The DOI matches its Crossref record.
NITROGEN UPTAKE BY ARCTIC SOIL MICROBES AND PLANTS IN RELATION TO SOIL NITROGEN SUPPLY
Abstract
In Alaska, evergreen and deciduous shrubs dominate the vegetation of moist acidic arctic tundra (soil pH < 5.5) while graminoids and forbs are important at the more species-rich moist nonacidic arctic tundra (soil pH > 5.5). In this study we compare soil concentrations and microbial and plant uptake of amino acids, ammonium (NH4+), and nitrate (NO3−) in acidic and nonacidic tundra. The objective was to determine any differences between the tundra sites that may relate to the differences in vegetation. We sampled the water-extractable soil N pool over one growing season and found that it at all times was higher at the nonacidic than at the acidic site, while at both sites it was dominated by NH4+ followed in order by amino acid N and NO3−. In addition, we designed an experiment in which a mixture of aspartic acid, glycine, NH4+, and NO3− were injected into the soil in the middle of the growth period. In the mixture, one N form at a time was labeled with 15N and in the case of amino acids also with 13C. Soil and plant samples were collected 4 h following the injection of labeled N. A large portion of the experimental N was recovered in the soil microbial biomass (on average 49% at the acidic site and 40% at the nonacidic site), while less than 1% was recovered in plants. Soil microbes and plants at both acidic and nonacidic tundra were able to take up all isotopically labeled N forms in the presence of added unlabeled N, demonstrating adequate potential to use any N form available. In addition, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis of plant roots revealed plant uptake of intact glycine, while isotopically labeled aspartic acid was not recovered inside plants.
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
Van Der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D., & Van Straalen, N. M. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x · Cited by 5,053
Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis
Bobbink, R., Hicks, K., Galloway, J., Spranger, T., Alkemade, R., Ashmore, M., Bustamante, M., Cinderby, S., Davidson, E., Dentener, F., et al. (2010) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/08-1140.1 · Cited by 2,632
Self-citationA temporal approach to linking aboveground and belowground ecology
BARDGETT, R., BOWMAN, W., KAUFMANN, R., & SCHMIDT, S. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.08.005 · Cited by 870
Comparison of factors limiting bacterial growth in different soils
Demoling, F., Figueroa, D., & Bååth, E. (2007) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.05.002 · Cited by 477
PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT NITROGEN FORMS BY COEXISTING PLANT SPECIES AND SOIL MICROBES
Harrison, K. A., Bol, R., & Bardgett, R. D. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/06-1018 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Nordin, A., Schmidt, I. K., & Shaver, G. R.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 955-962
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103697311
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.83
- 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: NITROGEN UPTAKE BY ARCTIC SOIL MICROBES AND PLANTS IN RELATION TO SOIL NITROGEN SUPPLY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/03-0084
- The paper
- Nordin, A., Schmidt, I. K., & Shaver, G. R. (2004). NITROGEN UPTAKE BY ARCTIC SOIL MICROBES AND PLANTS IN RELATION TO SOIL NITROGEN SUPPLY. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0084
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.