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

Nutrient Treatments for Sugar Maple Decline

Roger Funk and Ward Peterson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1980, 6 (5) 124-129; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1980.033
Roger Funk
Vice President and Research Assistant, respectively, Research and Development, The Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent, Ohio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Ward Peterson
Vice President and Research Assistant, respectively, Research and Development, The Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent, Ohio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Year one. Sugar maple displaying initial symptoms of maple decline.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Year two. Advanced symptoms of maple decline. Tree fertilized with high nitrogen, complete fertilizer.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Year four. Two years after initial fertilization, sugar maple has lush, green foliage, good growth and no further dieback.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Manganese trunk injection elicited irregular response.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Nutrient sources for trunk and foliar treatments in preliminary tests

    Nutrientnutrient sourceElemental
    nitrogenurea8.5%
    potassiumpotassium sulfate15.0%
    phosphorusmono-sodium phosphate21.0%
    calciumcalcium acetate & calcium chloride9.5%
    magnesiummagnesium sulfate4.0%
    manganesemanganese sulfate3.4%
    ironferrous sulfate2.2%
    zinczinc sulfate1.3%
    coppercopper sulfate0.9%
    boronboric acid0.6%
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Average color improvement to trunk- and branch-applied manganese treatments and soil-applied fertilizer.

    Trunk Study
    Treatment numberNo. of treesAverage Leaf Color ratingColor improvementSignificant difference level of confidence
    19781979
    133.63.60.0—
    256.05.40.665%
    34N/AN/AN/AN/A
    434.34.00.390%
    535.04.60.360%
    636.65.01.675%
    744.02.02.080%
    845.23.22.085%
    946.05.60.390%
    1046.75.01.775%
    1136.34.32.095%
    1232.32.30.0—
    Branch Study
    1366.00.0—
    2366.00.0—
    3366.00.0—
    4366.00.0—
    5366.00.0—
    6373.33.395%
    7373.04.090%
    8373.63.395%
    9373.63.395%
    10373.63.395%
    11373.63.395%
    12377.00.0—
    • * Color rating on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing dark green leaves and 10 representing chlorotic, undersized, and scorched leaves.

    • N/A = Not available

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Average nutrient level (ppm) of healthy (color rating 1 and 2) and chlorotic (color rating 9 and 10) sugar maple leaves.

    Element (PPm)Trunk StudyBranch Study
    Healthy (13)*Chlorotic (5)*Difference in nutrient levelSignificant difference level of confidenceHealthy (5)*Chlorotic (5)*Difference in nutrient levelSignificant difference level of confidence
    phosphorus1653.1152.9500.195 %1746.81574.172.870%
    potassium4689.4268.4421.75 %9002.86260.42742.199%
    calcium13341.7807.85533.297.5%10269.8743.1526.75%
    magnesium2006.1316.8689.297.5%1340.1107.2232.880%
    sodium13.2362.6-349.390 %12.1487.1-475.80%
    manganese96.529.367.199 %148.1117.230.860%
    iron166.452.6113.780 %49.548.41.060%
    boron59.35.123.899 %58.038.219.795%
    copper2.62.7-0.00 %3.52.21.285%
    zinc15.812.82.985 %12.69.72.897%
    aluminum25.538.4-12.990 %28.129.5-1.475%
    strontium1812.65.390 %9.85.93.990%
    barium11.65.95.697.5%5.44.41.080%
    • ↵* Number in parenthesis indicates number of samples.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 6, Issue 5
May 1980
  • 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.
Nutrient Treatments for Sugar Maple Decline
(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
Nutrient Treatments for Sugar Maple Decline
Roger Funk, Ward Peterson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1980, 6 (5) 124-129; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1980.033

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Nutrient Treatments for Sugar Maple Decline
Roger Funk, Ward Peterson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1980, 6 (5) 124-129; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1980.033
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
    • PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
    • CURRENT RESEARCH
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • 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

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Assessing Biodiversity Associated with Four Monumental Trees in Madrid Region (Spain)
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire