Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Review and Model-Based Analysis of Factors Influencing Soil Carbon Sequestration Beneath Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A multi-compartment model was developed to summarize existing data and predict soil carbon sequestration beneath switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) in the southeastern USA. Soil carbon sequestration is an important part of sustainable switchgrass production for bioenergy because soil organic matter promotes water retention, nutrient supply, and soil properties that minimize erosion. A literature review was undertaken for the purpose of model parameterization. A sensitivity analysis of the model indicated that predictions of soil carbon sequestration were affected most by changes in aboveground biomass production, the ratio of belowground-to-aboveground biomass production, and mean annual temperature. Simulations indicated that the annual rate of soil carbon sequestration approached steady state after a decade of switchgrass growth while predicted mineral soil carbon stocks were still increasing. A model-based experiment was performed to predict rates of soil carbon sequestration at different levels of nitrogen fertilization and initial soil carbon stocks (to a 30-cm depth). At a mean annual temperature of 13°C, the predicted rate of soil carbon sequestration varied from −28 to 114 g C m−2 year−1 (after 30 years) and was greater than zero in 11 of 12 simulations that varied initial surface soil carbon stocks from 1 to 5 kg C m−2 and nitrogen fertilization from 0 to 18 g N m−2 year−1. The modeling indicated that more research is needed on the process of biomass allocation and on nitrogen loss from mature plantations, respectively, to improve our understanding of carbon and nitrogen dynamics in switchgrass agriculture.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AAP:

Adjusted aboveground production

AGC:

Nitrogen concentration in aboveground biomass

AGN:

Annual aboveground nitrogen uptake

ANP:

Annual aboveground production

ANT:

Annual nitrogen inputs to the field

APP:

Aboveground biomass production without fertilization

ARC:

Annual rate of soil carbon sequestration

AVN:

Available soil nitrogen

BGN:

Annual belowground nitrogen uptake

BGP:

Annual belowground production

BSC:

Initial soil carbon stock

CHR:

Cumulative harvest of aboveground biomass

CLR:

Coarse live root biomass

CNC:

C/N ratio in coarse live roots

CNF:

C/N ratio of fast soil carbon pool

CNL:

Potential cumulative nitrogen loss

CNP:

Cumulative nitrogen input

CNR:

C/N ratio in five live roots

CNS:

C/N ratio of slow soil carbon pool

CUM:

Cumulative soil carbon sequestration

DEP:

Annual atmospheric nitrogen deposition

FAF:

Fraction of belowground biomass production allocated to fine live roots

FAR:

Fraction of aboveground biomass removed during harvest (harvest efficiency)

FCL:

Annual coarse live root mortality

FDC:

Annual loss of fast soil carbon via decomposition

FFL:

Annual fine live root mortality

FFR:

Fertilization factor used to scale APP to AAP

FLR:

Fine live root biomass

FLS:

Fractional annual transfer of surface litter carbon to fast soil carbon

FNF:

Fraction of initial soil carbon in the fast soil carbon pool

FSC:

Fast soil carbon stock

HRV:

Harvested aboveground biomass

IFC:

Annual carbon transfer from coarse live roots to fast soil carbon

IFF:

Annual carbon transfer from fine live roots to fast soil carbon

LDC:

Annual loss of surface litter carbon via decomposition

LFS:

Annual transfer of surface litter carbon to fast soil carbon

LRB:

Total live belowground biomass

LSC:

Surface litter carbon stock

MAT:

Mean annual air temperature

NFR:

Annual nitrogen fertilization

NLS:

Potential annual nitrogen loss

NMR:

Annual rate of net soil nitrogen mineralization

NNM:

Annual net soil nitrogen mineralization

NUE:

Nitrogen use efficiency

NUP:

Annual plant nitrogen uptake from available soil nitrogen

RBA:

Ratio of annual belowground-to-aboveground biomass production

RFF:

Nitrogen translocation

RHC:

Heterotrophic soil respiration

RSR:

Root-to-shoot biomass ratio

SCS:

Saturation limit for the slow soil carbon pool

SDC:

Annual loss of slow soil carbon via decomposition

SNS:

Soil nitrogen stock

SOC:

Carbon stock in the mineral soil (excluding LSC)

SSC:

Slow soil carbon stock

STB:

Annual flux of carbon from fast soil carbon to slow soil carbon

STR:

Annual transfer rate for carbon flux from fast soil carbon to slow soil carbon

TCL:

Annual production of coarse live roots

TCR:

Turnover time of coarse live roots

TFL:

Annual production of fine live roots

TFR:

Turnover time of fine live roots

TFS:

Turnover time of fast soil carbon

TLC:

Annual carbon inputs to surface litter

TLS:

Turnover time of surface litter carbon

TSS:

Turnover time of slow soil carbon

References

  1. Wright L, Turhollow A (2010) Switchgrass selection as a “model” bioenergy crop: a history of the process. Biomass and Bioenergy 34:851–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Perlack RD et al (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply (ORNL/TM-2005/66). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Wullschleger SD et al (2010) Biomass production in switchgrass across the United States: database description and determinants of yield. Agron J 102:1158–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Parrish DJ, Fike JH (2005) The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:423–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ragauskas AJ et al (2006) The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311:484–489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson-Teixeira KJ et al (2009) Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuels crops. Glob Chang Biol Bioenerg 1:75–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Karp A, Shield I (2008) Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. New Phytol 179:15–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garten CT Jr et al (2011) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration under hybrid poplar. Biomass Bioenerg 35:214–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Omonode RA, Vyn TJ (2006) Vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and nitrogen under warm-season native grasses relative to croplands in west-central Indiana, USA. Agr Ecosyst Environ 117:159–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Liebig MA et al (2008) Soil carbon storage by switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bioenerg Res 1:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Collins HP et al (2010) Carbon sequestration under irrigated switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) production. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:2049–2058

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ma Z et al (2000) Impacts of soil management on root characteristics of switchgrass. Biomass Bioenerg 18:105–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tufekcioglu A et al (2003) Biomass, carbon and nitrogen dynamics of multi-species riparian buffers within an agricultural watershed in Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 57:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sanderson MA (2008) Upland switchgrass yield, nutritive value, and soil carbon changes under grazing and clipping. Agron J 100:510–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Garten CT Jr et al (2010) Intra-annual changes in biomass, carbon, and nitrogen dynamics at 4-year old switchgrass field trials in west Tennessee, USA. Agr Ecosyst Env 136:177–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McLaughlin SB, Kszos LA (2005) Development of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States. Biomass Bioenerg 28:515–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fike JH et al (2006) Long-term yield potential of switchgrass-for-biofuel systems. Biomass Bioenerg 30:198–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garten CT Jr et al (2011) Response of “Alamo” switchgrass tissue chemistry and biomass to nitrogen fertilization in west Tennessee, USA. Agr Ecosyst Env 140:289–297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Heaton E et al (2004) A quantitative review comparing the yields of two candidate C4 perennial biomass crops in relation to nitrogen, temperature and water. Biomass Bioenerg 27:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanderson MA et al (1996) Switchgrass as a sustainable bioenergy crop. Bioresour Technol 56:83–93

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Muir JP et al (2001) Biomass production of “Alamo” switchgrass in response to nitrogen, phosphorus, and row spacing. Agron J 93:896–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lemus R et al (2008) Effects of nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and quality in large fields of established switchgrass in southern Iowa, USA. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1187–1194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Heggenstaller AH et al (2009) Nitrogen influences biomass and nutrient partitioning by perennial, warm-season grasses. Agron J 101:1363–1371

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Adler PR et al (2006) Biomass yield and biofuel quality of switchgrass harvested in fall or spring. Agron J 98:1518–1525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Monti A et al (2009) The discrepancy between plot and field yields: harvest and storage losses of switchgrass. Biomass Bioenerg 33:841–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gill RA, Jackson RB (2000) Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytol 147:13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Garten CT Jr, Wullschleger SD (2000) Soil carbon dynamics beneath switchgrass as indicated by stable isotope analysis. J Environ Qual 29:645–653

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jobbagy EG, Jackson RB (2000) The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Appl 10:423–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Garten CT Jr (2002) Soil carbon storage beneath recently established tree plantations in Tennessee and South Carolina, USA. Biomass Bioenerg 23:93–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Garten CT Jr, Ashwood TL (2004) Modeling soil quality thresholds to ecosystem recovery at Fort Benning, GA, USA. Ecol Eng 23:351–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lemus R et al (2009) Nutrient uptake by “Alamo” switchgrass used as an energy crop. Bioenerg Res 2:37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sanderson MA, Reed RL (2000) Switchgrass growth and development: water, nitrogen, and plant density effects. J Range Manag 53:221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Vogel KP et al (2002) Switchgrass biomass production in the midwest USA: harvest and nitrogen management. Agron J 94:413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang J et al (2009) Natural variation for nutrient use and remobilization efficiencies in switchgrass. Bioenerg Res 2:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fike JH et al (2006) Switchgrass production for the upper southeastern USA: influence of cultivar and cutting frequency on biomass yields. Biomass Bioenerg 30:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cassida KA et al (2005) Biofuel component concentrations and yields of switchgrass in south central US environments. Crop Sci 45:682–692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Reynolds JH et al (2000) Nitrogen removal in switchgrass biomass under two harvest systems. Biomass Bioenerg 19:281–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bransby DI et al (1998) A review of carbon and nitrogen balances in switchgrass grown for energy. Biomass Bioenerg 14:379–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Al-Kaisi MM, Grote JB (2007) Cropping systems effects on improving soil carbon stocks of exposed subsoil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:1381–1388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Garten CT Jr, Ashwood TL (2003) A landscape level analysis of potential excess nitrogen in east-central North Carolina, USA. Water Air Soil Poll 146:3–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mooney DF et al (2009) Yield and breakeven price of “Alamo” switchgrass for biofuels in Tennessee. Agron J 101:1234–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson JMF et al (2007) Chemical composition of crop biomass impacts its decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Silver WL, Miya RK (2001) Global patterns in root decomposition: comparisons of climate and litter quality effects. Oecologia 129:407–419

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lu M et al (2011) Responses of ecosystem nitrogen cycle to nitrogen addition: a meta-analysis. New Phytol 189:1040–1050

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Fog K (1988) The effect of added nitrogen on the rate of decomposition of organic matter. Biol Rev 63:433–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramirez KS et al (2010) Nitrogen fertilization inhibits soil microbial respiration regardless of the form of nitrogen applied. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2336–2338

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Marquez CO et al (1999) Assessing soil quality in a riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Al-Kaisi MM et al (2005) Soil carbon and nitrogen changes as influenced by tillage and cropping systems in some Iowa soils. Agr Ecosyst Env 105:635–647

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Blanco-Canqui H (2010) Energy crops and their implications on soil and environment. Agron J 102:403–419

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Garten CT Jr, Ashwood TL (2002) Landscape level differences in soil carbon and nitrogen: implications for soil carbon sequestration. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 16:1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gebhart DL et al (1994) The CRP increases soil organic carbon. J Soil Water Conserv 49:488–492

    Google Scholar 

  52. Erisman JW et al (2010) Nitrogen and biofuels; an overview of the current state of knowledge. Nutr Cycle Agroecosystems 86:211–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Stout WL, Jung GA (1995) Biomass and nitrogen accumulation in switchgrass: effects of soil and environment. Agron J 87:663–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nyakatawa EZ et al (2006) Runoff, sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus losses from agricultural land converted to sweetgum and switchgrass bioenergy feedstock production in north Alabama. Biomass Bioenerg 30:655–664

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. McIsaac GF et al (2010) Miscanthus and switchgrass production in central Illinois: impacts on hydrology and inorganic nitrogen leaching. J Environ Qual 39:1790–1799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Halvorson AD, Reule CA (1999) Long-term nitrogen fertilization benefits soil carbon sequestration. Better Crops 83:16–20

    Google Scholar 

  57. Khan SA et al (2007) The myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil carbon sequestration. J Environ Qual 36:1821–1832

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research funding to the Consortium for Research on Enhancing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems, and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. I wish to thank Stan Wullschleger (ORNL) and Mac Post (ORNL) for their helpful reviews of the draft manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Mail Stop 6301, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA

    Charles T. Garten Jr.

Authors
  1. Charles T. Garten Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles T. Garten Jr..

Additional information

Notice: This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle LLC, under contract no. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy. The US Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garten, C.T. Review and Model-Based Analysis of Factors Influencing Soil Carbon Sequestration Beneath Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Bioenerg. Res. 5, 124–138 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-011-9154-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-011-9154-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation