The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Soil surface CO2fluxes and the carbon budget of a grassland
Abstract
Measurements of soil surface CO 2 fluxes are reported for three sites within the First International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project (ISLSCP) Field Experiment (FIFE) area, and simple empirical equations are fit to the data to provide predictions of soil fluxes from environmental observations. A prototype soil chamber, used to make the flux measurements, is described and tested by comparing CO 2 flux measurements to a 40‐L chamber, a 1‐m 3 chamber, and eddy correlation. Results suggest that flux measurements with the prototype chamber are consistent with measurements by other methods to within about 20%. A simple empirical equation based on 10‐cm soil temperature, 0‐ to 10‐cm soil volumetric water content, and leaf area index predicts the soil surface CO 2 flux with a root‐mean‐square (rms) error of 1.2 μmol m−2 s−1 for all three sites. Further evidence supports using this equation to evaluate soil surface CO 2 during the 1987 FIFE experiment. The soil surface CO 2 fluxes when averaged over 24 hours are comparable to daily gross canopy photosynthetic rates. For 6 days of data the net daily accumulation of carbon is about 0.6 g CO 2 m−2 d−1; this is only a few percent of the daily gross accumulation of carbon by photosynthesis. As the soil became drier in 1989, the net accumulation of carbon by the prairie increased, suggesting that the soil flux is more sensitive to temperature and drought than the photosynthetic fluxes.
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
Cited by
Kucharik, C. J., Foley, J. A., Delire, C., Fisher, V. A., Coe, M. T., Lenters, J. D., Young‐Molling, C., Ramankutty, N., Norman, J. M., & Gower, S. T. (2000) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/1999gb001138 · Cited by 730
Self-citationReichstein, M., Rey, A., Freibauer, A., Tenhunen, J., Valentini, R., Banza, J., Casals, P., Cheng, Y., Grünzweig, J. M., Irvine, J., et al. (2003) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2003gb002035 · Cited by 615
Annual cycles of water vapour and carbon dioxide fluxes in and above a boreal aspen forest
BLACK, T. A., DEN HARTOG, G., NEUMANN, H. H., BLANKEN, P. D., YANG, P. C., RUSSELL, C., NESIC, Z., LEE, X., CHEN, S. G., STAEBLER, R., et al. (1996) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.1996.tb00074.x · Cited by 429
Harper, C. W., Blair, J. M., Fay, P. A., Knapp, A. K., & Carlisle, J. D. (2005) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00899.x · Cited by 398
An interactive vegetation SVAT model tested against data from six contrasting sites
Calvet, J.-C., Noilhan, J., Roujean, J.-L., Bessemoulin, P., Cabelguenne, M., Olioso, A., & Wigneron, J.-P. (1998) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(98)00091-4 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Norman, J. M., Garcia, R., & Verma, S. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1992-11-30
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- D17
- Pages
- 18845-18853
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1988979342
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Soil surface CO2fluxes and the carbon budget of a grassland. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/92jd01348
- The paper
- Norman, J. M., Garcia, R., & Verma, S. B. (1992). Soil surface CO2fluxes and the carbon budget of a grassland. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/92jd01348
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.