Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,095

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nutrients in Senesced Leaves: Keys to the Search for Potential Resorption and Resorption Proficiency

Killingbeck, Keith T.·1996·Ecology

Abstract

Analyses of nitrogen and phosphorus in the senesced leaves of 89 species of deciduous and evergreen woody perennials were used (1) to discover the limits of ultimate potential resorption (maximal withdrawal of nutrients from senescing leaves), (2) to determine a means by which resorption can be categorized as complete or incomplete, (3) to develop the concept of resorption proficiency (measured as the levels to which nutrients have been reduced in senesced leaves), (4) to compare resorption in evergreen vs. deciduous species, (5) to assess the impact of phylogeny on resorption, (6) to compare resorption in actinorhizal vs. non—nitrogen—fixing species, and (7) to consider the efficacy of using multiple measures of resorption to answer questions regarding the function and evolution of this process, rather than relying solely on analyses of resorption efficiency (percentage reduction of nutrients between green and senesced leaves). Concentrations of 0.3% nitrogen and 0.01% phosphorus in senesced leaves represent ultimate potential resorption of these nutrients in woody perennials. Resorption proficiency and potential resorption were quantitatively defined in two models that describe both resorption that is maximal and biochemically complete, and that which is not. Resorption is highly proficient in plants that have reduced nitrogen and phosphorus in their senescing leaves to concentrations below 0.7% and 0.05%, respectively. An important feature of knowing the levels to which nutrients can be reduced in senescing leaves is that these values offer an objective gauge by which to measure the success of resorption as a nutrient conservation mechanism. Evergreens were significantly more proficient at resorbing phosphorus than were deciduous species (0.045% vs. 0.067% P in senesced leaves, respectively) and plants capable of symbiotic nitrogen fixation were significantly less proficient at resorbing nitrogen than were nonfixers (1.6% vs. 0.9% N in senesced leaves, respectively). Resorption proficiency appeared to parallel some phylogenic trends, yet the influence of phylogeny was not so significant as to overwhelm the effects of recent selection. The ability of plants to reduce nitrogen in senescing leaves was significantly correlated with their ability to reduce phosphorus. Measurement and analysis of resorption proficiency, when coupled with concurrent consideration of potential resorption and resorption efficiency, should facilitate and expedite the ongoing attempt to resolve complex questions regarding the environmental constraints that influence resorption, and the selection pressures that have directed the evolution of this process.

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 · 10.2307/2265777

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.

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 1,095

Metadata

Authors
Killingbeck, K. T.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-09
Volume
77
Issue
6
Pages
1716-1727
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2037816800
Cited by
1,095
References
0
FWCI
15.75
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: Nutrients in Senesced Leaves: Keys to the Search for Potential Resorption and Resorption Proficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2265777
The paper
Killingbeck, K. T. (1996). Nutrients in Senesced Leaves: Keys to the Search for Potential Resorption and Resorption Proficiency. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265777

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.