Four years in: Finally a treatment response in the MELNHE stands

Adam Wild Research Assistant, SUNY ESF

Lisa CarperStudent, A. Crosby Kennett High School

Multiple Element Limitation in Northern Hardwood Ecosystems

Multiple Element Limitation in Northern Hardwood Ecosystems (MELNHE) sites

Map by: Matt Vadeboncoeur

9 Stands (C1-C9)24-131 years since harvest

2 Stands (HBM & HBO)44 & 104 years since harvestSeparate CaSiO3 & control plot

2 Stands (JBM & JBM)29 & 114 years since harvest

Map by: Matt Vadeboncoeur

4-5, 50m x 50m plots per stand

3

• 5 treatments –

- N as NH4NO3 – 30 kg N/ha/yr

- P as NaH2PO4 – 10 kg P/ha/yr

- N & P as above

- Ca as CaSiO3 – 1150 kg Ca/ha

- Control

• Application began 2011

Fertilization

4

Soil pH after a wollastonite Addition

Soils were tested in 1998 (pre-treatment) and in 2000 and 2002 (post-treatment)

pH results from Watershed 1 (Cho et al. 2010)

Hypothesis

pH will increase in organic soil

Methods

• Soils collected in 2012 from C1, C6, C8 by Adam

• Re-sampling in 2014 from C1, C6, C8, HBCa, JBM, JBO

Collection Methods

• 2 soil pits in the Ca plot buffer

• 2 soil pits outside the Ca plot for controls

• Depths Oe

0 cm

5 cm

10 cm

15 cm

20 cm

25 cm

30 cm

Soil pH

Sampling

2012

C6 C1

C8

2014

C6

C8

2014C6

C8

pH is higher at 0 cm in C6

pH is higher in the Oe at C8

Foliar Results

Foliar Nutrient Methods

• Leaves were shot 7/24-7/27/13

in 5 stands: C6, C8, C9, JBM & JBO

• 4 sugar maple trees in each plot

• In addition, 3 yellow birch and 3 American beech trees were sampled in C8 control and Ca plots.

• Daniel Conley and Wim Clymans analyzed Si. Adam analyzed N, P, Ca, Mg, Mn, and K at ESF.

15

16

• CRD ANOVA within stands for each nutrient. Tukey’sdifferences are reported for α = 0.10.

Statistical Analysis

C6 C8 C9 JBM JBO

p=0.08p=0.03p=0.60p=0.14p=0.35

b

a abab

ab

a

b

ab

ab

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

N treatment resulted in higher foliar N only at Jeffers Brook.

C6 C8 C9 JBM JBO

p=0.04p=0.006p=0.21p=0.23p=0.93

b

ab

ab

a

a

a

ab

c

bcbc

a

aa

a

a

a

a

a

a

aa

P treatment resulted in higher foliar P only at Jeffers Brook.

C6 C8 C9 JBM JBO

p=0.06p=0.93p=0.83p=0.01p=0.55

ab

a

ab

ab

b

a

a

a

a

a

a a

a

a

a

ab

cabc bc

aa

There were some significant treatment effects on foliar K but they were not consistent.

C6 C8 C9 JBM JBO

p=0.18p=0.59p=0.39p=0.12p=0.41

a a

a

a

aa

a

a

a

a a

a a

a

a

a

a

aa

a

a

There were no treatment effects on foliar Mg.

C6 C8 C9 JBM JBO

p=0.006p=0.02p=0.21p<0.001p=0.01

a

ab

b

b

b

a

b

ab ab

ab

a

a

a

a

a

ab

bc

c

c

a

b

Ca addition increased foliar Mn in C6, C8, and JBO.

C6 C8 C9 JBM JBO

p=0.07

aa

a

a

a

p=0.7p=0.63p=0.06p=0.99a

aa

aa

a

a

a

aa

a

a

aa

a

There were no treatment effects on foliar Ca.

sugar mapleA. beech yellow birch

p=0.001 p=0.001 p=0.01 p=0.02p=0.07 p=0.002

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

The CaSiO3 addition increased foliar Si in all six stands.

15 35 55 75

Soil P (ug/g soil)

r = 0.22p =0.42

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

500 1500 2500 3500

Ca (ug/g soil)

r = -0.06p =0.83

3 5 7 9 11 13

N mineralization (ug/g soil)

Bartlett Mature -C8

Bartlett Mature -C9

Bartlett Mid-C6

Jeffers Mid

Jeffers Mature

r = 0.65p = 0.007

Ave

rage

Sap

Su

gar

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

Ca N P

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Foliar Ca (mg/g)

r = -0.03p = 0.79

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

Foliar P (mg/g)

r = -0.25p = 0.02

5 10 15 20 25

Foliar N (mg/g)

r = 0.16p = 0.14

Ave

rage

Sap

Su

gar

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

Ca N P

A

B

15 35 55 75

Soil P (ug/g soil)

r = 0.22p =0.42

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

500 1500 2500 3500

Ca (ug/g soil)

r = -0.06p =0.83

3 5 7 9 11 13

N mineralization (ug/g soil)

Bartlett Mature -C8

Bartlett Mature -C9

Bartlett Mid-C6

Jeffers Mid

Jeffers Mature

r = 0.65p = 0.007

Ave

rage

Sap

Su

gar

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

Ca N P

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Foliar Ca (mg/g)

r = -0.03p = 0.79

0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

Foliar P (mg/g)

r = -0.25p = 0.02

5 10 15 20 25

Foliar N (mg/g)

r = 0.16p = 0.14

Ave

rage

Sap

Su

gar

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

Ca N P

A

B

R² = 0.1429

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5 10 15 20 25

Ave

rage

Sap

Su

gar

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

Foliar N:P (mg/g)

Bartlett Mature-C8

Bartlett Mature-C9

Bartlett Mid-C6

Jeffers Mid

Jeffers Mature

Higher foliar N:P increases sap sweetness

27

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Control N P NP

Ave

rage

Sap

Su

gar

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

p = 0.09

a

a

a

b

Nitrogen increases sap sweetness

MELNHE Results Summary

• Foliar N and P treatment response at Jeffers Brook

• Si is higher in the wollastonite application but there is no Ca affect

• N increases sap sweetness (more pancakes)

• Tree growth?

• Snails?

• Respiration?

• Microbes?

• Seedlings?

• Sapflow?

Will we see a treatment response in…

Acknowledgments

• Daniel Conley

• Wim Clymans

• Matt Vadeboncoeur

• Mark Green

• Ruth Yanai

• Michele Pryun

• Shoestring Crews

Citations• Choe, Y. Driscoll, C.T. Johnson, C.E. Siccama, T.G. 2010. Chemical

changes in soil and soil solution after calcium silicate addition to a northern hardwood forest. Biogeochemistry