The Diagnosis and

Recommendation Integrated
System (DRIS): Theory and
Practice
Malcolm E. Sumner
1
INTRODUCTION
oliar diagnosis is a tool which is useful in diagnosing which nutrients are likely to be
limiting the performance of a crop at any point in time. The DRIS approach has the
particular benefits of taking nutrient balance into consideration in making a diagnosis and
can also be applied without modification over a wider range of plant ages than the Critical Value
approach. It should be borne in mind at the outset that the growth of a crop depends on a host of
factors from those which are uncontrollable such as light and temperature to those that are largely
controllable such as row spacing and cultivar selection !igure "#. $ll these factors condition the
plant%s response which is assayed using foliar analysis. $s a result& some factors such as drought&
waterlogging& low temperatures& pests& etc can alter the composition of a leaf without any change
in the level of nutrients in the soil. The nutrient status of the soil is not a uni'ue function
governed only by the fertility of the soil. (ther factors can and do have marked effects.
Conse'uently& diagnosis based on foliar analysis that a particular nutrient is limiting in the plant
does not necessarily mean that that nutrient is also limiting in the soil. !or e)ample& the presence
of parasitic nematodes in a soil can affect the ability of the roots to assimilate *. Conse'uently& if
a tissue sample is found to be deficient in *& that does not necessarily mean that the soil is also
deficient. (ne has to consider other factors as well. Thus DRIS is simply a tool which assesses
nutrient balance and the order of limiting importance of nutrients of crop yield. To make effective
fertili+er recommendations& it ,-ST be used in con.unction with the assessment of other factors
such as soil analysis& disease and weed conditions& moisture cultural practices& etc. $t best& foliar
diagnosis merely informs the diagnostician of the nutritional status of the plant. /is e)perience
together with supporting information on other factors determining yield are re'uired in order to
make a fertili+er recommendation with the ma)imum chance of success. This process C$00(T
be automated by a computer. 1ack of a clear understanding of the chain of events set off by a
fertili+er application is responsible for many of the problems that some workers have had in
applying DRIS correctly. This is illustrated in !igure 2 from which it can be seen that the
interaction between a fertili+er treatment and soil properties is conditioned by weather conditions
and cultural practices. The result of this interaction is the soil response measured by a soil test#
F
1
Regents Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
E-mail: malcolm.sumnergte.net
to which the plant in turn reacts to give a plant response assayed by foliar analysis#. !or
e)ample& if a topdressing of urea on the soil surface is made and the ensuing weather is hot and
dry& much of the 0 will be lost by volatili+ation and will not be reflected in changes in the soil or
tissue analyses. It should be borne in mind that a plant does not respond directly to a soil
treatment. Rather the plant responds to the soil response to a soil treatment. !or e)ample& in two
situations in which the level of * is comparably insufficient in a sandy soil on the one hand and a
heavy ferruginous soil on the other& the application of a given 'uantity of * will definitely result
in different plant responses on the two soils. In the latter case& the soil response to the treatment
will be less in terms of an increase in available * than in the former. 3oth weather conditions and
cultural practices can influence the soil and plant responses. !or e)ample& application of urea on
the soil surface followed by dry weather conditions will result in considerable volatili+ation
losses of 0 and conse'uently less 0 available for use by the crop.
3earing these considerations in mind any change in the conditions to which a crop is sub.ected is
indeed a treatment and therefore the effects of both induced and natural treatments on crop
productivity should be studied. 3ecause these treatments can influence other factors in the whole
dynamic plant4environment system as a result of a chain reaction5like mechanism& these
interrelationships should be studied. !inally& because any set of observations for a particular site
represents only one sample from the whole population& all sets of observations should be studied
irrespective of their origin& location or conditions at sampling.
In the classical approach to soil fertility research& field e)periments have been used to study the
above interrelationships. /owever& field e)periments have certain disadvantages in this regard&
notably the relatively small number of factors which can be varied simultaneously and the local
applicability of the data derived from a given e)periment. In order to overcome these difficulties&
3eaufils "67"& "678# developed a scheme of e)perimentation which has culminated in the
Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System. 3efore developing the basic tenets of this
system and describing how the norms are derived& a word of definition is re'uired. $ccording to
the ()ford Dictionary& diagnosis is defined as 9a formal ob.ective and reliable statement
concerning a given situation: or 9the determination and identification of the nature of a diseased
condition by investigation of its symptoms and history:. This is the initial aim of DRIS to
identify and set out the parameters of the problem but not to solve it automatically. The second
phase is that of recommendation of remedy and bridging the gap between the two phases re'uires
that other factors many of which are sub.ective such as the knowledge& e)perience and
observational 'ualities of the specialist who makes the recommendation be taken into account.
$fter a brief description of the DRIS approach& consideration will be given to making diagnoses
under a variety of conditions to illustrate the importance of considering as many factors as
possible in making a diagnosis.
ESTABLISHMENT OF NORMS
In contrast to the classical field e)perimental approach to soil fertility& the DRIS approach
employs a survey techni'ue representative of the industry for which norms are desired. In this
survey& a large number of sites randomly distributed throughout the industry are selected. These
sites can be both production fields or plots from e)isting field e)periments. ;ach site is analogous
to a plot in a field e)periment so that the survey approach yields a large number of sets of
observations which can be considered as constituent plots in a large 9field: e)periment replicated
in time and space. $t each site samples of soil and leaf tissue are taken for analysis and details
concerning farming practices& weather variables& cultivar& irrigation& nature and amounts of
fertili+er applied& etec.& are recorded. The soil and leaf samples are analy+ed for a number of
essential elements by conventional means. $ll this information constitutes a data bank and is
stored in a computer in readily accessible form. (nce a data bank of this nature has been formed&
it enables one to study and calibrate these interrelationships. In this presentation only the foliar
diagnosis aspects of DRIS will be dealt with. The norms are the means of the various forms of
e)pressing the leaf analysis data for a subpopulation of high yielding observations selected from
the data base together with their respective coefficients of variation. ;)amples would be 0<& *
<& =<& 04*& 04=& =4*& 0>Ca& etc.
CALCULATION OF INDICES
Indices are calculated by comparing these norms to the corresponding values for the leaf under
diagnosis using nutrient indices calculated as follows?
$ inde) @ Af$43# B f$4C# B f$4D#.... B f$40#C4+ D"E
3 inde) @ A5 f$43# B f34C# B f34D#.... B f340#C4+ D2E
C inde) @ A5 f$4C# 5 f34C# B fC4D#.... B fC40#C4+ D8E
.
.
.
0 inde) @ A5 f$40# 5 f340# 5 fC40#.... 5 f,40#C4+
DFE
where f$43# @ "GGGA$43#4a4b# 5 "C4CV when $43 H a4b
or f$43# @ "GGGA" 5 a4b#4$43#C4CV when $43 I a4b
and CV @ coefficient of variation of the particular form of e)pression for the high yielding
population&
a4b& a4c& a4d&... a4n are the value of the norms for each form of e)pression for the high yielding
population&
$43& $4C& $4D... $40 are the corresponding values for the sample under diagnosis&
+ is the number of functions in the inde) e'uation. The other terms& f$4C#& f$4D#& etc are
derived in a similar way. The signs of the various functions are assigned conventionally being
positive when the particular nutrient for which the inde) is being calculated is in the numerator
and negative when it is in the denominator. The functions f$43#& f$4C#& etc are measures of the
deviations of the particular form of e)pression for the sample under diagnosis from the
corresponding norm value.
INTREPRETATION OF INDICES
The DRIS indices have positive and negative values which sum to +ero as they measure the
relative balance among the nutrients. The order of plant re'uirement is given by the most
negative inde) indicating the most re'uired and the most positive& the least re'uired nutrient or
most e)cessive. This is illustrated in Table ". 0utrient balance is maintained in Table "a but with
increasing severity indicated by the 0utrient 3alance Inde) 03I# which is the sum of the indices
irrespective of sign and is a measure of the relative intensity of nutrient insufficiency. In Table "b&
the relative order of nutrients is maintained as e)tra nutrients are considered.
MEANING AND INTERPRETATION OF A RATIO
3efore proceeding& a short discussion on the meaning and intrepretation of a ratio is appropriate
here. 3ecause a nutrient ratio is the 'uotient of a numerator and a denominator& it is merely a
statement of their relative proportions and does not give any information about the actual
magnitudes of either. 1et us assume that a ratio such as 04* has an optimum range corresponding
to the range found in high yielding crops and denoted by a hori+ontal arrow 6# indicating the
balance between 0 and *. In this situation& three possibilities e)ist?
04* @ 6& 064*6 or 084*8 or 094*9
3oth numerator 3oth numerator 3oth numerator
and denominator and demonitor and denominator
optimal e)cessive insufficient
It is not possible from the ratio alone to detect which of the above possibilities represents the
situation in the plant. $ll that can be said is that 0 and * are in relative balance. If the 04* ratio is
either above 8# or below 9# the optimal range& two possibilities e)ist in each case?
04* @ 8 064*9 or 084*6
* insufficiency 0 e)cess
04* @ 9 064*8 or 094*6
* e)cess 0 insufficiency
In these two situations& the ratio does not distinguish between the two possible situations which
may e)ist in the plant. $ response to * would only be obtained if * is in fact insufficientJ if 0 is
e)cessive and * normal& a yield response to * cannot be e)pected. The same is true for the second
case.
The relationship between the value of a nutrient ratio and crop yield is schematically illustrated in
!igure 8. Khen the value of the ratio $43 is below the optimum& yields decline because either $
is insufficient or 3 is e)cessive while when it is above the optimum& yields also decline because
either $ is e)cessive or 3 is insufficient. Lields are potentially at a ma)imum when the value of
$43 is at the optimum but do not necessarily reach the ma)imum because some factors other than
$ and 3 are limiting..
VALIDATION OF DRIS NORMS
In order to test whether the norms established are capable of making valid diagnoses& it is
necessary to use independent e)perimental data preferably from factorial e)periments in which
yield responses were obtained to the particular nutrients under study. If the indices are able to
predict the pattern of the behavior observed in the e)periment& confirmation would result. Such
an e)ercise using the data from an 0)* factorial will now be undertaken Table 2#. 3eginning
with the 0"MG*G treatment& the DRIS indices diagnose that * is the most limiting of the three
nutrients under consideration. $ddition of * in treatment 0"MG*2N results in a decreased
re'uirement for * with a concomitant yield increase but * is still the most limiting. $ddition of
further * in treatment 0"MG*"GG results in a further yield increase with 0 now becoming most
limiting. $ddition of 0 in treatment 02OG*"GG gives a further increase in yield indicating that the
indices can correctly predict the pattern of response in the e)periment. If inappropriate treatments
are made& for e)ample& applying 0 in treatment 0"MG*G where it was not called for resulted in a
yield decrease. The same was true for treatment 0"MG*2N. $ response to 0 was finally obtained but
only after the * re'uirement has been satisfied& a trend correctly predicted by the DRIS approach
but ambiguous in the Critical Value approach.
EFFECT OF AGE OF TISSUE ON DIAGNOSIS
Kalworth and Sumner "6O7# has shown that if the data for the population of high yielding
plants are used& the variation with age in nutrient elements e)pressed as a percentage of the value
at a given point in time follows the pattern illustrated in !igure F. The concentration of some
elements such as 0& *& and = decrease with age when e)pressed on a dry matter basis while
others such as Ca and ,g increase with age. /owever& if one takes the reciprocal of Ca& i.e.&
"4Ca& the latter also decreases with age similar to 0& * and =. ;)ploitation of this will be
illustrated later in the presentation. This effect of age of tissue on diagnosis is a factor that has
always presented problems because of the so called 9dilution effect:. 3ecause of this near
parallelism of the lines for 0& *& = and Ca& calculation of ratios such as 04*& 04=& etc used in the
DRIS inde) calculation results in the near constancy of these ratios making them nearly
independent of age of tissue sampled as illustrated below?
04* @ "GG04D,#4"GG*4D,# @ "GG04D,# ) D,4"GG*# in which D, cancels out.
To illustrate that consistent diagnoses can be made over a range of crop ages& the data in Table 8
are offered. The same order of re'uirement& namely& * H = H 0 is obtained irrespective of the
stage at which the crop was sampled. The Critical Value approach was unable to make a
diagnosis
until the OG
th
day of the crop. This clearly illustrates the advantage of the DRIS approach in being
able to make diagnoses at an early age which facilitates making corrective treatments. This is
particularly true with perennial crops such as sugar cane as illustrated in the e)ample in Table F.
EFFECT OF VARIETY
(ften varieties have differential abilities to assimilate nutrients and sometimes because they
grow at different rates& sampling of leaves at a given time results in the assaying of leaves of
different age. The effect of variety on diagnostic precision is measured in Table N. The DRIS
indices consistently diagnose the same order of re'uirement whereas for the Critical $pproach&
only * is deficient in two cases& and 0 and * in the remainder.
USE OF THE DRY MATTER INDEX
DRIS indices as normally calculated according to e'uations D"5FE have values which are not
fi)ed to a reference as they simply measure the relative balance between nutrients. In order to do
this& one may include the $4D,& 34D,& C4D,& etc ratios D, @ dry matter# in the inde)
calculations as follows?
$ inde) @ Af$43# B f$4C#.... B f$4D,#C+
3 inde) @ A5 f$43# 5 fC43#..... B f34D,#C4+
C inde) @ A5 f$4C# B fC43#.... B fC4D,#C4+
.
.
D, inde) @ A5 f$4D,# 5 f34D,# 5 fC4D,#.... 5 f,4D,#C4+
where $4D,& 34D,& C4D,& etc are simply $<4"GG& 3<4"GG& C<4"GG& etc. This means that D,
in the denominator is treated in the same way as any other nutrient. Including D, in the inde)
calculations is analogous to combining the Critical Value and DRIS approaches. Dry matter is in
fact a surrogate for the C& / and ( in the tissue which are also essential elements. If one records
that D, is insufficient relative to the normal nutrient elements& this means that the plant was
accumulating dry matter at a rate slower than nutrients. Conse'uently& the D, inde) can be used
as a reference point to establish whether or not any of the normal nutrient were insufficient. !or
e)ample& if a diagnosis yielded the following indices?
0utrient 0 * D, S = ,g Ca
Inde) 52G 57 52 5" 8 "8 "F
then only 0 and * would be categori+ed as being present in insufficient relative to the dry matter
accumulated by the plant and if uptake could be stimulated& a yield response could be e)pected.
To illustrate this more effectively& a contrived set of data for a corn will be used in Table M.
Immediately one can see that the normal DRIS indices all reflect balanced nutrition in the crop.
/owever when the D, inde) is introduced& nutrients are limiting in the last two lines in Table M.
USE OF RATIOS AN PRODUCTS
Khen nutrients increase or decrease in opposite directions with the age of the crop& the use of
products instead of ratios becomes appropriate in the inde) calculations. $s illustrated in !igure
N& 0& * and = usually decrease with crop age while Ca and often ,g increase with age. 3y
taking the reciprocal of Ca< and ,g< defined as P @ "4Ca and L @ "4,g& this results in forms
of e)pression which are products when combined with nutrients that decrease with the age of the
crop. Thus& 04"4Ca# @ 0>P and 04"4,g# @ 0>L. In the inde) calculations& the normal
e'uations are used e)cept for Ca and ,g# reciprocal values are used to calculate P and L
indices. The signs of these indices P and L# are then changed to give the Ca and ,g indices
reflecting the opposite directions in which the nutrients are varying with age. In this mode the
indices do not sum to +ero. (ne can thus develop a rule for calculating indices as follows? If the
nutrients vary in the same direction with age& nutrient ratios are appropriate while if they vary in
opposite directions with age& nutrient products of the elements involved are appropriate. This is
illustrated in Table 7 for a peach crop sampled at different ages. Khen indices are calculated
using ratios& the diagnosed order of re'uirement for nutrients varies with the age of thew crop
whereas when products are used& consistent diagnoses are made over the entire period sampled.
USING DRIS INDICES IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER GROWTH
LIMITING FACTORS
$ few e)amples will be presented to illustrate the importance of taking factors other than foliar
analyses into account when making a diagnosis of what the most limiting factor is and how it
should be corrected.
E!am"le 1
1et us assume that the following are the DRIS indices for a sugarcane crop sampled at 2 months
of age growing under favorable moisture conditions?
0utrient 0 * = Ca ,g S Qn
Inde) 52 52" 5"G M N 7 "N
The foliar diagnosis shows that * is the most limiting nutrient followed by = and 0 with Qn
being slightly e)cessive. The results of a soil analysis are as follows?
*arameter p/ * = Ca ,g S Qn
Rating M.G2 /igh ,edium $de'uate $de'uate ,edium /igh
The soil analysis results are not congruent with those of the leaf diagnosis particularly in terms of
*. The soil test for * is high but the DRIS diagnosis indicates that the plant was relatively
insufficient in *. $ddition of * fertili+er is unlikely to result in a yield response because sufficient
* is already present in the soil. This state of affairs points to the possibility that some other factor
in the soil was limiting * uptake. In view of the fact that the p/ was M.G2 above the value at
which $l becomes to)ic& the most likely causes of this poor * uptake are nematode damage& root
diseases or root damage due to insects. The ne)t step would be to inspect the roots for damage
and identify the culprit. If the roots show that nematodes the appropriate action would be to
apply nematicide such as Temik.
E!am"le #
1et us assume that the following is the DRIS foliar diagnosis for a corn crop that is 8 weeks old
growing and was planted very early in the season at a high elevation. The leaves are pale yellow
in color and e)hibit some striping.
0utrient 0 * = Ca ,g S Qn
Inde) 57 5N "2 O M F 5"O
The soil analysis is as follows?
*arameter p/ * = Ca ,g S Qn
Rating N.ON /igh /igh $de'uate $de'uate ,edium /igh
$gain the diagnoses are incongruent in respect of Qn and * indicating some factor that is limiting
uptake of these nutrients. 3ecause both Qn and * in the soil are high& there is little likelihood of a
response to additions of these elements to the soil. The problem most likely stems from low soil
temperature which limits root respiration. $s the root needs to take up both Qn and * against a
concentration gradient by active uptake& high root respiration is re'uired for this to take place.
The best course of action will be to do nothing as once the soil warms up as the season
progresses& root respiration will increase and overcome the problem. $ topdressing of 0 will be
re'uired to overcome the 0 insufficiency.
E!am"le $
$ crop of soybeans is growing on an ()isol and at " month after planting is showing differential
growth in strips across the field in the direction of planting. The crop had been fertili+ed with
band place * and broadcast Sulpomag. Tissue analysis results in the following DRIS indices?
0utrient 0 * = Ca ,g S Qn
*oor N N 5"8 M 5F 5N M
Rood 58 G 8 2 " G 58
!rom these results it is clear that during the application of the Sulpomag& the applicator skipped
the poor strip in the field resulting in relative insufficiencies of =& S and ,g. $pplication of
Sulpomag to this area should cure the problem.
REFERENCES
3eaufils& ;.R. "67". *hysiological diagnosis? $ guide for improving mai+e production based on
principles developed for rubber trees. Fert. %oc. %. Afr. S. "?"52O.
3eaufils& ;.R. "678. &iagnosis an' Recommen'ation (ntegrate' %ystem )&R(%*. Soil Sci.
3ul ". -niversity of 0atal& South $frica.
3ishop& T. "6M7. Improved tissue diagnostic techni'ues for sugarcane. ,.Sc. $gric. Thesis&
-niversity of 0atal& South $frica.
Rosnell& S.,.. and $.C. 1ong. "67". Some factors affecting foliar analysis in sugarcane. Proc. %.
Afr. %ug. +ech. Assoc. FN?2"75282.
1ut+& S.$. and S./. 1illard. "678. ;ffect of fertility treatments on the growth and chemical
composition and yield of no5tillage corn on orchardgrass sod. Agron. ,. MN?78G578M.
,elsted& S.K.& /.1. ,otto& and T.R. *eck. "6M6. Critical plant nutrient composition values
useful in interpreting plant analysis data. Agron. ,. M"?"752G.
Sumner& ,.;. "6O2. The Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System DRIS#. Council on
Soil Testing and *lant $nalysis& $naheim& C$.
Sumner& ,.;. "6ON. +he &iagnosis an' Recommen'ation (ntegrate' %ystem )&R(%* as a
gui'e to orchar' fertili-ation. !ood and !ertili+er Technology Center ;)t. 3ull 28"&
!!TC4$S*$C& Taipei& Taiwan.
Sumner& ,.;. and ,.*.K. !arina. "6OM. *hosphorus interactions with other nutrients and lime in
field cropping systems. A'v. %oil %ci. N?2G"528M.
Kalworth& S.1. and ,.;. Sumner. "6O7. The Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System
DRIS#. A'v. %oil %ci. M?"F652"N.
!igure ". Schematic representation of the interrelationships between crop yield and 'uality&
metabolic processes and e)ternal and genetic factors 3eaufils& "678#.
!igure 2. Schematic representation of relationships between soil treatment& weather conditions&
cultural practices and yield and 'uality of a crop Sumner& "6O2#.
!igure 8. Diagrammatic representation of the response of a crop to a number of limiting factors
Sumner and !arina& "6OM#.
!igure F. The effect of age on the different forms of e)pression for leaf composition of peaches
Sumner& "6ON#.
Table "a. Interpretation of DRIS indices
DRIS indices 0utrient balance
inde)
(rder of
re'uirement
0 * =
F 58 5" M *H=H0
2F 5"O 5M FO *H=H0
FO 58M 5"2 6M *H=H0
Table "b. Interpretation of DRIS indices
0utrient 0 * =
Value F." G.2N 2.GM
Inde) 2F 5"O 5M
(rder *H=H0
0utrient 0 * = Ca ,g
Value F." G.2N 2.GM G.NN G."O
Inde) "M 5"" 58 N 57
(rder *H,gH=HCaH0
0utrient 0 * = Ca ,g S Qn ,n 3 Cu
Value F." G.2N 2.GM G.NN G."O G.2F "7 O2 "G "8
Inde) "" 57 58 2 5M 5" 5"N O N N
(rder QnH*H,gH=HSHCaH3@CuH,nH0
Table 2. Validation of DRIS corn norms for 0& * and = using independent data of 1ut+ and
1illard "678#
Treatment kg4ha# 1eaf composition <# DRIS indices Critical
Value
diagnosis
0 * 0 * = 0 * =
"MG G 2.M2 G.2GN 2.F2 " 52N 2F
2OG G 2.7G G."6N 2.FF N 58G 2N
"MG 2N 2.78 G.2MN 2."" 52 5N 7
OG 2N 2.76 G.2NG ".66 8 5O N
"MG "GG 2.7M G.8NN ".68 5"" "N 5F
2OG "GG 2.7M G.8FN ".OM 56 "F 5N
T
Critical Values? 0@ 8.G<& * @ G.2N< and = @ ".6< ,elsted et al.& "6M6#
Table 8. ;ffect of corn crop age on DRIS and Critical Value diagnoses
$ge of
crop
days#
1eaf composition
<#
!orm of e)pression DRIS indices Critical
Value
diagnosis
0 * = 04* 04= =4* 0 * =
8G F.M G.8G 8.F "N.88 ".8N "".88 "M 582 "M nd
T
MG 8.6 G.2M 2.F "N.GG ".M8 6.28 "6 52N M nd
OG 8.F G.2F ".6 "F."7 ".76 7.62 "6 5"O 5" *
""G 8.G G.2G ".O "N.GG ".M7 6.GG 2G 52F F *& =
T
0o diagnosis possible
Table F. ;ffect of age of cane sampled on leaf composition and DRIS and Critical Value
diagnoses Data from 3ishop& "6M7#
$ge
days
1eaf composition <# DRIS indices Diagnoses
0 * = 0 * = DRIS Critical
Value
N8 2.MG G.28N ".N2 "F 5"N " * H = H0 nd
T
"G" 2.G8 G.2G2 ".F2 7 5"F 7 * H = @ 0 nd
"8N 2.O7 G.2G7 ".FO 2O 52O G * H = H 0 nd
2FG ".6M G.2G7 ".2O N 5O 8 * H = H 0 nd
26N ".7G G."7N ".22 F 5"2 O * H = H 0 0& *
8N8 ".NF G."78 ".GN 2 5N 8 * H = H 0 0& *& =

T
nd @ 0o diagnosis possible. Critical Values? 0 @ ".6<& * @ G."O< and = @ "."< Rosnell and
1ong& "67"#
Table N. ;ffect of variety on leaf composition and foliar diagnosis of sugar cane Data from
Rosnell and 1ong& "67"#
Variety 1eaf composition
<#
DRIS indices Diagnoses
0 * = 0 * = DRIS Critical Value
Co "GG" ".62 G."72 ".NM M 52N "6 * H 0 H = *
0Co 87M ".O2 G."7G ".FM N 52" "M * H 0 H = *
0N252"6 ".7O G."F ".NO 6 586 8G * H 0 H = 0& *
,8"5FN ".77 G."MN ".7G 5" 52O 26 * H 0 H = 0& *
Co FM2 ".7F G."M2 ".F6 8 52F 2" * H 0 H = 0& *
*indar ".MM G."7G ".NO 5F 52" 2N * H 0 H = 0& *
0NN5OGN ".78 G."72 ".F8 " 5"O "7 * H 0 H = 0& *
C3 FG577 ".NF G."NN ".OG 5"2 58G F2 * H 0 H = 0& *
Table M. Illustration of the use of the dry matter inde)

1eaf composition <# DRIS indices without
D,
DRIS indices with D, 0utrients
limiting
0 * = 0 * = 0 * = D,
F.NN G.FNN 8."" G G G "G O 8 52" 0(
8.6G G.86G 2.M7 G G G N F " 5"G 0(
8.2N G.82N 2.28 G G G G G G G 3$1$0C;
2.M" G.2MG ".7O G G G 5M 5N 5N "M L;S
".6M G."6N ".8F G G G 5"N 5"F 5"" F" L;S
Critical Values for corn? 0 @ 8.G<& * @ G.2N<& = @ ".6<
Table 7. Comparison if DRIS indices calculated using ratios and products for a peach crop
sampled at different times
$ge
days
1eaf composition <# DRIS indices using ratios (rder of
re'uirement
DRIS indices using products
0 * = Ca ,g 0 * = Ca ,g 0 * = Ca
8G 8.MG G.2N 2.7G ".OG G.F" " 56 "8 5" 5N *H,gHCaH0H= 5" 57 F 8
MG 8.GG G."6 2.6G 2.8G G.F7 57 52M 2F 7 2 *H0H,gHCaH= 5F 5"F "" M
6G 2.7G G."7 2.6G 2.7G G.NM 5"F 58M 2M "8 "2 *H0H,gHCaH= 57 5"O "2 O
"2G 2.NG G."N 2.OG 2.OG G.M8 5"O 5F7 2O "M 2" *H0HCaH,g.= 57 52" "F 7
"OG ".NG G."G 2.2G 8.MG G.7O 5NM 5O8 82 FN M2 *H0H=HCaH,g 5"2 522 27 N