1998
DOI: 10.2307/176800
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nutrients in Senesced Leaves: Comment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
10
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
3
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ranges of resorption efficiency and proficiency values reported here correspond with published reviews of efficiency (Aerts and Chapin 2000) and proficiency (Craine and Mack 1998) data. However, mean leaf N (0.8% d.w.) and P (0.05% d.w.) concentrations at the oldest site were unusually low on a global basis (Aerts and Chapin 2000), but were comparable with leaf nutrient concentrations from retrogressive forest at Cooloola, Australia (Walker et al 1981) and nutrient-poor soils in Hawaii (Vitousek et al 1995).…”
Section: Leaf and Litter Nutrient Concentrationssupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The ranges of resorption efficiency and proficiency values reported here correspond with published reviews of efficiency (Aerts and Chapin 2000) and proficiency (Craine and Mack 1998) data. However, mean leaf N (0.8% d.w.) and P (0.05% d.w.) concentrations at the oldest site were unusually low on a global basis (Aerts and Chapin 2000), but were comparable with leaf nutrient concentrations from retrogressive forest at Cooloola, Australia (Walker et al 1981) and nutrient-poor soils in Hawaii (Vitousek et al 1995).…”
Section: Leaf and Litter Nutrient Concentrationssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Resorption efficiency is the proportion of fresh leaf nutrients resorbed prior to leaf fall; these data were calculated for each individual sampled. Efficiency and proficiency provide complementary insights into the process of resorption (Killingbeck 1996;Craine and Mack 1998;Van Heerwaarden et al 2003) and so both have been presented here.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For cases where there were no significant differences between life forms in slope and intercept, we only report estimates of the common slope and intercept for all life forms. We also differentiate between resorption proficiency of an individual, i.e., [nutrient] sen , and the potential resorption proficiency (sensu Killingbeck 1996) of a functional group, which is an estimate of the lowest levels to which nutrients are reduced in senesced leaves for the functional group as a whole (Craine and Mack 1998). We used quantile regressions to quantify how ultimate potential N and P resorption proficiencies changed with green leaf nutrient concentrations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These species were first classified as either deciduous (DB) or evergreen species. Since many leaf traits vary continuously with leaf life span (Reich et al, 1992;Wright et al, 2004), Craine and Mack (1998) argued that evergreen species with a short leaf life span (<1.5 years) might be more similar to deciduous species than to evergreen species with longer life span (>1.5 years). Therefore, based on a previous leaf longevity study in this area (Wang et al, 2000), we further divided the evergreen species into two age classes: broad-leaved evergreen species with life span <1.5 years (EBS) and those with life span >1.5 years (EBL).…”
Section: Study Area and Species Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%