7',;.

ti

,,,
Ir,

4,-

Yid''

iA

x

4.

I

Circular 282 August 1985

f1t4

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Auburn University Gale A. Buchanan, Director Auburn University, Alabama

CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................... MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................. CONCLUSION .................................................... LITERATURE CITED ........................................ .................... 3 .................... 4 ..................... 9 .................... 11
.....................

27

FIRST PRINTI'ING

3M,

JULY 1985

Information contained herein is available to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.

Nutrient Content of Nursery-Grown Loblolly Pine Seedlings
James N. Boyer and David B. South'

INTRODUCTION

problems. The entire crop, including the roots, is harvested. Consequently, the continuing production of quality pine seedlings requires careful replacement of lost nutrients and maintenance of organic matter and soil tilth. The Auburn University Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative has been instrumental in improving soil testing practices and interpreting test results from southern forest nurseries through the Southern Forest Nursery Soil Testing Program (9). However, in addition to soil analysis for nutrient levels, analysis of the seedlings themselves for nutrient content can be an invaluable aid in soil management. Plant analysis is playing an increasingly important role in the expanding technology of economic plant production (1). The chemical composition of foliage and other plant parts indicates the amounts of minerals removed from the soil and is a tool for diagnosing nutritional deficiencies (3). While nutrient removal data have certain limitations, they do serve as estimates of the magnitude of the soil nutrient loss (6). A combination of both soil and tissue analyses can be much more useful than either one alone (5). Because tissue analysis does not rely so heavily on arbitrary extraction procedures, it can be useful for calibrating soil test values (11i). One problem with the use of plant analysis as a management tool is the lack
1

A

SEEDLING CROP presents special soil management

Research Associate and Assistant Professor of Forestry.

of suitable reference standards (1). The objective of the research on which this publication is based was to provide ranges of nutrient levels which seedling producers may use to compare the nutritional status of their loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings with that of seedlings sampled during 2 years at a large number of nurseries. MATERIALS AND METHODS From late November 1981 to late January 1982, 21 forest nurseries in 10 Southern States were visited to sample loblolly pine seedlings in production at that time. In December 1982, 20 nurseries in six states were visited, including eight which had been sampled the previous season, figure 1. Random nurseries were visited the first year and samples representing many seed sources were chosen from an average area in the nursery. The second year, only nurseries which sowed Livingston Parish (Louisiana) seed were visited, and an average area within that seed source was sampled.

FIG. 1. Locations of Southeast U. S. nurseries from which seedling samples were taken for nutrient analysis. [4]

At each nursery, one linear bed-foot sample (4 square feet) of 1-0 seedlings was hand-lifted. The sample was separated into foliage, stems, and roots. The plant components were oven-dried, weighed, and chemically analyzed, table 1.

TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS EMPLOYED FOR TISSUE NUTRIENT ANALYSIS'

Element 2

Method

N ..................... Kjeldahl digestion with H2S0 4 K2S0 2-Hg catalyst, distillation into standard acid and titration. P ...................... Dry ashed at 500°C and dissolved in 1:1 HC1. Phosphorus in extract determined colorimetrically. Ca, Mg, K, Na, Zn, Mn, Dry ashed at 500 0 C and dissolved in 1:1 HC1. Metals in extract Fe, Cu, Al ........... determined by atomic absorption. S ...................... Sample ashed with Mg (NO0) 2 . Sulfate in ash determined by BaS04
0 B ...................... Dry ashed at 500 C and dissolved in 1:1 HCI. Boron in extract determined by Azomethine-H colorimetric method. 'Analyses performed by A&L Laboratories, Memphis, Tennessee. itrogen, P - phosphorus, Ca = calcium, Mg = 'Element abbreviations: N =

precipitation.

sodium, Zn = zinc, Mn = manganese, Fe -=iron, magnesium, K = potassium, Na Cu = copper, Al = aluminum,S-- sulfur, and B = boron.

Nutrient levels are reported as a percent of dry weight or as parts per million by dry weight (p.p.m.). The median, minimum, and maximum values for these data are listed in table 2 for the different plant components. From these data and plant dry weights, calculations were made of the pounds per acre (total area, including tractor paths) of each soil nutrient removed from the soil by the seedling crop. The median, minimum, and maximum values for soil nutrient removal are listed in table 3. Table 4 shows nutrient removal values as milligrams per seedling. Histograms are used to show the distributions of seedling dry weights, figure 2, nutrient levels for each plant component, and the total amount of each nutrient removed from the soil, figures 3-15. Bar heights in these figures refer to the percent of the total number of samples having that value. Histograms are also used to show the foliar concentrations of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium relative to nitrogen concentration, figure 16. Only foliage samples with more than 1.2 percent and less than 2.0 percent nitrogen were included in this figure. Where means for the two sampling seasons are significantly different, the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.
[5]

TABLE 2.

MACRO- AND MICRONUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLE COMPONENTS OF LOBLOLLY PINE SEEDLINGS

Tissue

Concentration N
Pct.

P Pct. 0.12 .21 .30 .10 .20 .37 .12 .20
.39

K Pct. 0.82 1.12 1.47 .82 1.12 1.46 .87 1.14
1.53

Mg Pct. 0.03 .10 .23 .05 .11 .16 .03 .10
.16

Ca Pct. 0.22 .30 .66 .14 .22 .33 .10 .20
.31

S Pct. 0.05 .08 .16 .02 .06 .19 .04 .08
.49

Na Pct. 0.01 .02 .12 .01 .02 .13 .01 .03
.22

Fe* ppm. 107 412 2,150 85 274 880 395 1,470
3,410

Al*

Mn*

B

Cu

Zn

Foliage Minimum..........0.92 Median ............. 1.64 Maximum.......... 2.24 Stems Minimum ............ 45 Median.............. 95 Maximum.......... 1.79 Roots Minimum........... Median.............. .52 85

p.p.m.
340 650 6,380 130 460 2,770 780 3,460
15,270

p.p.m.
85 518 1,350 65 329 1,020 63 304
733

ppm.
10 17 65 8 16 33 13 23
47

ppm.
2 6 10 2 8 24 3 9
26

pp.
30 55 87 32 59 97 26 47
94

Maximum........... 1.66

*Contamination from soil makes these results of doubtful value.

TABLE

3.

MACRO- AND MICRONUTRIENTS REMOVED FROM A NURSERY BY LOBLOLLY PINE SEEDLINGS (ONLY 66 PERCENT OF AREA IN SEEDLINGS)

Tissue Foliage Minimum .......... Median ............. Maximum ...........

Removal per acre N Lb. 16.3 42.8 62.1 3.5 12.9 24.2 2.4 8.6 16.8 P Lb. 2.0 5.2 8.4 .7 2.5 4.6 .8 2.0 4.5 K Lb. 12.5 30.5 48.7 4.2 14.3 23.9 3.1 11.2 24.6 Mg Lb. 0.5 2.5 4.7 .4 1.4 2.4 .3 .8 3.6 Ca Lb. 3.3 8.6 13.5 .9 2.7 5.6 .5 1.8 4.9 S Lb. 0.8 2.1 4.0 .2 .8 2.3 .2 .8 4.4 Na Lb. 0.2 .4 2.6 .1 .3 1.5 .1 .3 1.9 .4 .9 5.8 Fe* Lb. 0.2 1.1 6.2 .1 .4 1.4 .1 1.5 5.2 .5 3.2 11.0 Al* Lb. 0.5 1.7 18.7 .1 .5 3.3 .3 4.0 20.0 .8 6.7 41.6 Mn* Lb. 0.2 1.4 3.2 .1 .4 1.0 .0 .3 .9 .4 2.0 4.5 B Lb. 0.02 .06 .17 .01 .02 .06 .01 .02 .08 .01 .10 .25 Cu Lb. 0.00 .02 .04 .00 .01 .04 .00 .01 .04 .01 .04 .12 Zn Lb. 0.05 .14 .21 .02 .07 .13 .01 .04 .11 .08 .28 .42

J

Stemns Minimum ........... Median .. .......... Maximum ........... Roots Minimum ............. Median ............... Maximum ............

Total 5.5 1.3 23.7 3.6 21.4 1.3 Minimum ............ 4.0 9.7 56.3 4.7 13.3 Median .............. .. 66.0 16.8 91.3 9.8 22.3 8.2 Maximum ........... 97.5 *Contamination from soil makes these results of doubtful value.

TABLE 4. MACRO- AND MICRONU I RIEN

CONTIFNT OF LOBLOLLY PINE SEEDLINGS

Tissue Foliage
Minimumii.............

N

111g
tg 12.0 21.6 30.7 1.3 2.7 4.5 .5 1.2 2.5 .3 .9 2.4

P

K tmg 6.6 14.5 26.2 2.0 7.3 12.2 1.5 5.4 11.6

Mg
mg

Ca ag 2.3 4.3 7.3 .6 1.4 3.0 .3 1.0 2.6

Amount per seedling S Na Fe* tmg 0.5 1.0 2.4 .1 .4 1.2 .1 .4 2.3 tag 0.1 .2 1.5 .0 .1 .9 .0 .2 1.2 .2 .5 3.4 tmg 0.1 .6 3.9 .0 .2 .7 .1 .8 2.8 .2 1.7 6.8

Al* tag 0.3 .9 11.4 .0 .3 2.0 .1 1.7 12.5 .4 3.4 26.0

Mn*
ng

B tag 0.01 .03 .08 .00 .01 .03 .00 .01 .03 .02 .05 .14

Cu tag 0.00 .01 .02 .00 .01 .02 .00 .00 .02 .00 .02 .06

Zn ag 0.03 .07 .14 .01 .04 .06 .01 .02 .06 .06 .13 .25

Median............. Maximum..........

0.3 1.2 3.1 .2 .6 1.4 .1 .5 1.7

0.1 .7 1.5 .0 .2 .5 .0 .1 .5 .2 1.1 2.3

00

Stems Minimum ............ 1.7 Median.............. 6.4 Maximum .......... 12.5 Roots Minimum ............ 1.2 Median ............. 4.5 7.9 Maximum ..........

Total 3.7 .7 2.6 10.1 .7 Minimum........... 16.2 1.9 2.3 6.7 27.1 32.5 4.9 Median .............. 12.0 4.4 49.2 5.2 9.2 Maximum .......... 50.4 *Contamination from soil makes these results of doubtful value.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nutrient concentrations reported for this survey are generally comparable to values found elsewhere, although some differences may occur due to varying methods used for analysis. Most studies of plant nutrient content involve only the foliage. However, in this survey, stems and roots combined contained nearly three-fourths as much nutrients as did the foliage. Furthermore, while studies usually report nutrient concentration in the tissue, it is important for the nurseryman to think in terms of soil nutrient depletion by plant removal. This information, together with soil test results and information on leaching amounts and the relationship between plant nutrient concentrations and productivity, can help the nurseryman manage for soil fertility more efficiently. Furthermore, absolute levels of nutrients taken by themselves may not be as important as the ratios of one element to another. This publication provides distributions of not only the nutrient concentrations in the various plant parts, but also of the total amount of nutrients removed from the soil. While these data do not show what concentrations are optimum for seedling production, they do give the nurseryman an indication of where his nursery may stand in relation to other nurseries with regard to plant nutrient levels and removals. Most data for nutrient levels in southern pine seedlings have arisen from studies where soil fertility levels were varied. Results from this survey show the distributions of nutrients in seedlings produced operationally at nurseries throughout the South over two growing seasons. More nitrogen was removed from the soil by loblolly pine seedlings than any other nutrient, although potassium was a close second, table 3. In foliage, the concentration of nitrogen was higher than potassium, however, stems and roots contained more of the latter, table 2. Nitrogen and potassium together made up nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of total element removal. Calcium was the next most abundant element in plant tissues, followed by phosphorus. Many samples were abnormally high in iron, aluminum, and manganese, apparently due to soil contamination. Fowells and Krauss (2) reported that less than 1.2 percent nitrogen and less than 0.10 percent phosphorus in loblolly pine foliage were deficient levels. Sucoff (10) reported the [9]

same deficiency levels for these nutrients in Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.) foliage. According to these standards and deficiency levels for potassium, calcium, and magnesium listed by Sucoff (10), a few samples in this survey were deficient in nitrogen, while none was deficient in phosphorus, potassium, or calcium. However, many nurseries were deficient in magnesium. Fowells and Krauss (2) also reported that trees grow best with foliar concentrations of 1.7-2.3 percent nitrogen and 0.14-0.18 percent phosphorus. Higher concentrations represent luxury consumption. Most samples in this survey were below this level of nitrogen but above the phosphorus level. Munson and Stone (7) pointed out the need for a clearer definition of minimum levels of potassium in nursery seedlings. Moisture stress seems to be the major cause of planting failures in the South, and potassium concentration is related to drought tolerance (4). Information on the proper ratio of one element to another is scarce. Shear et al. (8) dealt with this subject in some depth, but little if any work has been done on nutrient balance in loblolly pine. Shear et al. (8) stated that maximum growth and yield occur only upon the coincidence of optimum nutrient intensity and balance. Figure 16 shows the ratios of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium to nitrogen. The data are displayed as percent of nitrogen concentration. For some samples, the data suggest that certain nutrients may not be in the correct balance. The time of year sampling for nutrient content is done can have a major effect on results. The tissue nutrient concentrations of actively growing plants will be quite different from those of dormant plants. Furthermore, nutrient status of loblolly pine seedlings may also change over the course of the dormant period or lifting season. Munson and Stone (7) showed that nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium concentrations remained relatively constant during the lifting season (November-March), while potassium concentration progressively declined. However, due to increasing seedling dry weight during the latter part of the lifting season (January-March), total seedling nutrient content increased significantly for all elements during this period. Their soil nutrient removal values for the January lifting were slightly to substantially higher than these findings, table 3. In order to accurately reflect actual soil nutrient removal, sampling for plant analysis should coincide with the most active period of lifting.
[101

CONCLUSION Seedling concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium reported for this survey are generally comparable with values previously reported in the literature. However, the range of values for magnesium and sodium are generally lower than values reported elsewhere. This may well be due to a difference in quantification procedures. Previous data for micronutrient concentrations in pine seedlings are scarce. In addition to nutrient concentrations in plant tissues, nursery managers should also be concerned with the magnitude of the drain on soil nutrients by seedling removal. This survey gives nursery managers the opportunity to compare the nutrient status of their seedlings with that from other nurseries in the South. To make such a comparison, a nursery manager should: (1) sample seedlings at the end of the growing season, preferably in December; (2) harvest an average area of seedlings (include tractor paths in area calculation), carefully wash soil from roots, oven-dry and weigh foliage, stems, and roots separately, and calculate pounds per acre for the plant parts; (3) send the separate components (from about 30 seedlings) to a laboratory for analysis (the same laboratory each time); (4) multiply the concentration value for each component by its weight value to get the amount of nutrients removed by that component; and (5) add the three components to determine the total element removal from an acre of soil.

[11]

Pct. of total

25
20

El 1982- 83
1981-82

5,000 weight, lb. /acre

357

714

1,071

1,428

1,786

2,142

2,500

25 20 15 10 5 357 25 714 1,071 1,428 1,786 2,142 2,500

Root weight, lb. /acre

oi77
10 5 1,428 2,857 4,285 5,714 7,142

[] 1982-83 I *1981-82

8,571

10,000

rotal seedling weight, lb./acre FIG. 2. Distributions of foliage, stem, root, and total weight of seedling crops sampled for nutrient content over 2 years (only 66 percent of area in seedlings). Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[12]

Pct. of

total

0.6 0.8
50

1.0 1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0 2.2
-

2.4

2.6 2.8

3.0

3.2

Foliage

N, pct.

40F

30 20 10
50 40 30

0.20.40.6 0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 Stem - N, pct.

20

10

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 25 15 5 9 18

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2.0

2.2 2.4

2.6 2.8

Root - N, pct.

27 3645 54 6271 rotal
N removed by

80 8998 107 116 125

seedlings,

lb. /ocre

FIG. 3. Distributions of nitrogen (N) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of N by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[13]

Pct. of total 50

40
30

20
10F
0.08 0.10 0.12 Foliage- P, pct. 50

40F 30F
201
i0OI-r4

0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 Stem - P, pct.
50

Root - P, pct.

25
10

1J

1982-83

20 15 5 2 4 5 7 9 II 12 14 16 18 20 21 23 25

Total P removed by seedlings, lb./acre FIG. 4. Distributions of phosphorus (P) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of P by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[14]

25 20 15

Foliage-K, pct.

E

I1981-82

1982-83

25
20

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 Stem - K, pct. 1015

5
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Root-K, pct. 1025
15

1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

20 5

9

18

27

36 45 54 62 71

80 89 98 107 116 125

rotal K removed by seedlings, lb/acre FIG. 5. Distributions of potassium (K) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of K by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[15]

Pct. of total 25

20 15

Fl
0

F F
.2

El1982-83
1981- 82
.

0

;L, DO
Foliage

0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.200.22 0.24 0.26
-

30 25 20 15 lO 5

I I I Mg,) pct.
[]

m-

1982-83

01981-82

0.
15 10 20 5

40.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0,24 026 Stem - Mg, pct.

251928

20

18-8 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 Root - Mg, pct.
5

10

15

Total Mg

removed

by

seedlings,

lb./acre

FIG. 6. Distributions of magnesium (Mg) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Mg by crop from data collected over 2 years. Means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level) and the portion of each distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[16]

Pct. of total 50 40~ 30 20I01

so
1 t

m
t

0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72

Foliage 50
40 30 20

-

Ca, pct.

E-I

I

I0
s0

0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 044 048 0.52 0.56

0.60

Stem-Ca, pct.

Q 1982-83

L

II

®

1981- 82

Root-Ca,

pct.

I

1

4

5

7

9

1 1

< I

<.

12

1 4

16

18

20

21

23

25 27

Total Ca removed by seedlings, lb./acrej
FIG. 7. Distributions of calcium (Ca) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Ca by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[17]

Pct. of total 50

40F

'I

;o
0.030.040.05 0.06 0.07
5

50
F
n

m 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.13
Foliage -S, pct..

'--i

0.16

40 30 20 10 0 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 50 40 30 20 10
H i

Root-S, pct. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 I 2 3 4 4.5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Total S removed by seedlings, lb./acre
FIG. 8. Distributions of sulfur (S) concentrations in

loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of S by crop from data collected over 2 years.

foliage,

stems, and roots of

[18]

Pct. of total 50 40 30 20
1o

L
0

I 0.0 10.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 Foliage6- Na, pct.

0.09

0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13

50 40 30 20 1O
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 Stem - No, pct.

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 Root - Na, pct. 50

40F 30F 20F

0

0.4 0.9

1.3

1.8

2.2 2.7

3.1

3.6 4.0

5.8 6.2 6.7

rotal No

removed by seedlings, lb./acre

FIG. 9. Distributions of sodium (Na) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Na by crop from data collected over 2 years.

[191

Pct. of total 50 40 30 20

to
0 50 40 30 20 10 0
50

L== ,oLL~i I 300 600 900
Foliage
-

r-I

1,650 Fe, p.p.m.

I-1,950

r--m

2,250

300 50

600

900 1,200 Stem - Fe, p.

..

1,500

1,800

LI 1982-83

40 30

0
501928

600

1,200

1,800
Root
-

2,400

3,000

3,600

Fe,

p.p.m.

401918 3020 10

Total Fe removed by seedlings, lb./acre

FIG. 10. Distributions of iron (Fe) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Fe by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[20]

Pct.of total 50 40 30 20 10 0 5040100 1,600 2,400 4,800 5,600 6,400

11

Foliage -Al,

p.p.m.

30-F 20-F

10

L
800 1,600 2,400
Stem-Al,

0 5040-

3,200
p.p.m.
0

4,000

4,800

1982-83 1981-82

30-F 20-F

r-

10

L
0
Root
-

60 I 50F 40F 30L 20F
10-

Al,

p.p.m.
]1982-83 j
1981-82

I0

.www.
I I I

a

a

a

0

4

9

13 18

22 27

31

36 40 45 49 54 58

Total Al removed by seedlings, lb./acre FIG. 11. Distributions of aluminum concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Al by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

(Al)

[21}

Pct. of total 25
20
[-1982-83

1-1981-82

15

O

I

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 Foliage -Cu, p.p.m.

9

10

II

12

13

25

D-1982-83
20

15

105
O
25

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20 22 24

26

Stem - Cu, p.p.m.

20

S2

1982-83

15 10 5 0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 Root - Cu, p.p.m. 18 20 22 24 26

0

0.02

0.04

0.05

0.07

0.09

0.11

Total Cu

removed by seedlings, lb./acre

FIG. 12. Distributions of copper (Cu) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Cu by crop from data collected over 2 years. Means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level) and the portion of each distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[22]

Pct. of total

25
20 15

tOtQ) of 3

to

F
I
I I

100 30 25 20 15 I0 5-

TI

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Foliage - Zn, p.p.m.

110

W

L

120 130

LQ 1982 -83

0
30 25 20 15 I0 5

10

20 30 40 50 60 TO 80 90 100
Stem - Zn,

110

120 130

p.p.m. 0
1982 -83 1981- 82

0

10

20 30 40 50 60 7O 80 90 100
Root
-

110
82

120 130

Zn,

p.p.m.

nFr.,

IN1981-

LI 1982-83

0

0.09

0.18

0.27

0.36

0.45

0.53

0

Total Zn

removed by seedlings,Ilb./Ocrej

FIG. 13. Distributions of zinc (Zn) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Zn by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[23]

Pct. of

total

1,300
Foliage
-

Mn,

p.p.m.

25 20 15 10 5 D 200 400 600
Stem
-

T

;
800 1,000 m 1,200

Mn,

p.p.m.

25 20 15 10 5 200 25 400 600
Root
-

800

1,000

1,200

Mn,

p.p.m.

20-F 15F

L

1982-83

11981-82

1o0F
5 0 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.9 5.4 5.8 Total Mn removed by seedlings,
t

lb/ocre

FIG. 14. Distributions of manganese (Mn) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of Mn by crop from data collected over 2 years. Where means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level), the portion of the distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[24]

Pct.

of total

25
20
151

19 18

105 8 12 16 2024 28 32 3640 445660 64 68 Foliage - B, p.p.m.
Q 1982-83

25Stem
-

1981-82

1

1

1

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52
B,

p.p.m.

251
20F

[] 1982-83

15
I0 5 8 25
10
5

IM1981-

82

12

28

32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60
-

Root

B)

p.p.m.
1981582

20 15

.04 .05 .07

.09 .11

.12

.14

.16

.18

.20 .21

.23

.25 .27

Total B removed by seedlings, lb/acre FIG. 15. Distributions of boron (B) concentrations in foliage, stems, and roots of loblolly pine seedlings plus total removal of B by crop from data collected over 2 years. Means for the 2 years are significantly different (0.05 level) and the portion of each distribution representing the first year of sampling is shaded.

[25]

Pct. of total 50

40F 30F 20F

r- F
8 9 10

-i I -

L0
T

1I
12

13

14

15

16

IT

18

19

20

P as apct. of N

50 40 30 20 I0 20 30 40 50 60 50 40 30 20 10

70 80 90 100

110

120

130 140 150

K as a pct. of N

Mg
50

as a pct. of N

40F 30

F
12, 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

20F
IOt 10

Co as a pct. of NI
FIG. 16. Distributions of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) concentrations infoliage as a percent of foliar nitrogen concentration.

[261

LITERATURE CITED

(1)

ALDRICH, S. R. 1973. Plant Analysis: Problems and Opportunities,

pp. 213-221. In Walsh, L. M. and J. D. Beaton. Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Madison, Wisc.
(2) FOWELLS, H. A. AND R. W. KRAUSS. 1959. The Inorganic Nutrition

of Loblolly Pine and Virginia Pine with Special Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus. For. Sci. 5:95-112.

(3)

GOODALL, D. W. AND F. G. GREGORY. 1947. Chemical Composition

of Plants as an Index of Their Nutritional Status. Imp. Bur. Hort. and Plantation Crops. Tech. Comm. No. 17. E. Malling, Kent, England. (4) LARSEN, B. J. 1978. Investigations on the Significance of Potassium and Nitrogen Supply for the Desiccation of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in Winter. Flora 167:197-207. (5) LEAF, A. L. 1965. Soil and Tissue Analysis Methodology, pp. 64-72. In Proc. Nurs. Soil Improvement Sessions. State Univ. Coll. of For. at Syracuse Univ. Syracuse, N.Y.
(6) MAY, J. T., H. H. JOHNSON, AND A. R. GILMORE.

1962. Chemical

Composition of Southern Pine Seedlings. Ga. For. Res. Pap. 10. Ga. For. Res. Council. Macon, Ga.
(7) MUNSON, K. R. AND E. L. STONE. 1984. Seedling and Soil Nutrient

Status During the Lifting Period in a North Florida Nursery. Proc. Western Sess. South. Nur. Conf. June 12-15, 1984. Alexandria, La. (In press.)

(8)
(9)

SHEAR,

C. B., H. L. CRANE, AND A. T.

MYERS.

1946. Nutrient-

Element Balance: a Fundamental Concept in Plant Nutrition. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 47:239-248.
SOUTH, D. B. AND C. B. DAVEY. 1983. The Southern Forest Nursery

Soil Testing Program. Ala. Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 265. Auburn Univ., Ala. (10) SUCoFF, E. I. 1962. Potassium, Magnesium, and Calcium Requirement of Virginia Pine. Northeast For. Exp. Sta. Pap. 169. (11) YOUNGBERG, C. T. 1984. Soil and Tissue Analysis: Tools for Maintaining Soil Fertility. In Duryea, M. L. and T. D. Landis (eds.). Forest Nursery Manual: Production of Bareroot Seedlings. For. Res. Lab., Ore. State Univ., Corvallis. 386 pp. (Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.)

[27]

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

With an agriculrural research unit in cxvery mtajo r soil area, Auburn UnIllxersit serves the nccds of field crop. livestock, torestrx, and hor ticultural prod)ucers ii each region in Alabama. Everx citi zen of the State has a stake in this research program, since anyx1 adv antag~e fromi ne
and m(ore econon -

Q 0

1

ical xways of producing anc handlI ing farm prodlucts directlx henefits the
consuming public

is
9

0i

0
2

'iit

i

® Main Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn.
'

E. V. Smith Research Center, Shorter.

Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield Forestry Unit. Fayette County Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton Forestry Unit. Coosa County Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee Forestry Unit, Autauga County. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. The Turnipseed-Ikenberry Place, Union Springs Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. Wiregrass Substation. Headland. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center, Covington and Escambia counties. 20 Ornamental Horticulture Substation, Spring Hill. 21 Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17 18. 19