Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The age of fine-root carbon in three forests of the eastern United States measured by radiocarbon

Open access
Gaudinski, J., Trumbore, S., Davidson, E., Cook, A., Markewitz, D., Richter, D.·2001·Oecologia

Abstract

Using a new approach involving one-time measurements of radiocarbon (14C) in fine (<2 mm diameter) root tissues we have directly measured the mean age of fine-root carbon. We find that the carbon making up the standing stock of fine roots in deciduous and coniferous forests of the eastern United States has a mean age of 3–18 years for live fine roots, 10–18 years for dead fine roots, and 3–18 years for mixed live+dead fine roots. These 14C-derived mean ages represent the time C was stored in the plant before being allocated for root growth, plus the average lifespan (for live roots), plus the average time for the root to decompose (for dead roots and mixtures). Comparison of the 14C content of roots known to have grown within 1 year with the 14C of atmospheric CO2 for the same period shows that root tissues are derived from recently fixed carbon, and the storage time prior to allocation is <2 years and likely <1 year. Fine-root mean ages tend to increase with depth in the soil. Live roots in the organic horizons are made of C fixed 3–8 years ago compared with 11–18 years in the mineral B horizons. The mean age of C in roots increases with root diameter and also is related to branching order. Our results differ dramatically from previous estimates of fine-root mean ages made using mass balance approaches and root-viewing cameras, which generally report life spans (mean ages for live roots) of a few months to 1–2 years. Each method for estimating fine-root dynamics, including this new radiocarbon method, has biases. Root-viewing approaches tend to emphasize more rapidly cycling roots, while radiocarbon ages tend to reflect those components that persist longest in the soil. Our 14C-derived estimates of long mean ages can be reconciled with faster estimates only if fine-root populations have varying rates of root mortality and decomposition. Our results indicate that a standard definition of fine roots, as those with diameters of <2 mm, is inadequate to determine the most dynamic portion of the root population. Recognition of the variability in fine-root dynamics is necessary to obtain better estimates of belowground C inputs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s004420100746

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 252

Metadata

Authors
Gaudinski, J., Trumbore, S., Davidson, E., Cook, A., Markewitz, D., & Richter, D.
Venue
Oecologia
Published
2001-11
Volume
129
Issue
3
Pages
420-429
ISSN
  • 0029-8549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1939
OpenAlex
W2132238131
Cited by
252
References
1
FWCI
25.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.