Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Biomass Energy Potential and Forest Carbon Stocks in Biscay (Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Patterns of Irradiance and Advanced Reproduction along a Canopy Disturbance Severity Gradient in an Upland Hardwood Stand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 7
Issue 4
10.3390/f7040074
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sub-Soiling and Genotype Selection Improves Populus Productivity Grown on a North Carolina Sandy Soil

by
Shawn Dayson Shifflett
*,
Dennis W. Hazel
and
Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Campus Box 8006, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8006, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2016, 7(4), 74; https://doi.org/10.3390/f7040074
Submission received: 26 February 2016 / Revised: 14 March 2016 / Accepted: 16 March 2016 / Published: 25 March 2016
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study reports the stem volume of 10 Populus genotypes in a randomized split-plot design with different tillage treatments (disking versus sub-soiling) after two years of growth. Height, diameter at breast height (DBH), stem aboveground volume index, survival, Melampsora rust resistance, leaf area index (LAI), chlorophyll content, and foliar nitrogen concentration (Foliar N) were measured to identify how tillage treatments might alter poplar growth. Stem volume index and LAI were positively correlated and differed significantly among tillage treatments, taxa, and genotypes. Melampsora rust resistance was also positively correlated with volume index, but significant differences were only detected among taxa and genotypes. Foliar N and chlorophyll did not correlate to stem volume for genotypes or tillage treatments. Overall, sub-soiling yielded 37% more estimated volume compared to disking. Within the sub-soiled treatments, four genotypes (140, 176, 185, and 356) had high survival (>80%) and produced substantial stem volume (>32 dm3·tree−1). These findings show that tillage practices do impact poplar stem volumes after two years and that sub-soiling improves productivity for poplar short rotation woody crops on loamy fine-sandy soils.

1. Introduction

International and domestic policies mandate increased reliance on forest resources to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and global dependence on fossil fuels. In the European Union (E.U.), the renewable energy directive has mandated that renewables represent 20% of total energy by 2020, and many participating countries are importing wood pellets from the southeastern U.S.A. to supplement their portfolios [1,2]. In the U.S.A., the 2010 Renewable Fuel Standard mandates that the volume of biofuel blended into transportation fuels increase from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022 [3]. Given these policies, a large amount of land (between 33 and 51 million hectares (ha)) is needed to grow dedicated biomass in highly productive plantations [4,5]. The southeastern U.S.A. represents a promising region with over 80 million ha in timber production and a large area of marginal and abandoned lands available for dedicated biomass production [6,7,8,9,10,11]. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that purpose-grown woody crops with productivities between 8 and 10 green Mg ha−1·year−1 will be required at a minimum if demand for wood pellets and cellulosic ethanol is to be met [7].
Poplars (Populus spp.) are one option for purpose-grown woody crops or short rotation woody crops (SRWC) [12,13]. Poplar SRWC have estimated stem volume indices ranging from 2.25 to 29.3 Mg ha−1·year−1 in the Pacific Northwest [14,15,16,17], 0.4 to 24.5 Mg ha−1·year−1 in the North Central region [18,19,20], and 0.1 to 24.1 Mg ha−1·year−1 in the Northeast [21]. Poplar SRWC studies for the southeastern U.S.A. are limited to the Mississippi Delta [22,23,24,25,26] or the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in South Carolina [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Outside of these areas, poplar trials are underway in Kentucky [33], Georgia [34], and North Carolina [35,36], but these efforts do not address whether different tillage practices yield significantly greater biomass for commercially-available poplar genotypes.
Though Populus plantations are known to yield greater biomass in tilled soils versus non-tilled soils, the impact of different tillage practices remains largely unexplored [37,38]. Common practices include disking, harrowing, bedding, sub-soiling, or a combination of these techniques [39,40]. In Pinus spp. (pine) plantations, disking has the potential to reduce root competition, improve water infiltration, and increase nutrient availability. Similarly, sub-soiling may increase infiltration rates and improve root growth in compacted soils [39]. Whether these tillage practices affect poplar productivity remains unclear. Because equipment purchases represent a substantial upfront cost to landowners [41], there is a need to evaluate the tradeoffs between tillage practices before successful poplar SRWC deployment can occur throughout the southeastern U.S.A.
This study assessed the effect of two tillage practices (disking versus sub-soiling) on 10 Populus genotypes representing three taxa after two years of growth using a completely randomized split-plot design on loamy fine-sandy soils in North Carolina. The effects of tillage treatments were quantified for each genotype using the following metrics: tree stem volume index, leaf area index (LAI), foliar nitrogen concentration (foliar N), chlorophyll content, and evidence of disease. These traits were additionally evaluated to identify significant correlations among the assessed characteristics and stem volume. Greater foliar N often correlates to increased poplar SRWC productivity [16,18,23], and chlorophyll content can be utilized as indicator of foliar N [42,43,44]. However, assessments are limited for poplar genotypes. Correlations between chlorophyll content and foliar N have been documented for other tree species such as sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) [42], American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.) [43], sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) [43], green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.) [43], swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla L.) [43], shining gum (Eucalyptus nitins Deane & Maiden) [44], and blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.) [44]. Similarly, correlations between stem volume with phenotypic traits like leaf area and disease resistance are also limited for poplar SRWC grown in the southeastern U.S.A. Leaf area [45,46,47] and the presence or absence (resistance) of disease, such as Melampsora spp. leaf rust, have been correlated to poplar SRWC productivity elsewhere [19,28,34,48,49], but modern commercially-available genotypes have not been well documented. These evaluations may provide useful insight to explaining how maximum plantation productivity can be achieved as poplar SRWC expands in the southeastern U.S.A.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description, Design, and Establishment

The poplar SRWC trial was installed on a former cornfield located in Wallace, NC, U.S.A. (34°45′N, 78°50′W). The climate is humid subtropical with annual precipitation of 1617 mm in 2013 and 899 mm in 2014. Site elevation is 16 m above mean sea level. The site soils are Noboco loamy fine sand with a pH of 6.56 ± 0.31, a cation exchange capacity of 7.39 ± 1.65 meq/100 g, 11.1 ± 2.89 kg ha−1 nitrate, 1,048 kg·ha−1 of phosphorous, and 242 kg·ha−1 of potassium. The soils are 87% sand, 6% silt and 7% clay.
In November 2012, a pre-emergent herbicide mixture of 4.67 L·ha−1 of 37.4% pendimethalin (Pendulum®, Green Resource LLC, Colfax, NC, USA) and 0.29 L·ha−1 of 70% imazquin (Image® 70DG, Green Resource LLC, Colfax, NC, USA) was applied. Subsequently, the site was divided into three blocks then subdivided into two tillage whole plots that were either disked or sub-soiled for a split-plot experimental design. Within each whole plot, 10 subplots were randomly assigned either a pure Populus deltoides (P. deltoides) taxa (140, 176, 356, 373), a Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides (P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides) taxa (185, 187, 188, 229, 339), or a Populus deltoides × Populus maximowiczii (P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii) taxon (230). All tree materials were provided by ArborGen Inc. (Ridgeville, SC, USA) as 25 to 30 cm dormant cuttings. In February 2013, the site was treated with 41% glyphosate to remove weed competition. Populus cuttings were soaked for 24 to 48 h in water to enhance root initiation. Each subplot was planted at a 2.4 m × 2.7 m spacing (1543 trees hectare−1) in a 4 × 4 tree layout. Two border rows of assorted Populus cuttings and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda [L.]) seedlings were planted on the perimeter of each whole-plot to reduce potential border effects [50]. After planting, the site was mowed monthly to minimize weed competition.

2.2. Data Collection for Tree Growth and Melampsora spp. Rust Resistance Index

All trees were inventoried for survival, growth, and Melampsora spp. rust presence in November 2014. The stem(s) for each tree were measured for height to apical bud, diameter at breast height (DBH), and survival. Melampsora rust was scored as a modified Schreinder index [51] where the percentage of leaves were scored on a scale of 0 to 4 (where 0 indicated 100% of foliage had observable rust; 1, 75%; 2, 50%; 3, 25%; and 4, no evidence of Melampsora spp. rust). To estimate aboveground tree volume, a volume index was calculated using V = h × d2, where V is volume index in cubic decimeters, h is height in decimeters, and d is DBH in decimeters [52]. For multiple stems, volume index was estimated for each individual stem and then summed for a total. Measurements were duplicated for at least 5% of all trees to evaluate precision of field data collection and are provided in the Supplementary Material (Table S1).

2.3. LAI, Chlorophyll Content, and Foliar N

LAI, chlorophyll content, and foliar N were evaluated in September 2014 before senescence was observed in two randomly-selected blocks. LAI was assessed using a LAI 2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer (LiCor, Lincoln, NE, U.S.A.) by comparison of above and below canopy readings. Eight observations were collected near the trunk of each tree within each 16-tree subplot to create a composite LAI value for the sub-plot. Chlorophyll content and foliar N were determined by removing and compositing 10 to 15 green leaves from two interior trees in each subplot. Sampling was carried out in the first two weeks of September when foliar nutrients are considered the most stable in poplars [53]. Leaves were analyzed for chlorophyll content using a chlorophyll meter from atLeaf+ (Wilmington, DE, USA), and foliar tissue was analyzed for percent nitrogen composition by Waters Agricultural Laboratories (Warsaw, NC, USA). Measurements were duplicated for at least 10% of collected samples to evaluate precision of field data collection (Table S1).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Height (m), DBH (cm), volume index (dm3), LAI, Melampsora rust resistance, chlorophyll content (mg·g−1), and foliar N (%) were analyzed using analyses of variance (ANOVA, Proc Glimmix, SAS Inc., Cary, NC) assuming a split-plot design. To assess the significance of fixed effects, the following model was applied:
Yijklm = µ + Bi + Tj + Pk + P(C)kl + TP(C)jkl + BTP(C)ijkl + εijklm
where Yijklm is the response variable to be analyzed, μ is the overall mean, Bi is the random effect of the ith block, Tj is the fixed effect of the jth tillage treatment, Pk is the fixed effect of the kth taxon, P(C)kl is the nested fixed effect of the lth genotype within the kth taxon, TP(C)jkl is the fixed interaction between the jth tillage treatment and lth genotype within the kth taxon, BTP(C)ijkl is the random interaction between the ith block and jth tillage treatment with lth genotype within the kth taxon, and εijklm is the pooled residual error.

3. Results

3.1. Tillage and Genotype Selection

Tillage significantly affected height, DBH, and volume index (Table 1). Most poplar genotypes grown in the sub-soiled treatment had significantly greater heights and diameters than those genotypes grown in disked soils (Table S2 contains summary statistics for all growth measurements). Two genotypes (230 and 187) produced more volume in the disked treatment, but that difference was not significant (p > 0.10). Survival was greater in the sub-soiled plots (88%) compared to the disked plots (80%), but this difference was marginal compared to the difference in total estimated aboveground volume. Disked treatments produced 7583 dm3, whereas the sub-soiled tillage treatments produced 37% more volume, a total estimated volume of 10,216 dm3.
Taxa and genotype selection were also significant factors in achieving maximum productivity (Table 1). Three genotypes (187, 188, and 339) had substantially lower mean volume index (<15 dm3·tree−1) compared to other genotypes and may not be appropriate for larger poplar SRWC plantations (Figure 1). In contrast, four genotypes (140, 176, 185, and 356) grown in the sub-soiled treatment demonstrated potential to meet demand for cellulosic ethanol and wood pellets (Figure 1). These genotypes had > 80% survival and produced ≥ 32 dm3·tree−1. When a wood density of 0.37 g·cm−3 was assumed for two-year old poplars [54], plot productivities of these genotypes’ would exceed 8.0 green Mg ha−1·year−1. Thus, tillage does alter poplar productivity among genotypes.

3.2. Chlorophyll Content, Foliar N, and Volume Index

Though significant differences were detected among genotypes for foliar N and volume index (Table 2), significant correlations were not observed between the two measured parameters (R2 = 0.0002). Similarly, significant correlations were not observed between chlorophyll content and foliar N (R2 = 0.0001) or between chlorophyll content and volume index (R2 = 0.0002) (Figure S1 contains scatterplots for chlorophyll content, foliar N, and volume index; Table S3 contains summary statistics for measured foliar nutrient concentrations). Ranking genotypes for foliar N, chlorophyll content, and volume index revealed that genotypes with higher volume ranks tended to rank lower in foliar N (Table 2) except for genotype 140. Otherwise, trends could not be detected among the measured parameters. Thus, there were no relationships among chlorophyll content, foliar N, and volume index.

3.3. Melampsora Rust Resistance, LAI, and Volume Index

Significant correlations were detected amongst mean volume index, LAI, and Melampsora rust (Figure 2). According to an ANOVA, resistance to Melampsora rust resistance differed significantly among genotypes and taxa, but did not differ between tillage treatments (Table 1). A post hoc Tukey–Kramer analysis revealed that P. deltoides genotypes and the P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii genotype generally had higher rust resistance scores compared to P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides genotypes (Figure 2). The genotypes with the highest resistance were 176 and 356.
LAI also differed significantly among genotypes (p = 0.017) and taxa (p = 0.0013) as well as between tillage treatments (p = 0.040). Genotypes 185, 356, 140, and 176 demonstrated the highest LAI in the sub-soiled tillage treatment (Table S4 contains summary statistics for LAI). These results demonstrate that LAI and disease resistance are well correlated with stem volume and selecting for these traits can improve establishment and early stem productivity in poplar SRWC grown in the southeastern U.S.A.

4. Discussion

4.1. Tillage and Genotype Selection

Few studies have evaluated the impact of tillage on Populus SRWC establishment and productivity. Morhart et al. [55] demonstrated that disking was preferred for improving stand survival to utilizing no tillage techniques and ley crops. In contrast, this study did not find a substantial difference in survival between the two tillage techniques. Additionally, this study found tillage practice to be a significant factor, resulting in a stand productivity difference of 37%. Genotype selection was also critical, which has been documented in other research efforts [28,29,32,36]. The improved performance of these Populus genotypes in the sub-soiled tillage treatment provides important insight to maximizing poplar SRWC productivity for larger plantations as disking is more common in the southeastern U.S.A. [24,27,29,30,33]. In other cases where sub-soiling has been utilized, relatively high productivities have been reported. For example, Heilman and Xie [16] reported on a sub-soiled plantation in the Pacific Northwest evaluating the performance of P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides under an array of fertilization treatments, and reported productivities ranging from 17.1 to 29.3 Mg ha−1·year−1. Although productivities in this study were not as high as those reported by Heilman and Xie [16], the results do demonstrate that pairing careful genotype selection with soil tillage practice may be one key to achieving maximum productivity from Populus SRWC in multiple settings.
By combining these two experimental factors, three genotypes (140, 356, 185) grown in the sub-soiled plots demonstrated superior productivity compared to the other genotypes (Figure 1). The significance of sub-soiling and genotype selection in maximizing volume index highlights the importance of preliminary field trials for Populus SRWC. Though short field trials cannot capture long-term challenges like detrimental pest infestations or climate variability, they can be effective for identifying factors that improve woody biomass production and for eliminating genotypes that generally demonstrate poor performance [29,32]. This study identified several genotypes that would not be suitable for further deployment (187, 188, and 339) and determined that sub-soiling can improve early stand productivity. Though there is potential for the impact of sub-soiling on stand productivity to dissipate with rotation age [55], rapid early growth may be indicative of rankings later in rotation [32]. Therefore, monitoring tree productivity will continue at this research site. Given the large number of commercially-available genotypes [29], the variable performance of genotypes across a gradient of environmental conditions [20], and the limited number of field trials, this study demonstrates that there is a substantial need to identify silvicultural strategies to improve poplar SRWC establishment and growth in soils typical to the southeastern U.S.A.

4.2. Chlorophyll Content, Foliar N, and Volume Index

No correlation could be identified for Populus genotypes for any of the assessed parameters; however, there were significant differences in foliar N between genotypes (Table 2). This finding contradicts the findings of Moreau et al. [26] where a curvilinear relationship could be identified between foliar nitrogen and chlorophyll content for two Populus genotypes, and several other studies that correlated biomass production with foliar nitrogen [16,18,23]. A possible explanation for these contradictions is that the relationship between chlorophyll content, foliar nitrogen, and volume may only be correlated when foliar N is below critical concentrations. Blackmon [23], Hansen et al. [18], and Hielman and Xie [16] have suggested that the foliar N should be between 2.0% and 3.0% for optimal productivity. In this study, foliar N ranged from 2.18% to 4.05%; thus, all trees likely had sufficient nitrogen to synthesize chlorophyll and optimize productivity. This finding is supported by the lack of significant differences in chlorophyll content for the selected genotypes (Table 1). When nutrients do not limit productivity, other traits may be responsible for improved productivity such as disease incidence and/or resistance.

4.3. Melampsora Rust Resistance, LAI, and Volume Index

Significant correlations were identified for LAI, Melampsora rust index, and mean volume index (Figure 2). Significant differences were detected among genotypes and taxa means for both Melampsora rust resistance and LAI, suggesting that the expression of phenotypic traits like high leaf area and disease resistance is critical to poplar SRWC productivity. Though there is little debate on selecting for disease resistance [19,34,48] and high leaf area [56], there remains a need to identify modern commercially-available genotypes that demonstrate these traits [28]. This study identified four genotypes (185, 356, 140, and 176) with moderate Melampsora rust resistance and leaf area index. Selecting genotypes with high disease resistance is a strategy [37] that may result in decreased biomass yield later in rotation [19]. However, the results of this study suggest that genotypes with high Melampsora rust resistance have the potential to yield greater than eight green Mg ha−1·year−1.

5. Conclusions

Poplar SRWC can potentially contribute biomass for alternative energy production in the southeastern U.S.A., but field screenings will be required to identify the best genotypes and assess silvicultural strategies that can improve productivity before large plantations can be deployed. This study found that proper soil tillage and genotype selection will be critical to achieve viable yields. Correlations between foliar nitrogen, chlorophyll content, and volume index were not observed perhaps due to adequate soil fertility, and suggests that chlorophyll meters are only effective in nutrient limited environments. Field assessments of phenotypic traits like high leaf area and Melampsora rust resistance may be more definitive in identifying highly productive Populus genotypes grown in nutrient-sufficient soils. This finding is important as more poplar SRWC are installed to meet the increasing demand for woody biomass markets.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/7/4/74/s1.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research is provided by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Bioenergy Initiative grant #G40100278314RSD. We would like to thank the undergraduate students who have aided in collecting data for research, specifically Shane Beeson, Amber Bledsoe, Mathew Davis, Alex Ewald, Emily Love, and Jeffrey Olson. We also acknowledge the support and site management of John Garner for the Williamsdale Biofuels Field Laboratory. The authors would also like to acknowledge helpful commentary from Ron Zalesny with the U.S. Forest Service and Barry Goldfarb with NCSU Department of Forestry.

Author Contributions

All authors listed in this manuscript contributed significantly to the development of the research and writing of the manuscript. E.G.N. and D.W.H. designed the study. S.D.S, E.G.N., D.W.H. contributed to data collection. S.D.S. contributed to data analyses. S.D.S. and E.G.N. prepared the manuscript for submission.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council—on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sikkema, R.; Steiner, M.; Junginger, M.; Hiegl, W.; Hansen, M.T.; Faaij, A. The European wood pellet markets: Current status and prospects for 2020. Biofuel Bioprod. Biorefin. 2011, 5, 250–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Federal Register. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard; Federal Register: Washington, DC, USA, 26 March 2010. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lewis, S.M.; Kelly, M. Mapping the potential for biofuel production on marginal lands: Differences in definitions, data and models across scales. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2014, 3, 430–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Scarlat, N.; Banja, M. Possible impact of 2020 bioenergy targets on European Union land use. A scenario-based assessment from national renewable energy action plans proposals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 595–606. [Google Scholar]
  6. Abt, R.C.; Abt, K.L. Potential impact of bioenergy demand on the sustainability of the southern forest resource. J. Sustain. For. 2013, 32, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. Available online: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2016).
  8. Campbell, J.E.; Lobell, D.B.; Genova, R.C.; Field, C.B. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5791–5794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gibbs, H.K.; Salmon, J.M. Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 57, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eisenbies, M.H.; Vance, E.D.; Aust, W.M.; Seiler, J.R. Intensive utilization of harvest residues in southern pine plantations: Quantities available and implications for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity. BioEnerg. Res. 2009, 2, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hinchee, M.; Rottmann, W.; Mullinax, L.; Zhang, C.; Chang, S.; Cunningham, M.; Pearson, L.; Nehra, N. Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Plant 2009, 45, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zalesny, R.S., Jr.; Cunningham, M.W.; Hall, R.B.; Mirck, J.; Rockwood, D.L.; Stanturf, J.A.; Volk, T.A. Woody Biomass from Short Rotation Energy Crops. In Sustainable Production of Fuels, Chemicals, and fibers from Forest Biomass; Zhu, J., Zhang, X., Pan, X., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 27–63. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dickmann, D.I. Silviculture and biology of short-rotation woody crops in temperate regions: Then and now. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Heilman, P.E.; Stettler, R.F. Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. II. Biomass production in a 4-year plantation. Can. J. For. Res. 1985, 15, 384–388. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ceulemans, R.; Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.; Wiard, B.M.; Braatne, J.H.; Hinckley, T.M.; Stettler, R.F.; Heilman, P.E. Production physiology and morphology of Populus species and their hybrids grown under short rotation. I. Clonal comparisons of 4-year growth and phenology. Can. J. For. Res. 1992, 22, 1937–1948. [Google Scholar]
  16. Heilman, P.E.; Xie, F. Influence of nitrogen on growth and productivity of short-rotation Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides hybrids. Can. J. For. Res. 1993, 23, 1863–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Heilman, P.E.; Ekuan, G.; Fogle, D. Above- and below-ground biomass and fine roots of 4-year-old hybrids of Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides and parental species in short-rotation culture. Can. J. For. Res. 1994, 24, 1186–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hansen, E.A.; McLaughlin, R.A.; Pope, P.E. Biomass and nitrogen dynamics of hybrid poplar on two different soils: Implications for fertilization strategy. Can. J. For. Res. 1988, 18, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Netzer, D.A.; Tolsted, D.N.; Ostry, M.E.; Isebrands, J.G.; Riemenschneider, D.E.; Ward, K.T. Growth, Yield, and Disease Resistance of 7- to 12-Year-Old Poplar Clones in the North Central United States; General Technical Report GTR-NC-229; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zalesny, R.S., Jr.; Hall, R.B.; Zalesny, J.A.; McMahon, B.G.; Berguson, W.E.; Stanosz, G.R. Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of Populus energy crops in the Midwestern United States. Bioenergy Res. 2009, 2, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Czapowskyj, M.M.; Safford, L.O. Site preparation, fertilization, and 10-year yields of hybrid poplar on a clearcut forest site in eastern Maine, USA. New For. 1993, 7, 331–344. [Google Scholar]
  22. Blow, F.E. Hybrid poplar performance in tests in the Tennessee Valley. J. For. 1948, 46, 493–499. [Google Scholar]
  23. Blackmon, B.G. Effects of fertilizer nitrogen on tree growth, foliar nitrogen, and herbage in eastern cottonwood plantations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1977, 41, 992–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Foster, G.S.; Rousseau, R.J.; Nance, W.L. Eastern cottonwood clonal mixing study: Intergenotypic competition effects. For. Ecol. Manag. 1998, 112, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cao, Q.V.; Durand, K.M. A growth and yield model for improved eastern cottonwood plantations in the lower Mississippi Delta. South J. Appl. For. 1991, 15, 213–216. [Google Scholar]
  26. Moreau, B.; Gardiner, E.S.; Stanturf, J.A.; Fisher, R.K. Estimating Leaf Nitrogen of Eastern Cottonwood Trees with a Chlorophyll Meter; General Technical Report SRS-92; Southern research station, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Asheville, NC, USA, 2004; pp. 487–491. [Google Scholar]
  27. Coleman, M.D.; Coyle, D.R.; Blake, J.; Britton, K.; Buford, M.; Campbell, R.G.; Wullschleger, S. Production of Short-Rotation Woody Crops Grown with a Range of Nutrient and Water Availability: Establishment Report and First-Year Responses; General Technical Report SRS-72; Savannah River, Deptartment of Agriculture, Forest Service: New Ellenton, SC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  28. Coyle, D.R.; Coleman, M.D.; Durant, J.A.; Newman, L.A. Multiple factors affect pest and pathogen damage on 31 Populus clones in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 759–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Coyle, D.R.; Coleman, M.D.; Durant, J.A.; Newman, L.A. Survival and growth of 31 Populus clones in South Carolina. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 750–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Coyle, D.R.; Coleman, M.D. Forest production responses to irrigation and fertilization are not explained by shifts in allocation. For. Ecol. Managy 2005, 208, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Coyle, D.R.; Aubrey, D.P.; Siry, J.P.; Volfovicz-Leon, R.R.; Coleman, M.D. Optimal nitrogen application rates for three intensively-managed hardwood tree species in the southeastern USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 303, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kaczmarek, D.J.; Coyle, D.R.; Coleman, M.D. Survival and growth of a range of Populus clones in central South Carolina U.S.A. through age ten: Do early assessments reflect longer-term survival and growth trends? Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 49, 260–272. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rousseau, R.J.; Adams, J.P.; Wilkerson, D.W. Nine-Year Performance of a Variety of Populus Taxa on an Upland Site in Western Kentucky; General Technical Report SRS-GTR-175; Southern research station, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Asheville, NC, USA, 2013; pp. 299–305. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jeffreys, J.P.; Land, S.B., Jr.; Schultz, E.B.; Londo, A.J. Clonal Tests of New Cottonwood Selections from the Southeast; General Technical Report SRS-92; Southern Research Station, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Asheville, NC, USA, 2006; pp. 229–233. [Google Scholar]
  35. Shifflett, S.D.; Hazel, D.W.; Frederick, D.J.; Nichols, E.G. Species Trials of Short Rotation Woody Crops on Two Wastewater Application Sites in North Carolina, U.S.A. BioEnergy Res. 2014, 7, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ghezehei, S.B.; Nichols, E.G.; Hazel, D.W. Early Clonal Survival and Growth of Poplars Grown on North Carolina Piedmont and Mountain Marginal Lands. BioEnergy Res. 2015, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hansen, E.A.; Ostry, M.E.; Johnson, W.D.; Tolsted, D.N.; Netzer, D.A.; Berguson, W.E.; Hall, R.B. Field Performance of Populus in Short-Rotation Intensive Culture Plantations in the North-Central U.S.; Research Paper NC-320; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hansen, E.A.; Netzer, D.A.; Woods, R.F. Tillage superior to no-till for establishing hybrid poplar plantations. Tree Plant. Notes 1986, 37, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  39. Morris, L.A.; Lowery, R.F. Influence of site preparation on soil conditions affecting stand establishment and tree growth. South J. Appl. For. 1988, 12, 170–178. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fox, T.R.; Burger, J.A.; Kreh, R.E. Effects of site preparation on nitrogen dynamics in the southern Piedmont. For. Ecol. Manag. 1986, 15, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kasmioui, O.E.; Ceulemans, R. Financial analysis of the cultivation of short rotation woody crops for bioenergy in Belgium: Barriers and opportunities. BioEnergy Res. 2013, 6, 336–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Van den Berg, A.K.; Perkins, T.D. Evaluation of a portable chlorophyll meter to estimate chlorophyll and nitrogen contents in sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.). leaves. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 200, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chang, S.X.; Robison, D.J. Nondestructive and rapid estimation of hardwood foliar nitrogen status using the SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 181, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pinkard, E.A.; Patel, V.; Mohammed, C. Chlorophyll and nitrogen determination for plantation-grown Eucalyptus nitens and E. globulus using a non-destructive meter. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 223, 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  45. DeBell, D.S.; Clendenen, G.W.; Harrington, C.A.; Zasada, J.C. Tree growth and stand development in short-rotation Populus plantings: 7-year results for two clones at three spacings. Biomass Bioenergy 1996, 11, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stettler, R.F.; Fenn, R.C.; Heilman, P.E.; Stanton, B.J. Populus trichocarpa × Populus deltoides hybrids for short rotation culture: Variation patterns and 4-year field performance. Can. J. For. Res. 1988, 18, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zalesny, J.A.; Zalesny, R.S.; Coyle, D.R.; Hall, R.B. Growth and biomass of Populus irrigated with landfill leachate. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 248, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abrahamson, L.P.; White, E.H.; Nowak, C.A.; Briggs, R.D.; Robison, D.J. Evaluating hybrid poplar clonal growth potential in a three-year-old genetic selection field trial. Biomass 1990, 21, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ares, A. Changes through time in traits of poplar clones in selection trials. New For. 2002, 23, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zavitkovski, J. Small plots with unplanted plot border can distort data in biomass production studies. Can J. For. Res. 1981, 11, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schreiner, E. Rating Poplars for Melampsora Leaf Rust Infection; Forest Research Notes NE-90; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  52. Avery, T.E.; Burkhart, H.E. Forest Measurements, 5th ed.; Waveland Press, Inc.: Lon Grove, IL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  53. Martín-García, J.; Merino, A.; Diez, J.J. Relating visual crown conditions to nutritional status and site quality in monoclonal poplar plantations (Populus × euramericana). Eur. J. For. Res. 2012, 131, 1185–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. DeBell, D.S.; Singleton, R.; Harrington, C.A.; Gartner, B.L. Wood density and fiber length in young Populus stems: Relation to clone, age, growth rate, and pruning. Wood Fiber Sci. 2002, 34, 529–539. [Google Scholar]
  55. Morhart, C.; Sheppard, J.; Seidl, F.; Spiecker, H. Influence of different tillage systems and weed treatments in the establishment year on the final biomass production of short rotation coppice poplar. Forests 2013, 4, 849–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ceulemans, R.; Pontailler, J.Y.; Mau, F.; Guittet, J. Leaf allometry in young poplar stands: Reliability of leaf area index estimation, site and clone effects. Biomass Bioenergy 1993, 4, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 07 00074 g001 1024
Figure 1. Cross-plot of mean volume index (dm3) against percent survival for Populus genotypes in disked and sub-soiled plots. Open-faced symbols represent sub-soiled genotype plots and close-faced symbols represent disked genotype plots. Circles (Ο) represent P. deltoides genotypes abbreviated as DD; triangles (Δ) represent P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii genotypes abbreviated as DM; and squares (□) represent P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides genotypes abbreviated as TD.
Figure 1. Cross-plot of mean volume index (dm3) against percent survival for Populus genotypes in disked and sub-soiled plots. Open-faced symbols represent sub-soiled genotype plots and close-faced symbols represent disked genotype plots. Circles (Ο) represent P. deltoides genotypes abbreviated as DD; triangles (Δ) represent P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii genotypes abbreviated as DM; and squares (□) represent P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides genotypes abbreviated as TD.
Forests 07 00074 g001
Forests 07 00074 g002 1024
Figure 2. Cross-plots of (A) mean volume index (dm3) vs. leaf area index (LAI); (B) mean volume index (dm3) vs. Melampsora rust resistance index; and (C) LAI vs. Melampsora rust resistance index for Populus genotypes. Disked treatments are represented by close-faced symbols and sub-soiled treatments are represented by open-faced symbols. Circles (Ο) represent P. deltoides genotypes denoted as “DD”, triangles (Δ) represent a P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii genotype denoted as “DM”, and squares (□) represent P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides genotypes denoted as “TD”. Trend lines are shown as dashed lines.
Figure 2. Cross-plots of (A) mean volume index (dm3) vs. leaf area index (LAI); (B) mean volume index (dm3) vs. Melampsora rust resistance index; and (C) LAI vs. Melampsora rust resistance index for Populus genotypes. Disked treatments are represented by close-faced symbols and sub-soiled treatments are represented by open-faced symbols. Circles (Ο) represent P. deltoides genotypes denoted as “DD”, triangles (Δ) represent a P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii genotype denoted as “DM”, and squares (□) represent P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides genotypes denoted as “TD”. Trend lines are shown as dashed lines.
Forests 07 00074 g002
Table
Table 1. Probability values from analyses of variance for height, diameter at breast height (DBH), volume index, leaf area index (LAI), Melampsora rust resistance index, foliar nitrogen concentration (Foliar N), and chlorophyll content comparing ten poplars under two soil tillage treatments. Significant probability values (p < 0.05) are in bold.
Table 1. Probability values from analyses of variance for height, diameter at breast height (DBH), volume index, leaf area index (LAI), Melampsora rust resistance index, foliar nitrogen concentration (Foliar N), and chlorophyll content comparing ten poplars under two soil tillage treatments. Significant probability values (p < 0.05) are in bold.
Source of VariationHeight (m)DBH (cm)Volume Index (dm3)LAIMelampsora Rust Resistance IndexFoliar N (%)Chlorophyll Content (mg·g−1)
p-Valuep-Valuep-Valuep-Valuep-Valuep-Valuep-Value
Soil Tillage0.0260.0200.0440.0400.0890.300.027
Taxa<0.0001<0.00010.00030.0013<0.00010.270.023
Taxa(Genotype)0.00020.00050.00300.017<0.00010.0600.19
Soil Tillage × Taxa(Genotype)0.860.801.00.960.550.360.79
Table
Table 2. Rankings for mean foliar nitrogen concentration (Foliar N), mean chlorophyll content, and mean volume index for Populus genotypes. Superscript letters in the rank columns denote significant differences between mean values according to a Tukey–Kramer post hoc analysis. Ranks with the same letters do not differ significantly.
Table 2. Rankings for mean foliar nitrogen concentration (Foliar N), mean chlorophyll content, and mean volume index for Populus genotypes. Superscript letters in the rank columns denote significant differences between mean values according to a Tukey–Kramer post hoc analysis. Ranks with the same letters do not differ significantly.
TaxaGenotypeFoliar N Mean (1 SD)Nitrogen RankChlorophyll Content Mean (1 SD)Chlorophyll RankVolume Index Mean (1 SD)Volume Rank
(%)(mg·g−1)(dm3)
DD1402.87% (0.34)3 BC0.034 (0.005)2 A34 (20)1 A
DD1762.81% (0.42)6 C0.029 (0.003)4 A32 (24)4 ABC
DD3562.68% (0.23)9 C0.022 (0.005)1 A30 (21)3 AB
DD3732.82% (0.33)4 C0.032 (0.010)5 A19 (20)7 CDE
DM2302.76% (0.33)8 C0.024 (0.007)6 A24 (18)5 ABC
TD1852.81% (0.18)5 C0.030 (0.008)10 A33 (20)2 AB
TD1873.22% (0.16)1 A0.024 (0.004)9 A19 (20)10 E
TD1883.12% (0.44)2 AB0.025 (0.004)8 A29 (20)9 ED
TD2292.64% (0.11)10 C0.028 (0.008)7 A20 (12)6 BCD
TD3392.80% (0.18)7 C0.029 (0.008)3 A12 (10)8 ED
TD: P. trichocarpa × P. deltoides; DD: P. deltoides; DM: P. deltoides × P. maximowiczii.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shifflett, S.D.; Hazel, D.W.; Guthrie Nichols, E. Sub-Soiling and Genotype Selection Improves Populus Productivity Grown on a North Carolina Sandy Soil. Forests 2016, 7, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7040074

AMA Style

Shifflett SD, Hazel DW, Guthrie Nichols E. Sub-Soiling and Genotype Selection Improves Populus Productivity Grown on a North Carolina Sandy Soil. Forests. 2016; 7(4):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7040074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shifflett, Shawn Dayson, Dennis W. Hazel, and Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols. 2016. "Sub-Soiling and Genotype Selection Improves Populus Productivity Grown on a North Carolina Sandy Soil" Forests 7, no. 4: 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7040074

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop