What are the bottlenecks to productive, perennial, polycultures for

bioenergy feedstocks?Randy Jackson

Area 4-Sustainability Co-leader, GLBRCAssociate Professor of Grassland Ecology

Agronomy Department, UW-Madison

2

Co-authors

MSU UW

Phil Robertson Rufus Isaacs Laura Smith Tim Meehan

Doug Landis Ajay Bhardwaj Josh Posner Steve Bertjens

Kurt Thelen Poonam Jasrotia Teri Balser Mark Renz

Jim Tiedje Kevin Kahmark Chris Kucharik Matt Ruark

Steve Hamilton Tom Schmidt Gregg Sanford Chao Liang

Ilya Gelfand Kay Gross Gary Oates Jessica Miesel

Neville Millar Julianna Tuell Janet Hedtcke Hannah Gaines

Kate Withers Carol Baker Claudio Gratton

Ben Werling Bruce Robertson

Carol Baker Tracy Teal

Bruce Dale

www.glbrc.org

3

Roadmap for today’s talk

What is sustainability? ecosystem services

How does/should sustainability work shape GLBRC?

Sustainability research switchgrass response to N

Discuss limitations and options

What does sustainable mean?

www.glbrc.org

Ecosystem services

taken from Foley et al. 2005

www.glbrc.org

www.glbrc.org

Potential feedstock supply bottlenecks

AgronomicQuantity of biomass per unit area annual monocultures Planting, management, and harvesting logistics annual monoculturesRisk/Opportunity cost annual monocultures

Socio-ecologicalIndividual resistance to change annual monoculturesInstitutional resistance to change Food vs. Fuel marginal lands, less productiveSocietal resistance Environmental degradation perennials, less productive Anti GMO efforts less productiveSocietal acceptance Environmental improvement perennial and diverse (wildlife habitat,

water quality, C sequestration, …i.e. less productive)

www.glbrc.org

Genetic Cellular Plant Ecosystem (field) Landscape

• biomass/area/input quality/biomass• pest & pathogen resistance

Productive• economically profitable• favorable energy return• land-conserving

configured appropriate to biophysical constraints

•plant signaling of AM fungi• root architecture

• NUE• WUE• BNPP• root architecture

Perennial• cost less to maintain• reduced GHG• less soil erosion and water pollution

configured for soil, nutrient, and water retention

• ability to coexist Polyculture• pest and disease suppression• nitrogen fixation• nutrient and carbon retention• pollination services to surrounding crops

configured for habitat

Linking supply-side sustainability traits across levels of organization

www.glbrc.org

GLBRC sustainability research – understanding tradeoffs among the 3 P’s

10

www.glbrc.org

GLBRC Sustainability Research Roadmap

www.glbrc.org

Rep 3

Rep 2

Rep 1 Rep 4

Rep 5

Novel Production Systems8 systems x 5 replicate blocks - Established 2008

Perenniality

Dive

rsity

Continuous corn

Switchgrass

Miscanthus

Native prairie

Mixed grassland

Poplar

Corn-soybean-canola

Nutrient inputsPesticide inputsLitter inputs

Dimensions of agronomic intensification

Corn-soybean

Sanford et al., unpublished data

www.glbrc.org

Oates et al., unpublished data

www.glbrc.org

What are the tradeoffs for higher production in corn?

biogeochemical (data), biodiversity (data)

and Miscanthus?

biogeochemical?, biodiversity?, uncertainty (data)

www.glbrc.org

Nitrous oxide fluxes Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (2009)

Oates, Posner & Jackson, unpublished data

www.glbrc.org

System Detail n

SOC (%)

p-value1989 2007 Δ Δ yr-1

CS1 Conventional 12 2.92 2.77 -0.15 -0.0083 0.44

CS2 Conventional / No-till 122.63 2.58 -0.05 -0.0028 0.82

CS3 Organic 12 2.46 2.34 -0.12 -0.0067 0.51

CS4 Conventional 12 2.86 2.94 0.08 0.0044 0.69

CS5 Organic 12 2.66 2.68 0.02 0.0011 0.95

CS6 MIRG† 12 2.96 3.30 0.34 0.0189 0.08

System Detail nSOC (%)

p-value1998 2007 Δ Δ yr-1

Low div Prairie 3 2.50 2.87 0.37 0.0411 0.05High div Prairie 3 2.31 2.69 0.38 0.0422 0.04

Soil Organic Carbon Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (1989 – 2007)

Sanford & Posner, unpublished data

Soil microbial communities

Liang, Balser & Jackson, unpublished data

www.glbrc.org

Biodiversity - Positive association with perennial polycultures

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mean # plant species Mean # arthropod families # Breeding bird species

Corn

Switchgrass

Prairie Corn

Switchgrass

Prairie Corn

Switchgrass

Prairie0

20

40

60

80

www.glbrc.org

Switchgrass

Switchgrass

Switchgrass

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008

2009

0

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

Mean # genetically distinctmethanotroph strains

Mean grams predatorbiomass per sample

Total bees captures per site

CornPrairie Corn

Prairie CornPrairie

Biodiversity - Positive association with perennial polycultures

Switchgrass

Switchgrass

Switchgrass

www.glbrc.org

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Number plant species/10m20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Perennialgrasslands

Corn Proportion herb. perenn. in landscape0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Prop

ortio

n pe

st e

ggs

rem

oved

Werling et. al In review

Biodiversity - Positive effects of landscape diversity

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Benedict Barringer Jansen Hoyer Slack Ralston Kopka Seiler Metz Taylor Staunton Fuller Westerlund Schmidt Lancaster

Mg/

ha

Switchgrass biomass harvested from 20x50-cm quadrats on CRP in southern WI

CRP yields (southern WI)

Mean=8.9 Mg/ha

| farm:bdefhikl

farm:bdel

BD<1.05956Texture:a

Texture:adhTexture:f

soilCN<12.5834

BD<1.17869

farm:mp perSoilC<1.92091 3.572 4.800 7.222

6.937 8.150 9.344

10.340 13.970 7.869 11.070

14.240

size

devi

ance

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2 4 6 8 10

480.0 79.0 72.0 56.0 43.0 33.0 25.0 19.0 15.0 3.9 -Inf

Regression tree predicting yield (Mg/ha) of warm-season grasses in southern Wisconsin CRP

Farm

Soil variables

?Bertjens & Jackson, unpublished data

www.glbrc.org

Perennial polycultures will be less productive and more variable than annual monocultures

Agronomic intensification likely

What are the ramifications?

GLBRC-funded experiment at WICSTCropping System:• Switchgrass• Prairie

Harvest timing:• Summer• Fall

N fertilizer rate:• 0 N• 50 kg/ha N• 150 kg/ha N

N fertilizer (kg/ha)

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

5

10prairie switch

Fall harvest

n.s. p = 0.01

0

5

10

0

prairie switchSummer harvest

n.s. n.s.

Yiel

d (M

g/ha

)2009 Yield Response to N treatment

Smith & Jackson, unpublished data

n.s.

n.s.

p = 0.004

p = 0.03

5

10

5

10

prairie switchgrass

prairie switchgrass

Fall harvest

Summer harvest

N fertilizer (kg/ha)

Yiel

d (M

g/ha

)2010 Yield Response to N treatment

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

Smith & Jackson, unpublished data

P105 T9 Sp/150

P106 T10 Cont.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Yiel

d (M

g/ha

)

Pounds Nitrogen/acre

Yield Response to Nitrogen

Series1

H1 ($)

a

ab

bb b

ab abab

Pennington, unpublished data

Assume: N cost $0.50/lbBiomass $70/ton

Switchgrass

Switchgrass response to N southern MI (2009 & 2010)

0 40 80 120 1600

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

One-Cut Overwin-tered

One-Cut Fall

Two-Cut (Summer+Fall)

Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate kg N ha-1

Dry

Bio

mas

s (M

g ha

-1)

2010 One-Cut Fall

(Withers and Thelen, unpublished data)

Switchgrass & prairie establishment – southwest WI

Year-1 treatments (2008)

1. Switchgrass + Glyphosate + 2,4-D

2. Switchgrass + Glyphosate

3. Switchgrass + Journey

4. Diverse mix + Journey1. Switchgrass (1 lb a-1)2. Sideoats grama (1.5 lb a-1)3. Indian grass (2 lb a-1)4. Big bluestem (2 lb a-1)5. Little bluestem (2.5 lb a-1) 6. IL bundle flower (4 oz a-1)7. Yellow coneflower (2 oz a-1)8. Partridge pea (8 oz a-1)9. Canada milk vetch (8 oz a-1)

2009 Switchgrass Yield, Grant County, WI

Nitrogen Rate (kg ha-1)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Sw

itchg

rass

Yie

ld(D

M to

ns h

a-1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

JourneyGlyphosate+oatsGlyphosateDiverse

Year-2 switchgrass & prairie yields

Ruark, Renz, & Jackson, unpublished data

Switchgrass and prairie response to N weak, highly variable, and dependent on establishment method

Switchgrass Leaf N through senescence

209 224 242 256 270 279 294 307 3210

50

100

150

200

250

fall - 0

fall - 50

fall - 150

spring - 0

spring - 50

spring - 150

Day of Year

Leaf

N (u

g N

cm-2

)

Jul 27 Nov 15

8 spring0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

800 50 150

Reso

rptio

n effi

cien

cy (%

)

(Samples collected November 3, 2010)Error bars are +/- 1SE; n=6

Switchgrass N resorption: end of season

b

fall8

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

640 50 150

Reso

rptio

n effi

cien

cy (%

)

Harvest timing of previous season

bba

aa

Switchgrass Leaf N

1 80

50

100

150

200

250

fall - 0fall - 50fall - 150spring - 0spring - 50spring - 150

Leaf

N (u

g N

cm

-2) b

b

bb

b

a

b

a

aa

aa

green leaves – July 28, 2010(Day 209)

Error bars are +/- 1SE; n=6

senesced leaves – Nov. 3, 2010(Day 307)

www.glbrc.org

Summary1. Area 4 is helping to shape GLBRC portfolio

2. Perennial polycultures lower & more variable productivity feedstocks

3. Agronomic intensification of perennial grasses likely, which will compromise ecosystem service gains

4. Should look for gains in NUE, NRE, and NRP in perennial grasses

5. Must find ways to pay farmers for providing ecosystem services