Paper · 2011 · Ecological Applications

No evidence that chronic nitrogen additions increase photosynthesis in mature sugar maple forests

A. F. Talhelm; K. S. Pregitzer; A. J. Burton

7
claims
15
verbatim quotes
61
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition can increase forest growth. Because N deposition commonly increases foliar N concentrations, it is thought that this increase in forest growth is a consequence of enhanced leaf-level photosynthesis. However, tests of this mechanism have been infrequent, and increases in photosynthesis have not been consistently observed in mature forests subject to chronic N deposition. In four mature northern hardwood forests in the north-central United States, chronic N additions (30 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) as NaNO3 for 14 years) have increased aboveground growth but have not affected canopy leaf biomass or leaf area index. In order to understand the mechanism behind the increases in growth, we hypothesized that the NO3(-) additions increased foliar N concentrations and leaf-level photosynthesis in the dominant species in these forests (sugar maple, Acer saccharum). The NO3(-) additions significantly increased foliar N. However, there was no significant difference between the ambient and +NO3(-) treatments in two seasons (2006-2007) of instantaneous measurements of photosynthesis from either canopy towers or excised branches. In measurements on excised branches, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency (micromol CO2 s(-1) g(-1) N) was significantly decreased (-13%) by NO3(-) additions. Furthermore, we found no consistent NO3(-) effect across all sites in either current foliage or leaf litter collected annually throughout the study (1993-2007) and analyzed for delta 13C and delta 18O, isotopes that can be used together to integrate changes in photosynthesis over time. We observed a small but significant NO3(-) effect on the average area and mass of individual leaves from the excised branches, but these differences varied by site and were countered by changes in leaf number. These photosynthesis and leaf area data together suggest that NO3(-) additions have not stimulated photosynthesis. There is no evidence that nutrient deficiencies have developed at these sites, so unlike other studies of photosynthesis in N-saturated forests, we cannot attribute the lack of a stimulation of photosynthesis to nutrient limitations. Rather than increases in C assimilation, the observed increases in aboveground growth at our study sites are more likely due to shifts in C allocation.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N additions increased aboveground growth.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
chronic N additions (30 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) as NaNO3 for 14 years)e0
Outcome
aboveground growthe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“chronic N additions (30 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) as NaNO3 for 14 years) have increased aboveground growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–585 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar maple, Acer saccharum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–892 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N additions did not affect canopy leaf biomass or leaf area index.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharumt0
Treatment
NO3(-) additionse1
Outcome
canopy leaf biomass or leaf area indexe0
Direction
have not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“have not affected canopy leaf biomass or leaf area index.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 590–647 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugar maple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 78–89 · show in text ↑
e1

“The NO3(-) additions significantly increased foliar N. However, there was no significant difference between the ambient and +NO3(-) treatments in two seasons (2006-2007) of instantaneous measurements of photosynthesis from either canopy towers or excised branches. In measurements on excised branches, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency (micromol CO2 s(-1) g(-1) N) was significantly decreased (-13%) by NO3(-) additions. Furthermore, we found no consistent NO3(-) effect across all sites in either current foliage or leaf litter collected annually throughout the study (1993-2007) and analyzed for delta 13C and delta 18O, isotopes that can be used together to integrate changes in photosynthesis over time.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–1607 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate additions significantly increased foliar N.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
NO3(-) additionse0
Outcome
foliar Ne0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NO3(-) additions significantly increased foliar N.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–949 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar maple, Acer saccharum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–892 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Photosynthesis did not differ significantly between ambient and nitrate treatments.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
+NO3(-) treatmentse0
Outcome
photosynthesise0
Direction
no significant differencee0
Comparator
ambiente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no significant difference between the ambient and +NO3(-) treatments in two seasons (2006-2007) of instantaneous measurements of photosynthesis from either canopy towers or excised branches.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 959–1159 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar maple, Acer saccharum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–892 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate reduced photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency by 13%.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
NO3(-) additionse0
Outcome
photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiencye0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
-13%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency (micromol CO2 s(-1) g(-1) N) was significantly decreased (-13%) by NO3(-) additions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1320 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar maple, Acer saccharum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–892 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No consistent nitrate effect was detected in foliage or litter isotope measures.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
NO3(-)e0
Outcome
delta 13C and delta 18Oe0
Direction
no consistent NO3(-) effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no consistent NO3(-) effect across all sites in either current foliage or leaf litter collected annually throughout the study (1993-2007) and analyzed for delta 13C and delta 18O”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1343–1521 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar maple, Acer saccharum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–892 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate affected individual leaf area and mass, varying by site.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume1
Treatment
NO3(-)e0
Outcome
average area and mass of individual leavese0
Qualifier
varied by sitee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acer saccharum
Acer saccharum · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. MPF assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a small but significant NO3(-) effect on the average area and mass of individual leaves from the excised branches, but these differences varied by site and were countered by changes in leaf number.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1620–1817 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar maple, Acer saccharum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–892 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · growth · Acer saccharum (sugar maple)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.