1. 1 Nutrition Current Situation RFNRP completed measurements of last phase in 1998 Fertilization is part of auxiliary plots on Type I Installations –extends RFNRP phase 4 (300 tpa) to variable density –Eric Sucre thesis (copies available) brings up questions No fertilization done in Type II & III installations No fertilization in Type IV installations –Type IV design became too complex & large –Lack of agreement on definition and focus if fertilization was included Fall River study included fertilization, Matlock and Molalla doesn’t There is a strong need for more studies

2. 2 Possible approach to new fertilization trials 1) Land-managing members would develop a list of young stands that are relatively low in stand and site variability. 2) LIDAR and other remote-sensing technologies would be used to: - develop a stem map of individual trees - measure crown width, size, and possibly biomass - measure height of each stem - develop Leaf area of plot from crown data - develop a crown data vs. DBH relationship to assign a DBH to each stem. 2.1) Normal SMC field procedures will be used to characterize some percentage of the plots for stand characteristics, including height, diameters, crown architecture, soil, understory and other site factors. 3) A GIS would be used to develop application and measurement plots, and estimate the stocking within each plot. These would be located along a "lines of flight" for helicopter application. In order to homogenize sites and reduce variability, plot boundaries could be shifted to result in plots that are more homogenous along that "line of flight".

3. 3 Possible approach to new fertilization trials (continued) 4) Application of fertilizers would take place using the GIS information and a GPS control. This technology is extremely well-developed in tractor-based agriculture, and is currently used primarily to control pesticide application in agriculture: http://www.avionix.com/agri.html In theory, it could easily be adapted to aerial application of fertilizer. 5) Remeasurements using the same technology (LIDAR/IFSAR) and other remote sensing at regular intervals. This would again be coupled with traditional on-site field measurements (using current SMC methods) at ratios to be determined. Given the relatively fast increase of remote capabilities for characterizing forest stands, it is expected that this overall project will rely on a large amount of traditional methods for the first few pilot studies, and move to an increasing level of remote measurements as it is proven that they work across the variety of installations we would utilize.

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8 A single “line of flight”

9. 9 2N1+1N2N2+1N00 Random assignment of treatment

10. 10 2N1+1N2N2+1N00 2N1+1N2N2+1N00 0 02+2N1+ 2N1+1N2N2+1N00 2N1+1N2N2+1N00 2N1+1N2N2+1N00 Random assignment of treatments along Multiple “lines of flight”

11. 11 An “installation” with multiple plots of multiple treatments

12. 12 Potential Advantages: 1)Much lower initial cost of intallation and potentially remeasurements allows a high number of different treatments and/or replications within a single installation. 2)GPS coordinates will allow easy reentry to sites when necessary. Plot boundaries will not need maintenance. 3)Stem map may replace need for individual tree plot maintenance. 4)Some LIDAR measurements (i.e. crown and LAI) are much easier to take with LIDAR than traditional methods. 5)LAI has been shown to relate strongly to response to fertilization in SE (i.e. “foliage grows trees and resources grows foliage”). 6)Potential for funding $ based on application of new technology not available to us just to establish new traditional field studies.

13. 13 Potential Disadvantages: 1)Nesting of several technologies that doesn’t always work well under all conditions 2)DBH measurements are not direct 3)Crown tip doesn’t always relate to where stem is in ground and may migrate over time, making it more difficult to locate. 4)Multiple tips may cause overestimate of stems.

14. 14 The “consensus” was: 1)We are uncomfortable with relying on LIDAR. The Capitol forest results show promise, but we need to know that this can work for SMC stands. 2)For now, we are going to get LIDAR coverage matched to SMC Type I stands and other, existing, stands that may have already been flown. We can use the SMC database for the ground measurements. This is being done. 3)If we can’t get enough data, we will write an Agenda 2020 grant for getting the LIDAR data and analyzing it. At $150,000 max, this might not be enough. 4)This doesn’t actually get fertilizer on the ground. 5)We should proceed with new studies. SMC and Doug Maguire would coordinate to make at least a “core” of our treatments comparable.

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17 A suggested “core” the applies much of what we already know about N. Without something like a LIDAR/GIS method, the factorial of nutrients will prove difficult. The desire for a core study onto which additional work can be added as required by individual cooperators is desirable. It is suggested for discussion that the following treatments be utilized: 1) control 2) 200N 3) 400N 4) 40P 5) 80P 6) 200N-40P 7) 200N-80P 8) 400N-40P 9) 400N-80P 10) Complete Fenn prescription (0N or other?) 11) Complete Fenn prescription + 200N additional