Various aspects of analysis, interpretation and diagnosis of nutrient status using PCA, CND-clr and CND-ilr methods (a case study on sugar beet)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Soil and Water Research Institute (SWRI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

2 Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.

10.22092/ijsr.2026.371888.808

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Optimizing fertilizer use through plant analysis requires robust nutrient standards based on growth stage and a thorough understanding of nutrient interactions (the plant ionome). Statistical methods based on Compositional Data Analysis (CDA)—such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis (CND)—overcome major limitations of single-factor approaches, provided they minimize bias in result interpretation. In this study, nutrient concentrations and root yield data from 170 sugar beet fields were compared using three models: PCA, CND-clr, and CND-ilr. This research aims to: (1) introduce the theoretical foundations of PCA, CND-clr, and CND-ilr; (2) validate nutrient indices through two interpretive  approaches (minimum limit-maximum limit, LMi-LMa, and lower limit-upper limit, LL-LU) within the CND-clr model; (3) derive critical concentrations and sufficiency ranges using CND-clr indices; (4) validate CND-ilr reference standards and compare them with other models; and (5) assess nutrient status using PCA and compare it with CND-clr and CND-ilr.
 

 



Materials and Methods: Leaf concentrations of N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu, along with root yield, were collected from 170 sugar beet farms in Khuzestan Province, southwestern Iran. Leaf samples were taken from plants aged 90–120 days, washed, oven-dried at 65 °C for 48 h, ground, and sieved. Nutrients were analyzed using standard laboratory methods: micro-Kjeldahl for N, spectrophotometry for P, flame photometry for K, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry for Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu. At harvest, average root yield per hectare was recorded. The study area soils had a saturated extract pH of 7.5–7.8, salinity <1 dS m⁻¹, lime content of 30–50%, and silty loam to silty clay loam textures.
Results: Principal Component Analysis using absolute nutrient concentrations showed that four components explained approximately 85 % of the total variance (eigenvalues > 1). In the first principal component (PC1), potassium, zinc, and copper exhibited the highest positive correlations, while nitrogen showed the highest negative correlation with root yield. However, interpreting nutrient status based on the nutrient index (IX) within the PCA framework led to bias. In contrast, the same nutrient index produced unbiased results when used with Pearson correlation. Consequently, PCA is capable of prioritizing nutrient–yield correlations at a macro scale (regional level) but lacks standard criteria for plot, farm, or orchard scale evaluation. Using the CND-clr method, critical concentrations and sufficiency ranges for N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu were established. Validation of these standards on multiple farms using the two approaches revealed that the lower limit-upper limit (LL-LU) approach is more stringent than the minimum-maximum (LMi-LMa) approach. After determining CND-ilr reference standards, farm level validation effectively detected nutrient balances indicating synergistic and antagonistic effects, with the CND-ilr method providing the most diagnostically informative outputs. Comparative analysis demonstrated that both CND-clr and CND-ilr, supported by credible reference standards, are capable of assessing plant nutritional status at both micro scale (individual field) and macro scale (regional) levels.

 



Conclusion: PCA is a valuable tool for macro scale prioritization of nutrient yield correlations, but its lack of micro scale evaluation standards limits its application at the farm level. By contrast, the CND-clr and CND-ilr methods, equipped with robust reference standards, effectively assess nutrient status across both spatial scales. Critical concentrations and sufficiency ranges for N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu were determined as reference standards indicative of nutrient interactions. The LL-LU validation approach proved more stringent than LMi-LMa. Furthermore, the CND-ilr method enabled a more accurate diagnosis of synergistic and antagonistic nutrient interactions, making it particularly suitable for site-specific nutrient management.

 

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Aitchison J. and M. Greenacre. 2002. “Biplots of Compositional Data,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C Applied, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 375-392. DOI: 1111/1467-9876.00275
  2. Aitchison, J. 1986. Statistical analysis of compositional data. Chapman and Hall, New York
  3. Basirat M., Akhyani A., Daryashenas A.M (2016). Estimation of nutrient reference for Shahroudi grape variety using Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis (CND) method, Journal of soil research, 30 (1), (in Persian) doi:22092/ijsr.2016.106306
  4. Baxter I. R., Vitek O., Lahner B., Muthukumar B., Borghi M., Morrissey J., et al. 2008. The leaf ionome as a multivariable system to detect a plant’s physiological status. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(33):12081-6.
  5. Bergmann, W. 1988. Ernährungs-störungen bei Kulturpflanzen. 2. Auflage. Gustav Fischer.
  6. Chapman, H. D., and P. F. Pratt. 1978. Method of Analysis for Soil and Water. 2nd Ed., Chapter 17, p. 150-161. Uni. Calif.
  7. Cheraghi, M., Motesharezadeh, B. and Alikhani, H.A., 2020. Nutritional and morpho-physiological responses of tomato plant (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) affected by biological and chemical fertilizers. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research51(10), pp.2559-2574.
  8. Daryashenas A.M., and Saghafi K, (2011). Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis(CND) in sugar beet”, Journal of soil research, 25 (1), (in Persian) doi: 22092/ijsr.2011.126454
  9. Daryashenas A.M., Basirat M., Paknejad A. R. and Daryashenas S. (2017). Compositional Data Analysis Method for Diagnosing Micronutrients Status of Fall Sugar Beet with the approach of “Nutrients Balance”, Journal of soil research, 31 (4), pp 497- 509. (in Persian)  doi:22092/ijsr.2018.115840
  10. Daryashenas A.M., Saghafi K, and Davoodi M. H. (2020). Diagnosis of Macro and Micro Nutrients Balance in Sugar Beet Using Mahalanobis Distance, Aitchison Distance, and Pan Balance, Journal of soil research, 34 (2), (in Persian) doi:10.22092/ijsr.2020.122634
  11. Egozcue, J. J., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V., Mateu-Figueras, G., and Barceló-Vidal, C. 2003. Isometric log ratio transformations for compositional data analysis 1. Geol. 35, 279–300.
  12. Emami, A. 1996. Plant Analysis Methods. Soil and Water Research Institute. Technical Publication No. 982, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian).
  13. Ghaderi, J. Akhiani, A. Khalkhal, Kamal. 2025. Nutritional status analysis of sugar beet in Shahroud county using the Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis (CND) Journal of Soil Research/Volume 38/Number 4.https://doi.org/10.22092/ijsr.2025.368423.768 
  14. Greenacre, M., Patrick J. F. Groenen, Trevor Hastie, Alfonso Iodice d’Enza, Angelos Markos, and Elena Tuzhilina (2023). Principal Component Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366501387_Principal_component_analysis#fullTextFileContent
  15. Helrich, K. 1990. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Association of official analytical chemists.
  16. Hemke, P. H. Spark, D. L. Dl, et al. 1996. Potassium. 551–74. Sparks Method of soil analysis. Published by: Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc.
  17. Isaac, R. A., and J. D. Kerber. 1971. Atomic absorption and flame photometry: Techniques and uses in soil, plant, and water analysis. In: Walsh, L.M., (Ed.), Instrumental Methods for Analysis of Soil and Plant Tissues, 17-37. Madison: SSSA
  18. Jackson, J. (2016). Learn Excel Basics with Quick Examples (excel 2016, excel 2013, excel vba, Excel 2016, Excel Charts, Excel project, MS Excel, MS Excel book, spreadsheet excel) Vol. Volume 1 (North Charleston, SC, United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform), pp 128.
  19. Khademi, Z., Mohajermilani, P., Balali, M.R., Dorodi, M.S., Shahbazi, K. and Malakouti, M.J., 2001. A comprehensive computer model for fertilizer recommendation towards sustainable agriculture. Soil and Water Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.(In Persian, abstract in English).
  20. Khiari, L., L.E. Parent, and N. Tremblay. 2001. Critical compositional nutrient indexes for sweet corn at early growth stage. J. 93:809–814. doi: 10.2134/agronj2001.934809x
  21. Malavolta, E. Manual de nutrição de plantas. 2006. Pav. Chimica, ESALQ and Ed. Agron. CERES, São Paulo, Brazil, 631 p.
  22. Marschner, P. 2011. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd Edn. London: Academic Press.
  23. Melo G.W., Rozane, D.E., and Brunetto G. (2018) Identification of the critical levels, sufficiency ranges and potential response to nutrient fertilization in vineyards by the DRIS method. Acta Hortic. 1217. ISHS 2018. Proc. VIII International Symposium on Mineral Nutrition of Fruit Crops Eds.: T. Mimmo, Y. Pii and F. Scandellari. DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1217.55
  24. Modesto Viviane Cristina, Serge-Étienne Parent, William Natale, and Léon Etienne Parent. 2014. Foliar Nutrient Balance Standards for Maize (Zea mays L.) at High-Yield Level. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2014, 5, 497-507.
  25. Parent Serge-Étienne, Philip Barlow and Léon E. Parent1. 2012b. Balance-based Nutrient Diagnosis of New Zealand kiwifruit orchards. Available at:://www.biosoil.co.nz/vdb/document/6.
  26. Parent, L. E .2011. Diagnosis of the nutrient compositional space of fruit crops. Bras. Frutic. vol.33 no.1 Jaboticabal Mar. 2011. [Online]. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100- 29452011000100041.
  27. Pawlosky-Glahn, V.; Egozcue, J.J. 2008. Compositional data and Simpson's paradox. Codawork. In: Com positional analysis workshop, 3. 2008. Girona, Disponível. [Online]. Available at:  
  28. Rezaei, A. 1997. Concepts of Statistics and Probability, Mashhad Publication. (in Persian)
  29. Ross, S.M. 1987. Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  30. Rozane, D.E., Paula, B.V., Melo, G.W.B.; Santos, E.M.H.; Trentin, E.; Marchezan, C.; Silva, L.O.S.; Tassinari, A.; Dotto, L.; and Oliveira, F.N. Compositional nutrient diagnosis (CND) applied to grapevines grown in subtropical climate region. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6030056
  31. Tadayon, M.S., Saghafi, K., and Sadeghi, S. Applying the compositional nutrient diagnosis (CND) to pomegranate (Punica granatum cv. ‘Rabab’) under saline and calcareous soil condition. Plant Nutr. 2023, 46, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2022.2067762
  32. Wild, D. J. (2005). MINITAB release 14. doi: 10.1021/ci040130h
  33. Zolfi Bavariani M., Ghaffarinejad, S. A. and M. Nowroozi, M. (2022). Evaluation of Nutritional Status and Priority of Nutrients Requirement of Tomato by Compositional Nutrient Diagnosis Method in Bushehr Province. Journal of soil research, 36 (1), (in Persian). doi:10.22092/ijsr.2022.126889