Meta-analysis of fertilization experiments indicates multiple limiting nutrients in northeastern deciduous forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely accepted that N limits primary production in temperate forests, although colimitation by N and P has also been suggested, and on some soils, Ca and base cations are in short supply. I conducted a meta-analysis to assess the strength of existing experimental evidence for limitation of primary production by N, P, and Ca in hardwood forests of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada using data from 35 fertilization experiments in deciduous forests on glaciated soils across the region. There is strong evidence for N limitation (formal meta-analysis weighted mean response ratio = 1.51, p < 0.01; simple mean = 1.42, p < 0.001). Forest productivity also tended to increase with additions of P (simple mean = 1.15, p = 0.05) and Ca (simple mean = 1.36, p < 0.001). Across all treatments, 85% of response ratios were positive. Multiple-element additions had larger effects than single elements, but factorial experiments showed little evidence of synergistic effects between nutrient additions. Production responses correlated positively with the rate of N fertilization, but this effect was reduced at high rates of ambient N deposition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".