Search for a command to run...
Nutrient conservation plays an important role in plants adapted to infertile environments. Nutrients can be conserved mainly by extending the life span of plant parts and/or by minimizing the nutrient content of those parts that are abscissed. Together these two parameters (life span and resorption) define the mean residence time ( MRT ) of a nutrient. In this review we summarize available information on nitrogen resorption and life span, and evaluate their relationship to the MRT of nitrogen, both between and within species. Abundant information with respect to nitrogen resorption efficiency and life span is available at the leaf level. By definition, woody evergreen plants have a much longer leaf life span than species of other life‐forms. Conversely, differences in resorption efficiency among life‐forms or among plants in habitats differing in soil fertility appear to be small. Inter‐specific variation in leaf life span is much larger than intra‐specific variation (factor of >200 compared with 2, respectively), while resorption efficiency varies by about the same magnitude at both levels (factor of 3.8 compared with 2.7, respectively). The importance of resorption efficiency in determining leaf‐level MRT increases exponentially towards and above the maximum resorption efficiency observed in nature. This effect is independent of leaf life span, which may explain the lack of life‐form related differences in resorption efficiency. When scaling up from the leaf to the whole‐plant level, fundamental differences in turnover rate among different plant organs must be considered. Woody species invest c . 50% of their net productivity into their low‐turnover stems, while in herbaceous species the life span of stems is only slightly longer than that of leaves. As a result, nutrient turnover of woody (evergreen and deciduous) plants is generally lower than that of herbaceous species (herbs and graminoids) on a whole‐plant basis. At the intra‐specific level empirical data show that both biomass life span (i.e. the inverse of biomass loss rate) and resorption efficiency are important sources of variation in MRT . However, we argue that the relative importance of resorption efficiency in explaining variation in MRT is lower at the inter‐specific level, whereas the reverse is true for life span. This is because variation in MRT and life span is much larger at the inter‐specific level compared with variation in resorption efficiency. Plant traits related to nutrient conservation are discussed with respect to their implications for leaf structure, plant growth, competition, succession and ecosystem nutrient cycling.