Biomass production and allocation, including fine-root turnover, and annual N uptake in lysimeter-grown basket willows
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Variable fractions of willow biomass can be found belowground dependent on stand age and soil texture; 48-58% of total biomass was allocated in the first year and 40% in succeeding years.
“Variable fractions of willow biomass can be found belowground dependent on stand age and soil texture [58]; 48–58 % of total biomass was allocated in the first year and 40 % allocated in succeeding years [26].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [58]
The longevity of fine willow roots can range between 55 and 350 days.
“The longevity of fine willow roots can range between 55 and 350 days [32, 58, 83].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [58]
Coarse roots represent a variable fraction of the root biomass (10 and 40%), but much smaller values emerged recently.
“Coarse roots (CR) represent a variable fraction of the root biomass (10 and 40 %; [58, 99]), but much smaller values emerged recently [82].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [58]
Within the short-rotation coppice data, there is more quantitative evidence from poplar than for willow.
“Within the SRC data, there is more quantitative evidence from poplar [60, 72, 78, 79, 99, 109] than for willow [58, 111, 131].”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [58]
Fine willow and poplar roots were characterised by a high turnover rate.
“However, fine willow [58] and poplar roots [81] were characterised by a high turnover rate (Table 2).”
From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [58]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Rytter, R.-M.
- Affiliations
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Rytter, Rose-Marie
- ORCID
- Rytter, Rose-Marie
- Venue
- Forest Ecology and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 140
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 177-192
- ISSN
- 0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049487039
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 3.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Keywords
- Salix viminalis, net primary productivity, nitrogen uptake, biomass allocation, fine root turnover, substrate effects, minirhizotron, root dynamics, nitrogen fertilization, forest structure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
