Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 745

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial carbon cycle research

Open access
Pataki, D. E., Ehleringer, J. R., Flanagan, L. B., Yakir, D., Bowling, D. R., Still, C. J., Buchmann, N., Kaplan, J. O., Berry, J. A.·2003·Global Biogeochemical Cycles
DOI 10.1029/2001gb001850
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Photosynthesis and respiration impart distinct isotopic signatures to the atmosphere that are used to constrain global carbon source/sink estimates and partition ecosystem fluxes. Increasingly, the “Keeling plot” method is being used to determine the carbon isotope composition of ecosystem respiration (δ 13 C R) in order to better understand the processes controlling ecosystem isotope discrimination. In this paper we synthesize emergent patterns in δ 13 C R by analyzing 146 Keeling plots constructed at 33 sites across North and South America. In order to interpret results from disparate studies, we discuss the assumptions underlying the Keeling plot method and recommend standardized methods for determining δ 13 C R. These include the use of regression calculations that account for error in the x variable, and constraining estimates of δ 13 C R to nighttime periods. We then recalculate δ 13 C R uniformly for all sites. We found a high degree of temporal and spatial variability in C 3 ecosystems, with individual observations ranging from −19.0 to −32.6‰. Mean C 3 ecosystem discrimination was 18.3‰. Precipitation was a major driver of both temporal and spatial variability of δ 13 C R, suggesting (1) a large influence of recently fixed carbon on ecosystem respiration and (2) a significant effect of previous climatic effects on δ 13 C R. These results illustrate the importance of water availability as a key control on atmospheric 13 CO 2 and highlight the potential of δ 13 C R as a useful tool for integrating environmental effects on dynamic canopy and ecosystem processes.

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 · 10.1029/2001gb001850

Cites

71 of 71 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 71 references

Cited by

See all 745

Metadata

Authors
Pataki, D. E., Ehleringer, J. R., Flanagan, L. B., Yakir, D., Bowling, D. R., Still, C. J., Buchmann, N., Kaplan, J. O., & Berry, J. A.
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
2003-03
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
DOI
10.1029/2001gb001850
OpenAlex
W2099063502
Cited by
745
References
71
FWCI
32.87
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial carbon cycle research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2001gb001850
The paper
Pataki, D. E., Ehleringer, J. R., Flanagan, L. B., Yakir, D., Bowling, D. R., Still, C. J., Buchmann, N., Kaplan, J. O., & Berry, J. A. (2003). The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial carbon cycle research. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001gb001850

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.