Teabag Fertilization at Planting on Pseudotsuga menziesii, Thuja plicata and Picea glauca x engelmannii. Second Growing Season Results

Transcription

1 Teabag Fertilization at Planting on Pseudotsuga menziesii, Thuja plicata and Picea glauca x engelmannii Second Growing Season Results Project Location: Pyramid Prepared for: Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd. 411 Borthwick Barriere, BC V0E 1E0 By: Second Growth Consulting Ltd. # B McGill Road Kamloops, BC V2C 6N6 Phone: (250) ndgrwth@telus.net February 2004

2 Abstract In the Upper North Thompson valley at Pyramid Creek, the second-year results of a fertilization trial on Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), Thuja plicata (western redcedar) and Picea glauca x engelmannii (hybrid spruce) have been completed. The study began in the spring of One hundred planted seedlings of each of the three species in the trial were fertilized with teabag fertilizer; an additional one hundred seedlings per species were identified as controls. The purpose of the trial is to determine if fertilization at the time of planting will both increase seedling height and caliper, and result in the reduction or elimination of brushing, and promote the achievement of minimum free-growing heights at an earlier date. Second year trial results indicate that all three species continue to have significant responses to fertilization, particularly in relation to height and caliper growth. Hybrid spruce displays the greatest height growth increases, as fertilized stock is 15 percent taller than the control. Fertilized Douglas-fir and western redcedar are 10 and 4 percent taller respectively. In regards to caliper growth, the fertilized hybrid spruce also displays the greatest increase. The ground level diameter (GLD) of fertilized hybrid spruce stock has increased by 18 percent over the control. Fertilized Douglas-fir and western redcedar have also shown considerable increases of 17 and 15 percent respectively. Seedling caliper was measured in the spring of 2003 and average stem caliper was essentially the same between the fall 2002 and spring 2003 measurements. Fertilizer does not appear to cause stems to increase in diameter over the winter months. The results of Foliar Analysis indicate that all of the species generally have increased levels of macro and micronutrients, with Douglas-fir showing the greatest differences between the treatment and control stems, especially with regards to nitrogen. The concentration of foliar nutrients in the fertilized stock, in comparison to the control stock, was notably greater following the first growing season. However, nutrient concentration in the foliage following the second growing season is generally the same between the fertilized and control trees with the fertilized trees having lower levels in many cases. As the fertilized seedlings appear to be utilizing the nutrients for increased growth, second growing season results indicate that the benefits of fertilizer are perhaps better presented by increases in growth and biomass, than by nutrient concentrations derived from foliar analysis. Assessment of competitive status indicates that the fertilized stock experiences reduced competition from vegetation as these stems yielded greater height and caliper growth. The second growing season results indicate the fertilized stock is less impacted. Results from year two indicate that future assessments will confirm the use of teabag fertilization as a method to reduce suppression and mortality due to brush competition through the increased growth of crop trees. It is also predicted that crop trees will achieve minimum free-growing heights at an earlier date than would otherwise be expected. i

3 Acknowledgements Funding for the trial has been provided through the Forest Investment Account (FIA), with project implementation by Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd.. Great appreciation is extended to Steven Kiiskila of Pacific Regeneration Technologies Inc. for his assistance in establishing the trial, completing statistical analysis of the data, and his aid with interpreting the results of the Foliage Analysis. As well, thanks are extended to Neil Anderson of ReForestation Technologies International for his assistance in interpreting the results of the trial. The project was established, and the first measurement recorded, by Natural Borders Reforestation Ltd. in the spring of Second Growth Consulting Ltd. completed re-measurements in the fall of 2002, and in both the spring and fall of ii

4 Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements i ii Introduction 1 Methodology 1 Location 1 Design 2 Measurement 2 Results 3 Growth 3 Foliar Nutrient Analysis 4 Competition 6 Discussion 6 Height and Caliper Growth 6 Nutrient Concentrations 7 Growth and Competitive Status 8 Conclusion 9 References 10 iii

5 List of Appendices A. Site Characteristics 11 B. Maps 14 Access Map 15 Fertilization Trial Map 16 Design Layout 17 C. Bio Paks Pamphlet 18 D. Fertilization Trial Definition of Growth and Competitive Status Terms 21 E. Competitive Status 23 F. Volume Calculations 25 G. Fall 2003 Statistical Analysis 29 H Fertilization Trial Photos 46 List of Tables 1. Comparison of the average height and diameter by species at time of planting, in the fall of 2002, and in the fall of Interior hybrid spruce, Douglas-fir and western redcedar Foliar Analysis comparison between 2002 and 2003 growing seasons 5 3. Competitive status 6 iv

6 Introduction The Upper North Thompson Valley, in the vicinity of Blue River, British Columbia, occurs in the interior wet-belt and consists mainly of the ICH wk1, ICH vk1 and ESSF wc2 biogeoclimatic units. Heavy snow pack, summer rains, and a relatively short growing season are the norm for this area (Lloyd et al., 1990). As a result, these ecosystems are prone to high brush competition, making reforestation efforts costly and challenging. Trees must become established prior to brush encroachment if reforestation obligations are to be met within acceptable budgets and timelines. To improve conifer establishment and vigour prior to the advancement of brush, Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd. has been fertilizing trees at the time of planting with teabag fertilizer, since Visual observations suggest that the fertilizer has contributed to increased tree height and diameter in the first two growing seasons following planting, helping trees grow above the brush, before vegetation becomes fully established. To what extent stem diameter and height will be increased, and whether the treatment is beneficial over the long term is unknown at this time. Other factors to be considered are the effects on individual tree species and the ecosystems in which the trees are planted. This trial will monitor benefits derived from fertilization at the time of planting with teabag fertilizer. The objectives of this trial are: 1. To assess whether fertilization at the time of planting will increase seedling height and stem diameter, and if so, to what extent, and 2. if height and stem diameter are increased, to assess whether fertilization at the time of planting will: a. reduce or even eliminate the need for brushing in areas traditionally requiring treatment from competition (i.e. trees are able to grow above the brush prior to its establishment), and b. result in the achievement of minimum free-growing heights sooner. Methodology Location The trial is located in the Pyramid Creek drainage, approximately 28 km north of Blue River on a Gilbert Smith Forest Product s appraisal cut-block (FLA56291, CP B Blk 43). Specific site characteristics are in Appendix A. 1

7 Design Twelve rows of seedlings running from north to south were established at relatively uniform spacing across the trial area. Rows were set-up to capture site variability. Each row has 50 seedlings of a single species, with four rows in total for each species. On one side of the row 25 seedlings were fertilized, and on the other side of the row 25 control seedlings are not fertilized. There are three tree species in the trial: Douglas-fir, western redcedar and Birch Island hybrid spruce. In total, there are 100 treated seedlings per species and 100 control seedlings per species. The locations of the rows are as shown on the map in Appendix B. Pacific Regeneration Technologies Inc. (PRT) 1 produced the stock used in the trial under their standard operational growing regimes. Stock type PSB was used for all three species. Seedlots planted are as follows: Western redcedar Birch Island hybrid spruce Douglas-fir Fertilizer from ReForestation Technologies International (RTI) 2 was used for the trial. The product consisted of 10g packets of (nitrogen phosphorous potassium) teabag fertilizer with micronutrients as outlined in Appendix C. This formula was chosen because it is designed to build roots and caliper, which is expected to translate into increased growth and make the trees less susceptible to snow press. The fertilizer is intended to release slowly over a two-year period. During planting, current operational planting techniques were employed. Raised microsites were targeted, and planting near obstacles was favored. Fertilizer packets were placed under the humus layer 3 to 5 cm upslope of the planted trees. Each tree was identified by a metal stake with a colored and numbered label that was inserted into the ground adjacent to the tree. Orange labels indicate control trees that were not fertilized and blue labels indicate fertilized trees. Measurement At the time of planting (June 11, 2002), the height and ground-level-diameter (GLD) were measured on all seedlings per treatment. The seedlings were re-measured at the end of the first growing season on October 7, In the second year of the trial, a measurement was completed on May 21, 2003 to examine seedling caliper to determine if the fertilizer increased growth during the fall and early spring. Measurements on September 23, 2003 were to assess all growing season growth increases. Along with height and GLD, survival, vigour, and brush competition were noted. Re-measurement of these parameters is planned following the third and fifth growing seasons. 1 This is not an endorsement of Pacific Regeneration Technologies Inc. 2 This is not an endorsement of ReForestation Technologies International 2

8 SYSTAT 10.2 was used to perform analysis of variance, and Tukey s post hoc multiple range test if treatment differences were found to be significant. Species, and fertilization were regarded as fixed factors, and the trial was analyzed as a completely randomized split-plot design. Fertilization was the split-plot effect. The level of significance was maintained at = The vigour and brush competition was visually assessed according to Simard et al. (2001). Definitions are provided in Appendix D. Foliar Nutrient Analysis was completed after the first and second growing seasons, to determine if the trees are utilizing the fertilizer. Foliage, from lateral branches produced in the current growing season, was randomly collected by species from seedlings of the treatment and control types, and sent to a lab for analysis. Foliage collection was completed on November 7, 2002, and on October 6, One tree per species was excavated from the treatment and control to determine if there were visual differences in root development. Results Growth At the time of planting, the height and diameter were similar between the fertilized and control trees within species but significantly different between species. This is to be expected considering the trees had not yet grown and are of the same stock type. However, after the first season the height and diameter of fertilized trees is significantly greater than that of control trees for all species. This trend was confirmed in the second year of the trial, where the percent gain over the control trees by the fertilized trees has increased. The analysis of variance completed for the second growing season data is in Appendix G. The average height and ground level diameter of each species at the time of planting (PLT) in 2002, and in subsequent remeasurements (02, 03) is found in Table 1. C represents control trees and F represents fertilized trees. 3

9 Table 1. Comparison of the average height and diameter by species at time of planting, in the fall of 2002, and in the fall of 2003 Height PLT Height 02 Height 03 GLD PLT GLD 02 GLD 03 (cm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Sx C Sx F Cw C Cw F Fd C Fd F Foliar Nutrient Analysis Foliage samples from the current year s growth were collected at the end of the first and second growing seasons. As displayed in Table 2 fertilization, improved the nutritient status of all of the planted species, particularly nitrogen and boron after year one. It is especially notable in Douglas-fir. However, during year two nutrient concentrations tend to even out between the control and the fertilized trees of all species with nutrient concentrations in the fertilized trees actually being slightly lower in many cases. It should also be noted that boron has substantially decreased from year one. 4

10 Table 2. Interior hybrid spruce, Douglas-fir and western redcedar Foliar Analysis comparison between 2002 and 2003 growing seasons NUTRIENT Hybrid spruce Douglas-fir Western redcedar Macros - % Adequate 1 Control Fert. Adequate 1 Control Fert. Adequate 1 Control Fert. Nitrogen >1.45 Phosphorus >0.16 Potassium >0.50 Calcium >0.20 Magnesium >0.12 Total Sulphur 10% of N > > > > > > > > > > % of N % of N Micros - Adequate 1 Control Fert. Adequate 1 Control Fert. Adequate 1 Control Fert. ppm Iron > > > Copper >2 Zinc >10 Manganese >15 Boron >12 Molybdenum >0.1 Sodium > > > > > > > > ND ND 0.6 ND >0.1 ND ND > ND Adequate values from Carter, Values in bold are below optimum levels 3 Values with background highlighting indicate possible toxicity 4 ND indicates that nutrients are Not Detectable 5 Values appearing in regular font are from 2002; Values appearing in italic font are from

11 Competition Of the 600 trees in the trial, 27 have died since planting; this affects 16 of the fertilized trees and 11 of the control trees. In the fertilized trees mortality was evenly split between Douglas-fir and western red cedar. In the control trees, there were 8 dead western red cedar and 3 dead Douglas-fir. Mortality was absent with the hybrid spruce. The effect of competition agents (as defined by Simard et al., 2001) was assessed and summarized in Table 3. A detailed table of competitive status is provided in Appendix E. Table 3. Competitive status Percentage of stems affected (%) Competition Agent 1 Hybrid spruce Douglas-Fir Western redcedar Control Fert. Control Fert. Control Fert. FOV FOV Threatened Threatened Overtopped Overtopped Dead 02 2 Dead Defined in Appendix D 2 FOV: free of vegetation Discussion Height and Caliper Growth Second growing season results demonstrate a significant response to fertilization treatment with respect to height and caliper growth. Fertilized hybrid spruce display the greatest growth increase with heights 15.4% taller than their control after two growing seasons; this difference has improved from 9.4% in year one. Douglas-fir had the second highest increase in growth with fertilized stock 9.6% taller than its control following year two; the growth difference has increased from 4.1% in year one. With respect to height, western redcedar was less impacted by the fertilizer treatment. Year two results show fertilized stems as being 4% taller than their control, when year one results showed treated stock as being 4.9% taller. 6

12 Caliper growth, as measured by ground level diameter, has also significantly increased as a result of fertilization. Year two fertilized hybrid spruce calipers are 18.3% greater than their control; a slight increase from a difference of 16.2% in year one. In year two, Douglas-fir and western redcedar illustrate the greatest gains in caliper growth on fertilized stock where treated fir are 14.8%, an increase from 8%, and cedar are 16.7%, an increase from 9.5%, greater in caliper than their respective controls. Although year two trial results occur at an early stage of stand establishment and development and as such cannot reasonably predict trends in tree growth, it is suitable to comment that growth (height and caliper) on fertilized stock is statistically significant in comparison to that of unfertilized stock. Height increases are greatest with spruce and fir, whereas gains in caliper growth is more similar among the three species. In addition, average stem calipers from measurements taken in the fall and in the following spring were compared to assess whether or not it could be suggested that fertilized stock put on caliper growth over the winter months, specifically the late fall and early spring. The seedlings did not increase caliper as GLD was essentially the same and an overall gain of 0.01mm was found over all of the fertilized stock in the trial. The slight increase in growth is attributed to a possible growing season extension on either side of the measurement dates, and may also be recognized as measurement error. Finally, for each species root masses were excavated and photographed to allow an ocular comparison of root growth between the fertilized and unfertilized stems. For all stock, there was not a noticeable difference in root mass between treated and untreated individuals. Nutrient Concentrations The results of Foliar Analysis indicate that all of the fertilized stems have benefited from increased available nutrients. As fertilization has improved the nutritional status of the test trees, it should be noted that the control trees are not overly deficient in mineral nutrients. Nursery fertilization regimes and on-site soil nutrients have aided in control stock nutrition. In the first year of the study, Douglas-fir showed the highest gains in nutrient status amongst the fertilized trees. As presented in Table 2, initially the majority of macronutrients were deficient for Douglas-fir control trees whereas the fertilized trees show macronutrients at adequate levels. The exception was the levels of magnesium and sulphur that increased to an almost adequate level following year two. It is also important to note that copper is deficient for all species and fertilization did not improve the intake of the micronutrient for either hybrid spruce or Douglas-fir seedlings. Initially, boron levels in the fertilized Douglas-fir and western redcedar were near toxic levels, but the nutrient concentration appears to have leveled off following year two. The second year of Foliar Analysis shows that the differences between the control and the fertilized trees has become less significant, as the control trees have increased 7

13 macronutrient percentages to a level close to and occasionally surpassing the levels found in the fertilized trees. All stock displays an increase in macronutrient levels, with the exception of both the control and the fertilized western redcedar; these groups show slight decreases in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and sulphur. Copper levels have increased in all species, and concentrations are now generally acceptable, though slightly less than optimal. Boron levels have dropped significantly, from potentially toxic ranges in the first year, to well within acceptable levels at the end of the second growing season. Scarce levels of molybdenum are not a present concern as adequate levels are only >0.01ppm and according to Steven Kiiskila (pers comm), this may be a lab or sampling issue. The first growing season nutrition results display a change in foliar concentrations that is notably greater than the change indicated by the second growing season results. In year one foliar nutrient concentration increased greatly in the fertilized stock. In year two foliar nutrient concentrations are much more similar between the fertilized and control stock. Second growing season results suggest that the benefits of fertilizer are perhaps better presented by increases in growth and biomass than by foliar nutrition derived from analysis. The volume calculations in Appendix F, which attempt to estimate the entire biomass of a seedling, reflect this. Fertilized stock has allocated nutrients to biomass production as measured by increased height and caliper growth. It is expected that future foliar analysis will yield results similar to those from the second growing season. Growth and Competitive Status Growth and competitive status was assessed during trial re-measurements at the growing season end. The vegetation complex primarily consists of oplopanax horridus, acer glabrum, pteridium aquilinum and athyrium filix-femina. The competitive nature of these species was initially reduced following logging and site preparation disturbance, however competition potential is high and after the second growing season the competing vegetation has essentially fully recovered. Vegetation averaged 1-meter in height, and occupied most of the site. Second year findings indicate that the fertilized stock experiences reduced competition from vegetation. Although the brush has not significantly impacted the growth of any seedlings across the site yet, even those assigned a competitive status value of overtopped, the increased height and caliper growth in the treated stock was definitely beneficial in allowing the seedlings to combat the on-site vegetation in year two. Visual observations noted that the fertilized trees had better color and vigour when compared to their control and more importantly, had significantly greater foliar biomass (see photos in Appendix H). Due to their larger size and better vigour, it expected that the fertilized trees would overtop the brush sooner, which will allow them to reach minimum free-growing heights sooner than the control trees. Just as importantly they are more likely not to require any intervention with bushing treatments. 8

14 Of all the species, hybrid spruce displays the best, most consistent vigour across the trial area. Lower performance was observed on some of the Douglas-fir and western redcedar stock and indices of vigour are consistent between the test and control groups. Last, it should also be noted that at this time it is difficult to recognize trends of competitive status for western red cedar. Height variability and greater vegetation competition was visually noted with regards to that species. As well, the stock has experienced greater browse from voles, perhaps as a function of the increased nutrient levels and the fact that rodents tend to prefer that species. Multiple leaders, forked and dead or dying tops and variable levels of animal browse were all noted as negatively affecting the cedar at this time however, it is expected to fully recover. The greatest mortality was noted in the 2003 growing season on western redcedar and is attributed to animal damage and frost. Despite these observations it is expected that the fertilized trees will outperform the control trees over time due to their increased caliper and more importantly, increased foliar biomass. It has been observed in nearby plantations, that the larger the foliar biomass, the better the cedar performs. Conclusion Results from the second year of the fertilization trial at Pyramid Creek indicate that the height and caliper of fertilized Pseudotsuga menziesii, Thuja plicata and Picea glauca x engelmannii are significantly greater than that of the control trees. In general, the percentage increase in stem size (height and GLD) is greater following year two than the significant increase produced in year one. Foliar nutrient status of the fertilized and control stock is approaching similar concentrations. These findings are to be expected as the fertilized stems have allocated their additional nutrient resources to increased biomass production, as observed in measured height and caliper. Robustness of the fertilized stems is a valuable attribute as these trees have a greater chance of establishment and survival in the midst of competition. Early results predict that the fertilized trees will continue to have increased growth and survival. The overtopping of vegetation and achievement of minimum free-growing heights at an earlier date is also predicted. This trial is in the early stages of stand establishment and the statement of trends is therefore not yet statistically supported. Future measurements following the third and fifth growing seasons will provide a stronger statement of the benefits associated with teabag fertilization. 9

15 References Carter, R Diagnosis and interpretation of forest stand nutrient status. In: Forest fertilization: Sustaining and improving nutrition and growth of western forests. Institute of Forest Resources Contrib. No. 73. (Eds: Chappell, HN; Weetman, GF; Miller, RE) College of Forest Resources, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Grossnickle, S.C Ecophysiology of Northern Spruce Species: The Performance of Planted Seedlings. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 409 pp. Lloyd, D., K. Angove, G. Hope, C. Thompson, A guide to site identification and interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. Res. Br., Min. For., B.C. Land Manage. Handb. No. 23. Simard, S.W., J.L Heineman, J.W. Mather, D.L. Sachs, A. Vyse, Effects of operational brushing on conifers and plant communities in the southern interior of British Columbia: results from PROBE PROTOCOL for operational brushing evaluations. Res. Br., Min. For., Victoria, BC. Land Management Handbook No. 48. Pp

16 Appendix A 11

17 Site Characteristics for FLA56291 CP B Block 43 Aspect North Slope 25-40% Slope Position Toe of a steep slope; receiving Elevation m Biogeoclimatic ICHvk1-01 Classification Pre-Harvest Stand 250+ year old western redcedar and western hemlock stand Characteristics Soils Brunisols, L-SL textures, 60+cm depth Harvesting December 2001 Groundskidding on snowpack Site Preparation December 2001 Mechanically piled large accumulations immediately after harvesting. The duff remained relatively intact. Planting June 11, 2002 Weather at the time of planting was sunny and warm with a temperature in the high 20 s. The remainder of the summer was also relatively hot and dry. 12

18 Overview of FLA56291 CP B Block 43 Overview of vegetation complex in trial area 13

19 Appendix B 14

20 15

21 16

22 Design Layout Blue Tags = Fertilized trees Orange Tags = Non-fertilized trees Line 1 Sx Line 2 Sx Line 3 Cw Line 4 Cw Line 5 Fdi Line 6 Fd Line 7 Sx Line 8 Cw Line 9 Fdi Line 10 Sx Line 11 Cw Line 12 Fdi Right side 1-25 Blue Left side Orange Right side 1-25 Orange Left side Blue Left side Blue Right side Orange Right side Orange Left side Blue Right side Blue Left side Orange Right side Orange Left side Blue Right/Left Blue/Orange Right/Left Blue/Orange Right/Left Blue/Orange Right/Left Blue/Orange Right/Left Blue/Orange Right/Left Blue/Orange 17

23 Appendix C 18

24 19

25 20

26 Appendix D 21

27 Fertilization Trial Definition 3 of Growth and Competitive Status Terms Growth 1. Good Vigour vigourous shoot growth, large leaf area, long needles, deep green color, and thick caliper 2. Moderate Vigour moderate shoot growth, leaf area, needle length and caliper 3. Poor Vigour little or etiolated shoot growth and or few short needles and small caliper 4. Moribund near death and little or no shoot growth 5. Dead Competitive Status 1. Free of Vegetation leaders well above surrounding vegetation and unlikely to become overtopped within 2-growing seasons 2. Threatened seedlings have leaders at the same height as surrounding vegetation 3. Overtopped leaders are overtopped by any vegetation (in any quadrant) within the tree s growing cylinder 4. Suppressed seedling is well below vegetation 3 Simard et al

28 Appendix E 23

29 GSFP Fertilization Trial: Pyramid Competitive Status 2002 / 2003 Fertilized Contr ol Sx Sx Cw Cw Fd Fd Sx Cw Fd Sx Cw Fd Sx Sx Cw Cw Fd Fd Sx Cw Fd Sx Cw Fd Line ) FOV 2002* ) FOV )Threatened )Threatened )Overtopped )Overtopped ) Dead ) Dead (no trees noted as suppressed in either first or second year of trial) *FOV = Free of Vegetation 1) FOV 2002* )Threatened )Overtopped ) Dead ) FOV )Threatened )Overtopped ) Dead

30 Appendix F 25

31 Gilbert Smith Forest Products Pyramid Creek Cedar (Cw) Trials Volume Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year Height Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year Diameter Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year

32 Gilbert Smith Forest Products Pyramid Creek Spruce (Sx)Trials Volume Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year Height Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year Diameter Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year

33 Gilbert Smith Forest Products Pyramid Creek Douglas fir (Fdi) Trials Volume Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year Height Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year Diameter Control Bio-Pak Planting Year Year

34 Appendix G 29

35 ANOVA table for completely randomized split-plot design Pyramid Creek 02 Source of Variation df Expected Mean Square Term Main-plot Species, S (s-1) = 2 σ 2 E(SRF) + 20σ 2 R(S) + 80φ S R(S) Row, R(S) (r-1)s = 9 σ 2 E(SRF) + 20σ 2 R(S) Split-plot Fertilizer, F (f-1) = 1 σ 2 E(SRF) + 10σ 2 F*R(S) + 280φ F F*R(S) S*F (s-1) (f-1) = 2 σ 2 E(SRF) + 10σ 2 F*R(S) + 40φ P*F F*R(S) F*R(S) (f-1)(r-1)s = 9 σ 2 E(SRF) + 10σ 2 F*R(S) Tree, E(SRF) (e-1)srf = 576 σ 2 E(SRF) Total srfe-1 = 559 Effects coding used for categorical variables in model. Categorical values encountered during processing are: SPP$ (3 levels) Cw, Fd, Sx REP$ (4 levels) 1, 2, 3, 4 FERT$ (2 levels) C, TB 17 case(s) deleted due to missing data. 30

36 Dep Var: HTPLT N: 584 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: SPP$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Note, there are significant differences in height and GLD among species at time of planting, which continues through fall 2002 and However, I assume you expect there to be species differences, which is not really what you want to test, but they species differences just end up being tested because of the trial design. There is greater precision put on the split-plot factor (i.e. fertilization), which is what we want anyway. Test for effect called: FERT$ 31

37 Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: SPP$*FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dep Var: HT02 N: 580 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance 32

38 Source Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square *** WARNING *** Case 39 is an outlier (Studentized Residual = 4.061) Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: SPP$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P

39 Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: SPP$*FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dep Var: HT03 N: 560 Multiple R: Squared multiple R:

40 Analysis of Variance Source Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: SPP$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P

41 Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: SPP$*FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Note significant species x fertilization interaction for height beginning in fall 2003 (i.e. the species are interacting differently to the fertilizer). So perform One way anova on fertilization factor separately. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Data for the following results were selected according to: (SPP$= "Sx") 36

42 Dep Var: HT03 N: 198 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance Source FERT$ ROW$(FERT$) Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square F-ratio P Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Data for the following results were selected according to: (SPP$= "Cw") Dep Var: HT03 N: 178 Multiple R: Squared multiple R:

43 Analysis of Variance Source FERT$ ROW$(FERT$) Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square F-ratio P Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Data for the following results were selected according to: (SPP$= "Fd") Dep Var: HT03 N: 184 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance 38

44 Source FERT$ ROW$(FERT$) Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square F-ratio P Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P From above, you can see that only HT03 is only significantly different among fert/control for Sx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dep Var: GLDPLT N: 584 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance 39

45 Source Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: SPP$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: FERT$ 40

46 Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: SPP$*FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dep Var: GLD02 N: 580 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance 41

47 Source Sum-of- Squares df Mean-Square *** WARNING *** Case 217 is an outlier (Studentized Residual = 4.096) Case 436 is an outlier (Studentized Residual = 4.474) Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: SPP$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P

48 Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: SPP$*FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dep Var: GLD03 N: 560 Multiple R: Squared multiple R: Analysis of Variance 43

49 Source Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square Durbin-Watson D Statistic First Order Autocorrelation Test for effect called: SPP$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: FERT$ Test of Hypothesis 44

50 Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P Test for effect called: SPP$*FERT$ Test of Hypothesis Source Hypothesis SS df MS F P xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45

51 Appendix H 46

52 Typical control Douglas-fir (tree number 150) Typical fertilized Douglas-fir (tree number 075) 47

53 Typical control western redcedar (tree number 026) Typical fertilized western redcedar (tree number 101) 48

54 Typical control hybrid spruce (tree number 001) Typical fertilized hybrid spruce (tree number 076) 49