The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes
Open accessAbstract
Accounting for carbon fluxes from land use and land cover change (LULCC) generally requires choosing from multiple options of how to attribute the fluxes to regions and to LULCC activities. Applying a newly developed and spatially explicit bookkeeping model BLUE (bookkeeping of land use emissions), we quantify LULCC fluxes and attribute them to land use activities and countries by a range of different accounting methods. We present results with respect to a Kyoto Protocol‐like “commitment” accounting period, using land use emissions of 2008–2012 as an example scenario. We assess the effect of accounting methods that vary (1) the temporal evolution of carbon stocks, (2) the state of the carbon stocks at the beginning of the period, (3) the temporal attribution of carbon fluxes during the period, and (4) treatment of LULCC fluxes that occurred prior to the beginning of the period. We show that the methodological choices result in grossly different estimates of carbon fluxes for the different attribution definitions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
HURTT, G. C., FROLKING, S., FEARON, M. G., MOORE, B., SHEVLIAKOVA, E., MALYSHEV, S., PACALA, S. W., & HOUGHTON, R. A. (2006) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01150.x · Cited by 531
Cited by
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., et al. (2020) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020 · Cited by 2,544
Self-citationLe Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2018) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 · Cited by 1,645
Self-citationFriedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., et al. (2023) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023 · Cited by 1,500
Self-citationGlobal and Regional Trends and Drivers of Fire Under Climate Change
Jones, M. W., Abatzoglou, J. T., Veraverbeke, S., Andela, N., Lasslop, G., Forkel, M., Smith, A. J. P., Burton, C., Betts, R. A., van der Werf, G. R., et al. (2022) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2020rg000726 · Cited by 1,332
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., et al. (2022) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022 · Cited by 1,285
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., & Pongratz, J.
- Venue
- Global Biogeochemical Cycles
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1230-1246
- ISSN
- 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-9224
- OpenAlex
- W2121230972
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2014gb004997
- The paper
- Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., & Pongratz, J. (2015). Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gb004997
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
