The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on different components of soil CO2 efflux in Douglas‐fir terracosms
Abstract
Although numerous studies indicate that increasing atmospheric CO 2 or temperature stimulate soil CO 2 efflux, few data are available on the responses of three major components of soil respiration [i.e. rhizosphere respiration (root and root exudates), litter decomposition, and oxidation of soil organic matter] to different CO 2 and temperature conditions. In this study, we applied a dual stable isotope approach to investigate the impact of elevated CO 2 and elevated temperature on these components of soil CO 2 efflux in Douglas‐fir terracosms. We measured both soil CO 2 efflux rates and the 13 C and 18 O isotopic compositions of soil CO 2 efflux in 12 sun‐lit and environmentally controlled terracosms with 4‐year‐old Douglas fir seedlings and reconstructed forest soils under two CO 2 concentrations (ambient and 200 ppmv above ambient) and two air temperature regimes (ambient and 4 °C above ambient). The stable isotope data were used to estimate the relative contributions of different components to the overall soil CO 2 efflux. In most cases, litter decomposition was the dominant component of soil CO 2 efflux in this system, followed by rhizosphere respiration and soil organic matter oxidation. Both elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration and elevated temperature stimulated rhizosphere respiration and litter decomposition. The oxidation of soil organic matter was stimulated only by increasing temperature. Release of newly fixed carbon as root respiration was the most responsive to elevated CO 2, while soil organic matter decomposition was most responsive to increasing temperature. Although some assumptions associated with this new method need to be further validated, application of this dual‐isotope approach can provide new insights into the responses of soil carbon dynamics in forest ecosystems to future climate changes.
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
The application and interpretation of Keeling plots in terrestrial carbon cycle research
Pataki, D. E., Ehleringer, J. R., Flanagan, L. B., Yakir, D., Bowling, D. R., Still, C. J., Buchmann, N., Kaplan, J. O., & Berry, J. A. (2003) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2001gb001850 · Cited by 745
Self-citationResponses of ecosystem carbon cycle to experimental warming: a meta‐analysis
Lu, M., Zhou, X., Yang, Q., Li, H., Luo, Y., Fang, C., Chen, J., Yang, X., & Li, B. (2013) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/12-0279.1 · Cited by 522
The use of stable isotopes to study ecosystem gas exchange
Yakir, D., & Sternberg, L. D. S. L. (2000) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420051016 · Cited by 507
Ekblad, A., & Högberg, P. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100667 · Cited by 425
Pendall, E., Bridgham, S., Hanson, P. J., Hungate, B., Kicklighter, D. W., Johnson, D. W., Law, B. E., Luo, Y., Megonigal, J. P., Olsrud, M., et al. (2004) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01053.x · Cited by 417
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, G., Ehleringer, J. R., Rygiewicz, P. T., Johnson, M. G., & Tingey, D. T.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 157-168
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2154859117
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.81
- 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: Elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on different components of soil CO2 efflux in Douglas‐fir terracosms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00211.x
- The paper
- Lin, G., Ehleringer, J. R., Rygiewicz, P. T., Johnson, M. G., & Tingey, D. T. (1999). Elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on different components of soil CO2 efflux in Douglas‐fir terracosms. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00211.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.