Post on 14-Jan-2016
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data
Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results
Relationship between foliar N analytical methodologiesdry combustion vs. wet digestion
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.00.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.0
% N (dry combustion)
% N
(w
et
dig
es
tio
n)
Relationship between foliar S analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.100.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
% S (dry combustion)
% S
(w
et
dig
es
tio
n)
“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
Laboratory foliar N comparison (2012)PSAI vs. MoE
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.50.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
% Nitrogen (MoE)
% N
itro
ge
n (
PS
AI)
y = 0.786x + 0.1336R2 = 0.775
Laboratory foliar S comparison (2012) PSAI vs. MoE
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.090.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
% Sulphur (MoE)
% S
ulp
hu
r (P
SA
I)
y = 1.005x + 0.0064R2 = 0.762
“Normalization” spreadsheet (2012)
PSAI MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200
P (%) 0.145
K (%) 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110
S (%) 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0
N:S
N:P
N:K
N:Ca
N:Mg
“Normalization” spreadsheet (2012)
PSAI MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200
P (%) 0.145 0.133
K (%) 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.144
Mg (%) 0.110 0.105
S (%) 0.091 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0
N:S 13.2
N:P 9.0
N:K 2.7
N:Ca 8.3
N:Mg 11.5
“Normalization” spreadsheet (2012)
PSAI MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200
P (%) 0.145 0.133
K (%) 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.144
Mg (%) 0.110 0.105
S (%) 0.091 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0
N:S 13.2 13.2
N:P 8.3 9.0
N:K 2.7 2.7
N:Ca 6.5 8.3
N:Mg 10.9 11.5
= 0.561x + 0.052
= 0.677x + 0.019
= 0.720x + 0.026
= 0.840x + 0.036
“Normalization” spreadsheet (2012)
PSAI MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.077
P (%) 0.145 0.133 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.415 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.144 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.105 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.098
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0 75.0 71.3
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.3
N:S 13.2 13.2 13.2 11.0
N:P 8.3 9.0 8.3 7.4
N:K 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.4
N:Ca 6.5 8.3 6.5 5.8
N:Mg 10.9 11.5 10.9 9.8
= 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
Laboratory foliar N comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.00.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.0
% Nitrogen (MoE)
% N
itro
ge
n (
PS
AI)
y = 0.958xR2 = 0.959
Laboratory foliar S comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.200.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
f(x) = − 0.626744441576666 x² + 0.955818442863629 xR² = 0.996122855418174
% Sulphur (MoE)
% S
ulp
hu
r (P
SA
I)
Laboratory foliar P comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.350.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
f(x) = 0.949246219750039 xR² = 0.998330009127891
% Phosphorus (MoE)
% P
ho
sp
ho
rus
(P
SA
I)
Laboratory foliar K comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.350.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
f(x) = 0.949246219750039 xR² = 0.998330009127891
% Potassium (MoE)
% P
ota
ss
ium
(P
SA
I)
Laboratory foliar Ca comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.200.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20f(x) = 0.359162995512975 x² + 0.734591772839139 xR² = 0.996003359942529
% Calcium (MoE)
% C
alc
ium
(P
SA
I)
Laboratory foliar Mg comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.240.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.24f(x) = 1.02490310339437 xR² = 0.99859621254757
% Magnesium (MoE)
% M
ag
ne
siu
m (
PS
AI)
Laboratory foliar B comparison PSAI vs. MoE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800
10
20
30
40
50
60
f(x) = − 0.00123186769084541 x² + 0.873218070017739 xR² = 0.99735810044827
ppm Boron (MoE)
pp
m B
oro
n (
PS
AI)
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%)
P (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Mg (%)
S (%)
SO4 (ppm)
B (ppm)
N:S
N:P
N:K
N:Ca
N:Mg
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200
P (%) 0.145
K (%) 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110
S (%) 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0
N:S
N:P
N:K
N:Ca
N:Mg
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200
P (%) 0.145
K (%) 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110
S (%) 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0
N:S 13.2
N:P 8.3
N:K 2.7
N:Ca 6.5
N:Mg 10.9
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200
P (%) 0.145 0.138
K (%) 0.450 0.413
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113
S (%) 0.091 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0
N:S 13.2 13.2
N:P 8.3 8.7
N:K 2.7 2.9
N:Ca 6.5 8.1
N:Mg 10.9 10.6
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200
P (%) 0.145 0.138
K (%) 0.450 0.413
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113
S (%) 0.091 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0
N:S 13.2 13.2
N:P 8.3 8.7
N:K 2.7 2.9
N:Ca 6.5 8.1
N:Mg 10.9 10.6
= 0.9492x
= (0.3592x2) + (0.7346x)
= 1.0249x
= (0.1714x2) + (0.8504x)
Normalization of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw Normalized Raw Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200
P (%) 0.145 0.138
K (%) 0.450 0.413
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113
S (%) 0.091 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0
N:S 13.2 13.2
N:P 8.3 8.7
N:K 2.7 2.9
N:Ca 6.5 8.1
N:Mg 10.9 10.6
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200
P (%) 0.145
K (%) 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110
S (%) 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0
N:S
N:P
N:K
N:Ca
N:Mg
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200
P (%) 0.145
K (%) 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110
S (%) 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0
N:S 13.2
N:P 8.3
N:K 2.7
N:Ca 6.5
N:Mg 10.9
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.150
P (%) 0.145 0.138 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.413 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.082
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0 75.0 101.7
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.8
N:S 13.2 13.2 13.2 14.1
N:P 8.3 8.7 8.3 7.9
N:K 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6
N:Ca 6.5 8.1 6.5 6.2
N:Mg 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.5
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.150
P (%) 0.145 0.138 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.413 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.082
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0 75.0 101.7
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.8
N:S 13.2 13.2 13.2 14.1
N:P 8.3 8.7 8.3 7.9
N:K 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6
N:Ca 6.5 8.1 6.5 6.2
N:Mg 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.5
= 0.9584x
= (0.9558x) – (0.6267x2)
= (1.4164x) – (0.0008x2)
= (0.8732x) – (0.0012x2)
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.150
P (%) 0.145 0.138 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.413 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.082
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0 75.0 101.7
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.8
N:S 13.2 13.2 13.2 14.1
N:P 8.3 8.7 8.3 7.9
N:K 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6
N:Ca 6.5 8.1 6.5 6.2
N:Mg 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.5
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200
P (%) 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0
N:S 13.2 13.2
N:P 8.3 8.3
N:K 2.7 2.7
N:Ca 6.5 6.5
N:Mg 10.9 10.9
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.150
P (%) 0.145 0.138 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.413 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.148 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.113 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.082
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0 75.0 101.7
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0 15.0 12.8
N:S 13.2 13.2 13.2 14.1
N:P 8.3 8.7 8.3 7.9
N:K 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6
N:Ca 6.5 8.1 6.5 6.2
N:Mg 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.5
“Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data
PSAI
MoE
Element Raw data Normalized Raw data Normalized
N (%) 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.077
P (%) 0.145 0.133 0.145 0.145
K (%) 0.450 0.415 0.450 0.450
Ca (%) 0.185 0.144 0.185 0.185
Mg (%) 0.110 0.105 0.110 0.110
S (%) 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.098
SO4 (ppm) 75.0 75.0 75.0 71.2
B (ppm) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.3
N:S 13.2 13.2 13.2 14.1
N:P 8.3 8.7 8.3 7.9
N:K 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6
N:Ca 6.5 8.1 6.5 6.2
N:Mg 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.5