Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31091637›Full record

SynthesisEnvironmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)2019

A synthesis of ecosystem management strategies for forests in the face of chronic nitrogen deposition.

Christopher M Clark, Jennifer Richkus, Phillip W Jones, Jennifer Phelan, Douglas A Burns, Wim de Vries, Enzai Du, Mark E Fenn, Laurence Jones, Shaun A Watmough

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christopher M ClarkUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, 20460, USA. Electronic address: clark.christopher@epa.gov.
Jennifer RichkusRTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Rd, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Phillip W JonesRTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Rd, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Jennifer PhelanRTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Rd, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Douglas A BurnsUS Geological Survey New York Water Science Center, 425 Jordan Road, Troy, NY, 12180, USA.
Wim de VriesWageningen University and Research, Environmental Systems Analysis Group, PO Box 47, 6700AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Enzai DuState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China.
Mark E FennUSDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA, 92507, USA.
Laurence JonesCentre for Ecology & Hydrology, Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Rd, Bangor, LL57 2UW, United Kingdom.
Shaun A WatmoughSchool of the Environment, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, K9L 0G2, Canada.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Total nitrogen (N) deposition has declined in many parts of the U.S. and Europe since the 1990s. Even so, it appears that decreased N deposition alone may be insufficient to induce recovery from the impacts of decades of elevated deposition, suggesting that management interventions may be necessary to promote recovery. Here we review the effectiveness of four remediation approaches (prescribed burning, thinning, liming, carbon addition) on three indicators of recovery from N deposition (decreased soil N availability, increased soil alkalinity, increased plant diversity), focusing on literature from the U.S. We reviewed papers indexed in the Web of Science since 1996 using specific key words, extracted data on the responses to treatment along with ancillary data, and conducted a meta-analysis using a three-level variance model structure. We found 69 publications (and 2158 responses) that focused on one of these remediation treatments in the context of N deposition, but only 29 publications (and 408 responses) reported results appropriate for our meta-analysis. We found that carbon addition was the only treatment that decreased N availability (effect size: -1.80 to -1.84 across metrics), while liming, thinning, and prescribed burning all tended to increase N availability (effect sizes: +0.4 to +1.2). Only liming had a significant positive effect on soil alkalinity (+10.5%-82.2% across metrics). Only prescribed burning and thinning affected plant diversity, but with opposing and often statistically marginal effects across metrics (i.e., increased richness, decreased Shannon or Simpson diversity). Thus, it appears that no single treatment is effective in promoting recovery from N deposition, and combinations of treatments should be explored. These conclusions are based on the limited published data available, underscoring the need for more studies in forested areas and more consistent reporting suitable for meta-analyses across studies.

Indexed as

ForestsCarbonEcosystemEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationEuropeNitrogenPlantsSoilSoil MicrobiologyCarbonNitrogenSoilForest managementNitrogen depositionPlant diversitySoil aciditySoil nitrogen availability

Identifiers

PMID31091637
PMCPMC13047610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.