Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 741

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global resorption efficiencies and concentrations of carbon and nutrients in leaves of terrestrial plants

Vergutz, Leonardus, Manzoni, Stefano, Porporato, Amilcare, Novais, Roberto Ferreira, Jackson, Robert B.·2012·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

Nutrient resorption in plants influences nutrient availability and cycling and is a key process in biogeochemical models. Improved estimates of resorption parameters are needed for predicting long‐term primary productivity and for improving such models. Currently, most models assume a value of 50% resorption for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) and lack resorption data for other nutrients and for specific vegetation types. We provide global estimates of resorption efficiencies and nutrient concentrations for carbon (C), N, and P and the first global‐scale estimates for essential nutrients such as potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg). We also examine leaf mass loss during senescence (LML) globally and for different plant types, thus defining a mass loss correction factor (MLCF) needed to quantify unbiased resorption values. We used a global meta‐analysis of 86 studies and ∼1000 data points across climates for green and senesced leaves in six plant types: ferns, forbs, graminoids, conifers, and evergreen and deciduous woody angiosperms. In general, N and P resorption differed significantly from the commonly used global value of 50% (62.1%, 64.9%, respectively; P < 0.05). Ca, C, and Mg showed lower average resorptions of 10.9%, 23.2%, and 28.6%, respectively, while K had the highest resorption, at 70.1%. We also found that resorption of all nutrients except Ca depended on leaf nutrient‐status; globally, C, N, P, K, and Mg showed a decrease in resorption with increased nutrient status. On average, global leaf mass loss was 24.2%. Overall, our resorption data differ substantially from commonly assumed values and should help improve ecological theory and biogeochemical and land‐surface models.

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 · 10.1890/11-0416.1

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 741

Metadata

Authors
Vergutz, L., Manzoni, S., Porporato, A., Novais, R. F., & Jackson, R. B.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05
Volume
82
Issue
2
Pages
205-220
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2132697183
Cited by
741
References
3
FWCI
44.28
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: Global resorption efficiencies and concentrations of carbon and nutrients in leaves of terrestrial plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/11-0416.1
The paper
Vergutz, L., Manzoni, S., Porporato, A., Novais, R. F., & Jackson, R. B. (2012). Global resorption efficiencies and concentrations of carbon and nutrients in leaves of terrestrial plants. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0416.1

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.