Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,245

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

Nutrient Resorption from Senescing Leaves of Perennials: Are there General Patterns?

Aerts, Rien·1996·The Journal of Ecology

Abstract

1 Possible patterns in nutrient resorption efficiency (% of the leaf nutrient pool resorbed) from senescing leaves of perennials were examined at both the intra- and the interspecific level. Most of the data used originated from studies with evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees. 2 Combining all data, mean nutrient resorption efficiency was 50% for N (n = 287) and 52% for P (n = 226). N resorption efficiency of evergreen shrubs and trees (47%) was significantly lower than in deciduous shrubs and trees (54%), whereas P resorption efficiency did not differ significantly between these growth-forms (51 and 50%, respectively). Although nutrient resorption is an important nutrient conservation mechanism at the species level, it does not differ strongly between growth-forms. 3 Mean N and P concentrations in leaves of deciduous shrubs and trees were about 60% higher than in evergreen species. There were only small differences in mean resorption efficiency and nutrient concentrations in leaf litter of deciduous species were therefore much higher than in evergreens. This implies that, in comparison with deciduous species, the low nutrient concentrations in mature leaves of evergreens contribute far more to nutrient conservation than does nutrient resorption. 4 Relations between leaf nutrient status and leaf nutrient resorption were absent or very weak. Assuming that leaf nutrient status reflects nutrient availability, this implies that nutrient resorption is only weakly controlled by nutrient availability. 5 At the intraspecific level, nutrient resorption was not very responsive to increased nutrient availability. There was no response in 63% of the experiments analysed (covering 60 spp.), whereas in 32% there was a decrease in N resorption in response to increased nutrient availability. For P (37 species analysed) there was no response in 57% of the cases and in 35% of the cases P resorption decreased upon enhanced nutrient supply. Evergreen shrubs and trees showed especially low responsiveness. 6 This review shows that there are no clear nutritional controls on nutrient resorption efficiency. Future research should focus on the biochemical basis of variation in nutrient resorption efficiency and on the factors, other than nutrient availability, that control nutrient resorption efficiency.

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 · 10.2307/2261481

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,245

Metadata

Authors
Aerts, R.
Venue
The Journal of Ecology
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1996-08
Volume
84
Issue
4
Pages
597
ISSN
0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2334902041
Cited by
1,245
References
1
FWCI
16.29
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 Resorption from Senescing Leaves of Perennials: Are there General Patterns? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2261481
The paper
Aerts, R. (1996). Nutrient Resorption from Senescing Leaves of Perennials: Are there General Patterns? The Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261481

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.