Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cross-site evaluation of eddy covariance GPP and RE decomposition techniques

Desai, Ankur R., Richardson, Andrew D., Moffat, Antje M., Kattge, Jens, Hollinger, David Y., Barr, Alan, Falge, Eva, Noormets, Asko, Papale, Dario, Reichstein, Markus, Stauch, Vanessa J.·2008·Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Abstract

Abstract Eddy covariance flux towers measure net exchange of land–atmosphere flux. For the flux of carbon dioxide, this net ecosystem exchange (NEE) is governed by two processes, gross primary production (GPP) and a sum of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration components known as ecosystem respiration (RE). A number of statistical flux-partitioning methods, often developed to fill missing NEE data, can also be used to estimate GPP and RE from NEE time series. Here we present results of the first comprehensive, multi-site comparison of these partitioning methods. An initial test was performed with a subset of methods in retrieving GPP and RE from NEE generated by an ecosystem model, which was also degraded with realistic noise. All methods produced GPP and RE estimates that were highly correlated with the synthetic data at the daily and annual timescales, but most were biased low, including a parameter inversion of the original model. We then applied 23 different methods to 10 site years of temperate forest flux data, including 10 different artificial gap scenarios (10% removal of observations), in order to investigate the effects of partitioning method choice, data gaps, and intersite variability on estimated GPP and RE. Most methods differed by less than 10% in estimates of both GPP and RE. Gaps added an additional 6–7% variability, but did not result in additional bias. ANOVA showed that most methods were consistent in identifying differences in GPP and RE across sites, leading to increased confidence in previously published multi-site comparisons and syntheses. Several methods produced outliers at some sites, and some methods were systematically biased against the ensemble mean. Larger model spread was found for Mediterranean sites compared to temperate or boreal sites. For both real and synthetic data, high variability was found in modeling of the diurnal RE cycle, suggesting that additional study of diurnal RE mechanisms could help to improve partitioning algorithms.

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 · 10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.11.012

Cites

26 of 26 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

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Desai, A. R., Richardson, A. D., Moffat, A. M., Kattge, J., Hollinger, D. Y., Barr, A., Falge, E., Noormets, A., Papale, D., Reichstein, M., & Stauch, V. J.
Venue
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-06
Volume
148
Issue
6-7
Pages
821-838
ISSN
0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017415106
Cited by
310
References
26
FWCI
12.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Cross-site evaluation of eddy covariance GPP and RE decomposition techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.11.012
The paper
Desai, A. R., Richardson, A. D., Moffat, A. M., Kattge, J., Hollinger, D. Y., Barr, A., Falge, E., Noormets, A., Papale, D., Reichstein, M., & Stauch, V. J. (2008). Cross-site evaluation of eddy covariance GPP and RE decomposition techniques. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.11.012

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.