Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 491

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

Seasonal and annual respiration of a ponderosa pine ecosystem

Law, Beverly E., Ryan, Michael G., Anthoni, Peter M.·1999·Global Change Biology

Abstract

The net ecosystem exchange of CO 2 between forests and the atmosphere, measured by eddy covariance, is the small difference between two large fluxes of photosynthesis and respiration. Chamber measurements of soil surface CO 2 efflux (F s), wood respiration (F w) and foliage respiration (F f) help identify the contributions of these individual components to net ecosystem exchange. Models developed from the chamber data also provide independent estimates of respiration costs. We measured CO 2 efflux with chambers periodically in 1996–97 in a ponderosa pine forest in Oregon, scaled these measurements to the ecosystem, and computed annual totals for respiration by component. We also compared estimated half‐hourly ecosystem respiration at night (F nc) with eddy covariance measurements. Mean foliage respiration normalized to 10 °C was 0.20 μmol m–2 (hemi‐leaf surface area) s–1, and reached a maximum of 0.24 μmol m–2 HSA s–1 between days 162 and 208. Mean wood respiration normalized to 10 °C was 5.9 μmol m–3 sapwood s–1, with slightly higher rates in mid‐summer, when growth occurs. There was no significant difference (P > 0.10) between wood respiration of young (45 years) and old trees (250 years). Soil surface respiration normalized to 10 °C ranged from 0.7 to 3.0 μmol m–2 (ground) s–1 from days 23 to 329, with the lowest rates in winter and highest rates in late spring. Annual CO 2 flux from soil surface, foliage and wood was 683, 157, and 54 g C m–2 y–1, with soil fluxes responsible for 76% of ecosystem respiration. The ratio of net primary production to gross primary production was 0.45, consistent with values for conifer sites in Oregon and Australia, but higher than values reported for boreal coniferous forests. Below‐ground carbon allocation (root turnover and respiration, estimated as F s– litterfall carbon) consumed 61% of GPP; high ratios such as this are typical of sites with more water and nutrient constraints. The chamber estimates were moderately correlated with change in CO 2 storage in the canopy (F stor) on calm nights (friction velocity u* < 0.25 m s–1; R2 = 0.60); F stor was not significantly different from summed chamber estimates. On windy nights (u* > 0.25 m s–1), the sum of turbulent flux measured above the canopy by eddy covariance and F stor was only weakly correlated with summed chamber estimates (R2 = 0.14); the eddy covariance estimates were lower than chamber estimates by 50%.

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.1365-2486.1999.00214.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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 491

Metadata

Authors
Law, B. E., Ryan, M. G., & Anthoni, P. M.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-02
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
169-182
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2034940081
Cited by
491
References
1
FWCI
26.98
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: Seasonal and annual respiration of a ponderosa pine ecosystem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00214.x
The paper
Law, B. E., Ryan, M. G., & Anthoni, P. M. (1999). Seasonal and annual respiration of a ponderosa pine ecosystem. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00214.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.