Bieirle, Micah-John

Farrish, Kenneth W.

Hung, I-Kuai

Oswald, Brian P.

Williams, Hans M.

English

SFA ScholarWorks

Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Faculty Publications Agriculture 8-15-2017 Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments Brian P. Oswald stephen f. austin, boswald@sfasu.edu Micah-John Bieirle Hans M. Williams Kenneth W. Farrish I-Kuai Hung Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/agriculture_facultypubs  Part of the Forest Sciences Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Recommended Citation Oswald BP, Beierle MJ, Farrish KW, Williams HM, Hung I (2017) Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments. Forest Res 6: 205. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agriculture at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact cdsscholarworks@sfasu.edu. Open AccessCommentaryOswald et al., Forest Res 2017, 6:2DOI: 10.4172/2168-9776.1000205Volume 6 • Issue 2 • 1000205Forest Res, an open access journalISSN: 2168-9776Keywords: Fertilization; Poultry litter; Loblolly pine; Site qualityIntroductionPoultry or Broiler litter is a combination of poultry manure, bedding material, feathers and spilled food. In the United States, poultry litter production exceeds 10 million metric tons annually, and exceeds the levels of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) which can be applied to lands in close proximity to poultry farms. While application of poultry litter may enhance soil properties, excessive amounts may cause soil and water degradation [1-3]. The 11.7 million hectares of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations found in the southern United States are a potential market for poultry litter as an alternative to chemical fertilizers. To be an alternative to chemical fertilizers, poultry litter must be economically feasible, both in its application in plantations and in the resulting growth rates of loblolly pine. Many studies have investigated the composition of poultry litter [4-8], as well as application and vegetation response to various quantities and combinations [2,3,9-13], and some management protocols on various soils have been established.While most studies have focused on agricultural non-woody crops, a few in east Texas have investigated woody vegetation. Results tended to vary widely based on soil characteristics, soil fertility and stage of growth of the woody plant, usually mid-rotation for pine plantations [11,14].The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the growth response of east Texas loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations to commercial fertilizer and poultry litter at mid-rotation.Materials and MethodsStudy sitesThe study was conducted in three east Texas pine plantations (designated Lufkin, Broaddus, Wells) within a 30-kilometer radius of each other. The mid-rotation sites were 12-17 years old and thinned to an estimated basal area of 5.26 m2 ha-1 with a density of 188 trees ha-1 with 91.4 m × 21.3 m plots in a randomized block design. Sites were not blocked based on soil characteristics (Table 1), and management activities at some of the sites (Broadus mid-rotation harvested before ending of this study, introduced some confounding variables into our assessments. The data was collected from several long-term repeated measurement studies with a variety of treatments utilized (Table 2).MeasurementsMeasured parameters during six dormant seasons included diameter at breast height (nearest 0.1 cm at 1.37 m above ground (DBH)), root collar diameter (nearest 0.1 mm (RCD), total heights (nearest 0.5 m), and soil series mapping unit.From these parameters, quadratic mean diameter (cm (QMD)), mean height (m), Basal area (BA), and volume (m3 ha-1) calculated. Dead trees were tallied but not used in data analysis. Soil series were identified by plot using USDA USGS official soil series descriptions 9OSDD) for Angelina and San Augustine Counties (USDA 2004). Volumes were calculated using Coble and Hilpp’s [15] cubic foot volume equation, then converted to m3 ha-1.Statistical analysisThe three sites were analyzed separately using SAS 9.2 for this randomized block design at 0.10 alpha level. Tree heights and diameters were measured prior to treatments and annually afterwards, and then expanded to a per ha level for analysis. Residual tree density ha-1 was analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance to confirm that density was not a significant concomitant variable. Volume, QMD, mean heights and BA were also analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance. Growth was represented as last measurement minus first measurement. Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure was used to differentiate significant mean treatment effects.ResultsQuadratic Mean Diameter growth (QMD) was significant on two of the three mid-rotation sites, but for different number of years since AbstractImproving site quality with fertilization is a common forestry practice. Where poultry production occurs, a common issue is the disposal of the poultry litter, which can cause nutrient overload on some soils. Forest plantations offer an alternative litter disposal site, while providing for possible tree growth increases similar to those found with chemical fertilizers. To test that hypothesis, 3 sites in east Texas, USA supporting loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations were treated at poultry or chemical fertilizers at mid-rotation, and the growth responses recorded over a four-year period. Only one of the three sites showed any growth response in quadratic mean diameter growth attributed to poultry litter, and that was only after four years. No other response was found significant, suggesting that longer-term responses may occur than what this study captured. Poultry litter, if economically feasible, does appear to be an alternative to petro-chemical fertilizers on these sites.Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer AmendmentsOswald BP1*, Beierle MJ2, Farrish KW1, Williams HM1 and Hung I11Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA2Johnson Services Group for Tennessee Valley Authority, HIS and Mapping Department, Knoxville, USA*Corresponding author: Oswald BP, Arthur Temple College of Forestry andAgriculture, Stephen F Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA, Tel:19364682275; E-mail: boswald@sfasu.eduReceived August 02, 2017; Accepted August 10, 2017; Published August 15, 2017Citation: Oswald BP, Beierle MJ, Farrish KW, Williams HM, Hung I (2017) Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments. Forest Res 6: 205. doi: 10.4172/2168-9776.1000205Copyright: © 2017 Oswald BP, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Forest ResearchOpen AccessForest Research: OpenAccessISSN: 2168-9776Citation: Oswald BP, Beierle MJ, Farrish KW, Williams HM, Hung I (2017) Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments. Forest Res 6: 205. doi: 10.4172/2168-9776.1000205Page 2 of 3Volume 6 • Issue 2 • 1000205Forest Res, an open access journalISSN: 2168-9776Site Soil Series Slope Taxonomic Class Site Index (m)LufkinDarco loamy fine sandy 1-8% Loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Grossarenic Paleudults 24.7Sacul fine sandy loam 1-5% Fine, mixed, active, thermic Aquic Hapludults 25.9Teneha loamy fine sand 5-15% Loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Arenic Hapludults 26.5WellsKirvin gravelly fine sandy loam 1-5% Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults 25.9Woodtell very fine sandy loam 1-5% Fine, smectitic, thermic Vertic Hapludalfs 23.8Woodtell very fine sandy loam 5-15% Fine, smectitic, thermic Vertic Hapludalfs 24.4BroaddusMoswell very fine sandy loam 1-5% Very fine, smectitac thermic Vertic Hapludalfs 25.6Moswell very fine sandy loam 5-15% Very fine, smectitac thermic Vertic Hapludalfs 24.4Table 1: Soil series, taxonomic class and site index of the soils at the three sites used in the midrotation fertilizer study.Site Chemical Fertilizer Treatment (kg ha-1)Poultry Litter Treatment (kg ha-1)Other Poultry Litter (kg ha-1) Other ControlLufkin 224.2 kg N/56.0 P as DAP To supply 224.0 N with excess P Poultry litter+Urea 56.0 P, with N NA No fertilizerWells 224.2 kg N/56.0 P as DAP and Urea 9.0 metric tons 18.0 metric tons 224.2 kg N/56.0 P as DAP and Urea+58.0 K No fertilizerBroaddus 224.2 kg N/56.0 P as DAP and Urea 9.0 metric tons 18.0 metric tons 224.2 kg N/56.0 P as DAP and Urea No fertilizerTable 2: Fertilizer treatments utilized at the three sites used in the midrotation fertilizer study.treatment application. On the Broaddus site, the DAP+urea+KCL treatment had a significantly greater effect (p=0.0251) on QMD than the other treatments, but only 4 years after treatment. At the Lufkin site, the low rate of poultry litter+urea resulted in significantly greater QMD (p=0.0883) than the other treatments at the end of the study. No other significant differences were identified for mid-rotation sites.DiscussionThese results confirm the importance of soil properties for influencing tree growth. The lack of significant treatment separation at the Wells site is similar to other results [16,17], while the QMD results at the Broaddus site were also similar to other studies [18,19]. Nitrogen fertilization is typically a short-term amelioration [16] often tied to the pre-fertilization status of the supporting soil, which explains the short-term response found at the Lufkin site, especially when utilizing bio-solids [17].The lack of significant responses on these sites to most of the treatments confirms a similar lack of response in many other studies [16,20-24]. Since pre-treatment nutritional status was not measured, site quality was estimated using site index based on soil series description. The plot size used in this study (91.4 m × 21.3 m plots) may have not have accurately represented the site quality of these sites as they were classified, and therefore may have partially masked treatment effects. In addition, it is possible that the timeline of this study was too short to allow these treatments to express themselves. Based on the short-term nature of this study, it does appear that for overall growth, poultry litter fertilization is comparable to chemical fertilization [25,26]. AcknowledgementsSpecial appreciation is extended for the support provided by the Arthur temple College of Forestry and Agriculture at Stephen F. Austin State University the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, the Pineywoods Resource Conservation and Development, Inc., and the Temple-Inland Corporation.References1. Kpomblekou AK, Ankumah RO, Ajwa HA (2002) Trace and nontrace element contents of broiler litter. Commun Soil Science Analysis 33: 1799-1811.2. Sauer TJ, Meek DW (2003) Spatial variation of plant-available phosphorus in pastures with contrasting management. Soil Science Society American Journal 67: 826-836.3. Siddique MT, Robinson JS (2003) Phosphorus sorption and availability in soils amended with animal manures and sewage sludge. Journal of Environmental Quality 32: 1114-1121.4. Vest L, Merka B, Segars WI (1994) Poultry waste: Georgia’s 50 million dollar forgotten crop. Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Publication, p: 206.5. Mitchell CC, Donald JO (1995) The value and use of poultry manures as fertilizers. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University Alabama Extension Circular ANR-244.6. Patterson PH, Lorenz ES, Weaver WD, Schwartz JH (1998) Litter production and nutrients from commercial broiler chickens. J Applied Poultry Research 7: 247-252.7. Chamblee TN, Todd RL (2002) Mississippi broiler litter: fertilizer value and quantity produced. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station 23: 1-4.8. Pote DH, Kingery WL, Aiken GE, Han FX, Moore PA, Buddington K (2003) Water-quality effects of incorporating poultry litter into perennial grassland soils. J Environmental Quality 32: 2392-2398.9. Birk EM, Vitousek PM (1986) Nitrogen availability and nitrogen use efficiency in loblolly pine stands. Ecology 67: 69-79.10. Samulelson LJ, Wilhoit J, Stokes T, Johnson J (1999) Influence of poultry litter fertilization on 18-year-old loblolly pine stand. Communication Soil Science Plant Analysis 30: 509-518.11. Beem M, Barden CJ, Turton DJ, Anderson S (2004) Application of poultry litter to pine forest. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet F-5037. Oklahoma State University, USA.12. Jokela EJ, Dougherty PM, Martin TA (2004) Production dynamics of intensively managed loblolly pine stands in the southern United States: a synthesis of seven long-term experiments. Forest Ecology and Management 192: 117-130.13. Sistani KR, Rowe DE, Johnson J, Tewolde H (2004) Manure management: supplemental nitrogen effect on broiler-litter-fertilized cotton. Agronomy Jounral 96: 806-811.14. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (2005) Final project report: “Development of new litter markets in Texas”. TSSWCB Project, pp: 02-17.15. Coble DW, Hilpp K (2006) Compatible cubic-foot stem volume and upper-stem diameter equations for semi-intensive plantation grown loblolly pine trees in east Texas. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 30: 132-141.Citation: Oswald BP, Beierle MJ, Farrish KW, Williams HM, Hung I (2017) Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments. Forest Res 6: 205. doi: 10.4172/2168-9776.1000205Page 3 of 3Volume 6 • Issue 2 • 1000205Forest Res, an open access journalISSN: 2168-977616. Allen HL (1987) Forest fertilizers: Nutrient amendment, stand productivity, andenvironmental impact. J Forestry 85: 37-46.17. Dickens ED, Miller AE (1997) Effect of a biosolid application on plantationloblolly pine tree growth. In: Waldrop TA (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. Ge Tech Rep SRS-20 Asheville,NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, p: 628.18. Samuelson L, Wilhoit J, Stokes T, Johnson J (1999) Influence of poultry litter fertilization on an 18-year-old loblolly pine stand. Commun Soil Sci J 67: 509-518.19. Friend AL, Roberts SD, Schoenholtz SH, Mobley JA, Gerard PD (2006) Poultry litter application to loblolly pine forest: growth and nutrient containment. JEnviroment Qual 35: 837-848.20. Zahner R (1959) Fertilizer trials with loblolly pine in southern Arekansas. JForestry 57: 812-816. 21. Maki TE (1960) Some effects of fertilization on loblolly pine. Trans 7th International Congress, Madison. Soil Sci 3: 363-375.22. Moehring DM (1966) Diameter growth and foliar nitrogen in fertilized loblollypines. Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. USDA ForestService Res. Note: SO-43.23. Broerman FS (1967) Nitrogen-phosphorus fertilization of slash pine. UnionCamp Corp, Woodlands Res Note 18: 4. 24. Wells CG (1970) Nitrogen and potassium fertilization of loblolly pine on aCarolina Piedmont soil. For Sci 16: 172-176.25. Schumaker FX (1939) A new growth curve and its application to timber-yieldstudies. Journal of Forestry 37: 819-820.26. Sullivan AD, Clutter JL (1972) A simultaneous growth and yield model forloblolly pine. Forest Science 18: 76-86.

Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&amp;context=agriculture_facultypubs

Response of East Texas Mid-Rotation Loblolly Pine Plantations to Poultry Litter and Chemical Fertilizer Amendments

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SFA ScholarWorks