Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 548–558 | Cite as

Early Clonal Survival and Growth of Poplars Grown on North Carolina Piedmont and Mountain Marginal Lands

  • Solomon B. GhezeheiEmail author
  • Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols
  • Dennis W. Hazel
Article

Abstract

The western half of North Carolina has abundant marginal pasturelands that vary greatly in altitude. Studies have demonstrated high Populus productivity on coastal plains and eastern Piedmont regions. Our objective was to identify best-performing Populus clones on marginal pasturelands representing upper Piedmont (Salisbury, 215 m above sea level, m.a.s.l.), northern Blue Ridge Mountains (Laurel Springs, 975 m.a.s.l.), and southern Blue Ridge Mountains (Mills River, 630 m.a.s.l.). At Salisbury, height and basal diameter (BD) were significantly related to clones (p < 0.0001), and some clones were affected by clone-spacing interaction while spacing affected aboveground wood volume significantly (p < 0.0001). At Mills River, clonal survival (p < 0.0011), height, and volume (p < 0.0051) varied with contrasting significance of some clonal differences between spacings. At Laurel Springs, survival varied among clones in 1 m × 1 m spacing (p = 0.003) but not 2 m × 2 m spacing while heights and volumes differed in both spacings (p < 0.0058). Clone 185 was consistently in the top 10 % for height, BD, and survival at all sites and spacings while other clones performed variably. Height-BD regressions were affected by clones, spacing, and sites. Volume had no clear correlations with precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation, temperature, and altitude across sites while height correlated with precipitation. Our results compared favorably with published results in other US regions, and show short rotation poplars have efficacy in Piedmont and mountain regions if the right clones in terms of growth/productivity, survival, and disease resistance are selected. Larger clonal performance variations are expected as competition increases, and highlight importance of experimentally determining suitable clones for specific sites.

Keywords

Bioenergy feedstock Blue Ridge Mountains Marginal lands Genomic groups Piedmont Site adaptability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the former Biofuels Center of North Carolina (Grant no.: 2013–351) and NORTH CAROLINA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) Bioenergy Research Initiatives (Grant no.: G40100278914RSD) for funding, Arborgen, LLC and GreenWood Resources for their technical support and supplying trees and NCDA&CS’s Piedmont Research Station, Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center and Upper Mountain Research Station for accommodating our trials and for their assistances in managing the sites. We would also like to thank Corey Sugerik for his assistance in site and data management and Alex Ewald, Emily Love, Jeffrey Olson, Mathew Davis, and Amber Bledsoe for their assistance during data collection.

Supplementary material

12155_2015_9707_MOESM1_ESM.docx (73 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1 (DOCX 73 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Riffai P, Dimaranan B, Laborde D (2010) European Union and United States Biofuel Mandates: impacts on world markets. Inter-American Development Bank. http://www.iadb.org. Accessed 03 April 2012
  2. 2.
    Scarlat N, Dallemand J, Banja M (2013) Possible impact of 2020 bioenergy targets on European Union land use. A scenario-based assessment from national renewable energy action plans proposals. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18:595–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benetka V, Bartáková I, Mottl J (2002) Productivity of Populus nigra L. ssp. nigra under short-rotation culture in marginal areas. Biomass Bioenergy 23:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Congress (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 110th Congress. Public Law 110–140. 19 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IWPBG (2011) Initiative Wood Pellets Buyers (IWPB) work group on sustainability: Sustainability principles Final Ver. 9 Nov. 2011. http://www.laborelec.be/ENG/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/PELLCERT 2011_2011-11-09-IWPB-Sustainability_principles.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2014
  6. 6.
    Swinton SM, Babcock BA, James LK, Bandaru V (2011) Higher U.S. crop prices trigger little area expansion so marginal land for biofuel crops is limited. Energ Policy 39(9):5254–5258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guo M, Song W, Buhain J (2015) Bioenergy and biofuels: history, status, and perspective. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:712–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghezehei SB, Shifflett SD, Hazel DW, Nichols EG (2015) SRWC bioenergy productivity and economic feasibility on marginal lands. J Environ Manag 160:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benetka V, Novotná K, Štochlová P (2014) Biomass production of Populus nigra L. clones grown in short rotation coppice systems in three different environments over four rotations. iForest 7:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dickmann DI (2006) Silviculture and biology of short-rotation woody crops in temperate regions: then and now. Biomass Bioenergy 30:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu TT, McConkey BG, Ma ZY, Liu ZG, Li X, Cheng LL (2011) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis of bioenergy production on marginal land. Energy Procedia 5:2378–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shelton MG, Switzer GL, Nelson LE, Baker JB, Mueller CW (1982) The development of cottonwood plantations on alluvial soils: Dimensions, volume, phytomass, nutrient content and other characteristics. Tech Bull 113. Mississippi Agric For Exp Stn, Mississippi State Univ 46 pp.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SAS software, Version 9.4 of the SAS System for Windows. Copyright © 2002–2012 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SAS Institute Inc., SAS 9.4 Help and Documentation, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2002–2012Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Bauer EO, Riemenschneider DE (2004) Use of belowground growing degree days to predict rooting of dormant hardwood cuttings of Populus. Silvae Genet 53:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heilman PE, Ekuan G, Fogle D (1994) Above- and below-ground biomass and fine roots of 4-year-old hybrids of Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides and parental species in short-rotation culture. Can J For Res 24(6):1186–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riemenschneider DE, Berguson WE, Dickmann DI, Hall RB, Isebrands JG, Mohn CA, Stanosz GR, Tuskan GA (2001) Poplar breeding and testing strategies in the north-central U.S.: demonstration of potential yield and consideration of future research needs. For Chron 77:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geyer WA (2006) Biomass production in the Central Great Plains USA under various coppice regimes. Biomass Bioenergy 30:778–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB, Zalesny JA, McMahon BG, Berguson WE, Stanosz GR (2009) Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of Populus energy crops in the midwestern United States. Bioenergy Res 2:106–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kutsokon NK, Jose S, Holzmueller E (2015) A global analysis of temperature effects on Populus plantation production potential. Am J Plant Sci 6:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    World Agroforestry Centre (2012) Tree functional attributes and ecological database: wood density. http://db.worldagroforestry.org/wd
  23. 23.
    DeBell DS, Harrington CA (1997) Productivity of Populus in monoclonal and polyclonal blocks at three spacings. Can J For Res 27:978–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeBell DS, Clendenen GW, Harrington CA, Zasada JC (1996) Tree growth and stand development in short-rotation Populus plantings: 7-year results for two clones at three spacings. Biomass Bioenergy 11(4):253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pearson CH, Halvorson AD, Moench RD, Hammond RW (2010) Production of hybrid poplar under short-term, intensive culture in Western Colorado. Ind Crop Prod 31:492–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ceulemans R, Deraedt W (1999) Production physiology and growth potential of poplars under short-rotation forestry culture. For Ecol Manag 121:9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fortier J, Gagnon D, Truax B, Lambert F (2010) Biomass and volume yield after 6 years in multiclonal hybrid poplar riparian buffer strips. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1028–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laureysens I, Pellis A, Willems J, Ceulemans R (2005) Growth and production of a short rotation coppice culture of poplar. III. Second rotation results. Biomass Bioenergy 29:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al Afas N, Marron N, Van Dongen S, Laureysens I, Ceulemans R (2008) Dynamics of biomass production in a poplar coppice culture over three rotations (11 years). For Ecol Manag 255:1883–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atwood CJ, Fox TR, Loftis DL (2008) Stump sprouting of oak species in three silvicultural treatments in the southern Appalachians. In: Jacobs DF, Michler CH (eds) Proceedings of the 16th Central Hardwoods Forest Conference. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 8–9 April 2008, pp 2–7Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dillen SY, Vanbeveren S, Al Afas N, Laureysens I, Croes S, Ceulemans R (2011) Biomass production in a 15-year-old poplar short-rotation coppice culture in Belgium. In: Aspects of applied biology 112: biomass and energy crops IV. Association of Applied Biologists, Wellesbourne, pp 99–106Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Green DS, Kruger EL, Stanosz GR, Isebrands JG (2001) Light-use efficiency of native and hybrid poplar genotypes at high levels of intracanopy competition. Can J For Res 31:1030–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nelson ND, Burk T, Isebrans JG (1981) Crown architecture of short-rotation, intensively cultured Populus. I. Effects of clone and spacing on first-order branch characteristics. Can J For Res 11:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scaranello MAS, Alves LF, Vieira SA, de Camargo PB, Joly CA, Martinelli LA (2012) Height-diameter relationships of tropical Atlantic moist forest trees in southeastern. Sci Agric 69(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peng C, Zhang L, Huang S, Zhou X, Parton J, Woods M (2001) Developing ecoregion-based height-diameter models for jack pine and black spruce in Ontario. Ministry of Nature Resource, OntarioGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solomon B. Ghezehei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols
    • 1
  • Dennis W. Hazel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest and Environmental ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations