Poplar (Populus spp.

) Trees for Biofuel

Tweet
Production
If you are looking for a comprehensive article on poplar for biofuel production, this
is for you.

Table of Contents

 Introduction
 Current and Potential Use as a Biofuel
 Biology and Adaptation
 Production and Agronomic Information
 Harvest
 Potential Yields
 Production Challenges
 Estimated Production Cost
 Environmental/Sustainability Issues
 Feasibility
 Summary
 Bibliography
 For More Information
 Contributors to This Summary

Introduction
Poplars (Populus spp.) are popular trees for landscape and agriculture use
worldwide. They are known as “the trees of the people” (Gordon 2001) and are
considered one of the most important families of woody plants for human use.
Poplars’ incredibly fast growth has captured people’s interest for many years. Around
the world, people have used these trees for thousands of years to build homes, make
tools and medicines, and protect river banks. They were also planted for windbreaks
and shelterbelts. Poplars were first planted commercially in the Pacific Northwest in
the late 1800s, and commercial tree farms expanded during the last 45 years for the
pulp and paper industry (Berguson et al. 2010).
Today, poplar uses are expanding to provide environmental benefits such as
phytoremediation, soil carbon sequestration, reduction in sediment run-off,
improvement in soil quality, and habitat for wildlife (Stanton et al. 2002). Poplars are
also widely used for wood, veneer, and bioenergy. Researchers are working to
improve poplars for bioenergy, carbon sequestration, phytoremediation, and
watershed protection, and some argue that poplars can be an important component
of solving twenty-first century economic and environmental problems as both human
populations and greenhouse gases rise (Gordon 2001).

Current and Potential Use as a Biofuel

In the late 1970s, hybrid poplar was part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE)
Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program. The primary target was fuel for
cogeneration of heat and electricity (Hansen et al. 1983). The DOE and others are
now interested in poplar for liquid fuels. Poplars can be farmed as short rotation
woody crops (SRWC) and harvested every two to five years (Balatinecz and
Kretschmann 2001). Other short rotation woody crops being considered for biofuel
include willows and eucalyptus. Poplar trees, when intensively cultured, can produce
substantial amounts of energy ranging from 7,735 to 8,634 Btu/lb (depending on
moisture content), which is equivalent to approximately 11 barrels of oil per acre per
year (Isebrands et al. 1979).
Poplars are more desirable for biofuels than many other woody crops because of
their fast growth, their ability to produce a significant amount of biomass in a short
period of time, and their high cellulose and low lignin contents (Fig 1). For liquid fuels,
the cellulose provides the carbohydrates to produce bioenergy and the low lignin
content makes it easier to extract carbohydrates from the biomass. In addition, the
development of poplar genotypes with improved yield, higher pest resistance,
increased site adaptability, and easy vegetative propagation has made poplar a
commercially valuable energy crop. The DOE also considers poplars to be one of
the short rotation woody biomass crops that can be nationally developed (DOE
2011). Poplars have some advantages over other bioenergy crops such as grasses
because the wood does not need to be stored, which allows harvest to occur
throughout the year.

Figure 1: General composition of poplar wood showing estimates of average cellulose and lignin
content (Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest 2013a).

The search for alternatives to fossil fuels has led to a worldwide increase in poplar
research for SRWC systems. In Germany, researchers found that SRWCs reduce
environmental impacts when used for biofuels compared to fossil fuels (Roedl 2010).
Trials of purpose-grown poplars for biofuels are occurring in Virginia (Brunner et al.
2009), the Southeast, the Lake States, and the Pacific Northwest (Advanced
Hardwood Biofuels Northwest 2013a). These trials are funded by private industry,
state universities, and federal programs such as the USDA’s Agriculture Food and
Research Initiative and the Regional Biomass Feedstock Partnership developed
by The Sun Grant Initiative and the US Department of Energy.

Biology and Adaptation

Figure 2: Western black cottonwood in Washington’s Cascade Mountains (left). Eastern cottonwood
(right) - Photo: Chris Evans, Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, Bugwood.org.

Worldwide, poplars are one of the fastest growing temperate trees and can grow
from 5 to 10 feet per year depending on the variety and location (Stanturf et al. 2001).
Native poplars are members of the willow family (Salicaceae) and occur throughout
the continental U.S., Alaska, and most of Canada. The trees have a short life span
and thrive with high moisture and full sun. Poplars are found on a range of alluvial to
dry upland sites, but they grow best in fertile alluvial soils. The trees are deciduous,
and leaf shape varies widely among the species. Each tree is either male or female,
and in the spring they produce either pollen-bearing or seed-producing catkins
(Dickman 2001).

In North America, eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and western black

cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) are two common poplar species (Fig 2). Eastern
cottonwood (P. deltoides) has a wide distribution in the eastern U.S. and Canada,
and western black cottonwood (P. trichocarpa) is found in the western U.S., Canada,
and Alaska (Fig. 3).
In areas where eastern and black cottonwood ranges overlap and naturally
hybridize, researchers observed that these hybrids grew faster than either parent
species. As a result, hybrid poplar tree improvement programs have been producing
new hybrids for almost 100 years (Dickman and Stuart 1983). Work has also been
done to cross native poplars with Asian black poplar (P. maximowiczii) and European
black poplar (P. nigra).
Figure 3: Natural distribution of western black cottonwood is shown on the left (in green) and eastern
cottonwood on the right (in green). Image: USDA NRCS.

The “cottonwood” species, as opposed to other poplars like the aspens, have
received the most attention for energy tree farms because of their propensity to
interbreed and their ability to reproduce from dormant hardwood stem cuttings.
These characteristics allow for rapid, economical propagation and deployment of
new, fast-growing hybrids. The “cottonwood” poplars are bred as interspecies
hybrids and managed as clones. These clones can be used to establish hybrid
poplar tree farms in most of the U.S. where there is sufficient water. Research is also
being done to find hybrid varieties that grow well in the alkaline soils of the arid and
semi-arid regions of the intermountain West (O’ Neill et al. 2010).

Production and Agronomic Information

Poplars are genetically diverse and their ability to hybridize creates even more
variation among the clones. To optimize biomass production levels, it is important to
consider how different clones respond to different climatic factors (Zalesny et al.
2009) and select the appropriate varieties for each region and sites within regions.
Poplar energy plantations will probably occupy idle, retired, or low-productivity
cropland in order to avoid competition with food production. Careful attention to
proper clonal selection, site preparation and weed management, fertility, and
moisture will be critical to ensure success on these “marginal” sites. In drier regions,
irrigation may be required.
Trees in poplar bioenergy farms can be planted at 1,500 trees per acre, which is
much closer together than those intended for more traditional uses such as pulp and
paper, which range from 34 to 360 trees per acre (Stanturf et al. 2001). This is done
to speed the accumulation of biomass per acre rather than produce large individual
trees. Studies are underway now to determine the economics of various planting
systems. Depending on the management system being used, poplar energy farms
may contain as few as 700 to as many as 5,700 trees per acre (Miller and Bender
2012). Low-density tree farms are much less expensive to plant and produce fewer
but larger stems, which may not be ready to harvest for eight to ten years. High-
density plantings are expensive to plant but produce many small stems and more
biomass that are ready to harvest within two or three years. Also of importance is
the spacing between the stems. Optimal spacing studies are currently underway at
poplar tree farms in the Pacific Northwest. Researchers are investigating optimal
spacing for bioenergy, such as twin-row spacing with trees at three feet intervals
within each row and ten feet between the twin rows.
Planting can be done with unrooted hardwood cuttings 0.5 to 3 feet long with viable
buds or with rooted cuttings that are bare root or in containers (Stanturf et al. 2001;
Fig. 4). Many nurseries have hybrid poplar available to the public. The preferred
cuttings or planting stock will be available from organizations researching the best
clones for biofuels, including GreenWood Resources, Inc. in the Pacific Northwest
and ArborGen in the southeastern U.S.
In early spring after the ground has thawed, unrooted cuttings are generally planted
manually. Efficient mechanical planting methods are also being developed (van
Oosten 2006). In general, three quarters of the cutting should be placed in the soil
with at least two inches above ground. It is important to place cuttings in the soil with
the buds pointing upright. For longer cuttings, more of the cutting may be above the
surface to promote the growth of multiple shoots. The unrooted cuttings develop
adventitious roots and the first leaves appear within a few weeks of planting.

Figure 4: Planting of hybrid poplar with cuttings occurs in the early spring with buds placed upright.

Since poplar grows well in poor soils, fertilizer inputs are low compared to other
crops. Nutrient inputs need to be based on local soil analysis. Nitrogen fertilizer
application has not produced significant yield increases in preliminary Lake States’
trials. Weed control should only be needed for one or two years until the poplars
form a closed canopy. Pesticides may be needed to inhibit cottonwood leaf beetle
and other pests. There are several common damaging or fatal diseases, including
leaf rusts and stem cankers such as Septoria musiva (Newcombe et al. 2001).
Planting pest-resistant clones is the most effective way to avoid losses from pests.
Fortunately, pest resistance can be bred into poplar clones, but there are strong
regional differences in response. In the Mississippi River Valley, for example, native
eastern cottonwoods are less susceptible to disease than the hybrid poplars. In the
Pacific Northwest, poplar hybrids with a P. trichocarpa parent do well but they tend
to be highly sensitive to the diseases that are present in the Lake States region.
As seen in the video by Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest (2013c), poplar
utilized for biofuels will be grown as SRWC. The rotation cycles will be much shorter
than traditional poplar plantations. The length of the cycle will vary in different
regions, with longer ones in more northern latitudes and shorter ones in more
southern latitudes. In New York and Michigan, studies have been done on three-
year rotations (Tharakan et al. 2003). In the Pacific Northwest, seven-year rotations
have been studied (DeBell et al. 1996) and currently there are research trials on two-
or three-year rotations (Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest, 2013b). The poplar
biomass can be harvested again in another two to three years as sprouts emerge
from cut root stalks (coppice), forming new stands of poplar. This pattern can be
repeated several times before replanting is required.

Harvest

Figure 5: Harvest of hybrid poplars with a modified forage harvester. With the single pass system, the
chips can be directly loaded into a trailer or truck. (Photo by ZeaChem)

Harvesting of poplars grown on six- to ten-year rotations can be done with traditional
timber harvesting methods if individual trees are large enough (FAO 2008). The trees
are then bunched and the wood is chipped for biofuels.
For small trees grown on two- to three-year rotations, a fully mechanized New
Holland harvester may be a more economically attractive option. A modified forage
harvester (University of Minnesota 2010) cuts and chips the trees as it moves along
the row (FAO 2008; Fig. 5).
After harvest, the chips are ideally shipped directly to the biorefinery. The moisture
content at harvest ranges from 40-58%, and the biorefinery is not expected to need
dry chips. If the biorefinery is not able to take the chips, they may be stored for the
short term where they were harvested.

Potential Yields
Poplar yield depends on climate, site quality, clone, age, spacing, and silvicultural
conditions and treatments (Isebrands 2007). In general, yield is lower in unirrigated
and unfertilized tree farms in the upper Midwest and higher in the Southeast where
growing seasons are long and the Pacific Northwest where irrigation and soil
moisture may be more abundant. Yield estimates range from 1.25 to 8.61 dry tons
per acre per year (Table 1). Geneticists are working on increasing the biomass yield,
adaptability, and pest resistance of poplar. To increase yield over time, it will be
important to select the best clones for particular sites within each region (Davis
2008).
Production Challenges
For poplars to become a successful biofuel crop, there must be a suitable and
available land base in close proximity to potential biorefineries. Because poplar may
be targeted for marginal and idle lands, there may be difficulty in obtaining water for
irrigation. For small landowners to be successful at growing poplar, they may need
to form co-ops and obtain specialized technical support. Local communities will also
need to accept poplar plantations and biorefineries. The larger political, social, and
economic forces, especially the price of a barrel of oil compared to liquid biofuels,
will be among the greatest challenges to overcome (Dickman 2006).
If the biorefinery can utilize poplar chips that also contain leaves and bark, harvest
can occur during the growing season as well as the dormant season. Research is
underway to investigate the conversion technology of producing biofuels from clean
poplar chips compared to chips containing leaves and bark (Townsend 2013). Some
conversion processes may only be able to utilize clean poplar chips, which will
require that the trees be grown on longer rotations and harvested with more
traditional timber methods to remove the bark before being sent to the biorefinery.

Estimated Production Cost

Landowners will naturally decide which crops they will grow on their land.
Understanding the costs and returns from poplar energy crops will allow growers to
consider this alternative crop and decide where it would best be grown on their
fields.
Similar to other agricultural row crops, poplar production costs may include land
rental, site preparation, planting material (cuttings), planting, weed and pest control,
fertilizer, irrigation, root stock removal, labor and management, crop insurance,
harvesting, and transportation. However, many of these cost factors will differ widely
across regions and scenarios regarding the ease of establishing and harvesting
poplars. For the best estimate, potential growers will need to gather key information
on current farming expenditures of other traditional crops. Land cost is a significant
part of the cost of producing poplar as an energy crop, and utilizing marginal or less
productive cropland may significantly reduce the cost compared to other productive
lands. When planted on marginal land, the break-even prices of biomass feedstock
are most sensitive to changes in biomass yield and harvest costs (Khanna and
Huang 2010).
Current research on growing hybrid poplar as an SRWC for biofuel production shows
great promise to increase profitability. Cash flow models of production costs and
expected yields from the DOE (2011) billion ton update show that poplar biomass
ranges from $25 to $60 per dry ton. This estimate is comparable to other dedicated
biomass production systems and does not include the cost of transportation from the
field to the biorefinery. A preliminary study of short-rotation poplars in Michigan
showed 4 to 5 dry tons/acre yield where the break-even price of poplar biomass was
estimated to be $108 (delivered to the mill) based on $60/ton (James et al. 2010).
The preliminary study suggests 60% yield gains in poplar biomass per acre to
compete with production cost of corn-based biofuels.
Although the SRWC approach is completely different than long-rotation (10 to 20
years) poplars from the pulpwood industry, there are lessons that could be learned
from the previous studies on long-rotation poplar production costs and returns. For
example, in the Southeast, Gallagher et al. (2006) estimated that delivered break-
even costs of poplar biomass to a pulp mill (assumed transport distance of 31 miles)
are between $75.58 to $89.28/dry ton. More research and improvements in poplar
yield and production costs may make poplar biofuels more feasible.

Environmental/Sustainability Issues
Poplar trees provide numerous environmental benefits including conservation of soil,
water, and biodiversity. Studies show that short rotation poplars reduce soil erosion
and surface runoff (Langeveld et al. 2012). Poplar trees can also be used to remove
contaminants from municipal biosolids (Felix et al. 2008) and for phytoremediation
(Marmiroli et al. 2011). In agriculture areas, short rotation poplars can reduce stream
flow rates and the amount of nitrogen and sediments entering streams (Updegraff et
al. 2004). In terms of biodiversity, research in the northern plains and Midwest found
an increase in bird diversity in poplar plantings compared with traditional row crops
(Hanowski et al. 1997).
Theoretical life cycle assessments (LCAs) of biofuels made from hybrid poplars
show their potential to substantially reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
compared with traditional fossil fuels (González-Garcìa et al. 2010, Adler et al. 2007).
In fact, short rotation poplar may actually be carbon negative, sequestering more
carbon than is released (Langeveld et al. 2012). Poplar may be better in this respect
than alternative crops like switchgrass and corn-soybean rotations (Adler et. al.
2007). It is important to note that these LCAs depend largely on assumptions about
many things, including the cropping system used, the previous land use, the location
of the crop, the biofuel conversion system employed, and the fuel end use. Because
commercial production of both hybrid poplar energy crops and bio-based fuels is in
its infancy, real-world examples on which LCAs can be conducted are generally
lacking. Even so, the preliminary LCAs that have been done suggest key areas
where cropping systems and fuel production systems might be improved to further
improve GHG balances. Key among these are reduction of fertilizer, water, and fossil
fuel inputs per unit of biomass grown and transported.
There are environmental concerns with producing poplar-based biofuels, including
impacts on water and air quality such as isoprene release during crop growth
(Ashworth et al. 2013). Other concerns being examined include GHG debts incurred
and nitrogen mobilized during land use change (Nikièma, et. al. 2012).
Improvements in production systems should eventually be able to ameliorate these
environmental concerns.

Feasibility
Fast growth and wide site adaptability have made poplar a suitable tree species to
grow for multiple purposes including biofuels production. In some locations, they also
are known for being useless when markets disappear. For poplars to be a viable
commercial scale feedstock for biofuels, stable markets must be established and
contracts must be made so the burden is not solely on the grower. Co-ops for
growers may make this more feasible.
As a biofuel crop/feedstock, poplars may have an advantage over other feedstocks
because poplars can potentially be harvested in different seasons and thus provide
a continuous supply of feedstock to the biorefinery. Poplars also produce higher
amounts of energy than other feedstocks and are predicted to displace more
gasoline and diesel than corn, soybeans, reed canary grass, and switchgrass (Adler
et al. 2007). The amount of energy produced does depend on poplar management
and production input. Moreover, compared to other wood sources, it is much easier
to convert hybrid poplar into liquid biofuels. The high genetic variation among poplars
and many desirable traits provide an opportunity to develop them as ideal feedstock
for biofuels.

Summary
Poplars show promise as a feedstock for biofuels. The trees are fast growing and
able to produce large quantities of biomass in a short amount of time, easy to
propagate and cultivate, and can grow in many regions. Poplar wood can be easily
and sustainably converted into liquid transportation fuels. Before poplars can be
grown on large scales for biofuels, some technical and management details need to
be worked out, including the best clones for bioenergy, disease resistance, optimal
spacing, harvesting technology, and available lands for growing poplar. Support will
be needed to assist smaller landowners in forming poplar growing co-ops to share
technical resources and equipment. For poplar to become an important component
of the twenty-first century renewable energy portfolio, research must continue to
develop the clones, technologies, and financial feasibility.

Bibliography
 Adler, P. R., S. J. Del Grosso, and W. J. Parton. 2007. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-
gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecological Applications 17: 675-691.
 Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest. 2013a. Pre-
treatment. http://hardwoodbiofuels.org/conversion/pre-treatment/
 Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest. 2013b. Demonstration
sites. http://hardwoodbiofuels.org/feedstock/demonstration-sites/
 Advanced Hardwood Biofuels Northwest. 2013c. Growing hybrid poplar for
biofuels. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vP1Td-bOF4
 Agriculture Food and Research Initiative. 2014. Program Synopsis: Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI) Competitive Grants
Program http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/afri/afri_synopsis.html
 Ashworth, K., O. Wild, and C. N. Hewitt. 2013. Impacts of biofuel cultivation on mortality and crop
yields, Nature Climate Change, 5: 492-496.
 Balatinecz, J. J., and D. E. Kretschmann. 2001. Properties and utilization of poplar wood. In:
Poplar Culture in North America. D. I. Dickmann, J. G. Isebrands, J. E. Eckenwalder, and J.
Richardson eds. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
 Berguson, W.E., J. Eaton, and B. Stanton. 2010. Development of hybrid poplar for commercial
production in the United States: The Pacific Northwest and Minnesota experience. In:
Sustainable Alternative Fuel Feedstock Opportunities, Challenges and Roadmaps for Six U.S.
Regions.R. Braun, D. Karlen and D. Johnson, eds. Soil and Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA.
 Brunner, A., J. Munsell, J. Gagnon, H. Burkhart, C. Zipper, C. Jackson, A. Fannon, B. Stanton,
and R. Shuren. 2009. Hybrid poplar for bioenergy and biomaterials feedstock production on
Appalachian reclaimed mine
land. http://www.prp.cses.vt.edu/Reports_09/Brunner_HybridPoplar_2009.pdf
 Davis, J. M. 2008. Genetic improvement of poplar (Populus spp.) as a bioenergy crop. In: W.
Vermerris eds. Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy Crops. Springer Science+Business Media.
 DeBell, D.S., G. W. Clendenen, C. A. Harrington, and J. C. Zasada. 1996. Tree growth and stand
development in short-rotation Populus plantings: 7-Year results for two clones at three spacings.
Biomass and Bioenergy. 11: 253-269.
 Dickmann, D.I., and K. W. Stuart. 1983. The culture of poplars in Eastern North
America. University Publications, Michigan State University.
 Dickmann, D.I. 2006. Silviculture and biology of short-rotation woody crops in temperate regions:
then and now. Biomass Bioenergy 30: 696–705.
 Dickmann, D. I. 2001. An overview of the genus Populus. In: Poplar Culture in North America. D.
I., Dickmann, J. G., Isebrands, J. E., Echenwalder, J. Richardson eds. NRC Research Press,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2008. Field handbook – Poplar harvesting.
International Poplar Commission Working Paper IPC/8. Forest Management Division, FAO,
Rome (unpublished).
 Felix, E., D. R. Tilley, G. Felton, and E. Flamino. 2008. Biomass production of hybrid poplar
(Populus sp.) grown on deep-trenched municipal biosolids. Ecological Engineering 33: 8-14.
 Gallagher, T., B. Shaffer, and B. Rummer. 2006. An economic analysis of hardwood fiber
production on dryland irrigated sites in the U.S. Southeast. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 794-802.
 González-Garcìa, S., C. M. Gasol, X. Gabarrell, J. Rieradevall, M. T. Moreira, and G.
Feijoo. 2010. Environmental profile of ethanol from poplar biomass as transport fuel in Southern
Europe. Renewable Energy 35: 1014–23.
 Gordon, J. C. 2001. Poplars: Trees of the people, trees of the future. The Forestry Chronicle.
77: 217-219.
 Hanowski, J., G. J. Niemi,and D. C. Christian. 1997. Influence of within plantation heterogeneity
and surrounding landscape composition on avian communities in hybrid poplar plantations.
Conservation Biology 11: 936-944.
 Hansen, E., L. Moore, D. Netzer, M. Ostry, H. Phipps, and J. Zavitkovski. 1983. Establishing
intensively cultured hybrid poplar planations for fuel and fiber. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report. NC-78.
 Isebrands, J. G.; 2007. Best Management Practices Poplar Manual For Agroforestry Applications
in Minnesota. Environmental Forestry Consultants, LLC. New London,
WI. http://www.upbiofuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Best-Management-Pratices_poplar-
manual_agroforestry-in-minnesota.pdf
 Isebrands, J.G., J. A. Sturos, and J. B. Crist. 1979. Integrated utilization of biomass, a short-
rotation intensively cultured populous raw material. TAPPI 627: 67-70.
 James, L. K., S. M. Swinton, and K. D. Thelen. 2010. Profitability analysis of cellulosic energy
crops compared with corn. Agronomy Journal 102: 675-687.
 Khanna, M., and H. Huang. 2010. The breakeven costs of producing alternative feedstocks for
cellulosic biofuels. Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illnois, Urbana-
Champaign. http://miscanthus.ebi.berkeley.edu/biofuel/documents/Feedstock Production
Cost.pdf
 Langeveld, H., F. Quist-Wessel, I. Dimitriou, P. Aronsson, C. Baum, U. Schulz, A. Bolte, S. Baum,
J. Köhn, M. Weih, H. Gruss, P. Leinweber, N. Lamersdorf, P. Schmidt-Walter, and G.
Berndes. 2012. Assessing environmental impacts of short rotation coppice (SRC) expansion:
Model definition and preliminary results. Bioenergy Research 5: 621-635.
 Marmiroli, M. F. Pietrini, E. Maestri, M. Zacchini, N. Marmiroli, and A. Massacci. 2011. Growth,
physiological and molecular traits in Salicaceae trees investigated for phytoremediation of heavy
metals and organics. Tree Physiology 31: 1319-1334.
 Miller, R.O., and B. A. Bender. 2012. Proceedings from Sun Grant national conference for
biomass feedstock production and utilization, New Orleans,
LA. http://sungrant.tennessee.edu/NatConference/
 Newcombe, G, M. Ostry, M. Hubbes, P. Perinet, and M. J. Mottet. 2001. Poplar diseases. In
Poplar Culture in North America. D. I., Dickmann, J. G., Isebrands, J. E., Echenwalder, J.
Richardson (eds.). NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
 Nikièma, P., D. E. Rothstein, and R. O. Miller. 2012. Initial greenhouse gas emissions and
nitrogen leaching losses associated with converting pastureland to short-rotation woody
bioenergy crops in northern Michigan, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy 39: 413-426.
 O’Neill, M. K., C. C. Shock. K. A. Lombard, R. F. Heyduck, and E. B. G. Feibert, D. Smeal, and
R. N. Arnold. 2010. Hybrid poplar (Populus ssp.) selections for arid and semi-arid intermountain
regions of the western United States. Agroforestry Systems 79:409–418.
 Roedl, A. 2010. Production and energetic utilization of wood from short rotation coppice—a life
cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15:567–578.
 Stanton, B., J. Eaton, J. Johnson, D. Rice, B. Schuette, and B. Moser. 2002. Hybrid poplar in the
Pacific Northwest: The effects of market-driven management. Journal of Forestry 100:28-33.
 Stanturf, J. A., C. van Oosten, D. A. Netzer, M. D. Coleman, and C. J. Portwood. 2001. Ecology
and silviculture of poplar plantations. In: Poplar Culture in North America.D. I. Dickmann, J. G.
Isebrands, J. E. Eckenwalder, and J. Richardson eds. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
 Tharakan, P.J., T. A. Volk, L. P. Abrahamson, and E. H. White. 2003. Energy feedstock
characteristics of willow and hybrid poplar clones at harvest age. Biomass and Bioenergy 25:
571-580.
 The Sun Grant Initiative. 2014. http://www.sungrant.org/
 Townsend, P. A. 2013. Harvesting poplar to fuel green
energy. http://hardwoodbiofuels.org/harvesting-poplar-to-fuel-green-energy/
 Updegraff, K. M. J. Baughman, and S. J. Taff. 2004. Environmental benefits of cropland
conversion to hybrid poplar: Economic and policy considerations. Biomass and Bioenergy 27:
411–428.
 University of Minnesota. 2010. New Holland FR900 Forage
Harvester. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB4l-DklLEI
 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2011. U.S. Billion-ton update: Biomass supply for a bioenergy
and bioproducts industry. R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
 van Oosten, C. 2006. Hybrid poplar crop manual for the prairie provinces. SilviConsult Woody
Crops Technology Inc., Prepared for Saskatchewan Forest Centre,
Canada. http://www.poplar.ca/upload/documents/cropman.pdf
 Wilkinson, A.G. 1999. Poplars and willows for soil erosion control in New Zealand, Biomass and
Bioenergy 16: 263–274.
 Zalesny Jr., R.S., M.W. Cunningham, R.B. Hall, J. Mirck, D.L. Rockwood, J.A. Stanturf, T.A.
Volk. 2011. Woody biomass from short rotation energy crops. In Sustainable production of fuels,
chemicals, and fibers from forest biomass. J.Y. Zhu, X. Zhang, X. Pan, eds. American Chemical
Society, ACS Symposium Series, Washington, DC.
 Zalesny Jr., R. S., R. B. Hull, J. A. Zalesny, B. G. McMahon, W. E. Berguson, and G. R. Stanosz.
2009. Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of populus energy crops in the
Midwestern United States. Bioenergy Research 2:106–122.
 Zamora, D., G. Wyatt, K. Apostol, and U. Tschirner. 2013. Biomass yield, energy values, and
chemical composition of hybrid poplar in short rotation woody crops production and native
perennial grasses in Minnesota, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy 49:222-230.