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

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
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

A Review of Shade Tree Nitrogen Fertilization Research in the United States

Daniel K. Struve
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 2002, 28 (6) 252-263; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.038
Daniel K. Struve
Department of Horticulture and Corp Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, U.S.
  • 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

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    A chronological summary of selected shade tree nitrogen nutrition field studies conducted in the United States during the 20th century. The publications have been grouped by author(s).

    Year initiatedTear publishedDuration (years)Author(s)SpeciesSpacingTreatmentSelected findings
    Ground coverN rate (#)Method of application
    19291929NA*BeilmannNANANANANALiterature review.
    192919345BeilmannFraxinus Juglans nigra Aesculus glabra Carya ovata Quercus palustrisvarioussod024–2.5/treebroadcast, crowbar, liquid injectionFormula for fertilizer application based on tree volume; describes deep root feeding by liquid injection.
    192919367Beilmannsame as 1934varioussod0.24–2.5/treesame as 1934, trenching, post holeSame as 1934, 10-8-6 best fertilizer; fertilize before July 1, “shade trees cannot be overfed.”
    193019365WymanQuercus palustris12 by 12 ftsod0.2/in.caliperbroadcast, crowbarAmmon-phos better than ammonium sulfate; fertilized trees had more secondary growth than unfertilized trees.
    193019377PridhamQuercus palustris12 by 12 ftsodnot describednot describedContinuation of Wymann study; no fertilizer effects at age 7.
    193419395PridhamUlmus americananot describedsod0.1/in/ caliperbroadcast, drilled holesDecreasing growth with age; no response to fertilizer application.
    193619415PridhamQuercus rubranot describedsod0.13/in. caliperbroadcast, drilled holesNo clear tree growth response; delayed fall color development; sod growth luxuriant.
    193119343ChadwickUlmus americana ‘Moline’8 by 12 ftnone36 lb/1,000 ft2 0.25 lb/in. caliperbroadcastLimited fertilizer response, but fall application better than spring; adequate soil moisture needed for fertilizer response.
    193119365ChadwickUlmus americana8 by 12 ftnone0.25 lb/in. caliperbroadcastAmple soil moisture seems more important for stimulating growth in good soil than additional application of fertilizer; fall fertilizer applications best.
    194119507ChadwickAcer platanoides8 by 8 ftsod1 /4 lb/in. caliperbroadcast, punched holes, fertigator, Aero-fertilN most limiting nutrient; broadcast is best method of application.
    194719624CurlinCornus floridasingle tree plotsforest0 to 297 lb/acbroadcastTwo-year response to N application.
    195919665Finn and WhiteLiriodendron tulipifera25 tree plots on 6 by 6 ft Spacingweed336 lb/acbroadcastHeight increase 100%, diameter 85%, leaf color greener, delayed leaf abscission.
    195619652Neely, Himelick, and CrowleyQuercus palustris Fraxinus americana Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis15 by 15 ft and 8 by 8 ftsod61b/l,000ft2broadcast, drill, liquid injection, foliarN applications stimulated growth; similar growth response to different application methods.
    195619705Neely, Himelick, and CrowleyQuercus palustris Fraxinus americana Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis15 by 15 ft and 8 by 8 ftsod61b/l,000ft2broadcast, drill, liquid injection, foliarContinuation of 1965 study N applications stimulated growth; similar growth response to different application methods; April better than October for fertilizer application.
    1972199018SmithTilia cordata ‘Select’ Malus ‘Snowdrift’ Acer saccharum ‘Monumental’20 by 20 ftsod0, 3, 6, or 9 lb/1,000 ft2 once per 3 yearsbroadcast, drillResponse to N fertilizer muted with age as did the effect of application method.
    • ↵*Not applicable.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 28 (6)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 28, Issue 6
November 2002
  • 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.
A Review of Shade Tree Nitrogen Fertilization Research in the United States
(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
A Review of Shade Tree Nitrogen Fertilization Research in the United States
Daniel K. Struve
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2002, 28 (6) 252-263; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2002.038

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Review of Shade Tree Nitrogen Fertilization Research in the United States
Daniel K. Struve
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2002, 28 (6) 252-263; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2002.038
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • EMPIRICAL STUDIES
    • MORE RECENT STUDIES
    • SUMMARY
    • Acknowledgments
    • 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

  • Using the CSR Theory when Selecting Woody Plants for Urban Forests: Evaluation of 342 Trees and Shrubs
  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Nitrogen uptake
  • nitrogen utilization efficiency
  • nitrogen application

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire