Effects of Intensive Fertilization on the Growth of Interior Spruce

Presentation to:Interior Fertilization Working GroupFebruary 5/13 (revised March 4/13)

Typical pattern of growth response following “conventional” fertilizationType 1 response

Age

Tot

al s

tand

vol

ume

(m3/h

a)

Fertilize

Unfertilized

“Conventional” fertilization (Type 1)

Typical pattern of growth response following “conventional” fertilizationType 1 response

Age

Tot

al s

tand

vol

ume

(m3/h

a)

Fertilize

Unfertilized

“Conventional” fertilization (Type 1)

Typical pattern of growth response following “intensive” fertilizationType 2 response

Age

Tot

al s

tand

vol

ume

(m3/h

a)

Unfertilized

“Conventional” fertilization (Type 1)

Fertilize

“Intensive” fertilization (Type 2)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 5 10 15

Years following trial establishment

Tot

al s

tand

vol

ume

(m3/h

a)

Control

Fertilized

Effects of yearly fertilization on the growth of Norway spruce in northern Sweden from Bergh et al. (2005)

Relationship between stem wood production and light interception by forest canopy

Absorbed sunlight during the growing season (GJ/m2)

Ste

m v

olum

e pr

oduc

tion

(m3 /h

a/yr

)

How can light interception be maximized?

How can light interception be maximized?

Increase the length of the growing season

How can light interception be maximized?

Increase the length of the growing season

Increase the amount of leaf area

How can light interception be maximized?

Increase the length of the growing season

Increase the amount of leaf area

Leaf area is strongly influenced by nutrient availability

Relationship between annual volume growth and leaf area

Leaf area index (m2/m2)

Vol

ume

grow

th (

m3 /h

a/yr

)

Relationship between annual volume growth and leaf area

Leaf area index (m2/m2)

Vol

ume

grow

th (

m3 /h

a/yr

)

Current

Relationship between annual volume growth and leaf area

Leaf area index (m2/m2)

Vol

ume

grow

th (

m3 /h

a/yr

)

Current

Potential

“Maximum Productivity” fertilization researchEP 886.13

Objectives determine the effects of different regimes and

frequencies of repeated fertilization on the growth and development of young, managed interior spruce and lodgepole pine forests

“Maximum Productivity” fertilization researchEP 886.13

Objectives determine the effects of different regimes and

frequencies of repeated fertilization on the growth and development of young, managed interior spruce and lodgepole pine forests

document the long-term effects of intensive, repeated fertilization on above- and below-ground timber and non-timber resources

Interior spruce study sites

Crow Creek

SBSmc2

10 years old, planted

Interior spruce study sites

Crow Creek SBSmc2

10 years old, planted

Lodi Lake

SBSwk1

11 years old, planted

Interior spruce study sites

Crow Creek SBSmc2

10 years old, planted

Lodi Lake SBSwk1

11 years old, planted

Hand Lake

SBSmk1

14 years old, planted

Treatments

Control

N+B

N+S+B

“Complete blend”

Optimum Nutrition 1 (1.3%N)

Optimum Nutrition 2 (1.6%N)

every 6 years

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year

Fo

liar

N (

%)

Control ON1 ON2

Foliar nitrogen by treatment and year Crow Creek (Brockley 2010)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year

Fol

iar

N (

%)

Control ON1 ON2

Foliar nitrogen by treatment and year Lodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Year

Fo

liar

N (

%)

Control ON1 ON2

Foliar nitrogen by treatment and year Hand Lake (Brockley unpubl.)

Foliar nitrogen by treatment and yearCrow Creek (Brockley 2010)

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

0 1 3 6 7 9 12

Year

Fol

iar

N (

%)

Control NSB

Foliar nitrogen by treatment and yearLodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

0 1 3 6 7 8 12

Year

Fol

iar

N (

%)

Control NSB

18-year tree height increment by treatmentCrow Creek (Unpubl. data)

47%40%29%30%

17%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

He

igh

t in

cre

me

nt (

m/tr

ee

)13- to 18-year

7- to 12-year

1- to 6-year

a

bc

12-year tree height increment by treatmentLodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

a

14% 18% 16% 20%34%

7- to 12-year1- to 6-year

Treatment

Hei

ght

incr

emen

t (m

/tre

e)

cb

18-year stand volume increment by treatmentCrow Creek (Unpubl. data)

247%

168%

110%123%

65%

0

50

100

150

200

250

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Vol

ume

incr

emen

t (m

3/h

a) 13- to 18-year

7- to 12-year

1- to 6-year

a

b

c

12-year stand volume increment by treatmentLodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

204%

136%

70%67%55%

a

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Vol

ume

incr

emen

t (m

3/h

a)7- to 12-year1- to 6-year

b

c

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

18-year stand volume development by treatment Crow Creek (Unpubl. data)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

18-year stand volume development by treatment Crow Creek (Unpubl. data)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

NSB

Complete

18-year stand volume development by treatment Crow Creek (Unpubl. data)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

NSB

Complete

ON1

18-year stand volume development by treatment Crow Creek (Unpubl. data)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a) Control

NB

NSB

Complete

ON1

ON2

18-year stand volume development by treatment Crow Creek (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

12-year stand volume development by treatment Lodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

12-year stand volume development by treatment Lodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

NSB

Complete

12-year stand volume development by treatment Lodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3 /ha) Control

NB

NSB

Complete

ON1

12-year stand volume development by treatment Lodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3 /ha) Control

NBNSB

Complete

ON1ON2

12-year stand volume development by treatment Lodi Lake (Unpubl. data)

020406080

100120140160180200

0 5 10 15

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

Effects of yearly fertilization on the growth of Norway spruce in northern Sweden from Bergh et al. (2005)

020406080

100120140160180200

0 5 10 15

Years following trial establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

Fertilized

Effects of yearly fertilization on the growth of Norway spruce in northern Sweden from Bergh et al. (2005)

Effects of 20 years of annual fertilization on the growth of Norway spruce in central SwedenTamm (1991)

305%296%

199%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Control N1PK N2PK N3PK

Treatment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (

m3/h

a)

But …

12-year tree height increment by treatmentHand Lake (Unpubl. data)

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON20

2

4

6

8

10

a 3% 1%11% 12% 12%

7- to 12-year1- to 6-year

Treatment

Hei

ght

incr

emen

t (m

/tre

e)

ba

12-year stand volume increment by treatmentHand Lake (Unpubl. data)

38%33%

25%19%13%

a

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Vol

ume

incr

emen

t (m

3/h

a) 7- to 12-year

1- to 6-year ab

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

12-year stand volume development by treatment Hand Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

12-year stand volume development by treatment Hand Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3/h

a)

Control

NB

NSB

Complete

12-year stand volume development by treatment Hand Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3 /ha) Control

NB

NSB

Complete

ON1

12-year stand volume development by treatment Hand Lake (Unpubl. data)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years following establishment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (m

3 /ha) Control

NBNSB

Complete

ON1ON2

12-year stand volume development by treatment Hand Lake (Unpubl. data)

Relationship between annual volume growth and leaf area

Leaf area index (m2/m2)

Vol

ume

grow

th (

m3 /h

a/yr

)

Current

Relationship between annual volume growth and leaf area

Leaf area index (m2/m2)

Vol

ume

grow

th (

m3 /h

a/yr

)

Current

Potential

Leaf area index by treatment at year 12Crow Creek (Brockley 2010)

268%

176%

95%93%84%

0

1

2

3

4

5

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Leaf

are

a in

dex

(m2/m

2)

12-year stand volume increment by treatmentCrow Creek (Brockley 2010)

284%

196%

123%130%

77%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Vol

ume

incr

emen

t (m

3/h

a)

Leaf area index by treatment at year 9Hand Lake (Unpubl. data)

42%38%35%

20%12%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Leaf

are

a in

dex

(m2 /m

2 )

12-year stand volume increment by treatmentHand Lake (Unpubl. data)

38%33%25%19%

13%

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Control NB NSB Comp ON1 ON2

Treatment

Vol

ume

incr

emen

t (m

3/h

a)

Effects of frequency of fertilization on the growth of Norway spruce in central Sweden – 5-year resultsBergh et al. (2008)

48%

83%91%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Control F1 F2 F3

Treatment

Sta

nd v

olum

e (

m3/h

a) F1 – 75-100 kg N every yearF2 – 125-150 kg N every 2 yearsF3 – 150-180 kg N every 3 years

Summary of results to date

Young, nutrient deficient Sx plantations apparently respond well to repeated fertilization

Summary of results to date

Young, nutrient deficient Sx plantations apparently respond well to repeated fertilization

Potentially large effects on rotation length or harvest volume

Summary of results to date

Young, nutrient deficient Sx plantations apparently respond well to repeated fertilization

Potentially large effects on rotation length or harvest volume

Magnitude of gains directly related to frequency of application

Modelling the effects of repeatedly fertilizing interior spruce

Age of unfertilized and fertilized stands at minimum operability (e.g., 200 m3/ha merchantable volume)

Modelling the effects of repeatedly fertilizing interior spruce

Age of unfertilized and fertilized stands at minimum operability (e.g., 200 m3/ha merchantable volume)

Merchantable volume of unfertilized and fertilized stand at a given stand age (e.g., 20 years in future)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 550

50100150200250300350400450500

Unfertilized

Fertilized

Stand age

Me

rch

an

tab

le v

olu

me

(m

3/h

a))

39 years 48 years

96 m3/ha

Modelled effects of fertilization at 5-year intervals

SI=20Fertilize every 5 years, starting @ age 2050% total volume response per fertilization

Fertilize

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 550

50100150200250300350400450500

Unfertilized

Fertilized

Stand age

Me

rch

an

tab

le v

olu

me

(m

3/h

a))

37 years 48 years

140 m3/ha

Modelled effects of fertilization at 5-year intervals

SI=20Fertilize every 5 years, starting @ age 2075% total volume response per fertilization

Fertilize

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact:

Wood quality

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact:

Wood quality Forest health

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact:

Wood quality Forest health Non-timber values (e.g., understory,

water, wildlife)

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact: Wood quality Forest health Non-timber values (e.g., understory, water, wildlife)

Future competition mortality may reduce net volume gains

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact: Wood quality Forest health Non-timber values (e.g., understory, water, wildlife)

Future competition mortality may reduce net volume gains

Only short-term (18-yr) local data available

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact: Wood quality Forest health Non-timber values (e.g., understory, water, wildlife)

Future competition mortality may reduce net volume gains

Only short-term (18-yr) local data available

All stands are not equally responsive

Cautionary Notes

Repeated fertilization may negatively impact: Wood quality Forest health Non-timber values (e.g., understory, water, wildlife)

Future competition mortality may reduce net volume gains

Only short-term (18-yr) local data available

All stands are not equally responsive

Small number of research trials

Recommended approach

Proceed cautiously with repeated fertilization every 4-6 years on select SBS sites

Recommended approach

Proceed cautiously with repeated fertilization every 4-6 years on select SBS sites

Site/stand attributes young (15-25 yrs) broadcast burned N deficient (<1.1% N)

Recommended approach

Proceed cautiously with repeated fertilization every 4-6 years on select SBS sites

Site/stand attributes young (15-25 yrs) broadcast burned N deficient (<1.1% N)

Apply N at ~175 kg/ha

Recommended approach

Proceed cautiously with repeated fertilization every 4-6 years on select SBS sites

Site/stand attributes Young (15-25 yrs) Broadcast burned N deficient (<1.1% N)

Apply N at ~175 kg/ha

Apply other nutrients (S, B) as needed (every 2nd application?)

Recommended approach

Proceed cautiously with repeated fertilization every 4-6 years on select SBS sites

Site/stand attributes Young (15-25 yrs) Broadcast burned N deficient (<1.1% N)

Apply N at ~175 kg/ha

Apply other nutrients (S, B) as needed (every 2nd application?)

Monitor foliar nutrients, forest health and water quality

Recommended approach

Proceed cautiously with repeated fertilization every 4-6 years on select SBS sites

Site/stand attributes Young (15-25 yrs) Broadcast burned N deficient (<1.1% N)

Apply N at ~175 kg/ha

Apply other nutrients (S, B) as needed (every 2nd application?)

Monitor foliar nutrients, forest health and water quality

Continue measurement and re-treatment of existing research trials