatively small cost per acre of seed treatments, there may be early-season benefits to treating seeds with a broad-spectrum insecticide as an insurance measure to increase switchgrass seedling vigor and reduce the chance of stand failure, especially when used with a proven weed management program. SWITCHGRASS Switchgrass is a warm-season perennial grass that is native to the United States east of the Rocky Mountains and south of 55¢ N latitude, and is being evaluated for forage and bioenergy in the southern Great Plains. However, successful germination and establishment of switchgrass stands can be hindered by soil temperature and pH (Hanson and Johnson, 2005), slow seedling growth, seed dormancy, planting depth (Berti and Johnson, 2013), seed size (Aiken and Springer, 1995;Smart and Moser, 1999), and, most commonly, competition by weeds.Management strategies such as herbicide application to control weeds during switchgrass establishment have been shown to improve switchgrass stands by reducing weed competition (Curran et al

show abstract

“…Although past research on improving establishment success of switchgrass has included examinations of seed size (Aiken and Springer, 1995; Smart and Moser, 1999), seeding depth (Berti and Johnson, 2013), and competition control (McKenna et al, 1991; Curran et al, 2011), most workers have focused on seed dormancy (Shen et al, 2001; Beckman et al, 1993; Haynes et al, 1997) and planting dates (Panciera and Jung, 1984; Hsu and Nelson, 1986a,b; Smart and Moser, 1997; Foster et al, 2013). Seed dormancy has been well documented in switchgrass (Parrish and Fike, 2005; Sanderson et al, 2012) and is thought to be a common cause of establishment failures; up to 2 yr of after ripening may be required for this species to become germinable (Burson et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dormant‐Season Planting and Seed‐Dormancy Impacts on Switchgrass Establishment and Yield

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishment failures linked to seed dormancy are a challenge to wide‐scale use of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) for biomass feedstock and forage production. One prospective strategy for breaking dormancy is dormant‐season planting. The objectives of this study were to evaluate (i) three switchgrass dormant‐season planting dates (1 December, 1 February, and 15 March) vs. a growing‐season (1 May) control; (ii) two seeding rates (6.7 and 10.1 kg pure live seed [PLS] ha−1); and (iii) high‐ and low‐dormancy seed lots. Treatments were assigned in a split‐plot design with three replications at two locations in Tennessee in 2008 and 2009. Neither seeding rate nor seed‐dormancy level affected plant density or yield (P > 0.05). However, a seeding date × year interaction impacted first‐year density at both locations. Although patterns differed by year for the two locations, density of March plantings equaled or exceeded (P < 0.05) those at other dates for both locations and years. These variations in density did not carry over to impact yield in year two. A sigmoidal regression of seedling density vs. yield was significant (P < 0.001) albeit not strong (R2 = 0.13); yield response approached an asymptote above ∼8 plants m−2. Results suggest March planting dates, using standard seeding rate recommendations (6.7 kg PLS ha−1) irrespective of seed‐dormancy rates, may be more reliable than planting in May. Thus, a broader establishment window than traditionally used may be practical. However, results should be validated over a broader range of soils and climatic conditions, especially over a winter severity gradient.

show abstract

Effects of Row Spacing, Seeding Rate, and Planting Date on Establishment of Switchgrass

Cited by 19 publications

References 26 publications

Evaluation of Small Grain Cover Crops to Enhance Switchgrass Establishment

Evaluation of Small Grain Cover Crops to Enhance Switchgrass Establishment

Switchgrass Establishment and Biomass Yield Responses to Fungicide and Insecticide Seed Treatments

Dormant‐Season Planting and Seed‐Dormancy Impacts on Switchgrass Establishment and Yield

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About