The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A cross‐biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production
Abstract
Vegetation light use efficiency is a key physiological parameter at the canopy scale, and at the daily time step is a component of remote sensing algorithms for scaling gross primary production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP) over regional to global domains. For the purposes of calibrating and validating the light use efficiency (εg) algorithms, the components of εg– absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (APAR) and ecosystem GPP – must be measured in a variety of environments. Micrometeorological and mass flux measurements at eddy covariance flux towers can be used to estimate APAR and GPP, and the emerging network of flux tower sites offers the opportunity to investigate spatial and temporal patterns in εg at the daily time step. In this study, we examined the relationship of daily GPP to APAR, and relationships of εg to climatic variables, at four micrometeorological flux tower sites – an agricultural field, a tallgrass prairie, a deciduous forest, and a boreal forest. The relationship of GPP to APAR was close to linear at the tallgrass prairie site but more nearly hyperbolic at the other sites. The sites differed in the mean and range of daily εg, with higher values associated with the agricultural field than the boreal forest. εg decreased with increasing APAR at all sites, a function of mid‐day saturation of GPP and higher εg under overcast conditions. εg was generally not well correlated with vapor pressure deficit or maximum daily temperature. At the agricultural site, a εg decline towards the end of the growing season was associated with a decrease in foliar nitrogen concentration. At the tallgrass prairie site, a decline in εg in August was associated with soil drought. These results support inclusion of parameters for cloudiness and the phenological status of the vegetation, as well as use of biome‐specific parameterization, in operational εg algorithms.
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
Gilmanov, T. G., Soussana, J. F., Aires, L., Allard, V., Ammann, C., Balzarolo, M., Barcza, Z., Bernhofer, C., Campbell, C. L., Cernusca, A., et al. (2007) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.008 · Cited by 357
Wagle, P., Kakani, V. G., & Huhnke, R. L. (2015) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.03.015 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- TURNER, D. P., URBANSKI, S., BREMER, D., WOFSY, S. C., MEYERS, T., GOWER, S. T., & GREGORY, M.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 383-395
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2014196086
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.15
- 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: A cross‐biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00573.x
- The paper
- TURNER, D. P., URBANSKI, S., BREMER, D., WOFSY, S. C., MEYERS, T., GOWER, S. T., & GREGORY, M. (2003). A cross‐biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00573.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.