Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 545

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada's forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain

Open access
Kurz, Werner A., Stinson, Graham, Rampley, Gregory J., Dymond, Caren C., Neilson, Eric T.·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

A large carbon sink in northern land surfaces inferred from global carbon cycle inversion models led to concerns during Kyoto Protocol negotiations that countries might be able to avoid efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions by claiming large sinks in their managed forests. The greenhouse gas balance of Canada's managed forest is strongly affected by naturally occurring fire with high interannual variability in the area burned and by cyclical insect outbreaks. Taking these stochastic future disturbances into account, we used the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) to project that the managed forests of Canada could be a source of between 30 and 245 Mt CO 2 e yr −1 during the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period (2008–2012). The recent transition from sink to source is the result of large insect outbreaks. The wide range in the predicted greenhouse gas balance (215 Mt CO 2 e yr −1 ) is equivalent to nearly 30% of Canada's emissions in 2005. The increasing impact of natural disturbances, the two major insect outbreaks, and the Kyoto Protocol accounting rules all contributed to Canada's decision not to elect forest management. In Canada, future efforts to influence the carbon balance through forest management could be overwhelmed by natural disturbances. Similar circumstances may arise elsewhere if global change increases natural disturbance rates. Future climate mitigation agreements that do not account for and protect against the impacts of natural disturbances, for example, by accounting for forest management benefits relative to baselines, will fail to encourage changes in forest management aimed at mitigating climate change.

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.0708133105

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 545

Metadata

Authors
Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Dymond, C. C., & Neilson, E. T.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-02-05
Volume
105
Issue
5
Pages
1551-1555
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2065806354
Cited by
545
References
4
FWCI
40.84
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: Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada's forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0708133105
The paper
Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Dymond, C. C., & Neilson, E. T. (2008). Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada's forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708133105

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.