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/ Crop Sciencearrow_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/
Crop Science
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
addClaim

Managing nitrogen fertility and stand density for sustaining Kernza intermediate wheatgrass yields

Authors: Erica D. Shoenberger; David E. Stoltenberg; Valentin D. Picasso;

Managing nitrogen fertility and stand density for sustaining Kernza intermediate wheatgrass yields

Abstract

Abstract Kernza intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) [ Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey] is a promising perennial grain and forage crop, but experiences grain yield decline, potentially due to limited nitrogen (N) and stand overcrowding. We evaluated the effects of N fertilization and stand thinning on grain and forage yield, weed biomass, thousand‐kernel weight (TKW), and harvest index (HI). We used a full factorial design with N rates of 0, 75, and 150 kg N ha −1 and thinning intensities of 0%, 25%, 38%, or 50% stand density reduction via banded herbicide at two locations in Wisconsin over 2 years. Fertilization and thinning did not interact. Grain yields increased with N fertilization except at Madison in Year 2. At Lancaster, grain yield increased from 293 with no N to 497 and 701 kg ha −1 with 75 and 150 kg N ha −1 , respectively, across years. At Madison, grain yield increased only in Year 1. Forage mass also increased with N at both sites except Madison in Year 2. At Lancaster, forage mass ranged from 4016 to 6500 kg ha −1 across years and N rates. TKW and HI increased with N at both sites, except at Madison in Year 2. Weed biomass was unaffected by treatments. Thinning had no effect on grain yield at Lancaster in Year 1, but in Year 2, grain yield increased from 368 to 505 kg ha −1 with 50% thinning. These results suggest that applying 75 kg N ha −1 is important for maintaining IWG productivity and that thinning can help sustain grain yield in older stands.

  • 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).
    0
    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.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
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!
0
Average
Average
Average
hybrid