Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 465–491 | Cite as

Ecosystem Services of Woody Crop Production Systems

  • Ronald S. ZalesnyJrEmail author
  • John A. Stanturf
  • Emile S. Gardiner
  • James H. Perdue
  • Timothy M. Young
  • David R. Coyle
  • William L. Headlee
  • Gary S. Bañuelos
  • Amir Hass
Article

Abstract

Short-rotation woody crops are an integral component of regional and national energy portfolios, as well as providing essential ecosystem services such as biomass supplies, carbon sinks, clean water, and healthy soils. We review recent USDA Forest Service Research and Development efforts from the USDA Biomass Research Centers on the provisioning of these ecosystem services from woody crop production systems. For biomass, we highlight productivity and yield potential, pest susceptibility, and bioenergy siting applications. We describe carbon storage in aboveground woody biomass and studies assessing the provision of clean and plentiful water. Soil protection and wildlife habitat are also mentioned, in the context of converting lands from traditional row-crop agriculture to woody production systems.

Keywords

Biomass Carbon Eucalyptus Pinus Populus Provisioning services Regulating services Salix Soils Water 

Abbreviations

δ13C

Leaf carbon isotope composition

3-PG

Physiological Principles Predicting Growth model

AHA

Auburn Harvest Analyzer

BioSAT

Biomass Site Assessment Tools

DBH

Diameter at breast height

FIA

USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis

FRCS

USDA Forest Service Fuel Reduction Simulator

GIS

Geographic information system

LAI

Leaf area index

MAV

Mississippi Alluvial Valley

MSW

Municipal solid waste

OPEC

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

SRIC

Short-rotation intensive culture

SRWC

Short-rotation woody crops

USDA ARS

USDA Agricultural Research Service

USDA FS

USDA Forest Service

USDA FS R&D

USDA Forest Service Research and Development

USDA NASS

USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service

WUE

Water use efficiency

ZCTA

ZIP Code Tabulation Area

Notes

Acknowledgments

The majority of the research described in this paper was supported by the USDA Forest Service as collaborations associated with the USDA Biomass Research Centers. In addition to agency colleagues, we are grateful to the many external partners who made these collective efforts possible and to the countless number of people who helped us with laboratory, greenhouse, and field work. Furthermore, we thank Dr. Marilyn Buford for her USDA Forest Service leadership, Sue Lietz for producing Fig. 1, and Edmund Bauer and Max Piana for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

12155_2016_9737_MOESM1_ESM.doc (178 kb)
Online Resource 1 Ecosystem services associated with research sites of USDA Forest Service researchers and their collaborators for woody crop production systems in the USA (DOC 177 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Mendel BC, Lang AJ (2012) Wood for bioenergy: forests as a resource for biomass and biofuels. Forest History Society, Durham, NC, 68 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2011) History of energy consumption in the United States, 1775–2009. Washington, DC. Accessed 29 September 2015. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10#
  3. 3.
    Society of American Foresters (1979) Forest biomass as an energy source. Study Report of a Task Force of the Society of American Foresters. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC, 7 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inman RE (1977) Silvicultural biomass farms. Vol 1 summary. MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, 62 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2015) History of energy consumption in the United States, 1775–2009. Washington, DC. Accessed 29 September 2015. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10#
  6. 6.
    US Department of Energy (2011) US Billion-Ton Update: Biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Perlack RD, Stokes BJ (Leads). ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 227 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stoof CR, Richards BK, Woodbury PB, Fabio ES, Brumbach AR, Cherney J, Das S, Geohrig L, Hansen J, Hornesky J, Mayton H, Mason C, Ruestow G, Smart LB, Volk TA, Steenhuis TS (2015) Untapped potential: opportunities and challenges for sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the Northeast USA. BioEnergy Res 8:482–501Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wear DN, Abt RC, Dixon E IV, Singh N (2015) Projecting potential adoption of genetically engineered freeze-tolerant Eucalyptus in the United States. For Sci 61:466–480Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Donner DM, Coyle DR, Headlee WL (2012) An approach for siting poplar energy production systems to increase productivity and associated ecosystem services. For Ecol Manag 284:45–58Google 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.
    McAlpine RG, Brown CL, Herrick AM, Ruark HE (1966) Silage sycamore. For Farmer 26:6–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinbeck K (1999) Thirty years of short-rotation hardwoods research. In: Haywood JD (ed) Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, 16–18 February 1999, Shreveport, LA. Gen Tech Rep SRS-30. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 63–65 (618 pp)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steinbeck K, McAlpine RG, May JT (1972) Short rotation culture of sycamore: a status report. J For 70:210–213Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeBell DS, Clendenen GW, Zasada JC (1993) Growing Populus biomass: comparison of woodgrass versus wider-spaced short-rotation systems. Biomass Bioenergy 4:305–313Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Volk TA, Verwijst T, Tharakan PJ, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2004) Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ 2:411–418Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pillsbury NH, Ayers NL (1983) Establishing a Eucalyptus energy plantation on the central coast of California. In: Standiford RB, Ledig FT (tech coord). Proceedings of a Workshop on Eucalyptus in California, 14–16 June 1983, Sacramento, CA. Gen Tech Rep PSW-69. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, pp 86–89Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schubert TH, Whitesell CD (1985) Species trials for biomass plantations in Hawaii: a first appraisal. Res Pap PSW-176. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, 13 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geyer WA, Melichar MW (1986) Short-rotation forestry research in the United States. Biomass 9:125–133Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vance ED, Loehle C, Wigley TB, Weatherford P (2014) Scientific basis for sustainable management of Eucalyptus and Populus as short-rotation woody crops in the U.S. Forests 5:901–918Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hinchee M, Zhang C, Chang S, Cunningham M, Hammond W, Nehra N (2011) Biotech Eucalyptus can sustainably address society’s need for wood: the example of freeze tolerant Eucalyptus in the southeastern US. BMC Proceedings 5:I24. doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-5-S7-I24 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Cunningham MW, Hall RB, Mirck J, Rockwood DL, Stanturf JA, Volk TA (2011) Woody biomass from short rotation energy crops (Ch 2). In: Zhu JY (ed) Sustainable production of fuels, chemicals, and fibers from forest biomass. ACS Symposium Series. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 27–63Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 2:106–122Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 77:245–253Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Headlee WL, Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB, Bauer EO, Bender B, Birr BA, Miller RO, Randall JA, Wiese AH (2013) Specific gravity of hybrid poplars in the north-central region, USA: within-tree variability and site × genotype effects. Forests 4:251–269Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coyle DR, Coleman MD, Durant JA, Newman LA (2006) Survival and growth of 31 Populus clones in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 30:750–758Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaczmarek DJ, Coyle DR, Coleman MD (2013) Survival and growth of a range of Populus clones in central South Carolina USA through age ten: do early assessments reflect longer-term survival and growth trends? Biomass Bioenergy 49:260–272Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coleman MD, Coyle DR, Blake J, Britton K, Buford M, Campbell B, Cox J, Cregg B, Daniels D, Jacobson M, Johnson K, McDonald T, McLeod K, Nelson E, Robison D, Rummer R, Sanchez P, Stanturf J, Stokes B, Trettin C, Tuskan J, Wright L, Wullschleger S (2004) Production of short rotation woody crops grown with a range of nutrient and water availability: establishment report and first-year responses. SRS-GTR-072. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 21 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coyle DR, Aubrey DP, Siry JC, Volfovicz-Leon RR, Coleman MD (2013) Optimal nitrogen application rates for three intensively-managed hardwood tree species in the southeastern USA. For Ecol Manag 303:131–142Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coyle DR, Coleman MD (2005) Forest production responses to irrigation and fertilization are not explained by shifts in allocation. For Ecol Manag 208:137–152Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coyle DR, Aubrey DP, Coleman MD (2016) Growth responses of narrow or broad site adapted tree species to a range of resource availability treatments after a full harvest rotation. For Ecol Manag 362:107–119Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coyle DR, Coleman MD, Aubrey DP (2008) Above and belowground biomass accumulation, production, and distribution of sweetgum and loblolly pine grown with irrigation and fertilization. Can J For Res 38:1335–1348Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coyle DR, Nebeker TE, Hart ER, Mattson WJ Jr (2005) Biology and management of insect pests in North American intensively-managed hardwood forest systems. Annu Rev Entomol 50:1–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coyle DR (2002) Effects of clone, silvicultural, and miticide treatments on cottonwood leafcurl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) damage in plantation Populus. Environ Entomol 31:1000–1008Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coyle DR, Coleman MD, Durant JA, Newman LA (2006) Multiple factors affect pest and pathogen damage on 31 Populus clones in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 30:759–768Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Souter RA, Gardiner ES, Leininger TD, Mitchell D, Rummer RB (2015) Eastern cottonwood and black willow biomass crop production in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley under four planting densities. In: Gordon HA, Connor KF, Haywood JD (eds). Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. e-Gen Tech Rep SRS-203. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 340–342 (551 pp)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Headlee WL (2015) Developing woody crops for the enhancement of ecosystem services under changing climates in the North Central United States. J For Exp Sci 31:78–90Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stanturf JA, Gardiner ES, Shepard JP, Schweitzer CJ, Portwood CJ, Dorris LC Jr (2009) Restoration of bottomland hardwood forests across a treatment intensity gradient. For Ecol Manag 257:1803–1814Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    de Souza DPL, Gallagher T, Mitchell D, Smidt M, McDonald T, Wright J (2014) Determining the impact of felling method and season of year on coppice regeneration. In: Proceedings of the Global Harvesting Technology 2014, Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting, 22–25 June 2014, Moline, IL, 6 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zalesny JA, Zalesny RS Jr, Wiese AH, Hall RB (2007) Choosing tree genotypes for phytoremediation of landfill leachate using phyto-recurrent selection. Int J Phytoremed 9:513–530Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bañuelos GS, LeDuc D, Johnson J (2010) Evaluating the tolerance of young hybrid poplar trees to recycled waters high in salinity and boron. Int J Phytoremed 12:419–439Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mahama AA, Hall RB, Zalesny RS Jr (2011) Differential interspecific incompatibility among Populus hybrids in sections Aigeiros Duby and Tacamahaca Spach. Forestry Chron 87:790–796Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Hallett RA, Falxa-Raymond N, Wiese AH, Birr BA (2014) Propagating native Salicaceae for afforestation and restoration in New York City’s five boroughs. Native Plants J 15:29–41Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Headlee WL, Gopalakrishnan G, Bauer EO, Hall RB, Hazel DW, Isebrands JG, Licht LA, Negri MC, Guthrie-Nichols E, Rockwood DL, Wiese AH (2015) Long-term monitoring of poplars used for phytoremediation. 12th International Conference of the International Phytotechnology Society: Phytotechnologies for Sustainable Development. 27–30 September 2015, Manhattan, KansasGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Wiese AH (2006) Date of shoot collection, genotype, and original shoot position affect early rooting of dormant hardwood cuttings of Populus. Silvae Genet 55:169–182Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Headlee WL, Zalesny RS Jr, Donner DM, Hall RB (2013) Using a process-based model (3-PG) to predict and map hybrid poplar biomass productivity in Minnesota and Wisconsin, USA. BioEnergy Res 6:196–210Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Netzer DA, Tolsted D, Ostry ME, Isebrands JG, Riemenschneider DE, Ward KT (2002) Growth, yield, and disease resistance of 7- to 12-year-old poplar clones in the North Central United States. Gen Tech Rep NC-229. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN, 31 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang ZJ, Zhu JY, Zalesny RS Jr, Chen KF (2012) Ethanol production potential from poplar wood through enzymatic saccharification and fermentation. Fuel 95:606–614Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang J, Gu F, Zhu JY, Zalesny RS Jr (2015) Using a combined hydrolysis factor to optimize high titer ethanol production from sulfite-pretreated poplar without detoxification. Biores Technol 186:223–231Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bañuelos GS, Shannon MC, Ajwa H, Draper JH, Jordahl J, Licht L (1999) Phytoextraction and accumulation of boron and selenium by poplar (Populus) hybrid clones. Int J Phytoremed 1:81–96Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shannon MC, Bañuelos GS, Draper JH, Ajwa H, Jordahl J, Licht L (1999) Tolerance of hybrid poplar (Populus) trees irrigated with varied levels of salt, selenium, and boron. Int J Phytoremed 1:273–288Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Riemenschneider DE, Hall RB (2005) Early rooting of dormant hardwood cuttings of Populus: analysis of quantitative genetics and genotype × environment interactions. Can J For Res 35:918–929Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rees R, Robinson BH, Menon M, Lehmann E, Guenthardt-Georg MS, Schulin R (2012) Boron accumulation and toxicity in hybrid poplars (P. nigra × euramericana). Environ Sci Technol 45:10538–10543Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Smesrud JK, Duvendack GD, Obreiner JM, Jordahl JL, Madison MF (2012) Practical salinity management for leachate irrigation to poplar trees. Int J Phytoremed 14:26–46Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    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 53:154–160Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Headlee WL, Hall RB, Zalesny RS Jr (2013) Establishment of alleycropped hybrid aspen "Crandon" in Central Iowa, USA: effects of topographic position and fertilizer rate on aboveground biomass production and allocation. Sustainability 5:2874–2886Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wiese AH, Zalesny JA, Donner DM, Zalesny RS Jr (2006) Bud removal affects shoot, root, and callus development of hardwood Populus cuttings. Silvae Genet 55:141–148Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Bauer EO (2007) Evaluation of Populus and Salix continuously irrigated with landfill leachate I. Genotype-specific elemental phytoremediation. Int J Phytoremed 9:281–306Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rousseau RJ, Gardiner ES, Leininger TD (2012) Development of an applied black willow tree improvement program for biomass production in the South. In: Butnor JR (ed) Proceedings of the 16th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. e-Gen Tech Rep SRS-156. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 273–277 (391 pp)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rousseau RJ, Leininger TD, Herrin BL, Gardiner ES (2013) Evaluating the potential of black willow as a viable biomass species for the LMAV. In: Cunningham MW (ed) Proceedings of the 32nd Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, 10–13 June 2013, Clemson, SC, pp 61–63 (113 pp)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bailey RB, Rousseau RJ, Gardiner E, Mack JC (2014) Black willow tree improvement: development of a biomass species for marginal agricultural land in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. In: Groninger JW, Holzmueller EJ, Nielsen CK, Dey DC (eds) Proceedings of the 19th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Gen Tech Rep NRS-P-142. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, pp 263–264 (388 pp)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hood WG, Tyree MC, Dillaway DN, Leininger TD (2015) Measuring and partitioning soil respiration in Sharkey shrink-swell clays under plantation grown short-rotation woody crops. In: Gordon HA, Connor KF, Haywood JD (eds) Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. e-Gen Tech Rep SRS-203. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 318–320 (551 pp)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Camp JC, Rousseau RJ, Gardiner ES (2012) Longer black willow cuttings result in better initial height and diameter growth in biomass plantations. In: Butnor JR (ed) Proceedings of the 16th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. e-Gen Tech Rep SRS-156. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 43–46 (391 pp)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fernandes LDS, Souter RA, Leininger TD (2015) Evaluating growth effects from an imidacloprid treatment in black willow and eastern cottonwood cuttings. In: Gordon HA, Connor KF, Haywood JD (eds) Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. e-Gen Tech Rep SRS-203. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 281–282 (551 pp)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Coyle DR, Nowak JT, Fettig CJ (2003) Irrigation and fertilization effects on Nantucket pine tip moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) damage levels and pupal weight in an intensively-managed pine plantation. J Entomol Sci 38:621–630Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hall RB (2008) Woody bioenergy systems in the United States. In: Zalesny RS Jr, Mitchell R, Richardson J (eds) Biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts from sustainable agricultural and forest crops: Proceedings of the Short Rotation Crops International Conference, 18–22 August 2008, Bloomington, MN. Gen Tech Rep NRS-P-31. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 18 (76 pp)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Coyle DR, Aubrey DP, Bentz J (2010) Erythroneura lawsoni (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) abundance and feeding injury levels are influenced by foliar nutrient status in intensively managed American sycamore. Agric For Entomol 12:89–97Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Adams JP, Rousseau RJ, Leininger TD (2012) Genetic control of growth traits and inheritance of resistance to bacterial leaf scorch in American sycamore. Silvae Genet 61:198–206Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stanton BJ, Serapiglia MJ, Smart LB (2014) The domestication and conservation of Populus and Salix genetic resources (Ch 4). In: Isebrands JG, Richarson J (eds) Poplars and willows: trees for society and the environment. FAO and CABI, Rome, Italy, pp 124–,199, 634 ppGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Stanturf JA, van Oosten C (2014) Operational poplar and willow culture (Ch 5). In: Isebrands JG, Richarson J (eds) Poplars and willows: trees for society and the environment. FAO and CABI, Rome, Italy, pp 200–257, 634 ppGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kellison RC, Lea R, Marsh P (2013) Introduction of Eucalyptus spp. into the United States with special emphasis on the Southern United States. Int J For Res (article ID 189393, 9 pp). doi: 10.1155/2013/189393 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stout AB, Schreiner EJ (1933) Results of a project in hybridizing poplars. J Heredity 24:216–219Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Farmer RE Jr, Mohn CA (1970) Genetic improvement of eastern cottonwood. Silviculture and Management of Southern Hardwoods, Proceedings of the Louisiana State University 19th Annual Forestry Symposium, Baton Rouge, LA, pp 5–11Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Maisenhelder LC (1970) Eastern cottonwood selections outgrow hybrids on southern sites. J For 68:300–301Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mohn CA, Randall WK, McKnight JS (1970) Fourteen cottonwood clones selected for mid-south timber production. Res Pap SO-62. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA, 17 ppGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Cooper DT (1979) Cottonwood culture and research in the South. Proc N Am Poplar Counc Annu Meet 1979:3–11Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Johnson RL (1972) Genetically improved cottonwood: a research and development success. In: Proceedings of the 1972 National Convention, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD, pp 113–119Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    McKnight JS (1970) Planting cottonwood cuttings for timber production in the South. Res Pap SO-60. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA, 17 ppGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1983) Energy and wood from intensively cultured plantations: research and development program. Gen Tech Rep NC-58. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 28 ppGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hansen EA, Ostry ME, Johnson WD, Tolsted DN, Netzer DA, Berguson WE, Hall RB (1994) Field performance of Populus in short-rotation culture plantations in the North-Central U.S. Gen Tech Rep NC-320. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 13 ppGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Moore PW (1983) Southern California trial plantings of Eucalyptus. In: Standiford RB, Ledig FT (technical coord) Proceedings of a workshop on Eucalyptus in California, 14–16 June 1983, Sacramento, CA. Gen Tech Rep PSW-69. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, pp 14–18Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Sachs RM, Low CB (1983) Yields in high density, short rotation intensive culture (SRIC): plantations of Eucalyptus and other hardwood species. In: Standiford RB, Ledig FT (tech coord) Proceedings of a Workshop on Eucalyptus in California, 14–16 June 1983, Sacramento, CA. Gen Tech Rep PSW-69. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA, pp 71–75Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Whitesell CD, DeBell DS, Schubert TH, Strand RF, Crabb TB (1992) Short-rotation management of Eucalyptus: guidelines for plantations in Hawaii. Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-137. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, 30 ppGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rockwood DL (2012) History and status of Eucalyptus improvement in Florida. Int J For Res 2012:1–10 (article ID 607879, 10 pp). doi: 10.1155/2012/607879 Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Geary TE, Meskimen GF, Franklin EC (1983) Growing Eucalyptus in Florida for industrial wood production. Gen Tech Rep SE-23. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Rockwood DL, Rudie AW, Ralph SA, Zhu JY, Winandy JE (2008) Energy product options for Eucalyptus species grown as short rotation woody crops. Int J Mol Sci 9:1361–1378PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gonzalez R, Wright J, Saloni D (2010) The business of growing Eucalyptus for biomass. Biomass Magazine 4:52–56Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kline KL, Coleman MD (2010) Woody energy crops in the southeastern United States: two centuries of practitioner experience. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1655–1666Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Vance ED, Maguire DA, Zalesny RS Jr (2010) Research strategies for increasing productivity of intensively managed forest plantations. J For 108:183–192Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nelson CD, Peter GF, McKeand SE, Jokela EJ, Rummer RB, Groom LH, Johnsen KH (2013) Pines (Ch 20). In: Singh BP (ed) Biofuel crops: production, physiology and genetics. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 427–459, 548 ppGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Munsell JF, Fox TR (2010) An analysis of the feasibility for increasing woody biomass production from pine plantations in the Southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1631–1642Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Koch P (1980) Concept for southern pine plantation operations in the year 2020. J For 78:78–82Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Scott DA, Tiarks A (2008) Dual-cropping loblolly pine for biomass energy and conventional wood products. South J Appl For 32:33–37Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Albaugh JM, Sucre EB, Leggett ZH, Domec JC, King JS (2012) Evaluation of intercropped switchgrass establishment under a range of experimental site preparation treatments in a forested setting on the Lower Coastal Plain of North Carolina, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 46:673–682Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Stanturf JA, Gardiner ES, Bañuelos GS, Hallett RA, Hass A, Stange CM, Perdue JH, Young TM, Coyle DR, Headlee WL (2016) Environmental technologies of woody crop production systems. BioEnergy Res. doi: 10.1007/s12155-016-9738-y Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, 155 ppGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Goerndt ME, Mize C (2008) Short-rotation woody biomass as a crop on marginal lands in Iowa. North J Appl For 25:82–86Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Johansson T, Karacic A (2011) Increment and biomass in hybrid poplar and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1925–1934Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    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 22:348–354Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Headlee WL, Zalesny RS Jr, Blazier MA, Liechty HO, Pelkki MH (2016) Development and comparison of aboveground woody biomass equations for improved poplars in the Upper- and Lower-Mississippi River regions. For Ecol Manag (in review)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Landsberg JJ, Waring RH, Coops NC (2003) Performance of the forest productivity model 3-PG applied to a wide range of forest types. For Ecol Manag 172:199–214Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Amichev BY, Johnston M, Van Rees K (2010) Hybrid poplar growth in bioenergy production systems: biomass prediction with a simple process-based model (3PG). Biomass Bioenergy 34:687–702Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Lazarus W, Headlee WL, Zalesny RS Jr (2015) Impacts of supplyshed-level differences in productivity and land costs on the economics of hybrid poplar production in Minnesota, USA. BioEnergy Res 8:231–248Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Stanturf JA, van Oosten C, Netzer DA, Coleman MD, Portwood CJ (2001) Ecology and silviculture of poplar plantations (part A, Ch1). In: Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J (eds) Poplar culture in North America. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp 153–206Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Putnam J, McKnight JS, Furnival G (1960) Inventory and management of southern hardwoods. Agric Handbook 181. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Johnson RL, Burkhardt EC (1976) Natural cottonwood stands: past management and implications for plantations. In: Thielges BA, Land SB Jr (eds) Proceedings of the Symposium on Eastern Cottonwood and Related Species, 28 September–2 October 1976, Baton Rouge, LA, pp 20–30Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Francis JK (1985) The roots of plantation cottonwood: their characteristics and properties. Res Note SO-314. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Krinard RM (1988) Volume equations for plantation cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides). Res Note SO-347. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cao QV, Durand KM (1991) A growth and yield model for improved eastern cottonwood plantations in the Lower Mississippi Delta. South J Appl For 15:213–216Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Cao QV, Durand KM (1991) Site index curves for eastern cottonwood plantations in the Lower Mississippi Delta. South J Appl For 15:28–30Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    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 257:134–142Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Volk TA, Buford MA, Berguson W, Caputo J, Eaton J, Perdue JH, Rials TG, Biemenschneider D, Stanton B, Stanturf JA (2011a) Woody feedstocks: management and regional differences. In: Braun R, Karlen D, Johnson D (eds) Sustainable alternative feedstock opportunities, challenges and roadmap for six US regions. Proceedings of the Sustainable Feedstocks for Advance Biofuels Workshop, Soil and Water Conservation SocietyGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Cameron KD, Castellano P, Corbin T, Fabio E, Johnson G, Kuzovkina-Eischen Y, Labrecque M, Miller R, Sidders D (2011) Yields of willow biomass crops across a range of sites in North America. In: Booth E, Halford N, Sheild I, Taylor G, Turley D, Voigt T (eds) Aspects of applied biology 112. Biomass and bioenergy crops IV. Association of Applied Biologists, Warwick, UK, pp 67–74Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Carter MC, Kellison RC, Wallinger RS (2015) Forestry in the U.S. South. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA, 448 ppGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1929) Volume, yield and stand tables for second-growth southern pines. Misc. Publ. No. 50. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Wakeley PC (1954) Planting the southern pines. Agric Mon 18. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 233 ppGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Stanturf JA, Kellison RC, Broerman FS, Jones SB (2003) Innovation and forest industry: domesticating the pine forests of the Southern United States 1920–1999. For Pol Econ 5:407–419Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Stanturf JA, Kellison RC, Broerman FS, Jones SB (2003) Productivity of southern pine plantations: where are we and how did we get here? J For 101:26–31Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Fox TR, Allen HL, Albaugh TJ, Rubilar R, Carlson CA (2007) Tree nutrition and forest fertilization of pine plantations in the Southern United States. South J Appl For 31:5–11Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Baldwin VC Jr, Feduccia DP (1987) Loblolly pine growth and yield prediction for managed West Gulf plantations. Res Paper SO-236. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, New Orleans, LA, 27 ppGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Dean TJ, Baldwin VC (1996) Growth in loblolly pine plantations as a function of stand density and canopy properties. For Ecol Manag 82:49–58Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Baldwin VC, Burkhart HE, Westfall JA, Peterson KD (2001) Linking growth and yield and process models to estimate impact of environmental changes on growth of loblolly pine. For Sci 47:77–82Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Miller JH, Zutter BR, Zedaker M, Edwards MB, Newbold RA (2003) Growth and yield relative to competition control for loblolly pine plantations to midrotation: a southeastern United States regional study. South J Appl For 27:1–16Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Clark A, Daniels R (2004) Modeling the effect of physiogeographic region on wood properties of planted loblolly pine in the Southern United States. In: Connection between forest resource and wood quality: modeling approaches and simulation software. Fourth Workshop of the IUFRO Working Party S5.01-04, 8–15 September 2002, INRA-Centre de Recherces de Nancy, France, Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia, Canada, pp 54–60Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Samuelson LJ, Butnor J, Maier C, Stokes TA, Johnsen K, Kane M (2008) Growth and physiology of loblolly pine in response to long-term intensive management: defining growth potential in the southeastern United States. Can J For Res 38:721–732Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Allen HL, Fox TR, Campbell RG (2005) What is ahead for intensive pine plantation silviculture in the South? South J Appl For 29:62–69Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Borders BE, Bailey RL (2001) Loblolly pine—pushing the limits of growth. South J Appl For 25:69–74Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Dougherty PM, Johnsen KH (2004) Long term growth responses of loblolly pine to optimal nutrient and water resource availability. For Ecol Manag 192:3–19Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Burkes EC, Will RE, Barron-Gafford GA, Teskey RO, Shiver B (2003) Biomass partitioning and growth efficiency of intensively managed Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii stands of different planting densities. For Sci 49:224–234Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Adegbidi HG, Jokela EJ, Comerford NB, Barros NF (2002) Biomass development of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations growing on Spodosols in the southeastern USA. For Ecol Manag 167:91–102Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Lorentz KA, Minogue PJ (2014) Exotic Eucalyptus plantations in the southeastern US: risk assessment, management and policy approaches. Biol Invasions 17:1581–93Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Callaham MA, Stanturf JA, Hammond WJ, Rockwood DL, Wenk ES, O’Brien JJ (2013) Survey to evaluate escape of Eucalyptus spp. seedlings from plantations in southeastern USA. Int J For Res (Article ID 946374, 10 pp). doi: 10.1155/2013/946374 Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Goodrick SL, Stanturf JA (2012) Evaluating potential changes in fire risk from Eucalyptus plantings in the Southern United States. Int J For Res (article ID 680246, 9 pp). doi: 10.1155/2012/680246 Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Headlee WL, Hall RB, Zalesny RS Jr, Langholtz MH (2014) Comparing poplars to eucalypts and loblolly pine on marginal lands in the southeastern USA—preliminary results from a project modeling biomass productivity and economic performance. In: International Poplar Symposium VI, 20–23 July 2014, Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Headlee W, Hall R, Zalesny RS Jr, Langholtz M (2015) Optimizing woody biomass management and economics in the southeastern USA. In: Proceedings of USDA NIFA Fellowship Project Directors’ Meeting, 4–5 August 2015, Washington, DC, pp 31–32Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Hansen EA (1991) Poplar woody biomass yields: a look to the future. Biomass Bioenergy 1:1–7Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Zhu JY, Pan X, Zalesny RS Jr (2010) Pretreatment of woody biomass for biofuel production: energy efficiency, technologies, and recalcitrance. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87:847–857Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Gardiner ES (2014) Outlook for Mississippi Alluvial Valley forests: a subregional report from the Southern Forest Futures Project. Gen Tech Rep SRS-201. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 83 ppGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Stanturf JA, Portwood CJ (1999) Economics of afforestation with eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) on agricultural land in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Tenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, 18–19 February 1999, Shreveport, LA, pp 66–72Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Byrd A, Hood WG, Tyree MC, Dillaway DN (2015) Estimation of above ground biomass for multi-stemmed short-rotation woody crops. In: Gordon HA, Connor KF, Haywood JD (eds) Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. e-Gen Tech Rep SRS-203. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 313–314, (551 pp)Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RF, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. DOE/GO-102005-2135. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for US Department of Energy and US Department of Agriculture. http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf
  141. 141.
    US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2008) Woody biomass utilization strategy. Patton-Mallory M (ed). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 17 ppGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2011) The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Office of the Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Washington, DC, 22 ppGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Perlack RD, Ranney JW, Wright LL (1992) Environmental emissions and socioeconomic considerations in the production, storage, and transportation of biomass energy feedstocks. Final Report for US Department of Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Elbehri A (2007) The changing face of the U.S. grain system: differentiation and identity preservation trends. Econ Res Report 35. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 32 ppGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Benjamin JG, Lilieholm RJ, Coup CE (2010) Forest biomass harvesting in the Northeast: a special-needs operation. North J Appl For 27:45–49Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Altman I, Johnson T (2008) The choice of organizational form as a non-technical barrier to agro-bioenergy industry development. Biomass Bioenergy 32:28–34Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Dasmohapatra S (2009) Future market drivers for the forest products industry. Bioresources 4:1263–1266Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Gronowska M, Joshi S, MacLean HL (2009) A review of U.S. and Canadian biomass supply studies. Bioresources 4:341–369Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Berwick M, Farooq M (2003) Truck costing model for transportation managers. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, 53 ppGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Young TM, Hodges DG, Abt RC, Hartsell AJ, Perdue JH (2009a) Regional comparative advantage for woody biofuels production. Final Report for US Department of Transportation and Southeastern SunGrant Center submitted by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 167 ppGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Young TM, Perdue JH, Hartsell A, Abt RC, Hodges DG, Rials TG (2009b) A real-time web-based optimal Biomass Site Assessment Tool (BioSAT): module 1. An economic assessment of mill residues for the Southern U.S. In: McWilliams W, Moisen G, Czaplewski R (comps) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Symposium 2008, 21–23 October 2008, Park City, UT. Proc RMRS-P-56CD. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, 22 ppGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Perdue JH, Young TM, Rials TG (2011) The Biomass Site Assessment Model—BioSAT. Final Report for US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station submitted by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 282 ppGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Young TM, Zaretzki RL, Perdue JH, Guess FM, Liu X (2011) Logistic regression models of factors influencing the location of bioenergy and biofuels plants. BioResources 6:329–343Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Jackson SW, Rials T, Taylor A, Bozell J, Norris K (2010) Wood 2 Energy: A State of the Science and Technology Report (PDF). Accessed 11 January 2016. http://www.wood2energy.org
  155. 155.
    Aguilar FX, Saunders A (2010) Policy instruments promoting wood for energy uses: evidence from the continental U.S. J For 108:132–140Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Perez-Verdin G, Grebner DL, Sun C, Munn IA, Schultz EB, Matney TG (2009) Woody biomass availability for bioethanol conversion in Mississippi. Biomass Bioenergy 33:492–503Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Openshaw K (2010) Biomass energy: employment generation and its contribution to poverty alleviation. Biomass Bioenergy 34:365–378Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Young TM, Perdue JH, Hartsell AJ, Rials TG (2011b) An economic assessment for biomass in the Southern U.S. using the Biomass Site Assessment Tool (BioSAT). In: Shelly JR (ed) Woody biomass utilization: Proceedings of the International Conference on Woody Biomass Utilization, 4–5 August 2009, Starkville, MS. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI, pp 93–107Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Huang X, Perdue JH, Young TM (2012) A spatial index for identifying opportunity zones for woody cellulosic conversion facilities. Int J For Res (article ID 106474, 11 pp). doi: 10.1155/2012/106474 Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Hinchee M, Rottmann W, Mullinax L, Zhang C, Chang S, Cunningham M, Pearson L, Nehra N (2009) Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 45:619–629PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Perdue JH, Stanturf JA, Young TM, Huang X, Dougherty (2013) An economic geospatial analysis of short-rotation woody crops. Final Report for US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station submitted by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 130 ppGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Young TM, Han LD, Guess FM, Hargrove SR, Huang X, Perdue JH, Chen CH (2014) Modeling the impact of the emerging bioeconomy on transportation network flows with simulation and Bayesian inference. Final Report for US Department of Transportation and Southeastern SunGrant Center submitted by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 69 ppGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Stanturf JA, Gardiner ES, Hamel PB, Devall MS, Leininger TD, Warren ME Jr (2000) Restoring bottomland hardwood ecosystems in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. J For 98:10–16Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Gardiner E, Stanturf J, Leininger T, Hamel P, Dorris L Jr, Portwood J, Shepard J (2008) Establishing a research and demonstration area initiated by managers: the Sharkey Restoration Research and Demonstration Site. J For 106:363–369Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Van Voorhis C (2012) The rise of natural capitalism and the new frontier of the restoration economy. For Landowner (November/December), pp 18–25Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Birdsey RA (1992) Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. General Technical Report WO-59. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, p 51Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Heilman PE, Stettler RF (1985) Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. II. Biomass production in a 4-year plantation. Can J For Res 15:384–388Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Rajora OP, Zsuffa L (1990) Allozyme divergence and evolutionary relationships among Populus deltoides, P. nigra, and P. maximowiczii. Genome 33:44–49Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Eckenwalder JE (1996) Systematics and evolution of Populus, part I, Ch. 1. In: Stettler RF, Bradshaw HD Jr, Heilman PE, Hinckley TM (eds) Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp 7–32Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Schulze B, Wirth C, Linke P, Brand WA, Kuhlmann I, Horna V, Schulze ED (2004) Laser ablation–combustion–GC-IRMS: a new method for online analysis of intra-annual variation of δ13C in tree rings. Tree Physiol 24:1193–1201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Ripullone F, Lauteri M, Grassi G, Amato M, Borghetti M (2004) Variation in nitrogen supply changes water-use efficiency of Pseudotsuga menziesii and Populus × euramericana; a comparison of three approaches to determine water-use efficiency. Tree Physiol 24:671–679PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Monclus R, Dreyer E, Villar M, Delmotte FM, Delay D, Petit J-M, Marron N, Bréchet C, Brignolas F (2006) Impact of drought on productivity and water use efficiency in 29 genotypes of Populus deltoides × P. nigra. New Phytol 169:765–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Dillen SY, Marron N, Koch B, Ceulemans R (2008) Genetic variation of stomatal traits and carbon isotope discrimination in two hybrid poplar families (Populus deltoides ’S9-2’ × P. nigra ’Ghoy’ and P. deltoides ’S9-2’ × P. trichocarpa ’V24’). Ann Bot 102:399–407PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Yin C, Wang X, Duan B, Luo J, Li C (2005) Early growth, dry matter allocation and water use efficiency of two sympatric Populus species as affected by water stress. Environ Exp Bot 53:315–322Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Dvorak WS (2012) Water use in plantations of eucalypts and pines: a discussion paper from a tree breeding perspective. Int For Rev 14:110–119Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Ouyang Y, Xu D, Leininger TD, Zhang N (2016) A system dynamic model to estimate hydrological processes and water use in a eucalypt plantation. Ecol Eng 86:290–299Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Vose JM, Miniat CF, Sun G, Caldwell PV (2015) Potential implications for expansion of freeze-tolerant Eucalyptus plantations on water resources in the Southern United States. For Sci 61:509–521Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Zalesny RS Jr, Stanturf JA, Evett SR, Kandil NF, Soriano C (2011) Opportunities for woody crop production using treated wastewater in Egypt. I. Afforestation strategies. Int J Phytoremed 13:102–121Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Evett SR, Zalesny RS Jr, Kandil NF, Stanturf JA, Soriano C (2011) Opportunities for woody crop production using treated wastewater in Egypt. II. Irrigation strategies. Int J Phytoremed 13:122–139Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Moreau B, Gardiner ES, Stanturf JA, Fisher RK (2004) Estimating leaf nitrogen of eastern cottonwood trees with a chlorophyll meter. In: Connor KF (ed) Gen Tech Rep SRS-71. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, pp 487–491 (594 pp)Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Hamel PB (2003) Winter bird community differences among methods of bottomland hardwood forest restoration: results after seven growing seasons. Forestry 76:189–197Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Kennedy HE Jr, Krinard RM (1988) Coppice growth and development of three bottomland hardwoods through four years. In: McCaskey TA, Lockaby BG (comps) Southern Biomass Conference: A Joint Meeting of the Southern Biomass Energy Research Group and the Southern Forestry Biomass Working Group. Auburn University, Auburn, AL, pp 3–5, (62 pp)Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Davis AA, Trettin CC (2006) Sycamore and sweetgum plantation productivity on former agricultural land in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 30:769–777Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Tang Z, Land SB Jr (1996) Early growth, leaf development, and dry-weight production of sycamore rooted cuttings. Biomass Bioenergy 10:221–229Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Leininger TD, Schiff NM, Corbin K (2004) Homalodisca coagulata transmits Xylella fastidiosa to sycamore. Phytopathology 94:S59Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Chatterjee S, Wistrom C, Lindow SE (2008) A cell–cell signaling sensor is required for virulence and insect transmission of Xylella fastidiosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:2670–2675PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Leininger TD, Britton KO, Chang CJ (1999a) Determining the role of bacterial leaf scorch, canker stain, and Botryosphaeria canker in the dieback of plantation sycamores in the southeastern United States. In: Ash CL (ed) Shade tree wilt diseases—Proceedings from Wilt Diseases of Shade Trees: A National Conference. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, pp 209–216, (257 pp)Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Leininger TD, Solomon JD, Wilson AD, Schiff NM (1999b) A guide to major insects, diseases, air pollution injury, and chemical injury of sycamore. Gen Tech Rep SRS-28. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 44 ppGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Amichev BY, Hangs RD, Konecsni SM, Stadnyk CN, Volk TA, Bélanger N, Vujanovic V, Schoenau JJ, Moukoumi J, Van Rees KCJ (2014) Willow short-rotation production systems in Canada and Northern United States: a review. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:S168–S182Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Maisenhelder LC (1957) Propagation of some Delta hardwoods by rooting. In: Proceedings of the 4th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, pp 55–58 (147 pp)Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Randall WK (1971) Willow clones differ in susceptibility to cottonwood leaf beetle. In: Proceedings of the 11th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, Southern Forest Tree Improvement Committee Sponsored Publication 33, Macon, GA, pp 108–111 (229 pp)Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Kumpulainen S (2006) Vulnerability concepts in hazard and risk assessment. Geol Surv Finland (Special Paper) 42:65–74Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2003) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, London, 496 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald S. ZalesnyJr
    • 1
    Email author
  • John A. Stanturf
    • 2
  • Emile S. Gardiner
    • 3
  • James H. Perdue
    • 4
  • Timothy M. Young
    • 5
  • David R. Coyle
    • 6
    • 7
  • William L. Headlee
    • 8
    • 9
  • Gary S. Bañuelos
    • 10
  • Amir Hass
    • 11
  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, Northern Research StationInstitute for Applied Ecosystem StudiesRhinelanderUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research StationCenter for Forest Disturbance ScienceAthensUSA
  3. 3.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research StationCenter for Bottomland Hardwoods ResearchStonevilleUSA
  4. 4.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research StationForest Products CenterKnoxvilleUSA
  5. 5.Forest Products CenterUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  6. 6.D.B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  7. 7.Southern Regional Extension ForestryAthensUSA
  8. 8.Division of Agriculture, Arkansas Forest Resources CenterUniversity of ArkansasMonticelloUSA
  9. 9.School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of Arkansas at MonticelloMonticelloUSA
  10. 10.USDA Agricultural Research ServiceWater Management Research UnitParlierUSA
  11. 11.Agricultural and Environmental Research StationWest Virginia State UniversityInstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations