Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: Importance of the secondary vegetation sink

Open access
Shevliakova, Elena, Pacala, Stephen W., Malyshev, Sergey, Hurtt, George C., Milly, P. C. D., Caspersen, John P., Sentman, Lori T., Fisk, Justin P., Wirth, Christian, Crevoisier, Cyril·2009·Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Abstract

We have developed a dynamic land model (LM3V) able to simulate ecosystem dynamics and exchanges of water, energy, and CO 2 between land and atmosphere. LM3V is specifically designed to address the consequences of land use and land management changes including cropland and pasture dynamics, shifting cultivation, logging, fire, and resulting patterns of secondary regrowth. Here we analyze the behavior of LM3V, forced with the output from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) atmospheric model AM2, observed precipitation data, and four historic scenarios of land use change for 1700–2000. Our analysis suggests a net terrestrial carbon source due to land use activities from 1.1 to 1.3 GtC/a during the 1990s, where the range is due to the difference in the historic cropland distribution. This magnitude is substantially smaller than previous estimates from other models, largely due to our estimates of a secondary vegetation sink of 0.35 to 0.6 GtC/a in the 1990s and decelerating agricultural land clearing since the 1960s. For the 1990s, our estimates for the pastures' carbon flux vary from a source of 0.37 to a sink of 0.15 GtC/a, and for the croplands our model shows a carbon source of 0.6 to 0.9 GtC/a. Our process‐based model suggests a smaller net deforestation source than earlier bookkeeping models because it accounts for decelerated net conversion of primary forest to agriculture and for stronger secondary vegetation regrowth in tropical regions. The overall uncertainty is likely to be higher than the range reported here because of uncertainty in the biomass recovery under changing ambient conditions, including atmospheric CO 2 concentration, nutrients availability, and climate.

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 · 10.1029/2007gb003176

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Shevliakova, E., Pacala, S. W., Malyshev, S., Hurtt, G. C., Milly, P. C. D., Caspersen, J. P., Sentman, L. T., Fisk, J. P., Wirth, C., & Crevoisier, C.
Venue
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2009-06
Volume
23
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0886-6236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9224
OpenAlex
W2127376629
Cited by
407
References
6
FWCI
15.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: Importance of the secondary vegetation sink. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2007gb003176
The paper
Shevliakova, E., Pacala, S. W., Malyshev, S., Hurtt, G. C., Milly, P. C. D., Caspersen, J. P., Sentman, L. T., Fisk, J. P., Wirth, C., & Crevoisier, C. (2009). Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: Importance of the secondary vegetation sink. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gb003176

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.