Cited by 38Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPlant responses to elevated CO2CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions

Forest soil carbon cycle under elevated CO2 - a case of increased throughput?

Lukac, M., Lagomarsino, A., Moscatelli, M. C., De Angelis, P., Cotrufo, M. F., Godbold, D. L.·2009·Forestry

Abstract

Forest soils account for a large part of the stable carbon pool held in terrestrial ecosystems. Future levels of atmospheric CO2 are likely to increase C input into the soils through increased above- and below-ground production of forests. This increased input will result in greater sequestration of C only if the additional C enters stable pools. In this review, we compare current observations from four large-scale Free Air FACE Enrichment (FACE) experiments on forest ecosystems (EuroFACE, Aspen-FACE, Duke FACE and ORNL-FACE) and consider their predictive power for long-term C sequestration. At all sites, FACE increased fine root biomass, and in most cases higher fine root turnover resulted in higher C input into soil via root necromass. However, at all sites, soil CO2 efflux also increased in excess of the increased root necromass inputs. A mass balance calculation suggests that a large part of the stimulation of soil CO2 efflux may be due to increased root respiration. Given the duration of these experiments compared with the life cycle of a forest and the complexity of processes involved, it is not yet possible to predict whether elevated CO2 will result in increased C storage in forest soil.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/forestry/cpn041

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The increase in root respiration under enhanced CO2 is generally valid for FACE experiments under older (12-16 %) and recently established (22-46 %) systems.

    “Root respiration has also been found to increase in SRWC systems under enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentrations [130], which seems to be generally valid for FACE experiments under older (12–16 %) and recently established (22–46 %) systems [153].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lukac, M., Lagomarsino, A., Moscatelli, M. C., De Angelis, P., Cotrufo, M. F., & Godbold, D. L.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
Forestry
Published
2009-01-01
Volume
82
Issue
1
Pages
75-86
ISSN
  • 0015-752X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3626
OpenAlex
W2152484232
Cited by
38
References
75
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Forestry An International Journal of Forest Research (publishedVersion)
  • UnitusOpen (Tuscia University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › CO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Keywords
elevated CO2, free-air CO2 enrichment, carbon sequestration, root necromass, fine root turnover, root respiration, soil CO2 efflux, mass balance, terrestrial carbon storage

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