“normalization” of foliar nutrient data. l differences in laboratory methodology may affect...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data
![Page 2: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data
Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results
![Page 3: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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)
![Page 4: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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)
![Page 5: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data
Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results
Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation
![Page 6: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
“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
![Page 7: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
“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
![Page 8: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
“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
![Page 9: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
“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
![Page 10: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
“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
![Page 13: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
“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
![Page 14: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
“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
![Page 15: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
“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
![Page 16: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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)
![Page 25: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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)
![Page 26: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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)
![Page 27: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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)
![Page 28: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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)
![Page 29: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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)
![Page 30: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
“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
![Page 31: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
“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
![Page 32: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
“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
![Page 33: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
“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
![Page 34: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
“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)
![Page 35: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
“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
![Page 37: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
“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
![Page 38: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
“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
![Page 39: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
“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)
![Page 40: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
“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
![Page 41: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
“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
![Page 42: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
“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
![Page 43: “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. l Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f4a5503460f94c6becb/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
“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