Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of defoliation on grass growth. A quantitative review

Ferraro, Diego O., Oesterheld, Martín·2002·Oikos

Abstract

The diversity of responses of individual grasses to defoliation created a controversy about 15 years ago, which still needs clarification. We quantitatively assessed the evidence of defoliation effects on individual grass growth, addressing two main questions: 1) what is the average and variability of the effect of defoliation on plant growth? and 2) what are the associated conditions accounting for the diversity of effects? Regarding the first question, the results showed a negative overall effect of defoliation on plant growth and substantial variability in the defoliation responses of different plant components. There was an intermediate negative effect on total production (which included clipped‐off biomass), a large negative effect on final live biomass at harvest, and a minimal effect on root biomass. Regarding the second question (conditions accounting for the diversity of effects), defoliation intensity had no effect on the response to defoliation, but both time for recovery from the last defoliation and the period of time between defoliation events significantly decreased the negative effect of defoliation. Nitrogen availability also altered the effect of defoliation, as plants grown at highest nitrogen levels were more negatively affected by clipping than plants with no supplementary addition of nitrogen. These results indicate that the magnitude of defoliation response by an individual plant differs among plant compartments and this response is modulated by other factors, such as time for recovery after defoliation, and nutrient availability. In general, the effect of defoliation on individual plant production was more negative than reported effects of grazing on ecosystem primary production.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980113.x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Ferraro, D. O., & Oesterheld, M.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
125-133
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2136129986
Cited by
309
References
44
FWCI
20.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of defoliation on grass growth. A quantitative review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980113.x
The paper
Ferraro, D. O., & Oesterheld, M. (2002). Effect of defoliation on grass growth. A quantitative review. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980113.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.