Effects of Fertilizer on Growth, Carbon and Nitrogen Responses of Foliage in a Red Pine Stand

Abstract

This study was to examine growth, carbon and nitrogen responses in foliage following forest fertilization in a red pine stand. Two types of fertilizer (N:P:K=113:150:37 kg ha ) were applied on late April 2011. Growth, carbon and nitrogen responses of foliage were monitored 3 times (July, September, November) after fertilization. Morphological growth responses (dry mass, leaf area, specific leaf area) with foliage age were not significantly (P > 0.05) affected by fertilizer application, while needle dry mass and leaf area of July were significantly lower in current-year-old than in one-year-old or two-year-old needles of September or November. Carbon concentration and content in foliage was little affected by fertilizer application compared with sampling month or needle age, while the NPK fertilizer produced high nitrogen concentration and content of foliage. The results indicate that nitrogen concentration and content in foliage may serve as an indicator of the nitrogen status by fertilization in a red pine stand.

Growth and Nutrient Status of Foliage as Affected by Tree Species and Fertilization in a Fire-Disturbed Urban Forest

“…However, the status of foliar nutrients was dependent on the type [13] and dose [14] of the fertilizer, tree species [12,15] and many environmental resource factors, such as soil properties and water supply [1,16]. Foliar growth and nutrient status might be important factors in determining responses to fertilization because foliar nutrient concentrations are sensitive to soil nutrient conditions, although the concentrations were much more dependent on species than on sites [1,13,14].…”

Carbon and Nitrogen Resorption of Needles As Affected by Compound Fertilizer in a Red Pine Stand

“…The fertilizers were applied on forest floor by hand in early spring (April) in 2011. More specific information related to stand and soil in the study site could be found elsewhere (Kim et al 2013b;Kim et al 2017).…”

“…However, there is no consistent trend regarding the effects of fertilizer application on nutrient resorption efficiency (Yuan and Chen 2015). For example, nutrient resorption efficiency was generally higher in the fertilized than unfertilized plots in sawtooth oak stands (Kim et al 2013b), whereas nitrogen (N) resorption efficiency was reduced following N addition (L€ u and Han 2010). Despite many studies on the nutrient responses of forest stands following fertilizer applications (Son et al 2007;Kim et al 2013b), there is still a lack of knowledge on the nutrient resorption efficiency in the response to foliage following compound fertilizer application.…”

“…For example, nutrient resorption efficiency was generally higher in the fertilized than unfertilized plots in sawtooth oak stands (Kim et al 2013b), whereas nitrogen (N) resorption efficiency was reduced following N addition (L€ u and Han 2010). Despite many studies on the nutrient responses of forest stands following fertilizer applications (Son et al 2007;Kim et al 2013b), there is still a lack of knowledge on the nutrient resorption efficiency in the response to foliage following compound fertilizer application. In addition, the nutrient resorption efficiency following compound fertilizer application should be evaluated due to multi-nutrient deficiency problems in Korean forest stands (Son et al 2007;Kim et al 2013a;Kim et al 2013b).…”

“…Despite many studies on the nutrient responses of forest stands following fertilizer applications (Son et al 2007;Kim et al 2013b), there is still a lack of knowledge on the nutrient resorption efficiency in the response to foliage following compound fertilizer application. In addition, the nutrient resorption efficiency following compound fertilizer application should be evaluated due to multi-nutrient deficiency problems in Korean forest stands (Son et al 2007;Kim et al 2013a;Kim et al 2013b).…”