Advertisement

Production of hybrid aspen on agricultural land during one rotation in southern Sweden

  • Nils FahlvikEmail author
  • Lars Rytter
  • Lars-Göran Stener
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

High potential productivity together with short rotation periods have made hybrid aspen an interesting option for wood production on former arable land in Nordic countries. In this study, some of the oldest active experimental plots with hybrid aspen in Sweden were remeasured at 23–30 years of age. A main aim was to assess age and productivity at the time of maximum mean annual volume increment. In addition, the influence of commercial thinning on stand development and differences in genetic gain among clones were investigated. Data from five experiments in southern Sweden were used, including three genetic trials, one demonstration stand with a clone mixture and one stand regenerated from root suckers. The three genetic trials were treated as single plot experiments, subject to a standard thinning program. In the remaining experiments, different thinning strategies were tested in a balanced block design. Volume growth had culminated or was close to maximum at age 25–30 years. Mean annual stem volume increment at culmination was 20–22 m3 ha−1 a−1. Dominant height reached 30–35 m at 28–30 years of age. Mean diameter at breast height was 27–29 cm after 29–30 years in the genetic trials. Clonal ranking based on diameter at age 7–9 years was positively correlated with the ranking at the final measurement in the genetic trials, 20 years later. This indicates that clones can be selected for superior growth based on results from young trials. More intense thinning programs increased the mean diameter compared to light thinning. The study indicates that one or two early and relatively heavy thinnings can promote the development of crop trees, without jeopardizing total volume production during a rotation of 25–30 years.

Keywords

Populus tremula × Populus tremuloides Rotation length Thinning Biomass 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Swedish Forest Society Foundation. We also wish to thank the personnel at the Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk) for their valuable help with measuring and processing the hybrid aspen material. Furthermore, we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Bella IE, Yang RC (1991) Should we thin young aspen stands? In: Navratil S, Chapman PB (eds) Aspen management for the 21st century. Proceedings of a symposium Nov. 20–21, 1990. Forestry Canada, Northwest Region/Poplar Council of Canada, Joint Publication, Edmonton, Alberta, pp 135–139Google Scholar
  2. Binkley CS (1987) When is the optimal economic rotation longer than the rotation of maximum sustained yield? J Environ Econ Manag 14(2):152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Einspahr DW (1984) Production and utilization of triploid hybrid aspen. Iowa State J Res 58:401–409Google Scholar
  4. IEA (2013) Nordic energy technology perspectives: pathways to a carbon neutral energy future. International Energy Agency and Nordic Energy Research, IEA Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Johansson T (2013a) Biomass production of hybrid aspen growing on former farm land in Sweden. J For Res 24(2):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johansson T (2013b) A site dependent top height growth model for hybrid aspen. J For Res 24(4):691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnsson H (1953) Hybridaspens ungdomsutveckling och ett försök till framtidsprognos. Svenska Skogsvårdsföreningens Tidskrift 51:73–96 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  8. Juodvalkis A, Kairiukstis L, Vasiliauskas R (2005) Effects of thinning on growth of six tree species in north-temperate forests of Lithuania. Eur J For Res 124:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li B, Wyckoff GW, Einspahr DW (1993) Hybrid aspen performance and genetic gains. North J Appl For 10(3):117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liesebach M, von Wuehlisch G, Muhs H-J (1999) Aspen for short-rotation coppice plantations on agricultural sites in Germany: effects of spacing and rotation time on growth and biomass production of aspen progenies. For Ecol Manage 121:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mäkinen H, Isomäki A (2004) Thinning intensity and growth of Scots pine stands in Finland. For Ecol Manag 201(2):311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mc Carthy R, Rytter L (2015) Productivity and thinning effects in hybrid aspen root sucker stands. For Ecol Manag 354:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller GW (2000) Effect of crown growing space on the development of young hardwood crop trees. North J Appl For 17:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Newman DH (2002) Forestry’s golden rule and the development of the optimal forest rotation literature. J For Econ 8:5–27Google Scholar
  15. Nilsson U, Agestam E, Ekö P-M, Elfving B, Fahlvik N, Johansson U, Karlsson K, Lundmark T, Wallentin C (2010) Thinning of Scots pine and Norway spruce monocultures in Sweden: effects of different thinning programmes on stand level gross—and net stem volume production. Stud For Suec 219:1–46Google Scholar
  16. Nordic Energy Research (2016) Sustainable shift—Nordic energy systems towards 2050. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  17. Penner M, Robinson C, Woods M (2001) The response of good and poor aspen clones to thinning. For Chron 77(5):874–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
  19. Rice JA, MacDonald GB, Weingartner DH (2001) Precommercial thinning of trembling aspen in northern Ontario: Part 1—growth responses. For Chron 77(5):893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rytter L, Rytter R-M (2017) Productivity and sustainability of hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L. × P. Tremuloides Michx.) root sucker stands with varying management strategies. For Ecol Manag 401:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rytter L, Stener L-G (2003) Clonal variation in nutrient content in woody biomass of hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L. × P. tremuloides Michx.). Silva Fenn 37:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rytter L, Stener L-G (2014) Growth and thinning effects during a rotation period of hybrid aspen in southern Sweden. Scand J For Res 29(8):747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rytter L, Johansson K, Karlsson B, Stener L-G (2013) Tree species, genetics and regeneration for bioenergy feedstock in northern Europe. In: Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A, Alam A (eds) Forest BioEnergy production: management, carbon sequestration and adaptation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 7–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sabin TE, Stafford SG (1990) Assessing the need for transformation of response variables. Forest Research Lab, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  25. Steneker GA (1974) Thinning of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michaux) in Manitoba. In: Information report. Northern Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service, Edmonton, Alberta, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  26. Stener L-G (2004) Plusträdskloner av hybridasp. In: Avelsvärderapport no. 105. Skogforsk, Uppsala (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  27. Stener L-G (2010) Tillväxt, vitalitet och densitet för kloner av hybridasp och poppel i sydsvenska fältförsök. In: Arbetsrapport no. 717. Skogforsk, Uppsala (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  28. Stener L-G, Karlsson B (2004) Improvement of Populus tremula × P. tremuloides by phenotypic selection and clonal testing. For Genet 11(1):13–27Google Scholar
  29. Stener L-G, Westin J (2017) Early growth and phenology of hybrid aspen and poplar in clonal field tests in Scandinavia. Silva Fenn 51(3):id 5656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tullus A, Rytter L, Tullus T, Weih M, Tullus H (2012) Short-rotation forestry with hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L. × P. tremuloides Michx) in Northern Europe. Scand J For Res 27(1):10–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tullus H, Tullus A, Rytter L (2013) Short-rotation forestry for supplying biomass for energy production. In: Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A, Alam A (eds) Forest BioEnergy production: management, carbon sequestration and adaptation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk)SvalövSweden

Personalised recommendations