Upload
connor-hawkins
View
17
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Vector Analysis: Does it really predict growth response?. Mariann Johnston, SUNY-ESF Ranger School. Shoestring Satellite Experiment: The Adirondack Screening Trials. Individual tree fertilization trials James F. Dubuar Memorial Forest, Adirondack Park 2 Species - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Vector Analysis: Does it really predict growth response?Mariann Johnston, SUNY-ESF Ranger School
Shoestring Satellite Experiment:The Adirondack Screening Trials
Individual tree fertilization trials James F. Dubuar Memorial Forest,
Adirondack Park 2 Species
Sugar maple (dom/codom, ~30 cm dbh)
Am. beech (intermediate, ~10 cm dbh)
6 Treatments screened
Shoestring Satellite Experiment:The Treatments
Control N1: 30 N (urea) N1P1: 30 N + 30 P (MAP + urea) N2: 200 N N2P2: 200 N + 100 P N2P2KB: 200 N + 100 P + 200 K + 3
B
One-time application
Shoestring Project Prelim
Timeline
2010 May: Fertilized, Measured July-Aug: Foliage collected, dried,
weighed 2011
Feb-Apr: ICP and C/N analyses July: Vector analyses presented Nov: Remeasurements
Today: Two-Year Basal Area Response
Vector Analysis
Foliar diagnostic technique Predicts nutrient deficiencies
Assumes that foliage response is a predictor of tree yield response
Did it work?
Sugar Maple
Vector analysis said:
Response to N2P2KB will occur N, P, K were deficient
Sugar Maple Growth Response
Contro
lN1
N1P1 N2
N2P2
N2P2K
B0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
Treatment
2-Y
ear
BA
Resp
on
se
(%)
No significant differences between treatments
American Beech
Vector analysis said:
No growth response to any fertilization treatment will occur
Beech Growth Response
Control N1 N1P1 N2 N2P2N2P2KB0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Treatment
2-Y
ear
BA
Resp
on
se
(%)
0.003
0.090.17
0.020.07
p-values:
Conclusions
Did vector analysis predict growth response? No, not really (2-yr BA)
But . . . Foliage-damaging spring freeze
occurred at time of fertilization Height, volume growth were not
analyzed Continue monitoring for future
responses
Conclusions
Beech responded to fertilization! Intermediate crown class, understory
cohort Is beech a ‘nutrient hog’? What are the ecological implications?
The End
60 80 100 120 140 16060
80
100
120
140
160
Relative Nutrient Content
Re
lati
ve
Nu
trie
nt
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
Graphical Vector Analysis100
A: Dilution
B: No Change
Relative Foliage Biomass
C: Deficiency
D: Luxury Consumption
E: Toxicity
F: Antagonism
Sugar Maple Growth
Mean dbh Yr 0: 34.6 cm Mean dbh Yr 2: 35.0 cm Average BA response of 2.4% No differences between
treatments were detected Predicted growth responses not
apparent in diameter response
Beech Growth
Mean dbh Yr 0: 9.9 cm Mean dbh Yr 2: 10.7 cm Average BA response of 18.1% All treatments showed significant (p
< 0.05) growth compared to control except for N2 (200 kg N)