Stand growth responses after fertilization for thinned lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce in forests of interior British Columbia, Canada

This study was conducted to quantify growth responses of three major commercial conifer species (lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon var. latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson), interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco), and spruce (white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and hybrid spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex. Engelm. × Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière))) to various fertilizer blends in interior British Columbia, Canada. Over 25 years, growth-response data were repeatedly collected across 46 installations. The fertilizer blends were classified into three groups: nitrogen only; nitrogen and sulfur combined; and nitrogen, sulfur, and boron combined. The growth responses for stand volume, basal area, and top height were calculated through absolute and relative growth rate ratios relative to a controlled group. Fertilizer blend, inverse years since fertilization, site index, stand density at fertilization, and their interactions with the fertilizer blend were used as explanatory variables. The magnitude and significance of volume and basal area growth responses to fertilization differed by species, fertilizer-blend groups, and stand-condition variables (i.e., site index and stand density). In contrast, the response in top height growth did not differ among fertilization blends, with the exception of the nitrogen and sulfur fertilizer subgroup for lodgepole pine. The models developed in this study will be incorporated into the current growth and yield fertilization module (i.e., Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields (TIPSY)), thereby supporting guidance of fertilization applications in interior forests in British Columbia.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author