1. Foliar Nutrient Analysis Foliage collection and interpretation of laboratory results

2. Operational fertilization decision-making l Forest level considerations l Stand level considerations  operational factors  biological factors species stand structure crown conditions insect/disease nutrient status

3. Foliar analysis as a planning tool l Foliar analysis can be used to:  confirm N deficiency

4. Foliar analysis as a planning tool l Foliar analysis can be used to:  confirm N deficiency  identify secondary nutrient deficiencies (e.g., S, B)

5. Foliar analysis as a planning tool l Foliar analysis can be used to:  confirm N deficiency  identify secondary nutrient deficiencies (e.g., S, B)  make appropriate fertilizer prescriptions

6. Foliar analysis as a planning tool l Foliar analysis can be used to:  confirm N deficiency  identify secondary nutrient deficiencies (e.g., S, B)  make appropriate fertilizer prescriptions  assess post-fertilization nutrient uptake and foliar nutrient balance

7. How much foliar sampling is needed?

8. l Foliar sampling should only be undertaken on candidate sites that satisfy other forest- and stand- level selection criteria

9. How much foliar sampling is needed? l Foliar sampling should only be undertaken on candidate sites that satisfy other forest- and stand-level selection criteria l Strategically allocate foliar sampling expenditures

10. How much foliar sampling is needed? l Foliar sampling should only be undertaken on candidate sites that satisfy other forest- and stand-level selection criteria l Strategically allocate foliar sampling expenditures  Utilize foliar nutrient data and/or fertilization growth response results from similar nearby stands

11. How much foliar sampling is needed? l Foliar sampling should only be undertaken on candidate sites that satisfy other forest- and stand-level selection criteria l Strategically allocate foliar sampling expenditures  Utilize foliar nutrient data and/or fertilization growth response results from similar nearby stands  Stratify candidate blocks into homogeneous combinations (species, age, BEC, stand history, stand conditions)

12. How much foliar sampling is needed? l Foliar sampling should only be undertaken on candidate sites that satisfy other forest- and stand-level selection criteria l Strategically allocate foliar sampling expenditures  Utilize foliar nutrient data and/or fertilization growth response results from similar nearby stands  Stratify candidate blocks into homogeneous combinations (species, age, BEC, stand history, stand conditions)  Collect representative composite foliage samples from each major combination

13. How much foliar sampling is needed? l Foliar sampling should only be undertaken on candidate sites that satisfy other forest- and stand-level selection criteria l Strategically allocate foliar sampling expenditures  Utilize foliar nutrient data and/or fertilization growth response results from similar nearby stands  Stratify candidate blocks into homogeneous combinations (species, age, BEC, stand history, stand conditions)  Collect representative composite foliage samples from each major combination  Operational fertilization projects comprised of a small number of large and uniform blocks will require a relatively small amount of foliar sampling

14. Factors affecting interpretation of foliar nutrient data

15. l Foliar sampling protocol

16. Foliar Sampling Protocol

17. l Sample during the dormant season

18. Seasonal change in foliar %N in Douglas-fir foliage May JuneJulyAugSeptOctNov Dec Moderate deficiency Month Sampling period

19. Foliar Sampling Protocol l Sample during the dormant season l Sample current year’s foliage

21. Foliar Sampling Protocol l Sample during the dormant season l Sample current year’s foliage l Collect foliage from between top 1/4 and bottom 1/2 of live crown

23. Foliar Sampling Protocol l Sample during the dormant season l Sample current year’s foliage l Collect foliage from between top 1/4 and bottom 1/2 of live crown l Collect foliage from healthy, representative trees

24. Do not collect foliage from unhealthy trees!!!

25. Foliar Sampling Protocol l Sample during the dormant season l Sample current year’s foliage l Collect foliage from between top 1/4 and bottom 1/2 of live crown l Collect foliage from representative trees l Collect foliage from at least 20 trees per stand or stratum

26. Foliar sampling layout x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Road Line 1 Line 2 /02 /01

27. Foliar Sampling Protocol l Sample during the dormant season l Sample current year’s foliage l Collect foliage from between top 1/4 and bottom 1/2 of live crown l Collect foliage from representative trees l Collect foliage from at least 20 trees per stand or stratum l For routine diagnoses, combine equal amounts of foliage from individual trees into one composite sample per stratum

28. Foliar Sampling Protocol l Sample during the dormant season l Sample current year’s foliage l Collect foliage from between top 1/4 and bottom 1/2 of live crown l Collect foliage from representative trees l Collect foliage from at least 20 trees per stand or stratum l For routine diagnoses, combine equal amounts of foliage from individual trees into one composite sample per stratum l Keep samples cool until foliage is dried

29. Factors affecting interpretation of foliar nutrient data l Foliar sampling protocol l Site ecological characteristics

30. from DeLong (2003)

34. Factors affecting interpretation of foliar nutrient data l Foliar sampling protocol l Site ecological characteristics l Laboratory analytical methodology

35. Relationship between foliar N analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion

36. Relationship between foliar S analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion

37. Accounting for differences in laboratory analytical methodology l Differences may be large enough to affect interpretation

38. Accounting for differences in laboratory analytical methodology l Differences may be large enough to affect interpretation l Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology

39. Accounting for differences in laboratory analytical methodology l Differences may be large enough to affect interpretation l Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology l Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation

40. Accounting for differences in laboratory analytical methodology l Differences may be large enough to affect interpretation l Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology l Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation l “Normalization” requires inter-laboratory comparisons

41. Accounting for differences in laboratory analytical methodology l Differences may be large enough to affect interpretation l Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology l Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation l “Normalization” requires inter-laboratory comparisons l The “normalization” process does not make inferences about the quality of foliar nutrient data

42. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment

43. l 50 previously collected Pl foliage samples were selected

44. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment l 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used l Samples were selected to cover a broad range of species and foliar nutrient levels

45. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment l 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used l Samples were selected to cover a broad range of species and foliar nutrient levels l Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples

46. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment l 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used l Samples were selected to cover a broad range of species and foliar nutrient levels l Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples l One sub-sample was shipped to each lab in December 2012

47. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment l 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used l Samples were selected to cover a broad range of species and foliar nutrient levels l Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples l One sub-sample was shipped to each lab in December 2012 l For each nutrient, laboratory results were reviewed and subjected to regression analysis

48. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment l 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used l Samples were selected to cover a broad range of species and foliar nutrient levels l Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples l One sub-sample was shipped to each lab in December 2012 l For each nutrient, laboratory results were reviewed and subjected to regression analysis l Based on previous research, equations were selected to “normalize” foliar nutrient data

49. Inter-laboratory comparison Pacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment l 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used l Samples were selected to cover a broad range of species and foliar nutrient levels l Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples l One sub-sample was shipped to each lab in December 2012 l For each nutrient, laboratory results were reviewed and subjected to regression analysis l Based on previous research, equations were selected to “normalize” foliar nutrient data l An Excel spreadsheet was developed to facilitate “normalization” for practitioners

50. Laboratory foliar N comparison PSAI vs. MoE

51. Laboratory foliar S comparison PSAI vs. MoE

52. Laboratory foliar SO 4 -S comparison PSAI vs. MoE

53. Laboratory foliar P comparison PSAI vs. MoE

54. Laboratory foliar K comparison PSAI vs. MoE

55. Laboratory foliar Ca comparison PSAI vs. MoE

56. Laboratory foliar Mg comparison PSAI vs. MoE

57. Laboratory foliar B comparison PSAI vs. MoE

58. Factors affecting interpretation of foliar nutrient data l Foliar sampling protocol l Site ecological characteristics l Laboratory analytical methodology l Availability of reliable foliar nutrient interpretative criteria

59. Relationship between tree growth and foliar nutrient concentration Deficient Critical Adequate Toxic

60. from Carter (1992)

61. from Brockley (2001)

62. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria

63. Information sources: l Previously published interpretative criteria

64. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Information sources: l Previously published interpretative criteria l Published foliar nutrient and growth response data from Pinus, Picea and Pseudotsuga fertilization studies

65. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Information sources: l Previously published interpretative criteria l Published foliar nutrient and growth response data from Pinus, Picea and Pseudotsuga fertilization studies l Unpublished foliar nutrient and growth response data from BC fertilization studies

66. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Macronutrients Revised March 2012

67. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Macronutrients cont’d Revised March 2012

68. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Sulphate-S and Boron Revised March 2012

69. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Nutrient ratios Revised March 2012

70. Revised foliar nutrient interpretative criteria Nutrient ratios cont’d

71. Some basic interpretative rules

72. l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used

73. Some basic interpretative rules l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used l Assess foliar nutrient status within the context of site ecological characteristics

74. Some basic interpretative rules l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used l Assess foliar nutrient status within the context of site ecological characteristics l Confirm that N deficiency exists before assessing other nutrients

75. Some basic interpretative rules l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used l Assess foliar nutrient status within the context of site ecological characteristics l Confirm that N deficiency exists before assessing other nutrients l Assess S status in the following order of importance: SO 4 > N:S > S Only assess N:S or S if SO 4 status is marginal

76. Some basic interpretative rules l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used l Assess foliar nutrient status within the context of site ecological characteristics l Confirm that N deficiency exists before assessing other nutrients l Assess S status in the following order of importance: SO 4 > N:S > S l N:P, N:K, and N:Mg ratios are more important than absolute levels of P, K, or Mg

77. Some basic interpretative rules l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used l Assess foliar nutrient status within the context of site ecological characteristics l Confirm that N deficiency exists before assessing other nutrients l Assess S status in the following order of importance: SO 4 > N:S > S l N:P, N:K, and N:Mg ratios are more important than absolute levels of P, K, or Mg l Don’t be too concerned if possible deficiency is indicated for Cu, Zn, or Fe

78. Some basic interpretative rules l Confirm that standardized foliar sampling protocol was used l Assess foliar nutrient status within the context of site ecological characteristics l Confirm that N deficiency exists before assessing other nutrients l Assess S status in the following order of importance: SO 4 > N:S > S l N:P, N:K, and N:Mg ratios are more important than absolute levels of P, K, or Mg l Don’t be too concerned if possible deficiency is indicated for Cu, Zn, or Fe l Ask for help if uncertain