ArticleOecologia2025
Assessing carbon and nitrogen economics in temperate forests through the relationship between foliar nutrient resorption and root production.
Article in Oecologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plants both respond to and influence their immediate soil environment, which can yield divergent predictions regarding plant economics and trait coordination. Tree species with high foliar nitrogen (N) resorption efficiency (NRE)-an important N conservation strategy-may invest less carbon (C) belowground to acquire soil-derived N. This "tree perspective" hypothesis predicts a negative relationship between NRE and root production. Alternatively, high NRE reduces litter N concentrations, which can reduce soil N availability, requiring trees to invest more C belowground to get N. This "soil perspective" hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between NRE and root production. We test these hypotheses and then examine how NRE relates to foliar and litter N in three natural forests (~ 80-120-year-old trees; 12 species) and one common garden (~ 25-year-old trees; 9 species) in the eastern U.S. NRE was weakly and positively related to root production at the common garden, supporting our "soil perspective" hypothesis that litter-soil nutrient feedbacks drive a positive relationship between NRE and root production. There was no relationship between NRE and root production at the natural forest sites, providing no evidence for our "tree perspective" hypothesis, which purports that NRE is negatively related to root production given competition between roots and leaves for C. NRE was positively related to foliar N but negatively related to litter N, illustrating that NRE is an important physiological trait linking aboveground nutrient use with litter-soil nutrient feedbacks. These findings suggest that plant economics and the cost of soil N acquisition contribute to local-scale nutrient cycling in temperate forests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40323537What 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.