Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

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

Ruess, R.W., Cleve, K. Van, Yarie, J., Viereck, L.A.·1996·Canadian Journal of Forest Research

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/x26-148

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.

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

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Ruess, R. W., Cleve, K. V., Yarie, J., & Viereck, L. A.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
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.