Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 501

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Elevated atmospheric CO2, fine roots and the response of soil microorganisms: a review and hypothesis

ZAK, DONALD R., PREGITZER, KURT S., KING, JOHN S., HOLMES, WILLIAM E.·2000·New Phytologist

Abstract

There is considerable uncertainty about how rates of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycling will change as CO 2 accumulates in the Earth's atmosphere. We summarized data from 47 published reports on soil C and N cycling under elevated CO 2 in an attempt to generalize whether rates will increase, decrease, or not change. Our synthesis centres on changes in soil respiration, microbial respiration, microbial biomass, gross N mineralization, microbial immobilization and net N mineralization, because these pools and processes represent important control points for the below‐ground flow of C and N. To determine whether differences in C allocation between plant life forms influence soil C and N cycling in a predictable manner, we summarized responses beneath graminoid, herbaceous and woody plants grown under ambient and elevated atmospheric CO 2. The below‐ground pools and processes that we summarized are characterized by a high degree of variability (coefficient of variation 80–800%), making generalizations within and between plant life forms difficult. With few exceptions, rates of soil and microbial respiration were more rapid under elevated CO 2, indicating that (1) greater plant growth under elevated CO 2 enhanced the amount of C entering the soil, and (2) additional substrate was being metabolized by soil microorganisms. However, microbial biomass, gross N mineralization, microbial immobilization and net N mineralization are characterized by large increases and declines under elevated CO 2, contributing to a high degree of variability within and between plant life forms. From this analysis we conclude that there are insufficient data to predict how microbial activity and rates of soil C and N cycling will change as the atmospheric CO 2 concentration continues to rise. We argue that current gaps in our understanding of fine‐root biology limit our ability to predict the response of soil microorganisms to rising atmospheric CO 2, and that understanding differences in fine‐root longevity and biochemistry between plant species are necessary for developing a predictive model of soil C and N cycling under elevated CO 2.

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.1469-8137.2000.00687.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 501

Metadata

Authors
ZAK, D. R., PREGITZER, K. S., KING, J. S., & HOLMES, W. E.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-07
Volume
147
Issue
1
Pages
201-222
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2096844430
Cited by
501
References
0
FWCI
39.48
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 atmospheric CO2, fine roots and the response of soil microorganisms: a review and hypothesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00687.x
The paper
ZAK, D. R., PREGITZER, K. S., KING, J. S., & HOLMES, W. E. (2000). Elevated atmospheric CO2, fine roots and the response of soil microorganisms: a review and hypothesis. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00687.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.