Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Greenhouse Gas Potentials of Shrub Willow Biomass Crops Based on Below- and Aboveground Biomass Inventory Along a 19-Year Chronosequence

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shrub willow biomass crops (SWBC) have been developed as a biomass feedstock for bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts in the northeastern and midwestern USA as well as in Europe. A previous life cycle analysis in North America showed that the SWBC production system is a low-carbon fuel source. However, this analysis is potentially inaccurate due to the limited belowground biomass data and the lack of aboveground stool biomass data. This study provides new information on the above- and belowground biomass, the carbon–nitrogen (C/N) ratio, and the root/shoot (R/S) ratio of willow biomass crops (Salix × dasyclados [SV1]), which have been in production from 5 to 19 years. The measured amounts of biomass were: 2.6 to 4.1 odt ha−1 for foliage, 4.9 to 10.9 odt ha−1 for aboveground stool (AGS), 2.9 to 5.7 odt ha−1 for coarse roots (CR), 3.1 to 10.2 odt ha−1 for belowground stool (BGS), and 5.6 to 9.9 odt ha−1 for standing fine root (FR). The stem biomass production ranged from 7.0 to 18.0 odt ha−1 year−1 for the 5- and 19-year-old willows, respectively. C/N ratios ranged from 23 for foliage to 209 for belowground stool. An average R/S ratio of 2.0, calculated as total belowground biomass (BGS, CR, and FR) plus AGS divided by annual stem biomass, can be applied to estimate the total belowground biomass production of a mature SWBC. Based on AGS, BGS, and CR and standing FR biomass data, SWBC showed a net GHG potential of −42.9 Mg CO2 eq ha−1 at the end of seven 3-year rotations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2003) Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenergy 25:147–165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental, and economic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:385–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuzovkina YA, Volk TA (2009) The characterization of willow (Salix L.) varieties for use in ecological engineering applications: coordination of structure, function and autecology. Ecol Eng 35:1178–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rowe RL, Street NR, Taylor G (2009) Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew Sust Rev 13:271–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Block RMA, Van Rees KCJ, Knight JD (2006) A review on fine root dynamics in Populus plantations. Agrofor Syst 67:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Trumbore S, Da Costa ES, Nepstad DC, De Camargo PB, Martinelli LA, Ray D (2006) Dynamics of fine roots carbon in Amazonian tropical ecosystems and the contribution of roots to soil respiration. Glob Chang Biol 12:217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Adair EC, Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Knops JMH (2009) Interactive effects of time, CO2, N, and diversity on total belowground carbon allocation and ecosystem carbon storage in a grassland community. Ecosystems 12:1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Matthews RW (2001) Modeling of energy and carbon budgets of wood fuel coppice systems. Biomass Bioenergy 22:159–167

    Google Scholar 

  9. Volk TA (2002) Alternative methods of site preparations and coppice management during the establishment of short-rotation woody crops. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York—Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse

  10. Grier CC, Vogt KA, Keyes MR, Edmonds RL (1981) Biomass distribution and above- and belowground yield in young and mature Abies amabilis zone ecosystem of the Washington Cascades. Can J For Res 11:155–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reyes MR, Grier CC (1981) Above and below-ground net yield in 40-year-old Douglas-fir stands on low and high productivity sites. Can J For Res 11:599–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yin X, Perry JA, Dixon RK (1989) Fine-root dynamics and biomass distribution in a Quercus ecosystem following harvesting. For Ecol Manag 27(3–4):159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Raich JW, Nadelhoffer KJ (1989) Belowground carbon allocation in forest ecosystems: global trends. Ecology 70:1346–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Canadell J, Roda F (1991) Root biomass of Quercus ilex in montane Mediterranean forest. Can J For Res 21:1771–1778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. King JS, Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Buford M, Strain BR, Dougherty P (2002) Below-ground carbon input to soil is controlled by nutrient availability and fine root dynamics in loblolly pine. New Phytol 154:389–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kopp RF, White EH, Abrahamson LP, Nowak CA, Burns KF (1993) Willow biomass trials in central New York State. Biomass Bioenergy 5:179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kopp RF, Abrahamson LP, White EH, Burns KF, Nowak CA (1997) Cutting cycle and spacing effects on biomass production by a willow clone in New York. Biomass Bioenergy 12:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Adegbidi HG, Volk TA, White EH, Abrahamson LP, Briggs RD, Beckelhaupt DH (2001) Biomass and nutrient removal by willow clones in experimental bioenergy plantations in New York State. Biomass Bioenergy 20:399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 35:421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tharakan PJ, Volk TA, Nowak CA, Ofezu G (2008) Canopy structure, light interception, and light-use efficiency in willow. Bioenergy Res 1:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, et al (2011) Yields of willow biomass across a range of sites in North America. In: Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G, Turley D, Voigt T (eds) Biomass and bioenergy crops IV: aspects of applied biology, 112. Association of Applied Biologist. pp 67–74

  22. Hutton FZ, Rice CE (1977) Soil survey of Onondaga county, New York. USDA Conservation Service. In cooperation with Cornell University Agri. Exp. Stn., Ithaca, pp 233

  23. Bickelhaupt DH, White EH, Schirmer C (2012) Laboratory manual for soil and plant tissue analysis. School of Forestry, State University of New York—College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York 13210. pp 43–59

  24. Rytter RM (1999) Fine-root production and turnover in a willow plantation estimated by different calculation methods. Scand J For Res 14:526–537

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rytter RM (2001) Biomass production and allocation, including fine-root turnover, and annual N uptake in lysimeter-grown basket willows. For Ecol Manag 140:177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ulzen-Appiah F (2002) Soil organic matter in experimental short-rotation intensive culture (SRIC) systems: effects of cultural factors, season, and age. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York—Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse

  27. Quaye AK, Volk TA (2011) Soil nutrient dynamics and biomass production in an organic and inorganic fertilized short rotation willow coppice system. In: Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G, Turley D, Voigt T (eds) Biomass and bioenergy crops IV: aspects of applied biology, 112. "Association of Applied Biologist". pp 121–129

  28. Quaye AK, Volk TA, Leopold DJ, Schirmer C (2011) Impacts of paper sludge and manure on soil and biomass production of willow. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2796–2806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pacaldo RS, Volk TA, Briggs RD (2012) No significant differences in soil organic carbon contents along a chronosequence of shrub willow biomass crops. Biomass Bioenergy ("in review")

  30. Pacaldo RS, Volk TA, Briggs RD (2011) Carbon balance in short rotation willow (Salix dasyclados) biomass crop across a 20-year chronosequence as affected by continuous production and tear-out treatments. In: Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G, Turley D, Voigt T (eds) Biomass and bioenergy crops IV: aspects of applied biology, 112. "Association of Applied Biologist". pp 131–138

  31. Sennerby-Forsse L, Ferm A, Kauppi A (1992) Coppicing ability and sustainability. In: Mitchell CP, Ford-Robertson JBF, Sennerby-Forsse L (eds) Ecophysiology of short rotation crops. Elsevier Applied Science, London, p 308

    Google Scholar 

  32. Goudriaan J, van Laar HH (1994) Modeling potential crop growth processes. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Taylor JS, Blake TJ, Pharis RP (1982) The role of plant hormones and carbohydrates in the growth and survival of coppiced Eucalyptus seedlings. Physiol Plant 55:421–430

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schlesinger WH (1997) Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. Academic, New York, pp 127–164

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nadelhoffer KJ, Aber JD, Melillo JM (1985) Fine roots, net primary yield, and soil nitrogen availability: a new hypothesis. Ecology 66(4):1377–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ares A, Peinemann N (1992) Fine-root distribution of coniferous plantations in relation to site in southern Buenos Aires, Argentina. Can J For Res 22(11):1575–1582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zan CS, Fyles JW, Girouard P, Samson RA (2001) Carbon sequestration in perennial bioenergy, annual corn and uncultivated systems in southern Quebec. Agric Ecosyst Environ 86:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson JB (1988) A review of evidence on the control of shoot:root ratio, in relation to models. Ann Bot 61:433–449

    Google Scholar 

  39. Coder KD (1998) Control of shoot/root balance in trees. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Forest Resources publication FOR98-3

  40. Cannell MGR, Milne R, Sheppard LJ, Unsworth MH (1987) Radiation interception and productivity of willow. J Appl Ecol 24:261–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Johansson T, Hjelm B (2012) Stump and root biomass in poplar stands. Forests 3:168–178

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rytter RM (1997) Fine-root production and carbon and nitrogen allocation in basket willows. Ph.D. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

  43. Vanninen P, Ylitalo H, Sievänen R, Mäkelä A (1996) Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Trees-Struct Funct 10(4):231–238

    Google Scholar 

  44. Crow P, Houston TJ (2004) The influence of soil and coppice cycle on the rooting habit of short rotation poplar and willow coppice. Biomass Bioenergy 26:497–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dickmann D, Pregitzer KS (1992) The structure and dynamics of woody plant roots systems. In: Mitchell CP, Ford-Robertson JBF, Sennerby-Forsse L (eds) Ecophysiology of short rotation crops. Elsevier Applied Science, London, p 308

    Google Scholar 

  46. Faulkner HG (1976) Root distribution, amount, and development from 5-year-old Populus × euramericana (Dode) Guinier. "M.S.F. thesis, University of Toronto", pp 130

  47. Rytter RM, Hansson AC (1996) Seasonal amount, growth and depth distribution of fine roots in an irrigated and fertilized Salix viminalis L. plantation. Biomass Bioenergy 11:129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Cavalier J (1992) Fine-root biomass and soil properties in semi-deciduous and a lower montane rain forest in Panama. Plant Soil 142(2):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gill R, Burke IC, Milchunas DG, Luenroth WK (1999) Relationship between root biomass and soil organic matter pools in the shortgrass steppe of Eastern Colorado. Ecosystems 2:226–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yang YS, Chen GS, Lin P, Xie JS, Guo JF (2004) Fine root distribution, seasonal pattern and yield in four plantations compared with a natural forest in subtropical China. Ann For Sci 61(7):617–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Farrish KW (1991) Spatial and temporal fine-root distribution in three Louisiana forest soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 55(6):1752–1757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Martin PJ, Stephens W (2006) Willow growth in response to nutrients and moisture on a clay landfill cap soil. I. Growth and biomass production. Bioresour Technol 97:437–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rytter RM, Rytter L (1998) Growth, decay, and turnover rates of fine roots of basket willow. Can J For Res 28:893–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Proe MF, Griffiths JH, Craig J (2002) Effects of spacing, species and coppicing on leaf area, light interception and photosynthesis in short rotation forestry. Biomass Bioenergy 23:315–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Dowell RC, Gibbins D, Rhoads JL, Pallardy SG (2009) Biomass production physiology and soil carbon dynamics in short-rotation-grown Populus deltoides and P. deltoides × P. nigra hybrids. For Ecol Manag 257:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cunnif J, Shield I, Barraclough T, Castle M, Hanley S, Andralojc J, et al (2011) BSBES-biomass-selecting traits to optimise biomass yield of SRC willow. In: Booth E, Halford N, Shield I, Taylor G, Turley D, Voigt T (eds) Biomass and bioenergy crops IV: aspects of applied biology, 112. "Association of Applied Biologists", pp 83–91

  57. Prescott CE (2010) Litter decomposition: what controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 101:133–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhang D, Hui D, Luo Y, Zhou G (2008) Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystem: global patterns and controlling factors. J Plant Ecol 1:85–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Brady NC, Weil RR (2008) The nature and properties of soils, 14th edn. "Prentice Hall", p 506

  60. Grigal DF, Berguson WE (1998) Soil carbon changes associated with short rotation systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14:371–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out through the funding support from the United States Department of Agriculture—Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (USDA CSREES). Special thanks go to Rebecca Allmond, Eric Fabio, Philip Castellano, Ken Burns, Chuck Schirmer, Jacob Bakowski, Tyler Harvey, Gabe Kellman, Jason Maurer, Ryan Newby, and Devin Mc Bride for their valuable assistance in field and lab works.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SUNY—ESF, Illick Hall, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Renato S. Pacaldo, Timothy A. Volk & Russell D. Briggs

  2. Mindanao State University, Marawi City, 9700, Philippines

    Renato S. Pacaldo

Authors
  1. Renato S. Pacaldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy A. Volk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell D. Briggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renato S. Pacaldo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pacaldo, R.S., Volk, T.A. & Briggs, R.D. Greenhouse Gas Potentials of Shrub Willow Biomass Crops Based on Below- and Aboveground Biomass Inventory Along a 19-Year Chronosequence. Bioenerg. Res. 6, 252–262 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9250-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9250-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation