Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Change in Yield Between First and Second Rotations in Willow (Salix spp.) Biomass Crops is Strongly Related to the Level of First Rotation Yield

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Yield is a critical factor in the development and understanding of willow biomass crops which experience multiple harvests after planting. Small changes in yield can have substantial impacts on economic and environmental assessments. Studies have reported increases between first rotation yield (FRY) and second rotation yield (SRY); however, there is minimal agreement on the variation of this increase. This study analyzes FRYs and SRYs of commercial willow cultivars in 360 research plots across five sites in the Northeast and North Central USA. Mean FRYs were 9.6 Mg ha−1 year−1 and mean SRYs were 7.9 % greater at 10.3 Mg ha−1 year−1. The relative change in yield between rotations was high for plots with low FRYs, but decreased as FRY increased and was negative when FRYs were highest. Therefore, applying a single yield increase factor to all willow crops may result in errors. Linear and logistic regression modeling were used to predict the magnitude of yield change across the range of FRYs and the probability for increasing/constant yields. Results showed that FRY alone predicts yield change with an R 2 of 0.635, and adding cultivar and site/management factors increases R 2 to 0.697. One study limitation is that many plots with the highest FRYs came from a drought influenced site. A meta-analysis of literature data revealed that this pattern of decreasing relative gains as FRYs increase is widespread though not previously addressed. Acknowledging this pattern should provide more accurate yield estimates over multiple 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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unless otherwise mentioned, all yield figures are given as oven dry weights (0 % free moisture).

  2. The study by Guidi Nissim et al. [13] has two components with each included as a separate study in the review. One of the 23 studies, Willebrand and Verwijst [47], is also included in the review by Mitchell et al. [46].

Abbreviations

FRY:

First rotation yield

SRY:

Second rotation yield

SES:

Site establishment score

ND:

Narrow deployment

BD:

Broad deployment

TD:

Trial deployment

SPC:

Symmetrized percent change

References

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (2011) U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Perlack RD and Stokes BJ (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

  2. Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24(5-6):385–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abrahamson LP, Robison DJ, Volk TA, White EH, Neuhauser EF, Benjamin WH, Peterson JM (1998) Sustainability and environmental issues associated with willow bioenergy development in New York (U.S.A.). Biomass Bioenergy 15(1):17–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Volk TA, Verwijst T, Tharakan PJ, Abrahamson LP, White EH (2004) Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ 2(8):411–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Njakou Djomo S, El Kasmioui O, Ceulemans R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. GCB Bioenergy 3(3):181–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Buchholz T, Caputo J, Eisenbies M (2014) Development and deployment of willow biomass crops. In: Karlen D (ed) Cellulosic energy cropping systems. John Wiley and Sons, pp 201–217

  7. Christersson L (1986) High technology biomass production by Salix clones on a sandy soil in southern Sweden. Tree Physiol 2(1-2-3):261–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adegbidi HG, Volk TA, White EH, Abrahamson LP, Briggs RD, Bickelhaupt DH (2001) Biomass and nutrient removal by willow clones in experimental bioenergy plantations in New York State. Biomass Bioenergy 20(6):399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, Cameron KD, Castellano P, Corbin T, Fabio E, Johnson G, Kuzovkina-Eischen Y, Labrecque M, Miller R, Sidders D, Smart LB, Staver K, Stanosz GR, Rees K (2011) Yields of willow biomass crops across a range of sites in North America. Asp Appl Biol 112:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aylott MJ, Casella E, Tubby I, Street NR, Smith P, Taylor G (2008) Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New Phytol 178(2):358–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lindegaard KN, Carter MM, McCracken A, Shield IF, MacAlpine W, Jones MH, Valentine J, Larsson S (2011) Comparative trials of elite Swedish and UK biomass willow varieties 2001–2010. Asp Appl Biol 112:57–66

    Google Scholar 

  12. Liu B (2013) Biomass production of willow short-rotation coppice across sites and determinants of yields for SV1 and SX61. Thesis, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry

  13. Guidi Nissim W, Pitre FE, Teodorescu TI, Labrecque M (2013) Long-term biomass productivity of willow bioenergy plantations maintained in southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 56:361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer M, Trnka M, Kučera J, Fajman M, Žalud Z (2011) Biomass productivity and water use relation in short rotation poplar coppice (Populus nigra x P. maximowiczii) in the conditions of Czech Moravian Highlands. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun 59(6):141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cienciala E, Lindroth A (1995) Gas-exchange and sap flow measurements of Salix viminalis trees in short-rotation forest—II. Diurnal and seasonal variations of stomatal response and water use efficiency. Trees 9(5):295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lindroth A, Båth A (1999) Assessment of regional willow coppice yield in Sweden on basis of water availability. For Ecol Manag 121(1–2):57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Styles D, Thorne F, Jones MB (2008) Energy crops in Ireland: an economic comparison of willow and Miscanthus production with conventional farming systems. Biomass Bioenergy 32(5):407–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Caputo J, Balogh S, Volk T, Johnson L, Puettmann M, Lippke B, Oneil E (2014) Incorporating uncertainty into a life cycle assessment (LCA) model of short-rotation willow biomass (Salix spp.) crops. Bioenerg Res 7(1):48–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA (2003) Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenergy 25(2):147–165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Matthews RW (2001) Modelling of energy and carbon budgets of wood fuel coppice systems. Biomass Bioenergy 21(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thornley JHM (1972) A balanced quantitative model for root: shoot ratios in vegetative plants. Ann Bot 36(145):431–441

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cunniff J, Purdy SJ, Barraclough TJP, Castle M, Maddison AL, Jones LE, Shield IF, Gregory AS, Karp A (2015) High yielding biomass genotypes of willow (Salix spp.) show differences in below ground biomass allocation. Biomass Bioenergy 80:114–127

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pacaldo R, Volk T, Briggs R (2013) Greenhouse gas potentials of shrub willow biomass crops based on below- and aboveground biomass inventory along a 19-year chronosequence. Bioenerg Res 6(1):252–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Heinsoo K, Koppel A (2003) Choice of willow (Salix spp.) clones for establishment short rotation forest plantations in Estonia. LIFE project: sustainable wastewater purification in Estonian small municipalities. LIFE00 ENV/EE/000924. Interim report: Annex 9

  26. Hytönen J (1995) Ten-year biomass production and stand structure of Salix ‘aquatica’ energy forest plantation in Southern Finland. Biomass Bioenergy 8(2):63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Larsson S (2001) Commercial varieties from the Swedish willow breeding programme. Asp Appl Biol 65:193–198

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nordh N-E, Verwijst T (2005) Biomass production and population dynamics of 12 willow (Salix) clones grown in three short rotations during 14 years. In: Nordh N-E. Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation willow coppice. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

  29. Hauk S, Knoke T, Wittkopf S (2014) Economic evaluation of short rotation coppice systems for energy from biomass—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 29:435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Weger J, Havlíčková K, Bubeník J (2011) Results of testing of native willows and poplars for short rotation coppice after three harvests. Asp Appl Biol 112:335–340

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hofmann-Schielle C, Jug A, Makeschin F, Rehfuess KE (1999) Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in the Federal Republic of Germany. I. Site–growth relationships. For Ecol Manag 121(1–2):41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lindegaard KN, Parfitt RI, Donaldson G, Hunter T, Dawson WM, Forbes EGA, Carter MM, Whinney CC, Whinney JE, Larsson S (2001) Comparative trials of elite Swedish and UK biomass willow varieties. Asp Appl Biol 65:183–192

    Google Scholar 

  33. Valentine J, Duller CJ, Hinton-Jones M, Tubby I, Fry DA, Slater FM, Sherborne A, Jones E, Heaton R, Farrell J, Horne B, Green CG, Powell H (2009) The development of sustainable heat and power fuelled by biomass from short rotation coppice in Wales. Aberystwyth University Report of the Helyg i Gymru / Willow for Wales 2004–2008 project

  34. Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI (2003) High biomass yield achieved by Salix clones in SRIC following two 3-year coppice rotations on abandoned farmland in southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 25(2):135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Styles D, Jones MB (2007) Energy crops in Ireland: quantifying the potential life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of energy-crop electricity. Biomass Bioenergy 31(11–12):759–772

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Krasuska E, Rosenqvist H (2012) Economics of energy crops in Poland today and in the future. Biomass Bioenergy 38:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. González-García S, Mola-Yudego B, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Murphy R (2012) Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial willow plantations in Sweden. Sci Total Environ 421–422:210–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. PRISM Climate Group (2015) Data explorer: time series values for individual locations. Oregon State University. Available at http://prism.oregonstate.edu/explorer/ Accessed 21 Sept 2015

  39. Soil Survey Staff (2013) Web soil survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

  40. Northeast Regional Climate Center (2014) Northeast RCC CLIMOD II. Cornell University and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at http://climodtest.nrcc.cornell.edu/ Accessed 15 Aug 2014

  41. SAS Institute Inc (2008) SAS system for Windows, Release 9.2. SAS Institute Inc, Clary

    Google Scholar 

  42. Montgomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG (2001) Introduction to linear regression analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Berry D (1990) Statistical principles in designing and analyzing clinical studies. In: Berry D (ed) Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1–55

    Google Scholar 

  44. Avery TE, Burkhart HE (2002) Forest measurements, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mallows CL (1973) Some comments on C P. Technometrics 15(4):661–675

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mitchell CP, Stevens EA, Watters MP (1999) Short-rotation forestry—operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. For Ecol Manag 121(1–2):123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Willebrand E, Verwijst T (1993) Population dynamics of willow coppice systems and their implications for management of short-rotation forests. For Chron 69(6):699–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wang Z, 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McKenzie F, Sellers G, Martin P (2008) Willow (Salix viminalis) short rotation coppice (SRC) as a potential biomass energy crop in Orkney. Asp Appl Biol 90:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  51. McCracken AR, Walsh L, Moore PJ, Lynch M, Cowan P, Dawson M, Watson S (2011) Yield of willow (Salix spp.) grown in short rotation coppice mixtures in a long-term trial. Ann Appl Biol 159(2):229–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. McCracken AR, Dawson WM, Bowden G (2001) Yield responses of willow (Salix) grown in mixtures in short rotation coppice (SRC). Biomass Bioenergy 21(5):311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mitchell CP, Ford-Robertson JB, Watters MP (1992) Production from energy forest plantations. In: Grassi G, Colina A, Zibetta H (eds) Biomass for energy, industry, and environment, 6th E.C. Conference. Elsevier Applied Science, London

  54. Kunze M, Nielsen HK, Ahlhaus M (2006) Yield of woody biomass from southern Norway and their suitability for combustion and gasification purposes depending on the harvest frequency. Paper presented at the 2nd International Baltic Bioenergy Conference, Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany, 2006 Nov 2–4 2006

  55. Bullard MJ, Mustill SJ, Nixon PMI, McMillan SD, Britt CP (2001) The effect on yield of initial planting density of short rotation coppice. Asp Appl Biol 65:167–171

    Google Scholar 

  56. Otepka P, Habán M (2006) Biomass yield of basket willow (Salix viminalis L.) cultivated as energy plant in a long-term experiment. Acta Fytotech Zootech 9(3):70–74

    Google Scholar 

  57. McElroy GH, Dawson WM (1986) Biomass from short-rotation coppice willow on marginal land. Biomass 10(3):225–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. McCracken AR, Dawson WM (1998) Short rotation coppice willow in Northern Ireland since 1973: development of the use of mixtures in the control of foliar rust (Melampsora spp.). Eur J For Pathol 28(4):241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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(5):313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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 

  61. Switzer GL (1978) Determinants of forest stand productivity. In: Tippen T (ed) Proceedings—a symposium on principles of maintaining productivity on prepared sites. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C., pp 14–27

    Google Scholar 

  62. Burger JA (1994) Cumulative effects of silvicultural technology on sustained forest productivity. In: Mahndrappa MK, Simpson CM, Smith CT (eds) Assessing the effects of silvicultural practices on sustained productivity. Proceedings of the IEA/BE Workshop ‘93. 16–22 May, Fredericton, NB, Canada. Canadian Forest Service, Maritimes Region, Information Report M-X-191, pp 59–70

  63. Miguez FE, Villamil MB, Long SP, Bollero GA (2008) Meta-analysis of the effects of management factors on Miscanthus × giganteus growth and biomass production. Agric For Meteorol 148(8–9):1280–1292

  64. Shi S, Eisenbies M, Fabio E, Moser M, Volk TA (2014) Yield of 30 shrub willow cultivars over two rotations in a yield trial at Middlebury, VT. Poster presented at the International Poplar Council meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 21–24 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the foundational work on willow biomass crops in North America done by Edwin White and Lawrence Abrahamson. Breeding work for many of the cultivars in this trial was completed by Richard Kopp with assistance from Larry Smart and Lawrence Abrahamson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, 1 Forestry Dr., Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Nathan J. Sleight, Timothy A. Volk, Mark H. Eisenbies & Shun Shi

  2. Southern Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, 35838 120th St., Waseca, MN, 56093, USA

    Gregg A. Johnson

  3. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, 630 West North St., Geneva, NY, 14456, USA

    Eric S. Fabio

  4. Integral Consulting Inc., 7030 East Genesee St., Fayetteville, NY, 13066, USA

    Penelope S. Pooler

Authors
  1. Nathan J. Sleight
    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. Gregg A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark H. Eisenbies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shun Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eric S. Fabio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Penelope S. Pooler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy A. Volk.

Ethics declarations

Essential funding to maintain and monitor these plots over the past several years was provided by the North Central Regional Sun Grant Center at South Dakota State University through a grant provided by the US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office under award number DE-FC36-05GO85041 and the Southern Research and Outreach Station at the University of Minnesota. Support for the initial establishment of these trials was provided by USDA AFRI and the NewYork State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). T.A. Volk is a co-inventor on the patents for the following willow cultivars that are included in this trial: Tully Champion (US PP 17,946), Fish Creek (US PP 17,710), Millbrook (US PP 17,646), Oneida (US PP 17,682), Otisco (US PP 17,997), Canastota (US PP 17,724), and Owasco (US PP 17,845).

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplemental Table 1

(DOCX 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sleight, N.J., Volk, T.A., Johnson, G.A. et al. Change in Yield Between First and Second Rotations in Willow (Salix spp.) Biomass Crops is Strongly Related to the Level of First Rotation Yield. Bioenerg. Res. 9, 270–287 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9684-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9684-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation