10. y = -0.0318x + 12.213
R² = 0.4921
P<0.01
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
FoliarCaconcentration(mg/g)
Stand Age (yr)
Red Maple Foliar Ca Vs Stand Age
19. Conclusion
• Stand age may not be the factor that affects the foliar cation
concentrations for most species
• Natural heterogeneity of soil nutrients may affect foliar cation
concentrations ( PC (Ca), AB(Ca, Mg), RM
(Ca), SM(Ca), WB(Ca, Mg), YB(Ca)), even in a small scale.
• Soil nutrients availability in the 0-10cm may be the best predicator
of foliage cation concentrations
21. Acknowledgements
• Marty Acker
• Mary Arthur
• Matt Vadeboncoeur
• Joel Blum
• Steve Hamburg
• Craig see
• Ruth Yanai
• Mariann Johnston
• Russell Briggs
• All the other shoestring crew
Sites description, what, how may? Where, stand age, soil pits informations (detail description later)Map and table of stand age. 22 sites. Another map? Site description?
Change a picture about soil data
Change a picture about soil data
Have problem
The soil are autocorrelated, so it is common to see the correlation in other type of nutrients
Soil heterogeneity in a small scale is still possible to control the foliar chemistry, especially under the backdrop of Acid deposition.Not only Sugar maple is sensitive to the cations, also other species like PC, AB, RM, WB, also other cations such as Mg.
Only 12 sites has quantitatively soil pits, we will collect soil samples from more sites, analyze the soil nutrients availability, which hopefully could allow us gain a better knowledge about the impact of soil nutrient heterogeneity on forest growth.