Abstract
Energy plantations have been gaining importance in the supply of biomass for energy purposes, due to their high yield in short timeframes. These forest systems also enable to reduce the pressure in other forest systems to provide biomass for energy, in particular those under protection and conservation status. This chapter reviews the state of the art of energy plantations and their yields. It addresses the selection of species, density, rotation, harvest cycles, site selection, management practices, harvesting, biomass yields, and their estimation. Overall, there is a wide set of species and management options that can be used in energy plantations. Similarly, there is a large variability in yields, that vary between and within species, due to site, density, rotation, harvest cycles, and management. Though there are many studies, further research is needed on yield optimisation, rotation length, harvest cycles, management practices, and harvesting.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Wood is considered one of the most important raw materials as it satisfies several human needs, among which is energy [1]. In the last decades, energy plantations have been gaining importance as a source of energy because of the energy crises, the concerns about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the dependency on fossil fuels, the increase of carbon sequestration, and to release the pressure on other forests systems [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. These forest systems date back to ancient times, but management practices have been improved to increase their yield [1, 9,10,11]. Their importance was recognised by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO; http://www.iufro.org) through the creation of the research group 1.03.00–Short-rotation forestry.
Dickmann [1] identifies several terms for forest energy plantations: short-rotation woody crops (SRWC), short-rotation forestry (SRF), short-rotation coppice (SRC), short-rotation intensive culture, intensive culture of forest crops, intensive plantation culture, biomass plantation culture, bioenergy plantation culture, biofuels feedstock production system, energy forestry, short-rotation fiber production system, mini-rotation forestry, silage sycamore, wood grass. The most frequently used terms are short-rotation woody crops (SRWC), short-rotation forestry (SRF), and short-rotation coppice (SRC). As no standard term has been defined in this chapter the term energy plantations will be used.
The goals of this review are to provide insights into energy plantations from the selection of species or clones to harvest and yields. This chapter is divided in two sections. One that analyses the energy plantations, including the selection of species, initial density, rotation, harvest cycles, site selection, management practices, and harvesting (Sect. 2), and another that evaluates biomass yields (Sect. 3).
2 Forest Energy Plantations
Forest energy plantations are forest systems whose main goal, frequently the only one, is producing biomass for energy, and have specific spatial and temporal features [6, 12]. The plantations are composed of very fast or fast growing tree species, many times improved hybrids. These stands have frequently very high densities (from 1000 to more than 300,000 stems·ha−1), in coppice systems most of the times, with very short or short rotations (1–12 years), cutting cycles of 10 to 30 years, managed in clearcutting systems, where all aerial biomass is removed in each harvest, and are intensively managed. Their establishment and management (Fig. 1) include site selection, control of spontaneous vegetation, selection of planting techniques, fertilisation, control of pathogens, and irrigation [1, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Planting design and management are frequently adapted to a fully mechanised system [25,26,27].
Factors influencing the establishment and management of energy plantations
Biomass from forest energy plantations, when compared to other renewable energy sources, has several advantages: biomass is relatively easy to transport and store [28]; it has different uses, such as heating, electricity or biofuels [3, 28,29,30]; it is available worldwide [3, 13, 31, 32]; in a specific location its quantity can be increased through anticipated harvest in times of shortage or high prices of other fuels [28] or reduced through delayed harvest when its market price is low or other fuels have low prices [33]; it allows decentralisation of the energy systems [3, 28]; and it is suitable in regions with biomass availability and low population density [28, 34].
Forest energy plantations are considered economically viable when compared to other forest and agricultural productions at the management unit level. These forest systems have low risk and high economic viability. Its harvest flexibility (anticipated or delayed) promotes the reduction of risks, especially if included in agricultural crops portfolios; and it also provides ecosystem services without adding costs, especially in areas of intensive agriculture [2, 4, 5, 7, 35,36,37]. However, energy plantations can pose a risk when established in areas suited for agriculture, and therefore, it is recognised that they should be settled in set aside agricultural lands or marginal lands [3, 6, 12, 13, 31,32,33, 38], enabling simultaneously rural development and environmental benefits [1, 2, 12, 39, 40]. These plantations can also be settled for phytoremediation purposes, i.e., using trees in energy plantation systems to remediate contaminated sites while using the biomass for energy [26, 41,42,43,44,45]. Forest energy plantations are well represented, for example, in Canada [46], China [47], United States of America [48, 49], and Europe, northern and central, and to a lesser extent in the southern [13, 31, 32].
2.1 Selection of the Species
The selection of tree species for energy plantations encompasses a set of requirements that should be fulfilled [50,51,52,53]: biomass should have high specific energy and quality as fuel, high biomass production in dry weight, good resprouting ability, fast juvenile growth, narrow crowns or large size leaves in the upper crown, adaptability to a wide range of sites, and resistance to biotic and abiotic disturbances (Fig. 2a). Ideally, the species should have [3]: maximum possible production in dry matter per stand area unit, production with low energy input (including nutrient requirements), low cost, and wood composition with the least possible contaminants (Fig. 2b).
Species requirements for energy plantations a and ideal features for management and high yields b
These requirements can be satisfied by a large set of species, characterised by a fast initial growth which enables them to outcompete other species for the available growing space. From the many species that can be used for energy plantations some of the referred in literature are presented in Table 1.
Due to their characteristics, i.e., fast or very fast growth, wide genetic base, easy propagation, short improvement cycles, easy vegetative reproduction, and ability to resprout, the aforementioned species are adapted to several climatic and soil conditions. They have also the ability to improve soil quality and to have high productions [51,52,53, 101]. In European Union countries three genera are considered to have the largest potential for energy plantations, namely Populus spp., Salix spp., and Eucalyptus spp. [51,52,53, 101].
In energy plantations, hybrids are frequently used to improve several tree species traits such as survival rate, biomass productivity, resprouting ability, adaptation to a variety of environmental conditions, and resistance to pathogens. The hybrids can be developed through genetic improvement [26, 98] and/or biotechnology [102]. For example, clones of Populus spp. and Salix spp. can differ in what regards survival rate, growth, and woody properties due to site quality and/or planting density [103] or not [104]. Relevant are also the relations genotype-environment (e.g., [86, 105]).
2.2 Density, Rotation, and Harvest Cycles
In energy plantations density and rotation length are strictly linked as the main goal is to achieve the highest possible biomass production in the shortest possible time (e.g., [26, 56, 89, 106]). Sixto et al. [6] refer to three principles that are associated with the design and management of forest energy plantations: (a) Law of final constant yield that states that biomass yield increases with the increase of density up to an upper threshold, above which it becomes independent of density. It can be used to determine the maximum number of stems per area unit; (b) The development of social classes in a stand, with dominant and dominated individuals competing among them. Harvest should be done before competition affects the growth of the individuals and the vitality of stumps; (c) Self-thinning law states that without mortality total biomass per area unit increases exponentially until canopy closure, after which stems tend to reduce growth. After canopy closure, some trees become dominated and eventually die unless there is a density reduction. Thus, canopy closure should be avoided.
The three aforementioned principles are the basis for trials to determine both density and rotation length in energy plantations. A wide range of densities has been studied, from 1000 stems·ha−1 to 310 000 stems·ha−1 [12, 21, 48, 58, 59, 92, 98, 101, 107,108,109]. Similarly, a large range of rotations has been studied, from 1 to 20 years [12, 21, 38, 48, 58, 59, 92, 98, 101, 107,108,109].
According to Dickmann [1], there seems to be a dichotomy regarding density and rotation length that is also linked with the woody products and yields to be obtained. It should be taken into consideration the production per area versus per individual tree. Higher densities result in higher biomass per area unit but lower biomass per individual stem [103, 110]. Thus, energy plantations can be divided into (Fig. 3): (i) higher densities and shorter rotations, and (ii) lower densities and longer rotations. The former has densities ranging from 5 000 to 200 000 stems/ha, and rotations from 1 to 5 years. Their main goal is biomass for energy where the maximum conversion of solar energy is attained and the flexibility of the biomass as raw material is not important. This strategy is also used when phytoremediation or application of vegetation as a filter of soil contaminants is needed. The latter have densities ranging from 1000 to 2500 stems·ha−1, rotations from 8 to 12 years, and enables more flexibility in terms of woody products, small dimension timber, pulp and paper, and biomass for energy. Yet, a wide variety of combinations of densities and rotations can be found in the literature. Examples of stands of higher densities and shorter rotations are suggested by some authors [21, 26, 39, 86, 98, 101, 107, 108, 111, 112], while stands of lower densities and longer rotations are suggested by other authors [37, 39, 58, 59, 74, 75, 109,110,111, 113,114,115].
Density versus rotation length
Though there is a wide range of literature references focused on determining the optimal density, and rotation, the results are not always coincident. This is, at least partially, explained by the constraints related to the tree species, clone, site, and climate. It is well known in silviculture that the maximum volume (or biomass) is reached when the mean annual increment equals the current annual increment [10, 116,117,118]. Several authors have studied the rotation that maximised biomass production as a function of density (e.g., [92, 101, 106, 119]). For densities up to 10 000 stems·ha−1 higher yields are attained at longer rotations (e.g., 4 years versus 2 years) [101] while densities higher than 10 000 stems·ha−1 the higher yields are attained at shorter rotations [119]. The wider the spacing the higher the growing space for each individual, and the higher the dimensions of the individual stems. The reduction of biomass production seems to be related to biomass allocation due to full growing space occupancy and competition among individuals [62]. The reduction of the yield with the increase of rotation length for high densities seems to be related to self-thinning. Its effects result from the increase of competition between individuals and an overall reduction of growth and, consequently, of yield. Thus, the mitigation of the self-thinning effect on yield can be attained with shorter rotations [119]. It seems that for a density equal or higher to 10 000 stems·ha−1 rotations of 2-years length are better suited for maximising yield while for lower density longer rotations can be used [106].
Two other aspects should be considered: one is technical, and the other is the maximization of biomass per stem or per area unit. The rotation length can be influenced by technical aspects. On one hand, mechanical harvest equipment has a maximum threshold cutting diameter, which can reduce rotation length [26]. On the other hand, mechanical harvest is also described as problematic for high densities, in which case the option is to reduce density and increase rotation length [1]. The other aspect relates to the maximisation of production per stem or per area unit, i.e., fewer stems with larger dimensions or otherwise. In the former, products have a higher proportion of wood, and smaller of bark, leaves, and branches. This implies smaller densities, longer rotations, and products that can be used for energy, pulp and paper, or other small dimension timber products. Thus, the model of silviculture is more flexible in terms of products. As growth is concentrated in fewer trees, whenever competition is a limiting factor thinning or sprout selection could be considered as well as pruning for small dimension timber products, to increase quality [1, 117]. But this approach has the disadvantage of having lower densities and longer rotations [1, 19], resins, and other undesirable chemical components for the use of biomass for energy [19]. The energy plantations with higher densities and trees of small dimensions have the advantage of maximising the conversion of solar energy in biomass, which results in a yield of biomass oriented to bioenergy, but with less flexibility in terms of woody products [1, 107]. Other advantages are reducing the spontaneous vegetation [120] and not needing thinning, sprout selection, or pruning [1].
The harvest cycle, i.e., the number of harvests until the end of the production cycle, when there is the need to regenerate the stands, is constrained by stump vigour, stump mortality, and rotation. Stump vigour influences the stump’s ability to resprout as well as stool survival. The higher the stump vigour the higher the resprout ability and the stool survival. Thus, the higher the stump vigour the higher the potential yield. Stump mortality influences density and productivity. The lower mortality rates enhance higher productions [121]. Productivity is also affected by the successive rotations with a trend towards the increase from the first to second or third rotation, and a tendency towards yield decrease more or less accentuated, from the fourth rotation onwards. Yet, it also depends on the stump vigour, stump mortality, species, and site. In general, the harvest cycle’s length is determined by productivity. When productivity between successive harvests decrease it is considered that the end of the production cycle has been reached [122]. Several authors refer to cutting cycles between 10 and 30 years with 3 to 10 rotations [12, 17, 26, 56, 63, 123].
2.3 Site Selection and Management Practices
In the establishment of any forest stand, and in particular of energy plantations, site selection (Fig. 4), which is related to the soil and climate [1, 3, 17], has a strong influence on the survival, growth, and yield. Overall, there is a trend toward higher yields on better quality sites [1, 26, 104]. But it is also dependent on the ecological traits of the species or clones. Thus, considering that a high yield is to be attained, soils should have adequate physical and chemical properties. The soil characteristics that enhance biomass production are soil moisture availability during the yearly growing season, nutrient availability, and aeration. The soils that should be avoided are those with drainage problems (either poorly or excessively drained), with pH too acid or too alkaline, degraded through erosion, saline, shallow, or infertile. Climate should also be considered in particular, the mean annual temperature, annual precipitation and precipitation during the growing season, frosts, and snow. Climate conditions should be within the ecological range of the species or clones, preferably close to their optimum for their growth. Steep slopes should be avoided if mechanisation is foreseen [1, 12, 19, 26].
Site characteristics suited and unsuited for energy plantations
One issue related to biomass for energy is the identification of the areas available for energy plantations. These areas can be determined following a methodology in four steps [17]: (1) selection of the species to be used and assessment of their ecological and cultural characteristics; (2) determination of the suitability of the sites, which refers to the selection of a set of data, frequently in a geographical information systems (GIS) environment, including soils, land morphology, climate, protected areas, administrative boundaries, a suite of assumptions and a subsequent set of operations that enable the identification of the areas where the selected species can be grown; (3) availability of land, which refers to the identification of the potential areas available, considering the existing restrictions, whether economic or social; (4) assignment of the land, which refers to the definition of a decision process that enables the determination of the areas where the energy plantations can be installed. The areas identified are dependent on the initial assumptions made. If only the optimal conditions that potentially originate the higher yields are considered, then the area estimation could be rather conservative [17].
Management practices include the control of spontaneous vegetation, planting techniques, initial development, control of pathogens, and irrigation (Fig. 5). The control of spontaneous vegetation enables the reduction of competition between the tree species or clones and other vegetation. It is especially relevant in the competition for light, water, and nutrients [19, 124]. It should be done during site preparation, as the control of herbaceous and shrub species is simpler and makes plantation operations easier. Several methods of control of spontaneous vegetation can be considered. Their selection should take into account a suite of factors that include the type of spontaneous vegetation, site, climate, and tree species or clones to be planted. It can be mechanical or chemical or even a combination of both [1, 26, 86, 124,125,126]. The control of spontaneous vegetation after each harvest might [127] or not [128] be necessary and is frequently chemical [129]. It is recommended when competition with spontaneous vegetation and/or production losses are expected, though care should be taken not to affect either the stumps or the sprouts [6, 26].
Management practices
Regarding the selection of planting techniques, two main choices can be pointed out, namely plantation of cuttings or plantation of seedlings. Cuttings, i.e., unrooted hardwood cuttings for species that have a good ability to develop the root system and the aerial part, are frequently used with Salix spp. [1, 26, 130,131,132]. Seedlings, most of the times, with plants produced in containers whether from seed origin or vegetative propagation [1], are used with for example Populus spp. or Eucalyptus spp. [1, 130,131,132],
Energy plantations establishment should consider the spatial arrangement of the individuals, which is related to spacing and density. Regular spacing design is frequently used to promote better use of the growing space while at the same time enhancing its mechanical harvest. The spacing can be in single, double, or triple rows (Fig. 6) depending on the density. Typically, the distance between rows ranges from 2.0 m to 3.0 m in the higher density and shorter rotation plantations and between 4.0 m to 6.0 m in the lower density and longer rotation ones [12, 16, 75, 133]. In the single row design, the distance within the rows ranges from 0.5 m to 3.0 m [12, 16, 75, 133]. In the double row design, the spacing between the double rows is between 0.75 m and 1.50 m, and the distance within the rows ranges from 0.45 m to 0.80 m [12, 133, 134]. For the triple row design, the spacing between the triple rows is about 0.6 m, and the distance within the rows of 0.6 m [135]. According to some authors [12, 136], long lines increase the efficiency of harvest. Also, the head and boundaries of the energy plantations should be wide enough for the machinery manoeuvres and to reduce to a minimum its turns [12]. Density and spatial arrangement affect competition between individuals. There is a trend towards lower competition in the square spacing when compared with the rectangular one [103].
Schematic representation of single, double and triple row energy plantation design (where a is the distance between rows, b distance within the row, c the distance between double rows, and d the distance between triple rows)
Regarding the initial development of the plantation, two approaches can be followed [26, 107, 108]: (i) the plantation is harvested at about 1 year old to promote coppicing, which increases the density. The sprouts take advantage of the existing stump root system that promotes the growth rate and the increase of biomass production; and (ii) the first harvest is done at the end of the rotation and the coppice derives from this first harvest. Before choosing one or the other, both costs and biomass production should be considered to increase the economic viability [6].
The need for fertilisation is determined by the site, especially by the site’s productive potential as it plays a key role in the intensive forest systems of biomass production [6]. Because it is an expensive operation its necessity should be evaluated [1]. Some energy plantations’ studies reported that fertilisation did not increase yield when compared with not fertilised ones (e.g., [12, 130,131,132, 137,138,139,140,141]). This effect could be due to the high quality of the soils, as many are set aside agricultural lands [6, 132]. Conversely, in other studies, fertilisation originated the increase in yield, due to the increase of the nutrients’ availability (e.g., [12, 131, 139, 141,142,143]). In others still, a negative effect of fertilisation was described, which was related to polluting mineral elements (e.g., salts) and/or antibiotics (e.g., [144,145,146]). A thorough revision of the effects of fertilisation on energy plantations can be found in Marron [147].
The assessment of soil and foliar nutrient levels should be considered to determine the need and quantity of fertiliser. If the nutrient’s concentrations are below their critical level then fertilisation should be done [1]. It can either be done by inorganic fertilisers [26, 86, 148], or organic fertilisers, residual waters, or intensive cattle grazing muds [98, 149,150,151,152,153]. In any case, a thorough evaluation of the soil’s physical, chemical, and biological (e.g., organic matter and amount of seeds of spontaneous vegetation) characteristics should be carried out before considering the application of fertilisers [26] as well as their application costs [6]. The distinction between the first and the other successive harvests should also be made. In successive harvests, the export of large amounts of nutrients from the site is expectable. Yet, leaf fall and its decomposition incorporate nutrients in the soil, though the reallocation of nutrients from leaves to woody organs varies between species. Thus, the decomposition of leaves incorporates larger or smaller amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, and magnesium promoting the maintenance of soil fertility and, potentially, compensating for the removal of woody biomass [154]. When the exports are not compensated forest energy plantations might need to be fertilised [1, 22, 155].
The control of pathogens should be considered whenever outbreaks of pests or diseases occur. One of the ways to minimise the effect of pathogens is by using clones resistant to pests and diseases [156, 157] or increasing the genetic diversity [1, 158]. Alternatively, plant protection products (phytopharmaceuticals) can be used, in which case legislation should be followed [6] and the economic and environmental viability should be justified [1, 86, 159]. These products should only be applied as an answer to a specific problem when large damages are to be expected and not as a prophylactic treatment [6].
Irrigation in forestry is not frequent [10, 116,117,118, 160]. In many forest energy plantations, annual precipitation and its annual distribution along with soil water holding capacity are sufficient to cover the trees’ water needs. Irrigation should be considered when water stress is expected to occur, to avoid the reduction of biomass production or mortality [161,162,163]. The quantity of water to be used should be calculated as a function of the plantation evapotranspiration and cultural coefficient (i.e., water balance) to promote the best possible use of water [6, 164].
2.4 Harvesting
The optimisation of harvesting is of the utmost importance [165], due to its share of costs and inputs. The harvesting costs correspond to about 45% of the total energy plantation costs [134]. Also, the energy input corresponds to up to 33% of the total input of energy [166], being the second largest (the first is fertilisation) fossil energy inputs in the system [167].
Several machinery existing on the market has been used to harvest energy plantations. Moreover, to improve harvest efficiency other machinery has been developed (for detailed revision see [168]). In literature four main harvesting techniques are referred [136]: single pass cut-and-chip, double pass cut-and-store, single pass cut-and-bale, and single pass cut-and-billet. The single pass cut-and-chip being the most flexible, can be used with different stand structures (species, ages, diameter, density, and stocking). The harvesting is done with a single pass making the operations simpler and reducing labour and machinery costs [169] because other cultural practices can be done with these machinery [170]. Furthermore, single tree harvesting productivity was improved by multiple tree harvesting with a system based on software [171]. In the double pass cut-and-store harvest system, the stems are cut and left to dry in a specific location after which are chipped, corresponding to two passes. When compared with the other systems its advantages are related to not needing biomass to be stored in a covered place; to the reduction of the losses due to microbial activity and emission of undesired gases during the storage of the chips; the reduction of the costs of transport because of the lower moisture content of the chips; forest chipper provides a high material effective capacity as well as a favourable particle size distribution [172]. The two latter harvesting systems are much less representative than the former two. The cut-and-bale and cut-and-billet derive in different biomass formats than the single pass cut-and-chip and double pass cut-and-store, resulting in biomass bales, billets, and chips, respectively [136]. The most used and improved mechanical harvesting technique is single pass cut-and chip, followed by double pass cut-and store (for details see [136]).
Species dormant season (winter in the northern hemisphere) is the best one for harvesting. The advantages are related to the recycling of leaf nutrients [154]. Additionally, cutting should leave stumps between 10 cm and 20 cm to preserve the buds and to maintain resprouting stump ability [173].
3 Biomass Yields in Energy Plantations
3.1 Estimation of Biomass in Energy Plantations
Biomass can be estimated by destructive or non-destructive methods (cf. chapter “Modelling Biomass”). The former can be done either through sampling, frequently used for modelling; or at the end of the rotation when trees in a certain area are harvested. The disadvantage of the latter is that it does not allow to make predictions. The non-destructive methods use allometric biomass functions and enable to predict yields. However, due to the specificities of these forest systems the numerous existing allometric equations, many developed for high forest systems, originate bias in the estimation of biomass. Thus, several authors developed allometric equations specific to energy plantations for tree species and/or clones. In literature was found a set of allometric equations for Populus spp. [39, 47, 59, 88, 91, 93, 108, 109, 113, 133, 174], for Salix spp. ([26, 59, 62, 112, 175,176,177,178], and for Eucalyptus spp. [37, 74, 75, 114, 179, 180].
Estimations of biomass of energy plantations have been done at the local or regional levels. Frequently growth and production models (which include allometric biomass functions) are used to generate several scenarios of management [130, 181,182,183,184,185]. At local level, the models are frequently based on the biomass allometric functions per species. Conversely, at broader scales, the models used in the estimation of biomass include usually several soil and climatic data variables, along with plant growth principles and management options, and also the interaction between the four factors. Bandaru et al. [186] classified climatic data sets in two categories: (i) collected from meteorological stations; and (ii) gridded weather data sets. The first is predominantly used at a local scale while the latter are used at a regional scale [187]. The gridded weather data can be obtained by (i) interpolation techniques of weather data and topographic characteristics or (ii) modelling and assimilation techniques [188]. A modified version of 3-PG for energy plantations with coppice management, 3-PG-Coppice model [183] was used by Bandaru et al. [186]. It requires four types of variables, namely weather, soil characteristics, plant growth parameters, and management regime. The main goal of the study was to analyse the effect of different weather data sets in the estimation of biomass from short rotation woody crops of hybrid Populus spp., using flux towers and four different high resolution gridded weather data at five different locations. The same authors refer that high resolution gridded weather data has some bias when compared with that of the flux towers [186]. This can be, at least partially, explained as modelling and assimilation techniques are not able to characterise in detail the climate that is affected by the topography and land use [186, 187, 189, 190]. Moreover, there seem to be smaller biases for the higher spatial resolutions [186, 188, 191, 192]. Bandaru et al. [186] also stress the importance of the bias determination on the weather as influences as well the biomass estimations. Other authors [28, 193] estimated the biomass for a short rotation coppice in a geographical information systems environment allowing the inclusion of climate and soil variables and the analysis of biomass spatial variability. The use of average yields to estimate biomass over a region results in bias on biomass potential, which might affect the planning of its use due to the variability of local conditions, species, and growth rates. Moreover, in the case of need, short term biomass potential yield can be increased by reducing coppices rotation lengths [28].
3.2 Biomass Yield of Energy Plantations
Biomass yield is related to initial density, regime, rotation length, and cultural practices. The analysis will be focused on three genera Populus spp., Salix spp., and Eucalyptus spp. It was based on 33 literature references, corresponding to a total of 415 trials (Table 2). Overall, there seems to be a trend towards higher densities for Salix spp., when compared to Populus spp. and Eucalyptus spp., whereas yield tends to be higher for Eucalyptus spp. than for the other two genera. Rotation length shows similar trends for all three genera. Yet, the variability is rather large (Fig. 7). This variability results from the interactions between species and/or clone traits, site, and management practices. The yield of the Eucalyptus spp., Populus spp., and Salix spp. varies between 1–63.8 t·ha−1·y−1,0.3–66 t·ha−1·y−1 and 0.3–27.5 t·ha−1·y−1; density varies between 2000–7142 stems·ha−1, 278–33,333 stemsha−1 and 6666–107,600 stems·ha−1; and rotation length among 2–6 y, 1–12 y and 2–19 y, respectively.
Boxplots of yield, density, and rotation length
For all genera, there is a yield increase from the first to the second rotation, due to the increase of density, i.e., each stump had more than one stool, for Eucalyptus [74], Populus [101, 109, 113, 133, 165, 174] and Salix [26]. However, other studies report a decrease in yield from the first to the second rotation for Populus [21, 108]. From the second to the third rotation some studies report an increase in yield for Eucalyptus [74] and Populus [101, 109, 113] while others account for its reduction for Populus [133, 165] and for Salix [26]. In the fourth rotation, it is observed a reduction of yield for all species [26, 74, 113].
There was no clear trend between density and production. This is probably related to the site quality and climate as well as the management practices. Yet, considering studies where several densities have been analysed it can be seen an increase in production with the increase of density. For example, for Salix, Schweier and Becker [178] reported for an initial density of 12,000 stems·ha−1 a yield of 6.8 t·ha−1·y−1 and 9.7 t·ha−1·y−1, while for a density of 13,200 stems·ha−1 a yield of 11.7 t·ha−1·y−1. This corresponds to an increase of 10% in the number of stems and an increase in yield of 72% and 20%, respectively. For Populus, in Italy, Di Matteo et al. [111] reported that an increase in initial density from 7140 stems·ha−1 to 10,360 stems·ha−1 (an increase of circa 45%) resulted in an increase of yield, from 12.2 t·ha−1·y−1 to 13.9 t·ha−1·y−1 (circa plus 14%). For Populus, in Germany, an increase of 10% in density (from 10,000 stems·ha−1 to 11,000 stems·ha−1) [199] attained an increase in yield between 27% and 86% (from 4.4 t·ha−1·y−1 and 5.9 t·ha−1·y−1to 5.6 t·ha−1·y−1, and 8.2 t·ha−1·y−1, respectively). Yet, the same authors for the same initial density increase observed also a reduction of yield of—6.2% (from 5.9 t·ha−1·y−1to 5.6 t·ha−1·y−1). In another study, for Populus, Oliveira at al. [39] tested eight different initial densities (6666 stems·ha−1, 10,000 stems·ha−1, 13,333 stems·ha−1, 15,000 stems·ha−1, 17,316 stems·ha−1, 20,000 stems·ha−1, 25,000 stems·ha−1, and 33,333 stems·ha−1) resulting in the increase of yield from the lowest initial density (6666 stems·ha−1) to the fourth lowest (15,000 stems·ha−1) when compared with the highest one (33,333 stems·ha−1) of 179.6%, 54.3%, 76.0%, and 24.7%, respectively. The fifth and the seventh initial densities (17,316 stems·ha−1 and 25,000 stems·ha−1) resulted in a reduction of yield of −38.8% and −13.2%, respectively, while for the sixth (20,000 stems·ha−1) a small increase of 8.3% was observed. These results underpin the variability in the yields, which are probably related to the site conditions, climate, and competition between individuals.
It is known that some broadleaved species show considerable variability in their ability to coppice which is associated with their ability to produce sprouts from dormant or adventitious buds or ligno-tubers [117, 200, 201]. Sims et al. [74] observed a wide variation in the ability to sprout of 19 Eucalyptus species and Dillen at al. [195] of 17 Populus clones. Furthermore, survival rates had considerable variations in both studies. As yield in energy plantations depends on density [75] the Eucalyptus species with higher densities were those that reached the higher yields [74], regardless of the rotation. The higher yields in the coppice regime can also be explained by the faster growth of the sprouts as their initial development takes advantage of the existing stump root system, thus not experiencing the plantation stress that the seedlings have to surpass [117, 200,201,202]. It is also known that the ability of a stump to resprout after successive harvests tends to decline. One or several factors can contribute to this decline: stump mortality due to competition, root mortality, disease infection of the cut surfaces, nutrient depletion of the soil, and variation of the tree ratios root/shoot [74, 117, 200, 201]. Thus, the better suited species for energy plantations, under the coppice regime, are those that are able to maintain stumps and root systems with high vigour, to resprout vigorously, and have sprouts with high growth rates, enabling in this way to have stands of high densities and yields [74].
Overall, circa 19% of the studies had no information (7%) or was not made (12%) the control of spontaneous vegetation, fertilisation, and irrigation. From the remaining 81% of studies, control of spontaneous vegetation was used in about 85% of the studies, fertilisation with or without control of spontaneous vegetation in 51%, and irrigation with or without spontaneous vegetation and fertilisation in 32%. The analysis per species revealed that for Eucalyptus spp., none of the trials was irrigated, in 60% control of spontaneous vegetation was done, in 36% control of spontaneous vegetation and fertilisation were used, and in 4% were fertilised. For Populus spp., 35% had control of spontaneous vegetation, 54% had control of spontaneous vegetation, fertilisation, and irrigation, 7% were fertilised and 4% were fertilised and irrigated. For Salix spp., in 61% control of spontaneous vegetation was made, 12% were fertilised, 12% were fertilised, and irrigated, 7% control of spontaneous vegetation, and fertilisation was made, and 7% control of spontaneous vegetation, and irrigation were used.
The large variability of yields of the energy plantations seems to be related to soil fertility (physical, and chemical characteristics) [58, 59]. The decrease in yields was also associated with the decrease in rainfall (the lower the site quality, and rainfall the lower the yield) [108, 113]. Another source of variability in yields is related to different mortality, growth rates, and patterns of the species, and clones [74, 75, 107, 108, 174].
4 Final Considerations
Energy plantations have an important role in the biomass for energy availability and may release pressure on other forest systems to supply bioenergy (e.g., [2, 7]). Their advantages are related to their high yields [26], short rotations [12], worldwide availability [31], harvest flexibility through anticipated or delayed harvest [28, 33], and easy transportation, and storage [28].
The energy plantations are most frequently pure even-aged stands of high densities, and usually under coppice regime [1, 12, 21]. Many species can be used (cf. Table 1) although the most frequent, at least in Europe, are Populus spp., Salix spp., and Eucalyptus spp. [51, 53].
The selection of the site and management should be suited to the species or clones [1]. Soil and climate are of primordial importance to achieve high yields, and should be near the optimum of the ecological range of the species [12]. Management practices range from planting to harvest and include the selection of density, [12], rotation [109], harvest cycle [110], spatial arrangement [133, 135], plantations techniques [1], control of spontaneous vegetation [86], fertilisation [147], irrigation [163], control of pests, and diseases [86], and harvesting [136]. A wide range of species and management options exist, and the suitability of the species or clones to the site and management practices is of primordial importance to the optimisation of the yield.
Biomass estimation is frequently assessed with allometric functions. Due to the energy plantations’ specificities, the existing functions resulted in biased estimations, especially the functions developed for high forest, and long production cycles [113]. Thus, allometric functions were developed for energy plantations (e.g., [26, 174, 179]).
Moreover, yield has a trend towards the increase from the first to the second rotation, due to density increase; and a decrease from the third to the fourth rotation. Yet, the variability is high and contrasting results are found in the literature (cf. Sect. 3), which were related to site productivity and climate.
References
Dickmann D (2006) Silviculture and biology of short-rotation woody crops in temperate regions: then and now. Biomass Bioenerg 30:696–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.02.008
Bruckman VJ, Terada T, Fukuda K et al (2016) Overmature periurban Quercus-Carpinus coppice forests in Austria and Japan: a comparison of carbon stocks, stand characteristics and conversion to high forest. Eur J Forest Res 135:857–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-0979-2
McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass. Biores Technol 83:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00118-3
Pietras J, Stojanović M, Knott R, Pokorný R (2016) Oak sprouts grow better than seedlings under drought stress. iForest–Biogeosci For 9:529–535. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1823-009
Salomón R, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J, Zafra E et al (2016) Unearthing the roots of degradation of Quercus pyrenaica coppices: a root-to-shoot imbalance caused by historical management? For Ecol Manage 363:200–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.040
Sixto H, Hernández MJ, Barrio M et al (2007) Plantaciones del género Populus para la producción de biomasa con fines energéticos: revisión. Invest Agrar Sist Recursos For 16:277–294
Stojanović M, Sánchez-Salguero R, Levanič T et al (2017) Forecasting tree growth in coppiced and high forests in the Czech Republic. The legacy of management drives the coming Quercus petraea climate responses. For Ecol Manage 405:56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.021
Suchomel C, Pyttel P, Becker G, Bauhus J (2012) Biomass equations for sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) in aged coppiced forests in southwest Germany. Biomass Bioenerg 46:722–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.021
Kirby KJ, Buckley GP, Mills J (2017) Biodiversity implications of coppice decline, transformations to high forest and coppice restoration in British woodland. Folia Geobot 52:5–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12224-016-9252-1
Matthews JD (1989) Silvicultural systems. Claredon Press, Oxford
Szabó P, Müllerová J, Suchánková S, Kotačka M (2015) Intensive woodland management in the Middle Ages: spatial modelling based on archival data. J Hist Geogr 48:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2015.01.005
Dimitriou I, Rutz D (2015) Sustainable short rotation coppice a handbook. WIP Renewable Energies, Munich
Bisoffi S, Minotta G, Paris P (2009) Indirizzi colturali e valorizzazione delle produzioni legnose fuori foresta. In: Atti del Terzo Congresso Nazionale di Selvicoltura. Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, pp 729–736
Cañellas I, Huelin P, Hernández MJ et al (2012) The effect of density on short rotation Populus sp. plantations in the Mediterranean area. Biomass Bioenerg 46:645–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.032
Deraedt W, Ceulemans R (1998) Clonal variability in biomass production and conversion efficiency of poplar during the establishment year of a short rotation coppice plantation. Biomass Bioenerg 15:391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00045-2
Fiala M, Bacenetti J, Scaravonati A, Bergonzi A (2010) Short rotation coppice in northern Italy: comprehensive sustainability. In: 18th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition. Lyon, pp 342–348
Fiorese G, Guariso G (2010) A GIS-based approach to evaluate biomass potential from energy crops at regional scale. Environ Model Softw 25:702–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.11.008
Karacic A, Weih M (2006) Variation in growth and resource utilisation among eight poplar clones grown under different irrigation and fertilisation regimes in Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg 30:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.007
Kauter D, Lewandowski I, Claupein W (2003) Quantity and quality of harvestable biomass from Populus short rotation coppice for solid fuel use—a review of the physiological basis and management in uences. Biomass Bioenerg 24:411–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00177-0
Klasnja B, Orlovic S, Drekic M, Markovic M (2003) Energy production from short rotation poplar plantations. In: Interdisciplinary regional research–ISIRR 2003. Hunedoara, Romania, pp 161–166
Laureysens I, Deraedt W, Indeherberge T, Ceulemans R (2003) Population dynamics in a 6-year old coppice culture of poplar. I. Clonal di erences in stool mortality, shoot dynamics and shoot diameter distribution in relation to biomass production. Biomass Bioenerg 24:81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00105-8
Mitchell CP, Stevens EA, Watters MP (1999) Short-rotation forestry—operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. For Ecol Manage 121:123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00561-1
Pérez-Cruzado C, Sanchez-Ron D, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R et al (2014) Biomass production assessment from Populus spp. short-rotation irrigated crops in Spain. GCB Bioenergy 6:312–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12061
Volk T, Abrahamson L, Nowak C et al (2006) The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass Bioenerg 30:715–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.03.001
Berhongaray G, El Kasmioui O, Ceulemans R (2013) Comparative analysis of harvesting machines on an operational high-density short rotation woody crop (SRWC) culture: one-process versus two-process harvest operation. Biomass Bioenerg 58:333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.003
Guidi W, Pitre EF, Labrecque M (2013) Short-rotation coppice of willows for the production of biomass in Eastern Canada. In: Matovic MD (ed) Biomass now–sustainable growth and use. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 421–448
Vega-Nieva DJ, Tomé M, Tomé J et al (2013) Developing a general method for the estimation of the fertility rating parameter of the 3-PG model: application in Eucalyptus globulus plantations in northwestern Spain. Can J For Res 43:627–636. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2012-0491
Vávrová K, Knápek J, Weger J (2017) Short-term boosting of biomass energy sources—determination of biomass potential for prevention of regional crisis situations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67:426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.015
Gonçalves AC, Malico I, Sousa AMO (2019) Solid biomass from forest trees to energy: a review. In: Jacob-Lopes E, Queiroz Zepka L (eds) Renewable resources and biorefineries. IntechOpen
Malico I, Nepomuceno Pereira R, Gonçalves AC, Sousa AMO (2019) Current status and future perspectives for energy production from solid biomass in the European industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 112:960–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.022
Verwijst T, Lundkvist A, Edelfeldt S, Albertsso J (2013) Development of sustainable willow short rotation forestry in Northern Europe. In: Matovic MD (ed) Biomass now–sustainable growth and use. InTech
Yemshanov D, McKenney D (2008) Fast-growing poplar plantations as a bioenergy supply source for Canada. Biomass Bioenerg 32:185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.09.010
Hauk S, Gandorfer M, Wittkopf S et al (2017) Ecological diversification is risk reducing and economically profitable—the case of biomass production with short rotation woody crops in south German land-use portfolios. Biomass Bioenerg 98:142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.01.018
Rothe A, Moroni M, Neyland M, Wilnhammer M (2015) Current and potential use of forest biomass for energy in Tasmania. Biomass Bioenerg 80:162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.021
Ciancio O, Corona P, Lamonaca A et al (2006) Conversion of clearcut beech coppices into high forests with continuous cover: a case study in central Italy. For Ecol Manage 224:235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.045
Kopecký M, Hédl R, Szabó P (2013) Non-random extinctions dominate plant community changes in abandoned coppices. J Appl Ecol 50:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12010
Pérez S, Renedo CJ, Ortiz A et al (2011) Energetic density of different forest species of energy crops in Cantabria (Spain). Biomass Bioenerg 35:4657–4664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.09.008
White EM (2010) Woody biomass for bioenergy and biofuels in the United States: a briefing paper. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA
Oliveira N, Sixto H, Cañellas I et al (2015) Productivity model and reference diagram for short rotation biomass crops of poplar grown in Mediterranean environments. Biomass Bioenerg 72:309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.09.019
Van Calster H, Baeten L, De Schrijver A et al (2007) Management driven changes (1967–2005) in soil acidity and the understorey plant community following conversion of a coppice-with-standards forest. For Ecol Manage 241:258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.007
Guidi W, Kadri H, Labrecque M (2012) Establishment techniques to using willow for phytoremediation on a former oil refinery in southern Quebec: achievements and constraints. Chem Ecol 28:49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540.2011.627857
Kuzovkina YA, Volk TA (2009) The characterization of willow (Salix L.) varieties for use in ecological engineering applications: co-ordination of structure, function and autecology. Ecol Eng 35:1178–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.03.010
Licht LA, Isebrands JG (2005) Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass economic opportunities. Biomass Bioenerg 28:203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.08.015
Moreno-Jiménez E, Peñalosa JM, Manzano R et al (2009) Heavy metals distribution in soils surrounding an abandoned mine in NW Madrid (Spain) and their transference to wild flora. J Hazard Mater 162:854–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.109
Nagendran R, Selvam A, Joseph K, Chiemchaisri C (2006) Phytoremediation and rehabilitation of municipal solid waste landfills and dumpsites: a brief review. Waste Manage 26:1357–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.05.003
Weetman GF (2000) Silvicultural systems for biomass production in Canada. NZ J Forest Sci 30:5–15
Liang W, Hu H, Liu F, Zhang D (2006) Research advance of biomass and carbon storage of poplar in China. J For Res 17:75–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-006-0018-0
DeBell DS, Harrington CA (1993) Deploying genotypes in short-rotation plantations: mixtures and pure cultures of clones and species. For Chron 69:705–713. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc69705-6
Updegraff K, Baughman MJ, Taff SJ (2004) Environmental benefits of cropland conversion to hybrid poplar: economic and policy considerations. Biomass Bioenerg 27:411–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.05.002
Ceulemans R, McDonald AJS, Pereira JS (1996) A comparison among eucalypt, poplar and willow characteristics with particular reference to a coppice, growth-modelling approach. Biomass Bioenerg 11:215–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(96)00035-9
Hinchee M, Rottmann W, Mullinax L et al (2009) Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 45:619–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-009-9235-5
Rockwood DL, Naidu CV, Carter DR et al (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
Sims REH, Venturi P (2004) All-year-round harvesting of short rotation coppice eucalyptus compared with the delivered costs of biomass from more conventional short season, harvesting systems. Biomass Bioenerg 26:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00081-3
Goel VL, Behl HM (2004) Productivity assessment of three leguminous species under high-density plantations on degraded soil sites. Biomass Bioenerg 27:403–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.04.004
Kumar BM, George SJ, Jamaludheen V, Suresh TK (1998) Comparison of biomass production, tree allometry and nutrient use eficiency of multipurpose trees grown in woodlot and silvopastoral experiments in Kerala, India. For Ecol Manage 112:145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00325-9
Geyer W (2006) Biomass production in the Central Great Plains USA under various coppice regimes. Biomass Bioenerg 30:778–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.08.002
Tuskan GA (1998) Short-rotation woody crop supply systems in the United States: what do we know and what we need to know? Biomass Bioenerg 14:307–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10065-4
Vande Walle I, Van Camp N, Van de Casteele L et al (2007) Short-rotation forestry of birch, maple, poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) I—biomass production after 4 years of tree growth. Biomass Bioenerg 31:267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.01.019
Vande Walle I, Van Camp N, Van de Casteele L et al (2007) Short-rotation forestry of birch, maple, poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) II. Energy production and CO2 emission reduction potential. Biomass Bioenerg 31:276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.01.002
Aosaar J, Varik M, Uri V (2012) Biomass production potential of grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench.) in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe: a review. Biomass Bioenerg 45:11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.013
Johansson T (2000) Biomass equations for determining fractions of common and grey alders growing on abandoned farmland and some practical implications. Biomass Bioenerg 18:147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00078-1
Proe MF (2002) E ects of spacing, species and coppicing on leaf area, light interception and photosynthesis in short rotation forestry. Biomass Bioenergy 12
Proe MF, Craig J, Gri J (1999) Comparison of biomass production in coppice and single stem woodland management systems on an imperfectly drained gley soil in central Scotland. Biomass Bioenerg 17:141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00029-X
Uri V, Aosaar J, Varik M et al (2014) The dynamics of biomass production, carbon and nitrogen accumulation in grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench) chronosequence stands in Estonia. For Ecol Manage 327:106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.040
Uri V, Lõhmus K, Mander Ü et al (2011) Long-term effects on the nitrogen budget of a short-rotation grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench) forest on abandoned agricultural land. Ecol Eng 37:920–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.01.016
Uri V, Vares A, Tullus H, Kanal A (2007) Above-ground biomass production and nutrient accumulation in young stands of silver birch on abandoned agricultural land. Biomass Bioenerg 31:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.08.003
Uri V, Tullus H, Lõhmus K (2002) Biomass production and nutrient accumulation in short-rotation grey alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench) plantation on abandoned agricultural land. For Ecol Manage 161:169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00478-9
Embaye K (2001) The potential of bamboo as an interceptor and converter of solar energy into essential goods and services: focus on Ethiopia. Int J Sust Dev World 8:346–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500109470092
Scurlock JMO, Dayton DC, Hames B (2000) Bamboo: an overlooked biomass resource? Biomass Bioenerg 19:229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00038-6
Srivastava AK (1995) Biomass and energy production in Casuarina equisetifolia plantation stands in the degraded dry tropics of the Vindhyan plateau, India. Biomass Bioenerg 9:465–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00048-8
Pérez-Cruzado C, Merino A, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R (2011) A management tool for estimating bioenergy production and carbon sequestration in Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus nitens grown as short rotation woody crops in north-west Spain. Biomass Bioenerg 35:2839–2851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.03.020
Rockwood DL, Rudie AW, Ralph SA et al (2008) Energy product options for Eucalyptus species grown as short rotation woody crops. Int J Mol Sci 9:1361–1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms9081361
Senelwa K, Sims REH (1997) Tree biomass equations for short rotation eucalypts grown in New Zealand. Biomass Bioenerg 13:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00026-3
Sims REH, Senelwa K, Maiava T, Bullock BT (1999) Eucalyptus species for biomass energy in New Zealand—II: coppice performance. Biomass Bioenerg 17:333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00043-4
Sims REH, Senelwa K, Maiava T, Bullock BT (1999) Eucalyptus species for biomass energy in New Zealand—I: growth screening trials at first harvest. Biomass Bioenerg 16:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00078-6
Khamzina A, Lamers JPA, Worbes M et al (2006) Assessing the potential of trees for afforestation of degraded landscapes in the aral sea basin of Uzbekistan. Agrofor Syst 66:129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-4677-1
Fuwape JA, Akindele SO (1997) Biomass yield and anergy value of some fast-growing multipurpose trees in Nigeria. Biomass Bioenerg 12:101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(96)00061-X
Onyekwelu JC (2004) Above-ground biomass production and biomass equations for even-aged Gmelina arborea (ROXB) plantations in south-western Nigeria. Biomass Bioenerg 26:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00100-4
Tenorio C, Moya R, Arias-Aguilar D, Briceño-Elizondo E (2016) Biomass yield and energy potential of short-rotation energy plantations of Gmelina arborea one year old in Costa Rica. Ind Crops Prod 82:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.12.005
Coyle DR, Aubrey DP, Coleman MD (2016) Growth responses of narrow or broad site adapted tree species to a range of resource availability treatments after a full harvest rotation. For Ecol Manage 362:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.047
Davis A, Trettin C (2006) Sycamore and sweetgum plantation productivity on former agricultural land in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenerg 30:769–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.08.001
López F, Pérez A, Zamudio MAM et al (2012) Paulownia as raw material for solid biofuel and cellulose pulp. Biomass Bioenerg 45:77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.05.010
Zuazo VHD, Bocanegra JAJ, Torres FP et al (2013) Biomass yield potential of paulownia trees in a semi-arid Mediterranean environment (S Spain). Int J Renew Energy Res (IJRER) 3:789–793
Coleman MD, Coyle DR, Blake J, et al (2003) Production of short-rotation woody crops grown with a range of nutrient and water availability: establishment report and first-year responses. Forest Service, USDA
Devine WD, Tyler DD, Mullen MD et al (2006) Conversion from an American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.) biomass crop to a no-till corn (Zea mays L.) system: crop yields and management implications. Soil Tillage Res 87:101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.03.006
Fischer M, Kelley AM, Ward EJ et al (2017) A critical analysis of species selection and high vs. low-input silviculture on establishment success and early productivity of model short-rotation wood-energy cropping systems. Biomass Bioenerg 98:214–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.01.027
Tang Z, Land SB Jr (1996) Early growth, leaf development, and dry-weight production of sycamore rooted cuttings. Biomass Bioenerg 10:221–229
Fang S, Xue J, Tang L (2007) Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential in poplar plantations with different management patterns. J Environ Manage 85:672–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.014
Fang S, Xu X, Lu S, Tang L (1999) Growth dynamics and biomass production in short-rotation poplar plantations: 6-year results for three clones at four spacings. Biomass Bioenerg 17:415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00060-4
Liesebach M, von Wuehlisch G, Muhs H-J (1999) 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. For Ecol Manage 121:25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00554-4
Pontailler J, Ceulemans R, Guittet J, Mau F (1997) Linear and non-linear functions of volume index to estimate woody biomass in high density young poplar stands. Ann Sci For 54:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19970402
Proe MF, Griffths JH, Craig J (2002) Effects of spacing, species and coppicing on leaf area, light interception and photosynthesis in short rotation forestry. Biomass Bioenerg 23:315–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00060-0
Zabek LM, Prescott CE (2006) Biomass equations and carbon content of aboveground leafless biomass of hybrid poplar in Coastal British Columbia. For Ecol Manage 223:291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.11.009
Felker P (1981) Uses of tree legumes in semiarid regions. Econ Bot 35:174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02858684
Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680590910393
Gasol CM, Brun F, Mosso A et al (2010) Economic assessment and comparison of acacia energy crop with annual traditional crops in Southern Europe. Energy Policy 38:592–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.011
Manzone M, Bergante S, Facciotto G (2015) Energy and economic sustainability of woodchip production by black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) plantations in Italy. Fuel 140:555–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.122
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 Bioenerg 29:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.12.004
Sudha P, Ravindranath NH (1999) Land availability and biomass production potential in India. Biomass Bioenerg 16:207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00083-X
Duku MH, Gu S, Hagan EB (2011) A comprehensive review of biomass resources and biofuels potential in Ghana. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.033
Armstrong A, Johns C, Tubby I (1999) Effects of spacing and cutting cycle on the yield of poplar grown as an energy crop. Biomass Bioenerg 17:305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00054-9
Marchadier H, Sigaud P (2005) Los álamos en la investigación biotecnológica. Unasylva 221:38–39
Qian Z, Ge X, Bai Y et al (2022) Effects of different planting configurations and clones on biomass and carbon storage of a 12-year-old poplar ecosystem in southern China. Can J For Res 52:70–78. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2021-0041
Mosseler A, Major JE (2022) Clonal variation in coppiced and uncoppiced growth, root sprout stem formation, and biomass partitioning in Salix interior on two highly disturbed site types. Can J For Res 52:148–157. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2021-0025
Tharakan PJ, Robison DJ, Abrahamson LP, Nowak CA (2001) Multivariate approach for integrated evaluation of clonal biomass production potential. Biomass Bioenerg 21:237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00038-1
Willebrand E, Verwijst T (1993) Population dynamics of willow coppice systems and their implications for management of short-rotation forests. For Chron 69:699–704. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc69699-6
Laureysens I, Pellis A, Willems J, Ceulemans R (2005) Growth and production of a short rotation coppice culture of poplar. III. Second rotation results. Biomass Bioenergy 29:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.02.005
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. For Ecol Manage 187:295–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.07.005
Paris P, Mareschi L, Sabatti M et al (2011) Comparing hybrid Populus clones for SRF across northern Italy after two biennial rotations: survival, growth and yield. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1524–1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.050
Resquin F, Bentancor L, Carrasco-Letelier L et al (2022) Rotation length of intensive Eucalyptus plantations: how it impacts on productive and energy sustainability. Biomass Bioenerg 166:106607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106607
Di Matteo G, Sperandio G, Verani S (2012) Field performance of poplar for bioenergy in southern Europe after two coppicing rotations: effects of clone and planting density. iForest Biogeosci For 5:224–229. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0628-005
Hytönen J, Saarsalmi A (2009) Long-term biomass production and nutrient uptake of birch, alder and willow plantations on cut-away peatland. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1197–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.014
Benetka V, Novotná K, Štochlová P (2014) Biomass production of Populus nigra L. clones grown in short rotation coppice systems in three different environments over four rotations. iForest Biogeosci For 7:233–239. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1162-007
Eufrade Junior HJ, de Melo RX, Sartori MMP et al (2016) Sustainable use of eucalypt biomass grown on short rotation coppice for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 90:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.037
Giannini V, Silvestri N, Dragoni F et al (2017) Growth and nutrient uptake of perennial crops in a paludicultural approach in a drained Mediterranean peatland. Ecol Eng 103:478–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.049
Assmann E (1970) The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK
Boudru M (1989) Forêt et sylviculture. Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux, Le Traitement des Forêts
Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS (1997) The practice of silviculture. Applied forest ecology, 9th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York
Bullard MJ, Mustill SJ, McMillan SD et al (2002) Yield improvements through modiÿcation of planting density and harvest frequency in short rotation coppice Salix spp.—1. Yield response in two morphologically diverse varieties. Biomass Bioenerg 22:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00054-X
Bergkvist P, Ledin S (1998) Stem biomass yields at different planting designs and spacings in willow coppice systems. Biomass Bioenerg 14:149–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10021-6
Nordh N, Verwijst T (2004) Above-ground biomass assessments and first cutting cycle production in willow (Salix sp.) coppice—a comparison between destructive and non-destructive methods. Biomass Bioenerg 27:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.10.007
Dillen M, Vanhellemont M, Verdonckt P et al (2016) Productivity, stand dynamics and the selection effect in a mixed willow clone short rotation coppice plantation. Biomass Bioenerg 87:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.013
Štochlová P, Novotná K, Costa M, Rodrigues A (2019) Biomass production of poplar short rotation coppice over five and six rotations and its aptitude as a fuel. Biomass Bioenerg 122:183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.011
Willoughby I, Clay D (1996) Herbicides for farm woodlands and short rotation coppice. Forestry Comission, London
Stanturf JA, Van Oosten C, Netzer DA, et al (2001) Ecology and silviculture of poplar plantations. Poplar Culture in North America 153–206
Tubby I, Armstrong A (2002) Establishment and management of short rotation coppice. Forestry Comission, Edinburgh
Buhler DD, Netzer DA, Riemenschneider DE, Hartzler RG (1998) Weed management in short rotation poplar and herbaceous perennial crops grown for biofuel production. Biomass Bioenerg 14:385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10075-7
Sixto H, Grau JM, Garc JM (2001) Assessment of the e!ect of broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicides in poplar nurseries. Crop Prot 20:121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(00)00064-8
Karačić A (2005) Production and ecological aspects of short rotation poplars in Sweden. PhD Thesis, Deprtment of Short Rotation Forestry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Deckmyn G, Laureysens I, Garcia J et al (2004) Poplar growth and yield in short rotation coppice: model simulations using the process model SECRETS. Biomass Bioenerg 26:221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00121-1
Kopp RF, Abrahamson LP, White EH et al (2001) Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenerg 20:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00063-5
Telenius B (1999) Stand growth of deciduous pioneer tree species on fertile agricultural land in southern Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg 16:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00073-7
Spinelli R, Nati C, Magagnotti N (2008) Harvesting short-rotation poplar plantations for biomass production. Croatian J Forest Eng 29:129–139
El Kasmioui O, Ceulemans R (2013) Financial analysis of the cultivation of short rotation woody crops for bioenergy in belgium: barriers and opportunities. BioEnergy Res 6:336–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9262-7
Savoie P, Hébert P-L, Robert F-S, Sidders D (2013) Harvest of short-rotation woody crops in plantations with a biobaler. Energy Power Eng 05:39–47. https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2013.52A006
Vanbeveren SPP, Spinelli R, Eisenbies M et al (2017) Mechanised harvesting of short-rotation coppices. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 76:90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.059
Ceulemans R, Deraedt W (1999) Production physiology and growth potential of poplars under short-rotation forestry culture. For Ecol Manage 121:9–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00564-7
Fillion M, Brisson J, Teodorescu TI et al (2009) Performance of Salix viminalis and Populus nigra×Populus maximowiczii in short rotation intensive culture under high irrigation. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1271–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.011
Hytönen J (1998) Effect of peat ash fertilization on the nutrient status and biomass production of short-rotation willow on cut-away peatland area. Biomass Bioenerg 15:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10050-2
Laidlaw WS, Baker AJM, Gregory D, Arndt SK (2015) Irrigation water quality influences heavy metal uptake by willows in biosolids. J Environ Manage 155:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.005
Scholz V, Ellerbrock R (2002) The growth productivity, and environmental impact of the cultivation of energy crops on sandy soil in Germany. Biomass Bioenerg 23:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00036-3
Coleman M, Tolsted D, Nichols T et al (2006) Post-establishment fertilization of Minnesota hybrid poplar plantations. Biomass Bioenerg 30:740–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.01.001
Dimitriou I, Rosenqvist H (2011) Sewage sludge and wastewater fertilisation of Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) for increased bioenergy production—biological and economic potential. Biomass Bioenerg 35:835–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.010
Park BB, Yanai RD, Sahm JM et al (2005) Wood ash effects on plant and soil in a willow bioenergy plantation. Biomass Bioenerg 28:355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.09.001
Quaye AK, Volk TA, Hafner S et al (2011) Impacts of paper sludge and manure on soil and biomass production of willow. Biomass Bioenerg 35:2796–2806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.03.008
Sevel L, Nord-Larsen T, Ingerslev M et al (2014) Fertilization of SRC Willow, I: biomass production response. BioEnergy Res 7:319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9371-y
Marron N (2015) Agronomic and environmental effects of land application of residues in short-rotation tree plantations: a literature review. Biomass Bioenerg 81:378–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.07.025
Alriksson B, Ledin S, Seeger P (1997) Effect of nitrogen fertilization on growth in a Salix viminalis stand using a response surface experimental design. Scand J For Res 12:321–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827589709355418
Cavanagh A, Gasser MO, Labrecque M (2011) Pig slurry as fertilizer on willow plantation. Biomass Bioenerg 35:4165–4173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.037
Heaton RJ, Randerson, Slater FM (2000) The silviculture, nutrition & economics of short rotation willow coppice in the uplands of mid-Wales. Cardiff University
Jonsson M, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Elowson T (2006) Treatment of log yard run-off by irrigation of grass and willows. Environ Pollut 139:157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.04.026
Martin PJ, Stephens W (2006) Willow growth in response to nutrients and moisture on a clay landfill cap soil. I. Growth and biomass production. Bioresource Technol 97:437–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.03.003
Perttu KL (1999) Environmental and hygienic aspects of willow coppice in Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg 16:291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00012-9
González I, Sixto H, Rodríguez-Soalleiro R et al (2022) How can leaf-litter from different species growing in short rotation coppice contribute to the soil nutrient pool? For Ecol Manage 520:120405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120405
Bungart R, Hüttl RF (2001) Production of biomass for energy in post-mining landscapes and nutrient dynamics. Biomass Bioenerg 20:181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00078-7
Dowkiw A, Husson C, Frey P et al (2003) Partial Resistance to Melampsora larici-populina leaf rust in hybrid poplars: genetic variability in inoculated excised leaf disk bioassay and relationship with complete resistance. Phytopathology 93:421–427. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2003.93.4.421
Pei MH, Ruiz C, Bayon C et al (2005) Pathogenic variation in poplar rust Melampsora larici-populina from England. Eur J Plant Pathol 111:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-004-1920-y
Lonsdale D, Tabbush P (2002) Poplar rust and its recent impact in Great Britain. For Commis Inform Note 7:1–4
Kline KL, Coleman MD (2010) Woody energy crops in the southeastern United States: two centuries of practitioner experience. Biomass Bioenerg 34:1655–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.005
Schütz JP (1990) Sylviculture 1. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, Principes d’Éducation des Forêts
Allen SJ, Hall RL, Rosier PT (1999) Transpiration by two poplar varieties grown as coppice for biomass production. Tree Physiol 19:493–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/19.8.493
Perry CH, Miller RC, Brooks KN (2001) Impacts of short-rotation hybrid poplar plantations on regional water yield. For Ecol Manage 143:143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00513-2
Petzold R, Schwärzel K, Feger K-H (2011) Transpiration of a hybrid poplar plantation in Saxony (Germany) in response to climate and soil conditions. Eur J Forest Res 130:695–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0459-z
Yin C, Wang X, Duan B et al (2005) Early growth, dry matter allocation and water use efficiency of two sympatric species as affected by water stress. Environ Exp Bot 53:315–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.04.007
Fiala M, Bacenetti J (2012) Economic, energetic and environmental impact in short rotation coppice harvesting operations. Biomass Bioenerg 42:107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.07.004
Djomo SN, Ac A, Zenone T et al (2015) Energy performances of intensive and extensive short rotation cropping systems for woody biomass production in the EU. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:845–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.058
Eisenbies MH, Volk TA, Posselius J et al (2014) Evaluation of a single-pass, cut and chip harvest system on commercial-scale, short-rotation shrub willow biomass crops. Bioenerg Res 7:1506–1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9482-0
Santangelo E, Scarfone A, Giudice AD et al (2015) Harvesting systems for poplar short rotation coppice. Ind Crops Prod 75:85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.07.013
Culshaw D, Stokes B (1995) Mechanisation of short rotation forestry. Biomass Bioenerg 9:127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00085-2
Pecenka R, Hoffmann T (2015) Harvest technology for short rotation coppices and costs of harvest, transport and storage. Agron Res 13:361–371
Magagnotti N, Spinelli R, Kärhä K, Mederski PS (2021) Multi-tree cut-to-length harvesting of short-rotation poplar plantations. Eur J Forest Res 140:345–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01335-y
Pari L, Civitarese V, del Giudice A et al (2013) Influence of chipping device and storage method on the quality of SRC poplar biomass. Biomass Bioenerg 51:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.01.019
Telenius B, Verwijst T (1995) The influnece of allometric variation, vertical, biomass distribution and sapmpling procedure on biomass estimates in commercial short-rotation forests. Biores Technol 51:24–253
Toillon J, Dallé E, Bodineau G et al (2016) Plasticity of yield and nitrogen removal in 56 Populus deltoides×P. nigra genotypes over two rotations of short-rotation coppice. For Ecol Manage 375:55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.023
Adegbidi HG, Volk TA, White EH et al (2001) Biomass and nutrient removal by willow clones in experimental bioenergy plantations in New York State. Biomass Bioenerg 20:399–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00009-5
Bergante S, Manzone M, Facciotto G (2016) Alternative planting method for short rotation coppice with poplar and willow. Biomass Bioenerg 87:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.02.016
Mosseler A, Major JE, Labrecque M, Larocque GR (2014) Allometric relationships in coppice biomass production for two North American willows (Salix spp.) across three different sites. For Ecol Manage 320:190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.027
Schweier J, Becker G (2013) Economics of poplar short rotation coppice plantations on marginal land in Germany. Biomass Bioenerg 59:494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.020
Civitarese V, Faugno S, Pindozzi S et al (2015) Effect of short rotation coppice plantation on the performance and chips quality of a self-propelled harvester. Biosys Eng 129:370–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.11.009
Sochacki SJ, Harper RJ, Smettem KRJ et al (2013) Evaluating a sustainability index for nutrients in a short rotation energy cropping system. GCB Bioenergy 5:315–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01202.x
Amichev BY, Hangs RD, Van Rees KCJ (2011) A novel approach to simulate growth of multi-stem willow in bioenergy production systems with a simple process-based model (3PG). Biomass Bioenerg 35:473–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.09.007
Bandaru V, Parker NC, Hart Q et al (2015) Economic sustainability modeling provides decision support for assessing hybrid poplar-based biofuel development in California. Calif Agric 69:171–176. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v069n03p171
Hart QJ, Tittmann PW, Bandaru V, Jenkins BM (2015) Modeling poplar growth as a short rotation woody crop for biofuels in the Pacific Northwest. Biomass Bioenerg 79:12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.004
Malico I, Gonçalves AC (2021) Eucalyptus globulus coppices in Portugal: influence of site and percentage of residues collected for energy. Sustainability 13:5775. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115775
Tallis MJ, Casella E, Henshall PA et al (2013) Development and evaluation of ForestGrowth-SRC a process-based model for short rotation coppice yield and spatial supply reveals poplar uses water more efficiently than willow. GCB Bioenergy 5:53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01191.x
Bandaru V, Pei Y, Hart Q, Jenkins BM (2017) Impact of biases in gridded weather datasets on biomass estimates of short rotation woody cropping systems. Agric For Meteorol 233:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.008
van Wart J, Grassini P, Cassman KG (2013) Impact of derived global weather data on simulated crop yields. Glob Change Biol 19:3822–3834. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12302
Eum H-I, Dibike Y, Prowse T, Bonsal B (2014) Inter-comparison of high-resolution gridded climate data sets and their implication on hydrological model simulation over the Athabasca Watershed, Canada: inter-comparison of gridded climate data and hydrologic simulations. Hydrol Process 28:4250–4271. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10236
Miao Z, Shastri Y, Grift TE et al (2012) Lignocellulosic biomass feedstock transportation alternatives, logistics, equipment configurations, and modeling. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 6:351–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1322
Zhong S, Fast J (2003) An evaluation of the MM5, RAMS, and Meso-Eta models at subkilometer resolution using VTMX field campaign data in the Salt Lake Valley. Mon Weather Rev 131:1301–1322. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2003)131%3c1301:AEOTMR%3e2.0.CO;2
Abatzoglou JT (2013) Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. Int J Climatol 33:121–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3413
Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI et al (2008) Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol 28:2031–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1688
Aust C, Schweier J, Brodbeck F et al (2014) Land availability and potential biomass production with poplar and willow short rotation coppices in Germany. GCB Bioenergy 6:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12083
Aylott MJ, Casella E, Tubby I et al (2008) Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New Phytol 178:358–370
Dillen SY, Djomo SN, Al Afas N et al (2013) Biomass yield and energy balance of a short-rotation poplar coppice with multiple clones on degraded land during 16 years. Biomass Bioenerg 56:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.019
Liberloo M, Calfapietra C, Lukac M et al (2006) Woody biomass production during the second rotation of a bio-energy Populus plantation increases in a future high CO2 world. Glob Change Biol 12:1094–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01118.x
Pontailler JY, Ceulemans R, Guittet J (1999) Biomass yield of poplar after five 2-year coppice rotations. Forestry 72:157–163
Sixto H, Gil P, Ciria P, Camps F (2013) Performance of hybrid poplar clones in short rotation coppice in Mediterranean environments: analysis of genotypic stability. GCB Bioenergy 6:661–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12079
Schweier J, Becker G (2012) Harvesting of short rotation coppice—harvesting trials with a cut and storage system in Germany. Silva Fennica 46:287–299. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.61
Boudru M (1992) Forêt et Sylviculture. Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux, Boisements te reboisements artificieles
Florence RG (1996) Ecology and silviculture of eucalyptus forests. Csiro Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria
Gonçalves AC, Fonseca TF (2023) Influence management and disturbances on the regeneration of forest stands. Front Forests Glob Change 6:1123215. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1123215
Funding
This work is funded by National Funds through FCT–Foundation for Science and Technology under the Project UIDB/05183/2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gonçalves, A.C. (2024). Energy Plantations. In: Gonçalves, A.C., Malico, I. (eds) Forest Bioenergy. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48224-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48224-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48223-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48224-3
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)