Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 563–572 | Cite as

Changes in Organic Carbon and Trace Elements in the Soil of Willow Short-Rotation Coppice Plantations

  • Ioannis Dimitriou
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
  • Pär Aronsson
  • Jan Eriksson
Article

Abstract

Short rotation coppice (SRC) is a biomass production system for energy usually grown on former agricultural land with fast-growing tree species. In Sweden, willow SRC has been grown since the late 1980s. SRC on arable soils may induce changes in some soil quality parameters due to differences in crop characteristics and management practices. In this study, pH, organic carbon (C), and trace element concentrations in the soil of 14 long-term (10–20 years) commercial willow SRC fields in Sweden were compared with those in adjacent, conventionally managed arable soils. The results showed that organic C concentrations in the topsoil and subsoil of SRC fields were, on average, significantly higher (9 % in topsoil, 27 % in subsoil) than in the reference fields. When comparisons were made only for the ten sites where the reference field had a crop rotation dominated by cereal crops, the corresponding figures were 10 % and 22 %. The average concentration of cadmium (Cd), which is considered the most hazardous trace element for human health in the food chain, was 12 % lower in the topsoil of SRC fields than in the reference fields. In the corresponding comparison of subsoils, no such difference was found. For chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn), there were no significant differences in concentrations between SRC fields and the reference fields in either topsoil or subsoil. Negligible differences in pH in the same comparisons were found.

Keywords

Bioenergy Cadmium Energy forest Soil organic carbon Salix 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to all the land owners who allowed us to take samples and also provided valuable information on previous management regimes. Special thanks to Richard Childs, who helped with the soil sampling at all the different locations. The study was funded by the Swedish Energy Agency project 31455-1 within the framework of ERA-Net Bioenergy, which is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Sirén G, Sennerby-Forsse L, Ledin S (1987) Energy plantations—short-rotation forestry in Sweden. In: Hall DO, Overend RP (eds) Biomass: regenerable energy. Wiley, Chichester, pp 119–144Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsson Y (2012) Jordbruksmarkens användning 2011. Sveriges Officiella Statistik. JO 10 SM 1201. ISSN 1654-4102. http://www.jordbruksverket.se. Accessed 5 March 2012
  3. 3.
    Dimitriou I, Baum C, Baum S, Busch G, Schulz U, Köhn J et al (2009) The impact of short rotation coppice (SRC) cultivation on the environment. LBF 3(59):159–162Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P (2008) Yield models for commercial willow biomass plantations in Sweden. Biom Bioenerg 32(9):829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimitriou I, Rosenqvist H (2011) Sewage sludge and wastewater fertilisation of short rotation coppice (SRC) for increased bioenergy production—biological and economic potential. Biom Bioenerg 35(2):835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baum C, Leinweber P, Weih M, Lamersdorf N, Dimitriou I (2009) Effects of short rotation coppice with willows and poplar on soil ecology. LBF 3(59):183–196Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen EA (1993) Soil carbon sequestration beneath hybrid poplar plantations in the North Central United States. Biom Bioenerg 5:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Makeschin F (1994) Effects of energy forestry on soils. Biom Bioenerg 6:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jug A, Hofmann-Schielle C, Makeschin F, Rehfuess KE (1999) Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in the Federal Republic of Germany III. Soil ecological effects. Forest Ecol Manage 121:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matthews RB, Grogan P (2001) Potential C-sequestration rates under short-rotation coppiced willow and Miscanthus biomass crops: a modelling study. Asp Appl Biol 65:303–312Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahle P, Hildebrand E, Baum C, Boelcke B (2007) Long-term effects of short rotation forestry with willows and poplar on soil properties. Arch Agron Soil Sci 53:673–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grigal DF, Berguson WE (1998) Soil carbon changes associated with short-rotation systems. Biom Bioenerg 14:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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. Ecol Manag 33:299–308Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sartori F, Lal R, Ebinger MH, Eaton JA (2007) Changes in soil carbon and nutrient pools along a chronosequence of poplar plantations in the Columbia Plateau, Oregon, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garten CT, Wullschleger SD, Classen AT (2011) Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration under hybrid poplar. Biom Bioenerg 35(1):214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andersson A (1977) Tungmetallproblematiken vid energiproduktion I form av mini-rotationsskogsbruk. Dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Soil Department, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Riddell-Black DM (1994) Heavy metal uptake by fast growing willow species. In: Willow vegetation filters for municipal wastewaters and sludges. A biological purification system. Aronsson P, Perttu K (eds). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Report 50, pp 133-144Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Åkesson A, Lundh T, Vahter M, Bjellerup P, Lidfeldt J, Nerbrand C et al (2005) Tubular and glomerular kidney effects in Swedish women with low environmental cadmium exposure. Environ Health Perspect 113:1627–1631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Åkesson A, Bjellerup P, Lundh T, Lidfeldt J, Nerbrand C, Samsioe G et al (2006) Cadmium-induced effects on bone in a population-based study of women. Environ Health Perspect 114:830–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    EFSA (2009) Scientific opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on Cadmium in Food. EFSA J 980:1–139Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Svenskt Sigill (2011) IP Sigill, spannmål & oljeväxter. Svenskt Sigill AB, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klang-Westin E, Eriksson J (2003) Potential of Salix as phytoextractor for Cd on moderately contaminated soils. Plant Soil 249(1):127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dimitriou I, Eriksson J, Adler A, Aronsson P, Verwijst T (2006) Fate of heavy metals after application of sewage sludge and wood-ash mixtures to short-rotation willow coppice. Environ Pollut 142(1):160–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersson A (1992) Trace elements in agricultural soils—fluxes, balances and background values. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, report 4077, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dimitriou I, Aronsson P (2005) Willows for energy and phytoremediation in Sweden. Unasyl 221(56):46–50Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robinson BH, Mills TM, Petit D, Fung LE, Green SR, Clothier BE (2000) Natural and induced Cd-accumulation in poplar and willow: Implications for phytoremediation. Plant Soil 227:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Granel T, Robinson B, Mills T, Clothier B, Green S, Fung L (2002) Cd accumulation by willow clones used for soil conservation, stock fodder, and phytoremediation. Aust J Soil Res 40:1331–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Landberg T, Greger M (2002) Interclonal variation of heavy metal interactions in Salix viminalis. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:2669–2674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vyslouzilova M, Tlustos P, Szakova J (2003) Cd and zinc phytoextraction potential of seven clones of Salix spp. planted on heavy metal contaminated soils. Plant Soil Environ 49:542–547Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meers E, Vandecasteele B, Ruttens A, Vangronsveld J, Tack FMG (2007) Potential of five willow species (Salix spp.) for phytoextraction of heavy metals. Environ Exp Bot 60:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pulford ID, Riddell-Black D, Stewart C (2002) Heavy metal uptake by willow clones from sewage sludge-treated soil: the potential for phytoremediation. Int J Phytorem 4:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dickinson NM, Pulford ID (2005) Cd phytoextraction using short-rotation coppice Salix: the evidence trail. Environ Int 31:609–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dimitriou I (2005) Performance and sustainability of short-rotation energy crops treated with municipal and industrial residues Acta Universit Agricul Sueci 44Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Soil Survey Staff (2003) Keys to soil taxonomy. 9th edition, United Stated Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    FAO (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication. World Soil Resources Report 103. FAO, Rome, pp 1–128Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ledin S, Alriksson B, Rosenqvist H, Johansson H (1994) Gödsling av salixodlingar. Rapport 1994:25. Närings-och teknikutvecklingsverket. Stockholm, pp 1–85Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Naturvårdsverket (1994) Kungörelse med föreskrifter om skydd för miljön, särskilt marken, när avloppsslam används i jordbruket—Statens naturvårdsverks författningssamling, SNFS 1994:2, MS 72, pp 8Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Swedish Board of Agriculture (2009) Riktlinjer för gödsling och kalkning 2010. Jordbruksinformation 13 -2009. Jordbruksverket, pp 23–53Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nordh NE, Verwijst T (2004) Above-ground biomass assessments and first cutting cycle production in willow (Salix sp.) coppice and comparison between destructive and non-destructive methods. Biom Bioenerg 27:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schmitt AK, Tischer S, ElsteB HB, Christen O (2010) Effect of energy forestry on physical, chemical and biological soil properties on a chernozem in continental dry climate conditions in central Germany. J Kulturpflan 62(6):189–199Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rytter RM (1999) Fine-root production and turnover in a willow plantation estimated by different calculation methods). Scand Forest Res 14(6):526–537Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Crow P, Houston TJ (2004) The influence of soil and coppice cycle on the rooting habit of short rotation poplar and willow coppice. Biom Bioenerg 26(6):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kahle P, Baum C, Boelcke B, Kohl J, Ulrich R (2010) Vertical distribution of soil properties under short-rotation forestry in Northern Germany. Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173(5):737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rytter RM (1997) Fine-root production and carbon and nitrogen allocation in basket willows. Acta Universit Agricul Sueci 39Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Berndes G, Fredrikson F, Borjesson P (2004) Cd accumulation and Salix-based phytoextraction on arable land in Sweden. Agr Ecosyst Environ 103(1):207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Witters N, Van Slycken S, Ruttens A, Adriaensen K, Meers E, Meiresonne L et al (2009) Short-rotation coppice of willow for phytoremediation of a metal-contaminated agricultural area: a sustainability assessment. Bioeng Res 2(3):144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Klang-Westin E (2003) Assessing the potential of Salix as a phytoextractor for Cd. dissertation. Department of Soil Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioannis Dimitriou
    • 1
  • Blas Mola-Yudego
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pär Aronsson
    • 1
  • Jan Eriksson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Crop Production EcologySwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden
  2. 2.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  3. 3.Department of Soil and EnvironmentSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations