Paper · 1989 · Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Effects of added nitrogen on growth of hardwood trees in southern New York

J. A. Stanturf; E. L. Stone Jr.; R. C. McKittrick

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
22
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Nitrogen fertilization rate trials (0–672 kg/ha) were established in seven second-growth mixed deciduous forest stands in southern New York, on well to somewhat poorly drained soils typical of better hardwood sites, with no history of fire or cultivation. Basal-area growth over 20 years was determined from increment cores of dominant and codominant trees. Significant growth response occurred only for black cherry (Prunusserotina Ehrh.). Nitrogen additions of 168–336 kg/ha increased growth 21% over 5–10 years. Ten-year basal-area growth response of sugar maple (Acersaccharum Marsh.) and white ash (Fraxinusamericana L.) was less than in other fertilization studies. The lack of response is attributed to favorable nitrogen status of the soils, resulting from lack of disturbance over at least the last four decades and, possibly, atmospheric input of nitrogen.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen additions of 168–336 kg/ha increased black cherry growth by 21% over 5–10 years.

Taxon
black cherryPrunus serotinae1
Treatment
Nitrogen additions of 168–336 kg/hae2
Outcome
growthe2
Direction
increasede2
Value
21%e2
Qualifier
over 5–10 yearse2

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus serotina
Prunus serotina · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Significant growth response occurred only for black cherry (Prunusserotina Ehrh.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 358–439 · show in text ↑
e2

“Nitrogen additions of 168–336 kg/ha increased growth 21% over 5–10 years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 441–513 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Significant growth response to nitrogen fertilization occurred only for black cherry.

Taxon
black cherryPrunus serotinae1
Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
growth responsee1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Prunus serotina
Prunus serotina · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen fertilization rate trials (0–672 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
e1

“Significant growth response occurred only for black cherry (Prunusserotina Ehrh.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 358–439 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ten-year basal-area growth response of sugar maple to nitrogen fertilization was less than in other fertilization studies.

Taxon
sugar mapleAcer saccharume3
Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
Ten-year basal-area growth responsee3
Direction
less thane3
Comparator
other fertilization studiese3

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

“Nitrogen fertilization rate trials (0–672 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
e3

“Ten-year basal-area growth response of sugar maple (Acersaccharum Marsh.) and white ash (Fraxinusamericana L.) was less than in other fertilization studies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–670 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ten-year basal-area growth response of white ash to nitrogen fertilization was less than in other fertilization studies.

Taxon
white ashFraxinus americanae3
Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
Ten-year basal-area growth responsee3
Direction
less thane3
Comparator
other fertilization studiese3

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

Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus americana · TaxonVirens (Latin for greening) from South Royalton, Vermont, USA · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen fertilization rate trials (0–672 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
e3

“Ten-year basal-area growth response of sugar maple (Acersaccharum Marsh.) and white ash (Fraxinusamericana L.) was less than in other fertilization studies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–670 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · Fraxinus americana (white ash)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

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

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

nitrogen · growth · Prunus serotina (black cherry)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

fertilization · growth · Prunus serotina (black cherry)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
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.