Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 731–739 | Cite as

Genetic Parameters of Factors Affecting the Biomass Recalcitrance of Douglas Fir Trees

  • Scott Geleynse
  • Keith Jayawickrama
  • Matt Trappe
  • Terrance Ye
  • Xiao Zhang
Article
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

Although forestry residuals provide a potentially abundant source of biomass, Douglas fir is a particularly challenging feedstock to utilize in the biochemical conversion to fuels and value-added chemicals due to its high levels of biomass recalcitrance. A greater understanding of the underlying factors behind highly recalcitrant biomass is critical in overcoming this problem. Building on earlier efforts to establish a protocol and a “recalcitrance factor” for screening the recalcitrance of trees, this study attempts to provide the first look into the genetic factors behind recalcitrance in Douglas fir with the possibility of using selective breeding and tree improvement practices to reduce recalcitrance in future generations of our forest products. Samples from over 250 Douglas fir trees in a second-cycle progeny test were collected and subjected to screening. Samples were subjected to a dilute-acid pretreatment and a subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis procedure, ultimately measuring the raw wood density, pretreatment yield, the holocellulose content of pretreated samples, hydrolyzability, and recalcitrance factor. From these data, the heritability, genetic gains, and genetic correlations were estimated. Based on these results, we predict that modifying recalcitrance in tree improvement may be feasible, but would likely require some additional understanding and improved screening techniques.

Keywords

Biomass recalcitrance Douglas fir Tree improvement Forest genetics Multi-level biomass analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study is provided through the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance Project, supported by an Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-68005-30416 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This study is also supported, in part, by National Science Foundation (award number 1067012). Permission provided by Plum Creek Timber Company and Campbell Global to access the test site and obtain samples is also acknowledged.

Supplementary material

12155_2016_9718_MOESM1_ESM.docx (76 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 76 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wyman CE (2007) What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol. Trends Biotechnol 25:153–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCann, M. C., and N. C. Carpita (2015) Biomass recalcitrance: a multi-scale, multi-factor, and conversion-specific property. Journal of Experimental Botany. 66:4109–4118Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mabee WE, Gregg DJ, Arato C, Berlin A, Bura R, Gilkes N, Mirochnik O, Pan XJ, Pye EK, Saddler JN (2006) Updates on softwood-to-ethanol process development. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 129:55–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Phitsuwan P, Sakka K, Ratanakhanokchai K (2013) Improvement of lignocellulosic biomassin planta: a review of feedstocks, biomass recalcitrance, and strategic manipulation of ideal plants designed for ethanol production and processability. Biomass Bioenergy 58:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    White TL, Adams WT, Neale DB (2007) Forest genetics. CAB International, Cambridge, MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Howe GT, Jayawickrama K, Cherry M, Johnson GR, Wheeler NC (2006) Breeding Douglas-fir. In: Janick J (ed) Plant breeding reviews, vol. 27. Wiley-Blackwell, MA, USA, pp 245–353Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zobel, B. J., and J. P. Van Buijtenen (1989) Wood variation: its causes and control. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouton JH (2007) Molecular breeding of switchgrass for use as a biofuel crop. Curr Opin Genetics Dev 17:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geleynse S, Alvarez-Vasco C, Garcia K, Jayawickrama K, Trappe M, Zhang X (2014) A multi-level analysis approach to measuring variations in biomass recalcitrance of Douglas fir tree samples. Bioenergy Res 7:1411–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ukrainetz NK, Kang KY, Aitken SN, Stoehr M, Mansfield SD (2008) Heritability and phenotypic and genetic correlations of coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) wood quality traits. Canadian J Forest Res-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 38:1536–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wise LE, Murphy M, D’Addieco AA (1946) Chlorite holocellulose, its fractionation and bearing on summative wood analysis and on studies on the hemicelluloses. Paper Tr J 122:35–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timell TE (1959) Isolation of holocellulose from Jack pine Pinus banksiana. Pulp Paper Mag Can 60:T26–T28Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilmour, A.R., Gogel, B.J., Cullis, B.R., and Thompson, R. 2009 ASReml User Guide Release 3.0 VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK www.vsni.co.uk
  15. 15.
    Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falconer, D. S., and T. F. C. Mackay (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, Guelph, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zobel, B. J., and J. B. Jett (1995) Genetics of wood production. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foston M, Ragauskas AJ (2012) Biomass characterization: recent progress in understanding biomass recalcitrance. Ind Biotechnol 8:191–208Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Howe GT, Yu JB, Knaus B, Cronn R, Kolpak S, Dolan P, Lorenz WW, Dean JFD (2013) A SNP resource for Douglas-fir: de novo transcriptome assembly and SNP detection and validation. BMC Genomics 14:137–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Geleynse
    • 1
  • Keith Jayawickrama
    • 2
  • Matt Trappe
    • 2
  • Terrance Ye
    • 2
  • Xiao Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioproducts Sciences and Engineering Laboratory, Voiland School of Chemical Engineering and BioengineeringWashington State UniversityRichlandUSA
  2. 2.College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations