By K. Francis Salifu Douglass F. Jacobs and Zonda Birge
25
Field Performance of Nutrient Field Performance of Nutrient Loaded Red Oak and White Oak Loaded Red Oak and White Oak Seedlings on Mine Lands in Seedlings on Mine Lands in Southern Indiana Southern Indiana By By K. Francis Salifu K. Francis Salifu Douglass F. Jacobs Douglass F. Jacobs and and Zonda Birge Zonda Birge
description
Field Performance of Nutrient Loaded Red Oak and White Oak Seedlings on Mine Lands in Southern Indiana. By K. Francis Salifu Douglass F. Jacobs and Zonda Birge. What to Expect. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of By K. Francis Salifu Douglass F. Jacobs and Zonda Birge
Field Performance of Nutrient Loaded Field Performance of Nutrient Loaded Red Oak and White Oak Seedlings on Red Oak and White Oak Seedlings on
Mine Lands in Southern IndianaMine Lands in Southern Indiana
By By K. Francis SalifuK. Francis Salifu
Douglass F. Jacobs Douglass F. Jacobs andand
Zonda BirgeZonda Birge
What to ExpectWhat to Expect Poor seedling quality, severe competition and Poor seedling quality, severe competition and
low site fertility are key factors that may limit low site fertility are key factors that may limit restoration success on mine sitesrestoration success on mine sites Nursery fertilization can be used to produce high Nursery fertilization can be used to produce high
quality seedlings to improve restoration successquality seedlings to improve restoration success Discuss how nursery treatments affect seedling Discuss how nursery treatments affect seedling
field performance on a mine site in Indianafield performance on a mine site in Indiana
Nutrient LoadingNutrient Loading
Building nutrient reserves in seedlings Building nutrient reserves in seedlings during nursery culture to promote during nursery culture to promote retranslocation and growth when out-retranslocation and growth when out-planted in the fieldplanted in the field
Simplified N Cycle in ForestSimplified N Cycle in ForestNN22
Organic N
M= MineralizationM= MineralizationI= ImmobilizationI= Immobilization
INTERNALINTERNALEXTERNALEXTERNAL
Le
NH4+
NO3- NO2
-
Fert
il ize
r
Litt
er
N fi
xati
on
I M
Nitrification
Den
itri
fica
tion
UU
Annual N Demand Met by Retranslocation Annual N Demand Met by Retranslocation
0
20
40
60
80
100
D. fir Scots pine Australianpine
Blackspruce
Red oak
Tree species
N r
etr
an
slo
cati
on
(%
)
(Turner 1975; Miller 1984; Lim and Cousens 1986; Salifu and Timmer 2003)
Exponential vs. Conventional FertilizationExponential vs. Conventional Fertilization
Weekly application
N a
pp
lied
(m
g/s
eed
lin
g)
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Exponential
Constant
(Ingestad & Lund 1986; Timmer (Ingestad & Lund 1986; Timmer 1997)1997)
How Much Fertilizer Do Plants Need? How Much Fertilizer Do Plants Need?
Dry
mas
s o
r N
co
nce
ntr
atio
n
Nutrient supply
See
dli
ng
N c
on
ten
t
BiomassNutrient content
n f l
Sufficiency
ToxicityLuxury
consumptionDeficiency
Nutrient loading
Nutrient concentration
e
Optimum
(Timmer 1997)(Timmer 1997)
Time 0wks 2wks 4wks 6wks 8wks 10wks 12wks Total
Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Zero 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Conventional 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.84
Exponential 0.031 0.033 0.039 0.051 0.066 0.100 0.100 0.42
Exponential 0.078 0.065 0.068 0.089 0.124 0.207 0.207 0.84
Exponential 0.138 0.098 0.093 0.121 0.179 0.315 0.315 1.26
Exponential 0.209 0.132 0.115 0.149 0.230 0.423 0.423 1.68
Exponential 0.287 0.165 0.136 0.174 0.279 0.529 0.529 2.10
Exponential 0.369 0.198 0.154 0.197 0.325 0.633 0.633 2.51
Exponential 0.459 0.231 0.172 0.220 0.371 0.738 0.738 2.93
Exponential 0.554 0.264 0.188 0.240 0.416 0.843 0.843 3.35
Fertilization Schedule (g N per plant)Fertilization Schedule (g N per plant)
Bareroot ProductionBareroot ProductionWeek 4Week 4
0-3.4 g N plant0-3.4 g N plant-1-1
White oakWhite oak Red oakRed oak
Week 18Week 18
Red oakRed oak
Growth and N StorageGrowth and N Storage
Dry
mas
s (g
co
mp
on
ent-1
)
0
10
20
30
40
Stem Leaf
N supply (g plant-1 season-1)
0
0.42
E
0.84
C0.
84E1.
26E1.
68E2.
10E2.
51E2.
93E3.
35E
N c
on
ten
t (m
g c
om
po
nen
t-1)
0
200
400
600
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
0.42
E
0.84
C0.
84E1.
26E1.
68E2.
10E2.
51E2.
93E3.
35E
0
50
100
150
200
e
cc
b
a a
f
d
c
ab
aa
bc
cc
e
d
ccb
c
d
b
c
a
bc
a
ab
a
ab
a
a
a
ab
bc
a aa
bc
ab
e
b
a
a
a
b
a
a
c
ab
a
a
ab
ab
abab
cdc
c
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a
b b
White oakWhite oakRed oakRed oak
Birge et al. 2006Birge et al. 2006
End of NurseryPhase
Field TrialField Trial
Methods
Evaluated:Evaluated:
Deer FenceDeer FenceSpecies at 2 levelsSpecies at 2 levelsNursery fertility at 10 levelsNursery fertility at 10 levelsDesign = Split-plot designDesign = Split-plot designReplications = 5 blocksReplications = 5 blocksBlocks separated by 2m buffers Blocks separated by 2m buffers Trees Planted at 1m within rows and 2m between rowsTrees Planted at 1m within rows and 2m between rows
Schematic of Field StudySchematic of Field StudyNN
RO WO
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
SpeciesSpecies
NurseryNurseryFertilityFertility
55
99
11 441010 3322 99 77 66 88
22 33 44 1010 8811 5566 77
21m21m
42m42m
2500 trees on 5 ha2500 trees on 5 haPlanted 2004Planted 2004
Field SamplingField Sampling At PlantingAt Planting
Basal diameterBasal diameter HeightHeight Nutritional analysisNutritional analysis
Year-1Year-1 Basal diameterBasal diameter HeightHeight SurvivalSurvival Nutritional analysisNutritional analysis
Year-2Year-2 Basal diameterBasal diameter HeightHeight SurvivalSurvival
Field SurvivalField Survival
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.4C 0.8C 0.8E 1.2E 1.6E 2E 2.4E 2.8E 3.4E
Per
cen
tag
e su
rviv
alP
erce
nta
ge
surv
ival
Nursery TreatmentsNursery Treatments
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 0.4C 0.8C 0.8E 1.2E 1.6E 2E 2.4E 2.8E 3.4E
Red OakRed Oak White OakWhite Oak
* *
Field Survival vs. Conser. PlantingsField Survival vs. Conser. Plantings
0
20
40
60
80
100
Conser. tree planting Red oak White oak
Per
cen
tag
e su
rviv
alP
erce
nta
ge
surv
ival
Jacobs et al. 2004Jacobs et al. 2004Plantings /SpeciesPlantings /Species
Red Oak HeightRed Oak Height
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 0.4C 0.8C 0.8E 1.2E 1.6E 2E 2.4E 2.8E 3.4E
Initial Ht
Y1-Ht
Y2-Ht
Hei
gh
t (c
m)
Hei
gh
t (c
m)
NurseryNursery Treatments Treatments
**
*
Red Oak DiameterRed Oak Diameter
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0.4C 0.8C 0.8E 1.2E 1.6E 2E 2.4E 2.8E 3.4E
Initial Dia
Y1-Dia
Y2-Dia
Dia
met
er (
mm
)D
iam
eter
(m
m)
Nursery TreatmentsNursery Treatments
**
*
Nursery Fertility Treatments
White Oak Seedling Response: N Status White Oak Seedling Response: N Status N
co
nte
nt
(mg
co
mp
on
ent-1
)
Pre-PlantPre-Plant Year-OneYear-OneConventional vs. Exponential regimesConventional vs. Exponential regimes
ConclusionsConclusions Nutrient loading improved seedling field Nutrient loading improved seedling field
performance on mine sitesperformance on mine sites
The nutrient loading model is a useful tool The nutrient loading model is a useful tool for quantifying fertility targets, and may for quantifying fertility targets, and may help improve nutrient diagnosis in tree help improve nutrient diagnosis in tree seedling cultureseedling culture
Vallonia nursery and ArborAmerica have Vallonia nursery and ArborAmerica have adapted the proposed protocol adapted the proposed protocol
Future DirectionsFuture Directions Rigorously test nutrient loading using Rigorously test nutrient loading using
balanced fertilizers and with more speciesbalanced fertilizers and with more species Weekly applications could benefit production Weekly applications could benefit production
systems systems Increases uptake efficiency and minimizes leaching Increases uptake efficiency and minimizes leaching
losseslosses
Controlled-release fertilization at outplantingControlled-release fertilization at outplanting Weed control measuresWeed control measures
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements USDA Forest Service State and Private ForestryUSDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry van Eck Forestry Foundation van Eck Forestry Foundation HTIRC at Purdue UniversityHTIRC at Purdue University IN-DNR Division of ReclamationIN-DNR Division of Reclamation Ron Overton, Area Regeneration Specialist, USDA Ron Overton, Area Regeneration Specialist, USDA
Forest Service Forest Service Don Carlson, Extension Forester, HTIRC, Purdue Don Carlson, Extension Forester, HTIRC, Purdue
University University Jim Wichman, Nursery Manager, IN-DNR Vallonia and Jim Wichman, Nursery Manager, IN-DNR Vallonia and
Jasper Pulaski State Nurseries Jasper Pulaski State Nurseries Jim McKenna , Operation Breeder, HTIRC, Purdue Jim McKenna , Operation Breeder, HTIRC, Purdue
UniversityUniversity
Thank You!Thank You!
QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS?
