Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ecosystem respiration in two Mediterranean evergreen Holm Oak forests: drought effects and decomposition dynamics

Open access
Reichstein, M., Tenhunen, J. D., Roupsard, O., Ourcival, J.‐M., Rambal, S., Dore, S., Valentini, R.·2002·Functional Ecology

Abstract

Summary: We present ecosystem respiration data from two Mediterranean forest sites in central Italy (Castelporziano) and southern France (Puéchabon) in order to analyse the role of soil drought and decomposition dynamics using different models. Ecosystem respiration was derived from continuous eddy covariance measurements. The entire data set was separated into 5‐day periods. For each period a function depending on three parameters was fitted to the scatter of eddy CO 2 flux versus photosynthetic photon flux density. The y intercept of each curve was taken as an estimate of the average night‐time ecosystem respiration during the period. The ecosystem respiration was analysed with different regression models as a function of soil water content and temperature. Ecosystem respiration ranged from 1 to 7 µmol m−2 s−1 and showed a clear seasonality, with low rates during drought periods and in winter. The regression model analysis revealed that in drier soil, ecosystem respiration was more sensitive to soil moisture than is expressed by the often used hyperbolic model. In contradiction to a simple multiplicative model, the Q10 of ecosystem respiration was not independent of moisture, but increased from nearly 1·0 at low moisture to above 2·0 at field capacity. Several explanations are discussed. Of the variance in ecosystem respiration, 70–80% was explained with a model where Q10 of ecosystem respiration is a function of soil water content. For the Puéchabon site, a soil carbon‐balance model predicted only small changes in litter pool size (max. 7%), which caused only minor changes in soil microbial respiration (0·1 µmol m−2 s−1). In contrast, the contribution of microbial regrowth dynamics to ecosystem respiration is estimated to be substantial (≈1·6 µmol m−2 s−1). The model predicted that soil microbial respiration probably provides the largest contribution to ecosystem respiration (≈50%). The importance of below‐ground processes for ecosystem C balances is thus emphasized.

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 · 10.1046/j.0269-8463.2001.00597.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 321

Metadata

Authors
Reichstein, M., Tenhunen, J. D., Roupsard, O., Ourcival, J. ‐., Rambal, S., Dore, S., & Valentini, R.
Venue
Functional Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
27-39
ISSN
  • 0269-8463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2435
OpenAlex
W2104114488
Cited by
321
References
1
FWCI
11.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Ecosystem respiration in two Mediterranean evergreen Holm Oak forests: drought effects and decomposition dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0269-8463.2001.00597.x
The paper
Reichstein, M., Tenhunen, J. D., Roupsard, O., Ourcival, J. ‐., Rambal, S., Dore, S., & Valentini, R. (2002). Ecosystem respiration in two Mediterranean evergreen Holm Oak forests: drought effects and decomposition dynamics. Functional Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0269-8463.2001.00597.x

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.