The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on fine root production and activity in an intact temperate forest ecosystem
Abstract
Summary: We investigated the effects of elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentrations (ambient + 200 ppm) on fine root production and soil carbon dynamics in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forest subject to free‐air CO 2 enrichment (FACE) near Durham, NC (USA). Live fine root mass (LFR) showed less seasonal variation than dead fine root mass (DFR), which was correlated with seasonal changes in soil moisture and soil temperature. LFR mass increased significantly (by 86%) in the elevated CO 2 treatment, with an increment of 37 g(dry weight) m−2 above the control plots after two years of CO 2 fumigation. There was no long‐term increment in DFR associated with elevated CO 2, but significant seasonal accumulations of DFR mass occurred during the summer of the second year of fumigation. Overall, root net primary production (RNPP) was not significantly different, but annual carbon inputs were 21.7 gC m−2 y−1 (68%) higher in the elevated CO 2 treatment compared to controls. Specific root respiration was not altered by the CO 2 treatment during most of the year; however, it was significantly higher by 21% and 13% in September 1997 and May 1998, respectively, in elevated CO 2. We did not find statistically significant differences in the C/N ratio of the root tissue, root decomposition or phosphatase activity in soil and roots associated with the treatment. Our data show that the early response of a loblolly pine forest ecosystem subject to CO 2 enrichment is an increase in its fine root population and a trend towards higher total RNPP after two years of CO 2 fumigation.
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
Forest response to elevated CO2is conserved across a broad range of productivity
Norby, R. J., DeLucia, E. H., Gielen, B., Calfapietra, C., Giardina, C. P., King, J. S., Ledford, J., McCarthy, H. R., Moore, D. J. P., Ceulemans, R., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0509478102 · Cited by 987
Self-citationNowak, R. S., Ellsworth, D. S., & Smith, S. D. (2004) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01033.x · Cited by 706
Impacts of Fine Root Turnover on Forest NPP and Soil C Sequestration Potential
Matamala, R., Gonzàlez-Meler, M. A., Jastrow, J. D., Norby, R. J., & Schlesinger, W. H. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089543 · Cited by 522
Self-citationPlant water relations at elevated CO2– implications for water‐limited environments
Wullschleger, S. D., Tschaplinski, T. J., & Norby, R. J. (2002) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2002.00796.x · Cited by 405
Fine-root production dominates response of a deciduous forest to atmospheric CO 2 enrichment
Norby, R. J., Ledford, J., Reilly, C. D., Miller, N. E., & O'Neill, E. G. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0403491101 · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Matamala, R., & Schlesinger, W. H.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 967-979
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2105956009
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.17
- 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: Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on fine root production and activity in an intact temperate forest ecosystem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00374.x
- The paper
- Matamala, R., & Schlesinger, W. H. (2000). Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on fine root production and activity in an intact temperate forest ecosystem. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00374.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.