Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Allometric Relationships for Aboveground Woody Biomass Differ Among Hybrid Poplar Genomic Groups and Clones in the North-Central USA

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Allometric biomass equations were developed based on harvests of 198 trees from 15 field sites in the north-central USA, with the trees representing 4 hybrid poplar genomic groups and a total of 11 clones within these groups. Specifically, equations were developed to describe woody (branch + stem) total dry weight (TDW) as a function of diameter at breast height (DBH), along with hypothesis tests of differences among genomic groups and clones for equation intercepts and slopes. Inclusion of groups or clones improved model fit (r2 = 0.90 or 0.91, respectively) compared to the generic model consisting of only DBH (r2 = 0.85). Differences in equation parameters translated into significant differences among groups and clones for estimated TDW when compared at mean DBH (20 cm). Equations were also developed to describe branch-to-stem weight ratio (BSR) as a function of TDW and tree height (H), also with hypothesis tests of differences in intercepts and slopes among genomic groups and clones. Inclusion of genomic groups somewhat improved model fit (r2 = 0.57) compared to the generic model consisting of only TDW and H (r2 = 0.53), whereas model fit improved more markedly with the inclusion of clones (r2 = 0.75). Our results indicate that group- and clone-specific equations (rather than generic ones) are warranted for hybrid poplars, and that group-specific equations are adequate for estimating TDW whereas clone-specific equations are more appropriate for estimating BSR.

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

References

  1. Ball J, Carle J, Del Lungo A (2005) Contribution of poplars and willows to sustainable forestry and rural development. Unasylva 56:3–9 http://www.fao.org/3/a0026e/a0026e02.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zalesny RS Jr, Stanturf JA, Gardiner ES, Perdue JH, Young TM, Coyle DR, Headlee WL, Bañuelos GS, Hass A (2016) Ecosystem services of woody crop production systems. Bioenergy Res. 9:465–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9737-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Joslin JD, Schoenholtz SH (1997) Measuring the environmental effects of converting cropland to short-rotation woody crops: a research approach. Biomass Bioenergy 13:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10017-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Updegraff K, Baughman MJ, Taff SJ (2004) Environmental benefits of cropland conversion to hybrid poplar: economic and policy considerations. Biomass Bioenergy 27:411–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 284:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson JMF, Coleman MD, Gesch R, Jaradat A, Mitchell R, Reicosky D, Wilhelm WW (2007) Biomass-bioenergy crops in the United States: a changing paradigm. Am J Plant Sci Biotechnol 1:1–28 https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=47858&content=PDF. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    Google Scholar 

  7. Licht LA, Isebrands JG (2005) Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass economic opportunities. Biomass Bioenergy 28:203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.08.015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rockwood DL, Naidu CV, Carter DR, Rahmani M, Spriggs TA, Lin C, Alker GR, Isebrands JG, Segrest SA (2004) Short-rotation woody crops and phytoremediation: opportunities for agroforestry? Agrofor Syst 61:51–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000028989.72186.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 9:492–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9738-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 34:1028–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB, Zalesny JA, Berguson WE, McMahon BG, Stanosz GR (2009) Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of Populus energy crops in the Midwestern United States. Bioenergy Res 2:106–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-009-9039-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Jenkins JC (2014) Updated generalized biomass equations for North American tree species. Forestry 87:129–151. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpt053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49:12–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/49.1.12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Johansson T, Karačić A (2011) Increment and biomass in hybrid poplar and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1925–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Truax B, Gagnon D, Fortier J, Lambert F (2012) Yield in 8 year-old hybrid poplar plantations on abandoned farmland along climatic and soil fertility gradients. For Ecol Manag 267:228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Truax B, Gagnon D, Fortier J, Lambert F (2014) Biomass and volume yield in mature hybrid poplar plantations on temperate abandoned farmland. Forests 5:3107–3130. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5123107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zabek LM, Prescott CE (2006) Biomass equations and carbon content of aboveground leafless biomass of hybrid poplar in Coastal British Columbia. For Ecol Manag 223:291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goerndt ME, Mize C (2008) Short-rotation woody biomass as a crop on marginal lands in Iowa. North J Appl For 25:82–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/njaf/25.2.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 5:2874–2886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5072874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 22:348–354. https://doi.org/10.1139/x92-045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. In: General Technical Report NC-229. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul 31 p. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc229.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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 US: demonstration of potential yield and consideration of future research needs. For Chron 77:245–253. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc77245-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 11:253–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(96)00020-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Burkart HE, Tomé M (2012) Quantifying tree crowns. In: Burkhart HE, Tomé M (eds) Modeling forest trees and stands. Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, pp 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3170-9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Truax B, Fortier J, Gagnon D, Lambert F (2018) Planting density and site effects on stem dimensions, stand productivity, biomass partitioning, carbon stocks and soil nutrient supply in hybrid poplar plantations. Forests 9:293 (21 p). https://doi.org/10.3390/f9060293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Soares P, Tomé M (2001) A tree crown ratio prediction equation for eucalyptus plantations. Ann For Sci 58:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2001118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 6:196–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9251-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 4:251–269. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4020251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

  30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) monthly summaries. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

  31. Hansen E (1992) Mid-rotation yields of biomass plantations in the north central U.S. Research Paper NC-309. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul 8 p. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rp/rp_nc309.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Hansen EA, Ostry ME, Johnson WD, Tolsted DN, Netzer DA, Berguson WE, Hall RB (1994) Field performance of Populus in short-rotation intensive culture plantations in the north-central U.S. Research Paper NC-320. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul. 13 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NC-RP-320

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Glass SV, Zelinka SL (2010) Moisture relations and physical properties of wood. In: Wood handbook – wood as an engineering material. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison. 508 p. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/37428. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

  34. Forthofer RN, Lee ES, Hernandez M (2007) Biostatistics: A Guide to Design, Anlaysis, and Discovery, 2nd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington 502 p

    Google Scholar 

  35. Littell RC, Stroup WW, Freund RJ (2002) SAS® for Linear Models, 4th edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary 466 p

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sprugel DG (1983) Correcting for bias in log-transformed allometric equations. Ecology 64:209–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Balatinecz JJ, Kretschmann DE (2001) Properties and utilization of poplar wood. Part A, Ch 9. In: Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JG, Richardson J (eds) Poplar Culture in North America. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, pp 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1139/9780660181455

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Gartner BL (2005) Assessing woody characteristics and wood quality in intensively managed plantations. J For 103:75–77 https://search.proquest.com/docview/220823244?accountid=28147. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    Google Scholar 

  39. DeBell DS, Singleton R, Harrington CA, Gartner BL (2002) Wood density and fiber length in young Populus stems: relation to clone, age, growth rate, and pruning. Wood Fiber Sci 34:529–539 https://wfs.swst.org/index.php/wfs/article/view/812. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Geyer WA, DeWyke J, Walawender WP (2000) Biomass and gasification properties of young Populus clones. Wood Fiber Sci 32:375–384 https://wfs.swst.org/index.php/wfs/article/view/413. Accessed 15 Mar 2019

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pliura A, Zhang SY, MacKay J, Bousquet J (2007) Genotypic variation in wood density and growth traits of poplar hybrids at four clonal trials. For Ecol Manag 238:92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.082

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize the following people for their assistance in harvesting and processing the study trees: Edmund Bauer, Bradford Bender, Bruce Birr, Richard Hall, Ben Klosiewski, Kricket Koehn, Raymond Miller, Jesse Randall, Collin Smith, Thomas Smith, and Adam Wiese. We also thank the collaborators who allowed us access to their field sites (Drs. Gregg Johnson and Jeff Strock [University of Minnesota]; Drs. Glen Stanosz and Tim Wood [University of Wisconsin]), as well as the private landowners who let us harvest their trees. We are also grateful to Sue Lietz for producing Fig. 1, and to Robert Froese and Sophan Chhin for reviewing earlier versions of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the USDA Forest Service Research and Development Washington Office Woody Biomass, Bioenergy, and Bioproducts Program, as well as the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Climate Change Science Council and the Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies (RWU-NRS-13).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weyerhaeuser Co., 810 Whittington Ave, Hot Springs, AR, 71901, USA

    William L. Headlee

  2. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 5985 Highway K, Rhinelander, WI, 54501, USA

    Ronald S. Zalesny Jr

Authors
  1. William L. Headlee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald S. Zalesny Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald S. Zalesny Jr.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 95 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Headlee, W.L., Zalesny, R.S. Allometric Relationships for Aboveground Woody Biomass Differ Among Hybrid Poplar Genomic Groups and Clones in the North-Central USA. Bioenerg. Res. 12, 966–976 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10038-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10038-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation