The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages
Abstract
We compared carbon storage and fluxes in young and old ponderosa pine stands in Oregon, including plant and soil storage, net primary productivity, respiration fluxes, eddy flux estimates of net ecosystem exchange (NEE), and Biome‐BGC simulations of fluxes. The young forest (Y site) was previously an old‐growth ponderosa pine forest that had been clearcut in 1978, and the old forest (O site), which has never been logged, consists of two primary age classes (50 and 250 years old). Total ecosystem carbon content (vegetation, detritus and soil) of the O forest was about twice that of the Y site (21 vs. 10 kg C m−2 ground), and significantly more of the total is stored in living vegetation at the O site (61% vs. 15%). Ecosystem respiration (R e) was higher at the O site (1014 vs. 835 g C m−2 year−1), and it was largely from soils at both sites (77% of R e). The biological data show that above‐ground net primary productivity (ANPP),NPP and net ecosystem production (NEP) were greater at the O site than the Y site. Monte Carlo estimates of NEP show that the young site is a source of CO 2 to the atmosphere, and is significantly lower than NEP(O)by c. 100 g C m−2 year−1. Eddy covariance measurements also show that the O site was a stronger sink for CO 2 than the Y site. Across a 15‐km swath in the region,ANPP ranged from 76 g C m−2 year−1 at the Y site to 236 g C m−2 year−1(overall mean 158 ± 14 g C m−2 year−1). The lowest ANPP values were for the youngest and oldest stands, but there was a large range of ANPP for mature stands. Carbon, water and nitrogen cycle simulations with the Biome‐BGC model suggest that disturbance type and frequency, time since disturbance, age‐dependent changes in below‐ground allocation, and increasing atmospheric concentration of CO 2 all exert significant control on the net ecosystem exchange of carbon at the two sites. Model estimates of major carbon flux components agree with budget‐based observations to within ± 20%, with larger differences for NEP and for several storage terms. Simulations showed the period of regrowth required to replace carbon lost during and after a stand‐replacing fire (O) or a clearcut (Y) to be between 50 and 100 years. In both cases, simulations showed a shift from net carbon source to net sink (on an annual basis) 10–20 years after disturbance. These results suggest that the net ecosystem production of young stands may be low because heterotrophic respiration, particularly from soils, is higher than the NPP of the regrowth. The amount of carbon stored in long‐term pools (biomass and soils) in addition to short‐term fluxes has important implications for management of forests in the Pacific North‐west for carbon sequestration.
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
Cites
Sap Pressure in Vascular Plants: Negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants.
Scholander, P. F., Bradstreet, E. D., Hemmingsen, E. A., & Hammel, H. T. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.148.3668.339 · Cited by 4,508
Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer
Webb, E. K., Pearman, G. I., & Leuning, R. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.49710644707 · Cited by 4,452
Soil carbon sequestration and land‐use change: processes and potential
Post, W. M., & Kwon, K. C. (2000) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x · Cited by 2,602
GOULDEN, M. L., MUNGER, J. W., FAN, S., DAUBE, B. C., & WOFSY, S. C. (1996) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.1996.tb00070.x · Cited by 1,409
Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain
Thornton, P. E., Running, S. W., & White, M. A. (1997) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(96)03128-9 · Cited by 1,384
Self-citationSilvics of forest trees of the United States.
Fowells, H. A. (1965) · Cited by 1,346
Simple scaling of photosynthesis from leaves to canopies without the errors of big‐leaf models
DE PURY, D. G. G., & FARQUHAR, G. D. (1997) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.1997.00094.x · Cited by 1,193
The U.S. Carbon Budget: Contributions from Land-Use Change
Houghton, R. A., Hackler, J. L., & Lawrence, K. T. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5427.574 · Cited by 1,108
Temperature measurement with a sonic anemometer and its application to heat and moisture fluxes
Schotanus, P., Nieuwstadt, F. T. M., & De Bruin, H. A. R. (1983) · Boundary-Layer Meteorology · doi:10.1007/bf00164332 · Cited by 1,055
Production, Turnover, and Nutrient Dynamics of Above- and Belowground Detritus of World Forests
Vogt, K. A., Grier, C. C., & Vogt, D. J. (1986) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/s0065-2504(08)60122-1 · Cited by 962
Cited by
McDowell, N., Pockman, W. T., Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., Cobb, N., Kolb, T., Plaut, J., Sperry, J., West, A., Williams, D. G., et al. (2008) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x · Cited by 4,472
LASSLOP, G., REICHSTEIN, M., PAPALE, D., RICHARDSON, A. D., ARNETH, A., BARR, A., STOY, P., & WOHLFAHRT, G. (2010) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02041.x · Cited by 1,156
Thornton, P. E., Law, B. E., Gholz, H. L., Clark, K. L., Falge, E., Ellsworth, D. S., Goldstein, A. H., Monson, R. K., Hollinger, D., Falk, M., et al. (2002) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00108-9 · Cited by 893
Self-citationYuan, W., Liu, S., Zhou, G., Zhou, G., Tieszen, L. L., Baldocchi, D., Bernhofer, C., Gholz, H., Goldstein, A. H., Goulden, M. L., et al. (2007) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.12.001 · Cited by 787
Self-citationNatural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests
Thom, D., & Seidl, R. (2016) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12193 · Cited by 770
Metadata
- Authors
- Law, B. E., Thornton, P. E., Irvine, J., Anthoni, P. M., & Van Tuyl, S.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 755-777
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2105436398
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 26.27
- 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: Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00439.x
- The paper
- Law, B. E., Thornton, P. E., Irvine, J., Anthoni, P. M., & Van Tuyl, S. (2001). Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00439.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.