The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Nutrient Content of Litter Fall on the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire
Abstract
Litter fall was collected throughout the year beneath a mature northern hardwood forest in New Hampshire. The material, separated by species and plant part, was analyzed for dry weight and for 11 elements. Total aboveground litter fall average 5,702 kg/ha per year; leaves, branches, stems, and bark contributed 49.1%, 22.2%, 14.1%, and 1.7%, respectively. Other deciduous structures (i.e., bud scales, flowers, fruit), as well as insect frass and miscellaneous tissues, contributed 10.9%. The overstory contributed 98.0% of the total, and shrub and herbaceous layers contributed only 1.2% and 0.8%, respectively. The nutrient content of the litter totaled 140.4 kg/ha per year. The relative abundance for these 11 elements was N > Ca > K > Mn > Mg > S > P > Zn > Fe > Na > Cu. Nitrogen, Ca, and K accounted for 80.6% of the total, and Zn, Fe, Na, and Cu contributed only 0.8%. The overstory, shrub, and herbaceous layers suppled 96.6%, 1.7%, and 1.6% of the nutrients, respectively. Litter fall occurred throughout the year, but there were seasonal peaks for many types of tissues. Autumn was most important, accounting for 49.7% of the litter and 56.0% of the nutrients. Summer and winter seasons supplied similar quantities of the litter, 21.2% and 22.4%; however, 22.6% of the total nutrient fall occurred during summer compared with only 17.2% during the winter. Spring months supplied 6.7% and 4.1% of litter and nutrients, respectively. Storms were very important in the timing of litter and nutrient fall. The extreme variability of litter fall is the result of differences between species, tissues, vertical structure of the vegetation, elevation, site, and time of year. In spite of this variation, nutrient—budget studies reveal relatively small losses from the ecosystem. Larger fluctuations in rates of nutrient flow, via litter fall, are readily absorbed within the ecosystem, thus preventing nutrient loss and maintaining efficient nutrient cycling.
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
Decomposition dynamics in mixed‐species leaf litter
Gartner, T. B., & Cardon, Z. G. (2004) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12738.x · Cited by 1,049
Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production
Mattson, W. J., & Addy, N. D. (1975) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.190.4214.515 · Cited by 573
Effects of Moose Browsing on Vegetation and Litter of the Boreal Forest, Isle Royale, Michigan, USA
McInnes, P. F., Naiman, R. J., Pastor, J., & Cohen, Y. (1992) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1941455 · Cited by 334
Methods of Assessing Terrestrial Productivty
Whittaker, R. H., & Marks, P. L. (1975) · Ecological Studies · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-80913-2_4 · Cited by 153
Bellhouse, T., & Rosatte, R. (2005) · mamm · doi:10.1515/mamm.2005.004 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Gosz, J. R., Likens, G. E., & Bormann, F. H.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1972-09
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 769-784
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W1994767410
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.31
- 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: Nutrient Content of Litter Fall on the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1934293
- The paper
- Gosz, J. R., Likens, G. E., & Bormann, F. H. (1972). Nutrient Content of Litter Fall on the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934293
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.