Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 600

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: on winners, losers and functional groups

Poorter, Hendrik, Navas, Marie‐Laure·2003·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: The effects of increased atmospheric CO 2 concentrations on vegetative growth and competitive performance were evaluated, using five meta‐analyses. Paying special attention to functional groups, we analysed responses at three integration levels: carbon economy parameters, vegetative biomass of isolated plants, and growth in competition. CO 2 effects on seed biomass and plant‐to‐plant variability were also studied. Underlying the growth stimulation is an increased unit leaf rate (ULR), especially for herbaceous dicots. This is mainly caused by an increase in the whole‐plant rate of photosynthesis. The increased ULR is accompanied by a decrease in specific leaf area. The net result of these and other changes is that relative growth rate is only marginally stimulated. The biomass enhancement ratio (BER) of individually grown plants varies substantially across experiments/species, and size variability in the experimental populations is a vital factor in this. Fast‐growing herbaceous C3 species respond more strongly than slow‐growing C3 herbs or C4 plants. CAM species and woody plants show intermediate responses. When grown in competition, C4 species show lowest responses to elevated CO 2 at high nutrient conditions, whereas at low nutrient levels N 2‐fixing dicots respond relatively strongly. No systematic differences were found between slow‐ and fast‐growing species. BER values obtained for isolated plants cannot be used to estimate BER of the same species grown in interspecific competition – the CO 2 response of monocultures may be a better predictor. Contents Summary 175 I. Introduction 176 II. Materials and Methods 177 III. Factors underlying the growth response 178 IV. Variation in biomass enhancement ratio 181 V. Functional groups of species 184 VI. The response in a more natural environment 188 VII. An outlook 192 VIII. Conclusions 193 Acknowledgements 193 References 193 Appendices 196

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.1469-8137.2003.00680.x

Cites

108 of 108 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 108 references

Cited by

See all 600

Metadata

Authors
Poorter, H., & Navas, M.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-01-24
Volume
157
Issue
2
Pages
175-198
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2153348827
Cited by
600
References
108
FWCI
33.27
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: Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: on winners, losers and functional groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00680.x
The paper
Poorter, H., & Navas, M. (2003). Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: on winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00680.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.