Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Using Soil and Foliar Analysis to Diagnose the Nutritional Status of Urban Trees

Jitze Kopinga and Jan van den Burg
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 1995, 21 (1) 17-24; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1995.004
Jitze Kopinga
Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO), POBox23 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan van den Burg
Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO), POBox23 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • % particles < 0.016 mm
    < 1010-2021-40>40
    K-HCI (mg K/100 g soil)Rating
    < 5< 8< 11< 14Low
    5-88-1211-1414-17Moderate
    9-1213-1715-2118-25Good
    > 12> 17>21>25High
  • Mg-NaCI
    (mg Mg per kg soil)
    Rating
    <30Low
    30-60Moderate
    >60Good
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Critical levels of the C-figure of the soil for the estimation of the occurence of salt damage for some common deciduous trees.

    Rating of symptoms

    1. No visual damage observed

    2. Threshold level for the occurence of visual damage

    3. Visual damage (leaf-necrosis, leaf-shedding, twig-dieback)

    4. Heavy damage or initial stages of death

    Tree speciesC-figure (g NaCI/l soil moisture)
    IIIIIIIV
    Acer pseudoplatanus0-22-33-99-12
    Aesculus hippocastanum0-23>3…
    Fagus sylvatica0-22-44-10>7
    Fraxinus excelsior0-33-44-117-11
    Platanus x acerifolia0-22-66-106-10
    Populus x euramericana (*)0-11-22-6>6
    Quercus robur0-55-10> 10…
    Salix alba0-22-66-124-12
    Tilia x vulgaris0-44> 4…
    Ulmus x hollandica (*)0-22-44-7>8
    • ↵(*) All cultivars

    • ↵… Value insufficiently known

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Critical values of the chloride content in the leaves for the estimation of the occurence of salt damage for some common deciduous trees.

    Tree speciesCl-content (g Cl/kg dry matter)
    HealthyThreshold (*)Visual damage
    Acer pseudoplatanus0-66-1212-35
    Aesculus hippocastanum0-77-1111-32
    Fagus sylvatica0-55-77-32
    Fraxinus excelsior0-44-1010-30
    Platanus x aceritolia0-1111-1616-42
    Poputus x euramericana (**)0-77-1313-39
    Quercus robur0-55-66-12
    Salix alba0-55-66-12
    Tilia x vulgaris0-66-99-28
    Ulmus x hollandica (**)0-77-1515-35
    • ↵(*) Between these levels visual symptoms may or may not appear, depending on climatic factors and the time in the growing season.

    • ↵(**) All cultivars

    • View popup
    Table 3a.

    Provisional values of the content of foliar nitrogen (g per kg dry matter) for the estimation of N-deficiency in the leaves in the period from early August to mid-September (4,8,9).

    Tree speciesN-Supply
    Too lowLowNormalOptimal
    Acer campestre< 1515-1718-22> 22
    Acer negundo< 1313-1617-22> 22
    Acer platanoides< 1717-2223-27> 27
    Acer pseudoplatanus< 1717-2223-27> 27
    Acer saccharinum< 1313-1819-27> 27
    Aesculus hippocastanum< 1414-1819-22> 22
    Alnus glutinosa< 2222-2526-30> 30
    Alnus incana< 2020-2425-30> 30
    Betula pendula< 1818-2223-30> 30
    Carpinus betulus< 1515-1920-27> 27
    Corylus avellana< 1818-2223-25> 25
    Corylus colurna< 1818-2223-30> 30
    Crataegus laevigata< 1515-1819-22> 22
    Crataegus monogyna< 1515-1819-22> 22
    Fagus sylvatica< 1818-2021 -28> 28
    Fraxinus excelsior< 1818-2223-28> 28
    Gleditsia triacanthos< 1616-1920-25> 25
    Juglans nigra< 1515-2021 -26> 26
    Juglans regia< 2020-2526-35> 35
    Liquidambar styraciflua< 1414-1718-28> 28
    Liriodendron tulipifera< 2020-2526-30> 30
    Malus domestica (*)< 1717-2223-25> 25
    Platanus x acerifolia< 1515-1920-26> 26
    Populus alba (*)< 1414-1819-25> 25
    Populus x canescens (*)< 1414-1718-25> 25
    P. x euramericana (*)< 2222-2526-28> 28
    Populus nigra (*)< 2020-2425-28> 28
    Populus tremula< 1515-1819-25> 25
    Prunus avium (**)< 1515-1819-26> 26
    Prunus cerasus< 1515-1819-26> 26
    Prunus domestica< 1818-2122-25> 25
    Pyrus communis (*)< 1818-2324-28> 28
    Quercus palustris< 1818-2021 -28> 28
    Quercus robur< 1818-2021 -28> 28
    Robinia pseudoacacia< 2020-2526-30> 30
    Salix alba (*)< 1818-2122-28> 28
    Salix triandra< 1818-2223-30> 30
    Salix viminalis< 2020-2223-30> 30
    Sorbus aria< 1515-1819-22> 22
    Sorbus aucuparia< 1515-1819-22> 22
    Tilia americana< 2121-2627-31> 31
    Tilia cordata< 1717-2021 -24> 24
    Tilia x euchlora< 1717-2122-26> 26
    Tilia platyphyllos< 1717-2122-28> 28
    Tilia x vulgaris< 1717-2425-28> 28
    Ulmus carpinifolia< 1818-2223-27> 27
    Ulmus glabra< 1818-2223-27> 27
    Ulmus x hollandica (*)< 1818-2223-27> 27
    • ↵* All cultivars

    • ↵** Provisionally, these criteria also apply to other species as those that are listed in the table

    • View popup
    Table 3b.

    Provisional values of the content of foliar phosphorus (g per kg dry matter) for the estimation of P-def iciency in the leaves in the period from early August to mid-September (4,8,9).

    Tree speciesP-Supply
    Too lowLowNormalOptimal
    Acer campestre< 1.01.0-1.21.3-1.5> 1.5
    Acer negundo< 1.01.0-1.21.3-1.5> 1.5
    Acer platanoides< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.2> 2.2
    Acer pseudoplatanus< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.2> 2.2
    Acer saccharinum< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.9> 1.9
    Aesculus hippocastanum< 1.01.0-1.21.3-1.5> 1.5
    Alnus glutinosa< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Alnus incana< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Betula pendula< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Carpinus betulus< 1.01.0-1.21.3-2.0> 2.0
    Corylus avellana< 1.01.0-1.41.5-1.8> 1.8
    Corylus colurna< 1.21.2-1.51.6-2.1> 2.1
    Crataegus laevigata< 1.01.0-1.31.4 -1.6> 1.6
    Crataegus monogyna< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.6> 1.6
    Fagus sylvatica< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.6> 1.6
    Fraxinus excelsior< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Gleditsia triacanthos< 1.01.0-1.41.5-1.8> 1.8
    Juglans nigra< 1.01.0-1.41.5-2.1> 2.1
    Juglans regia< 1.21.2-1.81.9-2.4> 2.4
    Liquidambar styraciflua< 1.01.0-1.21.3-2.0> 2.0
    Liriodendron tulipifera< 1.21.2-1.71.8-2.1> 2.1
    Malus domestica (*)< 1.31.3-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Platanus x acerifolia< 1.01.0-1.41.5-1.8> 1.8
    Populus alba (*)< 1.01.0-1.51.6-1.8> 1.8
    Populus x canescens (*)< 1.01.0-1.51.6-1.8> 1.8
    P. x euramericana (*)< 1.21.2-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Populus nigra (*)< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Populus tremula< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.8> 1.8
    Prunus avium (**)< 1.01.0-1.31.4 -1.7> 1.7
    Prunus cerasus< 1.01.0-1.41.5-1.8> 1.8
    Prunus domestica< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.7> 1.7
    Pyrus communis (*)< 1.11.1 -1.31.4-1.7> 1.7
    Quercus palustris< 1.01.0-1.21.3-2.0> 2.0
    Quercus robur< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.7> 1.7
    Robinia pseudoacacia< 1.11.1 -1.31.4-2.1> 2.1
    Salix alba (*)< 1.01.0-1.41.4-2.0> 2.0
    Salix triandra< 1.01.0-1.61.7-2.1> 2.1
    Salix viminalis< 1.01.0-1.61.7-2.1> 2.1
    Sorbus aria< 1.01.0-1.21.3-1.6> 1.6
    Sorbus aucuparia< 1.01.0-1.21.3-1.6> 1.6
    Tilia americana< 1.01.0-1.71.8-2.2> 2.2
    Tilia cordata< 1.01.0-1.41.5-2.0> 2.0
    Tilia x euchlora< 1.01.0-1.41.5-1.8> 1.8
    Tilia platyphyllos< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Tilia x vulgaris< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.0> 2.0
    Ulmus carpinifolia< 1.01.0-1.51.6-1.9> 1.9
    Ulmus glabra< 1.01.0-1.51.6-1.9> 1.9
    Ulmus x hollandica (*)< 1.01.0-1.51.6-1.9> 1.9
    • ↵* All cultivars

    • ↵** Provisionally, these criteria also apply to other species as those that are listed in the table

    • View popup
    Table 3c.

    Provisional values of the content of foliar potassium (g per kg dry matter) for the estimation of K-deficiency in the leaves in the period from early August to mid September (4,8,9).

    Tree speciesK-Supply
    Too lowLowNormalOptimal
    Acer campestre<44-88.5-14> 14
    Acer negundo<44-88.5-14> 14
    Acer platanoides<77-1111.5-15> 15
    Acer pseudoplatanus<77 -1111.5-15> 15
    Acer saccharinum<44-99.5-18> 18
    Aesculus hippocastanum< 4.54.5-8.59-14> 14
    Alnus glutinosa<44-7.58-20> 20
    Alnus incana<44-66.5-20> 20
    Betula pendula<44-77.5-9> 9
    Carpinus betulus<44-66.5-9> 9
    Corylus avellana<55-1010.5-16> 16
    Corylus colurna<55-77.5-16> 16
    Crataegus laevigata<44-66.5-14> 14
    Crataegus monogyna<44-66.5-14> 14
    Fagus sylvatica<4.54.5-77.5-15> 15
    Fraxinus excelsior<66-1010.5-15> 15
    Gleditsia triacanthos<44-99.5-16> 16
    Juglans nigra<55-1010.5-20> 20
    Juglans regia<55 -12.513-3> 23
    Liquidambar styraciflua<44-66.5-18> 18
    Liriodendron tulipifera<55-88.5-15> 15
    Malus domestica (*)<77-1212.5-16> 16
    Platanus x acerifolia<44-66.5-17> 17
    Populus alba (*)<44-77.5-16> 16
    Populus x canescens (*)<44-77.5-16> 16
    P. x euramericana (*)<55-1212.5-15> 15
    Populus nigra (*)<55-88.5-15> 15
    Populus tremula<55-88.5-16> 16
    Prunus avium (**)<66-1010.5-17> 17
    Prunus cerasus<66-1010.5-17> 17
    Prunus domestica<66-1212.5-15> 15
    Pyrus communis (*)< 66 -1212.5-15> 15
    Quercus palustris< 44-66.5-8> 8
    Quercus robur<44-66.5-8> 8
    Robinia pseudoacacia<44-77.5-20> 20
    Salix alba (*)<66-1010.5-19> 19
    Salix triandra<77.5-1010.5-19> 19
    Salix viminalis<66.5-88.5-19> 19
    Sorbus aria<44-66.5-14> 14
    Sorbus aucuparia<44-66.5-14> 14
    Tilia americana<55-1010.5-19> 19
    Tilia cordata<88-1010.5-15> 15
    Tilia x euchlora<66.5-1010.5-15> 15
    Tilia platyphyllos<66.5-1010.5-15> 15
    Tilia x vulgaris<66.5-1010.5-15> 15
    Ulmus carpinifolia<6.56.5-1212.5-18> 18
    Ulmus glabra< 6.56.5-1212.5-18> 18
    Ulmus x hollandica (*)< 6.56.5-1212.5-18> 18
    • ↵* All cultivars

    • ↵** Provisionally, these criteria also apply to other species as those that are listed in the table.

    • View popup
    Table 3d.

    Provisional values of the content of foliar magnesium (g per kg dry matter) for the estimation of Mg-deficiency in the leaves in the period from early August to mid September (4,8,9).

    Tree speciesMg-Supply
    Too lowLowNormalOptimal
    Acer campestre< 0.80.8-1.21.3-2.2> 2.2
    Acer negundo< 0.60.6-1.21.3-2.2> 2.2
    Acer platanoides< 0.80.8-1.61.7-2.7> 2.7
    Acer pseudoplatanus< 0.80.8-1.61.7-2.7> 2.7
    Acer saccharinum< 0.70.7-1.41.5-2.7> 2.7
    Aesculus hippocastanum< 0.70.7-1.11.2-2.7> 2.7
    Alnus glutinosa< 1.31.3-1.61.7-2.5> 2.5
    Alnus incana< 1.11.1-1.51.6-2.5> 2.5
    Betula pendula< 1.01.0-1.31.4-1.6> 1.6
    Carpinus betulus< 0.80.8-1.21.3-2.7> 2.7
    Corylus avellana< 0.90.9-1.81.9-2.5> 2.5
    Corylus colurna< 1.21.2-1.61.7-3.0> 3.0
    Crataegus laevigata< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.2> 2.2
    Crataegus monogyna< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.2> 2.2
    Fagus sylvatica< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.3> 2.3
    Fraxinus excelsior< 0.90.9-1.61.7-2.8> 2.8
    Gleditsia triacanthos< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.5> 2.5
    Juglans nigra< 1.01.0-2.02.1-3.0> 3.0
    Juglans regia< 1.21.2-1.81.9-3.5> 3.5
    Liquidambar styraciflua< 0.70.7-1.21.3-2.8> 2.8
    Liriodendron tulipifera< 1.01.0-1.81.9 -3.0> 3.0
    Malus domestica (*)< 1.01.0-2.02.1-3.0> 3.0
    Platanus x acerifolia< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.6> 2.6
    Populus alba (*)< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.5> 2.5
    Populus x canescens (*)< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.5> 2.5
    P. x euramericana (*)< 1.21.2-1.71.8-2.8> 2.8
    Populus nigra (*)< 1.01.0-1.81.9-2.8> 2.8
    Populus tremula< 0.80.8-1.41.5-1.7> 1.7
    Prunus avium (**)< 1.21.2-1.51.6-2.6> 2.6
    Prunus cerasus< 1.21.2-1.51.6-2.6> 2.6
    Prunus domestica< 1.21.2-1.81.9-2.5> 2.5
    Pyrus communis (‘)< 1.21.2-1.81.9-2.8> 2.8
    Quercus palustris< 0.90.9-1.51.6-2.8> 2.
    Quercus robur< 1.31.3-1.51.6-2.8> 2.8
    Robinia pseudoacacia< 1.01.0-1.51.6-2.2> 2.2
    Salix alba (*)< 0.90.9-1.61.7-2.8> 2.8
    Salix triandra< 0.90.9-1.61.7-3.0> 3.0
    Salix viminalis< 1.01.0-1.61.7-3.0> 3.0
    Sorbus aria< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.2> 2.2
    Sorbus aucuparia< 0.80.8-1.41.5-2.2> 2.2
    Tilia americana< 1.01.0-1.51.6-3.0> 3.0
    Tilia cordata< 0.80.8-1.11.1 -2.4> 2.4
    Tilia x euchlora< 0.80.8-1.11.2-2.4> 2.4
    Tilia platyphyllos< 0.80.8-1.21.3-2.8> 2.8
    Tilia x vulgaris< 0.80.8-1.21.3-2.8> 2.8
    Ulmus carpinifolia< 0.90.9-1.61.7-2.7> 2.7
    Ulmus glabra< 0.90.9-1.61.7-2.7> 2.7
    Ulmus x hollandica (*)< 0.90.9-1.61.7-2.7> 2.7
    • ↵* All cultivars

    • ↵** Provisionally, these criteria also apply to other species as those that are listed in the table.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Critical values of the proportion of nutrition elements to N (= 100) in the leaves for the estimation of relative nutrient deficiency (with regard to N) for deciduous trees.

    ElementSupply
    OptimalSufficientInsufficient
    N100100100
    P10-145-10<5
    K50-10025-50<25
    Mg105-10< 5
    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Critical values of the cation-quotients in the leaves for the estimation of relative deficiencies of K (with regard to Ca) and Mg (with regard to K) for deciduous trees.

    NormalPossible deficiencyDeficiency
    K/Ca3.5-1.00.5-1.0> 0.5
    K/Mg1-to 97 to 9-1212-20
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 21, Issue 1
January 1995
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Using Soil and Foliar Analysis to Diagnose the Nutritional Status of Urban Trees
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Using Soil and Foliar Analysis to Diagnose the Nutritional Status of Urban Trees
Jitze Kopinga, Jan van den Burg
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 1995, 21 (1) 17-24; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1995.004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Using Soil and Foliar Analysis to Diagnose the Nutritional Status of Urban Trees
Jitze Kopinga, Jan van den Burg
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 1995, 21 (1) 17-24; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1995.004
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Soil Analysis
    • Foliar Anaylsis
    • Conclusions
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods
  • London Plane Bark Exfoliation and Tree-Ring Growth in Urban Environments
  • Green Infrastructure with Actual Canopy Parameterization: A Simulation Study for Heat Stress Mitigation in a Hot-Humid Urban Environment
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire