Influence of Different Tillage Systems and Weed Treatments in the Establishment Year on the Final Biomass Production of Short Rotation Coppice Poplar
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Experimental Plot
2.1.1. Soil
Tillage system | Sample depth | Soil type | pH | Organic matter | Nitrogen | Phosphorus | Potassium |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P | K | |||||
(cm) | (%) | (g kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | |||
A Ploughing & harrowing | 0–30 | silt loam | 7.5 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 6.5 | 5.8 |
30–60 | silt loam | 7.4 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 7.9 | 6.6 | |
60–90 | silt loam | 7.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.7 | |
B Cultivation with ley crop | 0–30 | silt loam | 7.2 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 7.0 | 8.3 |
30–60 | silt loam | 7.4 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 4.4 | 2.5 | |
60–90 | silt loam | 7.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.7 | |
C No tillage | 0–30 | silt loam | 7.3 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 11.6 |
30–60 | silt loam | 7.4 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 7.0 | 5.8 | |
60–90 | silt loam | 7.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.7 |
2.1.2. Climate
2.2. Plantation Design
Trade name (Company) | Active Ingredient | Target | Application rate |
---|---|---|---|
Selective residual pre-emergence herbicides | |||
Stomp® Aqua (BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, DE) | Pendimethalin 455 g/L | ●■ | 2.5l ha−1 |
Terano® (Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim am Rhein, DE) | Metosulam 25 g/kg Flufenacet 600 g/kg | ●■ | 1.0 kg ha−1 |
Sencor® WG (Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim am Rhein, DE) | Metribuzin 700 g/kg | ●■ | 750 g ha−1 |
Non-selective post-emergence herbicides | |||
Glyfos® (Cheminova GmbH & Co KG, Stade, DE) | Glyphosate 480 g/L [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] | ●■◆ | 5.0 l ha−1 |
Roundup® UltraMax
(Monsanto Europe S.A., Antwerp, BE) | Glyphosate 480 g/L [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] | ●■◆ | 33% solution * |
Selective systemic post-emergence herbicides | |||
Lontrel 100™ (Dow AgroSciences GmbH, Munich, DE) | Clopyralid 100 g/L | ● | 1.2 l ha−1 |
Fusilade Max™ (Syngenta Agro GmbH, Maintal, DE) | Fluazifop-p-butyl 125 g/L | ■ | 2.0 l ha−1 |
Katana® (ISK Biosciences Europe N.V., Diegem, BE) | Flazasulfuron 250 g/kg | ●■ | 200 g ha−1 |
Kontakt® 320 SC (Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH, Cologne, DE) | Phenmedipham 320 g/L | ● | 3.0 l ha−1 |
Weed treatment | Tillage system | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | |||
Ploughed in autumn, harrowed in spring | Soil cultivation with ley crop (Lolium perenne ‘Kabota’) | No tillage | |||
I | 1 | Broadcast1 | --- | Glyfos | Glyfos |
Broadcast Pre-emergent | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | ||
Broadcast Post-emergent | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | ||
2 | Broadcast1 | --- | Glyfos | Glyfos | |
Broadcast Pre-emergent | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | ||
Broadcast Post-emergent | Katana | Katana | Katana | ||
3 | Broadcast1 | --- | Glyfos | Glyfos | |
Broadcast Pre-emergent | Sencor WG | Sencor WG | Sencor WG | ||
Broadcast Post-emergent | Kontakt 320 SC | Kontakt 320 SC | Kontakt 320 SC | ||
II | 4 | Band spray 1 | --- | Glyfos | Glyfos |
Between Rows | Mowing | Mowing | Mowing | ||
Band spray Pre-emergent | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | ||
Band spray Post-emergent | F. Max/ Lon.100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | ||
5 | Band spray 1 | --- | Glyfos | Glyfos | |
Between Rows | Rotivation | Rotivation | Rotivation | ||
Band spray Pre-emergent | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | ||
Band spray Post-emergent | F. Max/ Lon.100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | ||
6 | Band spray 1 | --- | Glyfos | Glyfos | |
Between Rows(Rotowiper) | --- | Round-up | Round-up | ||
Band spray Pre-emergent | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | Terano/ Stomp | ||
Band spray Post-emergent | F. Max/ Lon.100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | F. Max/ Lon. 100 | ||
III | 7 | Within Rows1 | Mulchmat | --- | --- |
Between Rows | Mowing | Mowing | Mowing | ||
IV | 8 | No weed treatment (Control) | --- | --- | --- |
Operation | Date/Timeframe |
---|---|
Soil preparation | Autumn/Winter 2009/2010 |
Glyphosate application | March 2010 (1 week before planting) |
Planting | March 2010 |
Pre- emergence herbicide application | March 2010 (4 days after planting) |
Mulching, cultivation & weed wiping between the rows | May & August 2010 |
Post- emergence herbicide application | June & August 2010 * |
Harvest | January 2013 |
2.3. Sampling
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
Tillage System | Weed treatment groups* | Weed treatment* | Mean estimated biomass per tree | Mortality | Mean estimated biomass yield |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(kg) | (%) | (odt ha-1yr-1) | |||
A | I | 1 | 4.39 a | 3.0 | 10.1 |
2 | 4.63 a | 0.0 | 11.0 | ||
3 | 4.48 a | 4.5 | 10.2 | ||
II | 4 | 3.06 bc | 6.1 | 6.8 | |
5 | 3.81 ab | 3.0 | 8.8 | ||
6 | 3.85 ab | 1.5 | 9.0 | ||
III | 7 | 2.33 c | 4.5 | 5.3 | |
IV | 8 | 0.70 d | 7.6 | 1.5 | |
B | I | 1 | 4.00 e | 6.1 | 8.9 |
2 | 3.40 ef | 9.1 | 7.4 | ||
3 | 2.96 f | 12.1 | 6.2 | ||
II | 4 | 1.35 g | 7.6 | 3.0 | |
5 | 1.95 g | 1.5 | 4.6 | ||
6 | 1.29 g | 27.3 | 2.2 | ||
III | 7 | --- | >80 | --- | |
IV | 8 | --- | >80 | --- | |
C | I-IV | 1-8 | --- | >80 | --- |
Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blocks | 7.77 | 2 | 3.89 | 2.9 | 0.05 |
Tillage System | 3073.99 | 2 | 1537.00 | 1154.1 | <0.01 |
Blocks*Tillage system | 68.60 | 4 | 17.15 | 12.9 | <0.01 |
Weed Treatment | 1155.69 | 7 | 165.10 | 124.0 | <0.01 |
Blocks*Weed Treatment | 89.04 | 14 | 6.36 | 4.8 | <0.01 |
Tillage System*Weed Treatment | 708.19 | 14 | 50.59 | 38.0 | <0.01 |
Blocks*Tillage System*Weed Treatment | 146.11 | 28 | 5.22 | 3.9 | <0.01 |
4. Discussion
4.1. General Biomass Production
4.2. Mortality Rate
4.3. Tillage Systems
4.4. Weed Treatments
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stanturf, J.A.; van Oosten, C.; Netzer, D.A.; Coleman, M.D.; Portwood, J.C. Ecology and silviculture of poplar plantations. In Poplar Culture in North America; Dickmann, D., Isebrands, J., Eckenwalder, J., Richardson, J., Eds.; NRC Research Press: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2001; pp. 153–206. [Google Scholar]
- Sage, R. Weed competition in willow coppice crops: The cause and extent of yield losses. Weed Res. 1999, 39, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Procedures for Post-border Weed Risk Management; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, D.M.; Pysek, P.; Rejmanek, M.; Barbour, M.G.; Panetta, F.D.; West, C.J. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 2000, 6, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willoughby, I.; Clay, D.V.; Dixon, F.L.; Morgan, G.W. The effect of competition from different weed species on the growth of Betula pendula seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 1900–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, R.J. The importance of weed control and the use of tree shelters for establishing broadleaved trees on grass-dominated sites in England. Forestry 1985, 58, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, C.P.; Stevens, E.A.; Watters, M.P. Short-rotation forestry-operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 121, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowersox, T.W.; Stover, L.R.; Strauss, C.H.; Blankenhorn, P.R. Advantages of an effective weed control program for Populus hybrids. Tree Plant. Notes 1992, 43, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, E.A.; Netzer, D.A. Weed Control Using Herbicides in Short-Rotation Intensively Cultured Poplar Plantations; North Central Forest Experiment Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1985; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
- Tubby, I.; Armstrong, A. Establishment and Management of Short Rotation Coppice. Pract. Note For. Comm. 2002, 7, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Stenhouse Frics Faav, E.H. Farm wood fuel and energy project. Renew. Energy 1999, 16, 1027–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Growing Short Rotation Coppice, Best Practise Guidelines for Applicants to DEFRAS’S Energy Crops Scheme. 2004. Available online: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/images/short-rotation-coppice_tcm6-4262.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2013).
- Ford, H.F.; Williamson, M.J. Cover crops no substitute for cultivation in hybrid poplar plantations. USDA For. Serv. Northeastern Res. Notes 1952, 14, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, R.J. Sheet Mulching as an aid to broadleaved tree establishment II. Comparison of various sizes of black polythene mulch and herbicide treated spot. Forestry 1988, 61, 107–124. [Google Scholar]
- Green, D.S.; Kruger, E.L.; Stanosz, G.R. Effects of polyethylene mulch in a short-rotation, poplar plantation vary with weed-control strategies, site quality and clone. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 173, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, S. Postemergence herbicides in Swedish willow stands. Biomass 1988, 15, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sixto, H.; Grau, J.M.; García-Baudín, J.M. Assessment of the effect of broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicides in poplar nurseries. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hytönen, J.; Jylhä, P. Effects of competing vegetation and post-planting weed control on the mortality, growth and vole damages to Betula pendula planted on former agricultural land. Silva Fenn. 2005, 39, 365–380. [Google Scholar]
- Knezevic, S.Z.; Evans, S.P.; Blankenship, E.E.; van Acker, R.C.; Lindquist, J.L. Critical period for weed control: The concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 2002, 50, 773–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M.M. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 928–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, M.R.; Swanton, C.J.; Anderson, G.W. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 1992, 40, 441–447. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, M.; Saxena, M.C.; Abu-Irmaileh, B.E.; Al-Thahabi, S.A.; Haddad, N.I. Estimation of critical period of weed control. Weed Sci. 1996, 44, 273–283. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, S.G.; van Acker, R.C.; Friesen, L.F. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci. 2001, 49, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geyer, O.; Gwinner, M. Geologie von Baden-Württemberg; E. Schweizerbart: Stuttgart, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Association of German Agricultural Analytic and Research Institutes (VDLUFA). Methods Book I “Soil Analysis” (1st-6th Supplement Delivery), 4th ed.; VDLUFA-Verlag: Darmstadt, Germany, 1991; p. 68. [Google Scholar]
- Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD). Web-Based Weather Request and Distribution System (WebWerdis). Available online: http://www.dwd.de/webwerdis (accessed on 15 February 2013).
- Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th ed.; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2001; p. 684. [Google Scholar]
- IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2011.
- Kittredge, J. Estimation of the amount of foliage of trees and stands. J. For. 1944, 42, 905–912. [Google Scholar]
- Sprugel, D.G. Correcting for bias in log-transformed allometric equations. Ecology 1983, 64, 209–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okello, B.D.; O’Connor, T.G.; Young, T.P. Growth, biomass estimates, and charcoal production of Acacia drepanolobium in Laikipia, Kenya. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 142, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snorrason, A.; Einarsson, S.F. Single-tree biomass and stem volume functions for eleven tree species used in Icelandic forestry. Icel. Agric. Sci. 2006, 19, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Morhart, C.; Sheppard, J.; Spiecker, H. Above ground leafless woody biomass and nutrient content within different compartments of a P. maximowicii × P. trichocarpa poplar clone. Forests 2013, 4, 471–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rock, J. Suitability of published biomass equations for aspen in central Europe—Results from a case study. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felix, E.; Tilley, D.R.; Felton, G.; Flamino, E. Biomass production of hybrid poplar (Populus sp.) grown on deep-trenched municipal biosolids. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zianis, D.; Muukkonen, P.; Mäkipää, R. Biomass and stem volume equations for tree species in Europe. Silva Fenn. 2005, 1–63. [Google Scholar]
- Picard, N.; Saint-André, L.; Henry, M. Manual for Building Tree Volume and Biomass Allometric Equations: From field Measurement to Prediction; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome; Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement: Montpellier, 2012; p. 215. [Google Scholar]
- Crow, T. A guide to using regression equations for estimating tree biomass. North. J. Appl. For. 1988, 5, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
- Sit, V. Analyzing ANOVA Designs: Biometrics Information Handbook No. 5; BC Ministry of Forests and Range: Victoria, BC, Canada, 1995. Available online: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Wp/Wp07.htm (accessed on 14 July 2013).
- Di Matteo, G.; Sperandio, G.; Verani, S. Field performance of poplar for bioenergy in southern Europe after two coppicing rotations: Effects of clone and planting density. iForest Biogeosci. For. 2012, 5, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paris, P.; Mareschi, L.; Sabatti, M.; Pisanelli, A.; Ecosse, A.; Nardin, F.; Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. Comparing hybrid Populus clones for SRF across northern Italy after two biennial rotations: Survival, growth and yield. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1524–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannacci, E.; Bartolini, S.; Covarelli, G. Evaluation of four poplar clones in a short rotation forestry in central Italy. Italy J. Agron. 2009, 4, 191–198. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Broeckx, L.; Verlinden, M.; Ceulemans, R. Establishment and two-year growth of a bio-energy plantation with fast-growing Populus trees in Flanders (Belgium): Effects of genotype and former land use. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 42, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ball, D.A. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 1992, 40, 654–659. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, E.A.; Netzer, D.A.; Rietveld, W.J. Weed Control for Establishing Intensively Cultured Hybrid Poplar Plantations; North Central Forest Experiment Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Pfirter, H.A.; Ammon, H.-U.; Guntli, D.; Greaves, M.P.; Defago, G. Towards the management of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium) with fungal pathogens and cover crops. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 1997, 2, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frazier, J.C. Nature and rate of development of root system of Convolvulus arvensis. Bot. Gaz. 1943, 104, 417–425. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, E.O.; Porter, R.H. The viability and germination of seeds of Convolvulus arvensis L. and other perennial weeds. Iowa Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 1942, 294, 475–504. [Google Scholar]
- Timmons, F. Duration of viability of bindweed seed under field conditions and experimental results in the control of bindweed seedlings. Agron. J. 1949, 41, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derscheid, L.A.; Stritzke, J.F.; Wright, W.G. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 1970, 18, 590–596. [Google Scholar]
- Willoughby, I.; Jinks, R.L.; Stokes, V. The tolerance of newly emerged broadleaved tree seedlings to the herbicides clopyralid, cycloxydim and metazachlor. Forestry 2006, 79, 599–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowersox, T.W.; Ward, W.W. Black polyethylene mulch—An alternative to mechanical cultivation for establishing hybrid Poplars. Tree Plant. Notes 1970, 21, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, R.F.; Mclaughlin, S.B. Black polyethylene mulch improves growth of plantation-grown loblolly pine and yellow-poplar. New For. 1989, 3, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, R.J. Sheet mulching as an aid to broadleaved tree establishment: I. The effectiveness of various synthetic sheets compared. Forestry 1988, 61, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4040849
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(4):849-867. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4040849
Chicago/Turabian StyleMorhart, Christopher, Jonathan Sheppard, Frieder Seidl, and Heinrich Spiecker. 2013. "Influence of Different Tillage Systems and Weed Treatments in the Establishment Year on the Final Biomass Production of Short Rotation Coppice Poplar" Forests 4, no. 4: 849-867. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4040849