430 likes | 591 Views
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results. Relationship between foliar N analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion.
E N D
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results
Relationship between foliar N analytical methodologiesdry combustion vs. wet digestion
Relationship between foliar S analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology • Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology • Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation • “Normalization” requires inter-laboratory comparisons
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology • Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation • “Normalization” requires inter-laboratory comparisons • The “normalization” process does not make inferences about the quality of foliar nutrient data
“Normalization” spreadsheet (2012) = 0.561x + 0.052 = 0.840x + 0.036 = 0.677x + 0.019 = 0.720x + 0.026
“Normalization” spreadsheet (2012) = 0.786x + 0.134 = 1.004x + 0.007 = 1.057x – 8.03 = 0.903x + 1.73
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples • One sub-sample was shipped to each lab
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples • One sub-sample was shipped to each lab • For each nutrient, laboratory results were subjected to regression analysis
Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples • One sub-sample was shipped to each lab • For each nutrient, laboratory results were subjected to regression analysis • The new equations were used to revise the 2012 “normalization” spreadsheet
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data = 0.9492x = (0.1714x2) + (0.8504x) = (0.3592x2) + (0.7346x) = 1.0249x
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data = 0.9584x = (0.9558x) – (0.6267x2) = (1.4164x) – (0.0008x2) = (0.8732x) – (0.0012x2)