Technical Note No. 4 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Plant Materials Program 

July 2011 

Planting and Managing Giant 

Miscanthus as a Biomass 

Energy Crop 
Issued July 2011 

Cover photo: Giant miscanthus growing in research plots at the NRCS 

Elsberry, Missouri, Plant Materials Center 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 

795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. 

Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 
Preface


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Plant Materials Program has been involved in the 

collection, evaluation, selection, increase, and release of conservation 

plants for more than 75 years. Recent attention to use plants for energy 

production has prompted the private sector to look towards high-yielding 

crops that are economically viable in the emerging bioenergy industry. Giant miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) is one such perennial grass that 

holds potential to meet biomass production criteria. Giant miscanthus is a 

relatively new crop to the United States and has been studied by the USDA 

NRCS Plant Materials Centers and Agricultural Research Service for the 

past 4 years. This technical note summarizes much of the available information related to growing giant miscanthus as an energy crop and relies 

on published data as well as direct experience by USDA researchers and 

cooperators. For planners and practitioners who are first learning about 

giant miscanthus, the summary at the end of this document provides basic 

information about giant miscanthus as well as important criteria for conservation planning purposes. 

This publication was prepared to provide information needed by conservationists, producers, or consultants to establish and manage giant miscanthus as a biomass crop for energy production. For additional information 

on establishment and management of giant miscanthus, see the references 

section at the back of this publication. For specific information on cultural 

specifications and soils and climate requirements, consult the NRCS Field 

Office Technical Guide (FOTG) at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ 

eFOTG/, or contact the nearest Plant Materials Center or plant materials 

specialist (http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/) and/or the Land 

Grant Universities that serves the State. Also, see technical resources on 

the National Plant Materials Program Web site at http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

Location and service areas of Plant Materials Centers 

Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 
This page intentionally left blank. 

ii Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 
Acknowledgments
 

This technical note was written by M.J. Williams, plant materials specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Gainesville, Florida, and Joel Douglas, plant materials specialist, USDA NRCS, Central National Technology Support Center 

(CNTSC), Fort Worth, Texas. 

The publication was reviewed by individuals from the NRCS technical disciplines, government agencies, and academia. Special thanks to Jerry Kaiser, NRCS, Elsberry, Missouri; Steve Brady, NRCS, CNTSC, Fort Worth, 

Texas; William Hohman, NRCS, CNTSC, Fort Worth, Texas; Wendell 

Gilgert, NRCS, Portland, Oregon; Ramona Garner, NRCS, Greensboro, 

North Carolina; Adam Davis, USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), 

Urbana, Illinois; Robert Fireovid, ARS, Beltsville, Maryland; John Lydon, 

ARS, Beltsville, Maryland; and Brian Baldwin, Mississippi State University, who served as peer reviewers and shared with us their knowledge and 

expertise in the area of giant miscanthus biology and biomass production. 

Lynn Owens, editor; Wendy Pierce, illustrator; and Suzi Self, editorial 

assistant, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, and Deborah Young, program assistant, 

NRCS, Madison, Mississippi, assisted in the editing and layout. 

Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 iii 
This page intentionally left blank. 

iv Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus 


as a Biomass Energy Crop
 

Summary and planning considerations
 

Giant miscanthus is a sterile hybrid, warm-season 

grass that is native to Asia. It can produce large 

amounts of biomass, even in more northerly latitudes, due to the ability to grow at cool temperatures. Some of the key characteristics and considerations for using giant miscanthus include: 

•	 Like switchgrass, giant miscanthus is very efficient in the use of soil nutrients because most 

of the nutrients used to produce stems and 

leaves are recycled back down to the plant’s 

rhizome system for use in subsequent crops. 

•	 Giant miscanthus sequesters significant

amounts of carbon in the rhizome system, and 

soil organic matter has been shown to increase 

under giant miscanthus stands. 

•	 Giant miscanthus yields are strongly influenced

by water availability. It is best suited to locations receiving at least 30 inches per year of 

annual rainfall. The high water use of giant 

miscanthus could potentially reduce groundwater availability if a large number of acres are 

planted in a single geographic area. 

•	 Yields as high as 15 tons dry matter per acre

have been produced, but average yields under 

natural rainfall are expected to range between 

10 and 12 tons dry matter per acre. 

•	 At this time, the NRCS recommends planting

only sterile giant miscanthus lines propagated 

from rhizomes or plugs to reduce the potential 

of spread. Currently available cultivars and 

lines do not produce viable seed and, as such, 

are thought to pose limited potential for becoming invasive. The use of vegetative propagules 

makes giant miscanthus more expensive to 

establish than seed-propagated perennials, such 

as switchgrass. 

•	 Because of a lack of experience with giant

miscanthus production in the United States, 

current recommendations are to establish a 

setback (buffer area) around giant miscanthus 

production fields for monitoring spread. A 

minimum of 25 feet of border is recommended 

around a giant miscanthus stand to allow for 

monitoring and management of any giant miscanthus spread. No setback is required when 

the giant miscanthus planting is adjacent to 

cropland or actively managed pasture with the 

same operator. 

•	 Planning for the establishment of giant miscanthus should begin at least 1 year prior to 

the planting. If there are any concentrated flow

areas that are eroding, grassed waterways or 

similar structures with a 25-year storm event 

design criteria should be installed before planting the rhizomes. Additionally, if sheet and rill 

erosion is a concern, practices such as terraces 

or diversions may be needed to reduce offsite 

movement of rhizomes. Any earthmoving activity after the planting of the rhizomes creates a 

strong risk of spreading the rhizomes outside 

the planned area. 

•	 The plant is very sensitive to competition from

weeds during the establishment season, and 

poor plant survival or stand failure will be likely 

if weeds are not adequately controlled. Planning 

for weed control should begin the year before 

establishment and include burn down, preplant, 

and postemergence herbicide applications in 

combination with tillage. Dense stands require 

little or no weed control after the establishment 

year. 

•	 Giant miscanthus has been shown to serve as a

host plant for corn rootworm and other insect 

pests of commercial crops. The effects newly 

planted acres of giant miscanthus will have 

on pest dynamics are unknown, and plantings 

should be monitored for pests both within the 

giant miscanthus and in surrounding cropland. 

•	 Newly planted giant miscanthus stands are considered to have a neutral affect on wildlife, but 

wildlife and insect diversity in mature stands 

have been found to be lower than field borders. 

Concurrent establishment of conservation practices such as field borders and other forms of 

habitat management around giant miscanthus 

plantings are recommended to diminish the 

deleterious effects of mature giant miscanthus 

stands on wildlife. 

Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 
This page intentionally left blank. 

Technical Note No. 4, July 2011 
(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus 

as a Biomass Energy Crop

Introduction

Important goals of the 2007 Energy Independence and 

Security Act include: 

•	 reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by

increasing bioenergy from cofiring 20 percent

nationally, and

•	 producing 36 billion gallons of transportation

fuel from renewable sources by 2022 (U.S. Dept.

Energy 2010).

To achieve these goals, the projected 130 million dry

tons of biomass that will be available in 2012 will

need to almost double by 2017, to 250 million dry tons

(U.S. Department of Energy 2010). These renewable

resources will include wood chips and timber harvest

waste, agricultural residues (e.g., corn stalks, cereal

straw, etc.), and dedicated energy crops, predominantly perennial grasses (Milliken et al. 2007). Heaton et

al. (2004) stated that the ideal dedicated biomass crop

is a perennial that efficiently uses available resources,

stores carbon in the soil, is an efficient user of water,

has low fertilizer requirement, and is not invasive.

Giant miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) possesses 

many, if not all, of these characteristics.

Giant miscanthus

Plant genetics 

The genus miscanthus is comprised of 11 to 12 species of tall, C4 grasses (Clifton-Brown, Chiang, and

Hodkinson 2008) that are native to Southeast Asia,

China, Japan, Polynesia, and Africa (Lewandowski

et al. 2000; Scally, Hodkinson, and Jones 2001). The

genus miscanthus is so closely related to Saccharum

(sugarcane) that it belongs to the Saccharum complex, a group of five genera that can produce fertile

F1 offspring (Mukherjee 1957). Several miscanthus

species have been crossed with sugarcane to increase

tillering, ratooning ability, disease resistance, and cold

tolerance (Tai and Miller 1988). More recent breeding

work has focused on Saccharum sp. x Miscanthus

sp. F1 hybrids for dry matter production for biomass

(Burner et al. 2009).

The first plant of what is now known as giant miscanthus was collected in 1935 in Yokahama, Japan, and introduced vegetatively to Denmark for horticultural use

(Anderson et al. 2011). This single introduction spread

across Europe and into North America (Anderson et 

al. 2011).

Although at one time considered a separate species, 

giant miscanthus is now recognized as a naturally occurring hybrid between M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus (Lewandowski et al. 2000; Scally, Hodkinson,

and Jones 2001; Linde-Laursen 1993). Miscanthus x

giganteus has been placed in its own taxonomic classification due to growth and developmental characteristics not found in other miscanthus species (Scally, 

Hodkinson, and Jones 2001).

Because M. sinensis is a diploid species (2n=2x=38)

and M. sacchariflorus is a tetraploid species 

(2n=4x=76), giant miscanthus is a triploid (2n=3x=57)

hybrid that produces seed that is sterile (Lewandowski

et al. 2000; Scally, Hodkinson, and Jones 2001; LindeLaursen 1993). Not surprisingly, genetic studies

(Hodkinson, Chase, and Renvoize 2002; Greef et al.

1997) have shown that the giant miscanthus lines

present in Europe and North America prior to 1983 are

genetically very similar. Although natural hybridization is rare in the wild due to different flowering times, 

ongoing breeding programs in Europe and the United

States have developed new lines of giant miscanthus 

with more cold tolerance and higher dry matter yield 

(Allen 2008; Clifton-Brown, Chiang, and Hodkinson

2008; Drapala 2010).

C4 – photosynthetic pathway typical for warm-season grasses

F1—first cross hybrid

Diploid—having two sets of chromosomes

Triploid—having three sets of chromosomes which 

causes sterility due to uneven number

Tetraploid—having four sets of chromosome
2

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Growth and development

Unique for many C4 grasses, giant miscanthus can 

maintain normal levels of photosynthetic activity 

down to 57 degrees Fahrenheit (Naidu and Long 2004).

In comparison, the photosynthetic activity of corn 

(Zea mays), another C4 grass, is reduced by 90 percent

at the same temperature (Naidu and Long 2004). This

accounts for the very high biomass production of giant

miscanthus, even as far north as 52 degrees latitude in

Europe, where the growing season is too short to produce a mature corn grain crop (Beale and Long 1995).

Even in the Midwestern United States, considered

a prime corn growing region, giant miscanthus was 

found to produce 61 percent more biomass than corn

(total of stalks, cobs, and grain) (Dohleman and Long

2009). The higher biomass production of giant miscanthus in the Midwest is due, in part, to earlier canopy 

closure and later fall growth than corn (Dohleman and

Long 2009). Midwestern work (Heaton, Dohleman, and

Long 2008) also has shown that giant miscanthus is

as productive, if not more productive, than the coldtolerant, native C4 grass, switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Radiation-use efficiency studies have found that

switchgrass is more efficient than giant miscanthus,

which means the higher productivity of giant miscanthus compared to switchgrass in the Midwest is also 

due to longer growing season (Kiniry et al. 2011).

Typical of perennial grasses, giant miscanthus productivity increases as the stand matures, usually until 

about the third year (Clifton-Brown and Lewandowski

2000b; Clifton-Brown et al. 2001). For established

stands (>3 yr old), European experience shows that

shoot growth starts when air temperatures exceed

50 degrees Fahrenheit (Bullard and Nixon 1999). In

the Midwest, this typically means sprouts start from 

underground buds on the rhizomes in April (fig. 1) and

plants are about 6 feet tall by late May or early June

(Pyter et al. 2007). Canopy closure occurs at about

the same time (Dohleman and Long 2009; Heaton,

Dohleman, and Long 2008), which essentially negates the need for weed control in established stands

(Dohleman et al. 2009).

Plants can reach 12 to 13 feet tall (Heaton, Dohleman,

and Long 2008); while the roots can extend to a depth

of more than 8 feet (Neukirchen et al. 1999). This root

depth is comparable to perennial crops such as alfalfa

(Medicago sativa) and switchgrass, but greater than

annual crops such as corn (Russelle 2003). Due to

death of part of the root system each year, giant miscanthus root systems begin a regeneration phase each

year in the spring and root mass is maximum about

30 days after flowering (Neukirchen et al. 1999). Root

dry weight of giant miscanthus is about half that of the

aboveground dry matter production (Neukirchen et

al. 1999). Since rhizome dry weight (Himken, Lammel,

and Neukirchen 1997) is similar to root dry weight,

total belowground dry weight of giant miscanthus is

about equal to the plant’s aboveground dry weight.

In the Midwest, maximum aboveground biomass is

reached in August, with flowering starting in mid-September (Anderson et al. 2011). Lower leaves start senescing after full light interception is reached around 

July (Bullard and Nixon 1999), but plants are not fully

senescent until after killing frost (September–October

in Illinois).

Similar to switchgrass, giant miscanthus translocates 

most of the nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and 

other minerals in the aboveground biomass to the

rhizomes and root system by late fall (Heaton, Long,

and Dohleman 2009; Beale and Long 1997), but movement of nitrogen to belowground structures continues

even after frost (Lewandowski and Heinz 2003; Long

and Beale 2001). Even though substantial amounts

of biomass are removed each year at harvest, this

movement of nutrients into the rhizomes and root 

system accounts for the ability of the plant to sustain

growth year after year with little supplemental fertilizer input (Beale and Long 1997; Beale, Morrison, and

Long 1999). Additionally, lower mineral content in the

biomass after the plant senesces improves the quality

of the feedstock for cofiring or conversion to biofuel

(Heaton and Dohleman 2009; Heaton et al. 2011).

Figure 1 Newly emerging giant miscanthus sprout in the 

spring

Photo: USDA NRCS, Elsberry, MO
3

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Biomass production and stand longevity

Because using giant miscanthus as a biofuel crop is

a relatively new idea in the United States, the majority of the yield reports come from Europe. In those,

harvestable yields (yield of harvests made during the

winter or after the stand is dormant) of mature stands 

have ranged from 9,000 pounds per acre in northern

Europe to 35,000 pounds per acre in southern Europe

(Lewandowski et al. 2000). The oldest giant miscanthus biomass study in the United States was started in

2002 in Illinois (Heaton, Dohleman, and Long 2008).

Established stand harvestable yields from that study

have been similar to those found in Europe and more

than three times higher than switchgrass planted at 

the same location (table 1). Table 1 also shows first

and/or second growing season harvestable yields for

giant miscanthus and switchgrass studies in Kansas, 

Missouri, and Arkansas, as well as second season yield

for giant miscanthus from an ongoing Florida study.

The longevity of giant miscanthus stands managed for 

biomass production is not clearly known. The oldest

biomass planting of giant miscanthus in Europe is 25

years (Lewandowski et al. 2003). One European study

reported on 14 years of biomass harvests that averaged 11,000 pounds per acre (Christian, Riche, and

Yates 2008). The oldest planting in the United States is

7 years old (Heaton, Dohleman, and Long 2008). Based

on this information, productive life span in the United

States is estimated to be between 15 and 20 years

(Heaton et al. 2011).

Environmental issues

Soil organic carbon

To be sustainable, biomass crops should have the

ability to sequester carbon in the soil to maintain or

improve soil fertility. Aboveground biomass residues,

rhizomes, and roots all affect soil organic carbon

(SOC) associated with giant miscanthus plantings

(Beuch, Boelcke, and Belau 2000). European studies have found that preharvest losses (e.g., senescent

leaves and shoot tops) and harvest residues produce 

about 2,500 pounds carbon per acre annually (Beuch,

Boelcke, and Belau 2000), while long-term (between

4–8 yr) carbon storage from the roots and rhizomes

accounts for approximately 8,000 pounds carbon per

acre (Beuch, Boelcke, and Belau 2000; Clifton-Brown,

Breuer, and Jones 2007). Studies have shown that

between 75 to 85 percent of the SOC in the upper 12

inches of the soil profile is derived from giant misLocation

Giant miscanthus Switchgrass Giant miscanthus Switchgrass

------------------------------- Harvestable yield (lb dry weight/acre) -----------------------------

3-yr average 3-yr average Season 1 Season 2 Season 1 Season 2

Shabbona, IL (41.85 N) 1/ 18,000 7,000

Urbana, IL (40.12 N) 1/ 30,000 11,000

Simpson, IL (37.45 N) 1/ 31,000 6,000

Troy/ Manhattan, KS (39 N) 2/ 3,000 11,400 3,600 8,200

Elsberry, MO (39.17 N) 3/ 23,000 13,000

Booneville, AR (35.08 N) 4/ 2,200 5,300 4,400 10,600

Gainesville, FL (29.67 N) 5/ 5,500

Ona, FL (27.43N) 5/ 4,500

Belle Glade, FL (26.68 N) 5/ 9,600

Table 1	 Harvestable yield (yield obtained during the winter or when plants were dormant) for giant miscanthus or giant

miscanthus compared to switchgrass at different locations in the United States

1/	 Heaton, Dohleman, and Long 2008

2/	 Propheter et al. 2010

3/	 J. Douglas, unpublished data, 2011

4/	 Adapted from Burner et al. 2009

5/ Sollenberger et al. 2010
4

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

canthus, which is similar to what has been reported

for corn (Schneckenberger and Kuzyakov 2007). Also

similar to corn, SOC decreased with increasing depth

under giant miscanthus stands (Schneckenberger

and Kuzyakov 2007). But unlike corn, which had no

detectable corn-derived SOC below 24 inches, giant

miscanthus-derived SOC was found to a depth of 40

inches (Schneckenberger and Kuzyakov 2007), probably a result of greater rooting depth of giant miscanthus (Neukirchen et al. 1999; Russelle 2003). This

makes the SOC profile under giant miscanthus, in both

amount and distribution, more similar to naturally

occurring perennial grasslands than annual row crops 

(Schneckenberger and Kuzyakov 2007).

Water quality and use

Studies in England have shown that when grassland 

was converted to a giant miscanthus planting, nitrateN in the drainage water from plots, even those receiving no nitrogen fertilizer, exceeded European drinking

water limits (11.3 ppm) by almost three times the first

year after planting (Christian and Riche 1998). The

authors attributed this to high nitrogen mineralization

rates and relatively low plant growth the first year

(Christian and Riche 1998). This effect was short lived

because in subsequent years, nitrate-N levels in drainage water from fertilized and unfertilized treatments 

were well below drinking water limits (Christian and

Riche 1998). Other studies with giant miscanthus

planted on previously cultivated ground have shown 

nitrate-N levels well below the drinking water limit

even with 160 pounds nitrogen per acre fertilization

(Curley, O’Flynn, and McDonnell 2009). These studies indicate that giant miscanthus production would 

have a neutral or beneficial impact on groundwater

quality (Christian and Riche 1998; Curley, O’Flynn, and

McDonnell 2009).

Due to higher biomass production, greater leaf area

index, and longer vegetative growing season, giant

miscanthus requires more water during the growing season than switchgrass or corn (Lewandowski

et al. 2003; McIsacc, David, and Mitchell 2010).

Consequently, water availability strongly influences

giant miscanthus yields, and the crop is thought to be

best suited to locations that receive at least 30 inches

per year (Heaton et al. 2011). In a study comparing biomass production and biofuel yield in the Texas Rolling

Red Plains (annual rainfall of 25 inches per year), giant

miscanthus had marginal persistence and low yields 

(500 lb/acre) compared to 6,000 pounds per acre for

‘Alamo’ switchgrass (J. Douglas, unpublished data,

2011).

In contrast to giant miscanthus, switchgrass yields 

are most strongly influenced by nitrogen availability

(Heaton, Voigt, and Long 2004). This means that in

areas like the Midwest where rainfall is generally

adequate, but water quality (e.g., high nitrates) is an issue, giant miscanthus would be a better choice for producers than switchgrass. In drier areas of the country,

where water is limiting, but groundwater quality is not

an issue, adequately fertilized (i.e., 50–100 lb nitrogen)

switchgrass may produce higher amounts of biomass

(Heaton, Voigt, and Long 2004).

Even in the well-watered Midwest, giant miscanthus 

production could potentially cause long-term changes 

in the hydrologic cycle. Models suggest that if 100

percent of the current Midwest land cover was converted to giant miscanthus, evapotransporation could 

increase in excess of 8 inches per year and drainage

could decrease between 2 and 10 inches per year

(Vanloocke, Bernachii, and Twines 2010). Midwestern

field data indicates that wherever giant miscanthus

increased evapotranspiration by 5.5 inches, drainage

(primarily stream flow) would be reduced by 32 percent (McIsacc, David, and Mitchell 2010). Although 100

percent conversion of current land cover is considered 

unrealistic, localized ‘hot spots’ could be an issue if

giant miscanthus land cover were to exceed 25 percent

in counties surrounding biorefineries or power stations (Vanloocke, Bernachii, and Twines 2010).

Impacts on wildlife

It is well understood that monoculture plantings of 

any agricultural commodity can cause shifts in the 

abundance and diversity of wildlife populations compared to native vegetation. Relatively little is known

about the comparative conservation cost or benefits of

the different biofuel crops (Fargioni 2010; Landis and

Werling 2010).

One study in England looked at the numbers and

kinds of ground beetles (Carabidae), butterflies

(Lepidoptera), and other flying insects following giant miscanthus rhizome harvest (Semere and Slater 

2007b). At that time, ground beetles were as abundant

in the giant miscanthus stand as the field margins, but

butterfly numbers and other flying insect numbers

were less. Another English study looked at insects

as a potential food source for birds and found that

winter insect communities were similar for young 

(<5-yr-old) giant miscanthus plantings and winter

wheat (Triticum aestivum), but winter wheat had

significantly more insects present than giant miscanthus in the spring (Bellamy et al. 2009). These studies

suggest that relatively young giant miscanthus stands 

that have fairly open canopy with a weedy understory 

would support some, but not all, of the insects in the

surrounding landscape.
5

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Work in England also showed that younger age or

rhizome donor stands of giant miscanthus had higher 

bird numbers (both breeding and overwintering species) than reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), 

a cool-season grass proposed as a biomass candidate

(Semere and Slater 2007a). The authors attributed the

greater bird numbers in the giant miscanthus planting

to more bare ground and more diverse ground vegetation (weeds) in the giant miscanthus than the reed 

canarygrass. Ground mammal numbers did not differ

between the two biomass plants, but both biomass

plants had lower numbers of birds and small mammals

than their associated field margins.

Greater species diversity and numbers of breeding and

wintering birds also were noted in another English

study comparing giant miscanthus to wheat. Again, the

authors attributed this to more open spaces and weedy

understory of the less than 5-year-old giant miscanthus

compared to the annual wheat (Bellamy et al. 2009).

A third study in England looking at bird populations

compared giant miscanthus to willow (Salix sp.)

grown as a short-rotation crop for biomass, traditional arable crops, and grassland. Giant miscanthus,

the surrounding arable ground, and grasslands were

found to have relatively similar species numbers and

diversity of birds at the start of the growing season in

May, but both numbers and diversity in giant miscanthus declined in July, when the plants were more than 

6 feet tall. The short-rotation willow planting always

had greater diversity and species numbers than giant

miscanthus (Sage et al. 2010).

The general conclusion of all of these studies was 

that young (<5 yr. old) giant miscanthus stands, due

to their more open nature and greater ground cover 

diversity, would not negatively impact bird or mammal populations (Semere and Slater 2007a; Bellamy

et al. 2009; Sage et al. 2010). However, it was also

concluded that mature giant miscanthus stands had 

lower bird and mammal numbers. There also is some

concern that mature giant miscanthus stands may 

actually serve as a breeding trap for ground-nesting

birds by providing suitable nesting sites in the spring,

only to become rapidly impenetrable and causing

nest abandonment (Anderson, Haskins, and Nelson

2004). Proactive management plans, such as wide field

borders, unplanted patches in the fields, and targeted

plantings for pollinators, will probably need to be

developed for giant miscanthus plantations to minimize potential negative effects as the stands mature 

(Bellamy et al. 2009; Sage et al. 2010). 

Diseases, insects, and weeds

In Europe, giant miscanthus plantations have proved 

to be relatively free of insect pests or diseases

(Lewandowski et al. 2000). It is recognized that increased cultivation of any biomass crop is likely to

change predator-prey relationships, insect-vectored 

diseases, etc. (Landis and Werling 2010), and issues

will probably develop for giant miscanthus itself and

associated crop plants.

For example, several aphids reported in the United

States on giant miscanthus are pests themselves of 

sugarcane and corn (Bradshaw et al. 2010). The aphid,

Sipha flava, was collected in four States with some 

populations found to be high enough to cause leaf

death in giant miscanthus. Additionally, giant miscanthus and switchgrass are known to be hosts for barley

yellow dwarf viruses (BYDV), which are vectored by

grass-feeding aphids (Huggett, Leather, and Walters

1999; Bradshaw et al. 2010). Concern has been expressed about grass biomass crops serving as a reservoir for BYDV and what affect increased reservoirs

of the disease will have on small grain production 

(Landis and Werling 2010).

Similar concerns are expressed for western corn

rootworm (WCR; Diabrotica virgifera virgifera), 

the most significant pest of corn in the United States.

Laboratory studies have shown that WCR can complete its lifecycle on giant miscanthus, and field studies

have shown that WCR can lay eggs around the giant

miscanthus (Spencer and Raghu 2009). Whether this

will be a problem for corn producers is not known at

this time. It will depend on whether giant miscanthus

acts as a refuge (good) for resistance management or 

a reservoir (bad) for enhancing pest pressure on the

corn crop (Spencer and Raghu 2009).

The only widely recognized pest issue with giant miscanthus is the susceptibility of establishing plants to

weed competition (Lewandowski et al. 2000; Christian

and Haase 2001). Field trials in Illinois (Anderson,

et al. 2010) showed a greater than 40 percent reduction in dry weight and number of shoots per plant for

nonweeded check compared to hand-weeded plots 3.5

months after planting.

Invasiveness

Many traits, including highly efficient nutrient and

water utilization, quick establishment, and reallocation

of nutrients belowground when senesced, that make

some perennial grasses good biomass candidates also

make them potentially highly invasive species (Raghu

et al. 2006). To understand the potential impact of bio-
6

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

mass plants, weed risk assessment (WRA) protocols

that look at biology, performance of related species,

climatic requirements, history, etc., have been used

as a preintroduction method of screening of biomass

candidates for weediness (Barney and DiTomaso 2008;

Fox 2007).

In one study, switchgrass received a WRA score that

indicated it should not be introduced as a biofuel candidate into California, a State outside its native range.

This was due to high seed production, rapid growth 

rate, broad environmental tolerance, possible contamination of planting and harvesting equipment, and the 

strong possibility of seed dispersal during feedstock

movement to energy conversion facilities (Barney and

DiTomaso 2008).

The authors cautioned that lack of viable seed did

not negate the risk associated with a potential biomass crop (Barney and DiTomaso 2008). Giant reed

(Arundo donax), which does not produce viable seed

in North America (Johnson, Dudley, and Burns 2006),

was identified in this assessment and others as a

potential invasive risk due to difficulty to control once

established, known vegetative spread downstream,

and weedy character in other regions of the world 

(Barney and DiTomaso 2008).

Using the same WRA (Barney and DiTomaso 2008),

giant miscanthus was rated as not invasive, in spite of 

the fact that M. sinensis, one of its parents, is recognized as an invasive species in 13 States (http://www.

invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.html?sub=3052). The

authors attribute the noninvasive rating, in part, to

three decades of field research in Europe that failed

to produce a single report of escape (Lewandowski et

al. 2000). For giant miscanthus, slow natural spread

in Europe is thought to be due to lack of viable seed

production and relatively slow spread by rhizomes

(<4 in/yr; Jørgensen 2011). The conventional assumption of slow rate of spread should be viewed with

caution since preliminary studies in Illinois have found 

an average rate of spread of 1.3 feet per year, with

occurrences up to 3.9 feet per year (A. Davis, personal

communication, 2011).

Although much of the current breeding work to develop new giant miscanthus hybrids is directed to

maintaining sterility (Jørgensen 2011), permanent

sterility of interspecific hybrids is not given (Ainouche

et al. 2009; Ramsey and Schemske 1998). Spontaneous

genome duplication of triploid hybrids that result in

viable seed producing polyploid plants is not uncommon in nature. For example, Townsend’s cordgrass

(Spartina x townsendii) is a sterile hybrid that developed in England after the accidental introduction 

of smooth cordgrass (S. alterniflora) from North 

America in the late 1800s. Fertile plants were noted in

Townsend’s cordgrass stands after a couple of decades (Ainouche, et al. 2009). These fertile plants were

recognized as a new species in 1968 (Barkworth 2004)

and named English cordgrass (S. anglica). English

cordgrass appears to have arisen by spontaneous

doubling of the chromosome number of Spartina x

townsendii (Marchan 1963). English cordgrass is considered to be an invasive species success story with a

recognized worldwide range (Ainouche et al. 2009).

If such a spontaneous or deliberate (see Cultivars

and lines) doubling of chromosome numbers were to

occur with a giant miscanthus line, viable seed and its

movement in the environment would be a concern.

One study in the United States found that plants of certain lines of M. sinensis could produce almost 2,000 

seed per plant with as high as 80 percent germination

in USDA hardiness zone 4 (Meyer and Tchida 1999).

Another study reported that although the majority of 

M. sinensis and M. x giganteus caryopsis (seed) fell 

within 150 feet of the parent plant, a small percentage was found 1,000 feet away (Quinn et al. 2011).

Combined, these studies suggest should viable giant

miscanthus seed be produced, dispersal distances

of up to 1,000 feet from existing populations could

be produced throughout the Midwestern and North

Atlantic States. As with switchgrass, if viable seed

becomes a reality, seed movement by harvesting equipment or during transportation to biorefineries also

becomes an issue.

Although giant miscanthus is not on any Federal or 

State legally defined noxious weed list, the potential exists. Management plans (Caslin, Finnan, and

McCracken 2010) need to be developed for each

biomass planting of giant miscanthus that considers potential for vegetative (and seed) dispersal (see

Establishing stands to prevent unintentional spread,

and, preventing unintentional spread in established

stands). These should include best management practices (BMPs) that ensure containment of rhizome and

stem pieces during transport to and from production fields, containment procedures for field margins

(e.g., appropriately timed tillage, herbicide, etc.), and

minimum required setback or buffer distance from

sensitive natural areas and from natural channels for 

dispersal such as rivers and streams (Quinn, Allen, and 

Stewart 2010). Any needed earthmoving activities (i.e.,

activities outside of normal crop tillage such as installation of diversions or terraces) in the field proposed

for planting should be completed the year prior to

planting the giant miscanthus. To ensure the structures

will exceed the life expectancy of the planting, water

or erosion control structures need to meet a 25-year
7

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

storm event design criteria. Earthmoving after planting presents a high risk of the rhizomes moving offsite

and creating an invasive situation. Additionally, site

restoration responsibilities and procedures need to

be clearly delineated for use when a planting is to be

decommissioned or abandoned.

Until more experience is gained with giant miscanthus plantings, regional plans need to be developed to

specify active monitoring protocols for first generation

biomass plantings and include plant identification and

eradication procedures. These should be revisited and

revised as necessary when new hybrids or cultivars

are introduced (Quinn, Allen, and Stewart 2010).

Planting and management

Suitable sites for production

Soils—Giant miscanthus is adapted to a wide range 

of soils, from sands to those with high organic matter (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010). Although,

the best production can be expected from sites that

have well-drained soils with medium to high fertility (Heaton et al. 2011) and pH between 5.5 to 7.5

(Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010). Growth has

been poor on soil with pH greater than 8 (Caslin 2010).

This means giant miscanthus will produce the highest 

yields with the lowest inputs on USDA NRCS capability class I to II lands (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/

history/articles/landclassification.html). Acceptable

yields can be expected from more marginal land as

long as crop growth requirements are met and appropriate Conservation Practice Standards (CPS) (e.g.,

Contour Farming, CPS Code 330; Filter Strip, CPS

Code 393; and Terrace, CPS Code 600) to prevent soil

erosion are implemented.

Equipment considerations—Crop requirements for

field preparation, planting, and harvesting equipment also should be considered when selecting fields

for planting. Since in most cases giant miscanthus

biomass will be harvested during the winter or early

spring, sites with wintertime high water tables should

be avoided if harvesting equipment access is questionable (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010). Refer to

section II in the local Field Office Technical Guide

(FOTG) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/) 

for specific information on suitable field agronomic

characteristics.

Additional factors to consider—In addition to agronomic considerations for site selection, impacts to 

wildlife and surrounding natural communities also 

should be considered when selecting sites.

•	 Avoid sites without suitable setback or buffer

area to minimize potential impact to sensitive 

natural areas (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken

2010) (see Establishing stands to prevent unintentional spread).

•	 Considerations should be given to avoid locating

giant miscanthus production fields in floodplains

due to the risk of rhizomes or viable stem pieces

breaking off during storm events and establishing

elsewhere.

• 	 Select sites that will allow for unplanted areas in

the field and pollinator plantings on the edges to

reduce potential impact to wildlife (see Impacts 

on wildlife).

•	 Senesced giant miscanthus poses considerable

fire risk (Jørgenson 2011). The energy potential

of giant miscanthus is similar to switchgrass on a 

unit basis (Librenti, Ceotto, and Di Candilo 2010).

However, the additional total biomass in a giant

miscanthus field may burn more intensely than a

field of switchgrass. Adequate field borders will

help minimize the risk of accidental fires escaping to adjacent fields or wild land areas. A 30- to

100-foot firebreak is recommended as a defensible space near structures, utilities, etc. The width

is dependent on region of the country and local 

recommendations.

Also, sites need to meet all local, State, or Federal 

requirements for biomass plantings. For example,

Florida law specifies installation of berms, water traps,

or minimum fallow areas for biomass plantings (unless the species is deemed noninvasive) adjacent to 

waterways to prevent spread (Florida Admin. Weekly

& Florida Admin. Code 2008). If no such regulations

exist locally, see Establishing stands to prevent unintentional spread for minimal procedures and activities 

recommended to prevent unintentional spread.

Field preparation

As with switchgrass (Douglas et al. 2009), field preparation is important to ensure successful stand establishment. The exact steps required will depend on

previous production history of the site.

Establishment fertilization—A soil test should be

taken about a year prior to planting to determine the

pH and nutrient levels at the site. If necessary, adjust

pH to between 6 to 8 (Heaton et al. 2011). If pH needs

to be adjusted, liming material needs to be applied

and incorporated at least 6 months prior to planting.

In contrast, any fertilizer applications should be made

shortly before or after the crop is planted.
8

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Whether starter fertilizer is needed at planting has 

not been determined for all planting situations in the

United States. The nutrient requirements of giant miscanthus are lower than for annual row crops due to effective internal cycling of nutrients from aboveground

material to the roots and rhizomes as it goes dormant.

Nutrient levels in excess of plant requirements will

simply promote weed growth. European production

guides do not recommend any fertilization the first 2

years. This recommendation is based on field studies that have shown that, for most sites, soil nutrients 

will be adequate for giant miscanthus growth (Caslin,

Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Since most States lack soil test response curves for

giant miscanthus, one option is to follow extension

recommendations for low productivity perennial 

forage grass stands. If the soil test results show nutrient levels are adequate for grass establishment,

producers do not need to add additional nutrients at 

planting. Alternately, producers could follow current

Midwestern recommendations (Heaton et al. 2011),

which call for adjusting the fertility of the site to 

within the following ranges:

•	 nitrogen—5 to 9 lb/ton dry matter removed

•	 phosphorus—1.5 lb/ton dry matter removed

•	 potassium—5 to 9 lb/ton dry matter removed

Preparation for previously cropped sites—One usual

advantage to planting giant miscanthus on sites with a 

history of row crop production is that little if any site 

preparation tillage will be necessary. Another advantage to planting giant miscanthus on cropland is that 

weed pressure may also be lower. With active cropland sites, however, herbicide residuals from previous

cropping systems, which would be expected to impact

grasses, should be considered when preparing a site.

Until tolerances of giant miscanthus are established,

additional fallow time or an additional cropping system that will not result in potentially harmful residuals 

for grasses may be necessary for these sites. Consult

herbicide labeling or contact the local extension service with herbicide questions.

If the field has not been cropped in the previous couple of years, more tillage operations and time (as much 

as two growing seasons) may need to be allowed for

site preparation and weed control. Chemical or mechanical fallowing may be necessary to reduce soil

weed seed reserves. Another option is growing a crop

of glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max), which 

will allow a producer to use glyphosate over the top 

to control weeds. A winter cover crop such as small

grains, particularly following soybeans, can help prevent soil erosion and suppress cool-season weeds. The

cover crop should be chemically burned down prior to

planting to avoid excessive crop residue, which may

interfere with planting equipment. If spring weeds

develop after the cover crop has been killed, a second chemical burn down with glyphosate or preplant

application of registered formulations of acetochlor, 

acetochlor plus atrazine, or other herbicides that have

received labeling for biomass production of giant

miscanthus may be necessary. The whole field should

be finely tilled to at least a depth of 6 inches prior to

planting or, when equipment is available, strip tilling

only the planting row will reduce weed competition 

(Heaton et al. 2011).

Preparation for sites currently in pasture—Although 

the United States experience has been to plant giant

miscanthus on row crop ground, more commonly in 

Europe, giant miscanthus is planted on land that is 

planted to perennial grass. In that case, an appropriate

broad-spectrum herbicide (e.g., glyphosate) is applied

to the site to kill the existing grass (Caslin, Finnan,

and McCracken 2010). Consult herbicide label or local

extension service for appropriate timing of this herbicide application. For some grasses, especially bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), a follow-up application 

of herbicide may be necessary to get complete kill.

Types and timing of tillage operation required after the 

grass cover is killed will vary depending on the site.

Application of preemergence herbicides registered

for biomass production of giant miscanthus, such as

acetochlor or acetochlor plus atrazine, may be necessary. The goal should be to have the site finely tilled to

a depth of 6 inches prior to planting.

Cultivars and lines

To minimize the possibility of the planting becoming

an invasive liability, the NRCS recommends producers

use only vegetatively propagated giant miscanthus that 

has been verified as a triploid sterile hybrid between

M. sinesis and M. sacchariflorous.

At this time, sourcing quality planting material of 

known genetic background is a problem in the United

States. Only limited quantities of giant miscanthus can

be imported from Europe due to quarantine issues

(Heaton et al. 2011). Thus, producers are realistically

limited to the material currently in the United States.

Reportedly sterile, giant miscanthus lines or cultivars

available in North America (but not necessarily the

United States) include the Illinois line (Pyter et al.

2007; New Energy Farms 2011), FreedomTM (Drapala

2010; Heaton et al. 2010; Repreive Renewables 2009),

Amuri (Heaton et al. 2010; New Energy Farms 2011),

and Nagara (Heaton et al. 2010; New Energy Farms

2011).
9

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Producers should request third-party verification

that the giant miscanthus they are receiving has 

been certified to not produce fertile seed. The local

land grant or agricultural university may be able to

assist with verifying that the plant material has a 

triploid chromosome number.

The Illinois line was developed from the landscaping 

material obtained from the Chicago Botanical Gardens

in the 1980s and used as landscaping at the University

of Illinois until incorporated in the University’s biomass research in 2002 (Pyter, Heaton, and Voigt,

2009). Amuri and Nagara are new M. sinesis and M. 

sacchariflorous hybrids specifically developed for

biomass (Allen 2008) that have been shown to be

more cold tolerant than the Illinois line in Canada

(Armitage, Deen, and Betts 2010). FreedomTM is a giant miscanthus cultivar developed at Mississippi State 

University (fig. 2) for biomass production in the Deep

South (Drapala 2010).

The lines or cultivar listed here do not constitute an 

endorsement by the NRCS. This does not preclude

the use of other giant miscanthus material that can be

verified as a sterile, triploid hybrid. More vegetatively

and seed propagated giant miscanthus hybrids are in

the pipeline, but it may be 5 to 10 years before their

advantages are known and planting material is widely

available. Any future recommendation of the use of

seed to establish giant miscanthus will be dependent

on additional studies and analysis of the potential 

spread of that particular cultivar or line.

Until more standardized cultivar testing programs,

like the ones currently being done at six locations in

Mississippi (B. Baldwin, personal communication,

2011), are initiated for giant miscanthus around the 

country, producer’s choices may be more limited than

even the currently available lines. Often they will be

restricted to using the planting material specified in

their biomass contracts or required by the biofuel

refinery or cofiring station purchasing their product.

Planting material

Types—Since giant miscanthus is a sterile hybrid, new

stands are established using vegetative material, either

rhizomes, rhizome-derived plugs, or micropropagated 

(tissue culture) transplants (Anderson et al. 2011).

Plugs or transplants have advantages over rhizomes

in that they can be planted using modified tobacco or

vegetable transplanting equipment, and they are actively growing when transplanted (Anderson 2011). A

disadvantage, besides cost, is they need to be watered

after transplanting (Heaton et al. 2011). No studies

have been published yet that compare rhizome-derived

plugs to standard rhizome planting, but micropropagated transplants initially had more shoots, and their 

rhizome system initially was finer than that from

rhizome-derived plants (Lewandowski 1998). These

differences were found to disappear as the stand aged 

(Lewandowski 1998).

Rhizome quality—Age of mother plants affects 

rhizome quality and rhizome quality affects stand 

establishment (Pyter et al. 2009; Pryter, Dohleman,

and Voigt 2010). In one European study, survival was

88 percent with rhizome pieces from 5-year-old plants

compared to only 25 percent for rhizomes from 1-yearold plants and 52 percent for rhizomes from 9-year-old

plants (Christian, Yates, and Riche 2009). Preliminary

work in Mississippi has shown better rhizome quality from 2-year-old plants than from 4-year-old plants 

(B. Baldwin, personal communication, 2011). These

studies indicate that quality of rhizome increases with 

mother plant age, but only up to a certain point.

For field planting, harvestable rhizomes should weigh

about 1.5 to 2 ounces (50 g) and be about 4 to 5 inches

long (Pyter et al. 2009). Rhizomes used for greenhouse

propagation of plugs (Pyter et al. 2009) can be as small

Figure 2	 Plot of FreedomTM growing at Mississippi State

University

Photo by Kat Lawrence, MSU Ag. Comm.
10

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

as 1 ounce (25 g). Good quality rhizomes pieces can

be branched or unbranched pieces, but should appear

scaly and buff colored (Pyter et al. 2009) (fig. 3). If

used for field plantings, rhizomes should have minimum of two to three buds per rhizome (Caslin, Finnan,

and McCracken 2010); in the greenhouse, pieces need

to have a minimum of one bud.

Rhizome yield—Age of mother plant also affects rhizome yield. Hand dug, 1-year-old plants were found to

produce 7 to 10 harvestable rhizomes, 2-year-old plants

produced 25 to 30 harvestable rhizomes, and 3-year-old

plants produced 75 to 80 harvestable rhizomes (Pyter

et al. 2009). Yield of mechanically dug rhizomes is not

as high. The European rule of thumb is that for each

acre of 4-year-old miscanthus mother field, one can

expect enough rhizomes to plant 8 to 10 acres (Caslin,

Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Digging considerations—Rhizomes can be harvested

using a rotovator with a 6- or 8-inch-blade spacing; the

6-inch spacing produces smaller and less clumpy rhizomes. The rhizome pieces can be lifted using a potato

harvester or similar type of equipment (Caslin, Finnan,

and McCracken 2010). Specialized harvesting/digging

equipment that breaks up the rhizomes and lifts them

in one operation has been developed in Europe and

the United States (table 2).

If the nursery area is to be replanted or converted to

a production field after the rhizomes have been harvested, the field should be rotovated again to rebury

the remaining rhizome pieces and rolled to firm the

soil. This operation should be done within an hour or

two after the lifting operation to prevent the remaining 

rhizomes that are left on the soil surface from drying 

out (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Although rhizomes can be dug anytime in the fall

or winter period after the plants have senesced and 

biomass removed, the most common time for harvesting for field planting is in the spring prior to shoot

emergence (Lewandowski 1998). Rhizomes should

be used as soon as possible after digging, but they

can be stored temporarily if kept cool and moist. This

can be accomplished by covering the rhizome heap

with moist soil (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010),

but it is critical that the rhizomes not be allowed to

dry out (Anderson et al. 2011) or go through a heat.

Additionally, care should be taken to not let rhizomes

dry out during transport.

Depending on planting method used, the rhizomes also

may need to be cleaned and sized. Sizing is particularly

critical to ensure rhizomes pieces will feed through 

the transplanter openings (Heaton et al. 2011; Caslin,

Finnan, and McCracken 2010). Follow planter manufacturer’s directions or do some test runs to determine

what size rhizome pieces can be used.

Fall or winter digging times are preferable when plugs

are being produced in the greenhouse. Planting trays

with cells that are approximately 1 inch in diameter

and 6 or 7 inches deep are recommended (Anderson et

al. 2011). A well-draining commercial potting mix or a

pasteurized mixture of native soil combined with sand,

perlite, peat moss, and/or vermiculate can be used

(Pyter et al. 2009). Rhizome pieces should be planted

approximately 2 inches deep and kept moist. Providing

Available from Web address

WHL http://www.miscanthusplanter.com/

Spriggers Choice http://www.spriggerschoice.com/index_files/miscanthuspropergationmachinery.htm

Cool Fin Partnership http://bioenergyfeedstocks.igb.uiuc.edu/2010/ppt/maxwell.pdf

Table 2	 Dedicated giant miscanthus digging and planting equipment available for United States/Canadian market in 2011

Figure 3	 Healthy, buff-colored rhizomes

Photo: USDA NRCS, Elsberry, MO
11

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

supplemental light (12 h/d) and using a complete 

water-soluble or time-released granular fertilizer will

promote active growth (Pyter et al. 2009). The goal

is to have well-rooted plants in time for field planting

(Anderson et al. 2011).

Regardless of the digging time, care should be

taken during rhizome transport/planting operation to ensure pieces do not fall off or out of the 

transport/planting equipment and becomes sites

for unintentional spread. See Establishing stands

to prevent unintentional spread.

Field planting

Planting dates—Fields can be planted any time after

the last frost date, typically May 1 in the Midwest (Heaton et al. 2011). With transplants, later planting dates,

up until early June in the Midwest, can be used if soil

moisture is adequate (Pyter et al. 2009). Even later

planting dates may be practical for both rhizomes and

transplants in other areas of the country, particularly 

the Deep South, giving careful consideration to rainfall

patterns if irrigation is not available and the length of

the remaining growing season. The longer the growing

season the first year, the better the first-year rhizome

development and better chances for first-year winter

survival (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010). Additionally, earlier planting dates are less likely to interfere with ground-nesting birds (DEFRA 2007).

Planting depth—Regardless of the type of planting

equipment used, giant miscanthus rhizomes should 

be planted between 2 and 4 inches deep, or if using

transplants or plugs, place the root ball below the soil

surface (Heaton et al. 2011; Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Planting rate—Plant populations between 4,000 and

16,000 plants per acre have been evaluated. Higher

numbers provide earlier canopy closure and weed control, but are more expensive to establish with relatively little improvements in long-term yield (Danalatos,

Archontoulis, and Mitsios 2007). The consensus among

researchers is that the desired final population should

be between 4,000 and 5,000 plants per acre (Heaton

et al. 2010). Since large rhizome (1.5–2 oz) survival

usually averages 60 to 70 percent (Caslin, Finnan, and

McCracken 2010; Pyter et al. 2009), this means 6,000 to

7,000 rhizomes per acre are needed to get the final recommended stand. The higher rate should be used for

less optimum conditions (e.g., soils with lower water

holding capacity, higher expected weed competition,

late planting, etc.). With irrigation, survival should be

higher, and lower rates may be practical. Survival of

transplants or smaller mechanically harvested rhizomes could be lower, and planting rates may need to

be increased as much as 100 percent to ensure adequate stands (Heaton et al. 2010). Until the interaction

of planting material propagation, planting equipment, 

and environment are better understood in the United

States, planting rates should remain on the high end of 

recommendations to minimize the need to replant thin 

stands.

Row spacing—The current recommendation in the 

Midwest is to plant using 30-inch rows with 30-inch

spacing between plants (Heaton et al. 2011). This is

based on two factors. One is the need to use up to

7,000 rhizomes per acre to get the desired final stand

density, and the second is that research has shown that 

actually leaving equal space around each rhizome or 

plug gives better first season growth. Given variability

in the planting equipment available, slight variations

in the 30- by 30-inch spacing would be reasonable as

long as plant population is maintained. The number of

rhizome pieces or plugs needed for different planting 

arrangements is shown in table 3.

Planting methods—Most research stands of giant 

miscanthus have been established by hand planting

rhizomes as space plants or by dropping rhizomes into

furrows that were subsequently covered up (Pyter et

al. 2009). Broadcast planting followed by disking in

and packing was the earliest mechanical method of

planting rhizome pieces, but issues with consistent

planting depth and the need for tillage to control 

weeds prompted the modification and use of standard

row planting equipment (Heaton et al. 2011; Caslin,

Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Modified corn drills and potato planters have

been used to plant rhizomes (Caslin, Finnan, and

McCracken 2010), and vegetable or tobacco planters

have been used for transplants or plugs (Anderson et

Row spacing Within row 

spacing

No. rhizomes 

or plugs/acre

 ------------------------------ Inches ----------------------------

30 24 8,700

30 30 7,000

36 24 7,000

36 30 6,000

36 36 5,000

Table 3	 Effect of planting arrangement on the number

rhizomes or plugs per acre
12

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

al. 2011). European and American equipment manufacturers have actively been modifying and/or developing

planting equipment to plant both rhizome pieces and

transplants. Table 2 lists some of the manufactures advertising specialized giant miscanthus planting equipment for the United States or Canadian market in 2011.

Due to the cost of the dedicated equipment, many of

the manufacturers have rental/lease options or arrangements with rhizome producers that will allow for 

an essentially turnkey planting operation.

In the case of rhizomes, the field should be rolled after

planting to ensure good soil contact and few air spaces 

(Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010) unless otherwise directed by the planter manufacturer. Irrigation

is recommended after planting if transplants or plugs 

are used (Heaton et al. 2011), and additional applications may be warranted the first growing season. If

available, irrigation also may be warranted to speed

the establishment (Lewandowski et al. 2000) and, thus,

first-year survival of rhizome-planted field.

Establishing stands to prevent unintentional 

spread 

All local, State, or Federal regulations for containment of biomass plantings will be followed. If no such

guidance exists, recommended minimum procedures

to prevent unintentional spread of giant miscanthus in 

production or propagation stands include the following:

•	 Establish or maintain a minimum 25-foot setback

or border around a giant miscanthus stand to

allow for monitoring and management of any 

giant miscanthus spread. No setback is required

when the giant miscanthus planting is adjacent 

to cropland or actively managed pasture with the 

same operator. Setback areas may be planted to

an annual row crop, such as corn or soybeans;

may be planted to a site-adapted, perennial coolseason or warm-season forage or turf grass; or

kept clear by disking, rotovating, or treating with

a nonselective burn-down herbicide at least once

a year. The method used to manage the setback

may be dependent on slope and the potential for

erosion.

•	 Cover or otherwise contain vegetative planting

material (rhizomes) during transportation/planting operations when outside the boundary of the

designated biomass production field(s).

•	 Once planting is complete, inspect and remove

any residual vegetative planting material from all 

equipment used to transport/plant.

•	 Excess live planting material should not be

disposed of at edges of fields, in field borders,

in farm “trash” piles, or in landfills. Any excess

planting material can be hand planted in the

designated biomass field or should be killed by

allowing it to dry out on an impermeable surface

for 48 hours or burning. Air-dried planting material or burn residue should be disposed of at a

site that:

– is not immediately adjacent to sensitive natural areas, artificial or natural water bodies, or

areas that are subject to flooding

–	 has a minimum of 25-foot setback or buffer

area around the planting that is managed as 

outlined for production or propagation stands

– is indicated on the conservation plan with 

GPS coordinates

–	 is checked at least once a season for any

giant miscanthus sprouts, and if sprouts are 

observed, herbicide or mechanical methods

should be used to kill the volunteer plants

Weed control

Weed control during establishment year is critical

to the successful establishment of giant miscanthus

(Anderson et al. 2010). Weed control should be based

on a combination of avoidance, cultivation, and burn

down, preplant, and postemergence herbicides (see

Field preparation). Roller wipers for tall weeds or

broad spectrum burn-down herbicide, such as glyphosate, applied during the winter (controls winter weeds 

only) when the giant miscanthus is dormant can 

also be used (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Various mechanical and cultural methods (Anderson et

al. 2011) used for weed control have included:

•	 rotary hoe cultivation between plant rows during

first and second years

•	 cleaning loose soil from rhizomes prior to planting to minimize weed seed transmission

•	 timing planting to avoid the most problematic

weed competition

•	 minimize weed seed bank by good weed control

in years prior to planting giant miscanthus

•	 not using fertilizer during planting

•	 harvesting only once a year

Very few herbicide formulations are currently labeled

for giant miscanthus biomass production in the United

States, but the general assumption is that any herbicide that is safe for corn will also be safe for giant

miscanthus (Anderson et al. 2011). Various herbicides

and combinations used in Europe have supported

this assumption (Lewandowski et al. 2000; Bullard et
13

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

al. 1995). Field studies in the United States also have

shown the efficacy and safety of various pre- and

postemergence herbicides (Anderson et al. 2010).

Further studies are needed to determine the safety of 

sequential applications to give the needed season-long 

control (Anderson et al. 2010) and provide data necessary for labeling of additional products. Certain formulations of acetochlor and acetochlor plus atrazine have 

received labeling in the United States for use on giant

miscanthus biomass plantings, and producers should

contact local university weed specialists or extension

offices to find out when additional herbicide options

will become available.

Initial survival and replanting decisions

Once established, giant miscanthus is very tolerant of

freezing temperatures. Stands have survived winter

temperatures in Illinois that regularly drop below 0

degrees Fahrenheit (Pyter et al. 2009). In contrast,

survival of newly planted stands of lines not specifically selected for cold tolerance have been as low as

50 percent where soil temperatures drop below 28 degrees Fahrenheit in the upper 2 inches (Clifton-Brown

et al. 2001; Clifton-Brown and Lewandowski 2000a).

If giant miscanthus is planted in areas of the country 

where winter temperatures can be expected to be cold

enough to affect plant survival, leaving first-year biomass production on the field to provide ground cover

has been shown to improve winter survival (Heaton et

al. 2011).

All newly planted fields should be scouted the spring

following planting to assess stand establishment. If

the plant population is less than 4,000 plants per acre, 

weeds will generally continue to be an issue in the

second and even third growing season due to the open 

canopy (DEFRA 2007). Such stands will also usually

take more than 3 years to reach maximum production.

Replanting may be the best option (see Site restoration

for recommendations on eradicating existing stands).

If the plant population is marginally adequate (3,500

plants /acre) or acceptable but large gaps exist in the

stand, spot replanting may be advisable. The European

rule of thumb for deciding when gaps need replanting

is that gaps greater than the footprint of a small car 

should be replanted. Spot treatment with glyphosate

will usually be necessary prior to replanting gaps to

control weeds (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Managing established stands 

Agronomic 

Fertility—Nutrient removal with giant miscanthus 

biomass harvests is low because of the plant’s ability

to recycle nutrients to the rhizome system in the later 

part of the growing season. Additionally, most of the

leaf material remains in the field, so the only nutrients

that must be accounted for are in the stems (DEFRA

2007). In most cases, nutrient requirements of the

crop the first two growing seasons will be met by leaf

litter decomposition, soil nutrient reserves, rhizome 

reserves, and atmospheric deposition (Caslin, Finnan,

and McCracken 2010; DEFRA 2007). Thus for the

second growing season, producers should follow the 

same guidelines on fertilization as outlined for planting (see Establishment fertilization).

Nutrient removal, particularly nitrogen, is relatively 

low in spite of the high biomass production. European

work (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010) has

shown that given a 10 to 15 tons/acre yield for established stands (>3 yr old), nutrient removal rates per

year are:

•	 nitrogen—50 to 90 lb/acre

•	 phosphorus—6 to 13 lb/acre

•	 potassium—45 to 116 lb/acre

•	 magnesium—3 to 11 lb/acre

In contrast to the European work, higher nitrogen and lower potasium removal rates were found 

from a February harvest date of 3-year-old stand of

FreedomTM giant miscanthus in Elsberry, Missouri,

that averaged 12 tons/acre in 2009 to 2010 (J. Douglas,

unpublished data, 2011):

•	 nitrogen—143 to 150 lb/acre

•	 phosphorus—9 to 18 lb/acre

•	 potassium—34 to 56 lb/acre

•	 magnesium—8 to 14 lb/acre

•	 calcium—24 to 32 lb/acre

•	 sulfur—2 to 5 lb/acre

Until more experience is gained with the crop, producers should be careful to monitor the nutrient status

of their plantings in subsequent years by regular soil

testing.

If fertilizer is required, any source (e.g., synthetic,

organic, manure, etc.) can be used as long as it satisfies the crop needs and the farm nutrient management

plan. Do not use murate of potash (KCl) as the source
14

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

for potassium without checking with the end product

user first. Excessive chlorine can damage some boilers

(Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Weeds—From the second year onward, growth of 

well-established giant miscanthus stands will suppress

weed competition and herbicide applications should

not be necessary. If weed growth is still a problem,

cultivation and herbicide treatments outlined for the

establishment year should be followed unless other

herbicide options have become available. Until the

long-term interactions of giant miscanthus with surrounding vegetation are understood, fields should be

monitored on a regular basis to determine if “new”

weeds are becoming an issue (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Insect and disease—Similar to the recommendation 

for “new” weed scouting, producers should scout 

their giant miscanthus stands on a regular basis for

emerging insect (e.g., corn root worms, aphids, etc.;

see Diseases, insects, and weeds) and disease issues.

When potential problems are noted, producers should

contact the local extension office for assistance with

identification and determining appropriate control

measures.

Preventing unintentional spread in established 

stands

Established plantings should be monitored on a regular basis to check for unwanted spread. All local, State,

or Federal regulations for containment of biomass

plantings should be followed, if applicable. Minimum

procedures recommended to prevent unintentional 

spread of giant miscanthus should include:

•	 Maintain the established minimum 25-foot setback or border, if required, around a giant miscanthus stand. The setback should be measured

every 3 years to make sure it meets this minimum. Monitor the setback to look for unwanted

sprouts of giant miscanthus and spot treat according to the guidelines listed under Site restoration.

•	 If biomass material is harvested prior to killing

frost, the materials should be transported in covered equipment to the processing or bioenergy

plant. Inspect harvesting equipment and clean off

larger stems of plant material prior to leaving the 

field.

Site restoration

There are no published studies specifically dealing

with giant miscanthus eradication. European sources

suggest giant miscanthus is relatively easy to eradicate 

by repeatedly rototilling during the growing season or

spraying with glyphosate application followed by tillage (Jørgensen 2011; Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken

2010).

Work in Illinois indicates that eradicating giant miscanthus, at least in their environment, will not be that

easy. In that study, 2 years of herbicide application

combined with tillage or 2 years of cropping with

glyphosate-resistant soybeans or corn and over the

top applications of glyphosate did not completely 

eradicate the giant miscanthus (Anderson 2011).

Experience with FreedomTM giant miscanthus has

shown that 2 or 3 years of glyphosate application

combined with rotovation are necessary to completely

eradicate established stands (B. Baldwin, personal

communication, 2011). This intensity of eradication

effort is similar to that needed to eradicate other well 

established, C4 perennial grasses, such as bermudagrass, where 2 years of treatments do not completely 

eradicate established stands (Harper 2007).

Until people gain more experience with eradicating

giant miscanthus, the NRCS recommends that all

restoration plans include a minimum of 3 years of

active treatment (e.g., herbicide and/or combination

of herbicide and cultivation with or without annual

crop or cover crop). Application of glyphosate in the

fall before a hard frost is preferred to translocate the

herbicide into the roots, though that timing may not

best coincide with the final harvest.

At the start of the third growing season, the remaining giant miscanthus stand should be accessed for the

ability of spot treatments with herbicide to control

remaining plants. If the stand is too abundant for spot

treatment methods, an additional year of broadcast

herbicide and annual cropping is recommended. If the

residual giant miscanthus stand can be controlled by

spot application of herbicide, the site can be planted

to perennial species or continue in annual cropping 

system based on the landowner’s long-term objective. Regardless of the final restoration cover, the site

should still be monitored for giant miscanthus sprouts

for a minimum of 2 years following restoration planting and follow up herbicide treatments applied.

If giant miscanthus does escape from field production areas and becomes established in natural areas,

which may prohibit the use of tillage equipment, other

control methods may be necessary. This can be accomplished with a spot treatment of broad-spectrum

herbicide coupled with digging and removing plants

from the site. This may require repeated applications

and the site should be monitored for 2 years following

eradication methods.
(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011) 15

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

Biomass harvesting

Harvest timing considerations

Standing biomass losses have been reported to be

around 30 percent due to leaf losses in the winter prior

to harvesting under European conditions (Himken,

Lammel, and Neukirchen 1997). Losses have been

higher under midwestern conditions due to more severe winter conditions (Heaton, Dohleman, and Long,

2008). However, losses as low as 1 percent were reported when FreedomTM giant miscanthus harvest was

delayed from mid-October to mid-March in a 2-year

study in Elsberry, Missouri (J. Douglas, unpublished

data. 2011). Delayed harvesting (just before growing

season starts) is sometimes recommended in Europe 

because losses due to delayed harvesting are mitigated

by significant moisture declines in standing biomass

(Heaton, Dohleman, and Long 2008). But if mistimed,

delayed harvesting can result in significant damage

to the emerging shoots (fig. 4) and result in lower

stem numbers the following year (Caslin, Finnan, and

McCracken 2010).

Optimum harvesting time is when the crop is dry

enough to store safely (<20% moisture) and at a level 

that is required by end-use process without requiring

supplemental drying (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken

2010; Caslin 2010). Typical moisture curve for giant

miscanthus in Illinois is 50 percent in October to less

than 10 percent by February (Heaton et al. 2011).

Similar results were reported (J. Douglas, unpublished

data, 2011) for moisture concentrations for FreedomTM

in eastern Missouri when harvest was delayed from 

October (50%) to March (18%). Obviously, snow or wet

soil conditions that impede harvesting equipment will 

also affect the decision of when to harvest. Staggering

harvest or delaying giant miscanthus harvest as long as 

possible within the acceptable moisture/yield window

also will provide maximum winter cover benefit to

wildlife (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Harvest methods

Giant miscanthus can be harvested with a silage harvester or mowed and baled. Regardless of the method,

the goal is to leave a 2- to 4-inch stubble to maximize

biomass yield (Heaton et al. 2010), but avoid picking

up any of the leaf litter (fig. 5), which will generally

increase moisture and ash content of the bales due to

contact with the soil (Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken

2010).

Harvest losses are lower when a silage harvester is

used (7% vs. 13% for silage harvester and mower, respectively), but chopped material has a very low density and requires more storage space (Caslin, Finnan,

and McCracken 2010; Finnan et al. 2011). The size of

the chopped pieces needs to meet the intake requirements of the boiler or power station where they are

burned. Additionally, if the crop moisture is too high or

the pieces too small, the material is more likely to heat

up and may catch fire when stored (Caslin, Finnan,

and McCracken 2010).

If baled, giant miscanthus should be harvested with a

mower-conditioner to break the stems, which accelerFigure 4 Giant miscanthus sprouts in early spring

Photo USDA NRCS, Elsberry, MO

Figure 5	 Stubble from harvested giant miscanthus

Photo USDA NRCS, Elsberry, MO
16

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

ates drying and produces better wind row configuration to facilitate baling. A disk mower/conditioner

is not recommended unless test balings have been

made to ensure the baler can pick up the material.

Additionally, windrows should not be raked together

to avoid picking up any leaf litter, which would remove

nutrients from the field and decrease biomass quality

(Caslin, Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

When producing bales, it is important that bales be

packed as tightly as possible to reduce cost (Caslin

2010). Problems associated with not having giant miscanthus bailed correctly include:

•	 rejection by processing plant

•	 greater storage area required

•	 broken and excessively damaged bales from bale

handling equipment

•	 inability to stack correctly to minimize weathering when stored outside

•	 looser bales means more bales per ton of biomass and higher overall baling cost

•	 fewer bales on transport trailer means higher

transportation cost

Properly baled material should feel hard when kicked

and the producer should not be able to get his or

her hands under the string for any distance (Caslin,

Finnan, and McCracken 2010).

Transportation

If harvested prior to frost, the loss of potentially viable stem pieces (or seed), which could land along the

transportation route in suitable location for growth, is

the primary concern during transportation. Bales and

biomass materials should be covered during transport

to prevent this. If harvested after frost, this precaution

is not necessary.

Storage considerations for bales

If on-farm storage is required, the goal is to keep the

material as dry as possible. This means that bales

should be stored under cover as soon as possible.

Outside storage is acceptable if stacked on welldrained or impermeable pad, properly stacked, and

tarped. Other considerations for outside storage

site selection are levelness, accessibility for trucks,

distance from power lines, and distance from public

access to minimize fire risks.

References

Ainouche, M.L., P.M. Fortune, A. Salmon, C. Parisod,

M.A. Grandbastien, K. Fukanaga, M. Ricou, and

M.T. Misset. 2009. Hybridization, polyploidy, and

invasion: lessons from Spartina (Poaceae). Biol.

Invasions 11:1159–1173.

Allen, D. 2008. Genetic improvement of miscanthus

at Mendel Biotechnology. (http://miscanthus.

illinois.edu/symposium/2008/Allen.pdf). Accessed

May 6, 2011.

Anderson, E. 2011. Herbicide phytotoxicity response

and eradication studies in miscanthus x

giganteus. Univ. Illinois, Illinois Digital Envir.

Access Learning Scholar. (http://www.ideals.

illinois.edu/handle/2142/18498). Accessed May 6,

2011.

Anderson, E., R. Arundale, M. Maughan, A. Oladeinde,

A. Wycilso, and T. Voigt. 2011. Growth and

agronomy of miscanthus x giganteus for 

biomass production. In Biofuels 2:167–179.

Anderson, E.K., T.B. Voigut, G.A. Bollero, and A.G.

Hager. 2010. Miscanthus x giganteus response to 

preemergence and postemergence herbicides. In 

Weed Tech. 24:453–460

Anderson, G.Q.A., L.R. Haskins, and S.H. Nelson.

2004. The effects of bioenergy crops on farmland

birds in the United Kingdom: a review of current

knowledge and future predictions. In Biomass

and Agriculture: sustainability, markets, and

policy. Proc. OECD Workshop on Biomass and

Agric., Vienna, Austria. OECD Publications,

Vienna. pp. 199–218. (http://www.eurosfaire.

prd.fr/7pc/doc/1219818764_oecd_biomass_and_

agriculture.pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Armitage, D., B. Deen, and N. Betts. 2010. Ontario fieldscale agricultural biomass project information

meeting. Ontario Soil and Crop Imp. Assoc.

(http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/docs/web%20

info%20presentation.pdf). Accessed May 6, 2011.

Barkworth, M.E. 2004. Spartina. (http://herbarium.

usu.edu/webmanual/info2.asp?name=Spartina_

anglica&type=treatment). Accessed May 12,

2011.
17

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Barney, J.N., and J.M. DiTomaso. 2008. Nonnative

species and bionergy: are we cultivating the

next invader. In BioSci. 58:64–70. doi: 10.1641/

B580111 (http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/

B580111). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Beale, C.V., and S.P. Long. 1997. Seasonal dynamics

of nutrient accumulation and partitioning in the 

perennial C4 grasses miscanthus x giganteus

and spartina cynosuroides. In Biomass

Bioenergy 12:419–428. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

S0961-9534(97)00016-0). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Beale, C.V., and S.P. Long. 1995. Can perennial C4

grasses attain high efficiencies of radiant energy

conversion in cool climates? In Plant Cell

Environ. 18:641–650.

Beale, C.V., J.I.L. Morrison, and S.P. Long. 1999.

Water use efficiency of C4 perennial grasses in

temperate climates. In Agric. Forest Meteorol.

96:103–115.

Bellamy, P.E., P.J. Croxton, M.S. Heard, S.A.

Hinsley, L. Hulmes, S. Hulmes, P. Nuttall, R.F.

Pywell, and P. Rothery. 2009. The impact of

growing miscanthus for biomass on farmland

bird populations. In Biomass Bioenergy

33:191–199. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

biombioe.2008.07.001). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Beuch, S., B. Boelcke, and L. Belau. 2000. Effect of

the organic residues of miscanthus x giganteus

on the soil organic matter of arrable soils. In

J. Agron. and Crop Sci. 183:111–119. (http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-

037x.2000.00367.x/pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Bradshaw, J.D., J.R. Prasifka, K.L. Steffey, and M.E.

Gray. 2010. First report of field populations of

two potential aphid pests of the bioenergy crop

miscanthus x giganteus. In Florida Entom.

93:135–137.

Bullard, M., and P. Nixon. 1999. NF0403—Miscanthus

agronomy (for fuel and industrial use) final

project report. Interactive European Network for

Industrial Crops and their Applications. (http://

www.ienica.net/usefulreports/miscanannex.pdf).

Accessed April 15, 2011.

Bullard, M.J., Nixon, P.M.I., J.B. Kilpatrick, M.C.

Heath, and C.S. Speller. 1995. Principles of weed

control in Miscanthus spp. under contrasting

field conditions. Brighton Crop Protection

Conference: Weeds. Farhnam, UK: British Crop

Protection Council. 3:991–996.

Burner, D.M., T.L. Tew, J.J. Harvey, and D.P. Belesky.

2009. Dry matter partitioning and quality of

miscanthus, panicum, and saccharum genotypes 

in Arkansas. In Biomass Bioenergy 33:601–609.

Caslin, B. 2010. Energy crops agronomy—lessons to

date. In Energy Crops Manual 2010. Teagasc—

The Irish Agric. Food Devel. Author. (http://www.

teagasc.ie/publications/2010/20100223/Manual_

Final_10feb10.pdf). Accessed May 9, 2011.

Caslin, B., J. Finnan, and A. McCracken. 2010

Miscanthus best practice guidelines.

Teagasc —The Irish Agric. Food Dev.

Authority. (http://www.agriculture.gov.

ie/media/migration/ruralenvironment/

environment/bioenergyscheme/

BioenergyScheme2011BestPracticeMiscanthus.

pdf). Accessed May 9, 2011.

Christian, D.G., and A.B. Riche. 1998. Nitrate leaching

losses under miscanthus grass planted on a silty 

clay loam soil. In Soil Use Manage. 14:131–135.

Christian, D.G., and E. Haase. 2001. Agronomy of

miscanthus. In Miscanthus for Energy and Fiber,

edited by M.B. Jones, and M. Walsh. London:

James & James, pp. 21–45.

Christian, D.G., A.B. Riche, and N.E. Yates. 2008

Growth, yield and mineral content of miscanthus

x giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive

harvests. In Ind. Crops Prod. 28:320–327. (http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.02.009).

Accessed May 16, 2011.

Christian, D.G., N.E. Yates, and A.B. Riche.

2009. Estimation of ramet production from

miscanthus x giganteus rhizome of different 

ages. In Ind. Crops Prod. 30:176–178.

Clifton-Brown, J.C., and I. Lewandowski. 2000a.

Overwintering problems of newly established

miscanthus plantations can be overcome by

identifying genotypes with improved rhizome 

cold tolerance. In New Phytol 148:287–294.

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1469-

8137.2000.00764.x/pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.
18

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Clifton-Brown, J.C., and I. Lewandowski. 2000b.

Water use efficiency and biomass partitioning

of three miscanthus genotypes with limited 

and unlimited water supply. In Annals. of Bot.

86:191–200. (http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/

content/86/1/191.full.pdf). Accessed May 16,

2011.

Clifton-Brown, J.C., J. Breuer, and M.B. Jones.

2007. Carbon mitigation by the energy crop,

miscanthus. In Global Change Biol. 13:2296–

2307. doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2486.2007.01438.x

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-

2486.2007.01438.x/pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Clifton-Brown, J., Y.C. Chiang, and T.R. Hodkinson.

2008. Miscanthus: genetic resources and 

breeding potential to enhance bioenergy

production. In Genetic Improvement of 

Bioenergy Crops, edited by W. Vermerris.

Springer Science & Business Media, LLC. New

York, NY. pp. 273–294.

Clifton-Brown, J.C., I. Lewandowski, B. Andersson,

G. Basch, D.G. Christian, J.B. Kjeldson, U.

Jørgensen, J.V. Mortensen, A.B. Riche, K.U.

Schwarz, K. Tayebi, and F. Teixeira. 2001.

Performance of 15 miscanthus genotypes in five

sites in Europe. In Agron. J. 93:1013–1019.

Curley, E.M., M.G. O’Flynn, and K.P. McDonnell. 2009.

Nitrate Leaching Losses from miscanthus x

giganteus impact on groundwater Quality. In J.

Agron. 8:107–112.

Danalatos, N.G., S.V. Archontoulis, and I. Mitsios.

2007. Potential growth and biomass productivity

of miscanthus x giganteus as affected by plant

density and N-fertilization in central Greece. In

Biomass and Bionergy Journal. 31:145–152.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

2007. Planting and growing miscanthus—best

practice guidelines for defra’s energy crop

Scheme. (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/

Images/miscanthus-guide_tcm6-4263.pdf).

Accessed April 23, 2011.

Dohleman, F.G., and S.P. Long. 2009. More

productive than maize in the Midwest: how 

does miscanthus do it? In Plant Physiol. 150:

2104–2115. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.139162 (http://

www.plantphysiol.org/content/150/4/2104.full.

pdf+html). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Dohleman, F., E. Heaton, A. Leakey, and S. Long. 2009.

Does greater leaf-level photosynthesis explain

the larger solar energy conversion efficiency of

miscanthus relative to switchgrass? In Plant

Cell Enviro. 32:1525–1537. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–

3040.2009.02017.x (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02017.x/pdf).

Accessed May 16, 2011.

Drapala, P. 2010. MSU lets “Freedom” ring as viable

biofuel feedstock. Office of agricultural

communications. Mississippi State University,

Starkville, MS. (http://www.dafvm.msstate.edu/

landmarks/10/winter/). Accessed April 15, 2011.

Fargioni, J. 2010. Is bioenergy for the birds? An

evaluation of alternative future bioenergy

landscapes. In Proc. of the Natl. Acad. of Sci. of

the United States of Amer. 107:18745–18746. DOI:

10.1073/pnas.1014045107 (http://www.pnas.org/

content/107/44/18745.full.pdf+html). Accessed

May 16, 2011.

Finnan, J., B. Burke, P. Meehan, M. O Flynn, and K.

MacDonnell. 2011. Harvesting energy crops. In

Teagasc—The Irish Agric. Food Devel. Teagasc

Bioenergy Conference. (http://www.teagasc.

ie/publications/2011/828/John_Finnan.pdf).

Accessed April 23, 2011.

Florida Administrative Weekly and Florida

Administrative Code. 2008. Introduction

or release of plant pests, noxious weeds,

arthropods, and biological control agents. Notice 

6138080. (https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/View_

notice.asp?id=6138080). Accessed April 21, 2011.

Fox, A. 2007. A giant reed conundrum. In Wildland 

Weeds. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.

Greef, J.M., J. Deuter, C. Jung, and J. Schondelmaier.

1997. Genetic diversity of European miscanthus

species revealed by AFLP fingerprinting. In

Genetic Resour. Crop Evol. 44:185–195.

Harper, C. 2007. Native warm-season grasses. Univ.

Tennessee Knoxville. Dept. Forestry, Wildlife,

and Fisheries Extension. (http://fwf.ag.utk.edu/

personnel/charper/pdfs/PB1752.pdf). Accessed

April 23, 2011.

Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, and S.P. Long. 2009.

Seasonal nitrogen dynamics of miscanthus x

giganteus and panicum virgatum. In Global

Change Biology Bioenergy 1:297–307.
19

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, and S.P. Long. 2008.

Meeting the United States biofuel goals with

less land: the potential of miscanthus. In Global

Change Biology Bioenergy 14:2000–2014.

Heaton, E.A., T. Voigt, and S.P. Long. 2004. A

quantitative review comparing the yields of two 

candidate C4 perennial biomass crops in relation

to nitrogen, temperature and water. In Biomass

Bioenergy 27:21–30. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

biombioe.2003.10.005). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Heaton, E.A., N. Boersma, J.D. Caveny, T.B. Voigt,

and F.G. Dohleman. 2011. Miscanthus for

biofuel production. Univ. Georgia Cooperative

Extension. (http://www.extension.org/

pages/26625/miscanthus-for-biofuel-production).

Accessed April 15, 2011.

Heaton, E.A., J. Clifton-Brown, T.B. Voigt, M.B. Jones,

and S.P. Long. 2004. Miscanthus for renewable

energy generation: European Union experience

and projections for Illinois. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg.

In Global Change Biology Bioenergy 9:433–

451. DOI: 10.1023/B:MITI.0000038848.94134.

be (http://www.springerlink.com/content/

j0610uv467x11501/fulltext.pdf). Accessed May

16, 2011.

Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, A.F. Miguez, J.A.

Juvik, V. Lozovaya, J. Widholm, O.A. Zabotina,

G.F. McIssac, M.B. David, T.B. Voigt, N.N.

Boersma, and S.P. Long. 2010. Miscanthus: a 

promising biomass crop. Univ. of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign.Adv. Bot. Res. 56:76–137.

(https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mbdavid/www/

Biogeochemistry/pdfs/Heaton%20et%20al.%20

2010%20Adv.%20Bot.%20Res..pdf). Accessed May

16, 2011.

Himken, M., J. Lammel, D. Neukirchen, U. CzypionkaKrause, and H.-W. Ofls. 1997. Cultivation of

miscanthus under West European conditions: 

seasonal changes in dry matter production, 

nutrient uptake and remobilization. In Plant and

Soil 189:117–126. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004244614537

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/

u13v275g084u0870/fulltext.pdf). Accessed May

16, 2011.

Hodkinson, T.R., M.W. Chase, and S.A. Renvoize. 2002.

Characterization of genetic resource collection

for miscanthus (Saccharinae, Andropogoneae, 

Poaceae) using AFLP and ISSR PCR. In Ann.

Bot. 89: 627–36. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcf091 (http://

aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/5/627.full.

pdf+html). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Huggett, D.A.J., S.R. Leather, and K.F.A Walters. 1999.

Suitability of biomass crop miscathus sinensis

as a host for the aphids rhopalosiphum padi

(L.) and rhopalosiphum miadis (F.), and its

susceptability to the plant luteovirus barley

yellow dwarf virus. Agric. Forest. Entom. 1:143–

149.

Johnson, M., T. Dudley, and C. Burns. 2006. Seed

production in arundo donax? California Invasive

Plant Council. News Fall pp. 12–13.

Jørgensen, U. 2011. Benefits versus risks of growing

biofuel crops: the case of miscanthus. In 

Current Option Environ. Sustain. 3:24–30.

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.003).

Accessed May 16, 2011.

Kiniry, J.R., M-V.V. Johnson, S.B. Bruckerhoff, J.U.

Kaiser, R.L. Cordsiemon, and R.D. Harmel. 2011.

Clash of the Titans: comparing productivity via

radiation use efficiency for two grass giants in

the biofuel field. In Bioenergy Research. DOI

10.1007/s12155–011–9116–8. (http://www.plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/mopmcrj10270.

pdf). Accessed May 12, 2011.

Landis, D.A., and B.P. Werling. 2010. Arthropods and

biofuel production systems in North America. In

Insect Science 17: 220–236. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744–

7917.2009.01310.x (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2009.01310.x/pdf).

Accessed May 16, 2011.

Lewandowski, I. 1998. Propagation method is an

important factor in the growth and development 

of miscanthus x giganteus. In Biofuels. Ind.

Crops Prod. 8:229–245.

Lewandowski, I., and A. Heinz. 2003. Delayed harvest

of miscanthus—influences on biomass quantity

and quality and environmental impact of energy 

production. In Eur. J. Agron. 19:45–63. (http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00018-7).

Accessed May 16, 2011.
20

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Lewandowski, I., J. Clifton-Brown, J.M.O. Scurlock,

and W. Huisman. 2000. Miscanthus: European 

experience with a novel energy crop. In Biomass

Bioenergy 19:209–227. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

S0961-9534(00)00032-5). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Lewandowski, I., J.M.O. Scurlock, E. Christour, and

M. Lindvall. 2003. The development and current

status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as 

energy crops in United States and Europe. In

Biomass Bioenergy 25:335–361. (http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00030-8). Accessed 

May 16, 2011.

Librenti, I., E. Ceotto, and M. Di Candilo. 2010.

Biomass characteristics and energy contents

of dedicated lignocellulosic crops. Proc.

Third International Symposium on Energy 

from Biomass and Waste, Venice, Italy. (http://

www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/downloads/

Kraxner/CD%20Venice%20Symposion%202010_

Proceedings/data/data/files/198.pdf). Accessed

May 19, 2011.

Linde-Laursen, I. 1993. Cytogenetic analysis of

iscanthus giganteus, an interspecific hybrid.

In Hereditas 119:297–300. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601–

5223.1993.00297.x (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1993.00297.x/pdf).

Accessed May 16, 2011.

Long, S.P., and C.V. Beale. 2001. Resource capture by

miscanthus. Miscanthus for Energy and Fibre,

edited by M.B. Jones and M. Walsh, James &

James, London, England. pp. 10–20.

Marchan, C.J. 1963. Corrected chromosome numbers

for spartina x townsendii and its parent species.

In Nature 199:929.

McIsacc, G.F, M.B. David, and C.A. Mitchell. 2010.

Miscanthus and switchgrass production in 

central Illinois: impacts on hydrology and 

inorganic nitrogen Leaching. In J. Environ. Qual.

39: 1790–1799. (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mbdavid/

www/Biogeochemistry/pdfs/McIsaac%20et%20

al%20JEQ%202010.pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Meyer, M.H., and C.L.Tchida. 1999. Miscanthus 

Anderss. Produces viable seed in four USDA

hardiness zones. In J. Environ. Hort. 17:137–140.

(http://www.hriresearch.org/docs/publications/

JEH/JEH_1999/JEH_1999_17_3/JEH%2017-3-137-

140.pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.

Milliken, J., F. Joseck, M. Wang, and E. Yuzugullu.

2007. The advanced energy initiative. In J. Power

Sources. 172:121–131. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

jpowsour.2007.05.030). Accessed May 2, 2011.

Mukherjee, S.K. 1957. Origin and distribution of

Saccharum. In Bot. Gaz. 119:55–61.

Naidu, S.L., and S.P. Long. 2004. Potential mechanisms

for low-temperature tolerance of C4

Photosynthesis in Miscanthus x giganteus: an in 

vivo analysis. Planta 220:145–155.

Neukirchen, D., M. Himken, J. Lammel, U. CzypionkaKrause, and H.-W. Olfs. 1999. Spatial and

temporal distribution of the root system and root

nutrient content of an established miscanthus

crop. European J. Agron. 11:301–309.

New Energy Farms. 2011. Miscanthus pricing and 

Odering. (http://newenergyfarms.com/farm/

pricing.aspx). Accessed April 15, 2011.

Propheter, J.L., S.A. Staggenborg, X. Wu, and D. Wand.

2010. Performance of annual and perennial

biofuel crops: yield during the first two years. In 

Agron. J. 102:806–814.

Pryter, R.J., F.G. Dohleman, and T.B. Voigt. 2010.

Effects of rhizome size, depth of planting 

and cold storage on Miscanthus x giganteus

establishment in midwestern United States. In

Biomass Bioenergy 34:1466–1470. (http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.04.014). Accessed

May 16, 2011.

Pyter, R., F.G. Dohleman, E. Heaton, T. Long, and

S. Voigt. 2009. Agronomic Experiences with

Miscanthus x giganeus in Illinois, USA. In

Biofuels: Methods and Protocol, edited by J.R.

Mielenz, Humana Press, New York, NY. pp. 41–52.

Pyter, R., T.B. Voigt, E.A. Heaton, F.G. Dohleman, and

S.P. Long. 2007. Giant miscanthus: biomass crop

for Illinois. Proc. Sixth National Symposium.

Issues in New Crops and New Uses, edited by J.

Janick and A. Whipkey. ASHS Press. VA.

Quinn, L.D., D.J. Allen, and R. Stewart. 2010. Invasive

potential of Miscanthus sinensis: implications 

for bioenergy production in the United States.

In Global Change Biology Bioenergy 2:310–320.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1757–1707.2010.01062.x (http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-

1707.2010.01062.x/pdf). Accessed May 16, 2011.
21

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

Quinn, L.D., D.P. Matlaga, J.R. Stewart, and A.S.

Davis. 2011. Empirical evidence of longdistance dispersal in miscanthus sinensis and 

miscanthus x giganteus. In Invasive Plant

Sci. Manage. 4:142–150. (online) DOI: 10.1614/

IPSM–D–10–00067.1. http://www.bioone.org/doi/

abs/10.1614/IPSM-D-10-00067.1). Accessed May

10, 2011.

Raghu, S., R.C. Anderson, C.C. Daehler, A.S. Davis,

R.N. Wiedenmann, D. Simberloff, and R.N.

Mack. 2006. Adding biofuels to the invasive

species fire? In Science 313:1742. DOI: 10.1126/

science.1129313 (http://www.sciencemag.org/

content/313/5794/1742.full). Accessed May 16,

2011.

Ramsey, J., and D.W. Schemske. 1998. Pathways,

mechanisms, and rates of polyploid formation in 

flowering plants. In Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:467–

501. (http://plantbiology.msu.edu/files/ramsey%20

and%20schemske%2098%20(2).pdf). Accessed

May 16, 2011.

Repreve Renewables. 2009. FreedomTM giant miscanthus. (http://www.freedomgiantmiscanthus.com/

docs/FreedomFactSheet.pdf). Accessed April 15,

2011.

Russelle, M.P. 2003. Role of perennial forages in

prevention and remediation of nitrate impacts.

Univ. Wisconsin, Soil Science Extension,

Wisconsin Crop Manage. Conf. (http://www.soils.

wisc.edu/extension/wcmc/approvedppt2003/

Russelle.pdf). Accessed April 15, 2011.

Sage, R., M. Cunningham, A.J. Haughton, M.D. Mallot,

D.A. Bohan, A. Riche, and A. Karp. 2010. The

environmental impacts of biomass crops: use

by birds of miscanthus in summer and winter 

in southwestern England. Ibis 152:487–499.

(online) DOI: 10.1111/j.1474–919X.2010.01027.x.

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-

919X.2010.01027.x/pdf). Accessed May 10, 2011.

Scally, L., T.R. Hodkinson, and M.B. Jones. 2001.

Origins and taxonomy of miscanthus. In 

Miscanthus for Energy and Fiber. M.B. Jones and

M Walsh (ed.) James & James, London, UK. pp.

1–9.

Schneckenberger, K., and Y. Kuzyakov. 2007. Carbon

sequestration under miscanthus in sandy and 

loamy soils estimated by natural 13C abundance.

In J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. DOI: 10.1002/

jpln.200625111. (http://www.aec.uni-bayreuth.de/

kuzyakov/Schneckenberger_JPNSS_2007_d13CSOM-MRT-Miscanthus.pdf). Accessed May 12,

2011. 170:538–542.

Semere, T., and F.M. Slater. 2007a. Ground flora,

small mammal and bird species diversity in

miscanthus (miscanthus x giganteus) and reed 

canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields.

In Biomass Bioenergy 31:20–29. (http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.07.001). Accessed

May 16, 2011.

Semere, T., and F.M. Slater. 2007b. Invertebrate

populations in miscanthus (Miscanthus x

giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris 

arundinacea) fields. In Biomass Bioenergy

31:30–39. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

biombioe.2006.07.002). Accessed May 16, 2011)

Sollenberger, L.E., J. Erikson, J. Vendramini, and

R. Gilbert. 2010. Water use efficiency and

feedstock composition of candidate bioenergy

grasses in Florida. In Florida Energy Systems 

Consortium. http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/

wp-content/uploads/Sollenberger-Water-use-effand-feedstock-comp-bioenergy-grasses.pdf).

Accessed April 15, 2011.

Spencer, J.L., and S. Raghu. 2009. Refuge or reservoir?

The potential impacts of the biofuel crop

miscanthus x giganteus on a major pest of 

maize. In PLoS ONE 4(12):e8336. DOI:10.1371/

journal.pone.0008336. (http://www.plosone.

org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.

pone.0008336). Accessed May 12, 2011.

Tai, P.Y.P., and J.D. Miller. 1988. Phenotypic

characteristics of the hybrids of sugarcane x

related grasses. In J. Amer. Soc. of Sugar Cane

Technologists. 8:5–11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service. 2009. Planting and

managing switchgrass as a biomass energy

crop. Plant Materials Program. (http://plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/NPMtechnotes/

npmptn3-13079.pdf). Accessed April 15, 2011.
22

Planting and Managing Giant Miscanthus as a Biomass Energy Crop

(Technical Note No. 4, July 2011)

U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Biomass multi-year

program plan. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

biomass/pdfs/biomass_mypp_november2010.

pdf). Accessed April 1, 2011.

Vanloocke, A., C.J. Bernacchi, and T.E. Twines.

2010. The impacts of miscanthus x

giganteius production on the Midwest United

States hydrologic cycle. In Global Change

Biology, Bioenergy 2:180–191. (online) DOI:

10.1111/j.1757–1707.2010.01053.x (http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-

1707.2010.01053.x/pdf). Accessed May 10, 2011.