z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Evapotranspiration, crop coefficient and water use efficiency of giant reed ( Arundo donax L.) and miscanthus ( Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Deu.) in a Mediterranean environment.
Author(s) -
Triana Federico,
Nassi o Di Nasso Nicoletta,
Ragaglini Giorgio,
Roncucci Neri,
Bonari Enrico
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
gcb bioenergy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.378
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1757-1707
pISSN - 1757-1693
DOI - 10.1111/gcbb.12172
Subject(s) - miscanthus , arundo donax , agronomy , environmental science , evapotranspiration , biomass (ecology) , bioenergy , energy crop , biology , biofuel , ecology
Giant reed ( Arundo donax L.) and miscanthus ( Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Deu.) are two perennial rhizomatous grasses ( PRG s), considered as promising sources of lignocellulosic biomass for renewable energy production. Although the agronomic performance of these species has been addressed by several studies, the literature dedicated to the crop water use of giant reed and miscanthus is still limited. Our objective was thus to investigate giant reed and miscanthus water use by assessing crop evapotranspiration ( ET c ), crop coefficients (K c ) and water use efficiency ( WUE ). The study was carried out in central Italy and specifically designed water‐balance lysimeters were used to investigate the water use of these PRG s during the 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. Giant reed showed the highest cumulative evapotranspiration, with an average consumption of approximately 1100 mm, nearly 20% higher than miscanthus (900 mm). Crop evapotranspiration rates differed significantly between the species, particularly during the midseason (from June to September), when average daily ET c was 7.4 and 6.2 mm in giant reed and miscanthus respectively. The K c values determined in our study varied from 0.4 to 1.9 for giant reed and 0.3 to 1.6 for miscanthus. Finally, WUE was higher in miscanthus than in giant reed, with average values of 4.2 and 3.1 g L −1 respectively. Further studies concerning water use under nonoptimal water conditions should be carried out and an assessment of the response to water stress of both crops is necessary to integrate the findings from this study.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here