Abstract
The effects of two operational nursery fertilization regimes on the growth and nutrient dynamics of Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco) seedlings after planting were compared. Seedlings were grown in a nursery with nutrients added at a constant rate (conventional fertilization) or at a rate that increased exponentially by 2%·day –1 (exponential fertilization) and planted near Barriere and Victoria, British Columbia. At the time of planting, half of the conventionally fertilized seedlings were planted with slow-release fertilizer packets. Growth and nutrient allocation was observed for 2 years following planting. Although the exponential fertilization regime provided 25% more N in the nursery compared with the conventional fertilization regime, exponentially fertilized seedlings were smaller at the time of planting, did not differ significantly in foliar N concentration, and showed no lasting benefits in growth or nutrient allocation. Two years after planting, there were no significant differences between the conventional and exponential fertilization regimes in seedling height, root collar diameter, total dry mass, or whole-plant N concentration. Seedlings fertilized at the time of planting had greater height and dry mass on the Barriere site but not on the dry Victoria site and whole-plant N concentrations did not differ 2 years after planting.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Exponential fertilization supplied 25% more nursery nitrogen.
- Taxon
- Douglas-fir
Pseudotsuga menziesiie1 - Treatment
- exponential fertilization regimee0
- Outcome
- N in the nurserye0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilization regimee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the exponential fertilization regime provided 25% more N in the nursery compared with the conventional fertilization regime”
e1“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
Exponentially fertilized seedlings were smaller at planting.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie2
- Treatment
- exponentially fertilizede0
- Outcome
- seedlingse0
- Direction
- smallere0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilization regimee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“exponentially fertilized seedlings were smaller at the time of planting”
e1“conventional fertilization regime”
e2“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar nitrogen concentration did not differ significantly by nursery regime.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie3
- Treatment
- exponential fertilization regimee1
- Outcome
- foliar N concentratione0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilization regimee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“did not differ significantly in foliar N concentration”
e1“the exponential fertilization regime provided 25% more N”
e2“conventional fertilization regime”
e3“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
Exponential nursery fertilization gave no lasting growth benefit.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie3
- Treatment
- exponential fertilization regimee1
- Outcome
- growth or nutrient allocatione0
- Direction
- no lasting benefitse0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilization regimee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“showed no lasting benefits in growth or nutrient allocation”
e1“the exponential fertilization regime provided 25% more N”
e2“conventional fertilization regime”
e3“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
After two years, nursery regimes did not significantly differ in height, diameter, dry mass, or whole-plant nitrogen.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie1
- Treatment
- exponential fertilization regimese0
- Outcome
- seedling height, root collar diameter, total dry mass, or whole-plant N concentratione0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- conventionale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were no significant differences between the conventional and exponential fertilization regimes in seedling height, root collar diameter, total dry mass, or whole-plant N concentration”
e1“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting fertilizer increased seedling height and dry mass at Barriere.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie1
- Treatment
- fertilized at the time of plantinge0
- Outcome
- height and dry masse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Setting
- Barrieree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seedlings fertilized at the time of planting had greater height and dry mass on the Barriere site”
e1“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting fertilizer gave no height or dry mass benefit at dry Victoria.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie1
- Treatment
- fertilized at the time of plantinge0
- Outcome
- height and dry masse0
- Direction
- note0
- Setting
- Victoriae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seedlings fertilized at the time of planting had greater height and dry mass on the Barriere site but not on the dry Victoria site”
e1“Douglas-fir”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-plant nitrogen did not differ two years after planting fertilization.
- Taxon
- Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesiie2
- Treatment
- fertilized at the time of plantinge1
- Outcome
- whole-plant N concentrationse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whole-plant N concentrations did not differ 2 years after planting”
e1“Seedlings fertilized at the time of planting”
e2“Douglas-fir”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: content · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →fertilization · growth · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →sowing time · growth · Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.