Cited by 236Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesEcology and biodiversity studies

Animating the Carbon Cycle

Open access
Schmitz, Oswald J., Raymond, Peter A., Estes, James A., Kurz, Werner A., Holtgrieve, Gordon W., Ritchie, Mark E., Schindler, Daniel E., Spivak, Amanda C. +7 more·2014·Ecosystems

Abstract

Understanding the biogeochemical processes regulating carbon cycling is central to mitigating atmospheric CO₂ emissions. The role of living organisms has been accounted for, but the focus has traditionally been on contributions of plants and microbes. We develop the case that fully “animating” the carbon cycle requires broader consideration of the functional role of animals in mediating biogeochemical processes and quantification of their effects on carbon storage and exchange among terrestrial and aquatic reservoirs and the atmosphere. To encourage more hypothesis-driven experimental research that quantifies animal effects we discuss the mechanisms by which animals may affect carbon exchanges and storage within and among ecosystems and the atmosphere. We illustrate how those mechanisms lead to multiplier effects whose magnitudes may rival those of more traditional carbon storage and exchange rate estimates currently used in the carbon budget. Many animal species are already directly managed. Thus improved quantitative understanding of their influence on carbon budgets may create opportunity for management and policy to identify and implement new options for mitigating CO₂ release at regional scales.

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/s10021-013-9715-7

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The degree of precision and accuracy in our estimates is on par with estimates of other sources and fates of carbon in the global carbon budget, giving reasonable approximations of direction and order of magnitude.

    “Nevertheless, the degree of precision and accuracy in our estimates are on par with estimates of other sources and fates of carbon in the global carbon budget (Schmitz et al. 2014) and therefore give reasonable approximations of the potential direction and order of magnitude of the impact that wolves may once have had on boreal forest and grassland carbon cycling (Fig. 1).”

    From Effects of gray wolf‐induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling (2016) · cites this paper as Schmitz et al. 2014

    In “Estimation of Moose effects” (page unavailable), the paper says its boreal-carbon estimate compares favourably with an independent forest-inventory estimate, offering limited support for the reliability of an animal-related carbon estimate. It does not assess the precision or accuracy of the citing authors’ wolf-impact estimates or establish that those estimates are on par with estimates of other sources and fates of carbon in the global budget. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intact boreal forest currently covers 1.89 × 10^6 km^2 of North America.

    “Intact boreal forest currently covers 1.89 × 10 6 km 2 of North America (Schmitz et al. 2014).”

    From Effects of gray wolf‐induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling (2016) · cites this paper as Schmitz et al. 2014

    The ‘Estimation of Moose effects’ section gives 1.89 × 10^6 km² as the area of 90–100% intact boreal forest in Canada. Canada is in North America, but the passage does not establish that figure as the total for North America. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Soil respiration estimates are 3.25 and 3.875 × 10^4 g C·km−2·yr−1 with and without wolves, respectively.

    “We linearly interpolated the reported soil respiration rates assuming moose densities that ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 moose/km 2 (mcInnes et al. 1992, Schmitz et al. 2014) to yield the estimates of soil respiration of 3.25 and 3.875 × 10 4 g C•km -2 •yr -1 with and without wolves, respectively.”

    From Effects of gray wolf‐induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling (2016) · cites this paper as Schmitz et al. 2014

    In 'Estimation of Moose effects' (page not available), the source gives low and high moose densities of about 0.5 and 1.5 moose/km² and reports soil respiration estimates of 2.54 and 3.43 × 10⁴ g C·km⁻²·yr⁻¹. It does not give the citing authors’ interpolated values of 3.25 and 3.875 × 10⁴ or assign those values to conditions with and without wolves. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Moose respiration rates are 5.2 × 10^5 g C·km−2·yr−2 with wolves and 8 × 10^5 g C·km−2·yr−1 without wolves.

    “Assuming a conversion of 41 KJ/g C (see Appendix A in Supplemental material in Schmitz et al. 2014), this leads to moose respiration rates of 5.2 × 10 5 g C•km -2 •yr -2 with wolves and 8 × 10 5 g C•km -2 •yr -1 without wolves.”

    From Effects of gray wolf‐induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling (2016) · cites this paper as Schmitz et al. 2014

  • In boreal forest, wolves indirectly increase carbon uptake in net primary productivity (NPP) by 24.5-52.5 g C·m−2·yr−1.

    “Trees are comprised of approximately 50% carbon (Schmitz et al. 2014); thus, wolves indirectly increase the carbon uptake in NPP by 24.5-52.5 g C•m -2 •yr -1 in boreal forest.”

    From Effects of gray wolf‐induced trophic cascades on ecosystem carbon cycling (2016) · cites this paper as Schmitz et al. 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Crowther TW, Boddy L, Jones TH. 2012. Functional and ecological consequences of saprophytic fungal-grazer interactions. The ISME Journal 6:1992-2001.
  2. Essington T. 2010. Trophic cascades in open ocean ecosystems. In: Terborgh J, Estes JA, Eds. Trophic cascades. Washington DC: Island Press. p 91-105.
  3. Ritchie ME, Eby SL, Mayemba EP. 2013. Environmental contexts of grazing impacts on soil organic carbon in the Serengeti. PLoS (in review).
  4. Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds). 2003. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management and Conservation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitz, O. J., Raymond, P. A., Estes, J. A., Kurz, W. A., Holtgrieve, G. W., Ritchie, M. E., Schindler, D. E., Spivak, A. C., Wilson, R. W., Bradford, M. A., Christensen, V., Deegan, L., Smetacek, V., Vanni, M. J., & Wilmers, C. C.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • Canadian Forest Service (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Syracuse University (US)
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
  • Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (DE)
  • Miami University (US)
Corresponding author
Schmitz, Oswald J.
Venue
Ecosystems
Published
2013-09-19
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
344-359
ISSN
  • 1432-9840 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0629
OpenAlex
W2007742376
Cited by
236
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11
FWCI
24.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecosystems (publishedVersion)
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar-und Meeresforschung (Alfred-Wegener-Institut) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access Server of the Woods Hole Scientific Community (Woods Hole Scientific Community) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Yale University
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/F009364/1)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/H010041/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
Keywords
carbon cycle, carbon storage, carbon exchange, terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, atmospheric CO2, carbon balance, multiplier effect, animal management, climate change mitigation policy

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