The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainties in, and interpretation of, carbon flux estimates using the eddy covariance technique
Open accessAbstract
Whole ecosystem carbon dioxide (CO 2) exchange estimated with the eddy covariance (EC) technique has been central to studies on the responses of terrestrial ecosystems to disturbance and intra‐annual and interannual variations in climate, but challenges exist in understanding and reducing the uncertainty in estimates of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2. We review the potential uncertainties associated with the eddy covariance technique, including systematic errors from insensitivity to high‐frequency turbulence, random errors from inadequate sample size associated with averaging period, vertical and horizontal advection issues, and selection criteria for removing periods of inadequate mixing from further analyses. We also discuss benefits and caveats of using independent measurements to evaluate EC‐derived NEE, such as comparisons of EC‐derived annual NEE and allometric net ecosystem production estimates (NEP) and interpretation of nighttime NEE with scaled chamber‐based estimates of ecosystem respiration.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems
Kalman, R. E. (1960) · Journal of Basic Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.3662552 · Cited by 31,751
Statistics of atomic frequency standards
Allan, D. W. (1966) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/proc.1966.4634 · Cited by 2,692
Cited by
Baldocchi, D. (2008) · Australian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1071/bt07151 · Cited by 1,123
The global distribution of net primary production: resolving the paradox
Huston, M. A., & Wolverton, S. (2009) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/08-0588.1 · Cited by 351
Changing Ecology of Tropical Forests: Evidence and Drivers
Lewis, S. L., Lloyd, J., Sitch, S., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Laurance, W. F. (2009) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173345 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Loescher, H. W., Law, B. E., Mahrt, L., Hollinger, D. Y., Campbell, J., & Wofsy, S. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2006-11-14
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- D21
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141865015
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Uncertainties in, and interpretation of, carbon flux estimates using the eddy covariance technique. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2005jd006932
- The paper
- Loescher, H. W., Law, B. E., Mahrt, L., Hollinger, D. Y., Campbell, J., & Wofsy, S. C. (2006). Uncertainties in, and interpretation of, carbon flux estimates using the eddy covariance technique. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jd006932
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.
