Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO 2

Open access
Finzi, Adrien C., Norby, Richard J., Calfapietra, Carlo, Gallet-Budynek, Anne, Gielen, Birgit, Holmes, William E., Hoosbeek, Marcel R., Iversen, Colleen M., Jackson, Robert B., Kubiske, Mark E., Ledford, Joanne, Liberloo, Marion, Oren, Ram, Polle, Andrea, Pritchard, Seth, Zak, Donald R., Schlesinger, William H., Ceulemans, Reinhart·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Forest ecosystems are important sinks for rising concentrations of atmospheric CO 2 . In previous research, we showed that net primary production (NPP) increased by 23 ± 2% when four experimental forests were grown under atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 predicted for the latter half of this century. Because nitrogen (N) availability commonly limits forest productivity, some combination of increased N uptake from the soil and more efficient use of the N already assimilated by trees is necessary to sustain the high rates of forest NPP under free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE). In this study, experimental evidence demonstrates that the uptake of N increased under elevated CO 2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites, yet fertilization studies at the Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites showed that tree growth and forest NPP were strongly limited by N availability. By contrast, nitrogen-use efficiency increased under elevated CO 2 at the POP-EUROFACE site, where fertilization studies showed that N was not limiting to tree growth. Some combination of increasing fine root production, increased rates of soil organic matter decomposition, and increased allocation of carbon (C) to mycorrhizal fungi is likely to account for greater N uptake under elevated CO 2 . Regardless of the specific mechanism, this analysis shows that the larger quantities of C entering the below-ground system under elevated CO 2 result in greater N uptake, even in N-limited ecosystems. Biogeochemical models must be reformulated to allow C transfers below ground that result in additional N uptake 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 · 10.1073/pnas.0706518104

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
Finzi, A. C., Norby, R. J., Calfapietra, C., Gallet-Budynek, A., Gielen, B., Holmes, W. E., Hoosbeek, M. R., Iversen, C. M., Jackson, R. B., Kubiske, M. E., Ledford, J., Liberloo, M., Oren, R., Polle, A., Pritchard, S., Zak, D. R., Schlesinger, W. H., & Ceulemans, R.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-08-28
Volume
104
Issue
35
Pages
14014-14019
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2157229558
Cited by
390
References
3
FWCI
31.19
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: Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO 2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0706518104
The paper
Finzi, A. C., Norby, R. J., Calfapietra, C., Gallet-Budynek, A., Gielen, B., Holmes, W. E., Hoosbeek, M. R., Iversen, C. M., Jackson, R. B., Kubiske, M. E., Ledford, J., Liberloo, M., Oren, R., Polle, A., Pritchard, S., Zak, D. R., Schlesinger, W. H., & Ceulemans, R. (2007). Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO 2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706518104

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.