Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Constraints of Nutrient Availability on Primary Production in Two Alpine Tundra Communities

Open access
Bowman, William D., Theodose, Theresa A., Schardt, James C., Conant, Richard T.·1993·Ecology

Abstract

A nutrient amendment experiment was conducted for two growing seasons in two alpine tundra communities to test the hypotheses that: (1) primary production is limited by nutrient availability, and (2) physiological and developmental constraints act to limit the responses of plants from a nutrient—poor community more than plants from a more nutrient—rich community to increases in nutrient availability. Experimental treatments consisted of N, P, and N + P amendments applied to plots in two physiognomically similar communities, dry and wet meadows. Extractable N and P from soils in nonfertilized control plots indicated that the wet meadow had higher N and P availability. Photosynthetic, nutrient uptake, and growth responses of the dominants in the two communities showed little difference in the relative capacity of these plants to respond to the nutrient additions. Aboveground production responses of the communities to the treatments indicated N availability was limiting to production in the dry meadow community while N and P availability colimited production in the wet meadow community. There was a greater production response to the N and N + P amendments in the dry meadow relative to the wet meadow, despite equivalent functional responses of the dominant species of both communities. The greater production response in the dry meadow was in part related to changes in community structure, with an increase in the proportion of graminoid and forb biomass, and a decrease in the proportion of community biomass made up by the dominant sedge Kobresia myosuroides. Species richness increased significantly in response to the N + P treatment in the dry meadow. Graminoid biomass increased significantly in the wet meadow N and N + P plots, while forb biomass decreased significantly, suggesting a competitive interaction for light. Thus, the difference in community response to nutrient amendments was not the result of functional changes at the leaf level of the dominant species, but rather was related to changes in community structure in the dry meadow, and to a shift from a nutrient to a light limitation of production in the wet meadow.

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 · 10.2307/1940854

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 351

Metadata

Authors
Bowman, W. D., Theodose, T. A., Schardt, J. C., & Conant, R. T.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-10
Volume
74
Issue
7
Pages
2085-2097
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2044875196
Cited by
351
References
38
FWCI
25.16
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: Constraints of Nutrient Availability on Primary Production in Two Alpine Tundra Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940854
The paper
Bowman, W. D., Theodose, T. A., Schardt, J. C., & Conant, R. T. (1993). Constraints of Nutrient Availability on Primary Production in Two Alpine Tundra Communities. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940854

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.