Contras(ng ecosystem services of hybrid poplar and white pine in the Lake States, USA

Transcription

1 Contras(ng ecosystem services of hybrid poplar and white pine in the Lake States, USA R.S. Zalesny Jr. 1, W.L. Headlee 2, E.O. Bauer 2, B.A. Birr 1, R.B. Hall 2, W. Parker 3, A.H. Wiese 1 1 U.S. Forest Service; Rhinelander, WI, USA 2 Iowa State University; Ames, IA, USA 3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada

2 Ecosystem Services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems (Source: hyp:// services.htm) Cultural Services The nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems (e.g., values) Spiritual Educational Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Ecosystems and Human Well- Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington. 155pp. Suppor(ng Services The natural processes that maintain the other ecosystem services Nitrogen Water Provisioning Services The goods or products obtained from ecosystems Freshwater Biomass Regula(ng Services The benefits obtained from an ecosystem s control of natural processes Erosion Control Soil Quality 2

3 Ecosystem Services Provisioning Services Aboveground Biomass Regula(ng Services Aboveground Carbon Sequestra(on 3

4 Hybrid Poplar & White Pine Populus spp. & hybrids Pinus strobus L. 4

5 Ra(onale q Both genera exhibit ecological & economic importance for providing ecosystem services q Few comparisons exist highligh(ng differences in their poten(al for providing ecosystem services, especially for biomass & carbon 5

6 Objec(ves q Evaluate differences in aboveground biomass & carbon sequestra(on poten(al of hybrid poplars at rota(on age (10 y) & stand decline (20 y) with mid- rota(on white pine (48 y) q Stated differently, at what ages are these poten(al ecosystem services for white pine comparable to that of hybrid poplar in the region? 10- yr- old yr- old DN yr- old White Pine 6

7 Hybrid Poplar Clones 10- yr- olds (7 clones) P. deltoides C916000, C916400, C P. nigra P. suaveolens subsp. maximowiczii NM2 (P. trichocarpa P. deltoides) P. deltoides NC13624, NC13649, NC yr- olds (2 clones) P. deltoides P. nigra DN34, DN182 7

8 White Pine Provenances Canada United States Loca(on of Origin La(tude Longitude Union County, Georgia Greene County, Tennessee Monroe County, Pennsylvania Franklin County, New York Ashland County, Ohio Allamakee County, Iowa Cass County, Minnesota Forest County, Wisconsin Luneborg County, Nova Sco(a Pon(ac District, Quebec Algoma District, Ontario Newaygo County, Michigan

9 Field Sites

10 Field Sites Escanaba Waseca Ames Key: 10- yr- old poplar ( 3)

11 Warren Field Sites Bemidji Belgrade Milaca Rhinelander Granite Falls Lamberton Mondovi Fairmont Key: 20- yr- old poplar ( 9)

12 Field Sites Manis(que Wabeno Pine River Newaygo Key: 48- yr- old 49- yr- old white pine ( 4)

13 Warren Field Sites Bemidji Escanaba Manis(que Belgrade Milaca Rhinelander Granite Falls Lamberton Waseca Fairmont Mondovi Wabeno Newaygo Pine River Ames Key: 10- yr- old poplar ( 3) 20- yr- old poplar ( 9) 48- yr- old 49- yr- old white pine ( 4)

14 Group State Site Height (m) Lat ( N) Long ( W) Soil Texture Poplar (10 y) IA Ames 15.1 ± Fine Sandy Loam MI Escanaba ± Fine Sandy Loam MN Waseca 16.3 ± Clay Loam Poplar (20 y) MN Belgrade 17.2 ± Loam MN Bemidji 17.9 ± Loamy Sand MN Fairmont 18.7 ± Clay Loam MN Granite Falls 21.4 ± Loam MN Lamberton ± Clay Loam MN Milaca 19.4 ± Silt Loam MN Warren 20.8 ± Fine Loamy Sand WI Mondovi 19.3 ± Silt Loam WI Rhinelander 21.5 ± Loamy Sand White Pine MI Manis(que 20.3 ± Fine Sandy Loam MI Newaygo ± Sand MI Pine River 19.4 ± Sand WI Wabeno 18.8 ± Silt Loam 14

15 Hybrid Poplar Data q Trees were harvested during the leafless period q Cross- sec(onal disks were collected at dbh q Disks were cut in half q Wafers were processed along a plane extending through the pith q Wood samples were extracted from each growth ring q Aboveground biomass q Carbon concentra(on q Stocking, age q Biomass TOTAL (Mg ha - 1 ) q Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) q Carbon MAI (Mg C ha - 1 yr - 1 ) 15

16 White Pine Data q Trees were cored at dbh during the 49 th growing season q Cores were processed & analyzed with WinDENDRO to determine annual growth ring measurements q Annual diameters were calculated based on WinDENDRO data q Biomass = Exp[ ln(dbh)] Jenkins et al. (2003) q Carbon concentra(on = 49.74% Lamlom & Savidge (2003) q Stocking, age q Biomass TOTAL (Mg ha - 1 ) q Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) q Carbon MAI (Mg C ha - 1 yr - 1 ) *Jenkins JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA Forest Science 49:12-26 *Lamlom SH, Savidge RA Biomass Bioenergy 25:

17 Hybrid Poplar Biomass 10- yr MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Source P- value Site Clone < Site Clone Clone Ames Escanaba Waseca All Clones C ± ± ± ± 1.2 C ± ± ± ± 1.2 C ± ± ± ± 0.8 NC ± ± ± ± 0.7 NC ± ± ± ± 0.5 NC ± ± ± ± 0.6 NM2 6.5 ± ± ± ± 1.4 All Sites 6.0 ± ± ± ± % + 53% 17

18 Hybrid Poplar Biomass 20- yr MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Source P- value Site < Clone Site Clone < Site DN182 DN34 All Clones Belgrade 6.9 ± ± ± 0.5 Bemidji 7.0 ± ± ± 0.5 Fairmont 18.0 ± ± ± 1.7 Granite Falls 18.3 ± ± ± 1.9 Lamberton 9.6 ± ± ± 2.2 Milaca 10.7 ± ± ± 0.8 Mondovi 6.8 ± ± ± 0.7 Rhinelander 21.7 ± ± ± 1.7 Warren 14.2 ± ± ± 1.5 All Sites 12.6 ± ± ±

19 White Pine Biomass Provenance Manis(que Newaygo Pine River Wabeno All Sites ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.7 Source 48- yr MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) P- value Site < Provenance < Site Provenance < ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 1.4 All Provenances 15.3 ± ± ± ± ±

20 Site Effects Biomass MAI 20 Biomass MAI - All Sites Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Age (yrs) Poplar GraniteFalls Poplar Audubon Poplar Milaca Poplar Bemidji Pine Wabeno Pine Manistique Pine Pine River Pine Newaygo Biomass MAI - High & Low Sites Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Poplar GraniteFalls Pine Wabeno Poplar Bemidji Pine Pine River 43% 56% 116% Age (yrs) 20

21 Site Effects Carbon MAI 10 Carbon MAI - All Sites Carbon MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Poplar GraniteFalls Poplar Audubon Poplar Milaca Poplar Bemidji Pine Wabeno Pine Manistique Age (yrs) Pine Pine River Pine Newaygo Carbon MAI - High & Low Sites 10 Poplar GraniteFalls Pine Wabeno Carbon MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Poplar Bemidji Pine Pine River 46% 58% 116% Age (yrs) 21

22 Genotype Effects Total Stand Biomass (Mg ha - 1 ) P < P = P < P < yr 20 yr 40 yr 48 yr Hybrid Poplar White Pine 22

23 Comparable Ages Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Years After Planting Years After Planting 23

24 Comparable Ages Carbon MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 Carbon MAI (Mg C ha - 1 yr - 1 ) Years After Planting Years After Planting 24

25 Site Genotype Effects 25 Biomass MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) C NC13624 C NC13563 NC13649 C NM2 Hybrid Poplar Clone Escanaba, MI 10 years Tennessee Georgia Iowa White Pine Provenance Manistique, MI 46 years Ontario Michigan Pennsylvania

26 Site Genotype Effects 25 Biomass / Carbon MAI (Mg ha - 1 yr - 1 ) C NC13624 C NC13563 NC13649 C NM2 Hybrid Poplar Clone Escanaba, MI 10 years White Pine Provenance Manistique, MI 46 years

27 Conclusions q In general, comparable 10- yr hybrid poplar stand biomass & carbon sequestra(on FOR WHITE PINE were not achieved un(l 45 yrs 45 to 47 yrs 45 to 46 yrs q Specific genotype environment interac(ons resulted in white pine exceeding 10- yr- old hybrid poplar at ages younger than 45 yrs q White pine was not comparable to 20- yr- old hybrid poplar at 48 yrs q While the (ming & magnitude of biomass/carbon differ between the genera, producing both provides greater ecosystems services across the landscape Hybrid poplar 2 to 4 rota(ons with the poten(al for reduced establishment costs with coppice systems Quicker return on investment White pine Fewer entries with the poten(al for greater soil carbon sequestra(on over (me Wildlife habitat for longer (me periods 27

28 Thank you! Contact Information Dr. Ronald S. Zalesny Jr. Team Leader, Research Plant Geneticist Phytotechnologies, Genetics, and Energy Crop Production Unit U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies 5985 Highway K Rhinelander, WI 54501, USA Phone: Fax: rzalesny@fs.fed.us Acknowledgements I thank the conference organizers for the opportunity to speak today.