Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

Field Performance of Three Stock Sizes of Douglas-fir Container Seedlings Grown with Slow-release Fertilizer in the Nursery Growing Medium

  • Diane L. HaaseEmail author
  • Robin Rose
  • John Trobaugh
Article

Abstract

Containerized coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings were grown with conventional soluble fertilizer and supplemented with one of four slow-release fertilizers (SRF treatments) or unsupplemented (control treatment). Seedlings were outplanted to two sites in 1998. At the time of outplanting, SRF incorporated into the growing medium resulted in larger seedlings with higher foliar nutrient concentrations as compared to conventionally fertilized seedlings. After four growing seasons, SRF-amended seedlings at both sites had significantly greater height, basal stem diameter, and stem volume, with increases up to 19, 21, and 73%, respectively, as compared to conventionally fertilized seedlings. Additionally, three stock sizes were compared at one of the sites. Increasing stock size resulted in increased growth during the first two seasons, enabling larger stock to maintain their size advantage. Seedling responses to SRF are attributed to larger initial size, increased internal nutrient reserves at planting, and continued fertilization after planting.

Keywords

Container production Fertilization Reforestation Seedling nutrition Vector diagrams 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnott, J.T., Burdett, A.N. 1988Early growth of planted western hemlock in relation to stock type and controlled-release fertilizer applicationCan. J. For. Res.18710717Google Scholar
  2. Auchmoody, L.R. 1985Evaluating growth responses to fertilizationCan. J. For. Res.15877880Google Scholar
  3. Brockley R.P. 1988. The effects of fertilization on the early growth of planted seedlings: a problem analysis. FRDA Report VictoriaB.C. No. 011.Google Scholar
  4. Cabrera, R.I. 1997Comparative evaluation of nitrogen release patterns from controlled release fertilizers by nitrogen leaching analysisHort. Sci.23669673Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, W.C., Preisig, C.L. 1981Effects of controlled-release fertilizers on the shoot and root development of Douglas-fir seedlingsCan. J. For. Res.11230242Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, W.C. 1981Effects of controlled-release fertilizers on shoot and root development of outplanted western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla Raf. Sarg.) seedlingsCan. J. For. Res.11752757Google Scholar
  7. Carson, S.D., Garcia, O., Hayes, J.D. 1999Realized gain and prediction of yield with genetically improved Pinus radiata in New ZealandFor. Sci.45186200Google Scholar
  8. Gambash, S., Kochba, M., Avnimelech, Y. 1990Studies on slow-release fertilizers: II. A method for evaluation of nutrient release rate from slow-releasing fertilizersSoil Sci.150446450Google Scholar
  9. Groves, K.M., Warren, S.L., Bilderback, T.E. 1998Irrigation volumeapplication, and controlled-release fertilizers: I. Effect on plant growth and mineral nutrient content in containerized plant productionJ. Environ. Hort.16176181Google Scholar
  10. Haase, D.L., Rose, R. 1993Soil moisture stress induces transplant shock in stored and unstored 2+0 Douglas-fir seedlings of varying root volumesFor. Sci.39275294Google Scholar
  11. Haase, D.L., Rose, R. 1995Vector analysis and its use for interpreting plant nutrient shifts in response to silvicultural treatmentsFor. Sci.415466Google Scholar
  12. Handreck, K. 1997Controlled release fertilisers. Measuring nutrient release ratesAust. Hort.955153Google Scholar
  13. Hauck, R. 1985Slow-release and bioinhibitor-amended nitrogen fertilizersEngelstad, O. eds. Fertilizer Technology and Use3MadisonWI, USA293322Google Scholar
  14. Huett, D.O. 1997aFertiliser use efficiency by containerized nursery plants. 1. Plant growth and nutrient uptakeAust. J. Agric. Res.48251258Google Scholar
  15. Huett, D.O. 1997bFertiliser use efficiency by containerized nursery plants. 2. Nutrient leachingAust. J. Agric. Res.48259265Google Scholar
  16. Huett, D.O., Gogel, B.J. 2000Longevities and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium release patterns of polymer-coated controlled-release fertilizers at 30 °C and 40 °CCommun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.31959973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huett, D.O., Morris, S.C. 1999Fertiliser use efficiency by containerised nursery plants – 3. Effect of heavy leaching and damaged fertiliser prills on plant growthnutrient uptakeand nutrient lossAust. J. Agric. Res.50217222Google Scholar
  18. Hunt, G.A. 1989Effect of controlled-release fertilizers on growth and mycorrhizae in container-grown Engelmann spruceWest. J. Appl. For.4129131Google Scholar
  19. Irwin, K.M., Duryea, M.L., Stone, E.L. 1998Fall-applied nitrogen improves performance of 1–0 slash pine nursery seedlings after outplantingSouth. J. Appl. For.22111116Google Scholar
  20. King, J.E. 1966Site Index Curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific NorthwestWeyerhaeuser Forestry Research CenterCentralia, WA49Weyerhaeuser Forestry Paper No. 8Google Scholar
  21. Kochba, M., Gambash, S., Avnimelech, Y. 1990Studies on slow release fertilisers. 1. Effect of temperaturesoil moisture and water vapour pressureSoil Sci.149339343Google Scholar
  22. Kope, H.H., Sutherland, J., Trotter, D. 1996Influence of cavity sizeseedling growing density and fungicide applications on Keithia blight of western redcedar seedling growth and field performanceNew For.11137147Google Scholar
  23. Lamont, G.P., Worrall, R.J., Oȁ9Connell, M.A. 1987The effects of temperature and time on the solubility of resin-coated controlled-release fertilizers under laboratory and field conditionsSci. Hort.32265273Google Scholar
  24. Landis T.D., Tinus R.W., McDonald S.E. and Barnett J.P. 1989. Seedling Nutrition and Irrigation, Vol. 4, The Container Tree Nursery Manual, USDA, Forest Service, Agric. Handbk. 674. Wash., D.C., p. 119.Google Scholar
  25. Long, A.J., Carrier, B.D. 1993Effects of Douglas-fir 2 + 0 seedling morphology on field performanceNew For.71932Google Scholar
  26. Malik, V., Timmer, V.R. 1996Growthnutrient dynamics, and interspecific competition of nutrient-loaded black spruce seedlings on a boreal mixed-wood siteCan. J. For. Res.2616511659Google Scholar
  27. Miller, H.G. 1981Forest fertilization: Some guiding conceptsForestry54157167Google Scholar
  28. Moore, J.A., Fan, Z. 2002Effect of root-plug incorporated controlled-release fertilizer on two-year growth and survival of planted Ponderosa pine seedlingsWest. J. Appl. For.17216219Google Scholar
  29. Northwest Tree Improvement Cooperative 2001. Genetic gain verification trial. In: Jayawickrama K. (ed.), Oregon State Univ., Dept. For. Sci., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  30. Powers, R.F., Reynolds, P.E. 1999Ten-year responses of ponderosa pine plantations to repeated vegetation and nutrient control along an environmental gradientCan. J. For. Res.2910271038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rose, R., Haase, D.L., Kroiher, F., Sabin, T. 1997Root volume and growth of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir seedlings: A summary of eight growing seasonsWest. J. Appl. For.126973Google Scholar
  32. Rose, R., Ketchum, J.S. 2002Interaction of vegetation control and fertilization on conifer species across the Pacific NorthwestCan. J. For. Res.32136152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose R. and Morgan P. 2000. Guide to Reforestation in Western Oregon, Oregon Dept. of Forestry and College of Forestry, Oregon State Univ., p. 50.Google Scholar
  34. Simpson D.G. 1994. Nursery growing density and container volume affect nursery and field growth of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine seedlings. In: Landis T.D. and Dumroese R.K.(eds), National proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., General Technical Report RM-257. pp. 105–115.Google Scholar
  35. South, D.B., Mitchell, R.J., Zutter, B.R., Balneaves, J.M., Barber, B.L., Zwolinski, J.B. 1993Integration of nursery practices and vegetation management: economic and biological potential for improving regenerationCan. J. For. Res.2320832092Google Scholar
  36. South, D.B., Zwolinski, J.B., Allen, H.L. 1995Economic returns from enhancing loblolly pine establishment on two upland sites: effects of seedling gradefertilization, hexazinoneand intensive soil cultivationNew For.10239256Google Scholar
  37. Stonecypher, R.W., Piesch, R.F., Helland, G.G., Chapman, J.G., Reno, H.J. 1996Results from genetic tests of selected parents of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) in an applied tree improvement programForest Sci.4235Monograph 32Google Scholar
  38. Sutherland, D.C., Day, R.J. 1988Container volume affects survival and growth of white spruceblack spruceand jack pine seedlings a literature reviewNorth. J. Appl. For.5185189Google Scholar
  39. Timmer, V.R. 1997Exponential nutrient loading: a new fertilization technique to improve seedling performance on competitive sitesNew For.13279299Google Scholar
  40. Trobaugh J. 2000. Profits and investment analyses. In: Rose R. and Haase D.L. (eds), Proceedings of the Conference: Advances and Challenges in Forest Regeneration, June 1–2, 2000, Nursery Technology Cooperative and Western Forest and Conservation Association pp. 79–81.Google Scholar
  41. van den Driessche, R. 1988Response of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) to some different fertilizers applied at plantingNew For.289110Google Scholar
  42. Walker, R.F., Huntt, C.D. 1992Controlled release fertilizer effects on growth and foliar nutrient concentration of container grown Jeffrey pine and singleleaf PinyonWest. J. Appl. For.7113117Google Scholar
  43. Wang, F.L., Alva, A.K. 1996Leaching of nitrogen from slow-release urea sources in sandy soilsSoil Sci. Soc. Am. J.6014541458Google Scholar
  44. Wenny D.L. and Dumroese R.K. 1992. A Growing Regime for Containerized Douglas-fir Seedlings, Univ. of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta., Bull. 49., p.8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nursery Technology Cooperative Department of Forest ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisU.S.A
  2. 2.Washington Department of Natural ResourcesWebster Forest NurseryOlympiaU.S.A

Personalised recommendations