Sterner, R. W., J. M. Hood, M.R. Kearney, J. Urabe, and D. Raubenheimer. 2015. Couples that have chemistry: when ecological theories meet. Oikos 124: 917–919.
Sitters, J., C. L. Atkinson, N. Guelzow, P. Kelly, and L. L. Sullivan. 2015. Spatial stoichiometry: cross-ecosystem material flows and their impact on recipient ecosystems and organisms. Oikos 124: 920–930.
Cease, A. J., K. A. Capps, K. K. Gates, M. L. McCrackin, and D. A. Nidzgorski. 2015. Consumer-driven nutrient dynamics in urban environments: the stoichiometry of human diets and waste management. Oikos 124: 931–948.
Yamamichi, M., C. L. Meunier, A. Peace, C. Prater, and M. A. Rúa. 2015. Rapid evolution of a consumer stoichiometric trait destabilizes consumer-producer dynamics. Oikos 124: 960–969.
Sistla, S. A., A. P. Appling, A. M. Lewandowska, B. N. Taylor, and A. A. Wolf. 2015. Stoichiometric flexibility in response to fertilization along gradients of environmental and organismal nutrient richness. Oikos 124: 949–959.
Sperfeld, E., H. M. Halvorson, M. Malishev, F. J. Clissold, and N. D. Wagner. 2016. Woodstoich III: Integrating tools of nutritional geometry and ecological stoichiometry to advance nutrient budgeting and the prediction of consumer-driven nutrient recycling. Oikos 125: 1539–1553.
Woodstoich 2 (2009 in Japan)
Urabe, J., S. Naeem, D. Raubenheimer, and J. J. Elser. 2010. The evolution of biological stoichiometry under global change. Oikos 119: 737–740.
Persson, J., P. Fink, A. Goto, J. M. Hood, J. Jonas, and S. Kato. 2010. To be or not to be what you eat: regulation of stoichiometric homeostasis among autotrophs and heterotrophs. Oikos 119: 741–751.
Doi, H., M. Cherif, T. Iwabuchi, I. Katano, J. C. Stegen, and M. Striebel. 2010. Integrating elements and energy through the metabolic dependencies of gross growth efficiency and the threshold elemental ratio. Oikos 119: 752–765.
Morehouse, N. I., T. Nakazawa, C. M. Booher, P. D. Jeyasingh, and M. D. Hall. 2010. Sex in a material world: why the study of sexual reproduction and sex-specific traits should become more nutritionally-explicit. Oikos 119: 766–778.
González, A. L., J. S. Kominoski, M. Danger, S. Ishida, N. Iwai, and A. Rubach. 2010. Can ecological stoichiometry help explain patterns of biological invasions? Oikos 119: 779–790.
Woodstoich 1 (2004 in Norway)
Hessen, D. O., and J. J. Elser. 2005. Elements of ecology and evolution. Oikos 109: 3–5.
Kay, A. D., I. W. Ashton, E. Gorokhova, A. J. Kerkhoff, A. Liess, and E. Litchman. 2005. Toward a stoichiometric framework for evolutionary biology. Oikos 109: 6–17.
Frost, P. C., M. A. Evans-White, Z. V. Finkel, T. C. Jensen, and V. Matzek. 2005. Are you what you eat? Physiological constraints on organismal stoichiometry in an elementally imbalanced world. Oikos 109: 18–28.
Moe, S. J., R. S. Stelzer, M. R. Forman, W. S. Harpole, T. Daufresne, and T. Yoshida. 2005. Recent advances in ecological stoichiometry: insights for population and community ecology. Oikos 109: 29–39.
Schade, J. D., J. F. Espeleta, C. A. Klausmeier, M. E. McGroddy, S. A. Thomas, and L. Zhang. 2005. A conceptual framework for ecosystem stoichiometry: balancing resource supply and demand. Oikos 109: 40–51.
Ptacnik, R., G. D. Jenerette, A. M. Verschoor, A. F. Huberty, A. G. Solimini, and J. D. Brookes. 2005. Applications of ecological stoichiometry for sustainable acquisition of ecosystem services. Oikos 109: 52–62.