Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 567

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Regulation of Woody Plant Secondary Metabolism by Resource Availability: Hypothesis Testing by Means of Meta-Analysis

Koricheva, Julia, Larsson, Stig, Haukioja, Erkki, Keinänen, Markku, Keinanen, Markku·1998·Oikos

Abstract

Our aim in this study was to determine how well phenotypic variation in foliar concentrations of carbon-based secondary compounds (CBSCs) in woody plants can be predicted on the basis of two resource-based hypotheses, i.e. the carbon-nutrient balance (CNB) and growth-differentiation balance (GDB) hypotheses. We conducted a meta-analysis of literature data with respect to responses of CBSCs, carbohydrates and nitrogen to six types of environmental manipulations (fertilization with nitrogen or phosphorus, shading, CO 2 enrichment, drought stress, ozone exposure). Plant responses to nitrogen fertilization, shading and CO 2 enrichment in terms of pooled CBSCs and carbohydrates were consistent with predictions made with the two hypotheses. However, among biosynthetically distinct groups of CBSCs only concentrations of phenylpropanoid-derived compounds changed as predicted; hydrolyzable tannins and terpenoids, in particular, were less responsive. Phosphorus fertilization did not affect concentrations of CBSC or primary metabolites. Plant responses to drought and ozone exposure presumably were driven by plant demands for particular types of compounds (osmolites in the case of drought and antioxidants in the case of ozone exposure) rather than by changes in resource availability. Based on the relative importance of the treatment effects, we propose a hierarchical model of carbon allocation to CBSCs. The model implies that CBSC production is determined by both resource availability and specific demand-side responses. However, these two mechanisms work at different hierarchical levels. The domain of the CNB and GDB hypotheses is at the high hierarchical levels, predicting the total amount of carbon that can be allocated to CBSCs. Predicting altered concentrations of individual CBSCs, i.e. low hierarchy levels, probably demands biosynthetically detailed models which also take into account the history of plant interactions with biotic and abiotic factors.

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 · 10.2307/3546833

Cites

77 of 77 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 77 references

Cited by

See all 567

Metadata

Authors
Koricheva, J., Larsson, S., Haukioja, E., Keinänen, M., & Keinanen, M.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1998-11
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
212
ISSN
0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2333174397
Cited by
567
References
77
FWCI
31.91
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: Regulation of Woody Plant Secondary Metabolism by Resource Availability: Hypothesis Testing by Means of Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3546833
The paper
Koricheva, J., Larsson, S., Haukioja, E., Keinänen, M., & Keinanen, M. (1998). Regulation of Woody Plant Secondary Metabolism by Resource Availability: Hypothesis Testing by Means of Meta-Analysis. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546833

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.