Growth and biomass of two poplar clones in short rotation coppice under different densities

Gao Feng; Zhang Yaxiong; Liu Feng; Bu Shaowei; Zhao Wanning; Jia Liming

doi:10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210371

Journal of Beijing Forestry University > 2022 > 44(11): 41-49. > DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210371

Gao Feng, Zhang Yaxiong, Liu Feng, Bu Shaowei, Zhao Wanning, Jia Liming. Growth and biomass of two poplar clones in short rotation coppice under different densities[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2022, 44(11): 41-49. DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210371

Citation:

PDF (799 KB)

Growth and biomass of two poplar clones in short rotation coppice under different densities

Gao Feng^{1, 2,},
Zhang Yaxiong³,
Liu Feng⁴,
Bu Shaowei⁵,
Zhao Wanning^{1, 2,},
Jia Liming^{1, 2, ,}

1.
National Energy R&D Center for Non-Food Biomass, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2.
Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
3.
Gansu Forestry Polytechnic, Tianshui 741020, Gansu, China
4.
College of Plant Protection, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, Shanxi, China
5.
Tongzhou Urban Greening Service Center of Beijing, Beijing 101100, China

More Information

Received Date: September 21, 2021
Revised Date: October 15, 2021
Accepted Date: September 29, 2022
Available Online: September 29, 2022
Published Date: November 24, 2022

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Objective In the cultivation process of energy forest, the cultivation pattern of short rotation coppice (SRC) has attracted attention from various countries due to its excellent performance in productivity and environment. However, the influence of different planting densities and management modes on its growth and productivity still needs further discussion. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in growth, productivity, and sustainability of two poplar clones’ short rotation coppice without later artificial water and fertilizer management.
Method (P. tomentosa × P. bolleana) × P. tomentosa (hereinafter referred to as “B301”) and Populus × euramericana cv.‘74/76’ (hereinafter referred to as “107”) planted in Gaotang County, Shandong Province of eastern China were used as experimental materials, with three planting densities (5 000, 10 000, 20 000 plant/ha) and three different rotation cycles (2, 3, 4 years). It took 6 years to study the survival rate, shoot diameter (D₂₂) at 22 cm aboveground, number of shoots per plant, and biomass per unit area during each cycle and during 6 years.
Result (1) The survival rate of the two species was higher in two-year rotation cycle, and lower in the planting density of 20 000 plant/ha. The maximum value of survival rate was 98.89%, which appeared in the second round of B301 of 2-year rotation and the planting density of 10 000 plant/ha. After six years of short-rotation management, the survival rate decreased significantly in all treatments of two- and three- year rotation cycle, with the survival rate of B301 remained above 66%, and that of 107 above 58%. (2) Both the average D₂₂ and the average stoop per stump of the two clones were larger in the lower planting density. The average D₂₂ was larger in the longer rotation and the first rotation, while the average stoop per stump was larger in the 2- and 3-year rotation and the last two rotations. The largest average D₂₂ of the two clones appeared in the first rotation of the four-year rotation and the planting density of 5 000 plant/ha. It could reach 5.83 cm in B301, while it could reach 7.32 cm in 107. The average stoop per stump of B301 ranged from 1.10 to 5.52, and that of 107 ranged from 1.14 to 9.55, and 107 has better resprout capacity. (3) Productivity of short-rotation coppice planted under this experimental conditions in North China: in a single rotation cycle, the average annual biomass per unit area was 3.36−13.42 t/(ha·year) for B301 and 4.58−14.45 t/(ha·year) for 107. During 6 years, the average annual biomass per unit area of B301 ranged from 5.10 to 9.95 t/(ha·year), while that of 107 ranged from 6.22 to 10.69 t/(ha·year). The total biomass per unit area was 30.63 − 59.68 t/ha for B301 and 37.32 − 64.17 t/ha for 107.
Conclusion (1) Without artificial water and fertilizer management, the productivity of 2 species of short-rotation poplar coppice is the highest at the first rotation, and declines with the increase of the number of rotations. (2) To build SRC in this region, 107 is superior to B301 on the whole in order to obtain higher productivity. (3) Considering the actual planting and management costs in operation, the rotation period of 3 years and the plant density of 10 000 plant/ha are the more suitable rotation and planting density for these two poplar clones.

FullText(HTML)

References (42)

References

[1]	Scholz V, Ellerbrock R. The growth productivity, and environmental impact of the cultivation of energy crops on sandy soil in Germany[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2002, 23(2): 81−92.
[2]	Langeveld H, Quist-Wessel F, Dimitriou I, et al. Assessing environmental impacts of short rotation coppice (SRC) expansion: model definition and preliminary results[J]. Bioenergy Research, 2012, 5(3): 621−635. doi: 10.1007/s12155-012-9235-x
[3]	Rowe R L, Street N R, Taylor G. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2009, 13(1): 271−290. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.008
[4]	Lindegaard K N, Adams P, Holley M, et al. Short rotation plantations policy history in Europe: lessons from the past and recommendations for the future[J]. Food and Energy Security, 2016, 5(3): 125−152. doi: 10.1002/fes3.86
[5]	Kalt G, Mayer A, Theurl M C, et al. Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?[J]. GCB Bioenergy, 2019, 11(11): 1283−1297. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12626
[6]	钱能志. 我国林业生物质能源资源现状与潜力[J]. 化学工业, 2007, 25(7): 1−5. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9647.2007.07.001 Qian N Z. Current situation and development of biomass resources in China[J]. Chemical Industry, 2007, 25(7): 1−5. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9647.2007.07.001
[7]	李洪. 杨柳能源林种植密度和轮伐期试验及其燃烧特性分析[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2009. Li H. Test on planting density and rotation time and analysis on combustion characteristics of poplar and willow energy plantation[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2009.
[8]	Broeckx L S, Verlinden M S, Ceulemans R. Establishment and two-year growth of a bio-energy plantation with fast-growing Populus trees in Flanders (Belgium): effects of genotype and former land use[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2012, 42(1): 151−163.
[9]	Armstrong A, Johns C, Tubby I. Effects of spacing and cutting cycle on the yield of poplar grown as an energy crop[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 1999, 17(4): 305−314.
[10]	Matteo G D, Sperandio G, Verani S. Field performance of poplar for bioenergy in southern Europe after two coppicing rotations: effects of clone and planting density[J]. Iforest, 2012, 5: 224−229. doi: 10.3832/ifor0628-005
[11]	Wilkinson J M, Evans E J, Bilsborrow P E, et al. Yield of willow cultivars at different planting densities in a commercial short rotation coppice in the north of England[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2007, 31(7): 469−474.
[12]	Nasso N, Guidi W, Ragaglini G, et al. Biomass production and energy balance of a 12-year-old short-rotation coppice poplar stand under different cutting cycles[J]. GCB Bioenergy, 2010, 2(2): 89−97. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01043.x
[13]	Dillen S Y, Djomo S N, Afas N A, et al. Biomass yield and energy balance of a short-rotation poplar coppice with multiple clones on degraded land during 16 years[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2013, 56(9): 157−165.
[14]	Benetka V, Novotná K, Stochlová, P. Biomass production of Populus nigra L. clones grown in short rotation coppice systems in three different environments over four rotations[J]. Iforest Biogeosciences & Forestry, 2014, 7(4): 1−15.
[15]	Dillen S Y, Marron N, Bastien C, et al. Effects of environment and progeny on biomass estimations of five hybrid poplar families grown at three contrasting sites across Europe[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2007, 252(1–3): 12–23.
[16]	Fabio E S, Volk T A, Miller R O, et al. Genotype × environment interaction analysis of North American shrub willow yield trials confirms superior performance of triploid hybrids[J]. GCB Bioenergy, 2016, 9(2): 445−459.
[17]	Guo X Y, Zhang X S. Performance of 14 hybrid poplar clones grown in Beijing, China[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2010, 34(6): 906−911.
[18]	Gong J R, Zhang X S, Huang Y M. Comparison of the performance of several hybrid poplar clones and their potential suitability for use in northern China[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2011, 35(7): 2755−2764.
[19]	Zhang J, Song X, Zhang L, et al. Agronomic performance of 27 Populus clones evaluated after two 3-year coppice rotations in Henan, China[J]. GCB Bioenergy, 2020, 12(2): 168−181.
[20]	Benomar L, DesRochers A, Larocque G R, et al. The effects of spacing on growth, morphology and biomass production and allocation in two hybrid poplar clones growing in the boreal region of Canada[J]. Trees, 2012, 26(3): 939−949. doi: 10.1007/s00468-011-0671-6
[21]	Brodie L C, Debell D S. Evaluation of field performance of poplar clones using selected competition indices[J]. New Forests, 2004, 27(3): 201−214. doi: 10.1023/B:NEFO.0000022217.68697.48
[22]	Djomo S N, Ac A, Zenone T, et al. Energy performances of intensive and extensive short rotation cropping systems for woody biomass production in the EU[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 41: 845−854. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.058
[23]	Gouker F E, Fabio E S, Serapiglia M J, et al. Yield and biomass quality of shrub willow hybrids in differing rotation lengths and spacing designs[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2021, 146: 105977.
[24]	Verlinden M S, Broeckx L S, Ceulemans R. First vs. second rotation of a poplar short rotation coppice: above-ground biomass productivity and shoot dynamics-science direct[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2015, 73: 174−185. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.12.012
[25]	方升佐, 徐锡增. 杨树超短轮伐期经营的生产力及材性的研究[J]. 林业科学, 1996, 32(4): 334−341. Fang S Z, Xu X Z. The biomass productivity and wood quality of eastern cottonwood in minirotation management systems[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 1996, 32(4): 334−341.
[26]	Pontailler J Y, Ceulemans R, Guittet J. Biomass yield of poplar after five 2-year coppice rotation[J]. Forestry, 1999, 72(2): 157−163.
[27]	Deckmyn G, Laureysens I, Garcia J, et al. Poplar growth and yield in short rotation coppice: model simulations using the process model SECRETS[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2004, 26(3): 221−227.
[28]	Laureysens I, Pellis A, Willems J, et al. Growth and production of a short rotation coppice culture of poplar( Ⅲ): second rotation results[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2005, 29(1): 10−21. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.02.005
[29]	Liesebach M, Wuehlisch G V, Muhs H J. Aspen for short-rotation coppice plantations on agricultural sites in Germany: effects of spacing and rotation time on growth and biomass production of aspen progenies[J]. Forest Ecology & Management, 1999, 121(1−2): 25−39.
[30]	邸楠, 席本野, Pinto J R, 等. 宽窄行栽植下三倍体毛白杨根系生物量分布及其对土壤养分因子的响应[J]. 植物生态学报, 2013, 37(10): 961−971. Di N, Xi B Y, Pinto J R, et al. Root biomass distribution of triploid Populus tomentosa under wide- and narrow-row spacing planting schemes and its responses to soil nutrients[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2013, 37(10): 961−971.
[31]	戴丽莉, 贾黎明, 高媛, 等. 两种杨树矮林地上生物量及树皮比例早期测算[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015, 43(7): 102−109. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2015.07.023 Dai L L, Jia L M, Gao Y, et al. Biomass and bark content estimation of two poplar clones in short rotation coppice[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2015, 43(7): 102−109. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2015.07.023
[32]	戴丽莉. 两种杨树能源林生物量及其三素含量早期研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2015. Dai L L. An early study on biomass and chemical characteristics of two poplar energy plantations[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2015.
[33]	Ceulemans R, Deraedt W. Production physiology and growth potential of poplars under short-rotation forestry culture[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 1999, 121(1−2): 9−23. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00564-7
[34]	Stochlová P, Novotná K, Costa M, et al. Biomass production of poplar short rotation coppice over five and six rotations and its aptitude as a fuel[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2019, 112: 183−192.
[35]	Landgraf D, Carl C, Neupert M. Biomass yield of 37 different SRC poplar varieties grown on a typical site in north eastern Germany[J]. Forests, 2020, 11(10): 1048. doi: 10.3390/f11101048
[36]	Kopp R F, Abrahamson L P, White E H, et al. Cutting cycle and spacing effects on biomass production by a willow clone in New York[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1997, 12(5): 313−319. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(96)00077-3
[37]	Blake T J. Coppice systems for short-rotation intensive forestry: the influence of cultural, seasonal and plant factors[J]. Australian Forest Research, 1983, 13: 279−291.
[38]	Rosso L, Facciotto G, Bergante S, et al. Selection and testing of Populus alba and Salix spp. as bioenergy feedstock: preliminary results[J]. Applied Energy, 2013, 102(2): 87−92.
[39]	Afas N A, Marron N, Dongen S V, et al. Dynamics of biomass production in a poplar coppice culture over three rotations (11 years)[J]. Forest Ecology & Management, 2008, 255(5−6): 1883−1891.
[40]	Sabatti M, Fabbrini F, Harfouche A, et al. Evaluation of biomass production potential and heating value of hybrid poplar genotypes in a short-rotation culture in Italy[J]. Industrial Crops & Products, 2014, 61: 62−73.
[41]	Weiner J, Freckleton R P. Constant final yield[J]. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution & Systematics, 2010, 41(1): 173−192.
[42]	Laureysens I, Deraedt W, Indeherberge T, et al. Population dynamics in a 6-year old coppice culture of poplar (I): clonal differences in stool mortality, shoot dynamics and shoot diameter distribution in relation to biomass production[J]. Biomass & Bioenergy, 2003, 24(2): 81−95.

[1]	Pang Rongrong, Zhao Bingqian, Gao Lushuang, Wang Kangchen, Chen Jinping. Relationship between climatic suitability and productivity of Larix gmelinii forest[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2023, 45(11): 1-10. DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20220361
[2]	Yang Hongqing, Wang Yafei, Jia Liming. Response of pulp plantation growth of Populus tomentosa S86 in short rotation period to coupling of water and fertilizer in furrow irrigation[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2023, 45(3): 68-78. DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210465
[3]	Fan Xiuhua, Zhang Baoquan, Fan Chunyu. Effects of species diversity and structural diversity on productivity in different succession stages of typical natural forest in Changbai Mountains of northeastern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2021, 43(12): 1-8. DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210071
[4]	Zhang Rishi, Huang Zhenge, He Bin, Xie Minyang, Zhou Gang, Wei Mingbao. Biomass accumulation and productivity changes of Taiwania flousiana plantation at different age stages in northwestern Guangxi, southern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2021, 43(11): 20-27. DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200107
[5]	Peng Jieying, Xie Yuanming, Liu Wenzhen, Yan Yan. Relationship between tree species richness and productivity of Quercus aliena var. acutiserrata forest in Xiaolongshan Mountain, Gansu Province of northwestern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2021, 43(11): 11-19. DOI: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200192
[6]	Wei Anran, Zhang Yuqiu, Tan Lingzhao, He Huaijiang, Zhang Chunyu, Zhao Xiuhai. Effects of tending felling on stand structure and species diversity of mixed coniferous and broadleaved forest[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2019, 41(5): 148-158. DOI: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190018
[7]	ZHAO Kuang-ji, WANG Li-dong, WANG Li-jun, JIA Zhong-kui, MA Lü-yi. Stock volume and productivity of Larix principis-rupprechtii in northern and northwestern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2015, 37(2): 24-31. DOI: 10.13332/j.cnki.jbfu.2015.02.011
[8]	DU Hua. Community structure characteristics and productivity of varied Pinus densiflora forest types in Kunyu Mountain, Shandong Province of eastern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2012, 34(1): 19-24.
[9]	NIU Min, GAO Hui, ZHAO Guang-jie 1. Fiber morphology and chemical composition of tension wood in Populus×euramericana cv. ‘Neva’[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2010, 32(2): 141-144.
[10]	YE Shao-ming, , ZHENG Xiao-xian, YANG Mei, XIE Wei-dong, ZHAO Li-jun, LIANG Hong-wen. Biomass and productivity of stratified mixed stands of Eucalyptus urophylla and Acacia mangium[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2008, 30(3): 37-43.

Cited By

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article views (541) PDF downloads (105)

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Growth and biomass of two poplar clones in short rotation coppice under different densities

Abstract

References

Related Articles

Catalog

Growth and biomass of two poplar clones in short rotation coppice under different densities

Abstract

References

Related Articles

Catalog

Export File

Citation

Format

Content