, Volume 144, Issue 2, pp 177–186

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

  • Sebastiaan Luyssaert
  • Jeroen Staelens
  • An De Schrijver
Concepts, Reviews and Syntheses


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commonly used estimator for proportional resorption (PR) calculates PR as the percentage of the nutrient pool that is withdrawn from mature foliage before leaf abscission.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.


Accretion Betula pendula Roth Nitrogen Phosphorus Resorption 


  1. Aerts R (1996) Nutrient resorption from senescing leaves of perennials: are there general patterns? J Ecol 84:597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahti T, Hämet-Ahti L, Jalas J (1968) Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann Bot Fenn 5:169–211Google Scholar
  4. 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)00378-8Google Scholar
  5. 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:1010653913530Google Scholar
  6. Beier C (1991) Separation of gaseous and particulate dry deposition of sulfur at a forest edge in Denmark. J Environ Qual 20:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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:2002023Google Scholar
  8. Chapin FS (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapin FS, Kedrowski RA (1983) Seasonal changes in nitrogen and phosphorus fractions and autumn retranslocation in evergreen and deciduous taiga trees. Ecology 64:376–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 31:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.xGoogle Scholar
  12. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin O, Agren GI (2002) Leaf senescence and resorption as mechanisms of maximizing photosynthetic production during canopy development at N limitation. Funct Ecol 16:727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 101:664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helmisaari HS (1992) Nutrient retransloctaion within foliage of pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 10:45–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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)00309-5Google Scholar
  17. 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.xGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiikkilä O (2003) Heavy-metal pollution and remediation of forest soil around the Harjavalta Cu–Ni Smelter in SW Finland. Silva Fenn 37:399–415Google Scholar
  19. Killingbeck KT (1985) Autumnal resorption and accretion of trace metals in gallery forest trees. Ecology 66:283–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Killingbeck KT (1996) Nutrients in senesced leaves: keys to the search for potential resorption and resorption proficiency. Ecology 77:1716–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 20:1156–1164Google Scholar
  22. 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/s004420050194Google Scholar
  23. Luyssaert S, Mertens J, Raitio H (2003) Support, shape and number of replicate samples for tree foliage analysis. J Environ Monit. DOI 10.1039/b210727aGoogle Scholar
  24. May JD, Killingbeck KT (1992) Effects of preventing nutrient resorption on plant fitness and foliar nutrient dynamics. Ecology 73:1868–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Norby RJ, Cotrufo MF (1998) A question of litter quality. Nature. DOI 10.1038/23812Google Scholar
  26. 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:1004629231766Google Scholar
  27. 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 9:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oland K (1963) Changes in the content of dry matter and major nutrient elements of apple foliage during senescence and abscission. Physiol Plantarum 16:682–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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/s00442-003-1265-9Google Scholar
  30. Saur E, Nambiar E, Fife D (2000) Foliar nutrient retranslocation in Eucalyptus globus. Tree Physiol 20:1105–1112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Staaf H (1982) Plant nutrient changes in beech leaves during senescence as influenced by site characteristics. Acta Oecol 3:161–170Google Scholar
  32. 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 33–45Google Scholar
  33. Wright IJ, Westoby M (2004) Nutrient concentration, resorption and lifespan: leaf traits of Australian sclerophyll species. Funct Ecol 17:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastiaan Luyssaert
    • 1
  • Jeroen Staelens
    • 2
  • An De Schrijver
    • 2
  1. 1.Parkano Research StationFinnish Forest Research InstituteParkanoFinland
  2. 2.Laboratory of Forestry, Department of Forest and Water ManagementGhent UniversityGontrodeBelgium

Personalised recommendations