Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 519–534 | Cite as

Early stand production of hybrid poplar and white spruce in mixed and monospecific plantations in eastern Maine

  • A. S. NelsonEmail author
  • M. R. Saunders
  • R. G. Wagner
  • A. R. Weiskittel
Article

Abstract

Forest plantations in the northeastern United States comprise a small proportion of the total forest area. Most plantations are typically softwood dominated and managed for sawlog and pulpwood production, while high-yield hardwood plantations for bioenergy feedstocks have not been as widely investigated. The objective of this study was to compare the biomass production of planted white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and hybrid poplar (Populus spp.) plantations (four clones) in monoculture, and in mixture of the two on a typical reforestation site in Maine. Three years following planting, hybrid poplar height and ground line diameter growth rates began to diverge among clones, and by 6 years, the Populus nigra × Populus maximowiczii (NM6) clone clearly outperformed three Populus deltoides × Populus nigra clones (D51, DN10 and DN70) both in pure stands and in mixtures with white spruce. In mixture, we found the yield of white spruce to decline as the yield of hybrid poplar increased. Overall, yields of white spruce monocultures were comparable to those reported in eastern Canada, while the hybrid poplar biomass yields were substantially lower than those reported from studies on abandoned agricultural lands, likely due to the harsher soil conditions at our site. The dominance of rocky and poorly drained sites (like the one tested in this study) across Maine will likely limit the feasibility of widespread hybrid poplar plantations, and thus constrains their potential use as a bioenergy feedstock.

Keywords

Mixed-species plantations Biomass production Short-rotation hardwoods Bioenergy feedstock Harsh-site regeneration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Northeastern States Research Cooperative—Theme 3, the Cooperative Forestry Research Unit, and the Henry W. Saunders’ Chair at the University of Maine. The initial design and implementation of the experiment was funded by the Agenda 2020 Program of the US Forest Service. We would like to thank Keith Kanoti, Rick Dionne, John Brissette, Matthew Olson, and the numerous other people involved with the experiment over the years. In addition, we thank the Associate Editor and two reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Balatinecz JJ, Kretschmann DE, Leclercq A (2001) Achievements in the utilization of poplar wood—guideposts for the future. For Chron 73(1):39–46Google Scholar
  2. Bell FW, Ride KR, St-Amour M, Ryands M (1997) Productivity, cost, efficacy and cost effectiveness of motor-manual, mechanical, and herbicide release of boreal spruce plantations. For Chron 73(1):39–46Google Scholar
  3. Bergqvist G (1999) Wood volume yield and stand structure in Norway spruce understorey depending on birch shelterwood density. For Ecol Manag 122(3):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binkley D, Stape JL, Ryan MG (2004) Thinking about efficiency of resource use in forests. For Ecol Manag 193(1–2):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs RD (1994) Site classification fields guide. Maine agricultural and forest field experiment station Misc. Pub. 724. 17 p, OronoGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess D, Adams G, Needham T, Robinson C, Gagnon R (2010) Early development of planted spruce and pine after scarification, fertilization and herbicide treatments in New Brunswick. For Chron 86(4):444–454Google Scholar
  7. Cole E, Youngblood A, Newton M (2003) Effects of competing vegetation on juvenile white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) growth in Alaska. Ann For Sci 60(7):573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comeau PG, Kabzems R, McClarnon J, Heineman J (2005) Implications of selected approaches for regenerating and managing western boreal mixedwoods. For Chron 81(4):559–574Google Scholar
  9. Coyle DR, Coleman MD, Durant JA, Newman LA (2006) Survival and growth of 31 Populus clones in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 30(8–9):750–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czapowskyj MM, Safford LO (1993) Site preparation, fertilization, and 10-year yields of hybrid poplar on a clearcut forest site in eastern Maine, USA. New For 7(4):331–344Google Scholar
  11. Devine WD, Harrington CA, DeBell DS (2010) Intra-annual growth and mortality of four Populus clones in pure and mixed plantings. New For 39:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickmann DI, Stuart KW (1983) The culture of poplars in Eastern North America. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldberg DE (1990) Components of Resource Competition in Plant Communities. In: Grace JB, Tilman D (eds) Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, pp 27–50Google Scholar
  14. Hennigar CR, MacLean DA (2010) Spruce budworm and management effects on forest and wood product carbon for an intensively managed forest. Can J For Res 40(9):1736–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karacic A, Verwijst T, Weih M (2003) Above-ground woody biomass production of short-rotation Populus plantations on agricultural land in Sweden. Scand J For Res 18:427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelty MJ (2006) The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For Ecol Manag 233(2–3):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI (2005) Field performance and biomass production of 12 willow and poplar clones in short-rotation coppice in southern Quebec (Canada). Biomass Bioenergy 29(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lachance D, Hamel LP, Pelletier F, Valéro J, Bernier-Cardou M, Chapman K, Van Frankenhuyzen K, Séguin A (2007) Expression of a Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ab gene in transgenic white spruce and its efficacy against the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana). Tree Genet Genomes 3(2):153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laureysens I, Bogaert J, Blust R, Ceulemans R (2004) Biomass production of 17 poplar clones in a short-rotation coppice culture on a waste disposal site and its relation to soil characteristics. For Ecol Manag 187(2–3):295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lieffers VJ, Stadt KJ (1994) Growth of understorey Picea glauca, Calamagrostis canadensis, and Epilobium angustifolium in relation to overstorey light transmission. Can J For Res 24(6):1193–1198. doi: 10.1139/x94-157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lo MH, Abrahamson LP (1996) Principal component analysis to evaluate the relative performance of nine year old hybrid poplar clones. Biomass Bioenergy 10(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McWilliams WH, Butler BJ, Caldwell LE, Griffith DM, Hoppus ML, Laustsen KM, Lister AJ, Lister TW, Metzler JW, Morin RS, Sader SA, Stewart LB, Steinman JR, Westfall JA, Williams DA, Whitman A, Woodall CW (2005) The forests of Maine: 2003. Resour Bull NE-164. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  23. Meng X, Seymour RS (1992) Influence of soil drainage on early development and biomass production of young, herbicide-released fir-spruce stands in north central Maine. Can J For Res 22:955–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller JD, Mackenzie S, Foto M, Adams GW, Findlay JA (2002) Needles of white spruce inoculated with rugulosin-producing endophytes contain rugulosin reducing spruce budworm growth rate. Mycol Res 106(4):471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller JD, Sumarah MW, Adams GW (2008) Effect of a rugulosin-producing endophyte in Picea glauca on Choristoneura fumiferana. J Chem Ecol 34(3):362–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neter J, Wasserman W (1974) Applied linear statistical models: regression, analysis of variance and, experimental design. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  27. Nienstaedt H, Zasada JC (1990) White spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). In: Burns RM, Honkala BH (eds) Silvics of Northe America, vol 2. USDA Handbook 654Google Scholar
  28. Paquette A, Messier C, Rinet P, Cogliastro A (2008) Simulating light availability under different hybrid poplar clones in a mixed intensive plantation system. For Sci 54(5):481–489Google Scholar
  29. Pelletier G, Pitt DG (2008) Silvicultural responses of two spruce plantations to midrotation commercial thinning in New Brunswick. Can J For Res 38(4):851–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Team RDC (2011) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–100Google Scholar
  31. Pinno BD, Thomas BR, Bélanger N (2010) Predicting the productivity of a young hybrid poplar clone under intensive plantation management in northern Alberta, Canada using soil and site characteristics. New For 39:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pitt DG, Bell FW (2005) Effects of stand tending on the estimation of aboveground biomass of planted juvenile white spruce. Can J For Res 34(3):649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pitt DG, Comeau PG, Parker WC, MacIsaac D, McPherson S, Hoepting MK, Stinson A, Mihajlovich M (2010) Early vegetation control for the regeneration of a single-cohort, intimate mixture of white spruce and trembling aspen on upland boreal sites. Can J For Res 40(3):549–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  36. Richards AE, Schmidt S (2010) Complementary resource use by two species in a rain forest tree plantation. Ecol Appl 20(5):1237–1254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS (2009) SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide, 2nd edn. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  38. Sendak PE, Brissette JC, Frank RM (2003) Silviculture affects composition, growth, and yield in mixed northern conifers: 40-year results from the Penobscot experimental forest. Can J For Res 33(11):2116–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seymour RS, Hunter MLJ (1999) Principles of ecological forestry. In: Hunter MLJ (ed) Managing biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 22–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simard SW, Hannam KD (2000) Effects of thinning overstory paper birch on survival and growth of interior spruce in British Columbia: implications for reforestation policy and biodiversity. For Ecol Manag 129(1–3):237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanton B, Eaton J, Johnson J, Rice D, Schuette B, Moser B (2002) Hybrid poplar in the Pacific Northwest: the effects of market-driven management. J For 100(4):28–33Google Scholar
  42. Sumarah MW, Miller JD, Adams GW (2005) Measurement of a rugulosin-producing endophyte in white spruce seedlings. Mycologia 97(4):770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuskan GA, Rensema TR (1992) Clonal differences in biomass characteristics, coppice ability, and biomass prediction equations among four Populus clones grown in eastern North Dakota. Can J For Res 22:348–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vanclay JK (2006) Experiment designs to evaluate inter-and intra-specific interactions in mixed plantings of forest trees. For Ecol Manag 233(2–3):366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner RG, Seymour RS, Bowling EH (2003) Assessing silviculture research priorities for maine using a wood supply analysis. Maine Agriculutral and Forest Experiment Station. University of Maine, OronoGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5(11):360–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson KB, Baldocchi DD, Hanson PJ (2000) Spatial and seasonal variability of photosynthetic parameters and theior relationship to leaf nitrogen in a deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 20:565–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yuan JS, Tiller KH, Al-Ahmad H, Stewart NR, Stewart CN Jr (2008) Plants to power: bioenergy to fuel the future. Trends Plant Sci 13(8):421–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Nelson
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. R. Saunders
    • 2
  • R. G. Wagner
    • 1
  • A. R. Weiskittel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations