Positive water linkages of producing short rotation poplars for bioenergy & phytotechnologies

R.S. Zalesny Jr.1, W.L. Headlee2,3, C.A. Maier4, S. Ghezehei5, B. Goldfarb5, D. Hazel5, E. Nichols5, N. Thomas5

1 U.S. Forest Service; Northern Research Station; Rhinelander, WI, USA2 Univ. of Arkansas Division of Agric. Arkansas Forest Resources Center; Monticello, AR, USA3 Univ. of Arkansas at Monticello School of Forestry & Natural Resources, Monticello, AR, USA4 U.S. Forest Service; Southern Research Station; Research Triangle Park, NC, USA5 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

SDGs & Woody Biomass Production

2

Energy Security

Source: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Why Poplars?

4

Well-studied (silviculture, physiology, & genetics) Base populations exhibit tremendous diversity Broad economic & environmental benefits

Can be stored on the stump until harvest Harvest throughout the year Minimal fertilization Extended haul distances Used in crop rotations to improve soil tilth Elevated rates of soil carbon storage Grown on marginal lands not suitable for agriculture Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI)

Cellulose 2 to 55

Willow 13

Poplar 12

Sugar Cane 8

Switchgrass 5.4

Soybean 2.5

Corn 1.34

Ecosystem Services

5

Biom

ass

+Po

lluta

nt C

once

ntra

tions

(leav

es, w

ood,

root

s)

Height

Diameter

Soil chemistries (inorganics & organics)

Soil properties (e.g., texture, pH, EC)Soil carbon

Carbon and nitrogen concentrationVolatile carbon concentration

Drought toleranceWater use efficiency

Fiber compositionAsh content

Specific gravityBiofuels recalcitrance

Photosynthetic capacityPhotosynthetic efficiency

Source: Zalesny, R.S. Jr., et al. 2016. BioEnergy Research 9:465-491. Zalesny, R.S. Jr., et al. 2016. BioEnergy Research 9:492-506.

Hybrid Poplar Biomass

6

10-yr MAI (Mg ha-1 yr-1)

Source P-value

Site 0.0007

Clone <0.0001

Site × Clone 0.0134

Clone Ames Escanaba Waseca All Clones

C916000 7.6 ± 0.5 7.9 ± 1.4 11.8 ± 3.6 9.0 ± 1.2

C916400 8.7 ± 2.1 5.7 ± 1.7 11.4 ± 1.7 8.9 ± 1.2

C918001 3.9 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.6 7.1 ± 1.4 4.8 ± 0.8

NC13563 5.8 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.2 10.4 ± 0.7 7.3 ± 0.7

NC13624 3.6 ± 0.4 5.6 ± 0.6 3.1 ± 1.1 4.4 ± 0.5

NC13649 4.3 ± 0.4 7.6 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.3 5.9 ± 0.6

NM2 6.5 ± 2.1 13.0 ± 1.1 14.0 ± 2.0 11.4 ± 1.4

All Sites 6.0 ± 0.6 7.1 ± 0.6 9.2 ± 0.9 7.4 ± 0.4

+ 53%

+ 159%

Source: Zalesny, R.S. Jr., Headlee, W.L. 2005. Journal of Forest and Experimental Science 31:78-90.

Aboveground Carbon

7

Conclusions Does % C vary by genotype?

Yes – we can select high-yielding clones with high % C to maximize both biomass provisioning & C regulating services

Do growing conditions impact % C? Yes – higher latitudes are associated

with higher mean % C & with differences in top clones

Understanding these genotype & site effects will help us develop our deployment strategies for adaptation to climate change

NM2, NM6

NC13563, DN34

Source: Headlee WL, et al. 2014. International Poplar Symposium VI; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; July 21-23.

Bioconversion Potential

8Source: Wang et al. 2012. Fuel 95:606-614.

Sugar Yield(%)

Ethanol Yield(L kg-1 wood)

Genotype Genomic Group DA SPORL DA SPORL

Aspen P. tremuloides 47 55 0.17 0.20

NE222 P. deltoides × P. nigra 42 47 0.12 0.16

DN5 P. deltoides × P. nigra 35 44 0.12 0.15

NM6 P. nigra × P. suavelons subsp. maximowiczii 18 43 0.07 0.11

Aspen NE222

DN5 NM6

2017 ThemeWater & Waste: Reduce & Reuse

PhytovolatilizationPhytoremediation

Phytoextraction

Phytostabilization

Rhizofiltration

Rhizodegradation

Phytodegradation

Why Poplars?

Elevated water usage

Fast growth (high productivity)

Extensive root systems

Panama City, FL

12

Diam

eter

(cm

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Clone

100-392-4

115-1147-1

93-690-3

79-4189-4

DN2172C-2

DN31119-6

S7C1

Ken8

S13C20

Biom

ass /

Car

bon

MAI

(Mg

ha-1

yr-1

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

(a)

(b)

aaaab

abc

bc

bcd

bcde

bcde

cde

cde

cde

de

de

e

aa

aab

bb b

bb

bb

b b

bb

zzzzy

y y yy y y y y y y y

Industrial Brownfield Arsenic 1 Planting 5.4 yrs 15 Clones

+ 102%

+ 340%BiomassMAIexp = 7.2

DBHexp = 8.9

Source: Zalesny RS Jr, et al. 2014. International Poplar Symposium VI; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; July 21-23.

Industrial Production FacilitySalts, metals, nitrates11 years

LandfillSalts in leachate8 years

LandfillFiber cake recycling12.5 years

Phyto-Recurrent Selection

16

Consists of revising & combining crop & tree improvement protocols to utilize superior Populus & Salixclones for phytotechnologies.

Such information is lacking for environmental clean-up technologies, but centuries of plant selection success in agronomy, horticulture, & forestry validate the need for similar approaches for environmental applications.

Project Development

Clone Selection

Tree Establishment

Evaluation of Success Metrics

Source: Zalesny, R.S. Jr., Bauer, E.O. 2007. International Journal of Phytoremediation 9:497-511.

The Phyto Matrix

17

Tree Tissue Genus / Genotype Leaf Woody Root

Inorganic Contaminant

Populus A B C ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Salix A B C ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Source: Zalesny, R.S. Jr., Bauer, E.O. 2007. International Journal of Phytoremediation 9:497-511.

Selection of genotypes for differences in water use

Sunlight (solar radiation)

Soil water (precipitation, temperature, soil water holding capacity, water table depth, texture)

Soil nutrients (site fertility)

Poplar Water Use in the Southeastern United States

19Source: Maier, C, et al. 2017. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA); Portland, Oregon, USA; August 6-11.

Chris A. Maier1 (cmaier@fs.fed.us) , Solomon Ghezehei2, Barry Goldfarb2,Denis Hazel2, Elizabeth Nichols2, Nathan Thomas2

1 USDA Forest Service (cmaier@fs.fed.us), RTP, NC; 2North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Site: North Carolina State University IBSS Hybrid Poplar Study Four-year-old trees Nine genotypes (6 DD, 1 DM, 2 TD) Evaluated individual tree water use, WUE, & the relationship between WUE & growth Measured tree sap flow (May through mid-October) Calculated transpiration (Et,tree), canopy conductance (Gs), leaf water potential, &

specific leaf hydraulic conductance (Gl) Developed allometric equations from biomass harvest Determined δ13C of foliage & wood

Poplar Daily Transpiration: Southeast Bioenergy

20Source: Maier, C, et al. 2017. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA); Portland, Oregon, USA; August 6-11.

Clone8019 185 116 428 109 115 224 187 402

E t,tre

e (L

day

-1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Year 2 Height

Poplar Water Use: Southeast Bioenergy

21Source: Maier, C, et al. 2017. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA); Portland, Oregon, USA; August 6-11.

Clone8019 185 116 428 109 115 224 187 402

WU

E (k

g bi

omas

s m

3 H2O

-1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Stem biomass growth (kg tree-1)

0 1 2 3 4 5

E t,tre

e (m

3 H2O

tree

-1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

8019185116428109115224187402

TDTD

DM

Poplar Leaf δ13C: Southeast Bioenergy

22Source: Maier, C, et al. 2017. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA); Portland, Oregon, USA; August 6-11.

8019 185 116 428 109 115 224 187 402

Leaf

-13

C

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34P <0.001

DMTD TD

Poplar δ13C: Midwest Bioenergy

23

Conclusions Overall, the water-conserving

strategy of closing stomata appears to have been most pronounced at Escanaba, & least at Ames.

DD clones are the higher water users, although C918001 is inclined to conserve water.

(TD)D clones are the higher water conservers, although NC13563 is inclined to use more water.

Clone NM2 is intermediate, although it conserves more water at Escanaba.

-28.5 -28.0 -27.5 -27.0 -26.5 -26.0 -25.5

C916000

C916400

C918001

NC13563

NC13624

NC13649

NM2

Ames (mean = -27.3)

-28.5 -28.0 -27.5 -27.0 -26.5 -26.0 -25.5

C916000

C916400

C918001

NC13563

NC13624

NC13649

NM2

Escanaba (mean = -26.4)

-28.5 -28.0 -27.5 -27.0 -26.5 -26.0 -25.5

C916000

C916400

C918001

NC13563

NC13624

NC13649

NM2

Waseca (mean = -26.8)

DDDDDD(TD)D(TD)D(TD)DNM

DDDDDD(TD)D(TD)D(TD)DNM

DDDDDD(TD)D(TD)D(TD)DNM

Poplar δ13C: Midwest Phyto

24

-37.0000 -36.0000 -35.0000 -34.0000 -33.0000 -32.0000 -31.0000 -30.0000

313.55

DM111

NC14106

BM04

BM11

BM12

BM14

BM18

BM21

DN177

DN34

DN5

NC13820

NM2

NM6 NM

(TD)D

DN

DM

Year 3 Year 4

Sap velocity (cm s-1) 0.010 ± 0.001 0.012 ± 0.001

Diameter (cm) 9.2 ± 0.3 13.7 ± 0.4Sapwood area (cm2) 43.8 ± 2.6 122.3 ± 7.6

Sapflow (kg hr-1) 1.400 ± 0.170 5.676 ± 0.300

Poplar Sapflow: Midwest Phyto

26

Total water use: Year 3 Year 4

Per tree per 14-h sampling period (L tree-1 14-h-1)

67 140

Per tree across 18-d sampling period (L tree-1 18-d-1)

1 206 2 520

Per hectare per day (L ha-1 d-1; 1680 trees ha-1)*

112 560 235 200

Per hectare across a 125-d growing season (L ha-1)*

14 070 000 29 400 000

Source: Zalesny, R.S. Jr., et al. 2006. Biomass Bioenergy 30:784-793.

Conclusions

27

Important to relate the potential of poplars for water conservation & water usage back to the SDGs

How can we select genotypes to maximize the benefits of the trees? How can we utilize these benefits to achieve the SDGs?

On water-stressed sites, clonal selection for water conserving (i.e., drought tolerant) genotypes can maximize biomass production without causing detrimental impacts to water supply and/or quality.

On water-rich sites (e.g., wastewater applications), clonal selection for water using genotypes can lead to positive ecosystem services, including enhanced biomass production & environmental remediation

Thank you!

AcknowledgementsI thank Dr. Göran Berndes & the conference organizers for the opportunity to speak today.

Contact InformationDr. Ronald S. Zalesny Jr.Team Leader, Research Plant GeneticistPhytotechnologies, Genetics, and Energy Crop Production UnitU.S. Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationInstitute for Applied Ecosystem Studies5985 Highway KRhinelander, WI 54501, USA

Phone: +1 715 362 1132Fax: +1 715 362 1166

rzalesny@fs.fed.ushttp://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/Zalesnyhttp://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/iaes/focus/woody-crop-systems/