BioEnergy Research

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 1661–1670 | Cite as

Bark Content of Two Shrub Willow Cultivars Grown at Two Sites and Relationships with Centroid Bark Content and Stem Diameter

  • Spencer Eich
  • Timothy A. Volk
  • Mark H. EisenbiesEmail author


Understanding the characteristics of short rotation woody crops (SRWC), like shrub willow, that affect feedstock quality and its variability is a priority as this source of biomass is expanded. Because of its relationship to ash content, the allotment of bark and wood within the stem is often highlighted as a factor impacting feedstock quality. Bark-to-wood ratios are frequently determined in willow by measuring this ratio for the centroid and assuming it represents the entire stem. The objectives of this study were to determine how site and genetic factors influenced the allometry of whole stem bark (WSB%) content on a dry weight basis and if the centroid bark percentage (CB%) on a dry weight basis adequately represents WSB%. A multiple linear regression approach was used to model WSB% and centroid bark content (CB%) using diameter, cultivar, and site factors. Five candidate models were evaluated ranging from parsimonious to complex. The simplest models estimated WSB% from CB% (R 2 = 0.76) and stem diameter (R 2 = 0.44). The most complex model included all factors and had an R 2 of 0.90. Two key relationships demonstrated by several models are that (1) CB% adequately predicts but underestimates WSB%, particularly for larger stems, and (2) WSB% increases as diameter decreases. However, empirical models can be enhanced with the inclusion of diameter, site, and cultivar information. The overall approaches can be useful for making relative comparisons between cultivars and sites. In a 3-year-old stand of willow stems less than 20 mm had high WSB%, the maximum being 23.8 %, but accounted for only 5 to 15 % of the total biomass. Large diameter stems accounted for the majority of the total and bark biomass, but the WSB% in large diameter stems is as low as 11.5 %. WSB% ranged from 12.9 to 14 % across the two cultivars at the stand level.


Short rotation woody crops Shrub Willow Bark content Feedstock quality Bark allometry 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Support for the establishment, sample collection, and analysis from these field sites was supported by funding from the North Central Regional Sun Grant Center at South Dakota State University through a grant provided by the US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office under Award number DE-FC36-05GO85041 and a grant from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection.


  1. 1.
    Djomo SN, Kasmioui OE, Ceulemans R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review: energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy 3:181–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01073.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Bioresour Technol 83:37–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    USDOE (2011) U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mola-Yudego B (2010) Regional potential yields of short rotation willow plantations on agricultural land in Northern Europe. Silva Fenn 44:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aylott MJ, Casella E, Tubby I et al (2008) Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New Phytol 178:358–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02396.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Buchholz T et al (2014) Development and deployment of willow biomass crops. Cellul. Energy Crop. Syst. Wiley, NY, pp 201–217Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Volk T, Verwijst T, Tharakan P et al (2004) Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ 2:411–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rowe R, Street N, Taylor G (2009) Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adler A, Verwijst T, Aronsson P (2005) Estimation and relevance of bark proportion in a willow stand. Biomass Bioenergy 29:102–113. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serapiglia MJ, Cameron KD, Stipanovic AJ, Smart LB (2009) Analysis of biomass composition using high-resolution thermogravimetric analysis and percent bark content for the selection of shrub willow bioenergy crop varieties. BioEnergy Res 2:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s12155-008-9028-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tharakan PJ, Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2003) Energy feedstock characteristics of willow and hybrid poplar clones at harvest age. Biomass Bioenergy 25:571–580. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00054-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tharakan PJ, Volk TA, Nowak CA, Abrahamson LP (2005) Morphological traits of 30 willow clones and their relationship to biomass production. Can J For Res 35:421–431. doi: 10.1139/x04-195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenney W, Senerby-Forsse L, Layton P (1990) A review of biomass quality research relevant to the use of poplar and willow for energy conversion. Biomass 21:163–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mészáros E, Jakab E, Várhegyi G et al (2004) Comparative study of the thermal behavior of wood and bark of young shoots obtained from an energy plantation. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 72:317–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2004.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kenney KL, Smith WA, Gresham GL, Westover TL (2013) Understanding biomass feedstock variability. Biofuels 4:111–127. doi: 10.4155/bfs.12.83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dupont C, Rouge S, Berthelot A et al (2010) Bioenergy II: suitability of wood chips and various biomass types for use in plant of BtL production by gasification. Int J Chem React Eng 8:A74Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serapiglia MJ, Cameron KD, Stipanovic AJ et al (2012) Yield and woody biomass traits of novel shrub willow hybrids at two contrasting sites. BioEnergy Res 6:533–546. doi: 10.1007/s12155-012-9272-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisenbies MH, Volk TA, Posselius J et al (2014) Evaluation of a single-pass, Cut and chip harvest system on commercial-scale, short-rotation shrub willow biomass crops. BioEnergy Res. doi: 10.1007/s12155-014-9482-0 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwilk D, Gaetani M, Poulos H (2013) Oak bark allometry and fire survival strategies in the chihuahuan desert sky island. PLoS One 8, e79285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079285 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verwijst T, Albertsson J (2015) Assumptions made in protocols for shoot biomass estimation of short-rotation willow clones underlie differences in results between destructive and non-destructive methods. BioEnergy Res. doi: 10.1007/s12155-015-9607-0 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Senerby-Forsse L (1985) Clonal variation of wood specific gravity, moisture content, and stem bark percentage in 1-year-old shoots of 20 fast-growing Salix clones. Can J For Res 15:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mosseler A, Zsuffa L, Stoehr U, Kenney W (1988) Variation in biomass production, moisture content, and specific gravity in some North American willows (Salix L.). Can J For Res 18:1535–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu B (2013) Biomass production of willow short rotation-coppice across sites and determinants of yields for SV1 and SX61. SUNY-ESFGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quaye AK, Volk TA (2013) Biomass production and soil nutrients in organic and inorganic fertilized willow biomass production systems. Biomass Bioenergy 57:113–125. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mallows C (1973) Some comments on Cp. Technometrics 15:661–675Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Montogomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG (2001) Introduction to linear regression analysis, 3td ed. Wiley InterscienceGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Arevalo C, Volk T, Bevilacqua E, Abrahamson L (2007) Development and validation of aboveground biomass estimations for four Salix clones in central New York. Biomass Bioenergy 31:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mirck J, Volk TA (2009) Seasonal Sap flow of four Salix varieties growing on the solvay wastebeds in Syracuse, NY, USA. Int J Phytoremediation 12:1–23. doi: 10.1080/15226510902767098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amichev BY, Hangs RD, Bélanger N et al (2014) First-rotation yields of 30 short-rotation willow cultivars in central Saskatchewan. Canada BioEnergy Res. doi: 10.1007/s12155-014-9519-4 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nordh N (2004) Above-ground biomass assessments and first cutting cycle production in willow (Salix sp.) coppice—a comparison between destructive and non-destructive methods. Biomass Bioenergy 27:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verwijst T, Telenius B (1999) Biomass estimation procedures in short rotation forestry. For Ecol Manag 121:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smart LP, Cameron KD (2012) Shrub willow. In: Al KC (ed) Handbook of bioenergy crop plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 687–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spencer Eich
    • 1
  • Timothy A. Volk
    • 1
  • Mark H. Eisenbies
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations