Fertilizing oak trees.
- Thread starter Gross144
- Start date
Angus 1895
5 year old buck +
I think foliar doesn’t need to be on all the leaves. To be effective.
I also think as a new growth , development stage is when you can see a ROI.
I can’t imagine them not getting full sun in my deal…….not a limiting factor for me…..I’m jealous.
Foliar application would also be an option for micro-nutrients.
I also think as a new growth , development stage is when you can see a ROI.
I can’t imagine them not getting full sun in my deal…….not a limiting factor for me…..I’m jealous.
Foliar application would also be an option for micro-nutrients.
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
Foliar works great on new plants. I agree with you.
I can’t see it having any benefit on mature acorn producing oaks.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
Drones. But yeah, that's not cheap....yet.
Teeder
5 year old buck +
Just read this.
It certainly matches how I feel about it.
SD51555
5 year old buck +
I'll bite...
I think @FarmerDan nailed it on this with the yield limiting factors beyond NPK. One thing I'll add just for consideration:
Forest soils are the highest functioning soils on earth. The fungal to bacteria ratio in a mature forest is around 1000 : 1 (don't hold me to exacts, but that is close). The F:B ratio in row crop ground is around 1:1. The keystone of natural biological fertility is a high F:B ratio. That's the system that delivers nutrients from the air and soil, for free, on time, and always in the right amount. I'd be apprehensive to throw pellet fertilizer on them and dislocate the highly functioning natural system below ground.
The other thing to consider if you're not dealing with native trees, did you get the site, zone, and varieties right? Many other things that can cause a tree to not perform. When I get heavy rain years, all my bur oaks come down with wicked anthracnose for the season, and they don't produce for nothing. When it's dry, I could fill rail cars with the amounts of acorns dropped on my property.
I think @FarmerDan nailed it on this with the yield limiting factors beyond NPK. One thing I'll add just for consideration:
Forest soils are the highest functioning soils on earth. The fungal to bacteria ratio in a mature forest is around 1000 : 1 (don't hold me to exacts, but that is close). The F:B ratio in row crop ground is around 1:1. The keystone of natural biological fertility is a high F:B ratio. That's the system that delivers nutrients from the air and soil, for free, on time, and always in the right amount. I'd be apprehensive to throw pellet fertilizer on them and dislocate the highly functioning natural system below ground.
The other thing to consider if you're not dealing with native trees, did you get the site, zone, and varieties right? Many other things that can cause a tree to not perform. When I get heavy rain years, all my bur oaks come down with wicked anthracnose for the season, and they don't produce for nothing. When it's dry, I could fill rail cars with the amounts of acorns dropped on my property.
The Fishman
5 year old buck +
You are really stretching to say that was an ad hominem attack. I fully respect your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. The statement was conveying that a lot of professional researchers thought long and hard about the study, the study design, the data collection, data analysis, and interpretation of the results.
The study added phosphorus and potassium along with nitrogen each year. They did soil tests and based upon the results added enough P and K to maintain the levels at 101 kg/ha of phosphorus and 269 kg/ha of potassium which were the recommend levels made by soil scientists. Excess phosphorus can lead to run off into nearby waterways and cause pollution problems. Dumping more phosphorus than can be used by the trees would be negligent. The study states "We calculated the amount of fertilizer needed for each tree by measuring the crown area (i.e., surface area from the trunk of the tree to the edge of the crown) of each tree." They did not add phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen to the control and crown release only trees, so therefore they were testing the impact of fertilizer (N, P, and K) on acorn production.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
That's an interesting take. Got any support for that?
Telemark
5 year old buck +
I'm not stretching at all. You attacked me personally instead of the information I provided that was pertinent to the issue. This is a fact. An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy that I will not entertain.
This is an appeal to authority. It is another type of logical fallacy that I will not fall for. I will not respond to it further.
Again, this is a fallacy, and not worthy of further consideration.
You have taken this text out of context and edited it inappropriately. At this point, I believe that you are doing it intentionally. Unfortunately, that means you are not debating in good faith. I will have to cease my discussion with you on this issue from this point forward.
omicron1792
5 year old buck +
Hahaha. That escalated quickly.
FarmerDan
5 year old buck +
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
My post #5 on page #1 of this thread had no scientific methodology or goal. We just tossed a bag of triple 10 down around a mature white oak since we had it available. It may not have worked on other white oaks at our field edges - but it seemed to increase acorn production for the 2 years we did it on that one tree. Maybe it's just a good producer?? The tree was drive-up accessible - no toting of fertilizer. No study involved - just did for sh**s and giggles. We haven't done it again for a few years now. I'll maybe try it again, just to see if acorn numbers go up. If they do - that'll be OK. If not ......... ehh.
SD51555
5 year old buck +
I do.
It's the soil food web work done by Elaine Ingham. She's got one presentation that will get you 90% of the way. If you don't wanna watch the whole thing, just watch from 1:04:20 and stick it out for about three minutes. You'll get the cliff notes of the idea.
TreeDaddy
5 year old buck +
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
I got it! Some of this is reminiscent...I guess the irony of my question...here in this post...was lost.
Angus 1895
5 year old buck +
I would propose one to identify the heavy producers vs non producers. Make sure this production doesn’t rotate as in heavy one year low the next.
Then test the trees foliar ( petiol) nutrient density.
I would suspect that testing the actual tree for accumulation of nutrients would tell us so much about tree management.
There is no way I know of testing soil to the depth of tree roots.
I was told in a “ balanced “ pasture, there is as much mass of earthworms as here would be cattle/ bison/ etc.
Strong fertilizer can definitely impair this balance.
I would suspect deeper roots are more for stability and moisture acquisition.
Then test the trees foliar ( petiol) nutrient density.
I would suspect that testing the actual tree for accumulation of nutrients would tell us so much about tree management.
There is no way I know of testing soil to the depth of tree roots.
I was told in a “ balanced “ pasture, there is as much mass of earthworms as here would be cattle/ bison/ etc.
Strong fertilizer can definitely impair this balance.
I would suspect deeper roots are more for stability and moisture acquisition.
The Fishman
5 year old buck +
At this point, I can see that you have nothing more to offer in this discussion.
The great thing about scientific journals is that they allow critiques of all published works. I would highly encourage you to gather together all the points you have made in this post and submit your critique to the journal editor for possible publication. You can learn more about sending in your critique by going to https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/forest-ecology-and-management/publish/guide-for-authors and looking under the correspondence heading.
