Skip Navigation

Forestry 1981 54(2):157-167; doi:10.1093/forestry/54.2.157
© 1981 by Institute of Chartered Foresters
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MILLER, H. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Forest Fertilization: Some Guiding Concepts

HUGH G. MILLER

The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen

Drawing on results from studies of nutrient cycling and fertilizer response in pine, three concepts are proposed: (1) Fertilizers are generally of benefit to the trees, not the site, and measureable permanent site improvement is only likely if the amount of nutrient applied is large in relation to the soil capital. (2) In the absence of any site improvement, fertilizer response is best explained, and costed, by using the simple analogy of an acceleration through time, leading to a reduction in rotation length. (3) Consideration of the variations with tree age in the patterns of nutrient uptake, cycling and immobilization, and in the capture and retention of atmospheric nutrients, leads to the suggestion of three distinct nutritional stages. During the years prior to canopy closure (Stage I) tree growth is very dependent on soil nutrient concentrations and response to a number of nutrients can be expected. Thereafter, (Stage II) responses are unlikely unless foliage biomass has to be reconstructed, e.g after thinning However, on low nitrogen capital sites, immobilization of nitrogen in biomass and humuus as trees age can lead to the progressive development of deficiency (Stage III), a deficiency that may eventually disappear as tree demands fall with age.

It is suggested that together these three concepts provide a rational framework that will aid in the explanation and extrapolation of results from empirical fertilizer trials


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Soil Sci.Home page
C. Ringrose and W. A. Neilsen
Growth Responses of Pinus radiata and Soil Changes following Periodic Fertilization
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 29, 2005; 69(6): 1799 - 1805.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Soil Sci.Home page
T. R. Fox
Nitrogen Mineralization Following Fertilization of Douglas-fir Forests with Urea in Western Washington
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2004; 68(5): 1720 - 1728.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Soil Sci.Home page
D. W. Johnson, D. E. Todd Jr., and V. R. Tolbert
Changes in Ecosystem Carbon and Nitrogen in a Loblolly Pine Plantation over the First 18 Years
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2003; 67(5): 1594 - 1601.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.