, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 1061–1072 | Cite as

Differential growth response to fertilization of ten elite shrub willow (Salix spp.) bioenergy cultivars

  • Eric S. Fabio
  • Lawrence B. SmartEmail author
Original Article


Key Message

Shrub willow triploid hybrid cultivars obtained the greatest aboveground biomass compared to diploid and tetraploid cultivars, and greater biomass was highly correlated with leaf traits and rapid early stem elongation.


Shrub willow (Salix L. spp.) is a strong candidate for use as a dedicated bioenergy crop in moist, temperate climates due to high growth rates, excellent regenerative properties and relatively low nutrient demand. Large discrepancies exist in the literature as to the benefits of fertilization for improving biomass production. Controlled environment fertilization studies can remove some confounding edaphic and climatic factors present in field studies. Ten top-performing commercial or pre-commercial cultivars, mostly bred in the US, were assessed for response to five fertilization levels by measuring 20 biomass and growth traits. Triploid hybrid Salix viminalis × S. miyabeana cultivars had the greatest total aboveground biomass, as well as high stem biomass. There was a strong relationship between early stem growth and final aboveground biomass, but only under adequate fertilization. Different strategies for high biomass production among cultivars are discussed in the context of nitrogen investment in leaves. Comparing field trial results and this greenhouse experiment indicates that while the yield ranking is generally preserved, the greenhouse results diverged greatly for two cultivars.


Interspecific hybrid Nitrogen use efficiency Salix miyabeana Salix purpurea Salix viminalis 



We are grateful to Brian DeGasperis, Lindsey Mattick, McKenzie Schessl and Nick Durnin for their assistance with data collection and sample processing. We thank Armen Kemanian for careful review of an earlier version of this manuscript. Funding for this project was provided by the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Capacity Funds grant. Eric Fabio’s efforts were funded by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2012-68005-19703 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Author contributions

ESF and LBS conceived and designed the experiment. ESF carried out the experiment, analyzed the data and prepared the manuscript. LBS reviewed and commented on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

LBS is an inventor on patented cultivars described here, and LBS and ESF are inventors on new technology disclosures for cultivars described here.

Supplementary material

468_2018_1695_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 53 KB)
468_2018_1695_MOESM2_ESM.tif (30.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIF 30877 KB)
468_2018_1695_MOESM3_ESM.tif (26.5 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIF 27107 KB)


  1. Andralojc PJ, Bencze S, Madgwick PJ, Philippe H, Powers SJ, Shield I, Karp A, Parry MAJ (2014) Photosynthesis and growth in diverse willow genotypes. Food Energy Secur 3:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronsson P, Rosenqvist H, Dimitriou I (2014) Impact of nitrogen fertilization to short-rotation willow coppice plantations grown in Sweden on yield and economy. Bioenerg Res 7:993–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonneville MC, Fyles JW (2006) Assessing variations in SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter measurements and their relationships with nutrient content of trembling aspen foliage. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 37:525–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouman OT, Sylliboy J (2012) Biomass allocation and photosynthetic capacity of willow (Salix spp.) bio-energy varieties. Forstarchiv 83:139–143Google Scholar
  5. Brereton NJB, Pitre FE, Shield I, Hanley SJ, Ray MJ, Murphy RJ, Karp A (2014) Insights into nitrogen allocation and recycling from nitrogen elemental analysis and 15N isotope labelling in 14 genotypes of willow. Tree Physiol 34:1252–1262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fabio ES, Kemanian AR, Montes F, Miller RO, Smart LB (2017a) A mixed model approach for evaluating yield improvements in interspecific hybrids of shrub willow, a dedicated bioenergy crop. Ind Crops Prod 96:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fabio ES, Volk TA, Miller RO, Serapiglia MJ, Gauch HG, Van Rees KCJ, Hangs RD, Amichev BY, Kuzovkina YA, Labrecque M, Johnson GA, Ewy RG, Kling GJ, Smart LB (2017b) Genotype × environment interaction analysis of North American shrub willow yield trials confirms superior performance of triploid hybrids. GCB Bioenergy 9:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hangs RD, Schoenau JJ, Van Rees KCJ, Steppuhn H (2011) Examining the salt tolerance of willow (Salix spp.) bioenergy species for use on salt-affected agricultural lands. Can J Plant Sci 91:509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hangs RD, Schoenau JJ, Van Rees KCJ, Knight JD (2012) The effect of irrigation on nitrogen uptake and use efficiency of two willow (Salix spp.) biomass energy varieties. Can J Plant Sci 92:563–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Karp A, Shield I (2008) Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. New Phytol 179:15–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Karp A, Hanley SJ, Trybush SO, Macalpine W, Pei M, Shield I (2011) Genetic improvement of willow for bioenergy and biofuels. J Integr Plant Biol 53:151–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuzovkina YA, Quigley MF (2005) Willows beyond wetlands: Uses of Salix L. species for environmental projects. Water Air Soil Pollut 162:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuzovkina YA, Weih M, Romero MA, Charles J, Hust S, McIvor I, Karp A, Trybush S, Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI, Singh NB, Smart LB, Volk TA (2008) Salix: botany and global horticulture. In: Janick J (ed) Horticultural reviews. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 447–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lemaire G, Gastal F (2009) Quantifying crop responses to nitrogen deficiency and avenues to improve nitrogen use efficiency. In: Sadras VO, Calderni DF (eds) Crop physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 171–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Littell RC, Pendergast J, Natarajan R (2000) Modelling covariance structure in the analysis of repeated measures data. Stat Med 19:1793–1819CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Littell RC, Stroup WW, Milliken GA, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, Second Edit. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  17. Loh FCW, Grabosky JC, Bassuk NL (2002) Using the SPAD 502 meter to assess chlorophyll and nitrogen content of benjamin fig and cottonwood leaves. Horttechnology 12:682–686Google Scholar
  18. Mamashita T, Larocque GR, DesRochers A, Beaulieu J, Thomas BR, Mosseler A, Major J, Sidders D (2015) Short-term growth and morphological responses to nitrogen availability and plant density in hybrid poplars and willows. Biomass Bioenerg 81:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meredith MP, Stehman SV (1991) Repeated measures experiments in forestry: focus on analysis of response curves. Can J For Res 21:957–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paine CET, Marthews TR, Vogt DR, Purves D, Rees M, Hector A, Turnbull LA (2012) How to fit nonlinear plant growth models and calculate growth rates: an update for ecologists. Methods Ecol Evol 3:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rönnberg-Wästljung AC, Gullberg U (1999) Genetics of breeding characters with possible effects on biomass production in Salix viminalis (L.). Theor Appl Genet 98:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute Inc (2013) SAS Institute, Inc: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 14:74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Stoof CR, Richards BK, Woodbury PB, Fabio ES, Brumbach AR, Cherney J, Das S, Geohring L, Hansen J, Hornesky J, Mayton H, Mason C, Ruestow G, Smart LB, Volk TA, Steenhuis TS (2015) Untapped potential: opportunities and challenges for sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the Northeast USA. Bioenerg Res 8:482–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor G, Allwright MR, Smith HK, Polle A, Wildhagen H, Hertzberg M, Bhalerao R, Keurentjes JJB, Scalabrin S, Scaglione D, Morgante M (2016) Bioenergy trees: genetic and genomic strategies to improve yield. In: Barth S, Murphy-Bokern D, Kalinina O, Taylor G, Jones M (eds) Perennial biomass crops for a resource-constrained world. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 35:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Department of Energy (2016) 2016 billion-ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, volume 1: economic availability of feedstocks. MH Langholtz, Stokes BJ, Eaton LM (Leads), ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. p 448Google Scholar
  28. Weih M (2001) Evidence for increased sensitivity to nutrient and water stress in a fast-growing hybrid willow compared with a natural willow clone. Tree Physiol 21:1141–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Weih M (2009) Genetic and environmental variation in spring and autumn phenology of biomass willows (Salix spp.): effects on shoot growth and nitrogen economy. Tree Physiol 29:1479–1490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Weih M, Nordh NE (2005) Determinants of biomass production in hybrid willows and prediction of field performance from pot studies. Tree Physiol 25:1197–1206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Weih M, Ronnberg-Wastljung AC (2007) Shoot biomass growth is related to the vertical leaf nitrogen gradient in Salix canopies. Tree Physiol 27:1551–1559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant ScienceCornell UniversityGenevaUSA
  2. 2.New York State Agricultural Experiment StationGenevaUSA

Personalised recommendations