1 / 6

1. Both procedures have advantages: Mehlich: higher correlation

1. Both procedures have advantages: Mehlich: higher correlation Bray: visible differences in response Both require more data. 2. Stat. Method Anal. Method Model R 2 CL ________________________________________________________________________________________________

taite
Download Presentation

1. Both procedures have advantages: Mehlich: higher correlation

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. 1. Both procedures have advantages: Mehlich: higher correlation Bray: visible differences in response Both require more data

  2. 2. Stat. Method Anal. Method Model R2 CL ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Quadratic Bray & Kurtz ___________________________ -970 ____ Linear-Plateau Bray & Kurtz ___________________________ 30 ____ Square Root Bray & Kurtz ___________________________ 1.69 ____ Cate Nelson Bray & Kurtz ___________________________ 23 ____ Quadratic Mehlich III ___________________________ -1.06 ____ Linear-Plateau Mehlich III ___________________________ 34 ____ Cate-Nelson Mehlich III ___________________________ 30 ____ Square Root Mehlich III ___________________________ 5.79 ____ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ CL - critical soil test level

  3. Need more farmer data • Repeat step 1 until the ideal procedure was identified

  4. Stat. Method Farmer Model R2 FR EFR ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Quadratic 1 ___________________________________ 166 144 ____ Linear Plateau 1 ___________________________________ 100 ____ ____ Square Root 1 ___________________________________ 1244 275 ____ Cate-Nelson 1 ___________________________________ 115 ____ ____ Quadratic 2 ___________________________________ 145 124 ____ Linear Plateau 2 ___________________________________ 50 ____ ____ Square Root 2 ___________________________________ 208 110 ____ Cate-Nelson 2 ___________________________________ 50 ____ ____ Quadratic 3 ___________________________________ 139 106 ____ Linear Plateau 3 ___________________________________ 54 ____ ____ Square Root 3 ___________________________________ 205 74 ____ Cate-Nelson 3 ___________________________________ 75 ____ ____ Quadratic 4 ___________________________________ 138 51 ____ Linear Plateau 4 ___________________________________ 47 ____ ____ Square Root 4 ___________________________________ 170 29 ____ Cate-Nelson 4 ___________________________________ 75 ____ ____ Mitscherlich 1 ___________________________________ 398 146 ____ Mitscherlich 2 ___________________________________ 205 90 ____ Mitscherlich 3 ___________________________________ 202 75 ____ Mitscherlich 4 ___________________________________ 138 40 ____ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ FR - recommended fertilization rate EFR - recommended economic fertilization rate

  5. 4. P recommendation Table Mehlich 3 % Sufficiency Fert. Rec. 0-5 10 100 5-15 25 80 15-20 35 60 20-30 65 40 >30 100 0

  6. All sites showed some response to applied P. The need for a site with higher soil test P was evident in this example

More Related