BioEnergy Research

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 158–166 | Cite as

First-Rotation Performance of Five Short-Rotation Willow Cultivars on Different Soil Types and Along a Large Climate Gradient

  • Benoit Lafleur
  • Olivier Lalonde
  • Michel Labrecque


The establishment of short-rotation willow coppice plantations for bioenergy production is proposed as a land management practice to reduce the use of fossil fuels. However, there is little information on the performance of different willow (Salix spp.) cultivars on various types of soils and over climate gradients. This study aimed to determine which set of soil, climatic conditions, and cultivars are conducive to greater growth in eastern Canada. The performance of five willow cultivars was followed over three growing seasons on eight sites representing a large hydroclimatic gradient. Both geographic location and cultivar had a significant effect on annual yields. Annual yields were on average greater in the southern part of the climatic gradient. Across all cultivars, annual yields were positively correlated to average annual temperature (r = 0.23), total annual precipitation (r = 0.77), average growing season temperature (r = 0.21), average growing season precipitation (r = 0.47), and degree days (r = 0.18), as well as soil pH (r = 0.37) and soil extractible P (r = 0.38), and negatively correlated to soil clay content (r = 0.33). Cultivars of the SX group (i.e., Salix miyabeana SX61, SX64, and SX67) showed greater yield than did cultivars of the SV group (i.e., Salix × dasyclados SV1 and Salix viminalis SV5027). These results indicate that at the landscape level, climate variables, especially climate-related variables, largely explain the yield of the selected willow cultivars. Nonetheless, soil pH, extractable P, and clay content likely play an important role in plantation yield.


Biomass Climate Plantation yield Salix spp. Soil chemistry Soil texture 



We thank Francis Allard, Alice Chagnon, Marc-Olivier Gasser, Louis Roy, Guillaume Salvas, Marie-Hélène Perron, Isabelle Lemay, Robert Langlois, and François Tremblay for technical assistance in the field. This study was funded by the RPBQ (Québec Bio-industrial Crop Network) of the Québec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.


  1. 1.
    Graham RL, Wright LL, Turhollow AF (1992) The potential for short-rotation woody crops to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions. Clim Chang 22:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonin C, Lal R (2012) Bioethanol potentials and lifecycle assessments of biofuel feedstocks. Crit Rev Plant Sci 31:271–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amichev BY, Kurz WA, Smyth C, Van Rees KCJ (2012) The carbon implications of large-scale afforestation of agriculturally marginal land with short-rotation willow in Saskatchewan. GCB Bioenergy 4:70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guidi W, Pitre FE, Labrecque M (2013) Short-rotation coppice of willows for the production of biomass in eastern Canada. In: Matovic MD (ed) Biomass now—sustainable growth and use. InTech, Rijeka, pp. 421–448Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI (2003) Biomass yield and nutrient uptake of Salix clones after two 3-year coppice rotations on southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 25:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ens JA, Farrell RE, Belanger N (2009) Rapid biomass estimation using optical stem density of willow (Salix spp.) grown in short rotation. Biomass Bioenergy 33:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Romanyà J, Vallejo VR (2004) Productivity of Pinus radiata plantations in Spain in response to climate and soil. For Ecol Manag 195:177–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ens J, Farrell RE, Bélanger N (2013) Effects of edaphic conditions on site quality for Salix purpurea “hotel” plantations across a large climatic gradient in Canada. New For 44:899–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maynard DG, Paré D, Thiffault E, Lafleur B, Hogg KE, Kishchuk B (2014) How do natual ristrubances and human activities affect soil and tree nutrition and growth in the Canadian boreal forest? Environ Rev 22:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ung CH, Bernier PY, Raulier F, Fournier RA, Lambert M-C, Régnière J (2001) Biophysical site indices for shade tolerant and intolerant boreal species. For Sci 47:83–95Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hogg EH, Brandt JP, Kochtubajda B (2005) Factors affecting interannual variation in growth of western Canadian aspen forests during 1951-2000. Can J For Res 35:610–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinno BD, Paré D, Guindon L, Bélanger N (2009) Predicting productivity of trembling aspen in the Boreal Shield ecozone of Quebec using different sources of soil and site information. For Ecol Manag 257:782–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinno BD, Bélanger N (2011) Estimating trembling aspen productivity in the boreal transition ecoregion of Saskatchewan using site and soil variables. Can J Soil Sci 91:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simon M, Zsuffa L, Burgess D (1990) Variation in N, P, and K status and N efficiency in some North American willows. Can J For Res 20:1888–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell CP, Stevens EA, Watters MP (1999) Short-rotation forestry: operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. For Ecol Manag 121:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cornelissen JHC, Werger MJA, Castro-Diez P, van Rheenen JWA, Rowland AP (1997) Foliar nutrients in relation to growth, allocation and leaf traits in seedlings of a wide range of woody plant species and types. Oecologia 111:460–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alriksson A, Eriksson HM (1998) Variations in mineral nutrient and C distribution in the soil and vegetation compartments of five temperate tree species in NE Sweden. For Ecol Manag 108:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Post BW, Curtis RO (1970) Estimation of northern hardwood site index from soils and topography in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Vermont Agric Exp Sta Bull 664:1–17Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen HYH, Klinka K, Kabzems RD (1998) Site index, site quality, and foliar nutrients of trembling aspen: relationships and predictions. Can J For Res 28:1743–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Environment Canada (2015) Climate normals 1981–2010. Data available at Accessed 15 Jan 2015
  21. 21.
    Soil Classification Working Group (1998) The Canadian system of soil classification, 3rd edn. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1646, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    SAS (2004) SAS/STAT 9.1 user’s guide. SAS Publishing, CaryGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guidi Nissim W, Pitre FE, Teodorescu TI, Labrecque M (2013) Long-term biomass productivity of willow bioenergy plantations maintained in southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 56:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kopp RF, Smart LB, Maynard CA, Isebrands JG, Tuskan GA, Abrahamson LP (2001) The development of improved willow clones for eastern North America. For Chron 77:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI (2005) Field performance and biomass production of 12 willow and poplars in short-rotation coppice in southern Quebec (Canada). Biomass Bioenergy 29:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kendall DA, Wiltshire CW, Butcher M (1996) Phenology and population dynamics of willow beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in short-rotation coppiced willows at Long Ashton. Final report to Energy Technology Support Unit for Department of Trade and Industry. Biofuels Study B/M4/00487/14/00. IACR-Long Ashton Research Station, Long AshtonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Björkman C, Höglund S, Eklund K, Larsson S (2006) Effects of leaf beetle damage on stem wood production in coppicing willow. Agric For Entomol 2:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bell AC, Clawson S, Watson S (2006) The long-term effect of partial defoliation on the yield of short-rotation coppice willow. Ann Appl Biol 148:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Allman BP (2014) Effects of defoliation on sandbar willow (Salix interior) chemistry, production, and subsequent overwinter browsing by mammalian herbivores. MS Thesis, University of AlaskaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kendall DA, Wiltshire CW (1998) Life-cycles and ecology of willow beetles on Salix viminalis in England. Eur J For Pathol 28:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nawaz MF, Bourrié G, Trolard F (2013) Soil compaction impact and modelling. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abrahamson LP, Volk TA, Kopp RF, White EH, Ballard JL (2002) Willow biomass producer’s handbook (revised). SUNY-ESF, SyracuseGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schaff SD, Pezeshki SR, Shields FD (2003) Effects of soil conditions on survival and growth of black willow cuttings. Environ Manag 31:748–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Amichev BY, Hangs RD, Bélanger N, Volk TA, Vujanovic V, Schoenau JJ, Van Rees KCJ (2015) First-rotation yields of 30 short-rotation willow cultivars in Central Saskatchewan, Canada. Bioenerg Res 8:292–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoit Lafleur
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olivier Lalonde
    • 3
  • Michel Labrecque
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Biologie VégétaleUniversité de MontréalQCCanada
  2. 2.Institut de Recherche sur les Forêts and Chaire Industrielle CRSNG-UQAT-UQAM en Aménagement Forestier DurableUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueRouyn-NorandaCanada
  3. 3.Centre de Recherche sur les Grains (CÉROM) Inc.Saint-Mathieu-de-BeloeilCanada

Personalised recommendations