The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The possible influence of nitrogen and acid deposition on forest growth in Norway

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
41
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
3
41
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The factors used to explain the observed trends in the studies mentioned above include enhanced growth of forests that were previously negatively impacted by acid deposition (Ulrich et al, 2006;Vesely et al, 2002), trends in N deposition and decreased soil capacity to retain deposited N (Kopacek et al, 2005;Burns et al, 2006;Rogora et al, 2001). Forests at the sites in our study have not shown signs of growth deterrence by acid deposition and are presently not growing faster than previously (Solberg et al, 2004) while N deposition in the sites has not changed significantly. The declining trends in Storgama and Langtjern can logically not be explained from increases in soil N towards a state of N saturation, while Kårvatn (where nitrate increased) is located in a low deposition area where significant enrichment of soils with N towards saturation is not plausible.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…The factors used to explain the observed trends in the studies mentioned above include enhanced growth of forests that were previously negatively impacted by acid deposition (Ulrich et al, 2006;Vesely et al, 2002), trends in N deposition and decreased soil capacity to retain deposited N (Kopacek et al, 2005;Burns et al, 2006;Rogora et al, 2001). Forests at the sites in our study have not shown signs of growth deterrence by acid deposition and are presently not growing faster than previously (Solberg et al, 2004) while N deposition in the sites has not changed significantly. The declining trends in Storgama and Langtjern can logically not be explained from increases in soil N towards a state of N saturation, while Kårvatn (where nitrate increased) is located in a low deposition area where significant enrichment of soils with N towards saturation is not plausible.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…Needle analyses might provide information only about the effect of environmental conditions in the current year (Solberg, Torseth 1997;Sutinen et al 1998). This would also be true of analyses of soil changes induced by air pollution and interpreting these changes in connection with tree physiology (Matzner, Murach 1995;Solberg et al 2004). …”
Section: Variation In the 13mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research into the impacts of acid deposition on boreal forests has produced varying results. Some studies have quantified impacts on forest growth (DeHayes et al 1999;Ouimet et al 2001), while the results of other studies suggest acid deposition is not currently damaging the growth of boreal forests (e.g., Hall 1995, Binkley and Högberg 1997, Solberg et al 2004 and is less serious than originally believed (Menz and Seip 2004).…”
Section: Pollutionmentioning
confidence: 99%