Comparing hybrid Populus clones for SRF across northern Italy after two biennial rotations: Survival, growth and yield

Paris, P.; Mareschi, L.; Sabatti, Maurizio; Pisanelli, Andrea; Ecosse, Alfredo; Nardin, F.; Scarascia‐Mugnozza, Giuseppe

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.050

Cited by 83 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Italy, public grants are persuading farmers to adopt poplar SRC independently of the optimal site conditions for the species, in terms of soil quality, climatic conditions and water availability. Paris et al (2011) showed that under poor soil conditions, even with the adoption of new clones, no increments on the productivity potentialities of the site could be obtained and thus do not recommend adoption of hybrid poplar SRC on marginal soils. In a Finnish study, it was shown that establishment of willow SRC on poor soils would result in greatly reduced productivity or even a complete failure of the plantation (Tahvanainen and Rytkönen 1999).…”

Section: Marginal Yields From Marginal or Degraded Landmentioning

confidence: 98%

Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications

Dauber¹,

Brown²,

Fernando³

et al. 2012

179

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing demand for biomass for the production of bioenergy is generating land-use conflicts. These conflicts might be solved through spatial segregation of food/feed and energy producing areas by continuing producing food on established and productive agricultural land while growing dedicated energy crops on so called "surplus" land. Ambiguity in the definition and characterization of surplus land as well as uncertainty in assessments of land availability and of future bioenergy potentials is causing confusion about the prospects and the environmental and socio-economic implications of bioenergy development in those areas. The high level of uncertainty is due to environmental, economic and social constraints not yet taken into account and to the potentials offered by those novel crops and their production methods not being fully exploited. This paper provides a scientific background in support of a reassessment of land available for bioenergy production by clarifying the terminology, identifying constraints and options for ReseARCh ARtiCle BioRisk A peer-reviewed open-access journalJens Dauber et al. / BioRisk 7: 5-50 (2012) 6 an efficient bioenergy-use of surplus land and providing policy recommendations for resolving conflicting land-use demands. A serious approach to factoring in the constraints, combined with creativity in utilizing the options provided, in our opinion, would lead to a more sustainable and efficient development of the bioenergy sector. Unless the sustainability challenge is mastered, the interdependent policy objectives of mitigating climate change, obtaining independence from fossil fuels, feeding and fuelling a growing human world population and maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services will not be met. Despite the advanced developments of bioenergy, we still see regional solutions for designing and establishing sustainable bioenergy production systems with optimized production resulting in social, economic and ecological benefits. Where bioenergy production has been identified as the most suitable option to overcome the given problems of energy security and climate change mitigation, we need to determine which bioenergy cultivation systems are most suitable for the respective types of surplus land, by taking into account issues such as yields, inputs and costs, as well as potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

show abstract

Section: Marginal Yields From Marginal or Degraded Landmentioning

confidence: 98%

Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications

Dauber¹,

Brown²,

Fernando³

et al. 2012

179

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In SRC systems, faster canopy closure and increased growth rates of sprouts from an established root system result in enhanced productivity of coppiced versus noncoppiced tree stands . Substantial genotypic variation exists in aboveground woody biomass productivity (AGWB) of SRC cultures in poplar (Ceulemans & Deraedt 1999, Dillen et al 2011, Paris et al 2011, Benetka et al 2014). Variation in AGWB has been explained by variation in light interception, in biomass allocation, in leaf physiological factors related to RUE or in a combination of the aforementioned (Cannell et al 1988, Green et al 2001, Tharakan et al 2008, suggesting inconclusive results on the relative importance of productivity determining factors in SRC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First vs. second rotation of a poplar short rotation coppice: leaf area development, light interception and radiation use efficiency

Broeckx¹,

Vanbeveren²,

Verlinden³

et al. 2015

iForest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

© iForest -Biogeosciences and Forestry IntroductionEnergy security and greenhouse gas emission reductions are major challenges to meet the global energy demand and to mitigate climate change (IPCC 2014). In the light of these global concerns bioenergy could play a crucial role to achieve the EU's energy and climate targets (European Council 2009). The cultivation of lignocellulosic biomass, mostly poplar and willow in short rotation coppice (SRC) systems, has a high potential for the production of renewable electricity and the generation of "green" heat (Fischer et al. 2010). Despite the long-term experience with the commercial production in northern Europe (Rosenqvist et al. 2000, Langeveld et al. 2012, the implementation of SRC as a renewable energy crop is limited in European agriculture (AEBIOM 2010, Dimitriou et al. 2011, Don et al. 2011.Productivity is determined by light interception and by the efficiency of converting the intercepted radiation into biomass, i.e., the radiation use efficiency (RUE), as reported for both herbaceous (Sinclair & Horie 1989) and woody (tree) species (Cannell et al. 1988, Medlyn 1998. The crop's capacity to intercept radiation is determined by its photosynthetic area, generally assessed via the leaf area index (LAI), which is linearly related to the biomass production in poplar and willow plantations (Larson & Isebrands 1972, Cannell et al. 1988, Taylor et al. 2001a. In SRC systems, faster canopy closure and increased growth rates of sprouts from an established root system result in enhanced productivity of coppiced versus noncoppiced tree stands . Substantial genotypic variation exists in aboveground woody biomass productivity (AGWB) of SRC cultures in poplar (Ceulemans & Deraedt 1999, Dillen et al. 2011, Paris et al. 2011, Benetka et al. 2014). Variation in AGWB has been explained by variation in light interception, in biomass allocation, in leaf physiological factors related to RUE or in a combination of the aforementioned (Cannell et al. 1988, Green et al. 2001, Tharakan et al. 2008, suggesting inconclusive results on the relative importance of productivity determining factors in SRC. The quantification of genetic diversity and of genetic control contributes to future tree improvement and to yield maximization efforts towards sustainable bioenergy cultivation.In the present study, we analyzed the leaf area development, light interception and RUE of 12 poplar genotypes in a high-density SRC culture, before and after the first coppice of an experimental plantation. Assessment of LAI and woody biomass productivity was performed in a single versus a multi-stem culture, to analyze the effect of coppicing. We hypothesized significant genotypic, parentage and provenance variation in LAI, in leaf area duration (LAD), in RUE, in intercepted radiation (Iint) and AGWB. The objectives of this study were: (i) to determine the main differences between the first (R1) and the second rotation (R2) in the above mentioned parameters and in their relationships, i.e., before and after coppice,...

show abstract

“…Parameters were set as b = 0.0847 and c = 2.112 following Mareschi (2008; see also Paris et al, 2011) for the second rotation cycle of clone AF2 of the plantation located in Bigarello (Mantua province). Among the plantations presented in this publication, Bigarello is the one with climatic and soil characteristics that are more similar and it also has the same root and shoot age.…”

Section: Biomass Use and Ghg Offsetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenhouse gas balance of cropland conversion to bioenergy poplar short-rotation coppice

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The production of bioenergy in Europe is one of the strategies conceived to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The suitability of the land use change from a cropland (REF site) to a short-rotation coppice plantation of hybrid poplar (SRC site) was investigated by comparing the GHG budgets of these two systems over 24 months in Viterbo, Italy. This period corresponded to a single rotation of the SRC site. The REF site was a crop rotation between grassland and winter wheat, i.e. the same management of the SRC site before the conversion to short-rotation coppice. Eddy covariance measurements were carried out to quantify the net ecosystem exchange of CO 2 (F CO 2 ), whereas chambers were used to measure N 2 O and CH 4 emissions from soil. The measurements began 2 years after the conversion of arable land to SRC so that an older poplar plantation was used to estimate the soil organic carbon (SOC) loss due to SRC establishment and to estimate SOC recovery over time. Emissions from tractors and from production and transport of agricultural inputs (F MAN ) were modelled. A GHG emission offset, due to the substitution of natural gas with SRC biomass, was credited to the GHG budget of the SRC site. Emissions generated by the use of biomass (F EXP ) were also considered. Suitability was finally assessed by comparing the GHG budgets of the two sites. CO 2 uptake was 3512 ± 224 g CO 2 m −2 at the SRC site in 2 years, and 1838 ± 107 g CO 2 m −2 at the REF site. F EXP was equal to 1858 ± 240 g CO 2 m −2 at the REF site, thus basically compensating for F CO 2 , while it was 1118 ± 521 g CO 2 m −2 at the SRC site. The SRC site could offset 379.7 ± 175.1 g CO 2 eq m −2 from fossil fuel displacement. Soil CH 4 and N 2 O fluxes were negligible. F MAN made up 2 and 4 % in the GHG budgets of SRC and REF sites respectively, while the SOC loss was 455 ± 524 g CO 2 m −2 in 2 years. Overall, the REF site was close to neutrality from a GHG perspective (156 ± 264 g CO 2 eq m −2 ), while the SRC site was a net sink of 2202 ± 792 g CO 2 eq m −2 . In conclusion the experiment led to a positive evaluation from a GHG viewpoint of the conversion of cropland to bioenergy SRC.

show abstract

Comparing hybrid Populus clones for SRF across northern Italy after two biennial rotations: Survival, growth and yield

Cited by 83 publications

References 23 publications

Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications

Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications

First vs. second rotation of a poplar short rotation coppice: leaf area development, light interception and radiation use efficiency

Greenhouse gas balance of cropland conversion to bioenergy poplar short-rotation coppice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About