Cited by 58Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsBioenergy crop production and managementForest ecology and management

Review and model-based analysis of factors influencing soil carbon sequestration under hybrid poplar

Garten, C.T., Wullschleger, S.D., Classen, A.T.·2011·Biomass and Bioenergy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.013

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Previous reviews on carbon sequestration under perennial energy crops include some unrelated to soil organic carbon, some without experimental evidence, and some focused on specific geographical regions.

    “Although there have been previous reviews on C sequestration under PECs [8–11], some of these were either unrelated to SOC [12, 13], or did not report any experimental evidence [1, 14, 15], or focused on specific geographical regions [16].”
  • The amount of litter deposition is likely influenced by yield potential.

    “It is likely that the amount of litter deposition is influenced by yield potential [8, 10, 29].”
  • The amount of carbon transferred to soil is a function of litter and harvest residues and their decomposition rates, belowground biomass longevity, composition and decomposition rates, and depth and distribution of the root system.

    “The amount of C transferred to soil is a function of several system components [10] such as (i) litter and harvest residues and their decomposition rates; (ii) BGB, its longevity, composition and decomposition rates; and (iii) depth and distribution of the root system.”
  • These numbers are similar to the average gains reported for short-rotation coppice poplar earlier (1.63 to 2.43 Mg C ha−1 year−1).

    “These numbers are similar to the average gains reported for SRC poplar earlier (1.63 [68] to 2.43 C Mg ha−1 year−1 [10]).”
  • Two papers dealt with a generic description of the C balance under poplar and switchgrass.

    “Two papers dealt with a generic description of the C balance under poplar [10] and switchgrass [8].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garten, C. T., Wullschleger, S. D., & Classen, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Corresponding author
Garten, C.T.
Venue
Biomass and Bioenergy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
214-226
ISSN
0961-9534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983544037
Cited by
58
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biomass and Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Science
  • Biological and Environmental Research
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
soil carbon sequestration, hybrid poplar, poplar, short rotation woody crops, nitrogen fertilization, root decomposition, belowground carbon allocation, aboveground biomass production, soil organic carbon, multi-compartment model

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