4.7 Article

Comparing hybrid Populus clones for SRF across northern Italy after two biennial rotations: Survival, growth and yield

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 1524-1532

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.050

关键词

Agroforestry; Coppicing; Bioenergy; Poplars; Site conditions

资金

  1. Region Lombardia-E.R.S.A.F. Italy
  2. State Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Short rotation forest (SRF) plantations of hybrid poplars are attractive for Italian farmers due to the availability of public grants and the potential for producing wood chips for energy production. Growth and dendromass yield of new clones for SRF were evaluated after two biennial rotations within a network of experimental fields established in 2003 on three sites of low (Bigarello), medium (Vinovo) and high soil quality (Mira), across northern Italy. Soil preparation, planting density (5900 trees ha(-1)), weed control, tree water status and mechanical harvesting were homogeneous across the sites. Nitrogen fertilization was applied only in Mira (300 kg N ha(-1)). In all sites, survival was high for almost all clones, and stem density increased dramatically, with a decrease of stem dimensions, after the first coppicing. In Bigarello, with limiting soil conditions, there was no significant difference among clone biennial yields, which varied from 10.3 (first rotation) to 14.2 (second rotation) Mg ha(-1) in dry matter (dm). In the medium and high quality sites of Vinovo and Mira, there was a significant difference in clone yields, with the new clones performing better than control clones (I-214 and Lux). In Mira, mean biennial yield increased from 30.2 to 40.3 Mg dm ha(-1) from the first to second cycle. Preliminary results of new clones on medium and high soil quality need to be further confirmed throughout further coppicing cycles; on a marginal soil, even by using the new clones, poplar SRF is not an advisable option. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据