MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biomass production and nutrient cycling in short-rotation coppice willow (Salix spp.) bioenergy plantations in Saskatchewan, Canada

2013· article· en· W10290304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.D. Hangs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillowShort rotation coppiceBioenergyBiomass (ecology)CoppicingShort rotation forestryAgroforestryCyclingNutrient cycleEnvironmental scienceNutrientSalix viminalisProduction (economics)AgronomyGeographyWoody plantForestryBiofuelEcologyBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomass energy is currently the largest renewable contributor to global energy supply and there is increasing demand for bioenergy feedstock. Consequently, the production of purpose-grown woody bioenergy crops, such as short rotation coppice (SRC) willow, is expected to proliferate. Although the economic and environmental benefits associated with SRC willow production are well documented, systematic assessments of nutrient cycling within these plantations are rare. The objective of this study was to examine biomass production and biogeochemical cycling of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) during an initial four-year rotation of six willow varieties grown at four plantations along a 500 km north-south pedoclimatic gradient within Saskatchewan, Canada. Nutrient budgets were also calculated after quantifying various nutrient inputs (e.g., atmospheric deposition, soil mineral weathering, and organic matter mineralization), outputs (e.g., above- and below-ground biomass, leaching, and denitrification), and transfers (e.g., canopy exchange, leaf litter decomposition, and fine root turnover) affecting the plant available soil nutrient pool. Total stem, leaf litter, and below-ground (primarily fine roots) biomass production after four years averaged 19.0, 7.1, and 12.5 Mg ha-1, respectively, with corresponding soil nutrient budget deficits of 17, 39, 112, 271, and 74 kg ha-1 of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg, respectively, but a soil S surplus of 60 kg ha-1. Despite willow’s relatively low nutrient-demanding nature, negligible leaching and denitrification losses, and substantial nutrient cycling from leaf litter, the nutrient export in harvested biomass over multiple rotations will require soil nutrient amendments, particularly N and P, to maintain plantation productivity. Given the apparent eventual need for supplemental fertility to support adequate willow growth over the 22-yr plantation life span, the fate of broadcast 15N-labelled fertilizer was also examined. Though the willow accumulated less than ⅓ of the applied fertilizer N after one year, the majority of the residual fertilizer N (51%) remained available for willow uptake in subsequent years. Further research is needed to track the fate of applied fertilizers over multiple rotations to better understand fertilizer dynamics for optimizing SRC willow agronomy; thus helping to promote its viability as a biomass energy feedstock option.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207