T
THE NUTRIENT Q)NTENT OF IDRTHERN ROCKY MJUNTAIN VEGETATION:
A HANDBOOK FOR ESTIMATING NUTRIENTS IDST
THROUGH HARVEST AND BURNING
by
N. Stark
N. Stark is a forest ecologist wi th the Montana Forest and Conservation
Exper bnent Station, and Professor, Uni versi ty of Montana School of Forestry at
Missoula, M:mtana. She has studied nutrient cycling in temperate and tropical
forest ecosystems for many years. She is the author of the direct-cycling
theory and also the concept of the biological life" of soils -- a means of
evaluating the rate of deterioration of soil productivity.
liBRARY COpy
ROCKY MT. FO::<EST .\ iZANGE
EXPERIMENT ST;l.rroN
", r
ABSTRACT
Samples of forest components that are oormally burned or removed during
harvest were collected at the Coram Experimental Forest and the Lubrecht
, Exper imental Forest and analyzed for elemental content.
The elements calcilllll,
copper, iron, potassilllll, magnesilllll, manganese, nitrogen, sodilllll, phosphorus
and zinc in standard fuel-size categories \\ere analyzed to help assess how
much of these nutrients would I:e lost during harvesting or fires of different
intensi ties. The data can I:e used to describe the essential nutrient content
in forest biomass and for rrodeling.
The proportioned weights and nutrient
contents of vegetation examined in other studies can I:e related to the
nutrient content of vegetation reported here.
Estimates can be made of
nutrient losses caused by harvesting and slash burning.
Many of these
procedures are complex, but the measurements and calculations can be
invaluable when dealing with problem soils.
i
I
ACKNOWLED3MENTS
The author is grateful to the U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment station, for supporting this work.
The dedication and
care of steve Baker in the laooratory are gratefully acknowledged.
School of
Forestry Dean Benjamin Stout helped by providing funds through the rvbntana
Forest and Conservation Experiment station for publication of this work.
ii
,,
TABLE OF CDNI'ENTS
Page
Abstract
i
Acknowledgn:ents.
ii
Table of contents.
. iii
List of Tables
iv
Introduction •
1
Methods.
6
Results and Discussion •
9
Use of the Data
11
Bianass and Harvest
12
Comparison of the Nutrient Levels in Coram and Lubrecht Trees
and Soils.
l3
Comparison of Needle Content for Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine
15
Nutrient Content of Browse in the Absence of Frequent Fire--
~
!
O'Keefe Creek.
17
Ground Vegetation •
18
Nutrient Content of Shrubs by Species
19
SUmnary •
19
Literature Cited
20
Appendix 1
22
Appendix 2
iii
~l
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page '
Table 1. . Means range, and standard deviations for various fuels and
harVestable materials, Lubrecht EXperimental For~st. .
• •. 23
Table 2.
Means, range and standard deviations for various fuels and
harvestable materials, Coram Experimental Forest . . .
• 29
Table 3.
Ranges of levels of one oonnal anmoni urn acetate extractable
essential ions fran Coram and Lubrecht Experimental Forest ---soils, to 40 an depth. . • • . . . . • . • • . • • . . • . . . • 59
Table 4.
Elements that are significantly different (5 percent level) in
components of three tree species from Coram and Lubrecht
Experimental Forests and ranges of IN NH 0AC extractable
ions fran the ,soils of both areas. . • . 4 • • • • • . • .
. 60
Table 5.
Relative ranking of the ion content of needles of Douglas-fir
and ponderosa pine fran Coram and Lubrecht according to the
percentile classes of Zinke and stangenberger (1979) • • • • • • 62
Table 6.
SUmmary of percentile classes for ponderosa pine foliage--l yr.,
and Douglas-fir foliage--l yr • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 63
Table 7.
Mean, standard deviation, and range of nutrient content of
branch material in the absence of recent fire, O'Keefe Creek,
northwest of Missoula, M:mtana, by species and aspect • • . . . • 65
Table 8.
Nutrient content of dry weight of Coram and ~ubrecht Experimental Forests ground vegetation from 1/10 m clip piots,
expresses as :rrean, standard deviation, rraximurn and minimum,
surrtner 1978 (n = 20) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••
Table 9.
70
Mean elemental content of shrubs fran burned plots at the Coram
ExperiInental Forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
iv
INTRODUCTION
The growing demand for fiber is forcing land ma.nagers to consider rrore
intensive utilization of forest materials.
Removal of snall woody material,
particularly needles and snaIl branches, reduces the amount of nutrients that
can be recycled.
Because land managers are concerned about maintaining soil
fertility after repeated harvests, there is an increasing need for information
about the elemental content of spme of this woody material and other ecosystem
components, such as shrubs, litter and ground vegetation.
Scientists can use
the ion content of forest ecosystems to develop nutrient budgets that some day
ma~l
be useful in planning and m:magement.
Studies by the Intermountain Forest
and Range Exper iment Station have examined ecosystem responses to increasing
levels of utilization (Stark 1979, Benson 1978).
Natural fires and slash burning as part of site preparation release large
amounts of soluble nutrients.
land managers should know how much of each
essential nutrient is contained in litter and in various size classes of woody
materials and needles so that fuel inventory data can be usd to predict
Burning prescriptions are evolving to a
nutrient releases s;aused by burning.
level of proficiency that allows land managers to estimate fuel reduction
under known meterorological conditions and fuel lIDsitures.
Areas with thin,
young, or poorly developed soils may require modified slash disposal and site
preparation treatments to assure minimal nutrient losses.
Fire management in wilderness areas could be irrproved i f the approximate
nutrient loading of fuels 'Were known.
EKtremely hot fires that would alter 3
the capabii ty of a chemically poor soil to grow trees may have to be
suppressed.
Likewise, fires entering areas where ,excessive fuel loadings and
low nutrient storage occur may cause nutrient losses (Stark 1982a).
Information about the nutrient storage capabilities of soils, VvUuld make it
1
2
possible to map areas according to their ability to accommodate fires of
different duration and intensi ty with minimal nutrient losses (Stark and
Zuuring 1980).
higher than
Stark (1977) showed that fires with surface soil temperatures
~300
°c (527
of)
caused nutrient losses in Douglas-fir/western
larch (Psuetosuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco/Larix occidentalis Nutt.)
forests, but this intensi ty of burn should not seriously affect long-term
production on the soil studied.
This is not true of all soils (Stark 1982a).
There is a relatively small acreage of chemically poor soils that needs to be
identified and managed to conserve nutrients.
Sever al problems are associated with nutrient loss caused by burning and
harvest.
Some nutrients may be lost that are needed for growth during the
next rotation.
Nutrient losses can occur at. several levels.
Nutrient Deficiency
Nutrient deficiency occurs when one or rrore nutrients limit tree growth.
Trees persist on the site, but they are unable to grow at the maximum rate
because of a shortage of
one or rrore biologically essential ions.
deficiency is widespread in t-Dntana forests (Stark 1982b).
Nutrient
A light fire «
300°C at 0-5 cm) that releases enough nutrients to increase the ion
population in the
~oil,
but does not cause massive ion losses beneath the
feeder root zone, may correct a deficiency problem and stimulate tree growth.
Growth stimulation usually appears first as increased foliage bianass and,
most likely, as increased root production.
If the fire has stimulated growth,
.
I
there. may be an increase in the rate of diaJ:reter growth after five to seven.{'
years (Stark, unpublished).
If the fire is hot enough to cause a significantly accelerated ion loss
beneath the feeder root zone (usually
i:~~E~.§.
> 500°c: ':it _Q-5 an depth on
coarse-textured soils, or those with a low CEC), growth may be stimulated, but
ion deficiency may show up later on in the Itfe of the stand as a result of
1
3
excessive ion losses during the burn.
This i p likely. to occur mainly on
chenically fragile soils.
Work presently being completed is attempting to define "chemically
fragile soils" in terms of the ion levels in the soil needed to sustain the
next rotation (Stark, in review). The cost of correcting deficiency problems
and the extent of various types of ion deficiencies have rot reen explored.
Many foresters agree that nitrogen is an imI=XJrtant limiting factor to tree
growth in the cold soils of the northern Rocky M)untains (Grier et al. 1979).
Recent work by Stark (l983b) shows that zinc, copper and other ions probably
limi t growth of certain species.
Stark (l981b) has docurrented trace ele..'llent
deficiencies on calcareous soils.
The levels of ions in tree foliage and
xylem sap are due to the deficiency status of a stand.
M)re fertile soils
appear to have fewer deficiency problems under rormal conditions of harvest
and slash disposal (Stark 1982b).
Light mtural ground fires provide periodic
fertilization with what appear to re extremely low ion losses. Massive ion
losses are thought to have occured with less frequent hot wildfires.
Nutrient TOxicity
Nutrient toxici ty has long been recogni zed (P inta 1962). TOxicity
problems occur mainly when deep ash is left after large slash piles are
burned.
The ash has such high ion concentrations that it alters the chemistry
of the soil.
Microbial populations do rot return to normal, and seedlings
fail to grow for some time.
Foliage of weeds growing on ash piles usually,
have elevated ion concentrations when compared to the sane species fran
unburned areas.
Nutrient Shock
Nutrient shock is not widespread, but it occurs on a chemically fragile
soil when harvesting and/or fire are too intense.
Tree seedlings either Cb
··1
4
I
not become established or stagnate and are overtopped by brush.
Not all
brushfields are the result of nutrient shock, but ti10se on poor granitic soils
are highly suspect (Stark, 1983b).
Weathering over a considerable period of
time will re.store the limiting nutrient, bringing the site into tree
production again, ususally after a fire.
to nutrient shock.
Only certain soils are susceptible
The level of nutrients stored in the vegetation are one
clue to the potential of a stand to enter nutrient shock.
Biological Life
The Biological Life of a soil is the long-tenn ability of a soil to
chemically support trees.
Any treatment tl1at significantly shortens the
biological life of a soil should be examined with care.
When the end of the
Biological Life is reached, trees will never grow on the
worn-out soil is replaced.
On
s~te
until the
young soils such as those throughout most of
.
the northern Rockies, the loss of Bioiog- ical Life is not a realistic concern
(Stark 1977, 1978).
Under poor management, either" soluble or particulate nutrients may be
moved from the forest system into lakes and streams where they can cause
eutrophication, damage fish and other aquatic life, and accelerate
down-cutting or sedimentation.
This damage is usually temporary, but it can
be serious.
In order to manage land and watersheds in an ecologically sound manner in
respect to nutrients, land managers should know:
1.
2.
The amount of nutrients available in the forest compartments.
What proportion of the available nutrients will be released as a
result of a prescribed treabnerlt, such as harvest or burning.
3.
How much of each nutrient
released
can be held by the soil and
.
..
-c
~
"CC.
=c.c."====~~.
vegetation under roth nonnal or unseasonable precipitation.
I
~\.;
5
4.
If there are "likely to be nutrient losses that will significantly
affect growth in the near or distant future and how important those losses
are.
It is clear that nutrient release must be closely tied to the chemical
and physical characteristics of each forest soil and climate in orner to
predict whether serious net nutrient losses are likely to occur.
Stark
(1983a) has outlined a method to estimate the seriousness of nutrient losses
from various treatments on any soil.
Other work has used key physical and
chemical predictors to quantify the nutrient storage capabilities of many
soi ls (S tark and Zuur i ng 1980).
No one has yet fully described the inputs
from weathering in a manner that is valuable for prediction.
Other essential data, missing until now, pertain to the range of
elemental content in the parts of the ecosystem likely to be affected by
treatment (harvest or burning).
This paper presents surrmaries of extensive chemical analyses of litter,
many parts of trees, shrubs, herbs and other ecosystem components from -.;vestern
Montana habitat types.
It is primarily an inventory or reference work.
Data
are presented in such a way that they can be used directly with fuel inventory
data, harvest data or nutrient budgets.
The objective is to provide a
reference that scientists can use in estimating how much of an essential
nutrient will be removed, destroyed or lost as a result of treatrnent.
The
da ta are valuable for comparing the ion content of vegetation fran one area to
another.
They have value in spotting potential deficiency or toxicity
condi tions in adjacent areas.
Clearly, these data cannot be directly
extrapolated to any area, but they can be used with caution in areas with
similar soils and climate.
The economic aspects of nutrient management should
be explored before more intensive use of nutrient data in management can
occur.
:~~.
6
METHODS
This study was conducted on a soil of n:edium fertility at the Lubrecht
Experimental Forest near Greenough, M::mtana, and at the Coram Experin:ental
"
Forest near Glacier National Park, Montana, on m::x3erately rich forest soils.
other data are from silts in the Libby, Montana, area, fran an area 8 kIn
northwest of Missoula, Montana, (O'Keefe Creek), and from the Coram
Experimental Forest near Glacier National Park.
Nine tree species were
I
sampled. Shrub data are fran O'Keefe Creek.
~
The Lubrecht site had deep clay soils of Greenough silt loam formed fran
Tertiary alluvium.
The forest at 1,216 m (4,000 ft) elevation receives 478 mn
(18.8 in) of precipitation, rrostly as snow.
-41 ° C ( -41
of)
to 34°C ( +93 OF) •
Annual temperatures range fran
Thehabi tat type is Pseudotsuga
men z i es i i/Vacc i ni urn caespi tosum (PSME/VACA; Douglas-fir/dwarf
huckleberry, Pfi ster et ale 1977).
!I'I
'I
The area has gently rolling topography.
understory vegetation has much Vaccinium caespitosum (Michx.), snowrerry
(Symphoricarpos albus [L.] Blake), and bearberry (Arctostaphylos
uva-ursi [L.] Spreng.).
The Coram Experimental Forest site of larch/Douglas-fir (Larix
occidentalis Nutt ./Pseudotsuga menziesii) [Mirb.] Franco) was on 35°
slopes from 1,018 to 1,942 m (3,339 to 6,269 ft) in elevation.
The habitat
types sampled include TSHE/CLUN, PSME/PHMA, and ABLA/CLUN (Pfister et ale
1977).
The mean annual precipitation at the lower stations averages 787 mn
(30.9 in), with a mean annual temperature of 6°C (42.9°F).
are derived from argillites and quartzites with
SOIre
The soils
influence fran glacial
drift and, in sane areas, volcanic ash (Klages et ale 1976). The soils of the
study are primarily cryocrepts of the Felan series (possibly andeptic).
Ranges of arrmonium acetate extractable ions fran roth soils are shown in Table
3.
These provide characterization of
the·sitesSb~~-=t:he"Lea.der
the soils fran these sites to those of other areas.
'can ccrnpare
.
,
T
7
Fifty and occasionally 25 samples of the followit:lg materials were
collected:
1.
Litter--recent litterfall from each of the nine species sampled.
2.
Duff--partially decomposed litter fram each of the nine species
sampled.
3.
Twigs to 0 to 0.64 an (0 to 1/4 inch) in diarreter, nine species
sampled.
The fact that lichens on these branches were included
'I
I
accounts for occasional high phosphorus levels.
4.
Branches 0.64 an to 2.54 an <1/4 to 1 inch) in diameter, nine
species sampled.
5.
Wood (intact bark) 2.54 to 7.6 an
species sampled.
(l
to 3 inches) in diarreter, nine
Cores fram increment oorings and
II
cookies " \\ere
sampled, both with bark intact.
6.
WJod >7.6 an (>3 inches), sound (with bark), nine species.
7.
Wood >7.6 an
8.
Small herbs and shrubs from clip plots (1/10 m2 ) were analyzed for
(> 3
inches); rotten (no bark), nine species.
total nutrient content.
Samples \\ere homogenized rather than
separated by species (200 samples, Lubrecht Experirrental Fores·t, 350
samples, Coram Experimental Forest).
Species lists are included on
p. 87.
9.
leaves and, separately, stems of large shrubs (five species, Coram
Experimental Forest).
10.
Fungal rraterial, lichens, and rrosses.
Four tree species \\ere sampled.
From the Coram and Lubrecht Experimental Forests:
1.
Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.)
2.
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco)
3.
western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.)
4.
Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.)
,
-
,
8
Fi ve tree species were sampled fran Coram Experirrental Fo:rest including
those four listed above:
5.
Engelmann spruce (P icea engelmannii Parry)
6.
Wes~n
7.
Western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn.)
8.
Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa [Hook.] Nutt.)
9.
Western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl.
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla [Raf.] Sarg.)
In all three, 3,000 tree samples and 1,100 shrub and clip plot samples
were analyzed for 10 essential elements.
Leaves and stems of the following shrub species were analyzed:
Abbreviation of
scientific Narre
Ccmnon Name
Scientific Narre
1. BERE (Berberis repens Lindl.) Creeping Oregon Grape
2. PAMY (Pachistirna myrsinites [Pursh. ])Raf .Mountain Box
.
3. RILA (Ribes lacustre [Pers.] poir.) (Gooseberry)
4. roUT (Lonicera utahensis wats.) (Utah Honeysuckle)
5. VAME (Vaccinium membranaceurn) (Huckleberry)
6. VAw.l (Vacciniurn myrtillus) (Huckleberry)
In addition, 350 forage samples fran O'Keefe Creek were analyzed and the
content of 10 elements in the last 5 cm (2 inches) of material nonnally
browsed was detennined.
Species included were;
1.
Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt., Serviceberry
2.
Ceanothus velutinus Dougl., 'lbbacco brush
.l
I
I
3.
Salix scouleriana Barratrt, Scouler willow
4.
Rosa gymnocarpa Nutt., Wild Rose
5•
carex geyeri Boott, Elk Sedge
6.
Symphoricarpos albus (L.) Blake, Snowre:t:"fY_
====~
1
I
9
These browse samples were collected in mid-March 1979. ,All plant samples
from the Coram Experimental Forest were collected in July and August 1978.
Plant samples from the Lubrecht Experimental Forest were collected in July of
1977.
All samples were ovendried at 65°C (149
were ground after chopping or sawing.
mm sieve.
hours.
of).
Heavy wood samples
All samples were prepared to pass a 1
One gram subsamples were ashed at 525°C (977°p) for two
The ash was taken up in 6 N HCL and heated, diluted, cooled, filtered,
and rna de to 100 ml at roan temperature.
The elements calci um, copper, iron,
potassi urn, magnesium, ma.nganese, sodium and zinc were analyzed on a Techtron
AA-5 with 1 percent La added for calcium and ma.gnesium (Techtron 1974).
Phosphates were run on the colorimeter using the arrmonium m::>lybaate-arrmonium
metavanadate procedures (Jackson 1958).
'Ibtal nitrogen was determined by
modified microKjeldahl (Hesse 1972).
Percent ash was determined
gravimetrically.
Data for each separate material and species were totaled, averaged, and
the range and standard deviation determined for the main sample areas.
Analytical precision is plus or minus 3 percent for duplicate subsarnples for
all elements and materials.
Numbers have rot been rounded off to allow
further use of the data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Since this is reference material, little discussion of results is in
,~.
order.
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and ranges of sare
essential nutrients found in trees and needed for tree growth.
'Ihese are
intended to be used with fuel-loading, or harvest data to ma.ke possible a
quick estimate of how much of each element would be released or removed in a
burn producing a known amount of fuel reduction with a known initial loading.
-~l
10
I
I
Table 1 shows how various species rank in relation to nutrient content.
This
listing makes it possible to estimate row much of each nutrient would be
removed with different levels of harvest.
The data also contribute to
calculationq.; need.ed to determine the impact of harvest or other treatments on
different soils.
If we rank the potential fuels on a site in terms of those richest in
nutrients, we find that generally need.les are the richest in IIDst nutrients.
The high nutrient 'levels in foliage suggest that chipping might l::e rrore
effecti ve if done after the need.les are shed on ];X)Or soils.
Litter may have
more calcium, much more iron, magnesium, zinc, and sa:retimes more total
ni trogen.
Burning litter does release large amounts of. iron, which can become
soluble over tirre, and theoretically, after long periods, could l::ecome toxic
to vegetation.
SUch conditions are not known to occur in M'Jntana soils, but
the ac cumula ti 0 n of iron over time under the tellporarily alkaline conditions
that follow fire could create a probl~ of availability.
Bark is usually richer in nutrients than is wood.
As the stem diameter
increases the levels of nutrients tend to decrease because of the declining
percentage of a cross section of the wood that is represented by b3.rk.
SnaIl
branches with lichens may have exceptionally high levels of phosphorus.
Hence
conventional harvest rrethods mainly remove the less valuable nutrient reserves
in the wood itself.
Rotten wood is often a substrate for nitrogen-fixing
organi sms (Harvey et ale 1980).
It also serves as a sink for heavy rretals.
Rot ten wood has not l::een analyzed by species as 'Were other forest components.
Data represent the ranges of nutrients found in local rotting woods which are
too fragile to hold together or identify.
Rotten wood can l::e quite high in
ni trogen. (1,750 to 2,380 pg/g, Table 1). Sore phosphorus remains in rotten
wood (377 to 488 I-lg/g, Table 1), and zinc, iron and manganese are quite
high.
11
Removal of small twigs 0 to 0.6 em generally removes m;->re biologically
derived essential nutrients than removal of an equal weight of twigs 0.6 to
2 . 5 cm or 2.5 to 7.6 em in diameter.
Removal of needles takes away about 2 to
3 times more calcium, p:Jtassium, nitrogen, and phosphorus fran the ecosysten
than does removal of twigs 0 to 0.6 em in diameter (Table 1), except where
lichens occur on branches.
The nutrient contents of various parts of trees by species have been
surrmarized from the highest nutrient content to the lowest (Table
~).
Use of the Data
Certain cautions should be noted concerning use of these data.
1.
Results are for western Montana, but ecotype and provenance
differences should be taken into account when applying these data to tPe sarre
species in other areas (Stark 1983b).
2.
The range in elemental content is provided to permit 'calculation of
the highest and lowest nutrient levels likely to l::e encountered in the study
area or in similar areas.
3.
Areas with nutrient stress or imbalance may show higher or l~r
nutrient levels in the foliage than are reported here.
Nitrogen fixation was
rot investigated in this study, so nitrogen data are incomplete.
4.
Standard deviations are usually low, about one tenth (or less) of the
analytical figure in most cases, an indication that the areas studied have
trees of reasonably uniform chemistry by species.
High standard deviations
occur for litter and duff because of inclusions of small particles of mineral
matter and variable amount of fungal tissue.
5.
Where lichens occur rn.turally on the bark, they were
the wood pI us bark as they would occur in rn.ture.
analy~ed
with
This produced some larger
than usual standard deviations because some had lichens while others did not.
-----r
12
6.
Analyses included wood plUS bark for all twigs, branches, and wood in
their naturally occurring proportions. Cores are from increment oorings.
Sound wood >7.6 an is from cross-sections with natural bark in place.
7.
Rotten wcx:Xi nay be high in sane elements, such as zinc and nanganese
because these are not readily removed by fungi.
8.
Rotten wood might be high in phosphorus ana. total 'nitrogen because'
fungi and decomposer insects are inciuded in the sample.
9.
Needle results' do not include lichens
tha~
may be attached to the
(
branches, but are not carmnon on needles.
10. To meet the needs of the existing
u.s.
Forest Service fuel
ca tego r i e s, Chemical data fran branch classes of 0 to 0.6 an (0 to 1/4 inch),
0.6 to 1.3 cm <1/4 to 1/2 inch), 1.3 to ,1.9 an (1/2 to 3/4 inch), and 1.9 to
2.5 cm (3/4 to 1 inch) were averaged together.
The same holds true for
,
~
branches 2.5 to 5 cm (1 to 2 inches) and 5 to 7.6 an (2 to 3 inches) in
II
,I
I
diameter.
The standard fuel categories are branches 0 to 0.6 an (0 to 1/4
I,
,'j"
inc):1), 0.6 to 2.5 an (1/4 to 1 inch), 2.5 to 7.6 an (1 to 3 inches> and >7.6
I'II'
I
!!IIII
1,1
'I'
I'
an (3 inches) sound or rotten.
Bianass and Harvest
An al terna ti ve use of the data is to establish what nutrients exist in
the biomass and in the dead material on any site.
For the LUbrecht
Experimental Forest clearcut, for example, the nutrient content of the
standing forest can be reconstructed by using the JlHandbook for Predicting
Slash Weight of Western Conifers" (Brown et ale 1977) and preharvest cruise
data.
Results of chemical arialyses, in general, agree with those reported by
Clayton and Kennedy (1980) and W:iliber
ponderosa pine foliage, and higher
comparable to those published earlier.
(l976)'o~~p~~.-£.QJ;:--~~x_Na
ca.
and P in the
Results for Ibuglas-fir were roughly
13
comparison of the Nutrient Levels in
Coram and Lubrect Trees and Soils
The Coram soils tended to
re
higher in calcium and iron than the Lubrecht
soils, but the Lubrecht soils tended to be higher than Coram soils in
potassium, magnesium, rranganese, and sodium (Table 3).
The higher sodium at
Lubrecht is the result of lower rainfall and heavier clay textured soils that
prevent drainage through the profile and so reduce leaching.
Table 4 shows the di fferences that occur among tree component nutrient
levels by species fran Coram and Lubrecht.
All differences are significant at
the 5 percent level.
The trees fran Lubrecht were higher in calcium in 11 out of 18 instances,
while the Coram tree components were higher than Lubrecht components in seven
out of 18 cases (Tables 2, 4).
It appears that there is a tendency for the
same species of tree to concentrate calcium on a calcium-low soil and to
accumulate moderate levels of calcium on a calcium-rich soil.
The Lubrecht
trees never had significantly higher levels of iron, while the Coram trees had
15 tree components of the 18 measured that were higher than Lubrecht
components for iron.
soil (Table 3).
In this case, Coram also had higher iron levels in the
Copper levels were about the sarre for roth soils.
Ten of 18
Lubrecht forest components had the highest amount of copper, but the soils had
the same levels of copper at Lubrecht.
Potassium is in moderate supply in the
Lubrecht soils, but 12 of the forest components were able to concentrate
potassium.
In comparison, only three of the Coram forest components we:;e
higher than those at Lubrecht where the range of this ion was somewhat
lower than at Lubrecht.
Magnesium tended to
re
higher in the Lubrecht soils, but nine of 18 Coram
components and six of 18 Lubrecht components showed significantly higher
levels of magnesi urn (Table 4).
There is, as yet, no clear explanation for
magnesi urn or manganese concentration in the forest components based on the
·--1
14
chemi s try of the two soils.
Manganese was highest in five Coram components
and eight Lubrecht components.
Sodium was notably lower in the Lubrecht cornpo-
nents, but higher in the Lubrecht soils.
Fourteen of the 18 Coram components
were significantly higher in sodium compared to only one of the Lubrecht
components.
Lubrecht soils had 26 to 28 Ilg Na/g soil, compared to Coram
with 17 to 24 Ilg Na/g soil.
Zinc was highest in only two forest components fran Lubrecht.
Lubrecht
.,,
oj
I
soils have generally lower levels of zinc than Clo qoram soils, which are
marginally zinc deficient.
I
For this reason, 'We suspect that the 12 of 18
I'
forest components at Coram that 'Were higher in zinc than those at Lubrecht
were effectively concentrating zinc in a zinc-poor rredium (Table 4).
The
Lubrecht vegetation may be less· efficient at concentrating zinc.
Phosphate is low in both soils studied.
phosphate at Coram.
The tendency was for lO'Wer
Only five Coram tree components concentrated phosphate
over their Lubrecht counterparts, but ten Lubrecht components had more
phosphate than their counterparts (Table 4).
The percent ash represents the total 'Weight of nonorganic ions in the
plant material after ashing.
Tree components from Coram and Lubrecht were
each highest in percent ash eight out of 18 times, neither site showing clear
superiority in terms of macronutrient concentrations.
These data mean that a scientist wanting to calculate the nutrient
content of foliage on a specific area should decide whether the soil from the
area is more like that at Coram or Lubrecht.
A quick chemical analysis can
tell which plant data will l::est fit which soil area.
IN NH 0AC (anmonium
4
acetate) extraction procedure should l::e used for the soil (2 grams ovendry
sample under 1 mmL.
A
Another good comparison is to analyze a fEM foliage
samples to see if they fall closer to the Lubrecht._-Gr=Coram"'£oliage nutrient
content.
It is left to the discretion of the 'reader as to whether these data
can l::e applied to any specific area.
.,
,
T
15
Comparison of Needle Content for
Douglas-fir and Ponderosa Pine
Zinke and stangenberger (1979) have surrmarized the reported nutrient
contents of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir foliage from a number of studies in
Washington, Oregon, and California.
These tables are valuable in estimating
which elements are present in foliage in low or unusually high amounts.
These
resul ts nake it easy to rank the study sites according to low, medium, or high
nutrient status for each of 9 elements.
The data are arrayed into percentile
classes for comparison with other analytical data (Table 5).
A comparison of Lubrecht and Coram Douglas-fir using the arraying tables
(Zinke and Stangenberger 1979, Table 6) shows that roth Lubrecht and Coram
Douglas-fir are high in Ca
(>
95% class), relative to l-year needles of the
same species analyzed from other parts of the species range (Tables 5, 6).
Iron content of needles tended to be low (5-40% range, Tables 5, 6).
The
soils of these two areas have reasonable levels of available iron, but high
total iron.
~g/g)
•
Coram actually has low levels of available iron
(3.8
Iron is not as readily accumulated in the foliage of Douglas-fir in
\\estern Montana as it is in other portions of the species range.
Potas sium levels in new needles tended to fall in the rredian range (30-80
and 40-70% classes).
problem.
For most trees sampled, potassium is probably not a
Magnesium also tended to be low in the array of Mg rreasured in
needles (20-40 and 40-50% classes, Tables 5,6).
The Douglas-fir in 'Western
Montana seems to accumulate more calcium and less nagnesium than Cb trees of,
this species in other parts of the range.
Manganese was extremely high
(>
90%) in Lubrecht fir foliage, but variable in Coram fir foliage (20-> 99%,
Tables 5 , 6).
No harmful effects of Mn at these concentrations are known.
Sodi urn in Coram fir foliage tended to be high (70-80%), while it was variable
at Lubrecht (30-95% levels).
Zinc in roth sites ranged from high to low in
the foliage (40-70 and 60-90% classes).
Phosphorus was rredium to high in
--I-
~.'
I
['
16
Douglas-fir foliage fran Lubrecht, and much the sarre for Coram (Tables 5, 6).
Obviously, some trees are growing with less than optimal foliar nutrient
content, especially for phosphate.
Foliar nitrogen in Lubrecht fir was lCNJ,
suggesting possible deficiency (5-30% classes).
Nitrogen was low to high
(20-90% classes, Tables 5, 6) for Douglas-fir fran Coram.
It would be interesting to see if some ion contents of needles correlate
with animal or insect damage.
i
I
Ponderosa pine foliage was high in ca fran roth Coram and Lubrecht (80 -
> 99% classes, Tables 5, 6).
I
Iron levels in pine, unlike those in
Douglas-fir, tended to be medium to high (60-95% and 60 to 80% classes).
This
suggests that the. pine mycorrhizae may be IIDre efficient at obtaining iron
from the same soils than are the Douglas-fir
~corrhizae.
Potassium levels in Lubrecht pines were medium to low (10-60%) while that
at Coram was decidedly low (5-30%) implying a near-deficiency for some trees.
Magnesium in pine needles from Lubrecht was variable (15-95% classes) and
higher at Coram (50-90% classes).
Pine appeared to obtain magnesium in better
balance with calcium than did Douglas-fir.
Manganese in needles at Lubrecht
tended to be medium to high (50-95% classes) and high at Coram (80-90%
classes) where there is some impure limestone in the p3.rent ma.terial.
in pine foliage was rredium at roth sites (Tables 5, 6).
high in ponderosa pine foliage.
Sodium
Zinc was rredium to
Coram needles had higher zinc which may be a
reaction to low soil zinc there.
Phosphorus was variable (20-80% classes) at Lubrecht, roth higher at
Coram (60-70% classes), suggesting close pH control of phosphate availability
in the Coram soils.
Foliar ni trogen for pine varied widely at Lubrecht
(15-99% classes), but tended to be medium to low at Coram.
what has been long known-that
Montana.
These data support
nitrogentends,~~to=l=iIDi~t--tr-ee=growth
in western
These results also suggest that iron and ];X)tassium ma.y sometimes be
limiting to tree growth, or at least deficient in the needles.
,J.
..
I
!
-··r
I
17
Minore (1979) has published a literature review in which the nutrient
concentrations are ranked for a number of tree species.
Sorre
tolerances to
nutrient stress are also listed.
Nutrient content of Browse
in the Absence of Frequent Fire--0'Keefe Creek
Table 7 shows the means and ranges of ions found in the edible buds and
branch ends of winter forage from the 0' Keefe Creek area 8 kilometers
northwest of Missoula.
The shrubs were sampled in late March, 1979.
These
data show the nutrient levels occurring in the buds and the last 5 an (2
inches) of branch that might J:::e reached and eaten by deer or elk.
The study
area
is a Douglas-fir/ninebark (PSME/PHMA) habitat type on dry
southwest and southeast slopes at 1,387 to 1,463 rreters (4,550 to 4,800 feet)
elevation.
The last fire was in 1945.
Shrub regrowth ha.s supported mule
deer, whitetail deer, and some elk as winter range.
The last column of Table 7 shows that the quality of browse within a
species varies by aspect.
Sites 1 and 2 are southwest aspects, and sites 3
and 4 are southeast aspects.
The overall soil types appear to J:::e similar, but
funding did not permit soil analysis.
not known.
The cause of the variation in browse is
The differences in shrub ages and root repths and efficiencies
alone could account for much of the variation.
Sorre
shrubs were definitely in
better condition than others, but trends ·were not consistent.
The foliage
from one si te is not consistently higher in all nutrients than foliage from
another.
Where ni trogen levels are greater the cause may
re
microsite
influences on nitrogen-fixing organisms.
The ion levels found in the O'Keefe Creek foliage are generally lower
than those found in Idaho (Merrill 1978).
r
18
Ground Vegetation
Table 8 surnmari zes the results of analyses of various treatrrents on the
Coram ground vegetation.
Clip plots of understory vegetation normally show
high standard deviations for individual elements because of wide variation in
species composition.
It is difficult to know which data to use for estimating the probable
nutrient content of ground vegetation (clip plots).
Shrub and herb
i
4
composition vary considerably and significantly as species composition varies.
If the area of concern has ground vegetation of a density and a species
composi tion similar to those at Coram, then it would be wise to use those
figures for each element to represent the nutrient loading characteristic of
Coram.
!I
The species composition for Coram and Lubrecht study areas are
presented in APPENDIX I.
Table 8.
The data are presented as micrograms per gram in
To use these data, it is essential to know how many grams per m2
of dry ~ight of ground vegetation occur on the stand in question.
may be figured as maximum, minimum, or :rrean.
nutrient concentration are used as
The weight
Extreme and rrean ranges of
~ll.
If the area of concern varies considerably from Coram in terms of species
I·
pres en t in the ground vegetation (Stark 1981a) or in density, then the Coram
data cannot be used.
Table 8 also includes the nutrient content of ground
vegetation from Lubrecht.
The Lubrecht ground vegetation is about. one eighth
to one tenth of ground vegetation from Lubrecht.
The Lubrecht ground
vegetation is aoout one eighth to one tenth as rich in nutrients and as dense
(average 25 g dry weight/m2 ) as that at Coram.
The Lubrecht ground vegeta-
tion may be used in place of the Coram data where the ground vegetation is
sparse and contains fewer species than at Coram.
other studies at Coram and
Lpl:>~~ht
(Stark 1979, Stark and Steele 1977)
showed that burns ranging from 180 to 300°C (356 to 572°F) surface 1 em
I
,I
II
soil temperatures are needed to enrich the foliage to levels likely to be
.
(~
T
19
attractive to wildlife.
Nutrient Content of Shrubs by Species
Table 9 sumnarizes the nutrient content of stems and leaves on six shrubs
from the Coram study area.
Unfortunately, those six were collected from a
biomass study and the sample sizes are too snall to allow any statistical
testing.
Only :means are presented because range and standard deviation would
tell little for fewer than five samples.
The data are valuable as a general i
guide as to how much of each element one would expect to find in larger
shrubs.
Previous clip plot data do not oormally include large shrubs, nor are
these broken down by foliage and stems.
The data in Table 9 indicate the
general level of ions to be found in Berberis leaves from clearcut and
shel terwood treatments with and without burning and with intensive and
conventional utili zation.
control areas are also shown.
The nutrient levels in foliage and stems from
Data are from two years ];X)st-treab:nent.
The data in Table 4 show the substantial amounts of calcium, iron,
potassium, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, sodium, phosphorus, zinc that are
likely to be lost fram a site if the shrubs are removed during harvest.
Some differences occur in the foliage of shrubs sampled from burned areas
compared to unburned controls, but there are too few samples to draw any
conclusion.
SUMMARY
A wide variety of coniferous tree species, herbaceous and shrubby
vegeta tion, shrubs and shrub parts that area browsed have been analyzed for 10
essential nutrients.
Data include :means, standard deviation, and range of
elemental content, which are sumnarized fram over 30,000 :measurements.
Data do
not include the nutrients in herbs nor those in roots or below ground sources.
These data are intended as a reference source for researchers and land managers.
20
LITERATURE CITED
Benson, R. 1978. Lubrecht harvesting study inventory sample tables. Unpub.
Rep. USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Iaooratory, Missoula, Mont.
Brown, J.K., J.A. Kendall Snell and D.L. Burnell. 1977. HandOOok for
predicting slash weight of \\estern conifers. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-16.
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experirrent Station,
Ogden, Utah. 24 p3.ges.
Clayton, J. L. and D.A. Kennedy. 1980. A comparison of the nutrient content
of Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees. Res. Note
INT-281. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experirrent
Station, Ogden, Utah. 13 p3.ges.
Harvey, A., M.L. larson and M.J. Jurgensen. 1980. Biological implications of
increasing harvest intensity on the naintenance and productivity of
forest soils. In: Environmental consequences of timl:er harvesting in
Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-90. USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
Pages 211-220.
.
1
.,
III
Hesse, P.R. 1972 • A Textbook of Soil Chemical Analysis.
Canp3.ny, Inc • New York. 520 p3.ges.
Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis.
Cliffs, New Jersey. 498 p3.ges.
Chemical Publishing
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Ka1ges, M. G., R. C. McConnell and G.A. Nielsen. 1976. Soils of the Coram
Experimental Station. Res. Rep. 91. Montana Agricultural Experirrent
Station, Montana State University, Bozenan. 43 p3.ges.
,
Merrill, E.M. 1978. Nutrient cycling in an ungulate vegetation complex,
Selway River, Idaho. Master's thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 114
pages.
Miller, R. E., D. P. Lavender and C.C. Grier. 1976. Nutrient cycling in the
Douglas-fir type, si1vicu1tura1 implications. Proceedings, 1975 Annual
Convention, Society of American Foresters. Pages 359-390.
Minore, D. 1979. Canparative auteco1ogica1 characteristics of northwestern
tree species -- a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-87. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experirrent Station,(,
Portland, Ore.
Pinta, M.
1962. Detection and determination of trace elements.
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Ann Arbor
Stark, N.
1983a (in press). Environmental assessment techniques for soils.
In: Practical theory and reflective practice: enhancing the quality and
utili ty of scientific and technical information in environmental impact
assessment. The Institute of Man and Science.
======~~
Stark, N. 1983b (in press). The impact of intensive harvest on poor granitic
soils. Canpletion report. Man and the Biosphere.
Stark, N.
1982a.
granitic soils.
The impact of intensive harvest of lodgepole pine on poor
and the Biosphere Report.
Man
I
I·
21
Stark, N.
1982b. Soil fertility after logging in the northern Rocky
Mountains. Can. J. For. Res. 12(3): 679-686.
'
Stark, N. 1981a. Nutrient losses from harvest in a larch/D:)Uglas-fir forest.
Res. Pap. INT-231. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Research Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 41 pages.
Stark, N. 1981b. The soils and ecology of establishing conifers on mine
spoils. Progress report to Western Energy Canpany, Colstrip, Mont.
Stark, N. 1979. The impacts of utilization on nutrient cycling. In:
Environmental consequences of timber harvesting in Rocky Mountain
coniferous forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-90. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. Pages
123-155.
Stark, N. 1978. Man, tropical forests and the biological life of a soil.
BioTropica 10(1): 1-10.
Stark, N. 1977. Fire and nutrient cycling in a larch/Douglas-fir forest.
Ecol. 58: 16-30.
Stark, N. and R. W. Steele. 1977. Nutrient content of forest shrubs after
burning. Am. J. Bot. 64(10): 1218-1224.
Stark, N. and H. Zuuring. 1980. Predicting the nutrient retention
capabilities of soils. Soil Sci. 131(1): 9-19.
Techtron LTD. 1974. Analytical methods for flame spectroscopy.
Techtron PTY, Limited, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Varian
Webber, B. D. 1976. Biomass and nutrient distribution patterns in a young
Pseudotsuga menziesii ecosystem. Can. J. For. Res. 7(2): 326-344.
Zinke, P. and A.G. Stangenberger. 1979. Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir
foliage analyses arrayed in probabili ty distribution. In: Forest
fertilization conference (S.P. Gessel, R.M. Kenady and W.A.Atkinson,
editors). Contribution No. 40. Institute of Forest Resources,
University of Washington, Seattle. Pages 221-225.
22.
APPENDIX 1
Tables with Nutrient Levels
In Various Forest Ecosystem Components
from Western Montana
i
'1
'i
i,ll;
I'll
"
'III,
~I
III"
"
i:
,I
j
Ii
i
II
, I
,I,
I
"
i
Table 1. Means, range, and standard deviations for various fuels and harvestable materials,
Lubrecht Experimental Forest
Nutrient
ca
Item
Cu
Fe
K
Mn
M9:
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
18.9
1.3
16.123.5
micrograms per gram
Lubrecht Experimental
Forest:
Douglas-fir
Duff and litter
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Green needles 1
X
SO
Range)
~ge)
Yr
20,742
402
20,00021,500
14.7
.6
13.016.0
1,669
90
1,4901,920
1,279
46
1,1801,400
1,237
43
1,1701,330
958
26
9051,000
11,426
636
10,08012,810
840
5.6
723982
1,063
31
959
1,087.
72
2.6
66.079.1
12,815
1,652
9,00016,000
7.5
2.0
5.58.9
90
16
68120
6,775
1,130
4,9008,600
912
78
8001,080
865
144
5201,000
8,971
655
7,00010,150
242
55
180380
2,278
220
1,584
2,905
28.3
6.9
1737
6.2
0.75
5.57.2
4,165
40
4,0904,250
7.8
.4
7.28.8
99
4
93110
2,430
60
2,3802,530
610
14
594644
285
6
273298
3,985
272
3,3604,480
34
7
2256
805
25
687
864
41.8
.9
40.443.6
2.1
.2
1.72.5
3,988
111
3,880
4,310
5.3
.3
4.96.1
56
4
4962
1,093
28
1,0701,130
320
7
304332
211
5
201217
1,839
131
1,5402,100
27
5
1840
253
89
170
702
29.9
.8
28.231.2
1.6
.1
1.41.9
;.
Twig~
(0--1:0.64
I
an)
XI
SOli
Range)
Range)
II·
Twigs
(0.64 - 2.5
X
SO
Range)
Range)
an)
N
W
(continued next page)
-~
I'.)
Table 1 (Continued)
-l==>
- - _ .. _ - -
ca
Item
CU
Fe
Nutrient
Mn
Mg:
K
N
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per _gram
Lubrecht Experimental
Forest:
Douglas-fir
Wood
(2.,!.5 - 7.6 an)
X
8D
Range)
Range)
1,409
61
1,310
1,550
6.5
1.3
4.08.0
24.8
1.0
231291
705
128
459972
5.2
1.5
2.913 .0
30.9
14.5
1989
1,467
133
9581,700
5.7
1.3
3.410
163
13.9
140214
3,220
76
2,9803,330
6.2
.9
5.28.8
126
5
111138
285
7.6
270298
93.9
4.4
82100
40.1
1,012
1.2
71
39.091041.8 1,295
18.8
2.0
15.023.0
53
9
27
81
10.5
0.4
9.811.0
.64
.07
.49.78
·202
83
80511
56
9.3
3373
28.0
809
176
7.9
14.5595. 47.0 1,260
21.7
4.5
16.840.7
90
26
24
144
8.9
2.2
6.013 .8
.33
.13
.10.61
373
21
325422
213
13 .5
180263
2,052
169
1,7502,380
38.4
3.2
30.650.4
158
20
136
176
18.9
1.2
16.324.0
.2
2.1
.0.52
9,195
366
8,1209,800
42
14
20.6
76.4
1,363
37.2
.6
35.838.4
2.5
.16
2.263.32
Sound \\KXld
(>2.6, an)
X
8D,
Range)
Range)
,
'I
Rottdn \\KXld
All ~.
III
~ange)
-
X
Rarlge)
~
53.6
3.5
4462
Lodgef11e pine
"
Green needles
X
SO
Range)
Range)
4,442
182
3,8304,650
1,015
17
9801,050
757
50
672840
72
1,179
1,474
(continued next page)
- -1-
,- --L--
--
-----~-
~--
~-
.~--
I
l
-------'--,
t
J
- - - - - - - - - - . . b - - - ____
I
Table 1 (Continued)
ca
Item
CU
Fe
K
Lubrecht Experimental
Forest:
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Lodgepole Pine
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
4,082
812
2,2805,550
7.2
.4
6.58.5
248
34
194310
2,238
467
1,4703,500
997
157
7141,264
252
64
150352
4,151
553
3,3605,460
39
6
2449
790
140
576
1,062
3,670
633
2,2404,600
5.3
.3
4.86.0
148
34
90210
1,004
173
8001,200
642
91
504796
222
38
165291
1,969
479
1,400
2,520
33
6
2638
321
60
216
378
22.9
2.2
19426.0
1.64
.23
1.162.3
7,480
110
7,1607,800
8.3
.08
7.010.0
520
42
442600
1,214
23
1,1801,280
1,013
19
9741,064
309
6.7
284323
7,536
442
6,3008,470
45
3
39.051.2
672
37
655
703
46.9
1.3
46.0
48.8
7.4
0.3
6.88.1
3,069
450
2,0004,200
5.4
.6
4.57.2
118
27
81261
4,952
627
3,8006,630
1,036
163
8241,532
205
74
89340
10,455
1,060
8,68015,540
34.3
4.8
25.846.2
3.4
.5
2.426.25
28.6
3.9
23.637.6
2.3
.26
1.812.93
Twigs
(0.64-2.5 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
i
Ponderbsa Pine
I
DUffii and litter
X
SO,
Range)
Rahge)
Gr~en
needles 1 yr
X
SO
Range)
Range)
32
10
1866
1,329
130
986
1,638
(continued next page)
N
U1
.~
N
0'\
Table 1 (Continued)
Item
CU
Ca
Fe
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
K
N
Na
Percent
ash
P
Zn
906
131
655
1,179
33.3
3.4
27.6..,.
41.4
1.9
.23
1.562.78
micrograms per gram
Lubrecht Experimental
Forest:
Ponderosa Pine
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
2,716
3,517
1,7603,420
8.6
1.7
6.012.0
173
29
113271
3,558
344
2,9104,310
968
104
7641,262
22
40160
5,050
597
3,9205,460
54
11
2570
2,029
500
1,1203,490
6.3
1.5
4.810.0
59.6 1,627
748
18.9
510"...
31.0120.0 4,320
627
193
5721,188
75
.26
40206
2,857
1,126
1,3655,740
31
7.6
22.066.0
367
110
151
869
27.1
5.7
13.043.8
.99
.24
.491.71
1,013
30
9601,080
7.0
0.7
6.18.6
23.3
3.8
2028
741
25
701800
336
8
318350
1,012
65
64
1.6
62.084067.6 1,120
22.8
2.2
19.431.3
200
24
160
138
16.9
1.1
15.622.2
.78
.11
.56.99
659
160
302997
4.8
1.0
3.17.2
28.5
8.9
20.065.0
395
250
83
107490
62.2
692
23.6
174
45520.0125.0 1,295
31.4
12.9
18.870.4
387
120
352
879
5.8
1.4
3.69.0
.33
.13
.10.58
8~
Twigs
<O..!,.64:-2.5 an)
X
SO·
Range)
Range)
fl
\\OOd \1
(2.5-7.6 an)
X
SO
R~ge)
Rarige)
Ii
Sound w.:xrl
(>7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
77
210520
(continued next page)
------
--------.l.-~
--'-
J.. ----
-.,l-
l
Table 1 (Continued)
----
---------
ca
Item
CU
Fe
K
Lubrecht Experimental
Forest:
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
N
Na
Zn
Percent
ash
760
22
734
800
37.4
1.4
34.140.0
11.4
0.36
10.312.3
P
micrograms per gram
Western larch
Duff
- and litter
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Gr~n
11.4
.6
10.013 .0
809
31
708865
1,236
48
1,1001,300
950
37
8801,020
356
21
246392
8,812
602
7,2809,730
3,031
586
2,0004,800
8.3
2.3
5.015.2
86.8 6,405
23.7 1,826
41- 2,800173
9,760
1,098
189
6921,592
216
80
81405
13,518
1,379
9,73015,540
2,343
61.4
28.8
384
24.4- 1,678
123.0
3,186
15.8
7.5
6.035.6
5.8
1.1
3.47
8.16
3,841
122
3,6004,050
7.1
.6
6.08.8
287
3,075
11.6
114
2602,110305
3,305
687
11
659710
295
9
246309
7,316
282
6,6157,805
45.1 1,302
2.1
24
40.1- 1,271
49.2 1,351
30.1
1.1
24.931.9
4.1
.05
4.024.26
2,117
74
1,9802,280
4.8
.2
-4.25.2
378
12
340418
188
5.6
175197
2,793
1,340
1,5056,790
40
1.8
37.044.1
17.5
.9
16.0
19.9
1.2
.13
.91.46
9,610
349
9,00010,200
60.5
2.8
56.2
67.8
needles, 1 yr
X
SO
Range)
Range)
,
'!Wigs
(0 - '0.64 an)
I
X
I
SO Ii
Range)
Range)
'!Wi gs1
(0.64 - 2.5 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
84
4.3
7295
1,230
20
1,2001,272
297
19
258
312
N
(continued next page)
'-I
~~~~~~-~~ ~--- -~~---
N
co
Table 1 (Continued)
Nutrient
Cu
Ca
Item
Fe
Mg
K
percent
Mn
N
mict:ogr~uper
Lubrecht Experimental
Forest:
Na
P
Zn
ash
gram
western Larch
wood
(2.,!.5-:7.6
an)
X
SO
Range}
Range}
Sound wood
(>7.6 an)
xi,I
so;
,I
Raiige }
Rartge}
1\
1,464
255
9802,000
6.7
1.1
3.810.0
774
22.8
151
4.3
16.0- 47336.0 1,080
248
39
197367
140
25
93189
712
144
420995
10.3
1.9
7.014.4
20.8
2.9
1830
400
87
224602
214
54
83380
69.4
16.9
3701,010
288
11.1
2.1
8.415.4
.69
.13
.461.03
121
51
64
256
7.7
2.0
4.010.2
.41
.12
.08.70
1,001
261
6301,575
27.1
8.5
18.957.5
170
41
680
135
455945
28.6
5.3
20.443.6
72
"
Table 2.
Means, range, and standard deviations for various fuels and harvestab1e materials,
Coram Experimental Forest
------
ca
Item
CU
-
Fe
----------
Nutrient
Mn
Mg
K
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms_~rgram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Douglas-fir
Litter
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Duff
X
SO
Range)
Range)
11,830
2,037
6,42014,100
13.1
2.9
9.123.4
1,786
446
1,0153,250
1,179
264
6331,828
831
217
5161,166
197
246
44742
10,049
706
8,68011,480
112
10
94126
1,189
155
878
1,444
68.7
5.8
55.281.8
11.3
2.2
7.319.3
12,159
678
10,76013 ,460
13.9
1.8
11.017.3
1,987
188
1,5902,350
882
56
740984
1,034
64
9201,174
774
61
588902
12,600
5,497
9,38038,640
125
5
112132
1,234
1,127
1,390
77.3
4.7
6489
12.7
1.0
10.314.7
7,623
620
6,8008,720
7.1
1.2
5.010.3
104
28
74153
6,843
688
5,5007,500
1,022
56
9321,124
627
331
110912
9,962
251
9,38010,500
75
10
60108
1,644
308
' 1,260
2,236
35.5
8.1
31.880
4.3
.37
3.45.3
3,589
880
2,7005,400
8.4
2.4
.812.5
192
64
121336
2,180
372
1,3723,080
456
114
333700
180
105
26404
3,769
252
3,0804,340
93
18
73127
738
127
468
1,242
48.4
9.6
35.281.3
2.2
.23
1.52.6
Gr~eri needles, 1 yr
X ;
I,
SO!'
"
~ge)
Rartge)
•
77
!.
Twl.gs
(0 -0.64 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
(continued next page)
N
~
---- - - - - - ~=-==----=:::=----=-.-:-....:==--~~-=-
w
0
Table 2 (Continued)
Nutrient
ca
Item
CU
Fe
Mg
K
Na
N
Mn
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per _gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
DoUglas-fir
Twigs
(O...!..64 - 1.3 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
2,817
208
2,4903,090
5.6
.6
4.76.9
146
30
111205 .
968
109
8031,182
237
15
213264
143
10
127164
2,940
l32
2,8003,080
65
5
5470
360
34
288
396
32.6
2.9
27.838.0
1.6
.1
1.51.8
2,159
760
2,0903,220
4.4
1.7
.66.5
75 .
27
10102
840
165
6661,132
208
42
166280
154
5
145160
2,492
300
2,1002,490
61
5
5168
361
44
310
4,143
85.3
3.4
31.040.1
1.6
.2
1.31.9
1,837
137
1,5902,050
5.1
.7
4.15.8
101
8
83112
571
47
433599
148
10
l30162
126
6
116l36
1,946
80
1,8202,100
57
7
5171
328
34
266
371
27.8
1.8
25.131.0
1.3
.14
1.11.6-
2,271
5 .• 0
107
793
198
141
2,459
61
350
31.9
1.4
Branches
(1.3 - 1.9 an)
X
SO'
Range)
Range)
II
Branches
(l~lI2.5
an)
SO;
RaniJe)
Range)
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5 an)
Average
(continued next page)
Table 2 (Continued)
Nutrient
Item
CU
Ca
Fe
Mg
K
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
rrdcrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Douglas-fir
Branches
(2.5 - 5 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
1,780
83
1,6301,920
5.7
1.9
3.08.9
44
4
4051
584
61
493666
160
5
149170
1,758
61
1,6401,820
4.6
1.5
1.97.0
36
5
3148
389
60
303453
1,769
5.2
40
487
4.3
1.5
1.08.1
30
3
2436
145
101
94105
1,582
115
1,4001,680
57
4
5264
320
18
288
346
18.8
1.0
16.420
1.2
.06
1.1·1.3
125
6
116132
83
4
7989
1,316
98
1,1201,400
53
5
4463
265
31
223
324
16.9
1.0
15.218
1.0
.2
.61.3
143
92
1,491
55
293
17.9
1.1
29
2
2731
1,178
98
9101,260
50
4
4456
133
13
3
Branches
(5 - 7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Branches
(2.5 ;... 7.6 an)
Average
WOod : .
(>1..6 an cores)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
934
53
8301,000
13
120160
56
4
5059
108
155
I
7.9
.9
.6.1·9.7
.54
.76
.41.65
.
(continued next page)
w
.......
-
------~-
---
~-.-~---
w
Table 2 (Continued)
N
ca
Item
CU
Fe
Nutrient
Mn
Mg:
K
Na
N
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimanta1
Forest:
Douglas-fir
Sound wood
(>1.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
101
1.4
98103
85
2
8188
1,055
144
7701,400
52
2
4956
86
29
47
112
8.4
2.7
6.717.0
.54
.11
.35.71
208
12
180225
288
18
220309
125
4
i19132
2,596
154
2,3803,080
82
7
73110
205
80
148
238
26.1
1.4
24.129.9
3.6
1.5
2.558.35
629
30
562670
1,809
106
1,6322,064
873
39
800936 -
1,122
48
9841,202
8,837
968
4,76010,360
114
11
96156
969
43
900
1,076
82.1
9.6
3.6
.6
78.38.492.7
10.9
1,322
169
8761,544
1,711
189
1,2002,000
1,239
l37
8801,592
1,521
251
9861,982
10,716
2,088
3,08012,740
146
14
129179
1,110
l33
691
1,264
l32.9 14.8
18.1
2.2
98.08.7182.0 19.9
929
40
8701,000
3.4
.9
1.85.0
42
2
4351
138
9
130160
.2,879
129
2,6703,150
3.5
.8
3.06.1
439
46
364520
21,848
6,352
17,36051,520
11.1
1.5
8.014.1
24,739
2,411
18,00028,400
l3.4
1.7
9.016.4
Rotten wood
(>7.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
Ran,ge)
'f
i
Eng1emapn Spruce
Littel
-Ii
~ III~
Range)
Range)
Duff
X
SO
Range)
Range)
(continued next page)
-
-~---
01---·-
- - - ___ ----"w~
-_-I-
-~--'-,*---
=:'!!
-~~-
--
_f
~
oP
.,~
~~i-------
Table 2 (Continued)
ca
Item
CU
Fe
K
Ooram Experimental
Forest:
Nutrient
ML- Mn
micrograms
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
~gram
Eng1emann spruce
Gr~n
needles, 1 yr
X
SD
Range)
Range)
6,809
196
6,4007,160
6.9
1.8
3.59.8
57
5
4865
6,914
265
6,5607,820
810
20
770858
669
10
647688
10,911
936
9,80013 ,580
100
15
79160
1,841
25
1,800
1,900
68.8
2.2
66.175.0
5.0
1
4.85.3
4,028
484
3,4006,000
8.8
1.6
6.112.5
237
42
156334
7,034
1,875
3,82010,560
747
16
708780
323
62
228510
4,621
1,004
2,5206,300
128
13
89146
1,264
233
727
1,340
71.9
6.6
58.382.9
3.4
.36
2.64.3
5,632
165
5,3405,860
9.2
.8
7.910.2
172
55
144328
1,398
84
1,3001,560
349
12
334370
278
6
272290
3,430
1,375
2,5206,300
95
22
82149
391
30
360
436
67.4
11.7
60.097.4
2.4
.1
2.32.6
6,724
1,314
4,9808,040
7.4
1.1
5.49.2
106
5
99112
1,004
80
8401,120
279
30
240308
241
2,170
318
1,5402,800
80
6
7290
251
16
223
281
55.5
4.9
51.7
65.0
2.2
.2
1.92.3
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
Twigs
(0..!..64 - 1.3 an)
Xi
SD'
Range)
Range)
I
Branches
(1.3- 1.9 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range
5
232251
(continued next page)
w
w
~
w
+:>
Table 2 (Continued)
ca
Item
Cu
Fe
Nutrient
Mn
Mg
K
Na
N
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Eng1emanh spruce
Branches
(1.9 - 2.5 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
X
SO .
Range)
R~ge)
51.5
1.5
49.054.0
2.3
.1
2.12.5
1,988
207
1,6802,380
70
10
5886
282
41
1,187
342
34.2
.9
33.035.1
1.3
.3
1.12.2
73
4
6580
1,526
103
1,4001,680
67
9
5484
193
39
137
259
24.1
1.7
21.3
26.7
1.0
.1
.951.2
77
1,283
377
9802,380
79
36
60190
94
10
76
112
18.0
1.2
16.821.0
1,848
129
1,6802,100
370413
70
6
6586
1,235
57
1,1201,340
313
14
278328
306
17
277327
111
3
106117
7.6
.3
7.28.0
112
25
90180
998
49
9201,080
311
7
302320
3,674
109
3,5203,840
5.1
.3
4.75.8
60
4
5464
1,429
172
1,0521,704
390
2,884
174
2,4603,080
4.3
.6
3.25.0
43
4
3852
1,149
43
1,0801,204
5.5
1.1
3.17.2
34
2
3236
Branches
(2.5 - 5cm)
65101
217
28
184
263
229
8
220250
7,716
102
7,5607,860
13
76
11
r
Brandhes
(5- -117.6
an)
I
X II
SO!
I
Rarige)
Rar].ge )
sound wood
(>7.6 an cores)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
4
7185
.5
.1
.38.68
(continued next page)
-
--~-~--
~----- ,,-.-----
- - - - -->-
cc.J!--
_~- .. c.~
Table 2 <Continued)
-------
Item
Ca
-
Cu
Fe
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
K
N
microgr~_per
Ooram Experimental
Forest:
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
gram
Engelmann spruce
Sound ~
<>7.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range) -
1,161
36
1,0941,216
4.5
.4
3.95.1
22
1
2024
327
9
309340
193
3
189200
31
1,131
90
9801,260
55
6
4667
94
11
76
115
21.2
1.2
19.4
24.1
.6
.06
.52.7
1,443
61
1,3401,562
6.0
.6
4.87.0
48
3
4053
311
14
281356
181
4
172188
79
7186
1,770
127
1,5401,960
68
4
6075
115
19
76
176
44.6
20.6
22.0
94.-4
.8
.08
.65.96
6,994
616
5,7008,000
8.6
2.6
5.214.2
1,973
2,347
4709,100
906
195
6201,560
1,254
780
6243,440
948
121
7801,260
7,514
1,659
9389,660
108
42
10203
211
32
158275
58
7.5
4878
6,828
286
6,3207,440
10.9
1.1
9.2l3 .0
4,337
359
3,7005,060
1,244
82
1,1601,480
1,469
69
1,3801,620
3,066
471
2,5604,200
13,339
449
11,90014,000
186
17
158240
279
84
30
6
22078340
103
.6
3032
Rotten WCXJd
(>7.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
5
LodgepOle Pine
Litter
X
SD
Range)
Range)
10.9
8.2
4.033.3
Duff
X
SD
Range)
Range)
20.4
l.8
17.524.6
<continued next page)
w
U1
--
~-=----
..=-"'----=-- ---
~--------=
----------'-'-=
--~------
=-~
w
Table 2 (Continued)
Item
O'l
Ca
CU
Fe
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micr.9<J!"aJ1!Sper gram
Lodgepole Pine
Gr~n
needles, 1 yr
X
so
Range)
Range)
3,259
186
2,9203,560
7.8
1.8
5.512.0
105
10
88126
4,123
243
3,7204,600
1,067
22
1,0121,108
768
64
672900
10,773
403
9,94011,480
103
17
84148
343
38
260390
52
- 5.5
4366
2.3
.17
1.92.6
3,828
261
3,5204,450
6.7
1.1
4.68.5-
315
24
265370
2,756
243
2,3503,300
970
63
8401,076
423
38
365520
4,066
223
3,6404,620
108
10
93l38 .
178
19
140212
49
4.5 .
4464
2.4
.2
2.02.7
3,762
66
3,6403,860
4.1
.3
3.64.6
181
7
170190
1,220
31
1,1701,290
652
8
640660
275
6
265283
2,408
271
1,8202,800
90
8
78110
93
8
83110
29
.5
28.230.0
1.7
.05
1.61.8
4,264
105
4,1404,460
6.1
.7
5.07.2
141
8.5
129150
889
81
8201,100
514
9
500530
429
7
416442
1,988
145
1,6802,100
164
197
80726
46
32
4352
1.6
.07
1.51.6
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SD.
Range)
Rm1;ge
II
Twi g'l~
(0.64 - 1.3 an)
-
II
X
SO!/'
Rarlge)
Rarlge)
I
Branches
(l..!.3 - 1.9 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
79
5.8
6383
(continued next page)
--~
... ~
--
--~=~~~--
-~r-
__ e:iJ'_
n--~9
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - .---=f:- -----;;;;z,:~
~~>-----------'--~------'-----
>'j---.:A-,.- - -
Table 2 (Continued)
- - - _ .__ ._-
Item
Ca
CU
Fe
Nutrient
Mn
Mg:
K
N
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Lodgepole Pine
Branches
(1.9 - 2.5 em)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
3,398
98
3,2403,560
5.3
1.3
3.97.4
76
4
7080
920
20
900950
528
9
519544
273
4
268280
1,680
66
1,540
1,820
87
12
68110
73
5
6881
27.6
1
2629
1.1
.06
1.01.2
2,758
113
2,5602,900
3.4
.8
2.54.7
37
4
3142
702
49
650820
476
14
460492
135
5
129142
1,414
79
1,2601,540
72
4
6779
146
3
4251
16.5
1.8
1419
0.81
.05
.7.92
2,460
261
1,7802,700
5.3
1.1
2.06.7
22
2
2026
456
84
321610
439
12
420454
105
4
100110
1,288
89
1,1201,400
71
7
6081
128
7
1839
10.9
1.2
9.613 .0
.5
.1
.38.{)9
1,808
319
1,6002,620
6.9
.7
68
933
207
7201,310
355
27
324398
94
980
114
8401,120
91
13
72116
140
5
3249
15.8
2.8
11.620.0
.7
.1
.55
.87
Branches
(2.5 - 5 an)
X
SD
Range)
Ra1;1ge
Branches
(5 -;7.6 an)
X
I!
SD'
Range)
Range)
Sound wood
(>7.6 an cores)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
36
11
2150
9
85115
(continued next page)
---------------
--=-----==
~--.--
----- ---
w
-.....J
------i
w
co
Table 2 (Continued)
Nutrient
ca
Item
CU
Fe
Mn
Mn
K
microgr~
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Na
N
Zn
P
Percent
ash
per gram
Lodgepole Pine
Sound ~
()7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
1,367
46
1,2601,400
4.8
.2
4.55.2
26
4
2233
397
18
380450
270
6
260280
142
2
140145
904
73
840980
75
6
6885
131
9
2045
1,387
23
1,3601,400
5.7
.2
5.55.9
221
1
120122
383
15
370400
261
2
260264
189
14
73200
2,193
162
2,1002,380
94
4
9098
161
30.3
10
3.3
50- 26
32
70
3,810
378
3,2404,460
5.2
1.2
3.67.4
133
45
70190
1,010
159
8201,290
561
63
500660
326
74
265442
2,025
350
1,5402,800
114
116
68724
182
34
11
9
63- 26110
52
2,609
248
1,7802,900
4.3
1.4
2.56.7
30
8
2042
573
143
321820
457
23
420492
120
16
100142
1,351
104
1,1201,540
71
Rotten ~
()7.6 an)
X
SO '
"
Range)
Rarige)
II
29.4
3.9
2.035.6
.4
.05
.33.45
.77
.04
.73.8
vb
·LPP
(0.641 - 2.5 an)
X
Ii
soi
Rarlge)
Range)
LPP Vibod
(2-!..5 - 7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
6
6081
137
13.8
11
3.2
18- 9.651
19.6
1.5
.2
1.11.8
.7
.17
.38.92
(continued next page)
~
--.:..~~
~
_,,=
.,il
~=i-__:~
""
Table 2 (Continued)
ca
ItEm
CU
Fe
Nutrient
Mg
:tom
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Ponderosa Pine
Litter
X
SD
Range)
Range)
6,052
568
5,3207,240
10.6
1.6
7.114.1
721
159
440998
637
67
520790
1,101
84
1,0001,300
259
15
241292
6,244
577
5,0407,280
93
11
74120
161
19.7
l30200
7,939
488
6,8408,700
17.4
1.5
14.521.0
1,824
l32
1,4402,008
1,040
230
7902,010
1,481
120
1,2881,744
406
70
321574
11,710
1,027
9,800l3,860
l34
l3
115168
229
103
24
14
194- 80281
150
3,441
496
2,8404,620
5.8
.5
57.1
124
14
99152
4,334
474
3,4705,160
1,239
102
9841,420
274
26
221310
9,078
874
8,12011,340
78
5
6888
1,360
47
1,2891,455
3,448
460
2,600
4,060
6.8
.8
5.2
9.0
186
19
148
218
3,569
435
2,900
4,360
1,224
51
1,1201,320
203
21
170252
4,250
171
3,9204,620
94
l3
75120
184
28
150292
56
9
4681,
7.6
1.8
5.210.9
Duff
X
SD
Range)
Range)
Gr~en
X
21.3
2.8
14.4
31. 7
needles, 1 yr
!I
i
Range)
Range)
SD
48
6.5
3860
3.5
.3
2.93.9
48
14
3485
2.2
.2
1.92.5
I
Twig~:
(0 - '0.64 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
(continued next page)
w
1.0
---~
"""
Table 2 (Continued)
0
Nutrient
ca
Item
Cu
Fe
Mg
K
Twigs
( 0 • 64 - 1. 3 an)
SO
Range)
Range)
SO
Range)
Range)
Branches
(1.9 i:- 2.5 an)
X I
SO II
RaI'tge)
Range)
Percent
ash
3,846
46
3,8003,940
7.5
.6
6.98.6
316
24
282342
1,364
13
1,3401,380
711
11
698730
78
2
7580
3,192
217
2,8003,500
81
4
7789
83
7
7091
35.8
2
32.839.2
1.9
.09
1.92.1
3,378
171
2,9003,500
6.2
.3
5.87
314
7
300320
1,176
42
1,0801,240
.632
5
620636
71
2
70_ 75
3,730
99
2,5202,800
75
5
7082
72
10
6088
30.1
.2
3030.4
1.9
.06
1.81.9
2,966
43
2,9003,060
6.1
.3
5.56.7
187
12
170206
956
36
880980
485
8
474500
48
4750
2,114
123
1,8202,240
74
8
6088
63
7
5170
24.1
.8
22.425.4
1.4
.05
1.31.5
1,348
25
1,3201,380
5.6
.4
56.3
51
2
4854
1,494
74
1,4201,600
539
63
1
6164
2,086
168
1,8202,380
665
47
570720
65
8
50-
19.5
.9
18.221.6
O.S
Branches
(1.3 - 1.9 an)
X
Zn
P
Na
N
micrograms per_gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
X
Mn
.9
II
Branches
(2.5 !- 5 em)
Xi
SO
Range)
Range)
6
530552
72
.06
.7.9
(continued next page)
1 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------<...;.----
------
-"=
--
---
f~-'--~--"--
'"
-------~.-~------~--<==>"o~
Table 2 (Continued)
Item
Ca
CU
Fe
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N.
Na
P'
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms. per gram
Ponderosa Pine
Branches
(5 - 7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
1,404
8
1,4001,420-
5.5
.6
4.86.8
1,687
61
1,5801,800
5
60
5
5372
840
28
800900
422
5
416432
59
1
5862
1,512
89
1,4001,680
.7
46.8
122
10
102145
778
22
720800
400
10
360412
66
3
60-
1,310
133
1,1201,680
1,480
376
1,2402,180
6.4
.9
4.67.5
43
5
3852
704
21
680740
396
5
384400
68
2
6370
3,038
114
2,8203,200
7.0
.7
68.2
56
25
3898
414
16
400440
482
11
464496
69
2
6570
129
197
53690
45
4
3950
17 .9
.3
17.418.4
.7
.04
.6.7
77
60110
56
9
4584
21
2
18.226.2
.8
.09
.61.0
84
16
63112
32
2
2738
20
1.5
1823
72
7
6482
20
Sound wood
(>7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
72
l3
Sound wood
X
SO
Range)
Range)
.4
.04
.36.5
I:
Rotten wood
(>7.6 an)
'X
SO
Range)
Range)
2,198
162
1,9602,380
21
.7." '3
18- 18.421 -28.0
.2
.03
.2.3
(continued next page)
+"
f-'
~
Table 2 (Continued)
N
Nutrient
ca
Item
CU
Fe
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
~
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
microgramElper gram
Ponderosa Pine
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5 em)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
3,391
379
2,9003,940
6.6
.8
5.58.6
272
63
170342
1,165
173
8801,380
610
96
474730
66
13
4780
2,679
473
1,8203,500
77
7
6089
73
11
5191
30
5
2239
1,376
34
1,3201,420
5.5
.5
4.86.8
55
6
4872
1,167
340
8001,600
481
60
416552
61
2
5864
1,799
322
1,4002,380
397
308
53720
53
10
3972
18.7
1.1
17.421.6
23,003
1,721
20,080
26,800
8.2
.5
6.99.2
456
98
347745
1,277
138
9001,684
785
54
692901
2,422
324
1,8003,050
9,593
1,003
7,28011,340
91
8
78112
859
62
8641,148
16,968
603
15,70018,000
17.9
1.9
15.021
2,437
149
2,1102,725
1,829
82
1,6001,968
1,838
67
1,7201,980
2,954
153
2,7103,190
14,686
785
12,12015,960
193
7
176206
1,280
139
82
9
1,159- 1201,483
162
1.7
.2
1.32.1
Branches
(2.5 - 7.6 em)
X
SO
Range)
R.a1)ge)
Ii
.7
.08
.6.9
II
SUbalp~ne fir
i:
I'
Litter
- 'I
Xli
soii
Rartge)
Range)
90
5.7
7799
0.8
.5
78.6
Duff
X
SO
Range)
Range)
16
1.3
13.919.3
(continued next page)
/~
-
.....
Table 2 (Continued)
ca
Item
Fe
CU
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
K
~crograms
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
Zn
Percent
Ash
Na
P
103
6.5
96120
1,450
73
1,145
1,530
43
.8
4245
3.5
0.1
3.33.7
124
51
3
44':"
57
3.5
.3
34.0
per gram
Subalpine fir
Gr§.en needles, 1 yr
X
SO
Range)
Range)
9,772
242
9,360
10,400
7.4
1.6
4.911.3
64
5,553
3.4
156
57- .5,30071
5,900
5,840
499
5,120
6,800
7.9
1.3
5.311.2
182
44
121313
7,031
581
5,9808,300
5.5
.8
4.07.0
147
12
136169
1,637
157
9
142170
1,208
132
9921,340
819
16
786846
1,020
22
9921,068
10,690
239
10,360
11,200
1,038
67
9401,164
587
110
363818
4,962
487
3,9205,740
97149
2,254
211
1,908
2,621
553
22
530599
194
6
188205
3,010
190
2,6603,220
90
25
66.140
738
31
684
796
37
1.5
3640
2.2
.1
22.4
515
373
2,478
229
2,1002,660
78
7
6894
653
28
428
504
41
1.6
3943
2.4
.1
2.32.-6
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
13
'!Wigs
( 0 .64 - 1. 3 an)
X·
SO
Rahge)
Rahge)
i
2,327
82
2,2402,500
64
1,5721,765
Branches
(1.3 - 1.9 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
3,288
375
2,7853,660
8.7
3.6
3.8
169
13
IS
488529
345391
(continued next page)
.po
w
.J:::>
.J:::>
Table 2 (Continued)
- ..
ca
Item
---------~-
---.---~-
.. --
Nutrient
Cu
Fe
K
N
Mn
~
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Subalpine fir
Branches
(1.9 - 2.5
an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5
X
SO ,-
Range)
Ran,ge)
3,605
143
3,4103,810
7.2
.7
68
3,073
598
2,2403,810
7
2.5
3.816.9
137
12
123166
1,034
39
9841,094
433
13
414453
359
14
340380
1,946
180
1,6802,240
500
54
419599 -
309
84
188391
2,478
482
1,6803,220
74
6.6
6486
386
19
360
410
35
1.6
3337
2.2
.1
2.02.4
532
1,154
360
796
37.9
3
3343
2.3
.1
22.6
18.2
0.8
17.219.7
1.4
' .1
1.21.5
13 .6
1.4
1217
.9
.2
.61.3
em)
147
1,293
271
13 .6
123984170
1,765
81
17
640
140
I'
Branches
(2..!.5 ~ 5
an)
;,l
Rani e)
/,
Range)
Branches
(5 - :7.6
X
SO
Range)
Range)
2,013
75
1,9002,135
7
.6
68
39
11
3268
1,578
50
1,5061,660
383
9
371400
176
6
170190
2,240
229
1,9602,520
68
5
6074
536
35
464
576
1,579
69
1,4651,675
5.7
2
39
26
2.3
2129
1,273
61
1,1641,370
316
16
300342 .
120
2.6
116124
1,176
135
9801,400
65
5
5774
1,193
16
176
216
an)
(continued next page)
-
-
•..1"::'
~'
.......
-...,.
.~
_C'
Table 2 (Continued)
.I
Item
Nutrient
ca
Fe
CU
K
N
Mn
.J1g
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micr()grams per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Subalpine fir
Branches
(2.5 - 7.6 em)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
1,796
233
1,465
2,135
6.4
1.6
39
33
10
2168
1,425
165
1,1641,660
349
36
300400
148
29
116190
1,708
576
9802,520
66
5
5974
1,321
37
1,2551,395
3.5
.6
2.8
4.9
54
4.4
4952
299
9
280312
545
7
534556
318
5
310325
992
152
8401,260
1,422
112
1,2651,600
4.5
1
37
47
7
3759
336
29
302386
546
19
516580
164
13
145182
7,165
191
6,8007,580
8.3
1.1
6.210.5
184
7.5
170210
641
19
604672
365
178
176
576
15.9
2.6
1219.7
1.2
183
23
155247
133
30
100190
11
.4
10.511.8
0.4
.08
.4.6
1,303
175
9801,540
161
13
141183
342
76
180450
12
1
1014
.6
- .4
.4.8
3,522
299
2,3803,920
105
5
96115
558
95
400740
46
2.6
.4
2.42.9
.3
.61.5
Sound wood
(>7.6 em cores)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
Sound wood
(>7.6 an)
X:
SD
Range)
Range)
Rotten wood
(>7.6 em)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
1,248
28
1,2001,312
1,125
19
1,080
1,160
.8
44.648
(continued next page)
_ _ .___________ .=--o=--
.::.--=-_----==-_-
~---=---
--:::::--"----. --
..j:::>
01
Table 2 (Continued)
.;::.
en
ca
Itan
CU
Fe
K
Nutrient
Mg
N
Mn
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest: .
Western hemlock
Litter
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Duff
X
SO
Range)
Range)
10,602
466
9,50011,440
8.0
1.5
6.512.0
1,691
855
1,0004,400
1,106
101
8401,300
1,203
210
1,0301,830
1,480
' 501
1,1003,300
9,436
1,082
7,14011,060
208
85
140560
298
17
260330
53.7
8.2
4680
8.6
.9
7.210.2
10,764
406
10,04011,600
10.3
1.6
713 .2
2,682
859
1,0403,800
l r 099
79
9601,220
L,399
159
1,0201,630
2,149
461
1,1603,000
12,432
947
10,36013,720
203
35
136280
310
25
245340
64
9
4179
16.0
2.2
10.820.3
I
Green i needles, 1 yr
X
I
SO il
Range)
Range)
4,183
151
3,8004,400
8.8
1.9
6.215
89
7
75100
6,846
157
6,5607,300
1,492
38
1,4161,540
2,276
16
2,2502,300
11,217
303
10,78011,900
130
26
90196
806
28
760880
10.3
.7
9.212.8
3.2
.1
2.83.3
3,158
356
2,6403,800
9.2
2.1
715.5
356
4,807
554
3,0005,800
833
83
700990
649
83
528821
4,452
518
3,5005,320
159
48
104310
362
42,
300470
42
6.2
3056
2.9
.3
2.43.7
. I
Twigs'
(0 - 0.64
X
SO
Range)
Range)
an)
77
215485
(continued next page)
.....
...
-
~\
'
....
....,.
'
....
Table 2 (Continued)
Nutrient
Item
Ca
Fe
CU
Mg
1<
Mn-
N
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Western hemlock
Twigs
(0.64 - 1.3 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
3,445
87
3,3003,600
2,896
205
2,700-,
3,440
4.8
3.85.8
126
12
102142
999
24
9601,040
380
8
370396
268
7
258280
2,107
147
1,9302,380
220
25
180272
75
5
6882
24.9
1.2
2328
1.2
.09
1.021.4
3.5
.3
3.14.0
96
11
81
115
915
43
8401,000
364
10
344376
316
- 17
270335
1,655
122
1,5401,900
187
16
164208
66
12
5595
19.5
2.2
17.625.6
1.09
.09
.971.3
684
19
655710
444
25
410480
632
94
310315
3,640
5,465
1,680-'
18,200
144
146 '
52500
93
16
60115
21
1.1
1922
1.4
.1
1.31.6
622
15
600650
296
22
264330
228
8
220240
1,540
70
1,4001,680
59
4
5065
20.6
1.6
1923
1.1
.04
1.061.18
.5
Branches
(1.3 - 1.9 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5 an)
X;
soi
Range)
Range)
3,982
125
3,7204,100
9.2
3.4
313.2
3,547
158
3,4003,800
9.7
1.8
6.511.8
97
8
85110
Branches
(2.5 - 5 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
68
8.6
5580
72
13
5285
(continued next page)
..,.
~
Table 2 (Continued)
~
CIO
Nutrient
ca
Item
CU
Fe
Mg
K
N
Mn
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Western hemlock
Branches
(5 - 7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
. Range)
3,778
89
3,6003,900
7.2
.5
6.58.2
46
3
4252
665
6
655680
290
7
280300
226
4
220232
1,484
72
1,4001,540
51
3
4555
72.5
6
6180
1,340
91
1,2401,500
5.8
1.6
3.59.0
55
18
3592
577
28
545612
160
6
150170
163
5
155168
952
207
5601,120
62
9
5280
60.5
6.6
3.0
.96
5.8- 558
8
3,592
115
3,4403,700
6.5
.97
57.8
64
12.7
5298
125
4
120130
120
38
13142
31
1
3032
1,292
70
9801,400
52
18
5068
25
5
2032
12.6
.5
1213,.6
0.98
.1
.81.1
3,688
339
3,0404,200
6.3
.5
5.27
649
23
610690
228
13
210250
56
3
5060
2,100
187
1,8202,520
62
5
5575
54
3
5060
23.6
2.5
18.427
1.3
.15
1.01.5
26.1
1.2
2428
1.2
.04
1.141.3
Sound YKXX1
(>7.6 an cores)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
I
I',
.5
.2
.33.8
t!
soundlYKXX1
(>2.~ an)
X "
SD !i
"
~:ge)
Ran~e)
I:
Rotten YKXX1
(>7.6 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
92
16
60115
(continued next page)
....
....
I
Table 2 (Continued)
..
Item
Ca
CU
Fe
1:'lUtrient
Mg
Mn
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
Na
P
Percent
ash
Zn
micrograms per gram
Western hemlock
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
109
18
81142
891
132
6551,040
392
35
344480
377
483
2583,150
2,359
2,768
1,5408,200
190
79
52500
77
15
55115
8.3
1.8
6.511.8
56
l3
4280
644
24
600680
293
16
264330
227
7
220240
1,511
75
1,4001,680
60
14
4585
66
9
5080
9,916
1,535
6,58011,820
10.9
2.4
5.416.0
1,204
271
7831,912
734
llO
510988
899
l32
7401,270
497
52
402648
7,829
1,314
5,60011,480
83
25
50119
637
78
511
860
33.064.5
10,442
339
9,78011,040
10.5
1.8
7.915.0
2,129
243
1,5562,640
900
85
7441,048
1,140
69
9641,260
668
ll4
513989
10,438
2,186
8,68020,160
l33
11
110158
744
46
684
871
51.8
14.2
4.5
1.9
44.0- 10.461.0
18.9
3,411
438
2,7004,100
5.5
2.8
313 .2
3,668
171
3,4003,900
22.2
2.8
17.627.6
1.2
.14
.971.6
23.5
3.2
1928
1.2
.06
1.11.3
44.0
8.7
1.4
7.2-
Branches
(2.5 - 7.6)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Western larch
!
•
i
Ll.tter
X
ii
i
SO'!
Rarlge)
Ra4ge )
5~6
12.~
I
I
Duff:
X
SO
Range)
Range)
(continued next page)
~
\.0
Table 2 (Continued)
U1
0
ca
Item
Nutrient
CU
Fe
Mg:
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Western larch
Gr§.en needles, 1 yr
X
SD
Range)
Range
2,213
105
1,9802,390
15.5
4.9
10.735.2
126
21
109218
4,958
252
4,3905,388
2,797
569
1,6403,830
12.3
1.7
9.516.0
379
123
107701
2,704
471
1,7003,900
1,126
55
1,0201,200
5.1
1.2
4.07.3
166
31
120217
1,059
70
9661,160
2.6
0.7
1.54.0
73
5
6583
1,083
22
1,0051,113
181
15
160239
23,320
3,129
17,92028,923
56
16
45125
2,960
300
1,894
3,269
24.6
1.8
21.127.7
5.3
.8
4.98.9
645
55
542765
244
39
166313
6,365
1,117
4,886
8,913
86
15
65114
1,214
262
644
1,940
30.7
2.7
25.535.2
3.5
.9
2.36.8
1,040
71
9201,150
320
11
304336
158
7
146166
1,764
189
1,4002,100
71
13
3578
270
44
216
324
17.5
1.0
16.018.9
1.0
.09
.861.2
871
112
720998
299
10
277309
125
5
116130
1,302
288
8401,960
51
14
3769
251
66
151
360
14.8
.4
14.115.1
.86
.19
.621.2
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
'I
>
li
'!Wi g!j?ii
(0.64
- 1.3 an)
- II
~II
R;A~ge )
RaIlge)
~
Ii
Branches
(1.3 i - 1.9 an)
I
X
SO
Range)
Range)
(continued next page)
-="
....;
Table 2 (Continued)
Item
Ca
Cu
Fe
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
K
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Western larch
Branches
(1.9 - 2.5 em)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5 em)
Average
1.9
.7
1.03.0
59
19
46110
788
27
742824
251
9
230262
118
5
106125
1,120
93
9801,260
38
3
3342
216
24
180
248
10.8
.5
10.011.8
1,006
3.2
99
900
290
"134
1,395
53
245
14.4
.84
1,027
40
9741,096
2.6
1.0
1.04.0
37
2
3440
628
32
580678
236
7
221242
147
5
140155
1,400
198
1,1201,680
40
3
3646
233
24
184
259
10.2
1.1
9.112.9
.63
.05
.54.71
621
79
444700
2.5
.4
2.03.2
15
2
13.521.0
558
81
368640
193
3
130220
150
23
98165
1,260
379
8402,240
38
2
3642
167
58
7.6
1.2
5.08.9
.46
.05
.37.51
833
27
786887
0.66
.04
.6.7
Branches
(2.5 - 5 em)
-I
X,
SO'
Rahge)
Rarige)
""
Wood!"
(5 ~i 7.6 em)
xl
SO'
Range)
Range)
72
252
(continued next page)
(J1
I-'
___
~
~
.
~
-
-
'
-
-
~
_
~
_
.
..
_
~
-c-_.=-
___ • _ _ _ _
Table 2 <Continued)
(J1
N
ca
Item
Fe
CU
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
K
N
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
rnigrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Western larch
Sound wood
<)7.6 an cores)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
696
50
634800
3.3
1.1
1.15.1
486
56
442660
2.6
.8
2.04.1
126
54
65255
279
19
250320
222
17
200248
69
11
3680
1,027
493
4202,380
36
2
3239
395
75
274
504
9.0
1.4
7.311.4
0.5
.05
.42.60
533
33
496610
199
5
190210
117
16
110171
1,002
112
8401,260
38
5
3252
174
55
40
223
7.3
.4
7.08.3
.47
.05
.39.58
439
46
208
12
288
18
125
4
2,596
154
81
17
205
22
320
37
232405
967
121
7001,180
748
55 ~.
610830
349
60
244490
4,637
327
4,2005,460
87
15.5
59115
Sound wood
<)7.6 an)
X.·
SO
Rapge)
RaPge)
14.8
2.1
1120
RottLn wood
<)7.,I'6 an)
xii
SOl
2,880
129
.33
.08
26.1
1.4
3.6
1.5
138
41.4
28
5.9
107- 32250
54
4.8
.4
45.4
WesterlI, red cedar
i
I'
Lit.ter
X
SO
Range)
Range)
11 ,908
935
10,20013 ,200
8.3
l.8
612
<continued next page)
- .. ~
~
..
I
Table 2 (Continued)
Item
Ca
CU
Fe
K
Nutrient
Mn
Mg:
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Western red cedar
Duff
12,824
826
10,90014,960
11.1
1.3
913 .5
needles, 1 yr
14,617
1,829
SD
Range)
11,840Range)
17,300
6.5
.5
58
10,330
1,397
8,16012,600
6.5
.9
5.48.3
8,956
185
8,6409,200
4.6
.9
3.56
X
SD
Range)
Range)
1,621
304
1,0202,580
1,102
95
9801,300
1,075
52
9401,180
2,161
467
1,1603,500
9,906
658
8,54011,620
130
18
102170
239
60
15
7.8
210- 42262 75
116
8.9
97135
6,279
496
5,5007,200
1,179
53
1,1101,270
306
14
·289
331
8,057
536
7,2808,960
122
12
95145
337
17.8
23
2.2
290- 14.6390
23
6.2
.3
5.76.8
105
20.5
60145
3,239
426
2,2603,768
661
45
580730
65
14
4183
3,244
347
2,5203,780
126
13 .5
103153
138
30
14
3.7
120- 25170
38
3.7
.5
2.94.5
472
7.6
460480
26.6
3.6
2034
22,254
203
1,8202,520
59
18.8
5
1.6
48- 1520
67
2.6
.11
2.52.8
11.7
1.4
915.8
Gr~en
X
'Twigs
(0 -;0.64 an)
X
I:
SDi;
I'
Raf,ge)
Range)
Ii
Twig~I
(0.64 - 1.3 an)
X /:
I
SDh
Rallge)
Range)
31.9 1,153
1.0
29
31
1,12033
1,192
76
15
65
112
U1
(continued next page)
----==--===-=-=---.- - - - - - - - . - - = " - - - - - = - - = - - - - = = - - - - -- - ... --.~----- - - -
----~~
--
w
- - - - ----------=---------~-----,
(J'1
Table 2 (Continued)
+::-
ca
ItEm
CU
Fe
NUtrient
Mn
Mg:
K
mif'!~ograms
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
per gram
Western red cedar
Branches
(1.3 - 1.9 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
6,687
457
5,9407,260
4.3
.8
2.85.5
33.8
3.0
2938
838
51.8
776932
344
21
304376
23
2.4
2027
1,913
91
1,8202,100
69.2
4.3
6279
48
15.4
2.5
8
35- 1060
20
1.9
.18
1.652,1
5,925
153
5,7206,200
3.3
.5
2.84
30.8
0.9
3032
774
1.8
752800
304
4.2
300312
22
1.7
2025
1,680
75
1,5401,820
64.5
3.1
6069
47
12.6
4
2.2
40- 1050
16.8
1.7
.09
1.61.8
5,325
100
5,2005,460
5.5
2.2
2.57.8
22.8
1.8
2026
395
33
365452
217
6.7
200224
7.6
1.1
610
1,120
93
9801,260
76
14.8
5595
41
20
3095
4.7
2
3.69.6
1.45
.06
1.31.5
5,534
229
5,3006,000
7.1
.7
5.88.1
37.9
1.6
3540
439
10
425455
229
5
220236
10
1,246
79
1,1201,400
46
12
2865
5.4
.6
4.66.4
1.6
.06
1.51.7
Branches
(1.9 - 2.5 em)
X
SO
RaIlge)
Rartge)
II
II
BranG:hes
(2~-
5
an)
gel
Rc0ge)
Branches
(5 - 7.6 em)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
.6
911
94
15
78131
(continued next page)
......
I
l
Table 2 (Continued)
-
--------------
ca
Item
Nutrient
CU
Fe
~
K
microgr~
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
Mn
Na
Zn
P
Percent
ash
Qer_gram
Western red cedar
Sound wood
(>7.6 an cores)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
1,630
92
1,5201,760
5.8
.8
4.56.7
41
3
3645
302
10
285320
140
4
136148
5.8
.4
56
1,092
110
9801,260
75
6
6384
29
6
1942
3.2
.3
2.83.8
.29
.05
.2.37
2,126
60
2,0202,240
5.9
1.2
4.57.8
14.2
2.2
1118
372
14
353395
168
7
160180
6
0
66
1,022
115
8401,120
71
4
6680
29
5
2539
1.9
.3
1.62.4
0.52
.06
.42.59
2,898
980
2,4805,680
6.7
.8
5.28
21
2
1926
142
7
135155
248
10
236264
11.7
.5
1112
1,106
79
9801,260
74
4
6880
28
15
1868
3.7
.5
34.6
.5
.06
.38.59
7,240
1,300
5,7209,200
4.1
.9
2.86
32
2
2938
926
169
7521,192
376
24
3.2
2034
1,965
264
1,5402,520-
70
10
60112
Sound wood
(>7.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
Rotten v.uod
(>7.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
I
Rapge)
Branches
(0.64 - 2.5 em)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
72
300480
51
15.9
8
3
35- 1067
20
2.1
.4
1.62.8
(continued next page)
CJ1
(J'1
Table 2 (Continued)
01
O'l
I ten
Ca
CU
Nutrient
Fe
Mg:
K
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
MIl
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Western red cedar
Branches
(2.5 - 7.6 an)
X
5,429
203
5,2006,000
6.3
1.8
2.58.1
30
8
2040
417
33
365455
223
8
200236
11,644
392
11,10012,360
9.4
.8
7.210.6
1,104
113
9101,210
1,181
47
1,1201,300
1,315
20
1,2601,350
14,061
1,036
12,20016,620
14.2
.9
1316
3,851
435
2,8004,620
1,291
111
1,1001,600
Green needles, 1 yr
X
5,502
SO
129
Range)
5,100Range)
5,760
6.2
1.6
39
92
4
8299
3,880
78
3,6204,000
SD
Range)
Range)
9
1.5
611
1,183
106
9801,400
55131
43
16
2895
615
13
600640
11,340
190
10,92011,620
121
28
11170
277
14
235294
2,030
192
1,7202,664
1,520
147
1,2201,920
14,062
473
13 ,02015,400
219
43
168532
324
82
29
9
28270408
100
1,745
38
1,6201,796
468
12
425488
10,640
190
10,22010,920
83
6
7092
85
17
5
1.4
3.69.6
western white pine
1.5
.08
1.31.7
Litter
Xi
SD;i .
Rapge)
Rapge)
II
Duff Ii
xl
SOil
Raqge)
Rc0ge)
i
346
16
325390
63
3
5972
9
5
3251
9.5
.8
9.213 .3
19.8
1.9
16.825.6
2.8
.12
2.53
(continued next page)
c_..
.. 1
Table 2 (Continued)
Ca
Item
CU
Fe
K
Nutrient
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
micrograms per gram
Coram Experimental
Forest:
Western white pine
Twigs
(0 - 0.64 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
5,385
200
5,1005,860
.8
710
6,022
55
5,9206,080
5.8
.8
57.8
4,960
53
4,8605,040
3,930
114
3,8004,160
8
125
24
90176
4,920
207
4,6005,360
1,374
174
1,2442,136
192
5
180200
6,465
217
6,1606,860
110
14
92145
294
30
250365
65
5
5778
2.8
.2
2.53.1
72
2.2
6976
1,428
49
1,4001,560
830
12
812848
173
3
169
178
3,416
125
3,2203,500
80
6
6890
105
9
90124
54.6
6
4463
1.9
.1
1.62.1
4.3
.6
35
76
4
7080
1,130
57
1,0201,200
702
2,716
680720
155
4
150160
2,6602,800
88
15
71120
79
3
7181
44.9
6.5
3558.6
1.7
.02
1.61.7
4.1
.5
3.24.8
69.5
934
98
6801,000
641
10
632656
139
2
136141
2,324
160
2,1002,520
81
9
67100
65
37.5
5
5
58- 3045
72
1.3
.1
1.01.4
Twigs
(0.64 - 1.3 em)
X:
SO
Range)
Range)
i
Branches
(1.3 - 1.9 an)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
13
77
Branches
(1. 9 -0 2. 5 em)
X
SO
Range)
Range)
2
6672
<continued next page)
U1
-....J
Table 2 (Continued)
U1
ex>
ca
Item
Nutrient
CU
Fe
Mg
K
micrograms
Coram Experimental
Forest:
N
Mn
~r
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
gram
western white pine
Branches
(2.5 - 5 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
3,034
104
2,8002,160
4.2
0.4
3.54.9
52.8
2.5
5058
862
22
840900
537
7
528550
1,916
74
1,8002,000
4.3
.5
2.94.6
26
1,012
2.5
24
2299029
1,060
400
8
384412
972
37
9201,060
4.8
.5
3.75.3
26.7
1.3
2428
494
10
480500
972
63
8001,020
3.5
.5
34.2
14.6 1,389
2
67
12- 1,25017
1,500
109
2
106110
1,932
63
1,8201,960
73
7
6589
59
26
11
4
40- 21.676
35.6
.8
.05
.7.9
75.7
2.3
7278
1,918
115
1,6802,100
70
7
6282
49
16.6
3
1.9
43- 13 .652
20.4
0.6
.04
.6.7
187
5
180196
45
3
4248
1,092
89
9801,260
71
16
58113
24
10
5
2.6
18- 632
14.4
.2
.05
.13
.3-
235
18
192260
33
3
2938
1,778
94
1,6801,960
73
18
50110
35
12.2
8
1.4
22- 1042
14.6
.28
.05
.2.37
Branches
(5_- 7.6 an)
X .>
SDi
Ran~e)
Range)
>.
so~l~
<)t6
an cores)
Ran,' e)
Range)
i
Rotten wood
()7.6 an)
X
SD
Range)
Range)
.
,~
.,
Table 3.
...
1
Ranges of levels of one normal ammonium acetate extractable essential ions fram Coram
and Lubrecht E;KperimentalForest soils, to 40 em depth. Phosphate is 1 N NH 4F
extractable.
Ca
Fe
Cu
K
Mg
Mn
Na
Zn
ro 4
~g/g
Lubrecht Soil
Range
6001,100
1.33.0
79
350506
105160
214300
2628
0.51.0
20150
6001,500
1.43.0
1750
80400
60150
10190
1724
0.22.0
10100
Coram Soil
Range
CJ1
~
-
-~--==-=--------=----
--=-=--
-'------'-=-
---
---=--~----.
-
.=--
Table 4.
Elements that are significantly different (5 percent level) in components of three tree species from
Coram and Lubrecht Experimental Forests and ranges of IN NH40AC extractable ions from the soils of
both areas.
0"1
a
Nutrients
Vegetationn
Coram Experimental Forest
Lubrecht Experimental Forest
Needles
Fe, Mg, N, Zn 1
Ca, CU, Na, P, % ash
WOOd:
o - 0.64 an
0.64 - :2".5 an
2.5 - 7.6 an
>7.6 an sound wood
CU, Fe, Na, Zn, % Ash
Fe, N, Na, P, Zn
ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, N, Na, P, Zn, % ash
Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, N, Na, P, % ash
ca,
ca,
Litter and duff
Fe, Na, P
ca, CU,
Douglas-fir
K, Mg, Mn, N, P
K, Mg, Mn, % ash
CU
CU, K
K, Mn, %
ash
Ponderosa pine
ca, CU, Mg,
Needles
·1
Mn,
Na, Zn
K, N, P
:1
wdod:
0110.64 an
OJ64 - 2.5 em
ca, Fe, Mg, MD, Na, Zn,
2j5 - 7 6 em
>1. •6 an' sound
L~tter
wood
and duff
% ash
Fe, Na, Zn, % ash
Ca, Fe, K, Mg, N, Na, Zn
Ca, CU, Fe, K, Mg, N, Na, Zn, % ash
Cu, Fe, Mg, N, Na, Zn, % ash
CU, N, P
K, MD, N, P
CU, MD, P, % ash
ca,
P
ca,
K, P
1 Ion is listed under the location where it was significantly high, compared to the other side.
<continued next page)
..
.
,~-~
1
.,
'1
1
Table 4 (Continued)
Nutrient
Vegetation
C()rarn
~r".i.mentalJ'orest
Lubrecht Experimental Forest
Western larch
Needles
CU, Fe, N, P, Zn
ca,
Cu, Fe, Na
K, Mn, % ash
V\bod:
o - 0.64 an
0.'64 - 2.5 em
2.5 - 7.6 em
>7.6 em sound wood
Na
N, Na, P
Fe, Mn, N, Na, P, % ash
ca, K, Mg, Mn, N, % ash
ca, CU, K, Mg, MD, N, P, Zn, % ash
ca, CU, K, Mg, Zn, % ash
ca,cu
Litter and Duff
ca, Fe, Mg,
CU, K, P
Mn, Na, Zn
O'l
I-'
Table 5.
Relative ranking of the ion content of needles of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine from Coram and
Lubrecht according to the percentile classes of Zinke and Stangenberger (1979).
Ca
LUBROCHT
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
Na
Zn
P
0'\
N
N
% ranking of range and mean for species according to known range of variability
Douglas-fir
~ange
X
Ponderosa pine
gange
X
>99
>99
5-30
15
30-80
50
20-40
30
>90
99
30-95
90
40-70
60
60-99
90
5-30
20
>99
95
60-95
30
10-60
30
15-95
50
50-95
80
40-60
40
50-80
70
20-80
60
15-99
40
>95
99
5-80
20
40-70
60
40-50
40
20->99
95
70-80
70
60-90
65
40-90
70
20-90
20
80->99
99
60-80
99
5-30
15
50-90
80
80-95
90
60-70
60
70-90
80
60-70
60
10-60
20
(DRAM
Douglas-fir
~ange:
X
ponder<~,sa pine
gang~i
X
r
J
II
'\
v
~j
-I
Table 6.
8urrmary of percentile classes for ponderosa pine foliage--1 yr., and Douglas-fir foliage--l yr.
a
wt
(g)
N
(%)
0
1
5
0.08
0.21
0.41
0.588
0.691
0.775
10
15
20
0.58
0.72
0.84
30
40
50
ca
M:J
(%)
(%)
Na
(%)
680
738
821
0.047
0.054
0.067
0.062
0.066
0.072
0.266
0.309
0.363
0.832
0.875
0.910
889
944
994
0.078
0.086
0.097
0.076
0.080
0.084
1.08
1.31
1.55
0.971
1.025
1.077
1085
1173
1263
0.113
0.130
0.147
60
70
80
1.81
2.10
2.47
1.130
1.187
1.255
1358
1467
1603
90
95
99
3.01
3.49
4.45
1.349
1.426
1.570
1802
1975
2317
Percentile
class
1
'i
P
(ppn)
8 (tot.)
(ppn)
(ppn)
Fe
(ppn)
Zn
(ppn)
0.001
0.001
0.001
29
30
33
19
19
22
9
9
9
410
455
517
54
56
63
0.405
0.439
0.468
0.001
·0.001
0.001
38
43
49
25
29
33
10
11
12
566
605
641
80
89
0.090
0.096
0.102
0.522
0.572
0.623
0.001
0.002
·0.004
62
96
43
55
70
15
19
23
706
767
829
106
126
148
0 .• 166
0.188
0.215
0.109
0.117
0.126
0.677
0.737
0.810
0.008
0.017
0.040
119
149
194
88
113
149
29
37
48
895
970
1063
174
206
251
0.257
0.294
0.369
0.140
0.152
0.175
0.917
1.009
1.187
0.116
0.256
0.939
271
350
538
213
280
440
70
92
148
1198
1315
1544
323
392
547
(%)
K
Mn
77
8 (804)
(ppn)
72
a Per ten leaf fascicles and sheaths.
Reprinted with permission from Zinke and 8tangenberger, 1979.
1% = 10,000 ppm, 1 ppn = l~g/g
conti nued next page
0'1
w
---_.
0'\
Table 6 (Continued)
~
a
(g)
(%)
0
1
5
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.446
0.602
0.727
10
15
20
0.02
0.03
0.03
30
-40
50
Percentile
class
ca
Mg
(%)
K
(%)
Na
(%)
475
568
695
0.101
0.125
0.160
0.048
0.051
0.057
0.073
0.209
0.307
0.001
0.001
0.001
11
0.810
0.872
0.924
796
878
952
0.189
0.2l3
0.235
0.063
0.069
0.075
0.372
0.418
0.457
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.012
1.091
1.166
1086
1213
1342
0.275
0.313
0.352
0.087
0.100
0.114
0.05
0.05
0.06
1.243
1.325
1.422
1479
1635
1826
0.394
0.442
0.502
0.07
0.08
0.09
1.557
1.668
1.874
2107
2350
2827
0.590
0.667
0.820
wt
N
P
(ppn)
(ppn)
Zn
(ppn)
21
44
54
58
69
4
4
5
0.001
0.001
0.001
67
87
107
81
94
106
.8
10
0.523
0.• 581
0.635
0.002
0.002
0.003
146
187
231
133
161
193
14
18
24
0.l30
0.150
0.176
0.691
0.750
0.820
0.004
0.007
0.011
281
341
419
231
279
342
31
40
52
0.217
0.256
0.340
0.915
0.003
1.136
0.021
0.034
0.077
542
654
892
447
547
769
74
96
148
>
(%)
MIl
(ppn)
Fe
7
"
i
60
70
sb
II
y
Jo
II
95
99
I~
,
~ Per ten leaves.
Table 6 is reproduced from Zinke and Stangenberger, 1979.
.,
"l
.-1
-(
Table 7.
1
-I
Mean, standard deviation, and range of nutrient content of branch material in the absence of recent fire,
O'Keefe Creek, northwest of Missoula, Montana, by species and aspect.
micrograms per gram
Southwest
Aspect
ca
Cu
Fe
Percent
ash
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
45
5
38
59
5,000
465
4,200
6,000
1,422
178
1,117
1,620
106
41
56
233
10,801
1,119
8,960
13 ,860
102
21
74
151
494
53
314
560
45
8
24
62
4.0
.4
3.7
5.4
Site 1
Amelanchier alnifolia n= 24
12
9,070
X
1,292
SO
2.8
Minimum
7,360
6
Maximum
12,420
17
Ceanthus velutinus
X
SO
Minimum
Maximum
n = 26
5,819
913
5,220
9,240
7.5
2.9
4
19
65
6
52
78
4,368
757
3,380
6,720
1,046
150
840
1,454
134
51
60
301
15,890
1,018
13,720
18,340
104
22
70
152
358
-18
322
400
16
4
8'
25
3.0
.3
2.8
3.7
3,710
664
2,240
5,320
6.8
2
3
10
122
32
82
207
5,136
1,235
3,250
8,040
695
151
400
1,044
199
74
98
402
8,838
1,407
4,620
10,800
89
32
60
210
302
46
214
410
32
12
16
66
7.9
1.1
6.3
10.7
10
2
3
15
136
45
75
248
7,128
1,323
3,900
9,900
1,522
228
1,090
1,966
388
127
181
683
10,074
12,529
5,040
70,000
110
25
78
183
305
66
161
500
46
12
24
76
4.0
.3
3.7
4.8
Carex n = 25
X
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Sym2horicarpos albus n = 25
X
6,926
919
SO
Minimum
5,460
Maximum
8,800
(continued next page)
0'1
U1
0"1
0"1
Table 7 (Continued)
micrograms per gram
Southwest
Aspect
ca
CU
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Site 1
Rosa
~p.
n
=5
13
1
11
15
52
11
41
66
3,502
225
3,260
3,810
1,276
94
1,146
1,400
65
25
42
102
7,805
310
7,420
8,120 -
109
19
85
132
334
60
248
410
12
1.5
9
15
42
7
30
70
5,034
660
3,650
6,320
1,426
'158
1,120
1,700
58
41
18
178
9,890
828
7,420
11,480 .
93
8
80
109
Amelanchier alnifolia n = 25
X I:
9,275
9.7
SOli
2
1,415
5,200
4
Mihimum
11 ,400
Makimum
13 .6
42
11
30
92
5,131
714
3,700
7,200
1,355
156
996
1,628
88
21
55
129
11,133
1,053
9,380
13,300
65
7
52
86
4,617
1,068
3,610
8,040
1,068
169
748
1,500
126
43
61
190
16,527
1,116
14,290·
18,620
X
SO
Minimum •.
Maximum
7,796
1,220
6,000
9,420
Salix scouleriana n = 28
10,348
X
1,282
SO
Minimum
7,280
13 ,000
Maximum
-
29
20
42
3.2
.6
2.3
3.8
473
39
399
560
48
8
32
62
3.7
.4
2.6
4.4
111
23
70
158
467
53
300
535
40
53
30
59
3.6
.5
2.9
4.3
123
23
90
175
374
35
320
470
21
9
12
51
3.0
.3
2.6
3.8
11
Site 2
"
Ii,!
Ceanothus velutinus
X I:
SO::
Mihimum
Maximum
n = 23
8,667
1,204
6,040
11,440
6
2
3
11
(continued next page)
~
-,
-1
.(
-,
"1
I
Table 7 (Continued)
-
Southwest
Aspect
-
-- ----
--
-~----
--~
micrograms per gram
----_._--
---
Zn
---
--
-
-
Percent
ash
Ca
CU
Fe
K
Mg
MIl
N
Na
P
5,411
1,992
2,800
11,300
5.4
3
2
10
101
33
37
172
4,972
1,349
3,360
5,950
762
245
460
1,386
155
53
59
280
10,048
1,177
7,980
12,600
94
15
70
119
310
70
230
495
27
11
14
54
7.5
1.0
5.0
9.0
n = 25
7,837
952
6,200
10,560
9.6
4
5
21.5
108
32
64
180
6,973
1,270
3,040
8,960
1,489
257
860
1,840
433
146
160
770
8,030
1,047
6,020
11,060
127
18
95
172
317
47,
223
392
55
15
23
94
3.9
.4
3.0
5.0
11
3
8
16
65
9
51
82
5,182
498
4,600
6,100
1,344
183
1,030
1,664
146
25
120
186
10,453
1,495
7,700
12,600
122
17
103
151
501
55
418
580
89
16
63
116
4.4
.4
3.7
5.2
Ame1anchier a1nifolia n = 25
9,194
12
X
1,053
2
SO
Minimum
6,760
10
12,040
Maximum
16
45
7
31
59
5,038
473
4,220
6,150
1,447
181
1,000
1,782
52
32
14
146
10,389
938
8,680
12,460
103
12
81
120
503
55
370
619
Site 2
Carex SPa
n
= 13
X
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Symphoricarpos a1bus
X
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Salix scou1eriana
X
SO
Minimum
Maximum
n=6
12,022
1,932
9,420
14,720
Site 3
60
10.7
46
93
3.• 9
.3
3.3
4.7
(continued next page)
0'1
-...J
m
Table 7 (Continued)
0:>
micrograms per gram
Southeast
Aspect
ca
QZn
Percent
ash
K
Mg'
MIl
N
Na
P
4,673
659
3,400
6,200
1,177
214
796
1,720
69
22
25
109
17,226
1,273
14,980
19,880
113
12
86
147
399
74
300
620
19
6
13
37
3.2
.3
2.6
3.8
55
11
43
69
3,355
403
3,750
1,403
.149
1,260
1,546
44
6
38
50
7,210
700
6,440
8,120
96
6
90
102
333
43
280
380
28
4
24
34
3.5
.4
3.0
4.0
21
66
18
41
112
4,847
622
3,880
5,900
1,375
211
1,000
1,726
86
39
32
225
11,278
693
10,080
12,600
104
14
81
140
503
74
340
645
99
30
15
131
4.8
.8
3.0
6.7
7
2
4
12
86
22
54
150
4,270
499
3,380
5,280
1,080
223
336
1,484
116
50
39
221
17,325
2,219
10,640
19,640
99
9
80
115
390
54
298
530
26
28
11
126
3.4
.5
2.7
4.9
Cu
Fe
7
1.5
4.5
10.5
13
42
108
lL4
2
10
15
Site 3
Ceanothus velutinus
XSD
Minimum
Maximum
Rosa
~.
n
=
n = 24
7,188
984
5,400
9,400
4
X
SD
Minimum
Maximum
8,930
1,125
8,160
10,500
Salix scouleriana n = 26
10,965
2,012
SO
7,100
Mi'nimum
Mckimum
14,200
I,
5q
I'
12
3
6
77
2~800
I'
Site 411
II
ceanotijus velutinus
xv-
SD
Minimum
Maximum
n = 27
9,665
1,450
7,200
14,000
(continued next page)
,
-~
-1
-l
'I
Table 7 (Continued)
micrograms per gram
Southeast
Aspect
ca
CU
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Site 4
Rosa
~p.
n = 4
8,800
1,170
7,660
10,280
8.4
1.0
6.5
9.5
54
5
48
60
3,598
631
3,100
4,480
1,399
253
1,236
1,776
47
8
40
57
7,910
621
7,280
8,680
83
7
75
90
328
34
288
356
24
5
18
' 28
3.0
.5
2.5
3.5
Salix scouleriana n = 23
12,248
1,584
SD
Minimum
9,400
Maximum
14,880
10.4
2.0
6.0
14.0
67
16
50
120
4,647
531
3,150
5,520
1,411
193
1,080
1,832
118
46
60
230
12,003
1,040
9,940
13,720
,90
9
78
107
497
59
379
591
110
26
70
170
4.0
.6
3.0
6.0
X
SD
Minimum
Maximum
--X
0"1
I.D
Table 8.
Nutrient content of dry weight of Coram and Lubrecht Experimental Forests ground vegetation from 1/10 ~
clip plots, expressed as mean, standard deviation maximum and minimum, summer 1978 (n = 20).
-....J
0
micrograms per gram
She1terwood
Harvest
Area 1
Slash fBrt1y
removed
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Area 2
No slash
removed
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Area 3:
HeavY slash
rerrtoved
SO
I
II
Minimum
MaxiIii.um
Area 411
Part:i!a1 underst6ry removal
SO
Minimum
Maximum
ca
CU
12,102
3,103
6,600
18,940
11.8
2.9
7.0
17.3
11,691
3,459
7,020
19,720
Zn
Percent
ash
3,332
1,185
1,289
5,242
46.7
26.3
26.4
152.0
9.5
3.1
4.1
15.6
170
26
134
228
3,215
950
1,814
5,472
46.7
18.8
26.1
104.0
8.7
3.0
5.3
15.3
11,753
2,011
8,120
16,940
166
39
128
300
3,249
764
1,656
5,458
48.5
14.5
17.2
75.8
8.8
2.8
3.8
16.8
12,587
2,266
9,520
18,340
160·
22
118
221
3,585
1,141
1,958
5,638
40.0
10.1
25.1
66.3
10.1
3.1
5.6
16.0
K
Mg
MIl
N
Na
P
227
98
73
481
23,972
11,447
9,680
54,960
2,018
437
1,080
2,848
272
l37
89
528
12,019
2,240
7,280
16,380
168
22
l33
218
11.5
1.6
9.1
15.2
181
102
81
488
22,073
1+,553
10,520
49,760
2,167
,,409
1,576
2,964
309
186
91
821
13,346
3,263
9,100
21,700
11,265
2,112
7,520
15,460
8.8
2.5
3.5
12.0
447
954
90
4,440
19,222
6,373
6,560
36,20.0
1,982
430
1,232
2,728
330
190
132
741
12,792
2,723
8,060
18,440
9.6
1.7
6.0
12.8
202
89
106
427
26,069
10,840
12,000
45,760
2,276
282
1,432
2,708
303
154
123
795
Fe
.~
(continued next page)
-,
~
-1
-I
I
Table 8 (Continued)
micrograms per gram
She1terwood
Harvest
ca
CU
11 ,560
995
10,260
13,000
8.5
0.9
7.3
10.3
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
18,495
2,737
12,640
21,200
2,907
993
2,024
5,040
245
74
137
379
12,723
902
11,340
13 ,860
166
10
149
182
2,663
586
2,002
3,730
Zn
Percent
ash
.Control
XSO
Minimum
Maximum
159
32
121
230
44.9
16.8
32.1
74.1
8.3
1.2
6.8
10.6
"
~
-....J
N
Table 8 (Continued)
micrograms per g:ram
C1earcut
ca
Cu .
11,535
4,037
6,780
19,740
7.3
2.0
4.8
12.2
13,776
3,619
5,800
18,540
Fe
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
203
66
119
323
11,694
2,166
8,120
15,680
142
22
103
188
3,196
1,001
1,462
4,910
32.4
6.9
19.3
46.8
7.8
2.9
2.7
12.9
2,627
689
1,200
3,776
235
88
108
382
11,788
2,205
8,820
16,520
144
32
110
262
3,609
941
1,735
5,407
29.8
6.9
21.1
51.4
10.0
2.5
4.5
13 .2
18,900
8,082
6,320
34,080
2,067
786
. 792
3,376
338
194
60
821
11,773
2,429
8,400
17,080
130
15
99
153
2,677
950
1,231
4,666
39.3
8.0
27.2
60.4
8.2
3.7
2.9
15.7
21,699
8,432
8,880
'·34,240
2,400
778
1,336
4,080
402
312
122
1,300
14,964
3,712
9,520
23,800
143
28
98
220
2,910
843
1,454
4,550
42.1
10.8
24.0
61.2
8.1
2.5
3.9
11.5
K
Mg
149
80
68
418
20,691
8,355
8,000
33,640
2,041
748
960
3,192
9.0
2.7
6.2
18.4.
152
43
92
228
26,062
8,599
12,680
45,840
10,763
3,976
3,600
23,680
8.2
1.5
6.2
11.3
132
37
88
250
10,534
2,725
3,920
14,540
9.1
1.4
6.7
12.0
166
67
80
307
Mn
Area 1
light
slash burn
Very
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Area 2
Light burn of
slash
SO
Minimum
Maximum
Area 3
Intensive slash
removal
SO
Minimum
Maxiril.um
Area 4i!
SlashI, p3.rt1y
removed
SO
I!!I
Minimum
Maxiffium
1
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
1
2
3
4
=
Clearcut, slash was p3.rtly rE¥Uoved, remainder very lightly burned
slash was left in place, lightly burned
intensive slash removed
.
understory was left, slash was unburned but p3.rt1y removed.
= C1earcut,
= C1earcut,
= C1earcut,
(continued next p3.ge)
-
-
.•.
-
. .-
------.
--~-
.,
-y
.. <J
-<
...
1
I
Table 8 (Continued)
micrograms per gram
Control
Ca
Cu
X
SD
9,537
4,116
4,380
15,200
13.6
5.6
6.4
22.4
Minimum
Maximum
Fe
283
168
136
602
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
17,331
15,864
7,160
51,360
1,952
842
1,120
3,168
398
173
293
782
14,120
5,149
10,080
24,640
246
80
161
410
2,405
1,117
1,354
4,572
Zn
39.3
10.3
24.2
53.3
Percent
ash
7.0
4.3
3.2
14.9
/
Lubrecht ground
vegetation
X
Minimum
Maximum
12,870
8,80017 ,533
10.3
7.414.1
130
93189
2l ,693
2,460
15,503- 1,56235,378
3,930
215
118317
11,518
8,37915,085
118
85153
2,478
1,919
3,968
49
3075
7.6
5.911.8
1 Lubrecht g20und vegetation averaged 25g of dry weight/m 2 ; Coram ground vegetation ranged fran 52 to 80g dry
weight/m •
.
-...J
W
Table 9.
Mean elemental content of shrubs fran burned plots at the Coram Experimental Forest.
Treabnent
Clearcut burn
ca
Cu
Fe
K
Nutrient contentl~g/g
N
Mg
Mn
"'-l
..j:::>
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Berberis repens
leaves
5,975
12.1
79
11,585
1,639
155
14,403
187
1,904
39
4.0
Ribes lacustre
branches <4rrnn
branches >4rrun
leaves
8,310
4,640
21,736
8.5
10
6.7
57
58
117
10,120
5,440
23,385
1,192
816
2,514
76
40
180
6,038
6,125
14,933
158
140
154
2,380
2,124
1,616
65
43
46
4.3
2.3
11.2
pachistima myrsinites
branches <4rrnn
6,960
5,220
branches >4rrnn
14,107
leaves
10.7
8.4
10
86
50
207
11,387
5,800
10,840
915
,588
2,201
128
124
402
5,992
3,850
13,895
177
168
158
1,364
695
2,043
52
37
33
3.8
2.4
6.8
Loniceia utahensis
branches >4rrun
3,296
i
14,164
leaves
12
10.6
46
63
7,787
26,240
833
2,669
113
70
3,967
15,260
103
136
821
2,023
45
27
2.5
9.5
6,105
8,950
7.4
9.7
66
113
3,895
9,480
1,259
3,061
1,059
1,410
6,718
19,040
134
160
1,232
2,296
53
25
2.6
5.1
Vaccinlum membranaceum
3,447
stemS
leaves
9,220
10.1
11.8
61
998
2,670
6,953
937
2,977
1,118
1,603
6,592
19,390
104
161
920
1,912
47
55
1.7
5.3
I'
, .II
Vacclnlum
myr t'll
1
us
stemS
leav~s
Ii
i
1 n
= 1-10,
micrograms per gram
(continued next page)
.~
"t
\
Table 9 (Continued)
Treatment
Clearcut
intensive
utilization
Species and Part
micrograms per gram
Ca
CU
Fe
K
Mg
. Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Berberis repens
branches <4mm
leaves
5,120
6,100
32.4
11.8
76
74
8,720
10,907
2,088
1;724
141
199
8,540
15,773
191
124
1,814
1,923
84
27
3.6
4.1
Ribes lacustre
. branches <4mn
branches >4mm
leaves
8,660
5,900
21,760
9.2
6.7
7.5
55
52
122
9,320
6,140
23,420
1,167
942
2,440
72
57
191
6,055
5,110
17 ,815
125
83
137
1,696
1,676
1,829
65
47
35
4.2
2.8
10.5
Pachistima myrsinites
8,344
branches <4mm
7,440
branches >4mm
leaves
13,056
9.3
6.9
8.5
78
49
106
8,136
5,907
9,908
993
849
1,912
150
125
433
6,090
4,503
14,182
155
123
133
1,136
823
1,992
51
39
26
3.7
3.0
5.9
Lonicera utahensis
branches <4mm.
leaves
3,260
14,316
8.5
10.5
43
54
6,796
21,272
730
2,654
160
95
3,873
15,330
99
115
800
1,655
47
29
2.2
8.4
Vaccinium myrti11us
stems
5,320
8.9
63
4,800
1,190
1,835
10,080
153
1,679
54
2.6
Vaccinium membranaceum
3,772
stems
leaves
9,987
10.4
11.6
64
103
2,272
7,067
746
2,525
952
1,673
6,006
16,987
98
191
837
1,914
47
29
1.7
4.7
(continued next page)
'-.J
U'1
.......
Table 9 (Continued)
Treatment
C1earcut
conventional
utilization
Species and Part
0'\
micrograms per gram
ca
Cu
K
Mg
61
64
10,533
11,200
1,707
1,743
Fe
Percent
ash
N
Na
P
Zn
101
144
10,593
20,720
159
122
1,422
2,066
52
22
3.6
3.7
Mn
Berberis repens
branches <4rmn
leaves
4,920
4,480
Ribes 1acustre
branches <4rmn
branches>4rrm
leaves
8,053
5,787
21,627
6.8
8.0
7.3
38
55
97
9,467
Q,680
22,947
1,084
·869
2,483
68
42
160
6,090
5,037
14,303
104
123
142
1,930
1.,790
1,882
60
37
50
3.9
2.8
10.5
Pachistima rnyrsinites
branches <4rmn
7,290
branches>4rrm
8,067
leave!:;
11,770
9.3
8.0
7.2
68
47
870
\ 648
1,740
167
127
448
6,388
3,640
l3,335
123
III
III
8,320
4,893
9,850
136
1,111
687
1,964
59
43
26
3.5
2.9
5.5
8.9
9.8
46
63
6,316
24,938
726
2,285
200
l33
3,654
17,920
108
123
909
2,136
56
40
2.1
9.5
10.3
12.0
77
144
3,204
6,567
2,129
2,120
1,546
2,840
8,330
16,147
l35
193
1,092
1,785
73
35
1.9
4.1
I'
.20
12
I'
.
utahenS1S
branches <4rruu
3,468
15,368
1eaavks
•
II
Lonlcer~
'I
I
VacciniUffi myrti11us
stems!
leaves
4,304
7,527
(continued next page)
-'I
~
~
Table 9 (Continued)
Treatment
Shelterwood
burn
Species and Part
micrograms per gram
Ca
Cu
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Berberis repens
branches <4mm
leaves
6,040
7,532
23.6
12.5
78
79
11,440
8,932
1,992
1,746
75
172
10,360
15,932
229
146
1,973
2,414
46
50
4.1
4.2
Ribes lacustre
branches <4mn
leaves
7,240
20,307
9.6
7.7
79
108
11,680
23,573
1,330
3,029
105
198
5,495
16,077
253
177
2,628
1,346
71
3.9
10.5
Pachistima myrsinites
7,453
branches <4mm
leaves
12,067
16.7
9.7
51
110
9,450
10,953
808
2,029
. 55
148
5,717
14,483
129
140
1,200
2,175
37
3.5
5.8
Lonicera utahensis
branches <4mm
3,152
leaves
13
,252
,
7.1
8.3
43
64
5,392
27,304
686
2,364
184
73
3,087
15,568
125
128
705
1,686
54
29
2.0
9.5
5,960
9,707
8.4
15.8
85
123
3,313
5,973
1,009
2,899
2,197
2,313
7,397
16,030
126
248
1,065
1,908
71
27
2.6
4.1
Vaccinium membranaceum
sternS
3,607
leaves
8,744
9.9
9.5
51
205
3,058
7,552
781
2,714
1,194
1,224 .
5,266
17,584
130
159
984
2,080
35
26
1.8
4.4
Vaccinium ID¥rtillus
stems
leaves
47
45
(continued next page)
-....J
-....J
Table 9 (Continued)
.....,
00
Treabnent
She1te:rwood
intensive
utilization
Species and Part
micrograms per gram
ca
Cu
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Berberis repens
branches <4rmn
leaves
4,720
4,596
20.8
12.2
75
65
8,267
10,324
1,361
1,373
157
179
7,315
18,018
180
117
1,014
2,024
50
24
3.1
3.5
Ribes 1acustre
branches <4rmn
branches >4rmn
leaves
8,380
6,115
20,180
7.8
6.4
7.3
57
63
110
9,440
6,090
23,760
1,108
920
2,451
85
59
145
5,565
4,025
17,378
124
310
159
2,175
1,934
1,730
71
58
40
4.2
2.9
10.2
Pachistiffia myrsinites
branches <4mm
7,093
branches >4mm
6,520
12,610
1eav~s
13 .9
12.5
8.3
88
58
110
7,013
5,267
11,400
932
771
2,104
137
119
384
5,577
4,503
13,773
174
166
140
953
915
2,006
60
57
33
3.3
2.9
6.0
7.9
9.2
46
69
6,151
26,384
758
2,906
218
120
3,728
17 ,892
125
125
762
2,536
56
45
2.4
10.4
4,590
9,665
9.1
12.4
58
120
3,255
6,860
1,082
2,936
2,170
2,270
7,823
17,395
106
193
1,161
1,473
77
32
2.3
4.3
Vaccinium membranaceurn
stems
2,915
leaves
8,745
9.5
12.1
51
303
2,613
7,265
551
2,485
1,328
2,075
4,979
16,783
109
174
941
1,941
33
33
1.5
4.5
I
Lonicera utahensis
branches
<4mm
3,590
Ii
leaves
15,736
I'II
Vaccinlum myrti11us
stemS
1ea~s
r
(continued next page)
.'J
~
CJ
1
Table 9 (Continued)
Treatment
8he1terwood
conventional
utili zation
Species and Part
micrograms per gram
Ca
Cu
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Berberis repens
branches <4rnm
leaves
4,800
5,188
15.8
11.7
99
68
6,173
11,540
1,227
1,427
80
152
6,557
16,730
207
127
737
2,620
89
25
2.7
3.9
Ribes lacustre
branches <4rmn
branches >4mm
leaves
8,568
5,205
12,224
8.2
6.5
7.6
74
99
141
10,735
4,745
27,256
1,417
851
3,234
97
60
159
5,880
3,658
15,120
135
92
180
2,463
1,778
1,626
64
37
39
4.6
2.6
11.8
Pachistima rnrrsinites
6,433
branches <4rmn
branches >4mm
6,400
14,376
leaves
11.6
9.8
8.5
107
8
136
5,930
4,627
8,984
1,017
652
2,362
117
108
314
5,338
3,733
13 ,278
145
130
131
931
582
2,244
65
43
33
3.1
2.7
6.6
Lonicera utahensis
branches <4mm
leaves
3,888
13 ,360
7.2
10.3
64
93
5,153
26,432
869
2,527
253
86
3,623
17 ,038
162
150
774
2,136
55
21
2.2
9.4
Vaccinium ID¥rtil1us
stems
leaves
4,050
8,780
8.8
14.5
76
69
3,190
6,180
1,204
3,412
1,850
2,640
8,470
17,535
134
235
1,091
1,868
57
19
2.1
4.5
Vaccinium membranaceum
3,925
stems
9,915
leaves
9.8
12.3
76
155
2,148
8,010
838
2,979
898
823
5,425
17,080
100
240
743
2,174
31
26
1.7
4.7
(continued next page)
.......
1.0
Table 9 (Continued)
Control
unburned
Species and Part
ex>
a
micrograms per gram
ca
CU
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
N
Na
P
Zn
Percent
ash
Berberis repens
branches <t.1mm
leaves
4,200
5,173
15.4
13 .• 7
50
84
7,550
9,767
1,258
1,400
96
150
9,450
17,057
167
150
1,037
2,251
41
24
2.9
3.5
Ribes 1acustre
branches <4rrnn
branches >4rrm
leaves
8,247
5,787
25,733
8.1
5.6
7.5
79
84
130
8,727
5,660
20,120
1.,292
1,005
3,144
104
61
189
5,075
4,375
15,890
177
123
179
2,065
1,763
2,517
58
41
38
3.9
2.7
11.6
Lonicera utahensis
branches
3,690
1eavbs
16,360
7.1
8.7
65
88
5,610
23,987
777
2,636
200
153
3,710
17 ,243
157
124
755
996
52
37
2.4
10.1
5,100
8,540
12.1
92
153
2,880
7,460
752
1,808
1,200
2,770
9,100
25,470
119
1,721
943
1,937
39
21
2.4
4.5
Vaccinium membranaceum
stemS
3,440
leaves
9,850
9.5
11.2
55
119
2,700
9,020
714
2,958
1,593
2,670
5,023
18,060
101
169
993
2,239
48
30
1.8
5.2
II
L
Vaccin1ium myrtil1us
stemS['
leav~s
Ii
I:
81
APPENDIX 2
CORAM AND LUBRECHT VEGETATION
Abies lasiocarpa
Acer glabrum
Actea rubra
*Adenocaulon bicolor1
Alnus sinuata
Amelanchier alnifolia
*Antennaria spp.
Aralia nudicaulis
*Arni~a cordifolia
Arnica latifolia
Aster conspicuus
Aster laevis
Athyrium felix-femina
*Berberis rep ens
Bromus vuZgaris
Calamagrostis canadensis
*Calamagrostis rubescens
Carex concinnoides
*Carex geyeri
Carex r'ossii
*Chimaphila umbellata
*Cir'sium vulgare
*Clematis columbiana
Clintonia uniflora
Cornus ca~~densis
Disporum hookeri
*Disporum trachycarpum
Dracocephalum parvifloFum
Elymus glaucus
*Epilohium angustifolium
Epilohium ~atsonii
Equisetum spp.
Festuca occidentalis
*Fragaria vesca
Galium triflorum
Gentiana amarella
Geranium hicknellii
*Goodyera ohlongifolia
Gymocarpium dryopteris
*Hieracium albiflorum
*Larix occidentalis
*Linnaea horealis
Lonicera utahensis
MeZica subulata
Menziesia ferruginea
Dryzopsis asperifolia
Dsmorhiza chilensis
Pachistima myrsinites
Pedicularis hracteosa
Pedicularis contorta
Pedicularis racemosa
Physocarpus malvaceus
Picea engelmannii
Pinus monticola
*Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pyrola asarifolia
pyrola secunda
Rihes lacustre
Rihes viscosissimum
Rosa acicularis
*Rosa gymnocarpa
Ruhus parviflorus
Salix scouleriana
Sorhus scopu Una
*Similacina racemosa
*Similacina stellata
*Spiraea betulifolia
*Symphoricarpos albus
Taxus brevifolia
Tiarella unifoliata
Trillium ovatum
Tsuga heterophylla
Vaccinium membranaceum
Vaccinium myrtillus .
*Viola adunca
Viola orhiculata
Xerophyllum tenax
*Anaphalis margaritacea
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Betula papyrifera
Calochortus nuttallii
Ceanothus sanguineus
Comandra umbellata
Comus stolonifera
Hahenaria dilatata
Polystichum munitum
pteridium aquilinum
Senecio pseudaureus
Senecio triangularis
*Shepherdia car~densis
*Taraxacum officinale
LUBRECHT SPECIES
*Calypso bulbosa
*Verbascum thapsus
*Cirsium arvense
*Carduus nutans
*Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
*Fragaria virginiana
1 Species with an asterisk occur at both sampling sites at
Lubrecht and Coram.
Species list is courtesy of the U.S.
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Ogden, Utah.