BioEnergy Research

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 782–797 | Cite as

Recently Bred Willow (Salix spp.) Biomass Crops Show Stable Yield Trends Over Three Rotations at Two Sites

Article

Abstract

Yields of willow biomass crops have large impacts on production, economic, energy, and environmental assessments of these systems. Studies that report data for three or more rotations show various yield quantities and patterns, and few of these studies investigate North American cultivars. This study reports yield data from 18 willow cultivars over three rotations at two research sites (Belleville and Tully) in New York State, USA. Mean yields of the top five cultivars after three rotations were 12.5 Mg ha−1 year−1 (Belleville) and 10.8 Mg ha−1 year−1 (Tully). Seven cultivars had statistically higher yields at Belleville than at Tully. Repeated measures modeling indicated that site by cultivar by time interaction was present, with 13 out of 36 site-cultivar combinations showing quadratic yield trends over time, three showing linear trends, and 20 showing no trend. The large proportion of site-cultivar combinations with consistent yields indicates stability in biomass production over time. Spearman rank correlation coefficients analyzing cultivar rank after one and three rotations were 0.91 (Belleville) and 0.83 (Tully), though the highest yielding cultivars varied by site. Planting a suite of five cultivars evaluated for high yield after the first rotation led to 1.6–1.7 % losses in potential yield compared to the highest producing suite evaluated after three rotations at the same site. However, planting a suite of cultivars evaluated for high yield after the first rotation at a different site led to 10.7–13.6 % losses in potential yield with considerable economic consequences.

Keywords

Shrub willow Biomass yield Short-rotation woody crops Repeated measures modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Dr. Steve Stehman of SUNY ESF for his assistance with the statistical analysis. Thanks also to Belleville Henderson Central School in Belleville, NY, which has made land available for the willow trial there and has supported its maintenance. This study would not have been possible without the foundational work on willow biomass crops in North America done by Drs. Edwin White and Lawrence Abrahamson. Breeding work for many of the cultivars in this trial was completed by Dr. Richard Kopp with assistance from Drs. Larry Smart and Lawrence Abrahamson.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Essential funding to maintain and monitor these plots over the past several years was provided by 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. Support for the initial establishment of these trials was provided by USDA AFRI and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Additional funding for the research project assistantship of N. J. Sleight has come from the NEWBio Research Consortium which is supported by the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Grant number 2012-68005-19703. T. A. Volk is a co-inventor on the patents for the following willow cultivars that are included in these trials: Tully Champion (US PP 17,946), Fish Creek (US PP 17,710), Millbrook (US PP 17,646), Oneida (US PP 17,682), Otisco (US PP 17,997), Canastota (US PP 17,724), and Owasco (US PP 17,845).

References

  1. 1.
    Volk TA, Verwijst T, Tharakan PJ, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2004) Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ 2(8):411–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rowe RL, Street NR, Taylor G (2009) Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Ren Sust Energ Rev 13:271–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(5–6):385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abrahamson LP, Robison DJ, Volk TA, White EH, Neuhauser EF, Benjamin WH, Peterson JM (1998) Sustainability and environmental issues associated with willow bioenergy development in New York (U.S.A.). Biomass Bioenerg 15(1):17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Njakou Djomo S, El Kasmioui O, Ceulemans R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. GCB Bioenerg 3(3):181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Buchholz T, Caputo J, Eisenbies M (2014) Development and deployment of willow biomass crops. In: Karlen D (ed) Cellulosic energy cropping systems. UK pp, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp 201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Argus GW (1997) Infrageneric classification of Salix (Salicaceae) in the new world. Syst Bot Monogr 52:1–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Nowak CA, Smart LB, Tharakan PJ, White EH (2006) The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass Bioenerg 30(8–9):715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu B (2013) Biomass production of willow short-rotation coppice across sites and determinants of yields for SV1 and SX61. Thesis, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and ForestryGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Cameron KD, Castellano P, Corbin T, Fabio E, Johnson G, Kuzovkina-Eischen Y, Labrecque M, Miller R, Sidders D, Smart LB, Staver K, Stanosz GR, Rees K (2011) Yields of willow biomass crops across a range of sites in North America. Asp Appl Biol 112:67–74Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larsson S (2001) Commercial varieties from the Swedish willow breeding programme. Asp Appl Biol 65:193–198Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otepka P, Habán M (2006) Biomass yield of basket willow (Salix viminalis L.) cultivated as energy plant in a long-term experiment. Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica 9(3):70–74Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Otepka P, Habán M, Habanova M (2011) Cultivation of fast-growing woody plant basket willow (Salix viminalis L.) and their bioremedial abilities while fertilized with wood Ash. Res J of Agric Sci 43(2):218–222Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sleight NJ, Volk TA, Johnson GA, Eisenbies MH, Shi S, Fabio ES, Pooler PS (2015) Change in yield between first and second rotations in willow (Salix spp.) biomass crops is strongly related to the level of first rotation yield. BioEnerg Res. doi: 10.1007/s12155-015-9684-0 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Z, MacFarlane DW (2012) Evaluating the biomass production of coppiced willow and poplar clones in Michigan, USA, over multiple rotations and different growing conditions. Biomass Bioenerg 46:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weger J, Havlíčková K, Bubeník J (2011) Results of testing of native willows and poplars for short rotation coppice after three harvests. Asp Appl Biol 112:335–340Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P (2008) Yield models for commercial willow biomass plantations in Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg 32(9):829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindegaard KN, Carter MM, McCracken A, Shield IF, MacAlpine W, Jones MH, Valentine J, Larsson S (2011) Comparative trials of elite Swedish and UK biomass willow varieties 2001–2010. Asp Appl Biol 112:57–66Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCracken AR, Dawson WM, Bowden G (2001) Yield responses of willow (Salix) grown in mixtures in short rotation coppice (SRC). Biomass Bioenerg 21(5):311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCracken AR, Walsh L, Moore PJ, Lynch M, Cowan P, Dawson M, Watson S (2011) Yield of willow (Salix spp.) grown in short rotation coppice mixtures in a long-term trial. Ann Appl Biol 159(2):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Willebrand E, Verwijst T (1993) Population dynamics of willow coppice systems and their implications for management of short-rotation forests. For Chron 69(6):699–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nordh N-E, Verwijst T (2005) Biomass production and population dynamics of 12 willow (Salix) clones grown in three short rotations during 14 years. In: Nordh N-E. Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation willow coppice. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McElroy GH, Dawson WM (1986) Biomass from short-rotation coppice willow on marginal land. Biomass 10(3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCracken AR, Dawson WM (1998) Short rotation coppice willow in Northern Ireland since 1973: development of the use of mixtures in the control of foliar rust (Melampsora spp.). Eur J For Pathol 28(4):241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindegaard KN, Parfitt RI, Donaldson G, Hunter T, Dawson WM, Forbes EGA, Carter MM, Whinney CC, Whinney JE, Larsson S (2001) Comparative trials of elite Swedish and UK biomass willow varieties. Asp Appl Biol 65:183–192Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guidi Nissim W, Pitre FE, Teodorescu TI, Labrecque M (2013) Long-term biomass productivity of willow bioenergy plantations maintained in southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenerg 56:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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(2):421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitman DW, Agrawal AA (2009) What is phenotypic plasticity and why is it important? In: Whitman DW, Ananthakrishnan (eds) Phenotypic plasticity of insects: mechanisms and consequences, Science, Enfield, NH, USA pp 1–63Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hauk S, Knoke T, Wittkopf S (2014) Economic evaluation of short rotation coppice systems for energy from biomass—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 29:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Londo M, Vleeshouwers L, Dekker J, de Graaf H (2001) Energy farming in Dutch desiccation abatement areas: yields and benefits compared to grass cultivation. Biomass Bioenerg 20(5):337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buchholz T, Volk T (2011) Improving the profitability of willow crops-identifying opportunities with a crop budget model. Bioenerg Res 4(2):85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heaton RJ, Randerson PF, Slater FM (1999) The economics of growing short rotation coppice in the uplands of mid-Wales and an economic comparison with sheep production. Biomass Bioenerg 17(1):59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenqvist H, Dawson M (2005) Economics of willow growing in Northern Ireland. Biomass Bioenerg 28(1):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2003) Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenerg 25(2):147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matthews RW (2001) Modelling of energy and carbon budgets of wood fuel coppice systems. Biomass Bioenerg 21(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Styles D, Jones MB (2007) Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenerg 31(11–12):759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Caputo J, Balogh S, Volk T, Johnson L, Puettmann M, Lippke B, Oneil E (2014) Incorporating uncertainty into a life cycle assessment (LCA) model of short-rotation willow biomass (Salix spp.) crops. Bioenerg Res 7(1):48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thornley JHM (1972) A balanced quantitative model for root: shoot ratios in vegetative plants. Ann Bot 36(145):431–441Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cunniff J, Purdy SJ, Barraclough TJP, Castle M, Maddison AL, Jones LE, Shield IF, Gregory AS, Karp A (2015) High yielding biomass genotypes of willow (Salix spp.) show differences in below ground biomass allocation. Biomass Bioenerg 80:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pacaldo R, Volk T, Briggs R (2013) Greenhouse gas potentials of shrub willow biomass crops based on below- and aboveground biomass inventory along a 19-year chronosequence. Bioenerg Res 6(1):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    PRISM Climate Group (2015) Data explorer: time series values for individual locations. Oregon State University. Available at http://prism.oregonstate.edu/explorer/ Accessed 2015 Dec 2
  42. 42.
    Staff SS (2013) Web soil survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soil Survey Staff (2015) Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for New York State. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed 2015 Oct 28Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Serapiglia MJ, Cameron KD, Stipanovic AJ, Abrahamson LP, Volk TA, Smart LB (2013) Yield and woody biomass traits of novel shrub willow hybrids at two contrasting sites. Bioenerg Res 6(2):533–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (2012) Moisture measurement—ANSI/ASABE Standards S358.2. St. Joseph, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    SAS Institute Inc. (2014) SAS system for Windows, Release 9.4. SAS Institute Inc. Clary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schaalje GB, McBride JB, Fellingham GW (2001) Approximations to distributions of test statistics in complex mixed linear models using SAS Proc MIXED. SUGI (SAS User's Group International) 26, 262. Available at www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi26/p262-26.pdf Accessed 2015 Oct 30
  48. 48.
    Meredith MP, Stehman SV (1991) Repeated measures experiments in forestry: focus on analysis of response curves. Can J For Res 21(7):957–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kuehl RO (1994) Statistical principles of research design and analysis. Duxbury Press, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Heavey JP, Volk TA (2015a) EcoWillow 2.0—economic analysis of willow bioenergy crops. Shrub willow fact sheet series. The Research Foundation for the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Heavey JP, Volk TA (2015b) Willow crop production scenarios using EcoWillow 2.0. Shrub willow fact sheet series. The Research Foundation for the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Serapiglia MJ, Gouker FE, Smart LB (2014) Early selection of novel triploid hybrids of shrub willow with improved biomass yield relative to diploids. BMC Plant Biology 14:74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Amichev BY, Hangs RD, Belanger N, Volk TA, Vujanovic V, Schoenau LJ, Van Rees KCJ (2015) First-rotation yields of 30 short-rotation willow cultivars in central Saskatchewan, Canada. Bioenerg Res 8(1):292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smart LB, Volk TA, Lin J, Kopp RF, Phillips IS, Cameron KD, White EH, Abrahamson LP (2005) Genetic improvement of shrub willow (Salix spp.) crops for bioenergy and environmental applications in the United States. Unasylva 56:51–55Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dawkins HC (1983) Multiple comparisons misused: why so frequently in response-curve studies? Biometrics 39(3):789–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Murphy R (2012) Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial willow plantations in Sweden. Sci Total Environ 421–422:210–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Styles D, Thorne F, Jones MB (2008) Energy crops in Ireland: an economic comparison of willow and miscanthus production with conventional farming systems. Biomass Bioenerg 32(5):407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fabio ES, Volk TA, Miller RO, Serapiglia MJ, Gauch, HG, Van Rees KCJ, Hangs RD, Amichev BY, Kuzovkina JA, Labrecque M, Johnson GA, Ewy RG, Kling GJ, Smart LB. In press. Genotype by environment interactions analysis of North American shrub willow yield trials confirms superior performance of triploid hybrids. GCB BioenergGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ericsson K, Rosenqvist H, Ganko E, Pisarek M, Nilsson L (2006) An agro-economic analysis of willow cultivation in Poland. Biomass Bioenerg 30(1):16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Paulrud S, Laitila T (2010) Farmers’ attitudes about growing energy crops: a choice experiment approach. Biomass Bioenerg 34(12):1770–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    National Agricultural Statistics Service (2015) 2014 State Agriculture Overview: New York. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=NEW%20YORK Accessed 2015 Oct 29
  62. 62.
    Liu S, Amidon TE, Francis RC, Ramarao BV, Lai Y, Scott GM (2006) From forest biomass to chemicals and energy: biorefinery initiative in New York State. Ind Biotechnol 2(2):113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stolarski MJ, Rosenqvist H, Krzyżaniak M, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Gołaszewski J, Olba-Zięty E (2015) Economic comparison of growing different willow cultivars. Biomass Bioenerg 81:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    U.S. Department of Energy (2011) U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Perlack RD and Stokes BJ (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations