Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 539

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

Response to Fertilization by Various Plant Growth Forms in an Alaskan Tundra: Nutrient Accumulation and Growth

Shaver, G. R., Chapin, F. S.·1980·Ecology

Abstract

The fertilization responses of six tundra species belonging to three plant growth forms were compared to test the hypothesis that species of the same plant growth form are more similar to one another than to other growth forms in their response to a controlled perturbation. The controlled perturbation was a complete factorial NPK fertilization experiment in tussock tundra at Eagle Creek, Alaska, USA. We compared deciduous shrubs, evergreen shrubs, and functionally deciduous graminoids in terms of mineral and total nonstructural carbohydrate (TNC) concentrations, and annual production per stem or tiller. Species differed in the extent to which nutrient and TNC concentrations were altered by fertilization, although concentrations were usually changed in the same direction in all species in response to a given nutrient addition. Growth forms were not consistently different from each other in the responses of nutrient and TNC concentration, and frequently the two species from the same growth form responded differently. Growth per stem or tiller was stimulated most strongly by N and/or N + P fertilization in five of six species, with small and usually insignificant differences in magnitude but not direction of the response among species. Nutrient concentrations generally responded without interaction between fertilization treatments but the growth response was usually characterized by the N*P interaction, indicating that individual nutrient concentrations may vary widely and independently but that growth at Eagle Creek requires a balanced plant nutrition with first N and then P as the principal limiting factors. Decreases in TNC with fertilization suggested that carbon supply was not strongly limiting to plant growth. We conclude that species respond individually to fertilization in terms of nutrient and TNC accumulation, but that the species or growth forms studied are not distinctive from each other on the basis of limiting nutritional factors for growth.

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 · 10.2307/1937432

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

Cited by

See all 539

Metadata

Authors
Shaver, G. R., & Chapin, F. S.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1980-06
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
662-675
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2024669258
Cited by
539
References
1
FWCI
10.25
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: Response to Fertilization by Various Plant Growth Forms in an Alaskan Tundra: Nutrient Accumulation and Growth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1937432
The paper
Shaver, G. R., & Chapin, F. S. (1980). Response to Fertilization by Various Plant Growth Forms in an Alaskan Tundra: Nutrient Accumulation and Growth. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937432

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.