In other cases, soil depth is restricted by lithic contact. Soil depth data is available for some of the sites whose N contents FRAX597 cell line are depicted in Fig. 1 (e.g., Johnson and Lindberg, 1992) but not for others (e.g., Cole and Rapp, 1981). In cases where soil depth is known, it ranges from 40 to 100 cm; in no case does this data include only soil N from the 0–20 cm depth. If we assume a worst case scenario for inadequate depth sampling (50% of total soil N lies below the given sampling depth) and double the values shown in Fig. 1, we could come closer to finding the hypothetical

amount of N that might have been accumulated in the glaciated soils, and with the inclusion of periodic fire, the missing N could largely be accounted for. The non-glaciated sites are another matter, however. Known processes of N input include atmospheric deposition LDN-193189 in vivo (wet and dry), N fixation, and fertilization. Of these, dry deposition and N fixation are the most uncertain. Dry deposition inputs are usually calculated from air quality measurements and so-called deposition velocities (which are often educated guesses)

combined with leaf area estimates which are often poorly known. Sometimes dry deposition rates are calculated from surrogate surfaces multiplied by leaf area indices (Lindberg et al., 1986). Quantitative estimates of N fixation are also very uncertain, being scaled up from short-term measurements of acetylene reduction, (in many cases using a factor for nodulation density) calculated from 15N measurements and several questionable assumptions about similarities

in rooting habits, etc., or estimated from N contents of adjacent N-fixing and non-N-fixing ecosystems. Both of the latter include the implicit assumptions that (1) N leaching losses are negligible – which is clearly not true in some cases (e.g., Van Miegroet and Cole, 1984) and (2) dry deposition rates at the two sites are equal (not likely if conifers and broadleaf forests are compared). Even more uncertain are estimates Temsirolimus concentration of non-symbiotic N fixation – usually assumed to be quite small, but this assumption is based on a dearth of data. The usual case for so-called “occult N” input is based on a measurements of changes in N content over time combined with either estimates or measurements of wet deposition, estimates of dry deposition, and estimates of N leaching, all of which are usually based on short-term measurements. Given all these uncertainties, it would be easy to dismiss cases of so-called occult N increments in forest ecosystems – except for the fact that some of these apparent increases are large and not easily dismissed by statistical or methodological invalidation. Indeed, Hurlburt and Lombardi (2009) note that the traditional use of P < 0.