Cited by 77Atmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsPlant responses to elevated CO2

Large amplitude spatial and temporal gradients in atmospheric boundary layer CO2mole fractions detected with a tower‐based network in the U.S. upper Midwest

Open access
Miles, Natasha L., Richardson, Scott J., Davis, Kenneth J., Lauvaux, Thomas, Andrews, Arlyn E., West, Tristram O., Bandaru, Varaprasad, Crosson, Eric R.·2012·Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences

Abstract

This study presents observations of atmospheric boundary layer CO 2 mole fraction from a nine‐tower regional network deployed during the North American Carbon Program's Mid‐Continent Intensive (MCI) during 2007–2009. The MCI region is largely agricultural, with well‐documented carbon exchange available via agricultural inventories. By combining vegetation maps and tower footprints, we show the fractional influence of corn, soy, grass, and forest biomes varies widely across the MCI. Differences in the magnitude of CO 2 flux from each of these biomes lead to large spatial gradients in the monthly averaged CO 2 mole fraction observed in the MCI. In other words, the monthly averaged gradients are tied to regional patterns in net ecosystem exchange (NEE). The daily scale gradients are more weakly connected to regional NEE, instead being governed by local weather and large‐scale weather patterns. With this network of tower‐based mole fraction measurements, we detect climate‐driven interannual changes in crop growth that are confirmed by satellite and inventory methods. These observations show that regional‐scale CO 2 mole fraction networks yield large, coherent signals governed largely by regional sources and sinks of CO 2.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2011jg001781

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Top-down modeling utilizing a network of tower-based observations of CO2 concentrations was used to verify bottom-up inventory modeling in the largely agricultural region of the central United States.

    “This 'topdown' modeling, utilizing a network of tower-based observations of CO 2 concentrations, was used to verify 'bottom-up' inventory modeling based on observed management activities, in the largely agricultural region of the central United States 83,84”

    From Climate-smart soils (2016) · cites this paper as [84]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miles, N. L., Richardson, S. J., Davis, K. J., Lauvaux, T., Andrews, A. E., West, T. O., Bandaru, V., & Crosson, E. R.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Joint Global Change Research Institute (US)
  • Picarro (United States) (US)
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
Published
2012-02-21
Volume
117
Issue
G1
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1685533437
Cited by
75
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
Funders
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
Keywords
atmospheric boundary layer, spatial and temporal gradients, net ecosystem exchange, carbon flux, North American Carbon Program, interannual climate variability, crop growth

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