Fertilizing Interior Forests: Fertilizing Interior Forests: the scientific basis the scientific basis (and some informed speculation) (and some informed speculation) Rob Brockley Rob Brockley B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range Kalamalka Forestry Centre Kalamalka Forestry Centre Vernon, BC Vernon, BC
130
Embed
Fertilizing Interior Forests: the scientific basis (and some informed speculation) Rob Brockley B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range Kalamalka Forestry Centre.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Fertilizing Interior Forests:Fertilizing Interior Forests:the scientific basisthe scientific basis(and some informed speculation)(and some informed speculation)
Rob BrockleyRob BrockleyB.C. Ministry of Forests and RangeB.C. Ministry of Forests and Range
Kalamalka Forestry CentreKalamalka Forestry CentreVernon, BCVernon, BC
Why fertilize?
Why fertilize?
Every tree to be harvested in the next 40-60 years is in the ground today
Why fertilize?
Every tree to be harvested in the next 40-60 years is in the ground today
Forest fertilization is a proven silvicultural treatment for accelerating the operability of established stands without sacrificing harvest volume
Why fertilize?
Every tree to be harvested in the next 40-60 years is in the ground today
Forest fertilization is a proven silvicultural treatment for accelerating the operability of established stands without sacrificing harvest volume
Fertilization can be used strategically to impact the amount and timing of future harvest
How fertilization mitigates MPB mortalityConceptual
Har
vest
vol
ume
Are
a
age class distribution
years from now 2500
MPB mortality area
How fertilization mitigates MPB mortalityConceptual
Are
a
age class distribution
years from now 2500
MPB mortality area
Fertilizing 30- to 70-year-old stands (blue) can increase harvest volumes 20–40 years from now
Har
vest
vol
ume
How fertilization mitigates MPB mortalityConceptual
Har
vest
vol
ume
Are
a
age class distribution
years from now 2500
MPB mortality area
Fertilizing 30- to 70-year-old stands (blue) can increase harvest volumes 20–40 years from now
Fertilizing 15- to 30-year-old stands (yellow) can increase harvest volumes 40–70 years from now
Fertilization research in the BC interior
Lodgepole pine
Fertilization research in the BC interior
Lodgepole pine ~ 70 screening trials
Fertilization research in the BC interior
Lodgepole pine ~ 70 screening trials ~ 50 area-based trials
Relative 6-year BA response following N fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=46)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Relative 6-year BA response following N fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=46)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Relative 6-year BA response following N fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=46)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Relative 6-year BA response following N fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=46)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Relative 6-year BA response following N fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=46)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
BA response following N and N+S fertilizationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=26)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Relative 6-year BA response (control=100)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
N
N+S
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 6-year volume response of lodgepole pine in north-central B.C. EP 886.01 (n=8)
13%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Control N N+S
Treatment
Vol
ume
incr
emen
t
(m3/h
a)
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 6-year volume response of lodgepole pine in north-central B.C. EP 886.01 (n=8)
37%
13%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Control N N+S
Treatment
Vol
ume
incr
emen
t
(m3/h
a)
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 6-year volume response of lodgepole pine in south-central B.C. EP 886.01 (n=7)
23%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Control N N+S
Treatment
Vol
ume
incr
emen
t
(m3/h
a)
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 6-year volume response of lodgepole pine in south-central B.C. EP 886.01 (n=7)
23% 27%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Control N N+S
Treatment
Vol
ume
incr
emen
t
(m3/h
a)
6-year relative BA response vs. initial foliar N
100
150
200
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Pre-fertilization foliar N (%)
6-ye
ar r
elat
ive
BA
res
pons
e (c
ontr
ol=
100)
R2 = 0.49
6-year relative BA response vs. initial foliar SO4
80
130
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Pre-fertilization foliar sulphate-S (ppm)
6-ye
ar r
elat
ive
BA
res
pons
e (c
ontr
ol=
100)
R2 = 0.55
Lodgepole pine foliar boron concentrationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=58)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Foliar boron (ppm)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Lodgepole pine foliar boron concentrationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=58)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Foliar boron (ppm)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Lodgepole pine foliar boron concentrationRelative cumulative frequency distribution (n=58)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Foliar boron (ppm)
Rel
ativ
e cu
mul
ativ
e fr
eque
ncy
Effects of N and B fertilization on foliar B concentrationEP 886.05
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 6 12
Years after fertilization
Fol
iar
boro
n (p
pm) Control 200N
critical value
Effects of N and B fertilization on foliar B concentrationEP 886.05
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 6 12
Years after fertilization
Fol
iar
boro
n (p
pm) Control 200N 200N+3B
critical value
Fertilization research in the BC interior
Lodgepole pine ~ 70 screening trials ~ 50 area-based trials
Douglas-fir
Fertilization research in the BC interior
Lodgepole pine ~ 70 screening trials ~ 50 area-based trials
Douglas-fir 5 screening trials
Fertilization research in the BC interior
Lodgepole pine ~ 70 screening trials ~ 50 area-based trials
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year needle mass of Douglas-firEP 886.08 (n=5)
90
100
110
120
130
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Rel
ativ
e ne
edle
mas
s(c
ontr
ol=
100)
+ complete - complete
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year needle mass of Douglas-firEP 886.08 (n=5)
90
100
110
120
130
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Rel
ativ
e ne
edle
mas
s(c
ontr
ol=
100)
+ complete - complete
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year foliar N/S ratio in Douglas-firEP 886.08 (n=5)
0
10
20
30
40
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Fol
iar
N/S
rat
io
+ complete - complete
critical level
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year foliar N/S ratio in Douglas-firEP 886.08 (n=5)
0
10
20
30
40
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Fol
iar
N/S
rat
io
+ complete - complete
critical level
Douglas-fir fertilization research
5 screening trials (SBS, ICH)
6 area-based trials (ICH)
Douglas-fir fertilization research
5 screening trials (SBS, ICH)
6 area-based trials (ICH) 19-34 years
Douglas-fir fertilization research
5 screening trials (SBS, ICH)
6 area-based trials (ICH) 19-34 years SI 24-29 m @ 50 years
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume increment of Douglas-firEP 886.01 (n=5)
20%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Control N N+S
Treatment
Sta
nd v
olum
e in
crem
ent
(m3/h
a)
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume increment of Douglas-firEP 886.01 (n=5)
23%20%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Control N N+S
Treatment
Sta
nd v
olum
e in
crem
ent
(m3/h
a)
Foliar N/S ratio by treatment and yearEP 886.01 (Douglas-fir; n=5)
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3
Years after fertilization
Fol
iar
N/S
rat
io
Control N N+Scritical level
Foliar N/S ratio by treatment and yearEP 886.01 (Douglas-fir; n=5)
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3
Years after fertilization
Fol
iar
N/S
rat
io
Control N N+Scritical level
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume increment of Douglas-firEP 886.01 Inst. #25
34%34%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Control N N+S
Treatment
Sta
nd v
olum
e in
crem
ent
(m3/h
a)
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume increment of Douglas-firEP 886.01 Inst. #28
12%9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Control N N+S
Treatment
Sta
nd v
olum
e in
crem
ent
(m3/h
a)
Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume incrementby initial foliar N class
10 m3
9%24 m3
30%
15 m3
14%25 m3
31%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
< 1.15% > 1.15%
Vol
ume
incr
emen
t
(m
3/h
a)
Control N N+S
Other relevant studies
Site and stand characteristics of the Inland NW Douglas-fir fertilizer installations (n=94)Moore et al. (1991)
Characteristic Mean Min. Max.
Site index (m @ 50 yr) 21 12.5 30
Age (yr) 65 27 100
Quadratic mean dbh (cm) 26.2 15.5 42.4
Trees/ha 660 254 1774
Total volume (m3/ha) 259 52 582
Effects of fertilization on relative 6-year volume response of Douglas-fir Inland Northwest (Moore et al. 1991)
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
N. Idaho Central Wash. NE Wash.
Region
Vol
ume
resp
onse
(%
)
Effect of N fertilization on 6-year gross volume increment of Douglas-fir in the Inland NWMoore et al. (1991)
13%25%
16%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
N. Idaho Centr. Wash. NE Wash.
Treatment
Sta
nd v
olum
e in
crem
ent
(m3/h
a)
6-year net basal area response following N fertilizationby N application rate and foliar K status (from Mika and Moore 1990)
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
BA
res
pons
e (
m2/h
a)
225N 450N
Poor Good
Foliar K status
6-year net basal area response following N fertilizationby N application rate and foliar K status (from Mika and Moore 1990)
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
BA
res
pons
e (
m2/h
a)
225N 450N
Poor Good
Foliar K status
6-year net volume response following N fertilizationby foliar K status (from Brockley 2006)
-4
0
4
8
12
16
20
Vol
ume
resp
onse
(m
3/h
a) N N+S
Poor (n=1) Good (n=5)
Foliar K status
Root tip phenolic:sugar concentration ratios in Douglas-fir seedlings supplied with different amounts of N and K(from Shaw et al. 1998)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Low K High K
Phe
nol/s
ugar
rat
io
Low N High N
Interior spruce fertilization research
Effects of broadcast burning on foliar N status of white spruce plantations in the B.C. interiorCurran and Ballard (1990)
N nutrient status Burned Unburned Total
Moderate to severedeficiency
8 0 8
Mild to no deficiency 3 5 8
Total 11 5 16
Interior spruce fertilization research
14 screening trials (SBS, ICH, ESSF)
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year needle mass of interior spruce (n=10)Swift and Brockley (1994)
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Rel
ativ
e ne
edle
mas
s(c
ontr
ol=
100)
+ complete - complete
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year needle mass of interior spruce (n=10)Swift and Brockley (1994)
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Rel
ativ
e ne
edle
mas
s(c
ontr
ol=
100)
+ complete - complete
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year foliar N/S ratio in interior spruce (n=10)Swift and Brockley (1994)
05
10
15202530
3540
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Fol
iar
N/S
rat
io
+ complete - complete
critical level
Effects of individual and combined applications of N and “complete mix” fertilizer on 1st year foliar N/S ratio in interior spruce (n=10)Swift and Brockley (1994)
05
10
15202530
3540
0 100 200
N application rate (kg/ha)
Fol
iar
N/S
rat
io
+ complete - complete
critical level
Effect of fertilization on 3-year height increment of young Engelmann spruce in the ESSFdc