1 / 43

“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data

“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data. Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results. Relationship between foliar N analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion.

feleti
Download Presentation

“Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data

  2. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results

  3. Relationship between foliar N analytical methodologiesdry combustion vs. wet digestion

  4. Relationship between foliar S analytical methodologies dry combustion vs. wet digestion

  5. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation

  6. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology

  7. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology • Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation

  8. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology • Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation • “Normalization” requires inter-laboratory comparisons

  9. “Normalization” of Foliar Nutrient Data • Differences in laboratory methodology may affect analytical results • Inter-laboratory differences may be large enough to affect interpretation • Nutrient interpretative criteria do not account for differences in methodology • Known differences in laboratory analytical results can be used to “normalize” foliar data prior to interpretation • “Normalization” requires inter-laboratory comparisons • The “normalization” process does not make inferences about the quality of foliar nutrient data

  10. Laboratory foliar N comparison (2012)PSAI vs. MoE

  11. Laboratory foliar S comparison (2012) PSAI vs. MoE

  12. “Normalization” spreadsheet (2012)

  13. “Normalization” spreadsheet (2012)

  14. “Normalization” spreadsheet (2012) = 0.561x + 0.052 = 0.840x + 0.036 = 0.677x + 0.019 = 0.720x + 0.026

  15. “Normalization” spreadsheet (2012) = 0.786x + 0.134 = 1.004x + 0.007 = 1.057x – 8.03 = 0.903x + 1.73

  16. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab

  17. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used

  18. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison

  19. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples

  20. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples • One sub-sample was shipped to each lab

  21. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples • One sub-sample was shipped to each lab • For each nutrient, laboratory results were subjected to regression analysis

  22. Inter-laboratory comparisonPacific Soil Analysis vs. Ministry of Environment • The 2012 inter-laboratory comparison was repeated in early 2013 following analytical equipment upgrade at the MoE lab • 50 previously analyzed foliage samples were used • Samples were selected to cover a broader range of species and foliar nutrient levels than used in the 2012 comparison • Each sample was thoroughly mixed and split into two sub-samples • One sub-sample was shipped to each lab • For each nutrient, laboratory results were subjected to regression analysis • The new equations were used to revise the 2012 “normalization” spreadsheet

  23. Laboratory foliar N comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  24. Laboratory foliar S comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  25. Laboratory foliar P comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  26. Laboratory foliar K comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  27. Laboratory foliar Ca comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  28. Laboratory foliar Mg comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  29. Laboratory foliar B comparison PSAI vs. MoE

  30. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  31. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  32. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  33. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  34. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data = 0.9492x = (0.1714x2) + (0.8504x) = (0.3592x2) + (0.7346x) = 1.0249x

  35. Normalization of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  36. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  37. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  38. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  39. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data = 0.9584x = (0.9558x) – (0.6267x2) = (1.4164x) – (0.0008x2) = (0.8732x) – (0.0012x2)

  40. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  41. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  42. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

  43. “Normalization” of laboratory foliar nutrient data

More Related