Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK

New Phytologist

Volumn 178, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 358-370

  Aylott, Matthew J ^a   Casella, E ^a,b   Tubby, I ^b   Street, N R ^a   Smith, P ^c   Taylor, Gail ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b FOREST RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomass; Empirical model; Geographic information system (GIS); Populus (poplar); Salix (willow); Short rotation coppice (SRC); Yield

Indexed keywords

BIOENERGY; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTION; COPPICE; CROP YIELD; DECIDUOUS TREE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENERGY CROP; GENOTYPE; GIS; PHYTOMASS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; ASPEN; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ENERGY CONSERVATION; GENETICS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; UNITED KINGDOM; WILLOW;

AGRICULTURE; CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES; GREAT BRITAIN; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULUS; SALIX;

ENGLAND; EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WALES; WESTERN EUROPE;

POPULUS; SALIX;

EID: 41149170221     PISSN: 0028646X     EISSN: 14698137     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02396.x     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Andersen RS, Towers W, Smith P. 2005. Assessing the potential for biomass energy to contribute to Scotland's renewable energy needs. Biomass & Bioenergy 29: 73 82.
2. Armstrong A. 1997. The United Kingdom network of experiments on site/yield relationships for short rotation coppice. Research Information Note 294. Edinburgh, UK: British Forestry Commission Research Agency.
3. Avery BW. 1980. Soil classification for England and Wales: higher categories. Soil Survey Technical Monograph 14. Cranfield, UK: Cranfield University.
4. Bauen A. 2001. Biomass energy, greenhouse gas abatement and policy integration. Aspects of Applied Biology 65: 353 363.
5. Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, Broek R. 2003. The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass & Bioenergy 25: 1 28.
6. BERR, Carbon Trust. 2004. Renewables innovation review. London, UK: BERR, Carbon Trust.
7. British Forestry Commission. 2007. Biomass Action Plan for Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Executive.
8. Britt C, Garstang J, eds. 2002. Bioenergy crops and bioremediation - a review. London, UK: Defra.
9. BSi. 1995. Determination of pH. British Standard BS7755; ISO 10390 1994; Soil Quality, Part 3, Chemical methods, Section 3.2. London, UK: British Standards Institution.
10. 2 enrichment (FACE) enhances biomass production in a short-rotation poplar plantation. Tree Physiology 23: 805 814.
11. Cannell MGR. 2003. Carbon sequestration and biomass energy offset: theoretical, potential and achievable capacities globally, in Europe and the UK. Biomass & Bioenergy 24: 97 116.
12. Casella E, Sinoquet H. 2003. A method for describing the canopy architecture of coppice poplar with allometric relationships. Tree Physiology 23: 1153 1170.
13. Casella E, Sinoquet H. 2007. Botanical determinants of foliage clumping and light interception in 2-yr-old coppice poplar canopies: assessment from 3-D plant mock-ups. Annals of Forest Science 64: 395 404.
14. Christersson L. 2006. Biomass production of intensively grown poplars in the southernmost part of Sweden: observations of characters, traits and growth potential. Biomass & Bioenergy 30: 497 508.
15. Cochard H, Casella E, Mencuccini M. 2007. Xylem vulnerability to cavitation varies among poplar and willow clones and correlates with yield. Tree Physiology 27: 1761 1767.
16. Defra. 2006a. Creating value from renewable materials: a strategy for nonfood crops and uses, Two year progress report (Part 1). London, UK: Defra.
17. Defra. 2006b. Agricultural land use: 1986-2005, United Kingdom (Online database). London, UK: Defra. [ http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/ land/kf/ldkf05.htm (accessed 1 August 2007).]
18. Defra. 2007. Energy crop scheme: establishment grants handbook. London, UK: Defra.
19. Drax. 2006. Corporate and social responsibility review - tackling climate change. Selby, UK: Drax Group Plc.
20. EC. 2005. Communication from the commission: Biomass action plan. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
21. Edwards R, Larivé J-F, Mahieu V, Rouveirolles P. 2007. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, version 2c. Brussels, Belgium: EU Commission Joint Research Centre.
22. EEA. 2006. How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
23. Erickson JE, Stanosz GR, Kruger EL. 2004. Photosynthetic consequences of Massonina leaf spot differ between two poplar hybrids. New Phytologist 161: 577 583.
24. Galbraith D, Smith P, Mortimer N, Stewart B, Hobson M, McPherson G, Matthews R, Mitchell R, Nijnik M, Norris J et al. 2006. Review of greenhouse gas life cycle emissions, air pollution impacts and economics of biomass production and consumption in Scotland. SEERAD Project Final Report FF/05/08. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Executive.
25. Gee GW, Bauder JW. 1986. Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A, ed. Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd edn. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy.
26. Gill B, MacLeod N, Clayton D, Cowburn R, Roberts J, Hartley N. 2005. Biomass task force: Report to government. London, UK: Defra.
27. Hall RL, Allen SJ. 1997. Water use of poplar clones grown as short-rotation coppice at two sites in the United Kingdom. Aspects of Applied Biology 49: 163 172.
28. Hall RL, Allen SJ, Rosier PTW, Hopkins R. 1998. Transpiration from coppiced poplar and willow measured using sap-flow methods. Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 90: 275 290.
29. Hall DGM, Reeve MJ, Thomasson AJ, Wright VF. 1977. Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Soil Survey Technical Monograph 9. Harpenden, UK: Rothamsted Research.
30. Hansen E. 1991. Poplar woody biomass yields: a look to the future. Biomass & Bioenergy 1: 1 7.
31. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polansky S, Tiffany D. 2005. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 103: 11206 11210.
32. Houghton J. 2006. Breaking the biological barriers for cellulosic: a joint research agenda. Rockville, MD, USA: US Department of Energy.
33. Hulme M, Jenkins GJ, Lu X, Turnpenny JR, Mitchell TD, Jones RG, Lowe J, Murphy JM, Hassell D, Boorman P et al. 2002. Climate change scenarios for the United Kingdom: the UKCIP02 scientific report. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
34. Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI. 2005. Field performance and biomass production of 12 willow and poplar clones in short-rotation coppice in southern Quebec (Canada). Biomass & Bioenergy 29: 1 9.
35. Laureysens I, Bogaert J, Blust R, Ceulemans R. 2004. Biomass production of 17 poplar clones in a short rotation coppice culture on a waste disposal site and its relation to soil characteristics. Forest Ecology & Management 187: 295 309.
36. Lemus R, Lal R. 2005. Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24: 1 21.
37. Linderson ML, Iritz Z, Lindroth A. 2007. The effect of water availability on stand-level productivity, transpiration, water use efficiency and radiation use efficiency of field-grown willow clones. Biomass & Bioenergy 31: 460 468.
38. Lindroth A, Båth A. 1999. Assessment of regional willow coppice yield in Sweden on basis of water availability. Forest Ecology & Management 121: 57 65.
39. MacLeay I, Harris K, Michaels C, eds. 2007. The digest of UK energy statistics 2007. London, UK: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
40. Marron N, Ceulemans R. 2006. Genetic variation of leaf traits related to productivity in a Populus deltoides x. Populus nigra family. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 390 400.
41. NFFCC. 2006. Area statistics for nonfood crops (Online database). The National Non-Food Crops Centre. [] (accessed 1 August 2007)
42. Nixon DJ, Stephens W, Tyrrel SF, Brierley EDR. 2001. The potential for short rotation energy forestry on restored landfill caps. Bioresource Technology 77: 237 245.
43. Nordh N-E, Verwijst T. 2004. Above-ground biomass assessments and first cutting cycle production in willow (Salix spp.) coppice-a comparison between destructive and non destructive methods. Biomass & Bioenergy 27: 1 8.
44. Perry M, Hollis D. 2005. The generation of monthly gridded datasets for a range of climatic variables over the United Kingdom. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1041 1054.
45. Pyatt DG. 1995. An ecological site classification for forestry in Great Britain. Forestry Commission Research Information Note 260. Edinburgh, UK: British Forestry Commission.
46. Rae AM, Pinel MCP, Bastien C, Sabatti M, Street NR, Tucker J, Dixon C, Marron N, Dillen SY, Taylor G. 2008. QTL for yield in bioenergy Populus: identifying GxE interactions from growth at three contrasting sites. Tree Genetics & Genomes 4: 97 112.
47. Rae AM, Robinson KM, Street NR, Taylor G. 2004. Morphological and physiological traits influencing biomass productivity in short rotation coppice poplar. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 34: 1488 1498.
48. Robinson KM, Karp A, Taylor G. 2004. Defining leaf traits linked to yield in short-rotation coppice Salix. Biomass & Bioenergy 26: 417 431.
49. Robinson BH, Mills TM, Petit D, Fung1 LE, Green SR, Clothier B. 2000. Natural and induced cadmium-accumulation in poplar and willow: Implications for phytoremediation. Plant and Soil 227: 301 306.
50. Rook DA. 1991. Tree breeding and short rotation coppice. London, UK: BERR.
51. Rowe R, Street N, Taylor G. 2008. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, doi:
52. Scarasscia-Mugnozza GE, Ceulemans R, Heilman PE, Isebrands JG, Stettler RF, Hinckley TM. 1997. Production physiology and morphology of Populus species and their hybrids grown under short rotation. II. Biomass components and harvest index of hybrid and parental species clones. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 27: 285 294.
53. Sims RH, ed. 2007. Good practice guidelines: bioenergy project development & biomass supply. Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
54. Sims RH, Hastings A, Schlamadinger B, Taylor G, Smith P. 2006. Energy crops: current status and future prospects. Global Change Biology 12: 2054 2076.
55. Scottish Executive. 2007. Biomass action plan for Scotland. Contract report by British Forestry Commission on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Edinburgh, UK: British Forestry Commission.
56. Skea J, ed. 2006. Response to the Government's Energy Review consultation. London, UK: United Kingdom Energy Research Council.
57. Souch CA, Stephens W. 1998. Growth, productivity and water use in three hybrid poplar clones. Tree Physiology 18: 829 835.
58. St Clair S, Hillier J, Smith P. (in press). Estimating the pre-harvest greenhouse gas costs of energy crop production. Biomass & Bioenergy.
59. Street N, Skogström O, Sjödin A, Tucker J, Rodríguez- Acosta M, Nilsson P, Jansson S, Taylor G. 2006. The genetics and genomics of drought response in Populus. The Plant Journal 48: 321 341.
60. Taylor G, Beckett K, Robinson K, Stiles K, Rae A. 2001. Identifying QTL for yield in UK biomass poplar. Aspects of Applied Biology 65: 173 182.
61. Wikberg J, Ogren E. 2004. Inter-relationships between water use and growth traits in biomass-producing willows. Trees 18: 70 76.
62. Wullschleger SD, Yin TM, DiFazio SP, Tschaplinski TJ, Gunter LE, Davis M, Tuskan GA. 2005. Phenotypic variation in growth and biomass distribution for two advanced-generation pedigrees of hybrid poplar (Populus spp.). Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1779 1789.