1 / 15

Vector Analysis: Does it really predict growth response?

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

connor-hawkins
Download Presentation

Vector Analysis: Does it really predict growth response?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Vector Analysis: Does it really predict growth response? Mariann Johnston, SUNY-ESF Ranger School

  2. 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

  3. 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 Shoestring Project Prelim One-time application

  4. 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

  5. Vector Analysis • Foliar diagnostic technique • Predicts nutrient deficiencies • Assumes that foliage response is a predictor of tree yield response • Did it work?

  6. Sugar Maple • Vector analysis said: • Response to N2P2KB will occur • N, P, K were deficient

  7. Sugar Maple Growth Response No significant differences between treatments

  8. American Beech • Vector analysis said: • No growth response to any fertilization treatment will occur

  9. Beech Growth Response p-values: 0.003 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.17

  10. 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

  11. Conclusions • Beech responded to fertilization! • Intermediate crown class, understory cohort • Is beech a ‘nutrient hog’? • What are the ecological implications?

  12. The End

  13. Graphical Vector Analysis 100 Relative Foliage Biomass E: Toxicity D: Luxury Consumption C: Deficiency B: No Change F: Antagonism A: Dilution

  14. 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

  15. 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)

More Related