Plant and Soil Science

The effect of agronomic practices on belowground biomass formation in Miscanthus × giganteus

Valerii Nosenko
Download article
Abstract

The aim of this study was to experimentally determine the effect of different systems of mineral and organic fertilisation on the dynamics of belowground biomass accumulation in giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus), the intensity of soil respiration, and the carbon sequestration potential under the conditions of the Forest-Steppe of Ukraine. The study was conducted during 2021-2025 in a two-factor field experiment, in which Factor A comprised a control treatment, leonardite application (100 kg/ha), and complete mineral fertiliser N₆₀P₁₆K₈₀, whilst Factor B comprised foliar feeding with potassium humate at the tillering stage, at the stem elongation stage, and at both stages combined. Belowground biomass was determined by the monolith method in the 0-30 cm soil layer, and the biological activity of the rhizosphere was assessed using the closed static chamber method. It was established that the root system mass of miscanthus increased consistently throughout the first five years of vegetation, reaching 10.76 t/ha in 2025 under the optimal combination of N₆₀P₁₆K₈₀ with double foliar feeding with potassium humate, compared with 6.14 t/ha in the control treatment. Carbon input into the soil via root mass in this treatment amounted to 4.52 t C/ha, and the maximum soil respiration intensity (432 mg CO₂/m²·h) was recorded in the leonardite + double potassium humate application treatment. A strong positive correlation was found between root mass and soil respiration intensity (r = 0.74), and the constructed second-degree polynomial regression model (r = 0.96) adequately describes the dynamics of belowground biomass accumulation and enables projection of its further increase. The practical significance of this study lies in the substantiation of the combined use of mineral fertilisers and humic preparations to enhance the productivity of miscanthus plantations, strengthen the carbon sequestration function of the agrocoenosis, and stabilise the biological activity of the soil

Keywords

carbon sequestration; soil respiration; leonardite; potassium humate; regression model

Suggested citation
Nosenko, V. (2026). The effect of agronomic practices on belowground biomass formation in Miscanthus × giganteus. Plant and Soil Science, 17(2), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.31548/plant2.2026.78
References
  1. Agostini, F., Gregory, A.S., & Richter, G.M. (2015). Carbon sequestration by perennial energy crops: Is the jury still out? BioEnergy Research, 8, 1057-1080. doi: 10.1007/s12155-014-9571-0.
  2. Aslan-Sungur, G., Boersma, N., Moore, C.E., Heaton, E., Bernacchi, C.J., & Vanloocke, A. (2025). Advances in Miscanthus × giganteus planting techniques may increase carbon uptake in the establishment year. GCB Bioenergy, 17(1), article number e70012. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.70012.
  3. Burdová, H., et al. (2023). Miscanthus × giganteus stress tolerance and phytoremediation capacities in highly diesel contaminated soils. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, article number 118475. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118475.
  4. Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992, June). Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.
  5. Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (1973, March). Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20993/volume-993-i-14537-english.pdf.
  6. Dohleman, F.G., & Long, S.P. (2009). More productive than maize in the Midwest: How does miscanthus do it? Plant Physiology, 150(4), 2104-2115. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.139162.
  7. Finnan, J., & Burke, B. (2014). Nitrogen dynamics in a mature Miscanthus × giganteus crop fertilized with nitrogen over a five year period. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 53(2), 171-188.
  8. Fosu, S.A., & Davis, S.C. (2024). Decadal change in soil carbon and nitrogen with a Miscanthus × giganteus crop on abandoned agricultural land in southeast Ohio. GCB Bioenergy, 16(7), article number e13171. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13171.
  9. Ivanina, V.V., Humentyk, M.Ya., & Katelevsky, V.M. (2021). Productivity of giant miscanthus and soil fertility status for fertilizer application. Agrology, 4(3), 131-136. doi: 10.32819/021017.
  10. Lewandowski, I., Clifton-Brown, J.C., Scurlock, J.M.O., & Huisman, W. (2000). Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(4), 209-227. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00032-5.
  11. Li, S., et al. (2022). The leaf economics spectrum of triploid and tetraploid C4 grass Miscanthus x giganteus. Plant, Cell & Environment, 45(12), 3462-3475. doi: 10.1111/pce.14433.
  12. Melnychuk, O.V., Ozheredov, S.P., Rakhmetov, D.B., Rakhmetova, S.O., Bayer, O.О., Yemets, A.I., & Blume, Ya.B. (2019). Biometric and biochemical features of new M.× giganteus lines with increased ploidy level. Factors in Experimental Evolution of Organisms, 25, 281-286. doi: 10.7124/FEEO.v25.1178.
  13. Namoi, N., Jang, C., Voigt, T., & Lee, D. (2026). Soil fertility management for sustainable Miscanthus × giganteus production: Increased tiller weight from nitrogen management explains yield gains in aged miscanthus. Biomass and Bioenergy, 204, article number 108394. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.108394.
  14. Nelson, J.T., Dor, M., VanLoocke, A.D., Studt, J.E., Schrock, P.K., & McDaniel, M.D. (2025). Miscanthus × giganteus increases soil maximum water holding capacity compared to maize. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment, 8(3), article number e70181. doi: 10.1002/agg2.70181.
  15. Pidlisnyuk, V., Rouhani, A., Herts, A., Kononchuk, O., Markiv, V., Horyn, O., Khomenchuk, V., & Shapoval, P. (2026). Circular utilization of Miscanthus × giganteus biomass ash to enhance soil quality and support its regrowth. Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy. doi: 10.1007/s42768-026-00288-z.
  16. Pribyl, D.W. (2010). A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma, 156(3-4), 75-83. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.02.003.
  17. Prysiazhniuk, O., Maliarenko, O., Penkova, S., & Voronenko, O. (2026). Evaluation of the nutrient status of Miscanthus × giganteus cultivated on chernozems in Ukraine. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 72(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2025.2598978.
  18. Roik, M.V., Hanzhenko, O.M., Fuchylo, Ya.D., & Kvak, V.M. (2019). Economic aspects of growing perennial energy crops. Bioenerhetyka, 1, 4-7. doi: 10.47414/be.1.2019.229276.
  19. Rose, M.T., Patti, A.F., Little, K.R., Brown, A.L., Jackson, W.R., & Cavagnaro, T.R. (2014). Chapter two – a meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: Practical implications for agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 124, 37-89. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4.
  20. Wechtler, L., Falla-Angel, J., Bonnefoy, A., & Laval-Gilly, P. (2024). Co-culture between Miscanthus × giganteus and Trifolium repens L. to enhance microbial activity, biomass and density in a PAH contaminated technosol. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 26(1), 143-150. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2023.2231548.
  21. Yildiz, S., Kusvuran, A., & Kuşvuran, Ş. (2025). The effect of humic acid application on drought tolerance of miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus). International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 9(4), 1181-1190. doi: 10.31015/2025.4.20.
  22. Zheng, C., Xiao, L., Iqbal, Y., Sun, G., Feng, H., Liu, F., Duan, M., & Yi, Z. (2022). Miscanthus interspecific hybrids exceed the biomass yield and quality of their parents in the saline-alkaline Yellow River delta. Food and Energy Security, 11(1), article number e347. doi: 10.1002/fes3.347.
  23. Zub, H.W., & Brancourt-Hulmel, M. (2010). Agronomic and physiological performances of different species of Miscanthus, a major energy crop. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30, 201-214. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009034.