CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEnvironmental and biological studiesForest ecology and management

Prediction of decomposition of litter under eucalypts and pines using the FullCAM model

Paul, K.I, Polglase, P.J·2004·Forest Ecology and Management
DOI 10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The FullCAM model was designed, by the Australian Greenhouse Office, for full carbon accounting in forests at project and national scales, and links the empirical carbon tracking model CAMFor to models of tree growth (3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC), and soil carbon turnover (RothC). We collated data from 385 studies of decomposition of foliage, bark and wood litter in eucalypt and pine forests for calibration and validation of two alternative sub-models available within FullCAM for decomposition: empirical algorithms in CAMFor, and the process-based GENDEC (requiring additional data on the chemical properties of litter and nitrogen availability). Decomposition rates were derived using short-term litterbag studies to determine mass loss after 1 year, or using long-term rates of litter accumulation from known amounts of litterfall inputs. Half of the data from the litterbag studies were used for calibration of CAMFor, while GENDEC was calibrated using litterbag studies where the chemical properties of litter components had been measured. Remaining data for litterbag studies not used for calibration, and litter accumulation studies, were used for model validation. CAMFor accounted for 60–67% of the variation in decomposition of foliage, bark and dead wood of eucalypts and pines, while GENDEC accounted for only 53–56% of this variation. Therefore, despite its simpler structure, decomposition was more accurately predicted using CAMFor than GENDEC. Results suggested that it was important to account for the effect of temperature and rainfall on decomposition, but utilising data on the chemical composition of litter was less useful. Performance of the two sub-models was comparable when decomposition rates were calibrated together with the fraction of carbon in the fast, medium and slow pools of litter simulated by GENDEC, rather than this partitioning of carbon between pools being restrained by actual values of lignin, cellulose and soluble content of each component of litter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.007

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Locally calibrated decomposition rates are suggested to account for soil temperature and water content gradients.

    “They also suggested locally calibrated decomposition rates to account for soil temperature and water content gradients [166].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [166]

  • RothC has been coupled with specific crop growth and litter degradation models to simulate SOC dynamics under Miscanthus, willow and poplar SRC.

    “RothC has been coupled with specific crop growth and litter degradation models to simulate SOC dynamics under Miscanthus, willow and poplar SRC [166].”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [166]

  • Within FullCAM, RothC was used in woodland systems by applying debris partitioning and decomposition rates measured in agricultural soils.

    “Within FullCAM [166, 167], RothC was used in woodland systems by applying debris partitioning and decomposition rates measured in agricultural soils.”

    From Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out? (2015) · cites this paper as [166]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Paul, K. I., & Polglase, P. J.
Affiliations
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Paul, K.I
ORCID
Paul, K.I
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-04
Volume
191
Issue
1-3
Pages
73-92
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.007
OpenAlex
W2086136673
Cited by
48
References
84
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental and biological studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
litter decomposition, eucalypt forest, pine forest, carbon accounting, model calibration and validation, litter accumulation, litter composition, temperature and precipitation effects, carbon pools, dead wood

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