Ecosystem services of poplar at long‐term phytoremediation sites in the Midwest and Southeast, United States

Ronald S. Zalesny, William L. Headlee, Gayathri Gopalakrishnan, Edmund O. Bauer, Richard B. Hall, Dennis W. Hazel, Jud G. Isebrands, Louis A. Licht, M. Cristina Negri, Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols, Donald L. Rockwood and Adam H. Wiese

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 2019, vol. 8, issue 6

Abstract: Short rotation woody crops (SRWCs) including Populus species and their hybrids (i.e., poplars) are ideal for incorporating biomass production with phytotechnologies such as phytoremediation. To integrate these applications, 15 poplar plantings from nine long‐term phytoremediation installations were sampled from 2012 to 2013 in the Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin) and Southeast (Alabama, Florida, North Carolina) United States. In this review, we report summary results of this sampling and how performance at each site compared with comparable phytoremediation systems in the literature. We review significant genotypic differences from each planting within the context of provisioning (i.e., biomass production) and regulating (i.e., carbon sequestration) ecosystem services and how they relate to the need for a cleaner environment during times of accelerated ecological degradation. Overall, the contaminated poplar sites provided these ecosystem services comparable to noncontaminated poplar sites used for bioenergy and biofuels feedstock production. For example, phytoremediation trees at the Midwestern sites had biomass values ranging from 4.4 to 15.5 Mg ha−1 y−1, which was ~20% less relative to bioenergy trees (p = .0938). Results were similar for diameter and carbon, with some genotype × environment interactions resulting in phytoremediation trees exhibiting substantially greater growth and productivity (i.e., +131% at one site). As illustrated in the current review, phytoremediation success can be increased with the identification and deployment of genotypes tailored to grow well and tolerate a broad diversity of contaminants (generalists) (i.e., ‘DN34’, ‘NM6’, ‘7300501’) versus those that significantly outperform their counterparts under unique site conditions (specialists) (i.e., ‘220‐5’, ‘51‐5’, ‘S13C20’). This article is categorized under: Concentrating Solar Power > Climate and Environment Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Science and Materials

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.349

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:wireae:v:8:y:2019:i:6:n:e349

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=2041-8396

Access Statistics for this article

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment is currently edited by Peter Lund and John Byrne

More articles in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().