BioEnergy Research

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 816–825 | Cite as

Growth Variation Among Hybrid Poplar Varieties in Michigan, USA and the Implications for Commercial Biomass Production.

  • Raymond O. MillerEmail author


Variability in biomass yield among 13 varieties of Populus hybrids was examined during a 7-year rotation in a network of 4 field trials in Michigan, USA. Seventh-year yield varied by site, averaging from 15.1 Mg ha−1 in the north to 35.2 Mg ha−1 in the south. Yield varied among varieties, ranging from 3.0 Mg ha−1 for DN70 in the north to 52.9 Mg ha−1 for NM2 in the south. Yield was most strongly correlated with growing season temperatures and rainfall but less with edaphic factors throughout the network. Twenty-eight percent of the total variation in individual tree weight was due to location effects and another 28% was due to genetic factors, including strong genotype by environment interactions. Even though each 64-tree plot comprised genetically identical clones, the remaining 44% of total observed variation among trees occurred within these plots. Five varieties that performed well throughout the network were identified as an elite cohort for general commercial use throughout the region. This cohort yielded as much as 50% more biomass than random selections. Certain varieties did well at one location while not at others because of strong genotype by environment interactions. Locally chosen elite cohorts produced as much as 5% more biomass than the regional elite cohort. Varietal ranking did change over time but it was possible to reliably identify the regional cohort after 3 years and local cohorts after 4 years. Local, long-term testing of Populus hybrids will be necessary to optimize commercial biomass yields and thereby maximize financial returns to growers.


Hybrid poplar Commercial Biomass Yield Variation 



Essential funding to maintain and monitor the poplar network in Michigan 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. Additional funding was provided by Michigan State University AgBioResearch. The technical assistance of Bradford Bender, Kile Zuidema, Paul Irving, and other university staff and students during the 10 years of this project is gratefully acknowledged. Without their dedication and diligence, the data summarized here would have never been gathered and compiled.


  1. 1.
    J.G. Isebrands, and J. Richardson (editors) (2014) Poplars and Willows: Trees For Society and the Environment. Jointly published by CABI (Boston, MA, USA) and FAO (Rome, Italy). 2014.634p
  2. 2.
    E. Hansen, L. Moore, D. Netzer, M. Ostry, H. Phipps, and J. Zavitkovski (1983) Establishing intensively cultured hybrid poplar plantations for fuel and fiber. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-78. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1983, 24pGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.A. Hansen, M.E. Ostry, W.D. Johnson, D.N. Tolsted, D.A. Netzer, W.E. Berguson, and R.B. Hall (1994) Field performance of populus in short-rotation intensive culture plantations in the North-Central U.S. Research Paper NC-320. St. Paul, MN. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1994, 13pGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Netzer, D. Tolsted, M. Ostry, J. Isebrands, D. Riemenschneider, and K. Ward (2002) Growth, yield, and disease resistance of 7- to 12-year-old poplar clones in the North Central United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-229. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 2002, 31pGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.O. Miller (2016) Developing an algorithm to predict single-tree biomass weight from stem diameter measurements in young hybrid poplar energy plantations in Michigan. Forest Biomass Innovation Center Research Report 2016(a). 2016.3p. Accessed 1 May, 2018
  6. 6.
    R. Allen, L. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome, 1998. ISBN 92-5-104219-5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T.A. Volk, B. Berguson, C. Daly, M. Halbleib, R. Miller, T. Rials, L. Abrahamson, D. Buchman, M. Buford, M. Conningham, M. Eisenbies, E. Fabio, K. Hallen, J. Heavey, G. Johnson, Y. Kuzovkina, B. Liu, B. McMahon, R. Rousseau, S. Shi, R. Shuren, L. Smart, G. Stanosz, B. Stanton, B. Stokes, and J. Wright (2018) Poplar and shrub willow energy crops in the United States: field trial results from the multiyear regional feedstock partnership and yield potential maps based on the PRISM-ELM model. GCB Bioenergy Digital Object Identifier (DOI) - In Press. 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen KJ, Clark CD, Ellis P, English B, Menard J, Walsh M, de la Torre Ugarte D (2007) Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 31(2007):773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.I. Dickmann, J.G. Isebrands, J.E. Eckenwalder, and J. Richardson (editors) (2001) Poplar Culture in North America. National Research Council of Canada (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) 2001, 397pGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V.N. Owens, D. L. Karlen, and J. A. Lacey et. al. (2016) Regional feedstock partnership report: enabling the billion-ton vision. U.S. Department of Energy and Idaho National Laboratory. INL/EXT-15-37477.2016.82pGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.O. Miller and P. Bloese (2002) Imazaquin and pendimethalin use for weed control in hybrid poplar plantations in Michigan: Second-year results. Forest Biomass Innovation Center Research Report 2002(a). 2002.9p. Accessed 1 May, 2018
  12. 12.
    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 Bioenergy 46(2012):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    U.S. Department of Energy (2016) 2016 Billion-ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks. M. H. Langholtz, B. J. Stokes, and L. M. Eaton (Leads), ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 448p. DOI:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Biomass Innovation CenterMichigan State UniversityEscanabaUSA

Personalised recommendations