This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 07 October 2013, At: 21:43

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil
Science and Plant Analysis
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Proposed modifications
of the diagnosis and
recommendation integrated
system (DRIS) for
interpreting plant analyses
a
C.A. Jones
a
USDA , SEA‐AR , P. O. Box 748, Temple, TX,
75601, USA
Published online: 11 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: C.A. Jones (1981) Proposed modifications of the diagnosis
and recommendation integrated system (DRIS) for interpreting plant analyses,
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 12:8, 785-794

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103628109367194

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
 or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013
 COMMUN. IN SOIL SCI. PLANT ANAL., 12(8), 785-794 (1981)

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE DIAGNOSIS

AND RECOMMENDATION INTEGRATED SYSTEM (DRIS)
FOR INTERPRETING PLANT ANALYSES
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

KEY WORDS; Nutrient element diagnosis

C. A. Jones
USDA, SEA-AR, P. 0. Box 748, Temple, TX 75601, USA

ABSTRACT
The Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS)
is a unique method of interpreting plant analyses. DRIS includes
a number of assumptions which distinguish it from "critical
concentration" approaches, the most important being that ratios
of nutrient element concentrations are often better indicators
of nutrient deficiency than are simple nutrient element concen-
trations. Though several workers have shown that DRIS often
produces more accurate diagnoses of nutrient element deficiency
than conventional approaches, the complexity of the DRIS method-
ology has discouraged its use. This paper offers three modifi-
cations of the DRIS methodology which can simplify its use and
interpretation. These include simplified calculation of inter-
mediate functions, modified parameter selection, and modified
criteria for predicting response to additional fertilizer.

INTRODUCTION
The Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System is a
method of diagnosing nutrient element deficiencies and imbal-
785

Copyright © 1981 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.

 786 JONES

ances from the mineral composition of plant tissue. DRIS often

produces more accurate d- .gnoses than conventional systems of
plant analysis based on "critical concentrations" or "normal
2-13
ranges" of tissue nutrient concentration.
DRIS is 'based on several assumptions concerning the way in
2 3
which the nutrient status of the tissue affects crop yield. '
These assumptions are summarized below:
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

(1) Ratios of nutrient element concentratiens are often

better indicators of nutrient deficiencies than are
single nutrient element concentrations.
(2) Some nutrient element concentration ratios are more
important than others.
(3) Maximum crop yields are attainable only when the
values of important ratios approach an optimum value,
which is approximately the mean value of the ratio in
a selected high-yielding (or otherwise desirable)
population.
(4) Since important ratios must approach their optimum
values for high yields to be attained, the variance of
an important ratio is smaller in a high-yielding
population than a low-yielding population. The ratio
of the variance of a high-yielding population to its
low-yielding counterpart can be used to select im-
portant ratios.
(5) A DRIS index can be calculated for each nutrient
element. This index is based on the mean deviation of
each important ratio (in which that nutrient element is
either the numerator or denominator) from its optimum
value. Thus, the optimum DRIS index for any nutrient
element ie 0.0. Negative indexes indicate deficiency,
and positive indexes indicate sufficiency.
3
Not since DRIS was fully described has a systematic
effort been made to analyze critically the assumptions and
methods of calculation used in DRIS. The objective of this
paper is to evaluate assumptions 2, A, and 5, and suggest modifi-
cations which will simplify DRIS and faciltate its use.
METHODS
The data base for this study consisted of 524 tissue
samples of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid, cv. H59-3775)
 INTERPRETATING PLANT ANALYSIS 787

collected on the windward side of the island of Hawaii at Puna

Sugar Co. from 1977 to 1979 according to methods described by
Clements. Sugar and cane yields were obtained from the same
fields as those in which tissue samples were taken.
Because field yield data were considered inadequate for
determination of "desirable" and "undesirable" populations, a
two-step classification of individual samples was performed.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

For a particular sample to be included in the desirable popu-

lation the sugar-free dry weight of leaf sheaths 3-6 had to be
greater than 58 g and the sugar yield of that field had to be
greater than 0.90 tons sugar per ha per month. Tissue samples
included in the undesirable population were those which failed
to satisfy either of the two criteria. The desirable and
undesirable populations consisted of 95 and 170 samples, respec-
tively; 259 samples failed to qualify for either population.
Experiments used to evaluate nutrient diagnoses included
Puna Sugar Company experiments 166, 180, 187, 190, 194, 198, and
206 (unpublished data, Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Assoc.) as well
as Pauhau TVA Slag and Second Kilauea TVA Slag, Hakalau Mauka-
13, and Pepeekeo Experiment. The last three experiments were
conducted elsewhere on the windward side of the island of Hawaii
and provided additional treatments for more adequte comparison
of diagnostic techniques.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The following sections discuss several aspects of the DRIS
methodology and suggest modifications which will facilitate its
use.
Calculation of Intermediate Functions
According to DRIS, each ratio of nutrient concentrations
is a parameter which can be used to evaluate the nutritional
status of the plant. For a parameter, i, an optimum value, M.,
exists and is equal to the mean value of that parameter in a
selected "desirable" population. DRIS provides a means of
 788 JONES

comparing the value of parameter i in a tissue sample, S^, with

the optimum value of that parameter, M.. The following equations
are used in the comparison.
When S > M.,

then, T± = ((S^/M^ - l)/(0.01 CV ± ) , [1]

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

and when S. < M.,

then, F ± = (1 - (M1/Si))/(0.01 C V ± ) , [2]

where CV. is the coefficient of variation (expressed in percent)

of parameter i in the desirable population. When S. > M., the
intermediate function, F., is positive; when S. < M., F. is
negative. Thus, the sign of F. is determined by whether S. is
greater than or less than M., and the absolute value of F. is
influenced by both the difference between M. and S. and by the
variability of parameter i in the desirable population. Con-
3
stants other than 0.01 can be used without affecting the
general validity of the method.
Equation [1] can be rewritten as:

F ± = ((S ± - M 1 )/M 1 )/(SD i /M ± ) [3]

which can be simplified to:

F = (S
i i ~ Mi)/(SDi)' t4]

where SD^ is the standard deviation of parameter i in the

desirable population. However, equation [2] cannot be reduced
to [4] since its expanded form is:

F ± = ((S ± - M i )/S i )/(SD i /M 1 ). [5]

 INTERPRETATING PLANT ANALYSIS 789

By examining equations [1], [2], [3], and [5], it can be

seen that [2] systematically overestimates the deviation of S.
from M. when S. < M. because (S. - M.) is divided by the smaller
value, S., rather than the mean value, M., which is used in
equation 13J. Thus, the two-equation system of calculating
intermediate DRIS functions described in Beaufils (2) over-
estimates F. when S. < M.. I suggest that equation [4] be used
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

to calculate F., regardless of the relative values of S. and

M.. Just as in the two-equation system, F. will be negative
when S± < M±, and it will be positive when S^^ > M ± . In addition,
use of equation [4] simplifies the logic and calculations of
DRIS.
The methodological change suggested above was used in all
subsequent analyses.
Parameter Selection
One of the most important concepts in DRIS is that some
parameters (ratios of nutrient concentrations) are important
factors which influence yields while other parameters have
3
little or no influence on yields. It is assumed that the
"important" parameters are those in which the variance of the
desirable population is significantly lower than that of an
2 3
"undesirable" population. Beaufils ' has shown that highest
yields are obtained only when the values of important parameters
approach their optima.
When only a few major nutrients are included in the DRIS
analysis, the quality of the data base is adequate, and the
difference in the desirable and undesirable populations is
great, all parameters normally fulfill the criteria for param-
3
eter selection described above. However, we have found (C. A.
Jones, C. R. Escano, J. E. Bowen, unpublished data) that in
maize and sugarcane, parameter means of the two populations may
be significantly different even though the variances of the two
populations are not significantly different. For example, Table
 790 JONES

1 shows that for sugarcane (cv. H59-3775) at Puna Sugar Company

the variances of the two populations were significantly differ-
ent for 19 of 36 parameters, but the means of the two popu-
lations were significantly different for 33 of 36 parameters.

TABLE 1
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

Significance of Differences between Means and Variances of

Desirable and Undesirable Populations of Sugarcane cv. H59-
3775 at Puna Sugar Co. N = 80 for the Desirable Population
and 170 for Undesirable Population.

Parameter Variance Mean Parameter Variance Mean

Ca/Mg ns Mn/N * A
ns
Ca/Mn *f 4 Mn/KH20 A A

Ca/Si ns * Mn/API A A

Ca/S ns Si/S A A

Ca/B ns * Si/B ns A

Ca/N ns Si/N ns ns
Ca/KH20 ns Si/KH20 ns A

Ca/API * * Si/API A A

Mg/Mn * A S/B A A

Mg/Si ns * S/N A A

Mg/S ns S/KH20 A A

Mg/B ns * S/API A A

Mg/N ns A B/N ns A

Mg/KH20 * A B/KH20 ns ns
Mg/API * A B/AP1 A A

Mn/Si * A N/K ns A

Mn/S * A N/API ns A

Mn/B * A KH20/API A A

t Significant at the 0.05 level by the F test.

T Significant at the 0.05 level by the t test.
 INTEEPRETATING PLANT ANALYSIS 791

In this case, if only variances are used to determine

important parameters only two parameters (Ca/Mn, and Ca/API)
would be used to calculate the Ca index, and two (Mn/N and S/N)
would be used to calculate the N index. If both variances and
means are used to determine important parameters, seven param-
eters would be used to calculate the Ca and N indexes. The use
of only two ratios to calculate a DRIS index would make that
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

index highly dependent on the tissue concentrations of the other

elements used in the parameters. For example, an abnormally
high tissue concentration of Mn could have an important effect
on the DRIS index for N, even when the ratios of N to other
elements are near normal.
Differences in parameter means between desirable and un-
desirable populations should be as indicative of the importance
of a parameter as differences between parameter variances. In
addition, use of both means and variances to determine important
parameters increases the number of important parameters, espe-
cially when the sizes of desirable and undesirable populations
are small. This reduces the influence of abnormal concentrations
of one element on the DRIS indexes of other elements. There-
fore, I suggest that a parameter be considered important when
either the means or the variances of that parameter is signifi-
cantly different between the two populations.
Population Size and Parameter Number
The method of selecting desirable and undesirable popu-
lations and the sizes of those populations influence the signifi-
cance of differences of the means and variances of the two
populations. Increasing the sizes of the desirable and undesir-
able populations (and/or selecting widely different populations
in terms of yield or other criteria) will normally increase the
number of parameters which are found to be significantly differ-
ent between those populations. For example, in preliminary
studies (unpublished) the author and J. E. Bowen found that at
 792 JONES

Mauna Kea Sugar Company (windward side, island of Hawaii) when

the desirable and undesirable populations consisted of 201 and
195 samples, respectively, the variances or means of 35' of 36
parameters were significantly different between the two popu-
lations. At Davies Hamakua Sugar Company (windward side, island
of Hawaii) where the desirable and undesirable populations
consisted of only 34 samples each the variances or means of only
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

14 of 36 parameters were significantly different between the two

populations. Thus, one who uses DRIS should recognize that the
number of parameters selected as "important" depends not only on
the relative importance of the parameters in determining yield
but also on the sizes of the desirable and undesirable popu-
lations.
Criteria for Predicting Yield Response
DRIS produces an index of the relative adequacy or defi-
ciency of each nutrient used in the calculation of the param-
eters. This index is analogous to a tissue concentration of the
nutrient element in that it is used to predict the response of
the plant to additional fertilizer. One of the presumed advan-
tages of DRIS compared with critical concentration approaches is
that, in contrast to nutrient element concentrations, DRIS
indexes of the various nutrient elements are directly compara-
ble. This allows the "most limiting" nutrient element to be
2 3
chosen. ' However, several nutrient,elements are often deficient
and yield may increase in response to addition of nutrient
elements other than that which is most limiting. Table 2 illus-
trates that the lowest percentage of incorrect diagnoses was
obtained when a positive yield response was predicted whenever
the DRIS index of a nutrient element was less than 0.0. Thus,
yield responses can be expected whenever the DRIS index of a
nutrient is negative. The magnitude of that response will
depend on other factors such as the degree of deficiency of the
nutrient element and the presence of other nutrient element
deficiencies and climatic stresses.
 INTERPRETATING PLANT ANALYSIS 793

TABLE 2

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy using Three Criteria for

Predicting Yield Response: (1) Response Predicted Only to the
Nutrient Element with the Most Negative DRIS Index, (2) Response
Predicted Only to the Two Nutrient Elements with the Most
Negative Indexes, and (3) Respones Predicted to Any Nutrient
Element with a Negative Index.
Nutrient
Element Result Most Negative Two Most Index Less
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

Diagnosed Index Negative Than 0.0

N Correct 10 12 12
Incorrect 6 4 4
K Correct 14 15 13
Incorrect 4 3 5

P, Ca, Correct 8 8 16
or Si Incorrect 14 14 6
All Percent 43 38 27
Incorrect

CONCLUSIONS
The DRIS approach to plant analysis interpretation often
produces more accurate diagnoses of nutrient element deficien-
cies and imbalances than critical concentration approaches;
however, the complexity of the DRIS methodology has limited its
use. This paper proposes that the DRIS methodology can be
simplified without reducing the accuracy of diagnoses. The
proposed modifications include: (a) simplifying the method of
calculating intermediate DRIS functions, (b) using both the mean
and the variance of desirable and undesirable populations to
select important parameters, and (c) predicting yield response
to additional fertilizer whenever the DRIS index for the nutrient
element falls below 0.0. The proposed modifications have
facilitated the use of DRIS in the Hawaiian sugar industry.
 794 JONES

Similar comparisons elsewhere are needed to verify their general

applicability.

REFERENCES

1. Formerly Associate Agronomist, Hawaiian Sugar. Planters'

Association, P. 0. Box 1057, Aiea, HI 96701, USA.
2. Beaufils, E. R. 1971. Physiological diagnosis--a guide
for improving maize production based on principles develop-
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:43 07 October 2013

ed for rubber trees. Fert. Soc. S. Afr. J. 1:130.

3. Beaufils, E. R. 1973. Diagnosis and Recommendation
Integrated System (DRIS). A general scheme for experi-
mentation and calibration based on principles developed
from research in plant nutrition. Soil Sci. Bull. No. 1,
Univ. of Natal, S. Afr.
4. Beaufils, E. R. and M. E. Sumner. 1976. Application of
the DRIS approach for calibrating soil and plant factors in
their effects on yield of sugarcane. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar
Tech. Assoc. 50:118-124.
5. Beaufils, E. R. and M. E. Sumner. 1977. Effect of time of
sampling on the diagnosis of the N, P, K, Ca, and Mg
requirement of sugarcane by the DRIS approach. Proc. S.
Afr. Sugar Tech. Assoc. 51:62-67.
6. Clements, H. F. 1980. Sugarcane crop logging and crop
control. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
7. Gascho, G. J. and A. M. O. El Wali. 1979. Tissue testing
of Florida sugarcane. Sugar J. 42:15-17
8. Jones, C. A. 1980. Preliminary evaluation of DRIS for
nutritional diagnosis at Puna Sugar Company. Hawaii. Sugar
Technol. Rep. 1979. pp. 110-113.
9. Sumner, M. E. 1977a. Application of Beaufil's diagnostic
indices to maize data published in the literature irrespec-
tive of age and conditions. Plant and Soil 46:359-369.
10. Sumner, M. E. 1977b. Effect of corn leaf sampled on N, P,
K, Ca, and Mg content and calculated DRIS indices. Commun,
in Soil Sci. and Plant Anal. 3:269-280.
11. Sumner, M. E. 1977c. Use of DRIS system in foliar diagno-
sis of crops at high yield levels. Commun, in Soil Sci.
and Plant Anal. 8:251-268.
12. Sumner, M. E. 1979. Interpretation of foliar diagnosis of
crops at high yield levels. Agron. J. 71:313-318.
13. Sumner, M. E. and E. R. Beaufils. 1975. Diagnosis of the
NPK requirements of sugarcane irrespective of plant age and
season using Beaufils' system (DRIS)--preliminary obser-
vations. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Assoc. 49:137-141.