Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 803–815 | Cite as

Shrub Willow (Salix) Biomass Crop Performance on Five Sites Over Two Rotations in Michigan, USA and the Implications of Adequate Field Testing to Commercial Producers

  • Raymond O. Miller
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Fifteen varieties of willow (Salix) hybrids were observed in a replicated study on five diverse sites in Michigan during the establishment year and over two subsequent 3-year rotations. Sixty-one percent of the total variation in yield observed was due to environmental factors, 11% was due to genetic factors, and the remainder was unexplained. Biomass yield over 6 years ranged from 50.5 oven-dry Mg ha−1 at one site to 22.9 oven-dry Mg ha−1 at another. Warmer and wetter sites tended to produce more biomass than colder drier sites, but correlations between yield and other edaphic and climatic factors were less clear. High-yielding varieties tended to be taller, but survival and number of stems per stool were uncorrelated with yield. A cohort of elite varieties selected based on test-wide performance produced up to 26% more biomass than randomly chosen varieties. Cohorts of elite varieties selected based on performance in local tests did better, producing up to 31% more biomass than randomly chosen varieties. Because of ranking changes, selections made after two rotations outperformed those made after only one rotation by as much as 9%. Adequately tested planting stock has the potential to increase the financial return to a willow energy farmer by nearly $100 ha−1 year−1. This will multiply rapidly as willow is planted on some of the 700 million hectares of retired cropland in the USA. The nominal cost of breeding and field testing willow energy crops can be easily justified as we proceed to the envisioned billion-ton bioeconomy.

Keywords

Hybrid willow Commercial Biomass Yield Variation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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. Thanks also to Daniel Keathley for his review and suggested improvements to the manuscript.

Funding Information

Essential funding to maintain and monitor the willow 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.

References

  1. 1.
    Cadham W, Van Dyk JSD, Linoj Kumar JS, Saddler JN (2016) Challenges and opportunities for the conversion technologies used to make forest bioenergy. In: Mobilisation of forest bioenergy in the boreal and temperate biomes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 102–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perlack RD, Stokes BJ (2011) Billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. ORNL/TM-2011/224. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge 227ppGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Owens, V.N., 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-15-37477Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karp A, Hanley SJ, Trybush SO, Macalpine W, Pei M, Sheid I (2011) Genetic improvement of willow for bioenergy and biofuels. J Integr Plant Biol 53(2):151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amidon TE, Wood CD, Shupe AM, Wang Y, Graves M, Liu S (2008) Biorefinery: conversion of woody biomass to chemicals, energy, and materials. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 2:100–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volk TA, Heavey JP, Eisenbies MH (2016) Advances in shrub-willow crops for bioenergy, renewable products, and environmental benefits. Food Energy Secur 5(2):97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Isebrands JG, Richardson J (eds) (2014) Poplars and willows: trees for society and the environment. CABI, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Boston 634ppGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 Biol 2014(14):74 http://www.biomedicalcentral.com/1471-2229/14/74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabio ES, Volk TA, Miller RO, Serapiglia MJ, Gauch HG, VanRees KCJ, Hangs RD, Amichev BY, Kuzovkina YA, Labrecque M, Johnson GA, Wey RG, Kling GJ, Smart LB (2017) Genotype x environment interaction analysis of North American shrub willow yield trials confirms superior performance of triploid hybrids. GCB Bioenergy 9:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fabio ES, Volk TA, Miller RO, Seraphiglia MJ, Kemanian AR, Montes F, Yulia A, Kuzovkina GJK, Smart LB (2017) Contributions of environment and genotype to variation in shrub willow biomass composition. Ind Crop Prod 108(2017):149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dickmann, D.I. (2007) Growth and physiological parameters of willow clones in Michigan. Final report of research joint venture agreement 02-JV-11231300-058 between Michigan State University and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Central Research Station. 11ppGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang Z, MacFarlane DW (2012) Evaluating the biomass production of coppiced willow and poplar clones in Michigan, USA over multiple rotation and different growing conditions. Biomass Bioenergy 46(9):380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perlack RD, Wright L, Turhollow A, Graham R, Stokes B, Erbach D (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. ORNL/TM-2005/66. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge 66ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langholtz MH, Stokes BJ, Eaton LM, U.S. Department of Energy (2016) 2016 Billion-Ton Report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, volume 1: economic availability of feedstocks. ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. 448p.  https://doi.org/10.2172/1271651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sleight NJ, Volk TA (2016) Recently bred willow (Salix spp.) biomass crops show stable yield trends over three rotations at two sites. Bioenergy Res 9:782–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen R, Pereira L, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome ISBN 92-5-104219-5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pacaldo RS, Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Briggs RD (2010) Above and below-ground biomass and soil organic carbon inventories of willow biomass crops across a 19-year chronosequence. In: Proceedings: 8th biennial short rotation woody crops operations working group—short rotation woody crops in a renewable energy future: challenges and opportunities, 17 October 2010, Syracuse, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sleight NJ, Volk TA, Johnson GA, Eisenbies MH, Shi S, Fabio ES, Pooler PS (2016) Change in yield between first and second rotations in willow (Salix spp.) biomass crops is strongly related to the level of first rotation yield. Bioenergy Res 9:270–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Volk TA, Berguson B, Daly C, Halbleib M, Miller R, Rials T, Abrahamson L, Buchman D, Buford M, Conningham M, Eisenbies M, Fabio E, Hallen K, Heavey J, Johnson G, Kuzovkina Y, Liu B, McMahon B, Rousseau R, Shi S, Shuren R, Smart L, Stanosz G, Stanton B, Stokes B, Wright J (2018) Poplar and shrub willow energy crops in the United States: field trial results from the multiyear regional feedstock partnership and yield protential maps based on the PRISM-ELM model. GCB Bioenergy.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milbrandt AR, Heimiller DM, Perry AD, Field CB (2014) Renewable energy potential on marginal lands in the United States. Renew Sust Energ Rev 29(2014):473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State University, Forest Biomass Innovation CenterEscanabaUSA

Personalised recommendations