ArticlePloS one2016
Relative Performance of Non-Local Cultivars and Local, Wild Populations of Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) in Competition Experiments.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlational selection and genetic architecture shape the evolution of the leaf economics spectrum in a perennial grass.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- A generalist-specialist trade-off between switchgrass cytotypes impacts climate adaptation and geographic range.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- QTL × environment interactions underlie adaptive divergence in switchgrass across a large latitudinal gradient.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The possibility of increased invasiveness in cultivated varieties of native perennial species is a question of interest in biofuel risk assessment. Competitive success is a key factor in the fitness and invasive potential of perennial plants, and thus the large-scale release of high-yielding biomass cultivars warrants empirical comparisons with local conspecifics in the presence of competitors. We evaluated the performance of non-local cultivars and local wild biotypes of the tallgrass species Panicum virgatum L. (switchgrass) in competition experiments during two growing seasons in Ohio and Iowa. At each location, we measured growth and reproductive traits (plant height, tiller number, flowering time, aboveground biomass, and seed production) of four non-locally sourced cultivars and two locally collected wild biotypes. Plants were grown in common garden experiments under three types of competition, referred to as none, moderate (with Schizachyrium scoparium), and high (with Bromus inermis). In both states, the two "lowland" cultivars grew taller, flowered later, and produced between 2x and 7.5x more biomass and between 3x and 34x more seeds per plant than local wild biotypes, while the other two cultivars were comparable to wild biotypes in these traits. Competition did not affect relative differences among biotypes, with the exception of shoot number, which was more similar among biotypes under high competition. Insights into functional differences between cultivars and wild biotypes are crucial for developing biomass crops while mitigating the potential for invasiveness. Here, two of the four cultivars generally performed better than wild biotypes, indicating that these biotypes may pose more of a risk in terms of their ability to establish vigorous feral populations in new regions outside of their area of origin. Our results support an ongoing assessment of switchgrass cultivars developed for large-scale planting for biofuels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.