Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the commonly used estimator of nutrient resorption in tree foliage actually measure what it claims to?

  • Concepts, Reviews and Syntheses
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A descriptive temporal model is considered to be the best available estimator for accretion, resorption and proportional nutrient resorption. However, ecological studies rarely collect sufficient data for applying such a model. A less-demanding and commonly used estimator for proportional resorption (PR) calculates PR as the percentage of the nutrient pool that is withdrawn from mature foliage before leaf abscission. Data from an intensive sampling campaign of the aboveground nutrient pools and fluxes of two Betula pendula Roth. stands were used. We showed that the commonly used estimator is not an accurate estimator for accretion, resorption and proportional resorption. The commonly used estimator underestimated the proportional resorption of N on the average by 3–10%, and the proportional resorption of P by 20–25%. The low accuracy of the estimations was shown to be caused by a lack of selectiveness of the commonly used estimator. In other words, the commonly used estimator does not measure the underlying processes in specific nutrient accretion and resorption at the stand level. However, when a sufficiently high sampling density with several samples at a given point in time is used, then the commonly used estimator preserves the ranking relationship between the PR of different sites for N in 97% of the cases and for P in 71%. The commonly used estimator can thus be used in comparative studies as an index for proportional nutrient resorption only. The quantitative results should not be taken literally, as they are based on only two sets of observations. However, the results show that the commonly used estimator should no longer be used as a measure for accretion, resorption or PR whenever the plant accretes nutrients in the foliage as a compensation for nutrient losses due to foliar leaching and litterfall during the growing season.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts R (1996) Nutrient resorption from senescing leaves of perennials: are there general patterns? J Ecol 84:597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ahti T, Hämet-Ahti L, Jalas J (1968) Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann Bot Fenn 5:169–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson HV, Hovmand MF (1999) Review of dry deposition measurements of ammonia and nitric acid to forest. Forest Ecol Manag. DOI 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00378-8

  • Asner GP, Townsend AR, Riley WJ, Matson PA, Neff JC, Cleveland CC (2001) Physical and biogeochemical controls over terrestrial ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition. Biogeochemistry. DOI 10.1023/A:1010653913530

  • Beier C (1991) Separation of gaseous and particulate dry deposition of sulfur at a forest edge in Denmark. J Environ Qual 20:460–466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Côté B, Fyles JW, Djalivand H (2002) Increasing N and P resorption efficiency and proficiency in northern deciduous hardwoods with decreasing foliar N and P concentrations. Ann For Sci. DOI 10.1051/forest:2002023

  • Chapin FS (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS, Kedrowski RA (1983) Seasonal changes in nitrogen and phosphorus fractions and autumn retranslocation in evergreen and deciduous taiga trees. Ecology 64:376–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duchesne L, Ouimet R, Camiré C, Houle D (2001) Seasonal nutrient transfer by foliar resorption, leaching, and litterfall in a northern hardwood forest at Lake Clair Watershed, Qubec, Canada. Can J For Res 31:333–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein RL, Karlsson PS, Weih M (1999) Leaf life span and nutrient resorption as determinants of plant nutrition conservation in temperate-artic regions. New Phytol. DOI 10.1046/j.1469–8137.1999.00429.x

  • Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin O, Agren GI (2002) Leaf senescence and resorption as mechanisms of maximizing photosynthetic production during canopy development at N limitation. Funct Ecol 16:727–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Heerwaarden LM, Toet S, Aerts R (2003) Current measures of nutrient resorption efficiency lead to a substantial underestimation of real resorption efficiency: facts and solutions. Oikos 101:664–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmisaari HS (1992) Nutrient retransloctaion within foliage of pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 10:45–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kellomäki S, Rouvinen I, Peltola H, Strandman H (2000) Density of foliage mass and area in the boreal forest cover in Finland, with applications to the estimation of monoterpene and isoprene emissions. Atmos Environ. DOI 10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00309-5

  • Kellomäki S, Rouvinen I, Peltola H, Strandman H, Steinbrecher R (2001) Impact of global warming on the tree species composition of boreal forests in Finland and effects on emissions of isoprenoids. Global Change Biol. DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00414.x

  • Kiikkilä O (2003) Heavy-metal pollution and remediation of forest soil around the Harjavalta Cu–Ni Smelter in SW Finland. Silva Fenn 37:399–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Killingbeck KT (1985) Autumnal resorption and accretion of trace metals in gallery forest trees. Ecology 66:283–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Killingbeck KT (1996) Nutrients in senesced leaves: keys to the search for potential resorption and resorption proficiency. Ecology 77:1716–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killingbeck KT, May JD, Nyman S (1990) Foliar senescence in aspen (Populus tremuloides) clone: the response of element resorption to interramet variation and timing of abscission. Can J For Res 20:1156–1164

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knops JMH, Koenig WD, Nash III TH (1997) On the relationship between nutrient use efficiency and fertility in forest ecosystems. Oecologia 10:550–556. DOI 10.1007/s004420050194

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyssaert S, Mertens J, Raitio H (2003) Support, shape and number of replicate samples for tree foliage analysis. J Environ Monit. DOI 10.1039/b210727a

  • May JD, Killingbeck KT (1992) Effects of preventing nutrient resorption on plant fitness and foliar nutrient dynamics. Ecology 73:1868–1878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norby RJ, Cotrufo MF (1998) A question of litter quality. Nature. DOI 10.1038/23812

  • Norby RJ, Long TM, Hartz-Rubin JS, O’Neill EG (2000) Nitrogen resorption in senescing tree leaves in a warmer, CO2-enriched atmosphere. Plant Soil. DOI 10.1023/A:1004629231766

  • Nordell KO, Karlsson PS (1995) Resorption of nitrogen and dry-matter prior to leaf abscission—variation among individuals, sites and years in the Mountain Birch. Funct Ecol 9:326–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oland K (1963) Changes in the content of dry matter and major nutrient elements of apple foliage during senescence and abscission. Physiol Plantarum 16:682–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oleksyn J, Reich PB, Zytkowiak R, Karolewski P, Tjoelker MG (2003) Nutrient conservation increases with latitude of origin in European Pinus sylvestris populations. Oecologia. DOI 10.1007/s00442-003-1265-9

  • Saur E, Nambiar E, Fife D (2000) Foliar nutrient retranslocation in Eucalyptus globus. Tree Physiol 20:1105–1112

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Staaf H (1982) Plant nutrient changes in beech leaves during senescence as influenced by site characteristics. Acta Oecol 3:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich B (1983) Interaction of forest canopies with atmospheric constituents: SO2, alkali and earth alkali cations and chloride. In: Ulrich B, Pankrath J (eds) Effects of accumulation of air pollutants in forest ecosystems. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright IJ, Westoby M (2004) Nutrient concentration, resorption and lifespan: leaf traits of Australian sclerophyll species. Funct Ecol 17:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sebastiaan Luyssaert was funded by a Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (QLK-CT-2001–51941), Jeroen Staelens was funded as a Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research (F.W.O.), Flanders, Belgium. The authors wish to thank Timo Salmi from the Finnish Meteorological Institute for providing unpublished deposition data. The laboratory and field staff, Ghislaine Dossou and Toni Tunturi are thanked for their help with many practical issues. The experiments comply with the current laws of Finland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Parkano Research Station, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Kaironiementie 54, 39700, Parkano, Finland

    Sebastiaan Luyssaert

  2. Laboratory of Forestry, Department of Forest and Water Management, Ghent University, Geraardsbergsesteenweg 267, 9090, Gontrode, Belgium

    Jeroen Staelens & An De Schrijver

Authors
  1. Sebastiaan Luyssaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeroen Staelens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. An De Schrijver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastiaan Luyssaert.

Additional information

Communicated by Christian Koerner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luyssaert, S., Staelens, J. & De Schrijver, A. Does the commonly used estimator of nutrient resorption in tree foliage actually measure what it claims to?. Oecologia 144, 177–186 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0085-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0085-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation