1

Nutrition Current Situation• RFNRP completed measurements of last phase in 1998

• Fertilization is part of auxiliary plots on Type I Installations – extends RFNRP phase 4 (300 tpa) to variable density

– Eric Sucre thesis (copies available) brings up questions

• No fertilization done in Type II & III installations

• No fertilization in Type IV installations– Type IV design became too complex & large

– Lack of agreement on definition and focus if fertilization was included

• Fall River study included fertilization, Matlock and Molalla doesn’t

• There is a strong need for more studies

2

Summary of Types of Questions from Members

Topic Count

TimeLate RotationEarly Rotation (sapling, pole)Seedling

621514

Site Specific 15

Interaction of Fertilization withGeneticsStand densityForest Health

222

Level, Frequency of Application 4

Tree/Wood Quality 5

Non-DF & species mixtures 9

Other nutrients & blends 10

Models 5

Economics 2

Plantation vs Natural stand 1

3

1. Synthesis of the RFNRP project

• USFS Focused Science Delivery Program $30K for a synthesis

• Grad Student Eric Sucre has located and scanned all past RFNRP publications.– Annual/Biennial Reports, RFNRP Reports

– Theses & Dissertations

– Symposia, Conference

– Journal Articles (checking copyright rules)

• Availability PDF format

– Website

– CD set

4

2. Synthesis of Response by PNW Conifers to Nutrients other than Nitrogen

• We are currently summarizing, & trying to understand & interpret what has been discovered.

• Trying to identify gaps that could become the focus of new research.

• The comment was made that there may be a bias in the published literature. – It is more likely that studies that found a response were published than

those that found no response; but the “no response” information is equally important.

5

3. Synthesis of Response by Other Species and Species Mixtures to fertilization

• Summarize, understand, and interpret what is presently known about response by cedars, true firs, pines and others as well as mixed species stands.

• Identify gaps that could become the focus of new research.

• The previous comment regarding publication bias also applies

here.

6

4. Guideline Handbook(s) for Managers

• Need for handbooks, Fact Sheets, etc.– Ex. Provide clear consistent procedures to measuring

characteristics of a site and interpreting it in relation to nutrients and fertilization needs.

– Ex. The booklet on how to measure and interpret response to fertilization published in the 1970’s is being updated.

7

5. New field trials

• Much of the data in the RFNRP database is not representative of the types of Douglas-fir stands being considered for fertilization now and in the future.

• Consider the possibility of defining and developing a set of new trials to address current questions and gather the type of tree and stand data needed to improve modeling of fertilization response.

8

6. Why no new field trials on a range of sites?

• Proposed several times, including in SMC Type IV studies.

• Rejected primarily on basis of cost.• Questions are numerous and difficult (site, stocking,

development, growth, wood quality, health, water quality, etc.)

• New studies at Fall River, Matlock and Molalla LTSP’s will include fertilization, and will eventually offer some results, but limited for regional use.

9

7. Why no new field trials on a range of sites?

• Costs are the most important factor.• The traditional approaches (large plots, replication)

we use are extremely expensive: • Fall River LTSP has cost $3 million so far• Matlock and Molalla LTSP’s have cost hundreds of

thousands and don’t include fertilization. • The original RFNRP would cost perhaps $35-50

million or more to redo• Lee Allen mentioned that the SE “Regionwide 18”

study cost “several million”.

10

A large number of variables is involved. This is a problem with more than a dozen dimensions

Conventional block designs of experiments, given the number of interacting variables, would be inordinately complex and expensive

Establish, in advance, a uniform set of data parameters which are to be measured (some are statically related to the site and some are dynamically related to the progression of time at the site. Some suggested parameters:

Directly observed references Geographic coordinates Elevation Precipitation profile averages during the year using PRISM model (Oregon) or its equivalent (Washington) Soil survey reference Soil type Extent of non-forest vegetation on site, by species and relative cover Species distribution Forest tree spatial density Age distribution

11

Descriptive measurements on individual trees Seedling source (if known) Seedling type (if known) Planting date (if known) Height Height to base of crown Height increment Diameter at breast height (larger trees) or collar diameter (seedlings) Diameter at base of crown Sample of increment core (for scanning into database) Chronological age Nutrient analysis of needles Weight of 100 needle samples of individual trees Recap of silvicultural history Derived references Crown ratio Volume Volumetric growth rate Sapwood/heartwood ratio Taper of first log

12

Select sites which are typical of the most widely distributed site types, and select ages ranging from new plantings to mature stands. Do not sites which are known to have growth limitations due to non-nutritionally related phenomena. In selecting sites, choose test areas that are at least 1 acre so that thinning on the sites is feasible and stand edge effects don ﾁ ¦t dominate the data. Based upon the nutritional analyses of the individual sites, establish sitespecific fertilizer blends and a site specific fertilization program for each site, using the most current data on critical values of nutrients. Establish comparisons between the control areas and the site specific fertilized areas Establish long-term observations of the test areas.

Look for anomalies in the results, and analyze the anomalies as a learning tool to expand the knowledge base

13

Possible approach to new fertilization trials

1) Land-managing members would develop a list of young stands that are relatively low in stand and site variability.

2) LIDAR and other remote-sensing technologies would be used to:

- develop a stem map of individual trees - measure crown width, size, and possibly biomass - measure height of each stem - develop Leaf area of plot from crown data - develop a crown data vs. DBH relationship to assign a DBH to each stem.

2.1) Normal SMC field procedures will be used to characterize some percentage of the plots for stand characteristics, including height, diameters, crown architecture, soil, understory and other site factors.

3) A GIS would be used to develop application and measurement plots, and estimate the stocking within each plot. These would be located along a "lines of flight" for helicopter application. In order to homogenize sites and reduce variability, plot boundaries could be shifted to result in plots that are more homogenous along that "line of flight".

14

Possible approach to new fertilization trials (continued)

4) Application of fertilizers would take place using the GIS information and a GPS control. This technology is extremely well-developed in tractor-based agriculture, and is currently used primarily to control pesticide application in agriculture:

http://www.avionix.com/agri.html

In theory, it could easily be adapted to aerial application of fertilizer.

5) Remeasurements using the same technology (LIDAR/IFSAR) and other remote sensing at regular intervals. This would again be coupled with traditional on-site field measurements (using current SMC methods) at ratios to be determined. Given the relatively fast increase of remote capabilities for characterizing forest stands, it is expected that this overall project will rely on a large amount of traditional methods for the first few pilot studies, and move to an increasing level of remote measurements as it is proven that they work across the variety of installations we would utilize.

15

16

17

18

19

A single “line of flight”

20

2N 1+ 1N2N 2+ 1N00

Random assignment of treatment

21

2N 1+ 1N2N 2+ 1N00

2N1+ 1N2N 2+1N00

1N0 1N 02+ 2N 1+ 1+

2N 1+1N2N 2+ 1N0 0

2N 1+1N 2N2+1N00

2N1+ 1N2N 2+1N00

Random assignment of treatments along Multiple “lines of flight”

22

2N 1+ 1N2N 2+ 1N00

2N1+ 1N2N 2+1N00

1N0 1N 02+ 2N 1+ 1+

2N 1+1N2N 2+ 1N0 0

2N 1+1N 2N2+1N00

2N1+ 1N2N 2+1N00

2N 1+ 1N2N 2+ 1N00

2N1+ 1N2N 2+1N00

1N0 1N 02+ 2N 1+ 1+

2N 1+1N2N 2+ 1N0 0

2N 1+1N 2N2+1N00

2N1+ 1N2N 2+1N00

2+ 1N0

2+1N0

1N 01+

2N 1+0

1+ 2N2+

2+1N0

2N 1+0

1+ 1N2N

1N0 2+

1N2N 2+

2N1N 0

1+ 2N 0

1N 2+ 1N0

2N 2+1N0

1N 01+ 1+

2N 1+1N 0

1+ 2N2+1N

2N 2+1N0

1+ 1N2N 2+ 1N0

2N1N 2+1N00

1N 02+ 2N 1+ 1+

2N 1+2+ 1N0 0

2N 1+ 2N2+1N0

2N1N 2+1N00

2N 1+1N2N 2+ 1N0 0 2N 1+1N2N 2+ 1N0 0

2N 1+0

1+ 2N2+

2+1N0

1N2N 2+

2N1N 0

1+ 2N 0

2N 1+1N 0

1+ 2N2+1N

2N 2+1N0

2N 1+2+ 1N0 0

2N 1+ 2N2+1N0

2N1N 2+1N00

An “installation” with multiple plots of multiple treatments

23

Potential Advantages:

1) Much lower initial cost of intallation and potentially remeasurements allows a high number of different treatments and/or replications within a single installation.

2) GPS coordinates will allow easy reentry to sites when necessary. Plot boundaries will not need maintenance.

3) Stem map may replace need for individual tree plot maintenance.

4) Some LIDAR measurements (i.e. crown and LAI) are much easier to take with LIDAR than traditional methods.

5) LAI has been shown to relate strongly to response to fertilization in SE (i.e. “foliage grows trees and resources grows foliage”).

6) Potential for funding $ based on application of new technology not available to us just to establish new traditional field studies.

24

Potential Disadvantages:

1) Nesting of several technologies that doesn’t always work well under all conditions

2) DBH measurements are not direct

3) Crown tip doesn’t always relate to where stem is in ground and may migrate over time, making it more difficult to locate.

4) Multiple tips may cause overestimate of stems.

25

The “consensus” was:

1) We are uncomfortable with relying on LIDAR. The Capitol forest results show promise, but we need to know that this can work for SMC stands.

2) For now, we are going to get LIDAR coverage matched to SMC Type I stands and other, existing, stands that may have already been flown. We can use the SMC database for the ground measurements. This is being done.

3) If we can’t get enough data, we will write an Agenda 2020 grant for getting the LIDAR data and analyzing it. At $150,000 max, this might not be enough.

4) This doesn’t actually get fertilizer on the ground.

5) We should proceed with new studies. SMC and Doug Maguire will coordinate to make at least a “core” of our treatments comparable.

26

Doug’s tentative treatments1) Unfertilized control2) Nitrogen (200lbs/acre N as urea) 3) Calcium as lime4) Calcium as calcium chloride (tests the effect of calcium without pH adjustment)5) Phosphorus (soft rock phosphate).6) Site-specific Fenn prescription 7) Site-specific Kinsey prescription

27

Figure 1. Shelton-Carson Lake RFNRP study showing response only to N level.

28

Figure 2. Shelton-Matlock RFNRP study showing response to N+P.

29

A suggested “core” the applies much of what we already know about N. Without something like a LIDAR/GIS method, the factorial of nutrients will prove difficult.

The desire for a core study onto which additional work can be added as required by individual cooperators is desirable. It is suggested for discussion that the following treatments be utilized:

1) control2) 200 lb N 3) 400 lb N 4) 400 lb N + 200 lb N every 4 years, stop at 10005) 400 lb N + Complete Fenn prescription + 200 N every 4 years, stop at 1000 lb N#1, #3 and #5 with and without vegetation control, and #2 and #4 with complete veg control.

That gives 8 treatments.

With on-site replication, large plots with treated buffers, costs will be …

Eric will talk about ways that we might do such a study minimizing on-site replication and treated site area.