The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nutrient retranslocation in temperate conifers
Abstract
Controversy exists about the relationship between retranslocation from leaves and uptake from soil in the mineral nutrition of trees. Evidence is presented to show that uncertainty has arisen partly because the significance of retranslocation from young leaves has been overlooked. Retranslocated nutrients are important for the production of new tissues at all stages of development from the seedling to the mature tree. Retranslocation is not, as has been thought, primarily associated with senescence and late stages in stand development. The key variables that determine the amount and rate of retranslocation in trees are the rates of nutrient uptake and growth. The amount and rate of retranslocation increase as tree growth rate increases, indicating that soil and environmental factors that promote growth also promote nutrient retranslocation. Retranslocation efficiency is increased by high soil fertility and rapid nutrient uptake and growth. Knowledge of the relationships between nutrient uptake and nutrient retranslocation should facilitate the development of simple models of whole-tree growth. Because nutrient retranslocation is driven by shoot growth rather than by nutrient supply in the soil, there is continual competition among shoots for internal nutrient reserves. This has implications for models describing shoot growth and crown development. Research on gas exchange processes in the crown should pay greater attention to the highly dynamic nature of nutrients in foliage.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Chapin, F. S., & Kedrowski, R. A. (1983) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1937083 · Cited by 730
Water stress integral--a link between short-term stress and long-term growth
Myers, B. J. (1988) · Tree Physiology · doi:10.1093/treephys/4.4.315 · Cited by 370
Nutrient use efficiency in evergreen and deciduous species from heathlands
Aerts, R. (1990) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00329765 · Cited by 322
Do nutrients retranslocate from fine roots?
Nambiar, E. K. S. (1987) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/x87-143 · Cited by 141
Self-citationApproaches to studying nutrient uptake, use and loss in plants
Chapin, F. S., & Cleve, K. V. (1989) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2221-1_10 · Cited by 133
Interplay between nutrients, water, root growth and productivity in young plantations
Nambiar, E. K. S. (1990) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/0378-1127(90)90138-2 · Cited by 123
Self-citationNUTRITION AND NUTRITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS OF PINUS RADIATA
Turner, J., & Lambert, M. J. (1986) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.001545 · Cited by 99
Nutrient cycling in forests of the Pacific Northwest
Johnson, D. W., Cole, D. W., Bledsoe, C. S., et al. (1982) · Stroudsburg, Pa. : Hutchinson Ross Pub. Co. ; [New York] : distributed worldwide by Academic Press eBooks · Cited by 21
Cited by
Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems
GILL, R. A., & JACKSON, R. B. (2000) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00681.x · Cited by 1,300
Metadata
- Authors
- Nambiar, E. K. S., & Fife, D. N.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-07-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 185-207
- ISSN
- 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-4469
- OpenAlex
- W2116008714
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 9.11
- 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: Nutrient retranslocation in temperate conifers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/9.1-2.185
- The paper
- Nambiar, E. K. S., & Fife, D. N. (1991). Nutrient retranslocation in temperate conifers. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/9.1-2.185
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.