BioEnergy Research

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 106–122

Biomass and Genotype × Environment Interactions of Populus Energy Crops in the Midwestern United States

  • Ronald S. ZalesnyJr.
  • Richard B. Hall
  • Jill A. Zalesny
  • Bernard G. McMahon
  • William E. Berguson
  • Glen R. Stanosz
Article

Abstract

Using Populus feedstocks for biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts is becoming economically feasible as global fossil fuel prices increase. Maximizing Populus biomass production across regional landscapes largely depends on understanding genotype × environment interactions, given broad genetic variation at strategic (genomic group) and operational (clone) levels. A regional network of Populus field tests was established in the Midwest USA in 1995, 1997, and 2000 to assess relative productivity of 187 clones grown at Westport, Minnesota (45.7° N, 95.2° W); Waseca, Minnesota (only 2000; 44.1° N, 93.5° W); Arlington, Wisconsin (43.3° N, 89.4° W); and Ames, Iowa (42.0° N, 93.6° W). We evaluated biomass potential throughout plantation development and identified clones with yield substantially greater than commercial controls (Eugenei, NM6). For each site, biomass ranges (Mg ha−1 year−1) of the best six clones were: Westport: 2.3 to 3.9 (5 years), 8.0 to 10.1 (8 years), and 8.9 to 11.3 (10 years); Waseca: 10.4 to 13.4 (7 years); Arlington: 5.1 to 7.1 (3 years), 14.8 to 20.9 (6 years), and 16.1 to 21.1 (8 years); and Ames: 4.3 to 5.3 (4 years), 11.1 to 20.9 (7 years), and 14.3 to 24.5 (9 years). Mean biomass of the best three clones was 1.4 to 2.7 times greater than controls as trees developed at Westport (1995, 1997) and Waseca 2000. Genotype × environment interactions governed biomass production, with clone–mean rank correlations across sites ranging from 0.29 to 0.81. We identified generalist genotypes (e.g. Crandon, NC14105, NM2) with elevated biomass across the region and specialists (e.g. 7300501, 80X01015, and NC14103) with exceptional biomass at specific locations.

Keywords

Bioenergy Feedstock development Hybrid poplar Productivity Tree improvement 

Abbreviations

DBH

diameter at breast height

LSD

least significant difference

STE

standard error

References

  1. 1.
    Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Wiard BM, Braatne JH, Hinckley TM, Stettler RF et al (1992) Production physiology and morphology of Populus species and their hybrids grown under short rotation. I. Clonal comparisons of 4-year growth and phenology. Can J For Res 22:1937–1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman MD, Isebrands JG, Tolsted DN, Tolbert VR (2004) Comparing soil carbon of short rotation poplar plantations with agricultural crops and woodlots in North Central United States. Environ Manage 33:S299–S308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coyle DR, Nebeker TE, Hart ER, Mattson WJ (2005) Biology and management of insect pests in North American intensively managed hardwood forest systems. Ann Rev Entomol 50:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dickmann DI (2001) An overview of the genus Populus. In: Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds) Popular culture in North America. Part A, Ch 1. NRC Research, Canada, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dickmann DI (2006) Silviculture and biology of short-rotation woody crops in temperature regions: then and now. Biomass Bioenergy 30:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eckenwalder JE (1984) Natural intersectional hybridization between North American species of Populus (Salicaceae) in sections Aigeiros and Tacamahaca. II. Taxonomy. Can J Bot 62:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckenwalder JE (1996) Systematics and evolution of Populus. In: Stettler RF, Bradshaw HD Jr, Heilman PE, Hinckley TM (eds) Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Part I, Ch 1. NRC Research, Canada, pp 7–32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farmer RE Jr (1993) Latitudinal variation in height and phenology of balsam poplar. Silvae Genet 42:148–153Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmer RE Jr (1996) The genecology of Populus. In: Stettler RF, Bradshaw HD Jr, Heilman PE, Hinckley TM (eds) Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Part I, Ch 2. NRC Research, Canada, pp 33–55Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grigal DF, Berguson WE (1998) Soil carbon changes associated with short-rotation systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall RB (2008) Woody bioenergy systems in the United States. Gen Tech Rep NRS-P-31. Newtown Square, PA; USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, p 18Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansen EA (1981) Root length in young hybrid Populus plantations: its implications for border width of research plots. For Sci 27:808–814Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen EA (1992) Mid-rotation yields of biomass plantations in the north central U.S. Res Pap NC-309. St. Paul, MN; USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, pp 8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansen EA (1993) Soil carbon sequestration beneath hybrid poplar plantations in the North Central United States. Biomass Bioenergy 5:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen EA, Ostry ME, Johnson WD, Tolsted DN, Netzer DA, Berguson WE et al (1994) Field performance of Populus in short-rotation intensive culture plantations in the north-central U.S. Res Pap NC-320. St. Paul, MN; USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, pp 13Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heilman PE (1999) Planted forests: poplars. New For 17:89–93Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heilman PE, Stettler RF (1985) Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. II. Biomass production in a 4-year plantation. Can J For Res 15:384–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heilman PE, Ekuan G, Fogle DB (1994) Above- and below-ground biomass and fine roots of 4-year-old hybrids of Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides and parental species in short-rotation culture. Can J For Res 24:1186–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:11206–11210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Isebrands JG, Karnosky DF (2001) Environmental benefits of poplar culture. In: Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds) Poplar culture in North America. Part A, Ch 6. NRC Research, Canada, pp 207–218Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Isebrands JG, Ceulemans R, Wiard B (1988) Genetic variation in photosynthetic traits among Populus clones in relation to yield. Plant Physiol Biochem 26:427–437Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson JMF, Coleman MD, Gesch R, Jaradat A, Mitchell R, Reicosky D et al (2007) Biomass-bioenergy crops in the United States: a changing paradigm. Amer J Plant Sci Biotechnol 1:1–28Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mahama AA, Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB (2007) Breeding success and range of incompatibility among Populus hybrids in sections Aigeiros Duby and Tacamahaca Spach. In: Abstracts of the 2007 annual meeting of the Poplar Council of Canada: poplar culture: a collaborative effort from clone to mill, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 16–21 September, 2007Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maisenhelder LC (1970) Eastern cottonwood selections outgrow hybrids on southern sites. J For 68:300–301Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mathews RW (2001) Modelling of energy and carbon budgets of wood fuel coppice systems. Biomass Bioenergy 21:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCamant T, Black RA (2000) Cold hardiness in coastal, montane, and inland populations of Populus trichocarpa. Can J For Res 30:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McMahon BG, Berguson WE, Buchman DJ, Levar TE, Maly CC, O’Brien TC (2008) A Minnesota-based Populus breeding and hybrid poplar development program. Gen Tech Rep NRS-P-31. Newtown Square, PA; USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, pp 34Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohn CA, Randall WK (1973) Interaction of cottonwood clones with site and planting year. Can J For Res 3:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Netzer DA, Tolsted D, Ostry ME, Isebrands JG, Riemenschneider DE, Ward KT (2002) Growth, yield, and disease resistance of 7- to 12-year-old poplar clones in the north central United States. Gen Tech Rep NC-229. St. Paul, MN; USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, pp 31Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Newcombe G, Ostry M, Hubbes M, Périnet P, Mottet M (2001) Poplar diseases. In: Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds) Poplar culture in North America. Part A, Ch 8. NRC Research, Canada, pp 249–276Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Orlovic S, Guzina V, Krstic B, Merkulov L (1998) Genetic variability in anatomical, physiological and growth characteristics of hybrid poplar (Populus × euramericana Dode (Guinier)) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr.) clones. Silvae Genet 47:183–190Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rajora OP, Zsuffa L (1990) Allozyme divergence and evolutionary relationships among Populus deltoides, P. nigra, and P. maximowiczii. Genome 33:44–49Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riemenschneider DE, Berguson WE, Dickmann DI, Hall RB, Isebrands JG, Mohn CA et al (2001) Poplar breeding and testing strategies in the north-central US: demonstration of potential yield and consideration of future research needs. For Chron 77:245–253Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    SAS Institute, Inc (2004) SAS/STAT™ User’s guide. Version 9. Cary, North Carolina, SAS Institute, IncGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scarascia-Mugnozza GE, Ceulemans R, Heilman PE, Isebrands JG, Stettler RF, Hinckley TM (1997) Production physiology and morphology of Populus species and their hybrids grown under short rotation. II. Biomass components and harvest index of hybrid and parental species clones. Can J For Res 27:285–294Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scarascia-Mugnozza GE, Hinckley TM, Stettler RF, Heilman PE, Isebrands JG (1999) Production physiology and morphology of Populus species and their hybrids grown under short rotation. III. Seasonal carbon allocation patterns from branches. Can J For Res 29:1419–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schreiner EJ (1971) Genetics of eastern cottonwood. Res Pap WO-11. Durham, NH; USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp 19Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schultz RC, Isenhart TM, Simpkins WW, Colletti JP (2004) Riparian forest buffers in agroecosystems—lessons learned from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa, USA. Agroforestry 61:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sims REH, Rogner HH, Gregory K (2003) Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy Policy 31:1315–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sims REH, Hastings A, Schlamadinger B, Taylor G, Smith P (2006) Energy crops: current status and future prospects. Glob Chang Biol 12:2054–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stettler RF, Zsuffa L, Wu R (1996) The role of hybridization in the genetic manipulation of Populus. In: Stettler RF, Bradshaw HD Jr, Heilman PE, Hinckley TM (eds) Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Part I, Ch 4. NRC Research, Canada, pp 87–112Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stout AB, Schreiner EJ (1933) Results of a project in hybridizing poplars. J Heredity 24:216–229Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tufekcioglu A, Raich JW, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (1999) Fine root dynamics, coarse root biomass, root distribution, and soil respiration in a multispecies riparian buffer in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weber JC, Stettler RF, Heilman PE (1985) Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. I. Morphology and phenology of 50 native clones. Can J For Res 15:376–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zalesny JA, Zalesny RS Jr (2009) Chloride and sodium uptake potential over an entire rotation of Populus irrigated with landfill leachate. Int J Phytoremed 11:496–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zalesny JA, Zalesny RS Jr, Wiese AH, Sexton B, Hall RB (2008) Sodium and chloride accumulation in leaf, woody, and root tissue of Populus after irrigation with landfill leachate. Environ Pollut 155:72–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Bauer EO (2007) Selecting and utilizing Populus and Salix for landfill covers: implications for leachate irrigation. Int J Phytoremed 9:497–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Zalesny JA (2009b) Selecting Populus with different adventitious root types for environmental benefits, fiber, and energy. In: Niemi K, Scagel C (eds) Adventitious root formation in forest trees and woody horticultural crops—from genes to applications. Ch 18. Research Signpost, Kerala, India, pp 359–384Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Riemenschneider DE, Hall RB (2005) Early rooting of dormant hardwood cuttings of Populus: analysis of quantitative genetics and genotype × environment interactions. Can J For Res 35:918–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB, Bauer EO, Riemenschneider DE (2005) Soil temperature and precipitation affect the rooting ability of dormant hardwood cuttings of Populus. Silvae Genet 54:47–58Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zavitkovski J (1981) Small plots with unplanted plot border can distort data in biomass production studies. Can J For Res 11:9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zsuffa L, Lin D, Payne P (1999) One-way crossing barriers in some interspecific crosses of Aigeiros and Tacamahaca poplars. For Chron 75:833–836Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald S. ZalesnyJr.
    • 1
  • Richard B. Hall
    • 2
  • Jill A. Zalesny
    • 1
  • Bernard G. McMahon
    • 3
  • William E. Berguson
    • 3
  • Glen R. Stanosz
    • 4
  1. 1.Northern Research Station, Institute for Applied Ecosystem StudiesU.S. Forest ServiceRhinelanderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Natural Resources Research InstituteUniversity of MinnesotaDuluthUSA
  4. 4.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations