fertilizing interior forests: the scientific basis (and some informed speculation) rob brockley b.c....

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?


Forest fertilization is a proven silvicultural treatment for accelerating the operability of established stands without sacrificing harvest volume

Why fertilize?


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


Are

a


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


Har

vest

vol

ume

Are

a


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


Lodgepole pine ~ 70 screening trials


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

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

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


Fol

iar

boro

n (p

pm) Control 200N 200N+3B

critical value



Douglas-fir



Douglas-fir 5 screening trials



Douglas-fir 5 screening trials 6 area-based trials




Interior spruce




Interior spruce 14 screening trials




Interior spruce 14 screening trials 12 area-based trials

Douglas-fir fertilization research


5 screening trials (SBS, ICH)

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


Fol

iar

N/S

rat

io


critical level



6 area-based trials (ICH)



6 area-based trials (ICH) 19-34 years



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


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 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


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


Rel

ativ

e ne

edle

mas

s(c

ontr

ol=

100)


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


Fol

iar

N/S

rat

io


critical level

Effect of fertilization on 3-year height increment of young Engelmann spruce in the ESSFdc

(Brockley 1992)

82%84%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Control N N+complete

Treatment

Hei

ght

incr

emen

t (m

/tre

e)

Year 3

Year 2

Year 1



9 area-based “conventional” trials (SBS, ICH, ESSF)




19 to 30 years




19 to 30 years SI 18-24 m @ 50 years

Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume increment of interior spruceEP 886.01 (n=5)

12%15%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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 (spruce; n=5)

0

5

10

15

20

0 1 2 3


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 interior spruceEP 886.01 Inst. #27 (ESSFwc4, SI 18)

58%53%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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 interior spruceEP 886.01 Inst. #29 (ICHmc2, SI 18)

28%35%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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 interior spruceEP 886.01 Inst. #21 (ICHmm, SI 23)

6%10%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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 interior spruceEP 886.01 Inst. #22 (ICHwk1, SI 24)

0%4%

020406080

100120140160180

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 interior spruceEP 886.01 Inst. #20 (SBSmc2, SI 19)

8%5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Control N N+S

Treatment

Sta

nd v

olum

e in

crem

ent

(m3/h

a)

Foliar B concentration by treatment and yearEP 886.01 Inst. #20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3


Fol

iar

B (

%)

Control N N+S

critical level

Effect of N and N+S fertilization on 9-year stand volume incrementby initial foliar N class

8m3

7%

22 m3

40%

2 m3

2%

20 m3

37%

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

< 1.1% > 1.2%

Vol

ume

incr

emen

t

(m

3/h

a)

Control N N+S



9 area-based “conventional” trials (SBS, ICH, ESSF) 19 to 34 years SI 24-29 m @ 50 years

3 area-based “maximum productivity” trials (SBS)



9 area-based “conventional” trials (SBS, ICH, ESSF) 19 to 34 years SI 24-29 m @ 50 years

3 area-based “maximum productivity” trials (SBS) 9 to 13 years

Effects of “single” vs. “repeated” fertilization

Age

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Single fertilization

Unfertilized

Fertilize

Effects of “single” vs. “repeated” fertilization

Age

Tot

al v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Single fertilization

Unfertilized

Multiple fertilization

Fertilize

Treatments

Control

N+B

N+S+B

“Complete blend”

Optimum Nutrition 1 (1.3%N)

Optimum Nutrition 2 (1.6%N)

every 6 years

Control Fall 2001

ON2 Fall 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9

Years following establishment

Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

EP 886.13 Inst. #3 (Crow Creek)Spruce (SBSmc2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

ON1


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

ON1

ON2


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

EP 886.13 Inst. #5 (Lodi Lake)

Spruce (SBSwk1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

ON1


Spruce (SBSwk1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

ON1

ON2


Spruce (SBSwk1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

EP 886.13 Inst. #1 (Sheridan Creek)

Lodgepole pine (SBSdw2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

ON1



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 3 6 9


Sta

ndin

g vo

lum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NSB

ON1

ON2



Other relevant studies

Effect of N fertilization on 5-year stand volume increment of white spruce in Alberta (n=3)Krause et al. (1982)

35%

19%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Control 100N 200N

Treatment

Sta

nd v

olum

e in

crem

ent

(m3/h

a)

Effect of N and N+K fertilization on 10-year stand volume increment of 35-year-old white spruceGagnon et al. (1976)

56%

5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Control N N+K

Treatment

Mer

ch.

volu

me

incr

emen

t

(m3/h

a)

Effect of repeated fertilization on 5-year tree BA increment of 70-year-old white sprucevan Cleve and Zasada (1976)

54%

0

10

20

30

40

Thin Thin + Fert

Treatment

Tre

e B

A in

crem

ent

(cm

2)

Norway spruce fertilization response (m3/ha)Northern Sweden (from Pettersson 2001)

Stand age (years)

Site Class 40 60 80 100

Fertilizer response (m3/ha)

Poor -- 12 13 13

Medium 15 16 16 15

Good 14 15 14 13

Effects of fertilization on the white pine weevil

Pissodes strobi

White pine weevil damage by treatmentEP 886.13 Installation #5 (Lodi Lake) vanAkker et al. (2005)

Fertilization treatment

% t

ree

s a

tta

ck

ed

(1

99

7-2

00

2)

15

25

35

45

55

65

control NB NSB complete ON1 ON2

±1.96*SE of mean

± SE of mean

Mean

aa

ab

b

a

b

Effect of repeated fertilization on 9-year height increment of young interior spruce EP 886.13 Inst. #5 (Lodi Lake)

35%28%24%

0

1

2

3

4

5

Control NSB ON1 ON2

Treatment

Hei

ght

incr

emen

t (m

/tre

e)

7- to 9-year

4- to 6-year

1- to 3-year

White pine weevil damage by treatmentEP 886.13 Installation #9 (Hand Lake) L. vanAkker et al. (2005)

Fertilization treatment

% t

ree

s a

tta

ck

ed

(1

99

9-2

00

3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

control NB NSB complete ON1 ON2

±1.96*SE of mean± SE of meanMean

aab

bc

abc

ab

c

Summary

Summary

Douglas-fir

Summary

Douglas-fir

stands in the ICH generally respond well to N fertilization

Summary

Douglas-fir stands in the ICH generally respond well to N fertilization

best responses (20-25 m3/ha or 30% over 9 years) are associated with low foliar N (< 1.15%)

Summary



no apparent relationship between growth response and SI

Summary




little evidence of improved growth when S is combined with N in fertilizer prescriptions

Summary





additional area-based trials are needed in other BEC zones (SBS) and in older stands (> 40 years)

Summary





additional area-based trials are needed in other BEC zones (SBS) and in older stands (> 40 years)

effects of repeated fertilization need to be documented

Summary

Interior spruce

Summary

Interior spruce

fertilization response is more variable and, on average, smaller than D-fir

Summary

Interior spruce fertilization response is more variable and, on average, smaller than D-fir

best responses (20-25 m3/ha or 30-40% over 9 years) are associated with low foliar N (< 1.1%) and SI < 20

Summary



smallest growth responses are associated with highest SI (> 23)

Summary





Summary





B deficiencies (< 10 ppm) may limit growth response to N and NS fertilization on some SBS sites

Summary






planted spruce is apparently very well suited to “high input” silviculture

Summary






planted spruce is apparently very well suited to “high input” silviculture

additional area-based trials are needed on N deficient sites in several BEC zones (ICH, ESSF, SBS) and in older stands (> 40 years)

fertilizing interior forests: the scientific basis (and some informed speculation) rob brockley b.c....

Documents

nn seffect of n

year ba response

nn sba response

harvest volumes

harvest volumewhy

harvest volumefertilization

proven silvicultural

ground todaywhy