Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Agronomy Journalarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Agronomy Journal
Article . 2023 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY NC
Data sources: Crossref
addClaim

Forage harvest management impacts “Kernza” intermediate wheatgrass productivity across North America

Authors: Steve Culman; Priscila Pinto; Jennie Pugliese; Timothy Crews; Lee DeHaan; Jake Jungers; Jamie Larsen; +7 Authors

Forage harvest management impacts “Kernza” intermediate wheatgrass productivity across North America

Abstract

AbstractIntermediate wheatgrass [IWG, Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey, trade name Kernza] is a widely adapted, cool‐season forage grass, actively bred for perennial grain production. Most of IWG's net primary productivity is directed to nonreproductive structures, so dual‐use strategies to harvest both grain and forage represent a potentially viable pathway to increase its productivity and profitability. We conducted a 3‐year trial at nine diverse environments across North America to evaluate grain and forage yields and forage nutritive value of an early IWG breeding line under contrasting forage harvest managements. These included control (no forage harvest), summer forage harvest immediately after grain harvest, and summer forage harvest with spring or fall forage harvests. Across all sites, IWG grain yields averaged 745, 296, and 221 kg ha−1 for the first, second, and third years, respectively. Grain yields were influenced more by stand age than site. Summer forage mass after grain harvest averaged 6.0, 4.5, and 5.7 Mg ha−1 respectively for the first 3 years. Forage mass was less influenced by stand age, and more by site and forage harvest frequency. Fall forage harvest increased grain yields while spring forage harvests decreased grain yields and both treatments increased total relative feed nutritive values. Collectively, our results demonstrate that harvesting forage can improve both grain yield and forage nutritive values. Farmers growing IWG as a perennial grain can benefit from dual‐use management by harvesting both grain and forage.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    29
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
29
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
hybrid