ArticleAnnals of botany2020
High nitrogen resorption efficiency of forest mosses.
Article in Annals of botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reviewing bryophyte-microorganism association: insights into environmental optimization.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Functional traits variation and adaptive strategies of epilithic bryophytes in degraded karst ecosystem.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Is moss-associated nitrogen fixation controlled by the same factors across shoots, species and sites?Environmental and experimental botany · 2025Article
- Temperate Forest Floor Bryophytes Functionally Respond to Small-Scale Variability in Water, Light and Nutrient Availability.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- The C: N: P stoichiometry in bryophytes: relationships with habitat, climate and growth form.National science review · 2023Article
- A missing key to our understanding of forest carbon dynamics. A commentary on: 'High nitrogen resorption efficiency of forest mosses'.Annals of botany · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNutrient resorption from senescing tissue is a key mechanism for plants to conserve nutrients, and can affect the nutrient dynamics of ecosystems. Yet, our limited knowledge of nitrogen (N) resorption and release from mosses hampers our understanding of the role of mosses as N sources and, thereby, N cycling in moss-dominated ecosystems. The aims of this study were to estimate N resorption efficiency (NRE) of two moss species, identify the pathways of N release from the mosses and to provide a better understanding of N cycling and budgeting strategies of mosses.
methodsThe dynamics of N allocation along annual moss segments of two dominant moss species (Actinothuidium hookeri and Hylocomium splendens) were assessed in old-growth fir forests using an in situ15N tracer experiment. KEY
resultsThe NRE of A. hookeri and H. splendens was 61 and 52 %, respectively. While the mosses lost 23 and 33 % N from live tissues via leaching, 15 and 14 % of N remained in senesced tissues (>3 years old) in A. hookeri and H. splendens, respectively.
conclusionsBoth mosses resorbed the majority of their tissue N, but a considerable amount of N was lost from live segments. Our results highlight the crucial role mosses play as N sinks in ecosystems, since N retention (resorbed and sequestered in senescent tissue) outweighed N loss via leaching. However, the sink strength depends on temperature and precipitation, which will change in a future climate. The values for NRE, leaching, etc. estimated here can help improve biogeochemical models aiming to complete N budgets for moss-abundant ecosystems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.