Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Geographic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks with tropical land-use changes precludes spatial extrapolation

Open access
Powers, Jennifer S., Corre, Marife D., Twine, Tracy E., Veldkamp, Edzo·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Accurately quantifying changes in soil carbon (C) stocks with land-use change is important for estimating the anthropogenic fluxes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and for implementing policies such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) that provide financial incentives to reduce carbon dioxide fluxes from deforestation and land degradation. Despite hundreds of field studies and at least a dozen literature reviews, there is still considerable disagreement on the direction and magnitude of changes in soil C stocks with land-use change. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that quantified changes in soil C stocks with land use in the tropics. Conversion from one land use to another caused significant increases or decreases in soil C stocks for 8 of the 14 transitions examined. For the three land-use transitions with sufficient observations, both the direction and magnitude of the change in soil C pools depended strongly on biophysical factors of mean annual precipitation and dominant soil clay mineralogy. When we compared the distribution of biophysical conditions of the field observations to the area-weighted distribution of those factors in the tropics as a whole or the tropical lands that have undergone conversion, we found that field observations are highly unrepresentative of most tropical landscapes. Because of this geographic bias we strongly caution against extrapolating average values of land-cover change effects on soil C stocks, such as those generated through meta-analysis and literature reviews, to regions that differ in biophysical conditions.

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.1016774108

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Powers, J. S., Corre, M. D., Twine, T. E., & Veldkamp, E.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-03-28
Volume
108
Issue
15
Pages
6318-6322
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2121737502
Cited by
282
References
5
FWCI
23.78
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: Geographic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks with tropical land-use changes precludes spatial extrapolation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1016774108
The paper
Powers, J. S., Corre, M. D., Twine, T. E., & Veldkamp, E. (2011). Geographic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks with tropical land-use changes precludes spatial extrapolation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016774108

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.