Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 987

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forest response to elevated CO2is conserved across a broad range of productivity

Open access
Norby, Richard J., DeLucia, Evan H., Gielen, Birgit, Calfapietra, Carlo, Giardina, Christian P., King, John S., Ledford, Joanne, McCarthy, Heather R., Moore, David J. P., Ceulemans, Reinhart, De Angelis, Paolo, Finzi, Adrien C., Karnosky, David F., Kubiske, Mark E., Lukac, Martin, Pregitzer, Kurt S., Scarascia-Mugnozza, Giuseppe E., Schlesinger, William H., Oren, Ram·2005·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Climate change predictions derived from coupled carbon-climate models are highly dependent on assumptions about feedbacks between the biosphere and atmosphere. One critical feedback occurs if C uptake by the biosphere increases in response to the fossil-fuel driven increase in atmospheric [CO 2] (“CO 2 fertilization”), thereby slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric [CO 2]. Carbon exchanges between the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere are often first represented in models as net primary productivity (NPP). However, the contribution of CO 2 fertilization to the future global C cycle has been uncertain, especially in forest ecosystems that dominate global NPP, and models that include a feedback between terrestrial biosphere metabolism and atmospheric [CO 2] are poorly constrained by experimental evidence. We analyzed the response of NPP to elevated CO 2(≈550 ppm) in four free-air CO 2 enrichment experiments in forest stands. We show that the response of forest NPP to elevated [CO 2] is highly conserved across a broad range of productivity, with a stimulation at the median of 23 ± 2%. At low leaf area indices, a large portion of the response was attributable to increased light absorption, but as leaf area indices increased, the response to elevated [CO 2] was wholly caused by increased light-use efficiency. The surprising consistency of response across diverse sites provides a benchmark to evaluate predictions of ecosystem and global models and allows us now to focus on unresolved questions about carbon partitioning and retention, and spatial variation in NPP response caused by availability of other growth limiting resources.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0509478102

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 987

Metadata

Authors
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., De Angelis, P., Finzi, A. C., Karnosky, D. F., Kubiske, M. E., Lukac, M., Pregitzer, K. S., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. E., Schlesinger, W. H., & Oren, R.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2005-12-05
Volume
102
Issue
50
Pages
18052-18056
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1974624458
Cited by
987
References
2
FWCI
47.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Forest response to elevated CO2is conserved across a broad range of productivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0509478102
The paper
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., De Angelis, P., Finzi, A. C., Karnosky, D. F., Kubiske, M. E., Lukac, M., Pregitzer, K. S., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. E., Schlesinger, W. H., & Oren, R. (2005). Forest response to elevated CO2is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509478102

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.