BioEnergy Research

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 1614–1620 | Cite as

Open-Air Drying of Cut and Windrowed Short-Rotation Poplar Stems

  • Vincenzo Civitarese
  • Raffaele SpinelliEmail author
  • Maurizio Barontini
  • Francesco Gallucci
  • Enrico Santangelo
  • Andrea Acampora
  • Antonio Scarfone
  • Angelo del Giudice
  • Luigi Pari


Two-pass harvesting of short-rotation forestry plantations offers the opportunity to accumulate large biomass stores without occupying costly industrial areas, while letting the biomass dry before comminution. This study aimed at developing a simple model for predicting moisture content reduction of short-rotation forestry poplar stems felled and windrowed in the field. In a controlled experiment, cut stem windrows were built and left in the field for up to 6 months (from early December to early June). Thus stored, poplar stems incurred a reduction of moisture content between 10 and 20 percent points. Drying rate varied with the period of storage, and it was faster for later felling dates. Precipitation accounted for 20 to 40 % of the drying rate. No dry matter losses due to microbial activity were recorded during the whole storage period, lasting up to 6 months. The models developed with this study are simple and robust, and allow precision management of collection operations in order to guarantee a constant flow of biomass to user plants.


Biomass Wood Chips Storage Harvesting 



This work was funded by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture within the framework of the project “FAESI: Agricultural Energy Chains for Southern Italy”.


  1. 1.
    Sims R, Hastings A, Schlamadinger B, Taylor G, Smith P (2006) Energy crops: current status and future prospects. Glob Chang Biol 12:2054–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spinelli R, Schweier J, De Francesco F (2012) Harvesting techniques for non-industrial biomass plantations. Biosyst Eng 113:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manzone M, Airoldi G, Balsari P (2009) Energetic and economic evaluation of a poplar cultivation for the biomass production in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1258–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Picchi G, Lombardini C, Nati C (2011) Upsized harvesting technology for coping with the new trends in short-rotation. Appl Eng Agric 27:551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heller M, Keoleian G, Volk T (2003) Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenergy 25:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sims R, Venturi P (2004) All-year-round harvesting of short rotation coppice eucalyptus compared with the delivered costs of biomass from more conventional short season, harvesting systems. Biomass Bioenergy 26:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nord-Larsen T, Talbot B (2004) Assessment of forest-fuel resources in Denmark: technical and economic availability. Biomass Bioenergy 27:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jirjis R (1995) Storage and drying of wood fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 9:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jirijs R (2005) Effects of particle size and pile and pile height on storage and fuel quality of comminuted Salix viminalis. Biomass Bioenergy 28:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanzian C, Holzleitner F, Stampfer K, Ashton S (2009) Regional energy wood logistics—optimizing local fuel supply. Silva Fenn 43:113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Afzal MT, Bedane AH, Sokhansanj S, Mahmood W (2010) Storage of comminuted and uncomminuted forest biomass and its effect on fuel quality. Bioresources 5:55–69Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barontini M, Scarfone A, Spinelli R, Gallucci F, Santangelo E, Acampora A, Jirjis R, Civitarese V, Pari L (2014) Storage dynamics and fuel quality of poplar chips. Biomass Bioenergy 62:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pecenka R, Lenz H, Idler C, Daries W, Ehlert D (2014) 2014. Development of bio-physical properties during storage of poplar chips from 15 ha test fields. Biomass Bioenergy 65:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wihersaari M (2005) Evaluation of greenhouse gas emission risks from storage of wood residue. Biomass Bioenergy 28:444–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thörnqvist T (1987) Spontaneous combustion in piles with comminuted fuel, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Products, report No. 163, (in Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pari L, Civitarese V, Del Giudice A, Assirelli A, Spinelli R, Santangelo E (2013) Influence of chipping device and storage method on the quality of SRC poplar biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 51:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nurmi J (1999) The storage of logging residue for fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 17:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisenbies M, Volk T, Posselius J, Foster C, Shi S, Karapetyan S (2014) Evaluation of a single-pass, cut and chip harvest system on commercial-scale, short-rotation shrub willow biomass crops. Bioenergy Res 7:1506–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erber G, Kanzian C, Stampfer K (2012) Predicting moisture content in a pine logwood pile for energy purposes. Silva Fenn 46:555–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Filbakk T, Høibø O, Dibdiakova J, Nurmi J (2011) Modelling moisture content and dry matter loss during storage of logging residues for energy. Scand J For Res 26:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Filbakk T, Høibø O, Nurmi J (2011) Modelling natural drying efficiency in covered and uncovered piles of whole broadleaf trees for energy use. Biomass Bioenergy 35:454–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giordano G (1986) Tecnologia del legno Vol. III. UTET, Torino, 868 p. (In Italian)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 5:522–530Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alig R, Adams D, McCarl B, Ince P (2000) Economic potential of short-rotation woody crops on agricultural land for pulp fiber production in the United States. For Prod J 50:67–74Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samuelsson R, Burvall J, Jirjis R (2006) Comparison of different methods for the determination of moisture content in biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 30:929–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    SAS Institute Inc (1999) StatView reference. SAS Publishing, Cary, pp 84–93Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olsen E, Hossain M, Miller M (1998) Statistical comparison of methods used in harvesting work studies. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Research Contribution n° 23. 31 p.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spinelli R, Nati C, Magagnotti N (2009) Using modified foragers to harvest short-rotation poplar plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 33:817–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manzone M, Balsari P, Spinelli R (2013) Small-scale storage techniques for fuel chips from short rotation forestry. Fuel 109:687–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klaus M, Holsten A, Hostert P, Kropp J (2001) Integrated methodology to assess windthrow impacts on forest stands under climate change. For Ecol Manag 261:1799–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schelhaas M, Hengeveld G, Moriondo M, Reinds G, Kundzewicz Z, Maat H, Bindi M (2010) Assessing risk and adaptation options to fires and windstorms in European forestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 15:681–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gautam S, Pulkki R, Chander S, Leitch M (2012) Fuel quality changes in full tree logging residue during storage in roadside slash piles in Northwestern Ontario. Biomass Bioenergy 42:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Acuna M, Anttila P, Sikanen L, Prinz R, Asikainen A (2012) Predicting and controlling moisture content to optimise forest biomass logistics. Croat J For Eng 33:225–238Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Petterson M, Nordfjell T (2007) Fuel quality changes during seasonal storage of compacted logging residues and young trees. Biomass Bioenergy 31:782–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berhongaray G, El Kasmioui O, Ceulemans R (2013) Comparative analysis of harvesting machines on an operational high-density short rotation woody crop (SRWC) culture: one-process versus two-process harvest operation. Biomass Bioenergy 58:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schweier J, Becker G (2012) Harvesting of short rotation coppice—harvesting trials with a cut and storage system in Germany. Silva Fenn 46:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Civitarese
    • 1
  • Raffaele Spinelli
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maurizio Barontini
    • 1
  • Francesco Gallucci
    • 1
  • Enrico Santangelo
    • 1
  • Andrea Acampora
    • 1
  • Antonio Scarfone
    • 1
  • Angelo del Giudice
    • 1
  • Luigi Pari
    • 1
  1. 1.Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in AgricolturaUnità di ricerca per l’ingegneria AgrariaMonterotondoItaly
  2. 2.CNR IVALSASesto FiorentinoItaly

Personalised recommendations