2019
DOI: 10.1007/s12155-019-09997-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Increased Genotype or Species Diversity in Short Rotation Coppice on Biomass Production and Wood Characteristics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some examples in this regard include plurivarietal plantations of P. × generosa Henry [162], other hybrid groups of Populus [163], and different varieties of Salix spp. [164,165], where the aim is to attain a greater tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses while also increasing productivity.…”
Section: Species Mixturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some examples in this regard include plurivarietal plantations of P. × generosa Henry [162], other hybrid groups of Populus [163], and different varieties of Salix spp. [164,165], where the aim is to attain a greater tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses while also increasing productivity.…”
Section: Species Mixturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the European Union supports the transition to a low-carbon energy economy and has set a 27% target for the total share of energy from renewable sources by 2030 [1]. Fast-growing tree species play a particularly important and sustainable role as renewable raw materials in different land use systems, e.g., short rotation coppices (SRC) and agroforestry systems (AFS) [2][3][4][5][6]. They help reduce CO 2 emissions by substituting fossil fuels or the production of biofuels and thereby help to mitigate climate change [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Robinia spp., Paulownia spp., and Salix spp. (e.g., DeBell and Harrington 1997, Brodie and DeBell 2004, Boyden et al 2008, Hoeber et al 2018, Pavan et al 2019, Rezende et al 2019, Schweier et al 2019), as well as for Pinus elliottii and loblolly pine (Adams et al 1973, Staudhammer et al 2009). These studies have yielded mixed results as productivity responses often depend on site, spacing, silvicultural inputs, and genotypic combination.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%