The effect of the planting depth of cuttings on biomass of short rotation willow

References

• Abrahamson LP, Volk TA, Smart LB, Cameron KD. 2010. Shrub willow biomass producer’s handbook.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess D, Hendrickson OQ, Roy L. 1990. The importance of initial cutting size for improving the growth performance of Salix alba L. Scand J Forest Res. 5:215–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter LT, Pezeshki SR, Shields FD. 2008. Responses of nonstructural carbohydrates to shoot removal and soil moisture treatments in Salix nigra. Trees. 22:737–748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishikawa S. 1983. Ecological studies on the floodplain vegetation in the Tohoku and Hokkaido districts, Japan. Ecol Rev. 20:73–114.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson RD. 1973. Diurnal changes in soil water content during drying. In: Bruce RR, editor. Field soil water regime. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy; p. 37–55.
   Google Scholar
• Labrecque M, Teodorescu TI, Babeux P, Cogliastro A, Daigle S. 1994. Impact of herbaceous competition and drainage conditions on the early productivity of willows under short-rotation intensive culture. Can J Forest Res. 24:493–501.
   Google Scholar
• Lantmännen. 2012. Manual for SRC willow growers.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi P. 1999. Length of cuttings in establishment and production of short-rotation plantations of Salix ‘Aquatica’. New For. 18:161–177.
   Google Scholar
• Sakuma T, Iizuka F, Okajima H. 1975. Studies on the behaviour of salts under unsaturated flow in soils (Part 1): water and chloride movement in unsaturated soil columns. J Sci Soil Manure Jpn. 46:126–132. in Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Savage JA, Cavender-Bares J, Verhoeven A. 2009. Willow species (genus: salix) with contrasting habitat affinities differ in their photoprotective responses to water stress. Funct Plant Biol. 36:300–309.
   Google Scholar
• Snowdon K, Mclvor I, Nicholas I. 2008. Energy farming with willow in New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Ueno N, Kanno H, Seiwa K. 2006. Sex differences in shoot and leaf dynamics in the dioecious tree Salix sachalinensis? Can J Bot. 84:1852–1859.
   Google Scholar
• Ueno N, Seiwa K. 2003. Gender-specific shoot structure and functions in relation to habitat conditions in a dioecious tree, Salix sachalinensis. J For Res. 8:9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Verwijst T, Lundkvist A, Edelfeldt S, Forkman J, Nordh N-E. 2012. Effects of clone and cutting traits on shoot emergence and early growth of willow. Biomass Bioenerg. 37:257–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigl F, Rewald B. 2014. Size matters? – The diverging influence of cutting length on growth and allometry of two Salicaceae clones. Biomass Bioenerg. 60:130–136.
   Google Scholar
• Volk TA, Verwijst T, Tharakan PJ, Abrahamson LP, White EH. 2004. Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front Ecol Environ. 2:411–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weih M, Bonosi L, Ghelardini L, Ronnberg-Wastljung AC. 2011. Optimizing nitrogen economy under drought: increased leaf nitrogen is an acclimation to water stress in willow (Salix spp.). Ann Bot. 108:1347–1353.
   Google Scholar
• Weih M, Nordh N-E. 2002. Characterising willows for biomass and phytoremediation: growth, nitrogen and water use of 14 willow clones under different irrigation and fertilisation regimes. Biomass Bioenerg. 23:397–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikberg J, Ogren E. 2007. Variation in drought resistance, drought acclimation and water conservation in four willow cultivars used for biomass production. Tree Physiol. 27:1339–1346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson JM, Evans EJ, Bilsborrow PE, Wright C, Hewison WO, Pilbeam DJ. 2007. Yield of willow cultivars at different planting densities in a commercial short rotation coppice in the north of England. Biomass Bioenerg. 31:469–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamora DS, Apostol KG, Wyatt GJ. 2014. Biomass production and potential ethanol yields of shrub willow hybrids and native willow accessions after a single 3-year harvest cycle on marginal lands in central Minnesota, USA. Agrofor Syst. 88:593–606.
   Google Scholar