Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Leaf Litter Decomposition and Nutrient-Release Characteristics of Several Willow Varieties Within Short-Rotation Coppice Plantations in Saskatchewan, Canada

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantifying short-rotation coppice (SRC) willow leaf litter dynamics will improve our understanding of carbon (C) sequestration and nutrient cycling potentials within these biomass energy plantations and provide valuable data for model validation. The objective of this study was to quantify the decomposition rate constants (k Biomass) and decomposition limit values (LVBiomass), along with associated release rates (k Nutrient) and release limits (LVNutrient) of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) of leaf litter from several native and exotic willow varieties during an initial 4-year rotation at four sites within Saskatchewan, Canada. The k Biomass, LVBiomass, k Nutrient, and LVNutrient values varied among the willow varieties, sites, and nutrients, with average values of 1.7 year−1, 79 %, 0.9 year−1, and 83 %, respectively. Tissue N had the smallest k Nutrient and LVNutrient values, whereas tissue K and Mg had the largest k Nutrient and LVNutrient values, respectively. The leaf litter production varied among willow varieties and sites with an average biomass accumulation of 7.4 Mg ha−1 after the 4-year rotation and associated C sequestration rate of 0.2 Mg C ha−1 year−1. The average contribution of nutrients released from leaf litter decomposition during the 4-year rotation to the plant available soil nutrient pool across varieties and sites was 22, 4, 47, 10, 112, and 18 kg ha−1 of N, P, K, S, Ca, and Mg, respectively. Principal component analysis identified numerous key relationships between the measured soil, plant tissue, climate, and microclimate variables and observed willow leaf litter decomposition and nutrient-release characteristics. Our findings support the contention that SRC willow leaf litter is capable of enhancing both soil organic C levels and supplementing soil nutrient availability over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A:

Asymtote

k Biomass :

Decomposition rate constant

k Nutrient :

Nutrient-release rate constant

LSD:

Least significant difference

LVBiomass :

Decomposition limit value

LVNutrient :

Nutrient-release limit value

PCA:

Principal component analysis

SE:

Standard error

SLA:

Specific leaf area

SRC:

Short-rotation coppice

References

  1. Abrahamson LP, Volk TA, Smart LB, White EH (2012) Short-rotation willow for bioenergy, bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation in the northeastern United States. IEA Bioenergy Task 43

  2. Abrahamson LP, Volk TA, Kopp RF, White EH, Ballard JL (2002) Willow biomass producers handbook (revised). Short-Rotation Woody Crops Program. SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, NY

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amichev BY, Kurz WA, Smyth C, Van Rees KCJ (2012) The carbon implications of large-scale afforestation of agriculturally marginal land with short-rotation willow in Saskatchewan. Glob ChangeBiol Bioenergy 4:70–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aronsson PG (2001) Dynamics of nitrate leaching and 15 N turnover in intensively fertilized and irrigated basket willow grown in lysimeters. Biomass Bioenergy 21:143–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Balasus A, Bischoff W-A, Schwarz A, Scholz V, Kern J (2012) Nitrogen fluxes during the initial stage of willows and poplars in short-rotation coppices. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175:729–738

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Baum C, Leinweber P, Weih M, Lamersdorf N, Dimitriou I (2009) Effects of short rotation coppice with willows and poplar on soil ecology. Agric For Res 59:183–196

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baum S, Bolte A, Weih M (2012) High value of short rotation coppice plantations for phytodiversity in rural landscapes. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:728–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berg B (2000) Litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in northern forest soils. For Ecol Manag 133:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berg B, Ekbohm G (1991) Litter mass-loss rates and decomposition patterns in some needle and leaf litter types. Long-term decomposition in a Scots pine forest. VII. Can J Bot 69:1449–1456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berg B, McClaugherty CA (2008) Plant litter, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, Germany

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Caputo J, Balogh SB, Volk TA, Johnson L, Puettmann M, Lippke B and Oneil E (2014) Incorporating uncertainty into a life cycle assessment (LCA) model of short-rotation willow biomass (Salix spp.) crops. Bioenerg Res (in press)

  12. Chapin FS, Schulze E-D, Mooney HA (1990) The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:423–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Christersson L (1986) High technology biomass production by Salix clones on a sandy soil in southern Sweden. Tree Physiol 2:261–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dimitriou I, Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P (2012) Impact of willow short rotation coppice on water quality. Bioenerg Res 5:537–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dimitriou I, Mola-Yudego B, Aronsson P, Eriksson J (2012) Changes in organic carbon and trace elements in the soil of willow short-rotation coppice plantations. Bioenerg Res 5:563–572

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Djomo SN, Kasmioui OE, Ceulemans R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 3:181–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Don A, Osborne B, Hastings A, Skiba U, Carter MS, Drewer J, Flessa H, Freibauer A, Hyvönen N, Jones MB, Lanigan GJ, Mander Ü, Monti A, Djomo SN, Valentine J, Walter K, Zegada-Lizarazu W, Zenone T (2012) Land-use change to bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:372–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Eckersten H, Slapokas T (1990) Modelling nitrogen turnover and production in an irrigated short-rotation forest. Agr Forest Meteorol 50:99–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ericsson K, Rosenqvist H, Nilsson LJ (2009) Energy crop production costs in the EU. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1577–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ericsson T (1984) Nutrient cycling in willow. IEA/ENFOR Joint Report. Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa

  21. Ericsson T (1994) Nutrient cycling in energy forest plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 6:115–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ericsson T (1994) Nutrient dynamics and requirements of forest crops. N Z J For Sci 24:133–168

    Google Scholar 

  23. Faasch RJ, Patenaude G (2012) The economics of short rotation coppice in Germany. Biomass Bioenergy 45:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Granhall U and Slapokas T (1984) Leaf litter decomposition in energy forestry. First year nutrient release and weight loss in relation to the chemical composition of different litter types. In: Perttu KL (ed) Ecology and management of forest biomass production systems. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology and Environmental Research. Report 15, pp 131–153

  25. Hangs RD (2013) Biomass production and nutrient cycling in short-rotation coppice willow (Salix spp.) bioenergy plantations in Saskatchewan, Canada. Ph.D. Dissertation University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

  26. Hangs RD, Stevenson FC, Schoenau JJ, Rees KCJ (2013) Measuring harvestable biomass in short-rotation willow bioenergy plantations using light attenuation. Bioenerg Res 6:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Heinsoo K, Holm B (2010) Use of municipal wastewater and composted wastewater sludge in willow short rotation coppice in Estonia. In: Sarsby R, Meggyes T (eds) Construction for a sustainable environment. Taylor and Francis, Estonia, pp 463–470

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hendershot WH, Lalande H, Duquette M (2008) Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 173–178

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hendershot WH, Lalande H, Duquette M (2008) Ion exchange and exchangeable cations. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 197–206

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hobbie SE, Eddy WC, Buyarski CR, Adair EC, Ogdahl ML, Weisenhorn P (2012) Response of decomposing litter and its microbial community to multiple forms of nitrogen enrichment. Ecol Monogr 82:389–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hu ZY, Zhao FJ, McGrath SP (2005) Sulphur fractionation in calcareous soils and bioavailability to plants. Plant Soil 268:103–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Huang J, Wang X, Yan E (2007) Leaf nutrient concentration, nutrient resorption and litter decomposition in an evergreen broad-leaved forest in eastern China. Forest Ecol Manag 239:150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ingestad T and Ågren GI (1984) Fertilization for maximum long-term production. In: Perttu KL (ed) Ecology and Management of Forest Biomass Production Systems. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology and Environmental Research. Report 15, pp 155–165

  34. IPCC IPoCC (2012) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation—special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jug A, Makeschin F, Rehfuess KE, Hofmann-Schielle C (1999) Short-rotation plantations of balsam poplars, aspen and willows on former arable land in the Federal Republic of Germany. III. Soil ecological effects. Forest Ecol Manag 121:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kahle P, Baum C, Boelcke B, Kohl J, Ulrich R (2010) Vertical distribution of soil properties under short-rotation forestry in Northern Germany. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173:73–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Krasuska E, Rosenqvist H (2012) Economics of energy crops in Poland today and in the future. Biomass Bioenergy 38:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Langeveld H, Quist-Wessel F, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Baum C, Schulz U, Bolte A, Baum S, Köhn J, Weih M, Gruss H, Leinweber P, Lamersdorf N, Schmidt-Walter P, Berndes G (2012) Assessing environmental impacts of short rotation coppice (SRC) expansion: model definition and preliminary results. Bioenerg Res 5:621–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS system for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lockwell J, Guidi W, Labrecque M (2012) Soil carbon sequestration potential of willows in short-rotation coppice established on abandoned farm lands. Plant Soil 360:299–318

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Maynard DG, Kalra YP, Crumbaugh JA (2008) Nitrate and exchangeable ammonium nitrogen. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 71–80

    Google Scholar 

  42. McKenney DW, Yemshanov D, Fraleigh S, Allen D, Preto F (2011) An economic assessment of the use of short-rotation coppice woody biomass to heat greenhouses in southern Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 35:374–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mol Dijkstra JP, Reinds GJ, Kros H, Berg B, de Vries W (2009) Modelling soil carbon sequestration of intensively monitored forest plots in Europe by three different approaches. Forest Ecol Manage 258:1780–1793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Moore TR, Trofymow JA, Taylor B, Prescott CE, Camire C, Duchesne LC, Fyles J, Kozak LM, Kranabetter M, Morrison IK, Siltanen RM, Smith CAS, Titus BD, Visser S, Wein RW, Zoltai SC (1999) Litter decomposition rates in Canadian forests. Glob Chang Biol 5:75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Myers RJK, Palm CA, Cuevas E, Gunatilleke IUN, Brossard M (1994) The synchronisation of nutrient mineralisation and plant nutrient demand. In: Woomer PL, Swift MJ (eds) The biological management of tropical soil fertility. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 81–116

    Google Scholar 

  46. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Potter CS (1991) Nutrient leaching from Acer rubrum leaves by experimental acid rainfall. Can J For Res 21:222–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Prescott CE (2005) Do rates of litter decomposition tell us anything we really need to know? Forest Ecol Manag 220:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Püttsepp Ü, Rosling A, Taylor AFS (2004) Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities associated with Salix viminalis L. and S. dasyclados Wimm. clones in a short-rotation forestry plantation. Forest Ecol Manag 196:413–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Qian P, Schoenaru JJ, Karamanos RE (1994) Simultaneous extraction of available phosphorus and potassium with a new soil test: a modification of Kelowna extraction. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 25:627–635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Qin Z, Zhuang Q, Chen M (2012) Impacts of land use change due to biofuel crops on carbon balance, bioenergy production, and agricultural yield, in the conterminous United States. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rowe RL, Street NR, Taylor G (2009) Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:271–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rowe RL, Hanley ME, Goulson D, Clarke DJ, Doncaster CP, Taylor G (2011) Potential benefits of commercial willow short rotation coppice (SRC) for farm-scale plant and invertebrate communities in the agri-environment. Biomass Bioenergy 35:325–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rytter R-M (2012) The potential of willow and poplar plantations as carbon sinks in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 36:86–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Saxton AM A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. In: Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, Cary, NC, 1998. SAS Institute, Inc., pp 1243–1246

  56. Schmidt-Walter P, Lamersdorf N (2012) Biomass production with willow and poplar short rotation coppices on sensitive areas—the impact on nitrate leaching and groundwater recharge in a drinking water catchment near Hanover, Germany. Bioenergy Res 5:546–562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Schofield JA, Hagerman AE, Harold A (1998) Loss of tannins and other phenolics from willow leaf litter. J Chem Ecol 24:1409–1421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sims REH, Mabee W, Saddler JN, Taylor M (2010) An overview of second generation biofuel technologies. Bioresour Technol 101:1570–1580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Skjemstad JO, Baldock JA (2008) Total and organic carbon. In: Carter MR, Gregorich EG (eds) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 225–237

    Google Scholar 

  60. Šlapokas T (1991) Influence of litter quality and fertilization on microbial nitrogen transformations in short-rotation forests (trans: Microbiology Do). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

  61. Šlapokas T, Granhall U (1991) Decomposition of willow-leaf litter in a short-rotation forest in relation to fungal colonization and palatability for earthworms. Biol Fertil Soils 10:241–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Šlapokas T, Granhall U (1991) Decomposition of litter in fertilized short-rotation forests on a low-humified peat bog. Forest Ecol Manag 41:143–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Soil Classification Working Group (1998) The Canadian system of soil classification (third edition). NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tharakan PJ, Volk TA, Nowak CA, Abrahamson LP (2005) Morphological traits of 30 willow clones and their relationship to biomass production. Can J For Res 35:421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Thomas RL, Sheard RW, Moyer JR (1967) Comparison of conventional and automated procedures for nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium analysis of plant material using a single digestion. Agron J 57:240–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1957) Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and water balance. Pub Climatol 10:185–311

    Google Scholar 

  67. Trofymow JA, Moore TR, Titus B, Prescott C, Morrison I, Siltanen M, Smith S, Fyles J, Wein R, Camiré C, Duschene L, Kozak L, Kranabetter M, Visser S (2002) Rates of litter decomposition over 6 years in Canadian forests: influence of litter quality and climate. Can J For Res 32:789–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2011) International Energy Outlook 2013. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2013)

  69. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1992) World atlas of desertification. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  70. Valentine J, Clifton-Brown J, Hastings A, Robson P, Allison G, Smith P (2012) Food vs. fuel: the use of land for lignocellulosic ‘next generation’ energy crops that minimize competition with primary food production. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wang D, Anderson DW (1998) Direct measurement of organic carbon content in soils by the Leco CR-12 carbon analyzer. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 29:15–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Weih M, Nordh NE (2002) Characterising willows for biomass and phytoremediation: growth, nitrogen and water use of 14 willow clones under different irrigation and fertilisation regimes. Biomass Bioenergy 23:397–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Yuan Z-Y, Li L-H, Han X-G, Huang J-H, Wan S-Q (2005) Foliar nitrogen dynamics and nitrogen resorption of a sandy shrub Salix gordejevii in northern China. Plant Soil 278:183–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, NSERC Strategic Grants Programme, and the International Plant Nutrition Institute for funding; B. Brewster (Grandfather), G. Harrison (Pacific Regeneration Technologies), and S. Heidinger (SaskPower) for providing the field sites; S. Hobbie, C. Stevenson, and Y. Suprayogi for assisting with the statistical analyses; B. Amichev, D. Falk, C. Fatteicher, B. Ferhatoglu, L. & R. & R. Hangs, N. Howse, J. Hyszka, D. Jackson, T. King, S. Konecsni, H. Lazorko, S. Shirtliffe, C. Stadnyk, and R. Urton for their logistical support; and, four anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and suggestions that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 5A8

    R. D. Hangs, J. J. Schoenau & K. C. J. Van Rees

  2. UER Science et technologie, Téluq, Université du Québec, Montréal, QC, Canada, H2S 3L5

    N. Bélanger

  3. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA, 13210

    T. Volk

Authors
  1. R. D. Hangs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. J. Schoenau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. C. J. Van Rees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Bélanger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Volk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. D. Hangs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hangs, R.D., Schoenau, J.J., Van Rees, K.C.J. et al. Leaf Litter Decomposition and Nutrient-Release Characteristics of Several Willow Varieties Within Short-Rotation Coppice Plantations in Saskatchewan, Canada. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 1074–1090 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9431-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9431-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation