BioEnergy Research

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 547–563 | Cite as

Leaf Functional Traits and Stem Wood Characteristics Influencing Biomass Productivity of Mulberry (Morus spp. L) Genotypes Grown in Short-Rotation Coppice System

Article

Abstract

The present study was undertaken to obtain insights into the productivity determinant traits of mulberry (Morus spp. L.), a potential bioenergy tree crop. Our objectives were to identify leaf functional traits and stem wood characteristics that are correlated to biomass yield of mulberry. Based on the growth performance, six mulberry genotypes from different performance groups including high (Selection1 and Thaibeelad), average (Mysore Local) and poor (Triploid10, Jhoropakari and Selection1635) were selected for the study, along with a reference high-yielding genotype (Victory1). The study was conducted in Southern India for two consecutive years, covering two experimental seasons including exp season I (July 2009 to October 2009) and exp season II (July 2010 to October 2010). Mulberry trees were cultivated in a short-rotation coppice system under well-irrigated optimum farming conditions. Data were collected on biomass yield along with several leaf-level physiobiochemical characteristics and wood quality parameters. Significant genetic variation was recorded amongst the genotypes in most of the studied parameters. Fifteen out of a total of 22 traits, used in computing correlation coefficient matrix, were found to correlate with aboveground biomass yield. Light-saturated rate of photosynthesis, performance index, leaf nitrogen content, minimum leaf water potential and leaf-specific hydraulic conductance showed strong positive correlation with biomass productivity. Wood density, wood cross-sectional area and fibre cell density exhibited tight correlation with woody biomass yield. In conclusion, the identified 15 characteristics could be useful in the selection of suitable mulberry genotypes for higher biomass yield.

Keywords

Biomass yield Mulberry Photosynthesis Stem wood Growth Short-rotation coppice (SRC) 

Supplementary material

12155_2012_9270_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (324 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 323 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hinchee M, Rottamann W, Mullinax L, Zhang C, Chang S, Cunningham M et al (2009) Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuel applications. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 45:619–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karp A, Shield I (2008) Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. New Phytol 179:15–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu L, Tang Y, Xie J, Yuan Y (2009) The role of marginal agricultural land-based mulberry planting in biomass energy production. Renew Energ 34:1789–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christersson L (2010) Wood production potential in poplar plantations in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1289–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biasiolo M, Canal DAMT, Tornadore N (2004) Micromorphological characterization of ten mulberry cultivars (Morus spp.). Econ Bot 58:639–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sánchez MD (2000) Mulberry: an exceptional forage available almost worldwide! World Animal Review. In: Sánchez MD (ed) Mulberry for animal production. Animal Health and Production Paper No. 147. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suzuki T, Kitano M, Kohno K (1988) Lateral bud outgrowth on decapitated shoots of low-pruned mulberry (Morus alba L.). Tree Physiol 4:53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dandin SB, Jayaswal J, Giridhar K (2003) Mulberry cultivation. In: Dandin SB, Jayaswal J, Giridhar K (eds) Handbook of sericulture technologies. Central Silk Board, Bangalore, pp 35–55Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bunn SM, Rae AM, Herbert CS, Taylor G (2004) Leaf-level productivity traits in Populus grown in short rotation coppice for biomass energy. Forestry 77:307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marron N, Dillen SY, Ceulemans R (2007) Evaluation of leaf traits for indirect selection of high yielding poplar hybrids. Environ Exp Bot 61:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dillen SY, Rood SB, Ceulemans R (2010) Growth and physiology. In: Jansson S et al (eds) Genetics and genomics of Populus (plant genetics and genomics: crops and models), vol 8. Springer, New York, pp 39–63Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flood PJ, Harbinson J, Aarts MGM (2011) Natural genetic variation in plant photosynthesis. Trends Plant Sci 16:327–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monclus R, Dreyer E, Delmotte FM, Villar M, Delay D, Boudouresque E et al (2005) Productivity, leaf traits and carbon isotope discrimination in 29 Populus deltoids x P. nigra clones. New Phytol 167:53–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeźowski S, Głowacka K, Kaczmarek Z, Szczukowski S (2011) Yield traits of eight common osier clones in the first three years following planting in Poland. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1205–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aspinwall MJ, King JS, McKeand SE, Domec JC (2011) Leaf-level gas-exchange uniformity and photosynthetic capacity among loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) genotypes of contrasting inherent genetic variation. Tree Physiol 31:78–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pliura A, Zhang SY, MacKay J, Bousquet J (2007) Genotypic variation in wood density and growth traits of poplar hybrids at four clonal trials. For Ecol Mang 238:92–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brodribb TJ, Feild TS (2000) Stem hydraulic supply is linked to leaf photosynthetic capacity: evidence from New Caledonian and Tasmanian rainforests. Plant Cell Environ 23:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peek MS, Russek-Cohen E, Wait DA, Forseth IN (2002) Physiological response curve analysis using nonlinear mixed models. Oecologia 132:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strasser RJ, Srivastava A, Tsimilli-Michael M (2000) The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterise and screen photosynthetic samples. In: Yunus M, Pathre U, Mohanty P (eds) Probing photosynthesis: mechanisms. Regulation & Adaptation. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 445–483Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tyree MT (2003) Hydraulic limits on tree performance: transpiration, carbon gain and growth of trees. Trees-Struct Funct 17:95–100Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ryan MG, Bond BJ, Law BE, Hubbard RM, Woodruff D, Cienciala E et al (2000) Transpiration and whole-tree conductance in ponderosa pine trees of different heights. Oecologia 124:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang JL, Cao KF (2009) Stem hydraulics mediates leaf water status, carbon gain, nutrient use efficiencies and plant growth rates across dipterocarp species. Func Ecol 23:658–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hacke UG, Sperry JS, Pittermann J (2000) Drought experience and cavitation resistance in six shrubs from Great Basin, Utah. Basic Appl Ecol 1:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomas DS, Montagu KD, Conroy JP (2006) Effects of leaf and branch removal on carbon assimilation and stem wood density of Eucalyptus grandis seedlings. Trees-Struct Funct 20:725–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhattacharya S, Ghosh JS, Sahoo DK, Dey N, Pal A (2010) Screening of superior fiber-quality-traits among wild accessions of Bambusa balcooa: efficient and non-invasive evaluation of fiber developmental stages. Ann For Sci 67:611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Curtin F, Schulz P (1998) Multiple correlations and Bonferroni’s correction. Biol Psychiatry 44:775–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perneger TV (1998) What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. Brit Med J 316:1236–1238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nogueira A, Martinez CA, Ferreira LL, Prado CHBA (2004) Photosynthesis and water use efficiency in twenty tropical tree species of differing succession status in a Brazilian reforestation. Photosynthetica 42:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gong JR, Zhang XS, Huang YM (2011) Comparison of the performance of several hybrid poplar clones and their potential suitability for use in northern China. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2755–2764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jiang Q, Roche D, Monaco TA, Hole D (2006) Stomatal conductance is a key parameter to assess limitations to photosynthesis and growth potential in barley genotypes. Plant Biol 8:515–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marino G, Aqil M, Shipley B (2010) The leaf economics spectrum and the prediction of photosynthetic light–response curves. Func Ecol 24:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tjoelker MG, Oleksyn J, Reich PB (1999) Acclimation of respiration to temperature and CO2 in seedlings of boreal tree species in relation to plant size and relative growth rate. Glob Chang Biol 5:679–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stirbet A, Govindjee (2011) On the relation between the Kautsky effect (chlorophyll a fluorescence induction) and photosystem II: basics and applications of the OJIP fluorescence transient. J Photochem Photobiol:Biol 104:236–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu YY, Liu CQ, Li PP, Wang JZ, Xing D, Wang BL (2009) Photosynthetic characteristics involved in adaptability to Karst soil and alien invasion of paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Vent.) in comparison with mulberry (Morus alba L.). Photosynthetica 47:155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hermans C, Smeyers M, Rodriguez RM, Eyletters M, Strasser RJ, Delhaye JP (2003) Quality assessment of urban trees: a comparative study of physiological characterisation, airborne imaging and on site fluorescence monitoring by the OJIP-test. J Plant Physiol 160:81–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kenzo T, Ichie T, Yoneda R, Kitahashi Y, Watanabe Y, Ninomiya I et al (2004) Interspecific variation of photosynthesis and leaf characteristics in canopy trees of five species of Dipterocarpaceae in a tropical rain forest. Tree Physiol 24:1187–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Santiago LS, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC, Fisher JB, Machado K, Woodruff D et al (2004) Leaf photosynthetic traits scale with hydraulic conductivity and wood density in Panamanian forest canopy trees. Oecologia 140:543–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Woodruff DR, Bond BJ, Meinzer FC (2004) Does turgor limit growth in tall trees? Plant Cell Environ 27:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pontailler JY, Ceulemans R, Guittet J (1999) Biomass yield of poplar after five 2-year coppice rotations. Forestry 72:157–163Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pearson CH, Halvorson AD, Moench RD, Hammon RW (2010) Production of hybrid poplar under short-term, intensive culture in Western Colorado. Ind Crop Prod 31:492–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhu XG, Long SP, Ort DR (2010) Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu Rev Plant Biol 61:235–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Madan M, Sharma S (1999) Biomass yield of hybrid varieties of mulberry in a non-moriculture area. Biomass Bioenergy 17:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feng Y-L, Fu G-L, Zheng Y-L (2008) Specific leaf area relates to the differences in leaf construction cost, photosynthesis, nitrogen allocation, and use efficiencies between invasive and noninvasive alien congeners. Planta 228:383–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Swenson NG, Zanne AE (2009) Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol Lett 12:351–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aguilar-Rodríguez M, Abundiz-Bonilla L, Barajas-Morales (2001) Comparación de la gravedad específica y características anatomicas de la madera de dos comunidades vegetales en México. An Inst Biol Univ Nac Autonoma Méx Ser Bot 72:171–185Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Preston KA, Cornwell WK, Denoyer JL (2006) Wood density and vessel traits as distinct correlates of ecological strategy in 51 California coast range angiosperms. New Phytol 170:807–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jacobsen AL, Pratt RB, Ewers FW, Davis SD (2007) Cavitation resistance among 26 chaparral species of southern California. Ecol Monogr 77:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jacobsen AL, Ewers FW, Pratt RB, Paddock WA, Davis SD (2005) Do xylem fibres affect vessel cavitation resistance? Plant Physiol 139:546–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Martínez-Cabrera HI, Jones CS, Espino S, Schenk HJ (2009) Wood anatomy and wood density in shrubs: responses to varying aridity along transcontinental transects. Am J Bot 96:1388–1398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Guidi W, Tozzini C, Bonari E (2009) Estimation of chemical traits in poplar short-rotation coppice at stand level. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1703–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baltzer J, Gregoire DM, Bunyavejchewin S, Noor NSM, Davies SJ (2009) Coordination of foliar and wood anatomical traits contributes to tropical tree distributions and productivity along the Malay-Thai Peninsula. Am J Bot 96:2214–2223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Slot M, Poorter L (2007) Diversity of tropical tree seedling responses to drought. Biotropica 39:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Photosynthesis and Plant Stress Biology Laboratory, Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations