Forest Fertilizer Applications in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2016

Abstract This study presents forest fertilization and carbon sequestered from fertilization in the southeastern United States in the context of newly available silviculture management information. Maximum annual fertilized forest area in the southeastern United States occurred in 1999 when 1.58 mill...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forest science 2019-05, Vol.65 (3), p.355-362
Hauptverfasser: Albaugh, Timothy J, Fox, Thomas R, Cook, Rachel L, Raymond, Jay E, Rubilar, Rafael A, Campoe, Otávio C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 362
container_issue 3
container_start_page 355
container_title Forest science
container_volume 65
creator Albaugh, Timothy J
Fox, Thomas R
Cook, Rachel L
Raymond, Jay E
Rubilar, Rafael A
Campoe, Otávio C
description Abstract This study presents forest fertilization and carbon sequestered from fertilization in the southeastern United States in the context of newly available silviculture management information. Maximum annual fertilized forest area in the southeastern United States occurred in 1999 when 1.58 million acres were fertilized. Since then, the fertilized area has generally declined, and in 2016, 589,000 acres were fertilized. This decline is likely related to new research and changes in economic conditions. Recent research has determined that lower, more frequent nutrient doses gave the same biological response as larger, less frequent doses; improved our understanding and use of urease inhibitors; and quantified the upper limit to pine productivity in the southeast United States. All of these factors combined with economic concerns including the continued low number of housing starts, a large inventory of stands with trees that are already sawtimber size, and low sawtimber prices influence forest managers’ decisions about fertilization. However, fertilization increases carbon sequestration in forests, and carbon markets that recognize this contribution to sequestration are developing and may provide additional income to forest managers and, ultimately, increase the area fertilized.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/forsci/fxy058
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2246695399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/forsci/fxy058</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2246695399</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-8cfde69374195e173ae1e62edc093cf3e7897b6f36b20cf87c638d2c1d20a0e53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEYRYMoWKtL9wE3bsbm0cljWYpVQRCsBXchzXzBlHYyJhmw_npHxr2ruzncyz0IXVNyR4nmMx9TdmHmv46kVidoQjVXFZdcnaIJIbSu5Fy_n6OLnHeEEMUJm6DXVUyQC15BKmEfviHhRdftg7MlxDbj0OLyAXgd-yFsLpBavGlDgQaviy2QsU_xgKkWGpeIGaHiEp15u89w9ZdTtFndvy0fq-eXh6fl4rlynMtSKecbEJrLOdU1UMktUBAMGjd8cZ6DVFpuhediy4jzSjrBVcMcbRixBGo-RTdjb5fiZz-cMLvYp3aYNIzNhdA113qgqpFyKeacwJsuhYNNR0OJ-dVmRm1m1DbwtyMf--4f9AePWW_F</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2246695399</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Forest Fertilizer Applications in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2016</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Albaugh, Timothy J ; Fox, Thomas R ; Cook, Rachel L ; Raymond, Jay E ; Rubilar, Rafael A ; Campoe, Otávio C</creator><creatorcontrib>Albaugh, Timothy J ; Fox, Thomas R ; Cook, Rachel L ; Raymond, Jay E ; Rubilar, Rafael A ; Campoe, Otávio C</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract This study presents forest fertilization and carbon sequestered from fertilization in the southeastern United States in the context of newly available silviculture management information. Maximum annual fertilized forest area in the southeastern United States occurred in 1999 when 1.58 million acres were fertilized. Since then, the fertilized area has generally declined, and in 2016, 589,000 acres were fertilized. This decline is likely related to new research and changes in economic conditions. Recent research has determined that lower, more frequent nutrient doses gave the same biological response as larger, less frequent doses; improved our understanding and use of urease inhibitors; and quantified the upper limit to pine productivity in the southeast United States. All of these factors combined with economic concerns including the continued low number of housing starts, a large inventory of stands with trees that are already sawtimber size, and low sawtimber prices influence forest managers’ decisions about fertilization. However, fertilization increases carbon sequestration in forests, and carbon markets that recognize this contribution to sequestration are developing and may provide additional income to forest managers and, ultimately, increase the area fertilized.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-749X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3738</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/forsci/fxy058</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Age ; Agricultural production ; Carbon ; Carbon sequestration ; Census of Population ; Economic conditions ; Economics ; Fertilization ; Fertilizer application ; Fertilizers ; Forest management ; Forestry ; Greenhouse gases ; Housing starts ; Information management ; Inventory ; Nitrogen ; Phosphorus ; Plantations ; Productivity ; Silviculture ; Urease</subject><ispartof>Forest science, 2019-05, Vol.65 (3), p.355-362</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2018 Society of American Foresters 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Society of American Foresters Jun 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-8cfde69374195e173ae1e62edc093cf3e7897b6f36b20cf87c638d2c1d20a0e53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-8cfde69374195e173ae1e62edc093cf3e7897b6f36b20cf87c638d2c1d20a0e53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9810-8834 ; 0000-0002-4929-7613</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Albaugh, Timothy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fox, Thomas R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Rachel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raymond, Jay E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubilar, Rafael A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campoe, Otávio C</creatorcontrib><title>Forest Fertilizer Applications in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2016</title><title>Forest science</title><description>Abstract This study presents forest fertilization and carbon sequestered from fertilization in the southeastern United States in the context of newly available silviculture management information. Maximum annual fertilized forest area in the southeastern United States occurred in 1999 when 1.58 million acres were fertilized. Since then, the fertilized area has generally declined, and in 2016, 589,000 acres were fertilized. This decline is likely related to new research and changes in economic conditions. Recent research has determined that lower, more frequent nutrient doses gave the same biological response as larger, less frequent doses; improved our understanding and use of urease inhibitors; and quantified the upper limit to pine productivity in the southeast United States. All of these factors combined with economic concerns including the continued low number of housing starts, a large inventory of stands with trees that are already sawtimber size, and low sawtimber prices influence forest managers’ decisions about fertilization. However, fertilization increases carbon sequestration in forests, and carbon markets that recognize this contribution to sequestration are developing and may provide additional income to forest managers and, ultimately, increase the area fertilized.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Census of Population</subject><subject>Economic conditions</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Fertilization</subject><subject>Fertilizer application</subject><subject>Fertilizers</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Housing starts</subject><subject>Information management</subject><subject>Inventory</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>Phosphorus</subject><subject>Plantations</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Silviculture</subject><subject>Urease</subject><issn>0015-749X</issn><issn>1938-3738</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEYRYMoWKtL9wE3bsbm0cljWYpVQRCsBXchzXzBlHYyJhmw_npHxr2ruzncyz0IXVNyR4nmMx9TdmHmv46kVidoQjVXFZdcnaIJIbSu5Fy_n6OLnHeEEMUJm6DXVUyQC15BKmEfviHhRdftg7MlxDbj0OLyAXgd-yFsLpBavGlDgQaviy2QsU_xgKkWGpeIGaHiEp15u89w9ZdTtFndvy0fq-eXh6fl4rlynMtSKecbEJrLOdU1UMktUBAMGjd8cZ6DVFpuhediy4jzSjrBVcMcbRixBGo-RTdjb5fiZz-cMLvYp3aYNIzNhdA113qgqpFyKeacwJsuhYNNR0OJ-dVmRm1m1DbwtyMf--4f9AePWW_F</recordid><startdate>20190521</startdate><enddate>20190521</enddate><creator>Albaugh, Timothy J</creator><creator>Fox, Thomas R</creator><creator>Cook, Rachel L</creator><creator>Raymond, Jay E</creator><creator>Rubilar, Rafael A</creator><creator>Campoe, Otávio C</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9810-8834</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4929-7613</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190521</creationdate><title>Forest Fertilizer Applications in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2016</title><author>Albaugh, Timothy J ; Fox, Thomas R ; Cook, Rachel L ; Raymond, Jay E ; Rubilar, Rafael A ; Campoe, Otávio C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-8cfde69374195e173ae1e62edc093cf3e7897b6f36b20cf87c638d2c1d20a0e53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Census of Population</topic><topic>Economic conditions</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Fertilization</topic><topic>Fertilizer application</topic><topic>Fertilizers</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Housing starts</topic><topic>Information management</topic><topic>Inventory</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>Phosphorus</topic><topic>Plantations</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Silviculture</topic><topic>Urease</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Albaugh, Timothy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fox, Thomas R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Rachel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raymond, Jay E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubilar, Rafael A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campoe, Otávio C</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Albaugh, Timothy J</au><au>Fox, Thomas R</au><au>Cook, Rachel L</au><au>Raymond, Jay E</au><au>Rubilar, Rafael A</au><au>Campoe, Otávio C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Forest Fertilizer Applications in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2016</atitle><jtitle>Forest science</jtitle><date>2019-05-21</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>355</spage><epage>362</epage><pages>355-362</pages><issn>0015-749X</issn><eissn>1938-3738</eissn><abstract>Abstract This study presents forest fertilization and carbon sequestered from fertilization in the southeastern United States in the context of newly available silviculture management information. Maximum annual fertilized forest area in the southeastern United States occurred in 1999 when 1.58 million acres were fertilized. Since then, the fertilized area has generally declined, and in 2016, 589,000 acres were fertilized. This decline is likely related to new research and changes in economic conditions. Recent research has determined that lower, more frequent nutrient doses gave the same biological response as larger, less frequent doses; improved our understanding and use of urease inhibitors; and quantified the upper limit to pine productivity in the southeast United States. All of these factors combined with economic concerns including the continued low number of housing starts, a large inventory of stands with trees that are already sawtimber size, and low sawtimber prices influence forest managers’ decisions about fertilization. However, fertilization increases carbon sequestration in forests, and carbon markets that recognize this contribution to sequestration are developing and may provide additional income to forest managers and, ultimately, increase the area fertilized.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/forsci/fxy058</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9810-8834</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4929-7613</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0015-749X
ispartof Forest science, 2019-05, Vol.65 (3), p.355-362
issn 0015-749X
1938-3738
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2246695399
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Age
Agricultural production
Carbon
Carbon sequestration
Census of Population
Economic conditions
Economics
Fertilization
Fertilizer application
Fertilizers
Forest management
Forestry
Greenhouse gases
Housing starts
Information management
Inventory
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Plantations
Productivity
Silviculture
Urease
title Forest Fertilizer Applications in the Southeastern United States from 1969 to 2016
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T21%3A25%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Forest%20Fertilizer%20Applications%20in%20the%20Southeastern%20United%20States%20from%201969%20to%202016&rft.jtitle=Forest%20science&rft.au=Albaugh,%20Timothy%20J&rft.date=2019-05-21&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=355&rft.epage=362&rft.pages=355-362&rft.issn=0015-749X&rft.eissn=1938-3738&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/forsci/fxy058&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2246695399%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2246695399&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/forsci/fxy058&rfr_iscdi=true