Hb2013 dong foliarchem
Transcript of Hb2013 dong foliarchem
Why Do We Care?Health Deficiency
http://www.hubbardbrook.org/
Nutrient Flux
Why Do We Care?
http://fullertoninn.tumblr.com/
• Climate
• Pests
• Browsing
• species competition
• successional status(stand age)
• Soil fertility
Driving Factors
Map made by Matt Vadeboncoeur (Yanai et al. 2012)
Study Site
Site First Growing Season after cut Foliage Collection Date Quan. Pits
M5 1977 2003, 2004 3
M3 1910 2003, 2004
T30 1948 2003, 2004 3
M4 1950 2003, 2004
T20 1958 2003, 2004
H5 1967 2003, 2004
H4 1935 2003, 2004 3
H6 1984 2003, 2004 3
H3 1875 2003, 2004
H1 1939 2003, 2004 3
H2 1875 2003, 2004
M6 1980 2003, 2004 3
C3 (101) 1971 2003, 2004
CC2 1989 2003, 2004
C1 1990 2009 3
C2 1988 2009 3
C4 1978 2009 3
C6 1975 2009 3
C8 1883 2009 3
C9 1890 2009 3
Results
Stand Age
Pin CherryCa K Mg
Ca K Mg
Red Maple
Results
Pin Cherry Mg
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1400
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
f(x) = − 0.0267816625323726 x + 9.44887305280735R² = 0.289778316364562
Red Maple Foliar Ca Vs Stand Age
Stand Age (yr)
Fol
iar
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n(m
g/g)
American Beech
Sugar Maple
Ca K Mg
Ca K
Ca K Mg
MgWhite Birch
Yellow Birch Ca K Mg
American Beech
Sugar Maple
Ca K Mg
Ca K
Ca K Mg
MgWhite Birch
Yellow Birch Ca K Mg
No Significant Correlation!
FEEL DISAPPOINTED?http://sustainyourcreativity.blogspot.com/2010/12/being-someone-else-impressions-from.html
Let’s try soil…….
http://envstudies.brown.edu/research/hamburg/images/pics/horizons.jpg/
Let’s try soil…….
http://envstudies.brown.edu/research/hamburg/images/pics/horizons.jpg/
Ca
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
2
4
6
8
10
12
f(x) = 6.25304431784968 x + 7.12260395795497R² = 0.574522553587544
0-10cm Soil exchangeable Ca Vs Foliage Ca
Soil Ca concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n(m
g/g)
Sugar Maple Red Maple
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
2
4
6
8
10
12
f(x) = 0.837849423341368 x + 6.79439560564531R² = 0.330620799109647
Oa Soil exchangeable Ca Vs Foliage Ca
Soil Ca concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/g)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
2
4
6
8
10
12
f(x) = 6.25304431784968 x + 7.12260395795497R² = 0.574522553587544
0-10cm Soil exchangeable Ca Vs Foliage Ca
Soil Ca concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
Con
cent
rati
on (m
g/g)
American Beech
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
2
4
6
8
10
12
f(x) = 6.25304431784968 x + 7.12260395795497R² = 0.574522553587544
0-10cm Soil exchangeable Ca Vs Foliage Ca
Soil Ca concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/g)
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.3502468
1012141618
f(x) = 14.3961509619793 x + 10.2760971271691R² = 0.501491523313019
0-10cm Soil Exchangeable Ca Vs foliage Ca
Soil Ca concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
f(x) = 26.4704967906573 x + 11.1070526822195R² = 0.3838471411844
10-30cm Soil Exchangealbe Ca Vs Foliage Ca
10-30cm Soil Ca Nutrient Concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/g)
Pin Cherry
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.350
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
f(x) = 14.2555742294096 x + 10.3196169943116R² = 0.50066422419353
0-10cm Exchangeable Soil Ca Vs Foliage Ca
Soil Ca concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/g)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.140
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
f(x) = 23.2665960603272 x + 11.1886359919708R² = 0.326797280818806
10-30cm Exchangeable Soil Ca Vs Foliage Ca
Soil Ca Concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Ca
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/g)
White Birch
Mg
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.070
0.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
f(x) = 18.9292063643684 x + 0.702078729847245R² = 0.745798416265152
0-10cm Soil exchangeable Mg Vs Foliage Mg
Soil Mg concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Mg
conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/g)
American Beech
White Birch
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.070
0.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
f(x) = 18.9292063643684 x + 0.702078729847245R² = 0.745798416265152
0-10cm Soil exchangeable Mg Vs Foliage Mg
Soil Mg concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Mg
Con
cent
rati
on 9
mg/
g)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.0250
0.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
f(x) = 53.4881036447929 x + 0.713288165655531R² = 0.74021946205836
10-30cm Soil exchangeable Mg Vs Foliage Mg
Soil Mg concentration (mg/g)
Fol
iage
Mg
Con
cent
rati
on (m
g/g)
Conclusion• Stand age may not be the factor that affects the foliar cation
concentrations for most species
• Natural heterogeneity of soil nutrients may affect foliar cation
concentrations ( PC (Ca), AB(Ca, Mg), RM (Ca), SM(Ca), WB(Ca, Mg),
YB(Ca)), even in a small scale.
• Soil nutrients availability in the 0-10cm may be the best predicator of
foliage cation concentrations
Future plan
• We need more soil data!
Acknowledgements• Marty Acker• Mary Arthur• Matt Vadeboncoeur• Joel Blum• Steve Hamburg• Craig see• Ruth Yanai• Mariann Johnston• Russell Briggs• All the other shoestring crew
Question?