The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Contributions of fine root production and turnover to the carbon and nitrogen cycling in taiga forests of the Alaskan interior
Abstract
Fine root production and turnover were studied in hardwood and coniferous taiga forests using three methods. (1) Using soil cores, fine root production ranged from 1574 ± 76 kg•ha−1•year−1 in the upland white spruce (Piceaglauca (Moench) Voss) stand to 4386 ± 322 kg•ha−1•year−1 in the floodplain balsam poplar (Populusbalsamifera L.) stand, accounting for 49% of total production for coniferous stands and 32% of total production for deciduous stands. Fine root turnover rates were higher in floodplain (0.90 ± 0.06 year−1) stands than in upland (0.42 ± 0.10 year−1) stands. Across all sites, the ratio of fine root turnover to litter fall averaged 2.2 for biomass and 2.8 for N. Both values were higher in floodplain stands than in upland stands, and in coniferous stands than in deciduous stands. (2) The C budget method showed that C allocation to fine roots varied from 150 to 425 g C•m−2•year−1 and suggested that soil respiration was more dependent on C derived from roots than from aboveground inputs. The C allocation ratio (C to roots: C to litter fall) was inversely correlated with litter-fall C and varied from 0.3 to 69.5; there was a tendency for higher proportional belowground allocation in coniferous stands than in deciduous stands and the highest levels were at the earliest successional sites. (3) Estimates of apparent N uptake (N u), N allocation to fine roots, and fine root production based on N budget calculations showed that annual aboveground N increments exceeded N u estimates at half the sites, indicating that the method failed to account for large amounts of N acquired by plants. This suggests that plant and (or) mycorrhizal uptake of soil organic N may be more significant to ecosystem N cycling than mineral N turnover by the soil microbial biomass.
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
Nitrogen mineralization: Challenges of a changing paradigm
Schimel, J. P., & Bennett, J. (2004) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/03-8002 · Cited by 2,511
The Relationship Between Productivity and Species Richness
Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Steiner, C. F., Mittelbach, G., Gough, L., Dodson, S. I., Juday, G. P., & Parmenter, R. (1999) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.257 · Cited by 1,358
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
Gower, S. T., Kucharik, C. J., & Norman, J. M. (1999) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/s0034-4257(99)00056-5 · Cited by 1,240
Vegetation and soil respiration: Correlations and controls
Raich, J. W., & Tufekciogul, A. (2000) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1023/a:1006112000616 · Cited by 1,156
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruess, R. W., Cleve, K. V., Yarie, J., & Viereck, L. A.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Forest Research
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1996-08-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1326-1336
- ISSN
- 0045-5067 (ISSN-L)
- 1208-6037
- OpenAlex
- W2132803951
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.20
- 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: Contributions of fine root production and turnover to the carbon and nitrogen cycling in taiga forests of the Alaskan interior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/x26-148
- The paper
- Ruess, R. W., Cleve, K. V., Yarie, J., & Viereck, L. A. (1996). Contributions of fine root production and turnover to the carbon and nitrogen cycling in taiga forests of the Alaskan interior. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-148
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.