Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A cross‐biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production

TURNER, DAVID P., URBANSKI, SHAWN, BREMER, DALE, WOFSY, STEVEN C., MEYERS, TILDEN, GOWER, STITH T., GREGORY, MATTHEW·2003·Global Change Biology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00573.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 346

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.