Economic potential of agricultural-riparian shrub willow: An evaluation of the biomass producing capabilities and costs of cultivating Salix viminalis downslope of potato cropping systems in PEI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shrub willow (Salix spp.) is increasingly grown as a biomass crop and for a range of environmental applications. Merging the economic and environmental objectives of willow production may facilitate more widespread adoption by reducing production costs and justifying willow cultivation in traditional agricultural settings. Incorporating willow in agricultural-riparian transition areas, particularly in intensive or high-input agricultural systems, can enhance watercourse protection from diffuse pollutants, mitigate indirect agricultural N2O emissions, and sequester carbon. However, biomass accrual and economic feasibility needs quantification on localized scales. This study investigated the biomass accrual of 9 agricultural-riparian willow buffers in Prince Edward Island, Canada, receiving no direct fertilization. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus assimilation was measured in stem and root biomass, limitations on growth assessed, and benefit-cost analysis was conducted to determine opportunities for bioenergy use and deployment. First rotation agricultural-riparian Salix viminalis displayed considerable site-to-site variation in biomass production, with water availability being the primary limiting factor on growth. Mean total plant biomass and annual yield ranged from 0.54 to 7.9 kg dry matter plant−1 and 0.25–16.59 Mg ha−1 yr−1 (mean 3.9), respectively. CO2 fixation was 0.67–46.64 Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1, of which 0.23–15.7 Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1 was root biomass, indicative of long-term sequestration. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal was 6.05–39.1 (mean 23.3) and 1.1–4.8 (mean 2.8) kg ha−1 yr−1. Benefit-cost analysis revealed that shrub willow production can be economically viable for on-farm heating when yields exceeding 5.6 Mg dry matter ha−1yr−1 are achieved, but off-farm sale is not currently economically justified.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".