Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Willow Yield Is Highly Dependent on Clone and Site

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Use of high-yielding genotypes is one of the means to achieve high yield and profitability in willow (Salix spp.) short rotation coppice. This study investigated the performance of eight willow clones (Inger, Klara, Linnea, Resolution, Stina, Terra Nova, Tora, Tordis) on five Danish sites, differing considerably in soil type, climatic conditions and management. Compared to the best clone, the yield was up to 36 % lower for other clones across sites and up to 51 % lower within sites. Tordis was superior to other clones with dry matter yields between 5.2 and 10.2 Mg ha−1 year−1 during the first 3-year harvest rotation, and it consistently ranked as the highest yielding clone on four of the five sites and not significantly lower than the highest yielding clone on the fifth site. The ranking of the other clones was more dependent on site with significant interaction between clone and site. For instance, Tora obtained the same yield level as Tordis on two locations but significantly lower yield on the other sites. Dry matter content at harvest differed significantly among clones, ranging from 44.5 to 46.8 % across sites with highest level in Inger, Linnea, Resolution, and Tordis. Compared to the best site, yield level was up to 51 % lower on other sites across all clones, probably due to combined effects of differences in soil type, climate and management. Thus, willow yield depends both on the use of high-yielding clones and on the combined site effects of soil, climate, and management.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cunniff J, Cerasuolo M (2011) Lighting the way to willow biomass production. J Sci Food Agric 91(10):1733–1736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzalez-Garcia S, Mola-Yudego B, Murphy RJ (2013) Life cycle assessment of potential energy uses for short rotation willow biomass in Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(4):783–795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dimitriou I, Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P (2012) Impact of willow short rotation coppice on water quality. Bioenergy Res 5:537–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mortensen J, Nielsen KH, Jørgensen U (1998) Nitrate leaching during establishment of willow (Salix viminalis) on two soil types and at two fertilization levels. Biomass Bioenergy 15(6):457–466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jørgensen U, Dalgaard T, Kristensen ES (2005) Biomass energy in organic farming—the potential role of short rotation coppice. Biomass Bioenergy 28(2):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rytter R-M (2012) The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 36:86–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dimitriou I, Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P, Eriksson J (2012) Changes in organic carbon and trace elements in the soil of willow short-rotation coppice plantations. Bioenergy Res 5:563–572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Toenshoff C, Stuelpnagel R, Joergensen RG, Wachendorf C (2013) Carbon in plant biomass and soils of poplar and willow plantations—implications for SOC distribution in different soil fractions after re-conversion to arable land. Plant Soil 367:407–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ostwald M, Jonsson A, Wibeck V, Asplund T (2013) Mapping energy crop cultivation and identifying motivational factors among Swedish farmers. Biomass Bioenergy 50:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buchholz T, Volk TA (2011) Improving the profitability of willow crops—identifying opportunities with a crop budget model. Bioenergy Res 4(2):85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Faasch RJ, Patenaude G (2012) The economics of short rotation coppice in Germany. Biomass Bioenergy 45:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kasmioui OE, Ceulemans R (2012) Financial analysis of the cultivation of poplar and willow for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 43:52–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stolarski MJ, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Klasa A (2011) Willow biomass production under conditions of low-input agriculture on marginal soils. For Ecol Manag 262(8):1558–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dimitriou I, Rosenkvist H, Berndes G (2011) Slow expansion and low yields of willow short rotation coppice in Sweden; implications for future strategies. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4613–4618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bergante S, Facciotto G, Minotta G (2010) Identification of the main site factors and management intensity affecting the establishment of short-rotation-coppices (SRC) in Northern Italy through stepwise regression analysis. Cent Eur J Biol 5(4):522–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stott KG (1980) The control of weeds in short rotation coppice willow. Proceedings of the Conference on Weed Control in Forestry, Nottingham, 1980:33–44

  17. Sowinski J (1988) Effect of herbicides and of additional interrow hoeing on weediness, growth and yields of willow. Part I. Effect of weediness, growth and yield of willow in the first cultivation year (In Polish with English summary). Rocz Nauk Rolniczych Seria A Produkcja Roslinna 107(3):187–203

    Google Scholar 

  18. Clay DV, Dixon FL (1997) Effect of ground-cover vegetation on the growth of poplar and willow short-rotation coppice. Asp Appl Biol 49:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aronsson P, Rosenkvist H (2011) Gödslingsrekommendationer för salix 2011. [Recommendations for fertilization of willow 2011] (in Swedish). Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala, Sweden. Rapport 23, 30 p

  20. Sevel L (2012) Short rotation coppice willow. Biomass production and environmental impact. PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

  21. Sevel L, Nord-Larsen T, Ingerslev M, Jørgensen U, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2013) Fertilization of SRC willow, I: biomass production response. Bioenergy Res 7:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilkinson JM, Evans EJ, Bilsborrow PE, Wright C, Hewison WO, Pilbeam DJ (2007) Yield of willow cultivars at different planting densities in a commercial short rotation coppice in the north of England. Biomass Bioenergy 31(7):469–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bergkvist P, Ledin S (1998) Stem biomass yields at different planting designs and spacings in willow coppice systems. Biomass Bioenergy 14(2):149–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stolarski MJ, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Wroblewska H, Krzyzaniak M (2011) Short rotation willow coppice biomass as an industrial and energy feedstock. Ind Crop Prod 33(1):217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(2):421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindegaard KN, Barker JHA (1997) Breeding willows for biomass. Asp Appl Biol 49:155–162

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ager A, Thorsen H (1985) Genetic improvement of willow for energy forestry in Sweden. In: Egnéus H, Ellegård A (eds) Bioenergy 84, Swedish Trade Fair Centre, Göteborg, Sweden. Elsevier, London, pp 145-148

  28. Larsson S (1997) Commercial breeding of willow for short rotation coppice. Asp Appl Biol 49:215–218

    Google Scholar 

  29. Larsson S (1998) Genetic improvement of willow for short-rotation coppice. Biomass Bioenergy 15(1):23–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cerasuolo M, Richter GM, Cunniff J, Purdy S, Shield I, Karp A (2013) A pseudo-3D model to optimise the target traits of light interception in short-rotation coppice willow. Agric For Meteorol 173:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(2):151–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lærke PE, Jørgensen U, Kjeldsen JB (2010) Udbytte af pil fra 15 års forsøg. [Willow yield in 15 years trials] (In Danish). In: Sammendrag fra Plantekongres 2010, Herning, Denmark. pp 232-233

  33. Lindegaard KN, Carter MM, McCracken A, Shield I, MacAlpine W, Hinton-Jones M, Valentine J, Larsson S (2011) Comparative trials of elite Swedish and UK biomass willow varieties 2001–2010. Asp Appl Biol 112:57–65

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sevel L, Nord-Larsen T, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2012) Biomass production of four willow clones grown as short rotation coppice on two soil types in Denmark. Biomass Bioenergy 46:664–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mitsui Y, Seto S, Nishio M, Minato K, Ishizawa K, Satoh S (2010) Willow clones with high biomass yield in short rotation coppice in the southern region of Tohoku district (Japan). Biomass Bioenergy 34(4):467–473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Serapiglia MJ, Cameron KD, Stipanovic AJ, Abrahamson LP, Volk TA, Smart LB (2013) Yield and woody biomass traits of novel shrub willow hybrids at two contrasting sites. Bioenergy Res 6(2):533–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang ZL, 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 46:380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stolarski MJ, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Klasa A (2013) Yield, energy parameters and chemical composition of short-rotation willow biomass. Ind Crop Prod 46:60–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Stolarski M, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Klasa A (2008) Productivity of seven clones of willow coppice in annual and quadrennial cutting cycles. Biomass Bioenergy 32(12):1227–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jezowski S, Gowacka K, Kaczmarek Z, Szczukowski S (2011) Yield traits of eight common osier clones in the first three years following planting in Poland. Biomass Bioenergy 35(3):1205–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Searle SY, Malins CJ (2014) Will energy crop yields meet expectations? Biomass Bioenergy. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  43. Caslin B, Finnan J, McCracken A (2012) Willow varietal identification guide. Teagasc—Agriculture and Food Development Authority; Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute, Carlow, Ireland, 67 p

    Google Scholar 

  44. SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT. Release 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA

  45. Wikberg J, Ogren E (2004) Interrelationships between water use and growth traits in biomass-producing willows. Trees Struct Funct 18(1):70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Åhman I (1998) Rust scorings in a plantation of Salix viminalis clones during ten consecutive years. Eur J For Pathol 28(4):251–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Royle DJ, Ostry ME (1995) Disease and pest control in the bioenergy crops poplar and willow. Biomass Bioenergy 9(1/5):69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Peacock L, Harris J, Powers S (2004) Effects of host variety on blue willow beetle Phratora vulgatissima performance. Ann Appl Biol 144(1):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Åhman I (2001) Management of pests and diseases in biomass willow. Sver Utsadesforenings Tidskr 111(2):98–103

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kopp RF, Abrahamson LP, White EH, Volk TA, Nowak CA, Fillhart RC (2001) Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenergy 20:1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P (2008) Yield models for commercial willow biomass plantations in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 32(9):829–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Willebrand E, Ledin S, Verwijst T (1993) Willow coppice systems in short rotation forestry: effects of plant spacing rotation length and clonal composition on biomass production. Biomass Bioenergy 4(5):323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Verwijst T (1991) Shoot mortality and dynamics of live and dead biomass in a stand of Salix viminalis. Biomass Bioenergy 1(1):35–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nordh NE (2005) Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation willow coppice. PhD dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

  55. Clay DV, Dixon FL (1995) Vegetation management in the establishment of poplar and willow short-rotation coppice. In: Brighton crop protection conference: weeds. Proceedings of an international conference, Brighton, UK, 20–23 November 1995. Vol. 3, pp. 979–984

  56. Tahvanainen L, Rytkonen VM (1999) Biomass production of Salix viminalis in southern Finland and the effect of soil properties and climate conditions on its production and survival. Biomass Bioenergy 16(2):103–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bullard MJ, Mustill SJ, McMillan SD, Nixon PMI, Carver P, Britt CP (2002) Yield improvements through modification of planting density and harvest frequency in short rotation coppice Salix spp.—1. Yield response in two morphologically diverse varieties. Biomass Bioenergy 22(1):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hansen EA (1991) Poplar woody biomass yields: a look to the future. Biomass Bioenergy 1(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mola-Yudego B (2011) Trends and productivity improvements from commercial willow plantations in Sweden during the period 1986–2000. Biomass Bioenergy 35(1):446–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hinton-Jones M, Valentine J (2008) Variety and altitude effects on yield and other characters of SRC willow in Wales. Asp Appl Biol 90:67–73

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by Central Denmark Region, the Interreg Kattegat-Skagerrak program, The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and The GREEN and Bioresource Projects funded by The Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830, Tjele, Denmark

    Søren Ugilt Larsen, Uffe Jørgensen & Poul Erik Lærke

  2. AgroTech—Institute for Agri Technology and Food Innovation, Agro Food Park 15, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark

    Søren Ugilt Larsen

Authors
  1. Søren Ugilt Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uffe Jørgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Poul Erik Lærke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Poul Erik Lærke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larsen, S.U., Jørgensen, U. & Lærke, P.E. Willow Yield Is Highly Dependent on Clone and Site. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 1280–1292 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9463-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9463-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation