“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data

“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data

Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results

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)

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)

“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data

Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results

Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation

“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

“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” 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

“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

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

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

“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

“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

“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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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)

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

“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

“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

“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

“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)

“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

“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

“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

“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