This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
An Assessment of the Ecological and Economic Feasibility of Growing Willow Biomass for Colgate University
Jeremy Bennick Andrew Holway Elizabeth Juers Rachel Surprenant
ENST 480 Spring 2008
Table of Contents
Table of Contents........................................ Acknowledgments....................................... 1. Executive Summary.................................... 2. Rationale..................................................... 3. Agricultural Processes
3.1 Site Preparation………………………………….. 3.2 Planting ................................................................. 3.3 First Growth Cycle Maintenance........................... 3.4 Harvesting.............................................................
2 3 4 5
7 7 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 18
4.1 Optimal Soil Conditions....................................... 4.2 Erosion.................................................................. 4.3 Nutrient Cycling and Fertilizers.......................... 4.4 Health of Soil after Willow...................................
5.1 Sustainability......................................................... 5.2 Biodiversity........................................................... 5.3 Bird Diversity........................................................ 5.4 Sustainable Forestry..............................................
6. GIS Suitability Analysis............................. 19 7. Economic Feasibility Analysis
7.1 The Current and Future Woodchip Market…….. 7.2 Willow Economics……………………………… 7.3 Colgate’s Potential to Grow its Own Willow.….. 7.4 Concerns……………………………………….… 7.5 Recommendations …………………………….… 7.6 Future Potential………………………………….. 26 27 27 28 29 29
8. Conclusions……………………………….. 30
We would here like to acknowledge and thank Professor Ian Helfant, our main advisor for this project. Professor Helfant was instrumental in guiding our group on the initial research goals to pursue, providing us with professional contacts and advising us over the source of the semester. Similarly, we acknowledge the other two course professors, Professors Beth Parks and Bob Turner. We thank Dr. Timothy Volk of the State University of New York, school of Environmental Science and Forestry, for providing us with his expertise in the willow biomass field and for answering all of the questions posed to him. Thanks also goes to Peter Babich, Michael Jasper, and Dr. Stephen Bick, the Associate Director of Facilities and Manager of Engineering Services, Associate Director of Facilities and Manager of Lands and Grounds, and Professional Forester and Consultant to Colgate University, respectively.
so does the maximum price that can be paid for this service. the cost of this service would have to be no more than $48. at the current price of woodchips. In this way. Willow stems can be planted at a density of 4. Colgate could feasibly plant and maintain a small willow plantation with the aid of an experienced farmer. such as local farmers. Overall.1 oven dried tons per acre per year. an economic analysis concludes that it would not make sense to buy or lease the farm equipment because of the small scale on which Colgate would be operating. 4 . favorable soil. The willow biomass field is still young.000 per year. which GIS analyses indicate is the 10-acre Hamilton Street tract. Colgate’s landholdings. Furthermore. The first crop of willow can be harvested five years after the initial preparation of the field. Executive Summary Over the past four months. This would ensure familiarity with the process should the prices of woodchips continue to rise as predicted.000 per year. we recommend the following action: Colgate should experiment with farming willow biomass on a small-scale. and finally by potentially interested growers of willow biomass. in order to supplement this research. Our primary methods of data collection include both primary and secondary resources.000 plants per acre and can produce around 3. At this time it is unknown whether the farming work for 200 acres can be hired out for less than $48. This feasibility analysis is to be used primarily by the Environmental Council and president in determining the future of Colgate’s heating needs. 485 acres of Colgate landholding are found to be suitable under these constraints. we also rely heavily on personal communications with several key experts in the science behind growing willow biomass. as well as by members of Buildings and Grounds. much of this land is not available for growing willow due to aesthetic and tract size concerns.7 – 5. Additionally. Colgate should instead look to hire out the farm work. sustainable forestry practices and the processes of the wood-burning facility. Ultimately. stream buffer. it could be cost-effective in the future. however. land cover. For it to be cost-effective for Colgate to grow its own willow on 200 acres. and low slope. a Geographic Information Systems suitability analysis is carried out.000 – 8. planting and harvesting willow for biomass. which consider five criteria: road-access. Even if it is not cost-effective today. therefore. however. as the price of woodchips increases.1. our group has worked to determine the environmental and economic feasibility of growing willow biomass on Colgate-owned property for our steamgenerating wood-burning facility. however. This document contains a detailed description of the methods of preparing.
2004).151. Image 1: Woodchips at Colgate’s biomass burning facility Although Colgate University is ahead of many of our peer institutions with our use of renewable energy (our wood-chip powered steam producing facility. $10 billion dollars annually by 2015 (Romm and Curtis.2. military presence in the Middle East. Renewable energies represent one possibility for reducing our dependence on foreign oil for the U. Two-thirds of the oil consumed globally comes from the Persian Gulf region. Renewable energy could presumably placate this dependency and the foreign policy issues with which it is associated.S. in a precarious position because of the intense international competition for these oil reserves as well as the historical and current political and social unrest experienced in the region. Rationale The importance of renewable energy is becoming increasingly important as we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century. In the 2006-2007 academic year (June 1st-May 31st). this is significant because currently this country spends billions of dollars annually in imports of fossil fuels such as oil and petroleum (NRDC.S. One major concern on the global scale is the availability of the fossil fuels on which our modern society is dependent. NRDC. it has been calculated that substantially integrating renewable energy into the national economy could save the U. 1996). Furthermore. and our use of hydroelectricity). This dependence is associated with a U. Colgate paid $299. It is expected that this number will increase in a substantial amount for the 2007-2008 academic year because of the expansion of Colgate’s facilities with the completion of the Ho Science 5 . a region from which the U.S. thus leading to other foreign policy conflicts (Lugar and Woolsey.95 for oil. imports $25 billion dollars worth of oil annually (Lugar and Woolsey. Relying so profoundly on this one source leaves the U. 2004). 1999).. the University still pays a sizable amount for fossil fuels annually.S.S. 1999.
The construction of a second wood-burning facility would be able to provide heat for these additions to Colgate’s campus. these numbers do not factor in the transportation emissions associated with trucking the tons of woodchips to Colgate’s campus daily. In the climate change context. willow biomass is a particularly good method to sequester carbon because of its short growing time. which are by definition carbon neutral. a value comprised of residential heater emissions.CO 6 . Much has been predicted about the consequences of global warming. 1997). health and economic failures (IPCC. 2003). The IPCC hypothesizes the following: increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. could sequester 4. or alternately. oil burner emissions and woodchip emissions (Hornung. approximately 95% of these emissions are considered carbon neutral as they come from the renewable energy source of wood chips. Short rotation woody crops. The sources supplied to Colgate come from as many as 75 miles away from campus. is the number one global contributor to these greenhouse gases. would be a much more sustainable way of supplying this renewable energy source for our campus’s needs. 2004).851. reforestation and afforestation yields a carbon sink in the growing trees or shrubs. agricultural greenhouse gas sinks can be instrumental in the removing of carbon from the atmosphere by changing vegetation cover and improving management. though.Center (121. switching from conventional agricultural crops to forests. such as biomass. thus significantly adding to the campus’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically. and thus at their optimal sequestration capacity (Volk et al. Using renewable energies. a disruption of crop patterns to the effect that hunger and famine would result. Climate Change and Human Health. forest products act as substitutes to politically..650.200 gross square feet) and the additions to the Case Library (51. 2001. political instability as a result of dislocations and social. The planting and harvesting of willow biomass on Colgate-owned land if justified if: CB + CSin ≥ CB + CSout + CF . et al. 3.000 gross square feet added. both by this panel and other independent researchers. represent a significant method to sequester carbon in two ways: first. and less intrusive and damaging till practices (Schneider and McCarl.. the importance of renewable energy for the purposes of our study is its potential to mitigate human-influenced climate change. 2002). such as willow. a collection of hundreds of international scientists established by the United Nations. or using logging residuals from well-managed logging operations on Colgate-owned land as will be discussed further on. 2008).5-8 tons of carbon per hectare per year (Baral and Guha. 2003). effectively making the willow shrubs always young. Growing our own willow biomass. Colgate emits an estimated 41 tons of CO2 per year. Nevertheless. has become widely accepted by scientists and the public alike upon the release of the review in 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change. could drastically reduce Colgate’s greenhouse gas emissions.420 thousand metric tons of CO2 (Marland et al. socially and environmentally insecure fossil fuels (Baral and Guha. increases in sea levels which will effectively displace millions of coastal dwellers and destroy ecologically necessary habitat and the organisms that depend on them. second.. However. The U. emitting 1. or global warming as it is alternatively known. 2006). Because as trees reach maturity their potential to sequester decreases (in conjunction with a decrease in their growth rate).020 thousand metric tons of C.S. such as willow shrubs. woody biomass crops. 101.000 gross square feet renovated) (“Ho Science Center”. 2003). Climate change could result in an irreversible damaging of earth’s fragile ecological homeostasis.
immediately after mowing (Kopp et al.g. In this way. which loosens the soil and mixes in fertilizer and plant material. willow-planting equipment can be most effectively employed. finally.. Before planting. eliminate large air pockets. CSout is the carbon released back into the atmosphere when the crops are harvested—this value is impacted by sustainability of the management practices. the site must be plowed to a minimum depth of 10 inches. CF represents the carbon emitted over the course of the production of the biomass crop—the machinery emissions. Essentially. CSin represents all other carbon captured during the production cycle as a result of the short rotation woody crops (e. large rocks that project more than 2 inches from the ground should be removed to ensure that machinery would not be damaged later on during the harvesting process. is the final stage of field preparation in the fall. the out gassing fertilizers. all crop cover must be removed. it is logical. it is necessary to spray the field with a broad-spectrum herbicide. Volk recommends the use of glyphosate after vegetation has begun to grow back. and leave the ground ready to plant. studies have successfully used Simazine. Following the successful application of herbicide. if the amount of carbon sequestered is greater or equal to that generated in the production and burning of the biomass. In the following spring.. Weed competition is the most common cause of willow crop failure. this field must first be mowed and excess vegetation should be consolidated into hay bales and removed from the site..Where CB is the carbon sequestered in the biomass harvested in one production cycle. Site preparation begins on a fallow field the summer before the planting is scheduled. to pursue this means of energy supply. a tillage technique that produces finer soil. translocated herbicide (Abrahamson et al. While Dr. 3. a cultimulcher should be used on the field. The plowing. recommends the use of glyphosate.. The cultimulcher is used to break surface crust. a leading researcher on willow in the region. Heller et al. the site must be prepared for planting. 2002). carbon in the root biomass and leaf litter). Other studies (Volk et al. When the vegetation begins to grow after mowing. 2002). at least from an environmental perspective. 7 . can take place on the field (Abrahamson et al. 2006). As a result. In the July before planting. crush clods. Dr..1 Site Preparation After an appropriate site in which to plant the willow has been selected. transportation. which should be completed by mid-September. thus it seems likely that this will prove to be the case for Colgate University as well. cross-discing. making biomass an environmentally viable option. 2001).. Volk. 2004. Agriculture 3. a pre-emergent herbicide. a postemergent. Upon the completion of the initial plowing. the site should be treated with herbicides in order to control competitive weeds. CO is the amount of carbon prevented from being released into the atmosphere by the burning of the biomass as opposed to conventional fossil fuels (Satori et al. 2003) have concluded that the amount of carbon emitted during the entire production cycle of biomass equals that sequestered by the plants. Additionally. firm loose soil.
For this same reason.000 plants per acre (Volk et al. The willow plants featured here are the new growth after one coppicing.. which plants cuttings. While rows should be as long as possible. This break in the row will allow agricultural equipment to freely move between different sections of the willow crop (Kopp et al. Image source: Volk et al.. Willow Biomass Producer’s Handbook .000-8. Image 3: A Fröebbesta planter. 2004..3. Additionally. a double-row configuration should be implemented. Willow Biomass Producer’s Handbook The design of a willow field should be carefully considered in order to ensure unproblematic and efficient planting. 8 Image source: Volk et al. it is recommended that a 20-foot break should be inserted every 500-600 feet along the row. willow rows should be designed to run across slopes where possible in order to mitigate the threat of soil erosion..2 Planting Image 2: Double-row spacing layout for short-rotation woody crops allows for the continued use of traditional agricultural equipment. 2004. 2004). and movement of machinery throughout the field. harvesting. 1997). 20 feet should be left at either end of the field. For use with existing planting and harvesting equipment. This double-row design allows for a density of 4.
The Maskiner’s Step planter requires the operator to feed whips into a set of mechanized belts. is designed to work with willow cuttings. The willow whips are 4 to 7 feet long and have a diameter of 3/8 to 3/4 inches (Kopp et al.. willow shoots can begin to sprout within 3 days to two weeks of the initial planting depending on the soil and air temperature. stem cuttings and stem whips. 2004. Once the cutting has been inserted into the hole. which is thrust into the open hole. 2002). The Salix Maskiner’s Step planter. Then. a coulter. is a slightly more automated process. The Maskiner’s Step planter is a more efficient machine. it is best scheduled to occur between late April and the end of May. 1996)... With average field conditions Central New York. which is produced in Sweden. The machine then pauses as the cut whips are fed into the freshly created holes (Abrahamson et al. The Fröebbesta planter. 1996). a vertical blade on the front of the machine. 8 to 10 inch hole in the soil. Willow Biomass Producer’s Handbook 9 . the soil will be sufficiently moist to allow for rapid root development and frost will not pose a threat to the sprouting willow stems.. 25° 30°F. The Fröebbesta planter first cuts a thin. the planting of the willow should begin. While the Step planter is more efficient in terms of planter stock and operator-hours required. The willow stem sections come in two lengths. This second course of herbicide will ensure that weeds are sufficiently controlled during the important first year of growth (Volk et al. the Fröebbesta is only able to plant a single double row and is capable of planting around half an acre of willow in an hour. In comparison. which convey the whips to the planting device. while whips are simultaneously cut to a length of 8 inches.. The willow cuttings are 8 to 10 inches long and have a diameter of 3/8 to 3/4 inches (Kopp et al. which is able to plant an average of two acres of willow per hour and is capable of planting two double rows of willow at once. which is also produced in Sweden. and should not arrive on site until just before planting.Within days after the cultimulching has taken place. which plants willow whips whips Image source: Volk et al. Furthermore.. In this way. a pair of packing wheels compacts the soil around the cutting (Abrahamson et al. Image 4: A Salix Maskiner’s Step planter. 2002). Willow cuttings are then manually fed into the machine’s planting tube. Although planting can take place as late as June. which is designed to use willow whips as planting stock. which require different machinery for planting. cuts a thin hole in the soil. Willow planting material consists of dormant sections of willow stem. it is recommended that a second round of preemergent herbicide be applied to the field after the planting has taken place. 2004). the Fröebbesta is a nimble machine that can be more easily used on smaller tracts of land in conjunction with a smaller tractor. Both whips and cuttings can be transported over great distances when frozen.
. During these last two seasons the willow should not need to be tended. Froebbesta planter or the Salix Maskiner's Step planter By the end of the first growing season. Tractor. the closed canopy will prevent any further competition by weed species. The sickle bar mower consists of a stationary guide bar and a second bar with sharp sickle sections. these cuttings have the potential to serve as the planting material for another crop of willow. 2002). Sickle Bar Mower. During the first season it is important to ensure that weeds do not become competitive with the willow and that an acceptable percentage of the planted cuttings survive to grow to trees. In the June of the second season after the willows have resumed growth. the cuttings will • Maintenance: Tractor. the field should be fertilized in order to ensure fast growth and to encourage newly sprouted roots to absorb the nutrients.3 First Growth Cycle Maintenance Within two weeks of planting.3. the willow should begin to close the canopy. the mower can cleanly cut the stems and coppicing can be preformed without damaging the root structure of the willow (Kopp et al.. Necessary Equipment such as cultivators or rototillers. have sprouted 1 to 4 stems and Fertilizer spreader will have grown to be between 3 to as much as 8 feet tall. the willow will have reached a height of around 15 – 20 feet high and should be ready for harvesting. This practice is known as coppicing and is used to encourage the sprouting of additional stems and faster growth during the second season (Kopp et al... driven back and forth across the guide bar. The fertilizer can be applied by a variety of means providing that willows are not damaged by bending below the bottom third of the stem. While the excess willow stems can be left in the field to reduce nutrient removal. 1997). • Harvesting: Numerous modified corn depending on the clone. Volk recommends that fertilizer be applied at the rate of 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre of willow (Abrahamson et al. 1997). which can be mounted to the back of a tractor. In November after the first growing season. Cultimulcher without damaging the willow shoots. With willow plants standing around 6 feet high. In this way. On average. 2002). • Planting: Tractor. it may be necessary to replant cuttings and employ mechanical weed control. Dr. 2004). Coppicing can be preformed by a sickle bar mower. Cultivator or removing weeds between rows Rototiller. By the end of June of the second growing season. The growth rate of the willow is fastest during the third and fourth growing seasons (Volk et al. the young willow trees should be cut back to a height of around two inches. 10 . 90% survival rates can be expected. If survival rates are lower than 75%. These machines are capable of • Preparation: Mower. the willow stems will have begun to sprout shoots and roots have begun to form. rainfall harvesters are suitable and specific site conditions (Abrahamson et al. After the fourth growing season.
There are several harvesting machines available specifically for willow biomass crops. 2002). Both harvesters cut the stems at around 3 – 6 inches above the ground and chip them after cutting. In contrast. In contrast.7 . the willow should be ready to harvest. which are spaced to align with each row in the doublerow configuration of willow plantations. there are harvesters that bundle whole stems. This harvest can occur during Agriculture Summary anytime in the winter season. most of the willow equipment is developed and sold in Europe (Abrahamson et al. These corn harvesters can be easily modified by replacing the corn harvesting head with a head designed for cutting willow. • Density of around 4. The Claas harvester has two large saw blades. whole stems offer the advantage of longer storage life. if necessary. Current technology allows willow to be harvested at a rate of around 1 – 2 acres in an hour (Abrahamson et al.4 Harvesting Four years after the initial planting. after the • Willows are planted in a double row leaves have fallen but before growth configuration resumes in the spring. 11 .000-8. 2002). These chips are then deposited into a container. Harvest can take place with snow cover. which allows the Bender is not restricted by the location of the rows and can be used to cut across rows. 2002). Due to the popular use of willow biomass in Sweden and other European countries..5. of up to a foot. While these harvesters cut and chip on site.1 oven dried tons per acre of chipping translates to more efficient per year handling and transport of the willow biomass. which is towed behind the harvester or by a tractor along side of the harvester. The advantage • 3.000 on the field. the Bender uses a single long chain-saw cutting chain to cut two rows simultaneously.. The harvested willow plants per acre stems can be transported as either whole stems or chipped on site..3. but increase the cost of transport and handling. The most popular and effective harvesters are the modified Claas Jaguar corn harvester and the Bender harvester (Abrahamson et al.
.4.0 eventually a threshold is reached. they are hardier than many crops and can also grow well on marginal soils (Abrahamson et al. there is a direct relationship between nutrient levels of the soil and the Soil Characteristics biomass yield harvested. however. Canastota plantation 4.5. until • Optimal pH is greater than 5. which is found in the land holdings discussed as possible site locations for willow biomass in • Loamy soil is preferable this paper (USDA.0. With willow.1 Optimal Soil Conditions In choosing an appropriate site for growing willow biomass one must consider soil properties. shrub willows grow best in nutrient-rich soils. 2002). to those that are habitually too dry or too wet from 12 . Soil Image 5: Evidence of coppicing and root structure.5 • High moisture gradient is necessary and 8. The ideal pH range is between 5. clay or siltdominated soils are all acceptable.. Like all agriculture. Willow can be grown on all types of • Depth of at least 18 inches required for roots loamy soil: sandy. less than 8. One study concludes that coarser grained soils are preferable to finer. silty soils (Schaff et al. 2006). Willow biomass crops also prefer averagely well-drained sites. 2003).
A depth of 18 inches is required for appropriate rooting and nutrient intake (Abrahamson et al. • Plant ground cover crops to minimize water-caused and then destroying it with an erosion herbicide in the spring when more willow is ready to be planted.. 4. Increased soil aeration with agricultural machines may also increase productivity by allowing the roots of the willow plants to extend 13 . 2004). 2005. to minimize the amount of fertilizer taken up by competing plants (weeds) or lost through runoff (Volk et al. 1998. 4.. It has been recommended to add nitrogen to the already growing plants in the spring. 2003). 2006).. and decreasing competition by weeds (Arevalo et al. The process involves planting a cover crop immediately after harvest in the fall. Cover crops are alternatively called green manure because of their utility in the agricultural process: adding different organic matter to the soil structure.. Also. there has yet to be much research done on the sustainability of biomass production (Kort et al. 2004). maintaining soil moisture. increasing soil microbes and nutrients. 2004). ultimately concluding this cover crop greatly reduces soil erosion but may not increase willow yield as predicted (Arevalo et al.. Overall. a previous study has indicated that biomass crops perform relatively better at lower elevations. 1996). There is also the threat of soil compaction from harvesting and planting machines.. et al. after all leaves have fallen from the shrubs (Volk. 2005). allowing it to protect the integrity of the soil during To minimize erosion… erosion… willow’s dormant winter phase... • Dutch white clover is commonly used • Generally not a concern after root system has been established Despite these concerns.2 Erosion There have been concerns regarding willow biomass causing erosion. 2004).. 1998). These apprehensions are the result of the normal agricultural processes associated with biomass. 1992)... 1992).. This can easily be accomplished by harvesting in late fall. Volk et al. 2006). woody biomass crops are associated with much less wind and water soil erosion than traditional agriculture (Kort et al. One study indicates that one to two thirds of the nitrogen and phosphorous in leaves can be reutilized by the next year’s plants (Ericsson. However. 2005). there is virtually no erosion (Volk et al.3 Nutrient Cycling and Fertilizers It is necessary to keep logging residues within the ecosystem to replenish the nutrients after each cycle (Ledin. corresponding directly with a higher moisture gradient present in those soils as they are closer to the water table (Schaff et al. 1998). Volk et al. 2002).. after two-three cycles. the degradations associated with short rotation forestry crops can be avoided through proper sustainable management (Mitchell. not evidence of atypical erosion in the harvesting of biomass (Volk et al. This is an important factor to consider when exploring the efficacy of willow biomass because erosion decreases the continuing productivity of soils (Kort et al. several studies conclude that groundcover crops virtually eliminate this worry (Arevalo. One study uses the common Dutch white clover for this end. However.improper drainage patterns. Once the underground root system has been established.
this approach is costly and brings with it the risk of leaching the soil of naturally-occurring nutrients (Mitchell. the drawback to this minimalist approach is limited yields. would 14 ..4 Health of Soil after Willow Short rotation forestry crops even have the potential to leave the soil in better condition than previous to their planting. 1992). Also. and who would potentially manage the forestry crops. 1992). with proper means of sustainable agriculture. 1992).. Another traditional agriculture practices study has shown that the deep and extensive root system of willow shrubs can actually improve the state of the soil by loosening previously compacted soil. However. such as ground cover crops and maintenance of leaf-litter. The other philosophy involves using economies of scale: very high levels of fertilizers act to guarantee the proper amounts of nutrients will be available to the plants. 4. For example.to a much larger volume of soil and thus gain access to more nutrients (Mitchell. especially if they are growing on land previously used for intensive traditional agriculture. After several cycles following sustainable methods of • Biomass requires fertilization of N and P prior to forestry both the density and planting biodiversity of these species increases to levels found in untouched fallow • Soil condition is improved in comparison to fields (Volk et al. 2004). However.rich organic matter to depth from the roots. This study is the first of its kind to measure the productivity of the conversion crop on a time scale of several years: several years after the last short rotation forestry crop was harvested. These improvements are important for Colgate when considering growing willow biomass because it means that the landowners to whom we currently lease land. at first the biodiversity of microarthropods found in soils of fields growing biomass are Nutrient Requirements equal to those of other agricultural • Logging residues should remain in system products. There are two philosophies regarding fertilizing fields for short rotation crops. 2004). Of course. soil aggregate stability—the ability of the soil to resist disruption. 2004). One study used corn as the conversion crop—an agricultural product already wellestablished in the Central New York region—to much success (Devine et al. 1992). it seems that the amount of external fertilizers needed for the optimal productivity of the willow is minimal (Ericsson. and reintroducing nutrients back into the nutrient cycle (Mitchell. returning nutrient. The ideal situation for Colgate would likely be a compromise between the two management styles just described. This nutrient increase is likely caused by the decomposition of the woody crops’ roots. typically water erosion—was improved by the forestry crops to the advantage of the corn crop (Devine et al.. This soil improvement lends well to converting the land to grow another agricultural crop after several harvesting cycles have been completed and the soil is no longer suitable for willow. One advocates using only minimal fertilizer in order to maximize the plant’s natural ability to seek out nutrients present in the environment and also to minimize costs and thus make the process economical. the concentration of carbon in the soil still increases.
there is a continuous gradient of degrees of sustainability. This conceptualization of the three components of sustainability highlights the interactions between these three seemingly independent systems 15 .1 Sustainability All too often these days. 0 Environmental Economic Social Figure1: Environmental Sustainability. In reality. 5. the concept of sustainability is complex. Ecology 5. but would in fact benefit from this adaptation with improved soil health and productivity. There is no easy way to classify actions as either sustainable or not sustainable. It is a term that is tacked on to indicate to promote an environmentally-friendly or progressive image. “sustainability” is used just as a buzz word.not only be unaffected by the conversion to growing willow.
However. the diversity observed was not significantly less than comparable natural habitats and neither 16 .3 Bird Diversity Studies by Dhondt et al. of which 39 species were sighted regularly and 21 species were found nesting (Dhondt et al. Maximizing the biodiversity in biomass plantations might require a compromise in terms of yield. 2007). By using a mixture of willow clones and maintaining a variety of ages since coppicing. However. It is best to preserve large areas of natural Image 5: Potential wildlife habitat.2 Biodiversity On a national scale. (Cook et al. Canastota. They observed 79 species of birds utilizing the SRWC plots. while S301 appeared to be avoided (Dhondt et al. surveyed avian species richness and nesting success in short rotation willow and poplar plantations in Central New York. The authors observed birds at 15 SRWC plots at six locations from 1999 to 2002 (2007) and 12 of these plots were used to determine nesting preferences (2004). With increased demand. Plot size and age of the crop since coppicing were the only significant factor related to species diversity (Dhondt et al. Nesting preferences were highly non-random. This is an incentive for conservationists and biomass researchers and producers to work together to develop biomass systems in a sustainable manner. NY willow plantation. (2004 and 2007) of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. a significant switch to biomass as a fuel source would lead to massive changes in land use. and thereby create the greatest diversity of habitats and the greatest potential for biodiversity. protecting the soil and the health of the surrounding environment will increase the longevity of any agricultural or silviculture project. 5. 2004).5. or at the very least allow for “corridors” of suitable habitat between breeding populations. Overall. habitat. Six other species had consistent territories. clones were not statistically correlated to nesting success. 2007). these concerns must be balanced against the threat of global warming and the need to develop alternative energy sources. Particularly popular clones were S25 and S365. land managers can maximize the spatial complexity of the environment. However. 1991) General principles of conservation biology should be applied when designing willow plantations. and so were most likely nesting for total of 27 species (Dhondt et al. biomass would compete with for arable land with agricultural crops and also increase the pressure to clear new farm land. Some fear this habitat conversion would result in a loss of biodiversity. 2007).
were breeding success rates (Dhondt et al.. 2007. 2004 and 2007). Figure 2. Box plots showing that bird species richness in willow plantations is not significantly different from most other habitat types. These results indicated that willow plantations are not “ecological traps”. making them population sinks. From Dhondt et al. 17 . areas which attract many species but result in low reproductive success rates.
92 (7). Since our focus is on willow silviculture. P. (1991).F. (1994). 2. we only will briefly touch upon the ecological concerns associated with forestry. Colgate’s own forested lands present another possible local source of woodchips. R. 200 Years Of Sustainability In Forestry: Lessons From History.5. Journal of Forestry. 18 . 31-6. it is quite possible to selectively harvest trees for either timber or woodchips and maintain most of the long-term productivity and biodiversity of the landscape (Hilborn et al. 1995). 5. Maintaining the forest Concern for future generations Reasonable estimates of future needs Estimates of current rates of use and regeneration A widely accepted view of appropriate rates of use Colgate currently has recommendations for sustainable logging of its forested lands in the “Colgate University Forest and Open Lands Stewardship Plan”. M. 3. This follows from the notion of multiple use. sustainable forestry maintains uneven ages of trees to promote structural diversity of habitat. In general.4 Sustainable Forestry In addition to willow plantations. Additional Reading: Gale. Wiersum. Resource managers must be aware of the export of nutrients when any organic material (like timber) is removed from a forest (Perry 1998). Floyd et al. Environmental Management. K. Journal of Forestry. (1995). We recommend reviewing the “additional reading” suggestions below for more detailed information. S. We hope that Colgate continue to pursue sustainable forms of forestry. (2001) highlight the following five necessary components of sustainable forestry: 1. J. It is also ecologically beneficial to leave occasional snags (dead trees) for their unique habitat contributions. such as recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat (Floyd et al. What Should Forests Sustain? Eight Answers. Romm. because it includes the perpetuation of forest resources other timber harvests. 89 (5). 321-29. 4. Sustainable forestry is a broader concept than sustainable yield. 19. Still. Sustainable Forests And Sustainable Forestry. 2001). 35-39. & Cordray.
which is the figure we use in our economic analysis. Slope: Created Slope raster from DEM. Soil: We selected soil types which USDA (2006) SSURGO data classifies as well or moderately-suited for mechanical planting and harvesting of wood crops. This takes into account many factors such as slope. some of the areas included in this total are too small for a cost effective willow plantation. GIS Suitability Analysis We performed a GIS suitability analysis to calculate the total area of Colgate land that is theoretically suitable for growing willow. Due to the low spatial resolution of some GIS data. This analysis was not meant to conclusively determine the feasibility of all possible sites. The area that appears suitable within the Hamilton tract has been relayed to us as approximately 12 acres. These acreage calculations are also not meant to be taken as absolute figures. Bewkes Center (40 acres). and others would probably not be used for aesthetic reasons. and found no evidence contrary to their classification as suitable. these figures should be treated as estimates. impervious layers. we examine soil characteristics at these three sites in depth. 4. 19 . and selected locations with less than 10 degree slopes A total of 485 acres of Colgate land meet the criteria we used. Land cover: We selected agricultural or easily converted land cover types (52. 82) 3. 71. 81. 6).6. and erosion potential. Streams: 10 meter buffering to protect riparian zone 5. but instead to give a general idea of where we might find large areas suitable for this kind of crop. Road access: Land parcels must border a road for planting and harvesting machinery access 2. Next. and Hamilton Street tract (8 acres) (Fig. The following five criteria were selected for on Colgate-owned land parcels: 1. Particularly large and promising sites include the Parker Farm tract (245 acres). However.
Madison County roads and Colgate land parcels with road access. 20 . Figure 4.Figure 3. 2001 NLCD land cover classifications.
Slope gradient calculation based on USGS DEM. used to select relatively flat sites.Figure 5. Figure 6. used to create stream buffer zones. Stream distance calculation on Chenango watershed hydrography network. 21 .
Soil classified as moderately or well suited for mechanical planting and harvesting of wood crops based on data from the USDA soil survey geographic database. Bewkes Center Hamilton St. Calculation of the intersection of five criteria described above. 22 .Figure 7. Tract Figure 6. Three main sites of interest are indicated. Parker Figure 8. resulting in 485 Farm acres of suitable Colgate property on which to grow willow. Overlayed on a USGS Tract topographic map. Calculation of total suitable land (485 acres).
at about 245 acres. Figure 10. one possible willow location contains about 40 acres of suitable land according to this GIS analysis. The Parker Farm tract contains the largest area of suitable land we found. The Bewkes Center.Figure 9. 23 .
Distribution of soil types within the suitable area of the Hamilton Street Tract. Other sources have given slightly larger estimates. 24 . and the major soils in suitable areas of the Bewkes Center and Parker Farm Tract are described in Table 1. Figure 12. The Hamilton Street Tract was determined to contain about 8 acres of suitable land in GIS analysis.Figure 11. The characteristics of these soils.
or poorly suited to this use. (USDA.5 . 8 to 15 percent slopes Mardin channery silt loam.3 6. It is assumed that typical site preparation will take place. Hamilton Street tract.0 4. 3 to 8 percent slopes Lordstown channery silt loam. plasticity index.5 . depth to a restrictive layer. 3 to 8 percent slopes Mardin channery silt loam. plasticity index. moderately suited. For this table.6." which is available at: http://soils.188.8.131.52 5. 0 to 3 percent slopes Palmyra gravelly loam. More detailed information about the criteria used in the ratings is available in the "National Forestry Manual. rolling Volusia channery silt loam. 3 to 8 percent slopes Wayland silt loam Sites Parker Parker Parker Hamilton Hamilton Bewkes Parker Parker Bewkes Bewkes Hamilton Parker pH at 18 inch depth 3. 2006) 25 .0 4. the unified classification. 3 to 8 percent slopes Lordstown channery silt loam. Possible ratings were: well suited.5 .6.1 .5 .7. the Parker Farm tract. with pertinent characteristics from the USDA (2006) SSURGO data. Ratings for suitability for mechanical planting of woody crops are based on slope.0 4. rock fragments on or below the surface.1 .8 6.7. rock fragments on the surface.7. content of sand.1 .3 5.8.3 5. depth to a water table.1 . Soil types found at the three most promising locations for a willow plantation. and ponding.6 . “well suited” was transcribed as “good”.Map Symbol AsB LwB LwC MaB MaC PgA PgC VoA VoB Wn Soil Description Arnot channery silt loam. The soils are described as well suited moderately suited.usda.4 Suitability for Mechanical Planting Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Moderate Good Suitability for Mechanical Harvesting Good Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Good Moderate Moderate Moderate Table 1. depth to a water table. 0 to 3 percent slopes Volusia channery silt loam.1 . content of sand. poorly suited. Ratings for suitability for mechanical harvesting of woody crops are based on slope.gov/technical/nfhandbook. 8 to 15 percent slopes Palmyra gravelly loam. and ponding. or unsuited. and Bewkes Center.7.3 4.
to provide heat to most of the campus. This limits Colgate to suppliers within a close proximity to campus. 30 Currently. The process of heating Colgate’s upper campus by burning woodchips requires a very large quantity of woodchips. Colgate purchases woodchips to be burned in the biomass heating plant which is used to heat most of upper campus. Over the past six years. $/Ton Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Jun-06 Jun-07 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Jun-08 26 . the 20 price of woodchips has 15 increased by 65 percent 10 Past and Current Prices Estimated Future Prices (Figure 1). Growing our own biomass. The local 5 price of woodchips can 0 be expected to increase more in the future as demand increases and Year this makes it very important for Colgate to explore Figure 13. in the form of willow. so much that Colgate receives multiple deliveries of woodchips everyday. Because Colgate is dependent on a local market for its supply of woodchips. The rising price of woodchips is increasing Colgate’s heating costs each year and it is important to start exploring alternative solutions. In 2002. Economic Feasibility Analysis Colgate burns biomass. Colgate is 25 paying $33 per ton. Suppliers any further than 75 miles cannot provide Colgate with woodchips as fuel costs and the time required to deliver become too high to be economically efficient. as it is cleaner and less costly than oil.1 The Current and Future Woodchip Market In the past few years. fuel costs and time become a factor in supplying Colgate with woodchips. The rising price of woodchips can be attributed to two main factors. the price of woodchips in central New York has consistently increased. The current situation is that demand for woodchips is increasing in the local market and this is driving the price of 45 woodchips up.7. burning woodchips as the primary fuel. 7. There is no doubt that burning biomass has been a good option for Colgate.5 million. In just under six years. Increasing cost of woodchips over the past six years alternatives to buying woodchips. but there are some economic concerns for the future that may threaten just how much money burning woodchips can save Colgate. has saved Colgate around $2. rather than oil. in the form of woodchips. Colgate can order woodchips from suppliers within about 75 miles of campus. is one option that Colgate can consider. 40 Colgate was paying $20 35 per ton of woodchips. Since regular deliveries are required. the dependence on local markets and the increase in local demand for woodchips. changes in supply or demand in the local area can affect the prices and supply Colgate is offered.
the cost of purchasing willow in Central New York can be expected to be around $1200 or $1800 per acre. Colgate would need to devote 1.497 acres to growing willow in order to produce enough woodchips to meet its demand each year. the present value of investing in willow increases. a local dealer located in Fredonia. which is 17. Double A Willow. Economic return of willow biomass increases directly with number of crop rotations 27 . 7. currently sells 10 inch cuttings for $0.. the present value of investing in willow decreases.965 tons.. yields this high have not been reached in central New York. as the site must be prepared and the willow must be purchased and planted. collected for over twenty years with lower costs during this period that include the cost of harvests and upkeep of the plants. and. a good portion of the costs of growing willow are experienced up front and the benefits are accrued over the 22 year cycle (Abrahamson et al.7 to 5. First rotation yields are expected to fall in the range of 3.. The upfront costs of growing willow include buying the actual plants.1 oven dried tons per acre per year (odt/A/yr). Second rotation yields increase by 35 to 100 percent. 2002). If high discount rates are applied.3 Colgate’s Potential to Grow its Own Willow Using Colgate’s average annual consumption of woodchips from 2004-2007. this takes about 22 years (Abrahamson et al. discounting the future costs and benefits can play a significant role in deciding whether or not to grow willow. 2002).7. yields can be expected to be around 12 odt/A/yr (Abrahamson et al. most of the costs are paid up front. When dealing on a large scale. NY. It is important to note that yields have been as high as 24 to 30 odt/A/yr in Sweden (Keoleian & Volk. Typical planting density is 6. This is obviously not an option at this point in time as the Colgate Forest and Open Lands Stewardship Plan states that Colgate only owns Figure 14. 2005). When growing willow. however. 2002). Costs vary depending on how much willow is purchased and how big the plants are. As was mentioned before. In order to get the full economic benefit.000 cuttings per acre and using this information.20 per cutting and 20 inch cuttings for $0.2 Willow Economics Willow is very much a long-term investment. However. depending on what size cuttings are purchased.30 per cutting. Because of the nature of the costs and benefits associated with willow. after two rotations. The benefits are. and an average yield of 12 odt/A/yr. Annual yields of willow can be expected to increase over each rotation as is illustrated in Figure 2. However. if lower discount rates are used. seven or more rotations must be completed.
Willow is less Colgate farming 200 acres of willow over the next 22 years is $638. to Colgate. 28 . Colgate would have to build a large storage unit.9 acres and is an abandoned hay field (Stewardship Plan. 262 acres are open. however. it would be possible to hire out the harvesting work and any other machinery intensive tasks. Its proximity to the road makes it easily accessible for equipment and trucks. The farmable portion of this land is currently leased out to a local farmer for $15. The Parker Farm Tract consists of 354 acres. Of the 1. However.137 acres of land (p.5 of which is forested. by growing willow.4 Concerns There are some concerns Review of Economics regarding Colgate growing its • Growing willow may not be cost-effective for own willow. Of the open and non-forested land that Colgate owns.137 acres of land identified by the Stewardship Plan. In order to store increase further willow supplies for longer than a few days. As far as offsetting the equipment costs. We believe it is a good idea for Colgate to contact this local farmer and inquire about the possibility of him growing willow on this land to sell. growing willow becomes potentially high equipment costs more and more cost-effective relative to the small scale willow production that Colgate • At today’s woodchip prices. with the exception of some scrub brush. less land will be necessary to produce a significant amount the woodchips Colgate burns. 2007).000 per year. This unit is 11. As technology improves and average yields increase. Management Unit N. we have identified the Parker Farm Tract and the Hamilton Street Tract as two potential sites where willow can be grown in the near future. These include the Colgate at this point in time lack of long-term storage facilities for woodchips and the • As woodchip prices rise.1.000 per year. Colgate would space for the same amount of have to hire out the farming work for no more than weight compared to other $48. 57. in the form of woodchips. The other potential site where willow can be grown in the near future is the Hamilton Street Tract. the present value of would be doing. Colgate can still currently produce a significant amount of the biomass it burns.686 dense than other hardwoods and would require even more storage • For this project to be cost-effective. and Colgate would not be responsible for the costs of purchasing and maintaining the necessary equipment or for storing the woodchips. 7. This tract of land is attractive because it is mainly clear. nonforested lands. and it is adjacent to a main road. 2). the process requires similar equipment to that of harvesting corn and could be hired out to a local farmer. The price of these services was unable to be determined. or woodchip prices would have to hardwoods. This would benefit Colgate as it would help stabilize the price of woodchips in the area by increasing supply.
20 per cutting. but if the price of woodchips continue to rise as they have over the past six years. 38 of the Stewardship Plan) as a good location for this.com/ price of woodchips. At the current •Website: http://doubleawillow. Applying the above plan to a larger scale should make it much more cost effective. 7.9 acre parcel is attractive because of its adjacency to a road. This cost is not discounted because it is realized upfront. This figure seems much more realistic and even if the cost of hiring out the farm work is 29 . We were unable to determine the cost of this service. Due to the small scale of this operation. and the fact that it is mostly clear. more cost-effective scale. The value of the woodchips will be today’s current value of $33 per ton and the discount rate will be five percent. the cost would have to be $2400 or less each year. This may not be realistic at Ed Carhart this point in time. and this plan was reevaluated in six years. would be valued at $43. We have identified Management Unit N of the Hamilton Street Tract (p.000 (cost to purchase willow cuttings)]. First rotation yields will be 5 odt/A/yr and the remaining six rotations will yield 12 odt/A/yr.000. but for this project to be cost effective.911 per year. it is recommended that Colgate hire out the planting and harvesting of the willow.934. Colgate could consider planting willow on a larger scale on other university owned land. As was mentioned before. Using the same assumptions as the above plan but increasing the willow farm size to 200 acres would yield a total present value of $638. after discounting at a rate of five percent. The size of the willow farm for this plan will be ten acres and Double A Willow will supply 10 inch cuttings for $0. This plan is probably not cost effective. The assumptions made for the analysis of this plan are as follows: the growing cycle will be a seven rotation cycle spanning 22 years. The entire 22 year cycle would yield a total of 2360 tons of willow [(5 tons x 10 acres x 4 years) + (12 tons x 10 acres x 18 years)] which. this figure would be increased to $91.6 Future Potential The plan described above is one way Colgate can test the feasibility of growing its own willow.686 without accounting for the unknown cost of hiring out the planting and harvesting Additional Information [$878686 (PV of willow yields) •Local supplier: Double A Willow $240. however.521 per •Farmer who leases the Parker Farm Tract: year. The estimated cost to purchase the ten inch willow cuttings for ten acres is $12.5 Recommendations To get things started we believe Colgate should do a small scale test run of willow production. it would still be important to implement in order to see if this is something Colgate can do on a bigger. this plan would be cost effective if the •Phone number: 716-672-8493 cost of hiring out the farming work is less than $48.7. this 11. Should that plan be successful. its proximity to Colgate.
this review indicates that a willow plantation can be prepared. Conclusions In this project we strove to address the feasibility for Colgate to grow its own willow biomass using all three components of sustainability: environmental. we recommend the 10-acre Hamilton Street tract as an ideal location for an initial willow test plot. Ultimately. If prices stop rising. and the Hamilton Street tract. Geographic Information Systems is employed to discern the suitability of Colgate’s landholdings for growing willow biomass. 30 . Of the initial of 485 acres of Colgate land meet these criteria. Despite these concerns. economic. and low slope. Using the criteria of road-access. Nevertheless. First of all. The planter is the most specialized piece of equipment. we used an interdisciplinary approach to integrate the diversity of our academic backgrounds. Moreover. Colgate will continue to buy woodchips as that will be the most economical solution.911 per year. If prices continue to rise. The growing uncertainty of the local woodchip market initially prompted our investigation into the environmental and economic feasibility of growing willow biomass on Colgate-owned property for use in our steam-generating wood-burning facility. we find that breeding success within willow monocultures is comparable to natural habitats. Colgate should begin experimentation on a small-scale and await shortages in the market before undertaking large-scale growing operations. this plan will become more and more cost effective. As such. and ultimately the social implications of willow farming—that is. A costbenefit analysis of the growing willow on Colgate-owned property revealed that current market conditions prevent Colgate-grown willow from becoming an economically feasible alternative to buying woodchips from outside venders. the Bewkes Center. We intended to determine if willow plantations would serve as ecological traps. maintained and harvested with only slight modifications to standard farming equipment. we preformed a GIS suitability analysis in order to determine how much of Colgate’s property is capable of successfully supporting a willow plantation. namely birds. a literature review indicates that the production of willow is similar to traditional perennial cropping systems currently employed by New York farmers. or even decline. but could be borrowed through a relationship with the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.higher than $91. the promising economic possibilities it represents to local farmers. A biological perspective is used to analyze the impacts this form of forestry would have on local biota. areas that attract many species but result in low reproductive success rates. the plan could be reevaluated further into the future to analyze whether or not it is cost effective then. land cover. Furthermore. current trends indicate that the market could allow for the production of willow on Colgate-owned land in the near future. This review highlights important factors to consider concerning the soil type and nutrient cycling associated with short rotation woody crops. 8. favorable soil. It all depends on how the price of woodchips changes in the future. we have highlighted three prime candidates for initial testing: the Parker Farm tract. A geographic perspective is used to discuss the many factors influencing soil characteristics. and social. As such. stream buffer.
. Robison. V. Effect of Organic Amendments and Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizer on Willow Biomass Production and Soil Chemical Characteristics. Colgate University Forestry and Open Lands Stewardship Plan. E. Biomass & Bioenergy.S. Joslin.. M.. Climate Change and Human Health. P. Potential Impacts of Biomass Production in The United-States on Biological Diversity. Mullen.colgate.. A.. L. 157-177. Volk. T. C. L. Trees for Carbon Sequestration Or Fossil Fuel Substitution: The Issue of Cost Vs. as a Green Manure. Annual Review of Energy and The Environment.. L. Conversion From a Sycamore Biomass Crop to a No-Till Corn System: Effects on Soils. 389... F. 23. G. H. H.. 29(1).edu/desktopdefault1.. L. H.References Abrahamson. B. 31(1). (2002). (2003).. J. S. P. Retrieved 9 April 2008 from http://www. 205208. G. Volk. Development and Validation of Aboveground Biomass Estimations for Four Salix Clones in Central New York. Sustainability and Environmental Issues Associated With Willow Bioenergy Development in New York (U.. (2004). H. N. Population and Development Review. (2004). D.. & Abrahamson. W.C.. C.(1997). 15(1). 25(4). White. Bevilacqua. & Keeler. Biomass & Bioenergy.. (2005). Ho Science Center. Briggs. Technology in Society. 1-12. A. Soil Science Society of America Journal. White.: Northeast Forests.). Hamilton. 225-233. [Anonymous]. T.. D. Thendara. 20(2). Arevalo. B. 31 . R.. P. A. G. Carbon Benefit. Tolbert. 68(1). Colgate University Environmental Council. M.. M. Willow Biomass Producer's Handbook.. L. The Effect of Common Dutch White Clover (Trifolium Repens L. Renewable Energy from Wood and Paper: Technological and Cultural Implications. Neuhauser. & Guha. 17-22. W. A.. Biomass and Bioenergy. 1007. (2007). H. 53-61. D. T. Walsh. L. Et Al. T. H. Abrahamson. Energy Forest Cultivation and The Landscape. Baral. Adegbidi.. E. N. (1998). Biomass & Bioenergy. H. D. P.. R. Bell. A. (1998). Allometric Growth and Foliar Nitrogen of Two Willow Clones. White. & Ballard. Benjamin. F. 401-431. M. J. 16.. Kopp.. Cook. on Biomass Production.aspx?tabid=2036. E. E. L. E. Biomass & Bioenergy. T.. R.. Biomass & Bioenergy. Technical Publication No. J. 41. A. D. J. (1991). Et Al.A. S. J. Hodges. & Volk. & Abrahamson. 22-31. (October 2007).Y.). E. A. D.. Devine.L. Volk. Colgate University. Collins.. 6(1-2). Volk. K. Drew. Arevalo. Beyea. 27(1). (1994).Y.
24(5).. World Energy Overview: 1995-2005. (2006). C. D.. Cerretani. Syst. Environmental and Economic Performance.. E. 673-682. (2007). P. J. A.. E. & Ludwig.. K.. 385-406. Keoleian. 429-435. V. (2002). 696-705. 12-22.. B. A. Willow Biomass Production during Ten Successive Annual Harvests. C.. Willow Helps Keep Farm Cash Flowing. and Nowak. (2007). White. Heller. & Seyfang. P. 313-319. 115-121. 1-7.. (2001). E. 146(12). H. W. Long-Term Effects of Short Rotation Forestry With Willows and Poplar on Soil Properties. 25(2). T. P. Keoleian. & Boelcke. 32(2). T. . (2004). R. Hildebrand. (2006). Energy Information Administration. & Sydenstricker. Annu. Vonhof. 87-97. Burns. (1994).. L. & Brain.. F. Journal of Forestry. Avian Species Richness and Reproduction in Short-Rotation Habitats in Central and Western New York. H.. First Willow Harvested for Wilton Power Station. 20(1).. 32 . Renewable Energy From Willow Biomass Crops: Life Cycle Energy. Kopp. & Volk. 16-17. & Volk. G. 12. Dhondt. C. Wrege. Bird Study. G. R. JuneOctober Ericsson.Dhondt. Kahle. Kopp. (2003).. T. 8-28. P. Crops.. M.. & Fillhart. R.. D. Biomass and Bioenergy. (2007). 99(2). L. Rev. D. L. 30(8-9). A.. Volk. R. Abrahamson. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. E. Ecol. 54. L. 6(1/2). I. forest Pathology. C. T. P.. H. C. H. Horne.. S. Sydenstricker. Biomass & Bioenergy. Forest Sustainability: A Discussion Guide for Professional Resource Managers. J. Biomass and Bioenergy. A. Life Cycle Assessment of a Willow Bioenergy Cropping System. 53(6). Turner. Biomass and Bioenergy. C. Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable Resources. White. Hunter. 26. A. A. K. Walters. Dickmann. A. 27(5). T. (1997) Cutting Cycle and Spacing Effects on Biomass Production by a Willow Clone in New York. Hilborn. (2005). Nutrient Cycling in Energy forest Plantations. Farmers Weekly. Nowak. 45-67. (2001). 1999.(2007). A. Biomass & Bioenergy. Peacock. Clone Preference by Nesting Birds in Short-Rotation Coppice Plantations in Central and Western New York.. Baum. V. Archives of Agronomy & Soil Science.. & Cerretani. Floyd. J. A. A.F. Effect of Plantation Design on Steminfecting form of Rust in Willow Biomass Coppice... Silviculture and Biology of Short-Rotation Woody Crops in Temperate Regions: Then and Now. H. 147. Wrege. Abrahamson. S. Biomass & Bioenergy. 8-8. K.
2(1-6). (2005). Ecophysiology of Short Rotation forest Crops. K.org/19990101faessay954/richardg-lugar-r-james-woolsey/the-new-petroleum. 28(2).. Y.P. Mead. P. Rusch.F. F. 11(2-3). 108(3). Biomass Production. & Quigley.Kopp. A. C. Forests for Energy and The Role of Planted Trees.. M. Field Performance and Biomass Production of 12 Willow and Poplar Clones in Short-Rotation Coppice in Southern Quebec (Canada). Willows Beyond Wetlands: Uses of Salix L. (1998). R.. R. Kuzovkina. D. C. 61(5). J. G. Collins. Biomass and Bioenergy.html. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. & Schorry. (1994). 249-266. (January/February 1999). C. J. I. White and L. Burns. Developments in The Production and Supply of Wood for Energy. M. & Andres. 754-761. Rehfuess.A. D. 1-9. Abrahamson.. 25-37. Genetic Improvement of Shrub Willow (Salix Spp. Willow Wood Properties. 14(4). J. T. 11. and Nowak. Lennartsson. Mitchell.. 29(1). J.F. Annals of Forest Science. T.H. E. (1996). Biomass & Bioenergy. Lugar. a Review of Soil Erosion Potential Associated With Biomass Crops. Abrahamson. FAO Corporate Document Repository.. R. J. 162(1-4). and Ecological Effects. Global. Makeschin. (1996).. A. R. Species for Environmental Projects. (2005). Mead. Lin. 33 . & Teodorescu. Phillips. Biomass & Bioenergy. (2004). Biomass and Bioenergy. Ledin. I. & Woolsey. K. Regional. Screening for Efficient Cold Hardening in a Breeding Population of Salix Using Near infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. P. 183-204. 449-454. Volk. Kort. White. Biomass & Bioenergy. (1992). (2005). Water Air and Soil Pollution. 407-421.foreignaffairs.. 5(5-8). and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions. E. The New Petroleum. Production and Economy.. M. 351-359. 125143. R. G. 75-83. T. Carbon Dioxide information analysis Center: Environmental Sciences Division. I. L. (2006). (1989). Zsuffa. Retrieved 9 April 2007 from http://www. Nutritional-Status.. Short-Rotation Plantations of Poplars and Willows on formerly Arable Land .D. forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt.. 451-457. Foreign Affairs. F. & Ogren. K. Boden. Opportunities for Improving Plantation Productivity. L. Mitchell. (2005). E. J. M. Smart.) Crops for Bioenergy and Environmental Applications in the United States.. E. D.S. 24(5).B. Renewable Energy. How Much? How Quickly? How Realistic? Biomass & Bioenergy. Labrecque.Sites. S. Woodgrass Spacing and Fertilization Effects on Wood Biomass Production by a Willow Clone. Kopp. L. & Ditsch. Cameron. Marland.
P. F. Biomass & Bioenergy. Potential Soil Carbon Sequestration and CO 2 offset By Dedicated Energy Crops in The USA.. 315-326. Effects of Spacing... D. 35-43. Proe. J. (2006). J. Productivity and Costs Based on Experience Gained in The UK. F. M.. 25(5). forest Ecology and Management.. E. Using Spatial information Technologies to Select Sites for Biomass Power Plants: a Case Study in Guangdong Province.. A. (2008). Biomass & Bioenergy. Safe.) Coppice—a Comparison Between Destructive and Non-Destructive Methods. D.. Mitchell. N.. Romm. H. Development of Decision Support Systems for Bioenergy Applications.. & Curtis.. & Craig. Effects of Soil Conditions on Survival and Growth of Black Willow Cuttings. T.. R. Gorence.. J. Li. J. X. Shi.asp Nordh. J. Perry. Strong and Secure: Reducing America’s Oil Dependence. S. (2004). N. M. V. C. D. Et Al. Biomass & Bioenergy. H. 121(1-2). P.. Stanturf. Retrieved 7 April 2007 from http://www. Munsell. Environmental Management.. X. Et Al.. (2000). J. A. J. G. Soil Carbon.. H. D. 105(8). 398-398402. (1995). 441-472.. F.. Schaff. 23(5). 29. & Parrish. Biomass & Bioenergy. Stevens. A. S. & Shields Jr. R.. & Watters. 180-191. M. Biomass and Bioenergy. C. 31(11). C. C. A. Annu. A. (2002). J. Syst.. J. R. P. Coleman.nrdc. T. X. Rev. Griffiths. Technoeconomic Assessment of Biomass to Energy. Jin.Mitchell. Middle East Oil Forever? Bulletin of the Geothermal Resources Council. Species and Coppicing on Leaf Area. J. Stevens.. (2003). & Germain.. & Verwijst. Woody Biomass Energy: an Opportunity for Silviculture on Nonindustrial Private forestlands in New York. Above-Ground Biomass Assessments and First Cutting Cycle Production in Willow (Salix Sp. Elmore. 748-763. 435-66. 9(1-5). P. Journal of Forestry. 793-801. R. Biomass & Bioenergy. toft. (1998). The Scientific Basis of Forestry.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.. Sanchez. China. P. 123-136. 32(1). After 3 Years. Ecol. Bridgwater. Ebinger. F. 27(1). 34 . Mitchell.. Light interception and Photosynthesis in Short Rotation Forestry. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. Pezeshki. Trettin. 31(6). (1996). C.. National Resource Defense Council. 25(55). Under Short-Rotation Woody Crops Grown Under Varying Nutrient and Water Availability. (2007). Luxmoore. & Watters.. M. Garten. D. Zhang. B. Lal. 18(4)... F. M. Sartori. 265-278. C.. A. (1999). 205226. Short-Rotation Forestry Operations. 1.
(2003). Growing Fuel: a Sustainability Assessment of Willow Biomass Crops. C. & Abrahamson.. & Ogreni. 411-428. Baughman. Abrahamson. 27(5).usda. Abrahamson. H. & White. (2004).. T. Natural Resources Conservation Service.usda. (2004).gov/> Verwijst.. 35(2). 571-580. P. Weih. intensive Short Rotation Forestry in Boreal Climates: Present and Future Perspectives. Biomass and Bioenergy. (2004). Morphological Traits of 30 Willow Clones and Their Relationship to Biomass Production. 34(7). B. Verwijst. A.. E.. J. T. P. T. Abrahamson. Drought Acclimation and Water Conservation in Four Willow Cultivars Used for Biomass Production. Biomass & Bioenergy. Volk. (2006). L. U. Biomass and Bioenergy. Nowak. A.. H. 715-727. J. Trees-Structure and Function.. (2001). & Taff. J. Tharakan. E. P. J. Canadian Journal of forest Research.. 27(9).. L. 620. Volk. A. Wikberg. New York. & Ogren. M.. T. 1369-1378. & White. 421-431. Department of Agriculture. Tharakan. T. Greater Potential for Renewable Biomass Energy. P.. P. (2007). S. Tree Physiology. 77(2). 70-76. Department of Agriculture.gov/ <http://SoilDataMart. K. Agroforestry and Phytoremediation.S. Volk. 281-285. 18(1). Wikbergi. E. L. Smart. 53(7). L.. A. P. Tharakan. J. P. 25(6). Interrelationships between Water Use and Growth Traits in Biomass-Producing Willows. H. A.. P...S. H.. L.nrcs.. Volk. Willows: an Underestimated Resource for Environment and Society. 2(8).nrcs. & White. Texas: U.. Variation in Drought Resistance. J. E. 35 . J. (2004). Environmental Benefits of Cropland Conversion to Hybrid Poplar: Economic and Policy Considerations. Fort Worth. Available at URL:http://SoilDataMart. Tharakan.. 1339-1346. 30(8-9). (2005). 411-418. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Madison County. Forestry Chronicle. M. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche forestiere. J. J. T. A.Tharakan. Nowak. E. (2003). Updegraff. E. The Development of Short-Rotation Willow in the Northeastern United States for Bioenergy and Bioproducts. C. L. Abrahamson. Energy Feedstock Characteristics of Willow and Hybrid Poplar Clones At Harvest Age. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Bioscience. A. P. P.. & White.. Volk.. T.