Cited by 1,084Plant responses to elevated CO2Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsForest ecology and management

Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere

Open access
Oren, Ram, Ellsworth, David S., Johnsen, Kurt H., Phillips, Nathan, Ewers, Brent E., Maier, Chris, Schäfer, Karina V.R., McCarthy, Heather +3 more·2001·Nature

Abstract

Northern mid-latitude forests are a large terrestrial carbon sink. Ignoring nutrient limitations, large increases in carbon sequestration from carbon dioxide (CO2) fertilization are expected in these forests. Yet, forests are usually relegated to sites of moderate to poor fertility, where tree growth is often limited by nutrient supply, in particular nitrogen. Here we present evidence that estimates of increases in carbon sequestration of forests, which is expected to partially compensate for increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, are unduly optimistic. In two forest experiments on maturing pines exposed to elevated atmospheric CO2, the CO2-induced biomass carbon increment without added nutrients was undetectable at a nutritionally poor site, and the stimulation at a nutritionally moderate site was transient, stabilizing at a marginal gain after three years. However, a large synergistic gain from higher CO2 and nutrients was detected with nutrients added. This gain was even larger at the poor site (threefold higher than the expected additive effect) than at the moderate site (twofold higher). Thus, fertility can restrain the response of wood carbon sequestration to increased atmospheric CO2. Assessment of future carbon sequestration should consider the limitations imposed by soil fertility, as well as interactions with nitrogen deposition.

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 · 10.1038/35078064

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Litter decay is proportional to its nutrient content and inversely proportional to lignin content, and is also controlled by nutrient availability, particularly nitrogen, in the soil.

    “In general terms, litter decay is proportional to its nutrient content and inversely proportional to lignin content [64]; it is also controlled by nutrient availability (particularly N) in the soil [112, 113].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Weisberg, S. Applied Linear Regression 114±117 (Wiley, New York, 1985). Received 6 February; accepted 22 March 2001.
  2. Wullschleger, S. D., Post, W. M. & King, A. W. in Biotic Feedbacks in the Global Climatic System (eds Woodwell, G. M. & Mackenzie F. T.) 85±107 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oren, R., Ellsworth, D. S., Johnsen, K. H., Phillips, N., Ewers, B. E., Maier, C., Schäfer, K. V. R., McCarthy, H., Hendrey, G., McNulty, S. G., & Katul, G. G.
Affiliations
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory (US)
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
Nature
Published
2001-05
Volume
411
Issue
6836
Pages
469-472
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1669888413
Cited by
1,084
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 42
FWCI
72.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • University of Alabama
  • U.S. Forest Service
  • Biological and Environmental Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
soil fertility, carbon sequestration, elevated CO2, forest carbon sink, nitrogen limitation, nutrient addition, pine forest, nitrogen deposition
MeSH terms
Atmosphere, Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, Trees, Water, Ecosystem, Biomass, Cycadopsida

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