The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Resource partitioning for soil phosphorus: a hypothesis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Organic phosphorus is abundant in soil and its turnover can supply a considerable fraction of the phosphorus taken up by natural vegetation. Despite this, the ecological significance of organic phosphorus remains poorly understood, which is remarkable given the biological importance of phosphorus in terrestrial environments. Of particular interest is the possibility that coexisting plant species partition soil organic phosphorus to reduce competition. This seems likely given the large number of biologically available phosphorus compounds that occur in soil and the variety of mechanisms by which plants can utilize them. Here I propose a conceptual model of resource partitioning for soil phosphorus. The model describes a hypothetical example of four coexisting plant species that differ in their ability to access soil organic phosphorus compounds, which are grouped to form a gradient of biological availability based on the processes involved in their utilization by plants. Synthesis: Resource partitioning for soil phosphorus could provide an additional mechanism to explain the coexistence and distribution of plant species. It is likely to occur widely in terrestrial environments, but should have greatest ecological significance wherever productivity is limited by the availability of soil phosphorus. This includes freshwater wetlands, super‐humid temperate regions and ecosystems developed on strongly‐weathered soils that cover vast areas of ancient landscapes in Africa, Australia and South America.
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
Cited by
Phillips, R. P., Brzostek, E., & Midgley, M. G. (2013) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12221 · Cited by 1,153
Nitrogen inputs accelerate phosphorus cycling rates across a wide variety of terrestrial ecosystems
Marklein, A. R., & Houlton, B. Z. (2012) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03967.x · Cited by 833
Phosphorus activators contribute to legacy phosphorus availability in agricultural soils: A review
Zhu, J., Li, M., & Whelan, M. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.095 · Cited by 773
Freschet, G. T., Pagès, L., Iversen, C. M., Comas, L. H., Rewald, B., Roumet, C., Klimešová, J., Zadworny, M., Poorter, H., Postma, J. A., et al. (2021) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.17572 · Cited by 668
Hinsinger, P., Betencourt, E., Bernard, L., Brauman, A., Plassard, C., Shen, J., Tang, X., & Zhang, F. (2011) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.111.175331 · Cited by 474
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, B. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-06-10
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 698-702
- ISSN
- 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2745
- OpenAlex
- W1989177893
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Resource partitioning for soil phosphorus: a hypothesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01384.x
- The paper
- Turner, B. L. (2008). Resource partitioning for soil phosphorus: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01384.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.