Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PLANT AND MICROBIAL CONTROLS ON NITROGEN RETENTION AND LOSS IN A HUMID TROPICAL FOREST

Open access
Templer, Pamela H., Silver, Whendee L., Pett-Ridge, Jennifer, M. DeAngelis, Kristen, Firestone, Mary K.·2008·Ecology

Abstract

Humid tropical forests are generally characterized by the lack of nitrogen (N) limitation to net primary productivity, yet paradoxically have high potential for N loss. We conducted an intensive field experiment with 15 NH 4 and 15 NO 3 additions to highly weathered tropical forest soils in Puerto Rico to determine the relative importance of N retention and loss mechanisms. Over one‐half of all the NH 4+ produced was rapidly converted to NO 3− via the process of gross nitrification. During the first 24 hours, plant roots took up 28% of the inorganic N produced, dominantly as NH 4+, and were a greater sink for N than soil microbial biomass. Soil microbes were not a significant sink for added 15 NH 4+ or 15 NO 3− during the first 24 hours, and only for 15 NH 4+ after 7 days. Patterns of microbial community composition, as determined by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (TRFLP), were weakly but significantly correlated with nitrification and denitrification to N 2 O. Rates of dissimilatory NO 3− reduction to NH 4+ (DNRA) were high in this forest, accounting for up to 25% of gross NH 4+ production and 35% of gross nitrification. DNRA was a major sink for NO 3−, which may have contributed to the lower rates of N 2 O and leaching losses. Despite considerable N conservation via DNRA and plant NH 4+ uptake, the fate of ∼45% of the NO 3− produced and 4% of the NH 4+ produced were not measured in our fluxes, suggesting that other important pathways for N retention and loss (e.g., denitrification to N 2) are important in this system. The high proportion of mineralized N that was rapidly nitrified and the fates of that NO 3− highlight the key role of gross nitrification as a proximate control on N retention and loss in humid tropical forest soils. Furthermore, our results demonstrate the importance of the coupling between DNRA and plant uptake of NH 4+ as a potential N‐conserving mechanism within tropical forests.

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 · 10.1890/07-1631.1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 173

Metadata

Authors
Templer, P. H., Silver, W. L., Pett-Ridge, J., M. DeAngelis, K., & Firestone, M. K.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-11
Volume
89
Issue
11
Pages
3030-3040
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2088991027
Cited by
173
References
1
FWCI
13.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: PLANT AND MICROBIAL CONTROLS ON NITROGEN RETENTION AND LOSS IN A HUMID TROPICAL FOREST. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/07-1631.1
The paper
Templer, P. H., Silver, W. L., Pett-Ridge, J., M. DeAngelis, K., & Firestone, M. K. (2008). PLANT AND MICROBIAL CONTROLS ON NITROGEN RETENTION AND LOSS IN A HUMID TROPICAL FOREST. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1631.1

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.