Cited by 546Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions

Fine Roots, Net Primary Production, and Soil Nitrogen Availability: A New Hypothesis

Nadelhoffer, Knute J., Aber, John D., Melillo, Jerry M.·1985·Ecology

Abstract

The relationships between above— and belowground net primary production and soil nitrogen availability were studied at nine temperate forest sites. Annual allocations of nitrogen (N) and net primary production to leaf litter, perennial tissues (wood + bark), and aboveground biomass all increases significantly (P < .01) in relation to apparent N uptake by vegetation (N"u) as calculated using field measurers of net N mineralization (N m) and other major N fluxes to and from available N pools. Mean annual N content and biomass of fine roots @<3.0 mm diameter) were both negatively correlated with N u (° = —0.71, P < .05; ° —0.63, ° < .10, respectively). However, only °50% of N m at each site could be accounted for by allocation to aboveground litter and perennial tissues. Assuming that mineralized N not accounted for by allocation to these components was taken up by vegetation and allocated to fine roots, annual N allocation to fine roots (N fr) was a constant fraction of N uptake. Therefore, N fr increased in absolute terms with both N m and apparent N uptake. Fine—root N turnover rates (or N fr/fine—root N content) also increased as N m and N u increased. Provided that fine—root biomass and N turnover rates were similar within sites, allocation of production to belowground biomass also increased relative to increases in soil N availability. Furthermore, the proportion of total net production allocated to belowground biomass did not decrease with increased N availability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1939190

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is disputed whether fine roots contribute most to soil organic carbon in woody systems due to their relatively rapid decomposition.

    “It is disputed whether fine roots contribute most to SOC in woody systems due to their relatively rapid decomposition [5, 99, 126].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nadelhoffer, K. J., Aber, J. D., & Melillo, J. M.
Affiliations
Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-08
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
1377-1390
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2010371242
Cited by
546
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant nutrient uptake and metabolism
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Keywords
fine roots, net primary productivity, soil nitrogen availability, nitrogen mineralization, nitrogen partitioning, nitrogen uptake, belowground biomass allocation, leaf litter, temperate forests, nitrogen cycling

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