2007 Fall Nutrition Progress: Rob Harrison Hood River manuscript to JEQ thesis at http://soilslab.cfr.washington.edu/pub

1. 2007 Fall Nutrition Progress: Rob Harrison Hood River manuscript to JEQthesis at http://soilslab.cfr.washington.edu/publications/ThesisCindy.doc Fall River LTSP Carryover LTSP 2007 (Mt. Shasta) meeting results Students Funding New Fertilization studies

2. Leaching of nitrogen from the rooting zone following urea fertilization and potential impacts on surface water quality. Cynthia M. Flint

3. Leaching of nitrogen from the rooting zone following urea fertilization and potential impacts on surface water quality. Cynthia M. Flint Final words in Cindy’s thesis: “We conclude, therefore, that if forests are managed in a way that minimizes N runoff to stream water, managed forests are an essential part of maintaining a healthy Hood Canal watershed.”

4. Fall River N Pools and Fluxes

5. Matlock N Pools and Fluxes Matlock N Pools and Fluxes (kg ha-1) Understory (2006) Douglas-fir (2006) Soil (2004) Leaching (2005-2007) BO+VC BO-VC WT+VC WT-VC 74 35 29 31 9.5 9.0 5.1 4.7 3,600 4.4 17 17 32

6. Nitrogen Carryover Historical data Initial characterization (1998-2000) Last fertilizations >10 years previous Continued seedling growth monitoring

7. CARRYOVER PROJECT 2007 SUMMARY Understory Vegetation • Mean Regional Biomass • Fertilized: 73% Greater • p-value = 0.005 • Mean Regional N-Content • Fertilized: 97% Greater • p-value = 0.004

8. TREE GROWTH • Regional Mean DBH 2006 • Fertilized is 28% Greater • p-value = 0.04 • Regional Mean Height 2006 • Fertilized is 15% Greater • p-value = 0.06

9. SMC Nutrition Students: Chris Licata (start 01Fall, finish 04Win) CFR sources, Fall River, starting Ph.D. at U. Colorado (Denver) with Buck Sanford. Still working on Ph.D. paper. Kyle Peterson (start 03Fall, finished 05sum, deceased), CFR sources, Fall River, Matlock. Paper with Adrian Ares accepted to “New Forests”. Eric Sucre (start 03Fall, finish 05sum), CFR sources, going to Virginia Tech for Ph.D. with Tom Fox. Submitted paper to Can J For Research Brian Strahm (start 02Fall, MS 04, PhD 06, currently PostDoc) CFR sources, Fall River, Matlock, SMC database Cindy Dimock, (start05Fall-scheduled finish 07Spring) Gessel scholar, Hood Canal, Matlock. Paper submitted to Journal Environmental Quality. Paul Footen (MS start 07Spring) CFR sources, Carryover, Fall River, Matlock Ben Shryock (MS start 07Fall) Gessel scholar, Hood Canal, Matlock Kim Littke (PhD 07Fall) CFR sources, new fertilizer studies Dr. Ciro Coce, U Sao Paulo, Botucatu. Researcher will spend about 1 year working with SMC, about Jan 1-Dec 31, 2008.

10. Current non-SMC Funding (used for SMC projects): current total NCASI (for Fall River) $80,000 $512,000 Fall River is in its 9th year, a long time by grant funding standards; commitment for funding until March 31, 2009 Agenda 2020 (for Matlock) $50,000 $150,000Matlock funding committed through September 30, 2008 UW/CFR/Gessel fund $51,000 $224,000

11. Possible future non-SMC Funding (used for SMC projects): USDA competitive Grants Variable Charge Soils, Harrison, Strahm, Fox, Allen, Bennett New fertilization studies, Harrison, Maguire, Mainwaring Waiting for new Agenda 2020 RFP

12. Location of 36 plots on 9x9 50 ft grid (note that three potential centers were moved)

13. 50 ft 33.33 ft 0.02 ac circular plot

14. 3 10 3 8 6 5 5 5 8 2 6 3 2 1 4 1 6 9 4 7 4 7 2 1 7 6 3 4 3 2 8 6 5 5 3 1 2 5 1 1 2 7 4 4 7 6

15. 3 10 3 3 8 6 5 5 5 8 2 6 8 2 1 4 1 6 9 4 7 4 7 2 1 7 6 3 4 3 2 8 6 5 5 3 1 2 5 1 1 2 7 4 4 7 6

16. 3 10 3 8 6 5 5 5 8 2 6 3 2 1 4 1 6 9 4 7 4 7 2 1 7 6 3 4 2 6 5 3 1 2 5 1 7 4

17. 36 plots with tree centers meeting criteria 2 3 6 4 5 1 8 9 7 10 15 11 12 13 14 19 16 21 20 17 18 27 25 22 23 26 24 29 28 32 30 31 34 35 33 36

18. Pairing Measurements 2 3 6 4 5 1 1 2 8 9 7 3 10 4 15 11 12 13 5 14 6 7 19 16 21 20 17 18 8 9 27 25 22 23 26 24 10 29 11 28 32 30 31 12 13 34 35 33 36 14 15

19. 36 plots with center trees meeting criteria 2 3 6 200N 4 5 1 1 2 200N 8 9 7 200N 3 10 4 200N 15 11 12 13 5 14 200N 6 200N 7 16 21 20 17 200N 8 200N 9 200N 27 25 22 23 10 200N 29 11 32 30 200N 12 200N 13 200N 34 35 33 36 14 200N 200N 15

20. Hypothesis testing: Hypothesis 1. N fertilization has no impact on tree growth. Hypothesis 1 can be tested at the installation level, as well as at other levels (i.e. veg zones, parent material, regional, etc.). Hypothesis 1 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level.

21. Hypothesis testing: Hypothesis 1. N fertilization has no impact on tree growth. Hypothesis 1 can be tested at the installation level, as well as at other levels (i.e. veg zones, parent material, regional, etc.). Hypothesis 1 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level. Hypothesis 2. Vegetative zone cannot predict potential for response to N fertilization. Hypothesis 2 can be tested when a sufficient number of installations are placed in two different zones. We anticipate dividing the study into Picea sitchensis and Tsuga herorophylla zones. Hypothesis 2 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level.

22. Hypothesis testing: Hypothesis 1. N fertilization has no impact on tree growth. Hypothesis 1 can be tested at the installation level, as well as at other levels (i.e. veg zones, parent material, regional, etc.). Hypothesis 1 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level. Hypothesis 2. Vegetative zone cannot predict potential for response to N fertilization. Hypothesis 2 can be tested when a sufficient number of installations are placed in two different zones. We anticipate dividing the study into Picea sitchensis and Tsuga herorophylla zones. Hypothesis 2 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level. Hypothesis 3. Geologic strata cannot predict potential for response to N fertilization. Within each vegetative zone, there is the possibility to subdivide into geology types. This will depend on sufficient numbers of installations, and initial studies should probably be selected to have a sufficient number of installations within a single geologic type. Hypothesis 3 can be tested when a sufficient number of installations are placed in two different geologic type. For instance, a very useful break in geology for the Tsuga herorophylla zone would be igneous vs. sedimentary zones, as was done with an SMC study on C sequestration (Adams et al. 2005). Hypothesis 2 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level.

23. Hypothesis testing: Hypothesis 1. N fertilization has no impact on tree growth. Hypothesis 1 can be tested at the installation level, as well as at other levels (i.e. veg zones, parent material, regional, etc.). Hypothesis 1 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level. Hypothesis 2. Vegetative zone cannot predict potential for response to N fertilization. Hypothesis 2 can be tested when a sufficient number of installations are placed in two different zones. We anticipate dividing the study into Picea sitchensis and Tsuga herorophylla zones. Hypothesis 2 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level. Hypothesis 3. Geologic strata cannot predict potential for response to N fertilization. Within each vegetative zone, there is the possibility to subdivide into geology types. This will depend on sufficient numbers of installations, and initial studies should probably be selected to have a sufficient number of installations within a single geologic type. Hypothesis 3 can be tested when a sufficient number of installations are placed in two different geologic type. For instance, a very useful break in geology for the Tsuga herorophylla zone would be igneous vs. sedimentary zones, as was done with an SMC study on C sequestration (Adams et al. 2005). Hypothesis 2 would be rejected if means test different at a 0.1 level. Depending on how much of the proposed work is done, other hypotheses related to soil type, moisture, nutrients, and other factors can be written and tested. Effort is already underway (i.e. Appendix 2) to develop funding that require the proposed study for the additional work to be viable.