The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Belowground carbon allocation in unfertilized and fertilized red pine plantations in northern Wisconsin
Abstract
We estimated carbon allocation to belowground processes in unfertilized and fertilized red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) plantations in northern Wisconsin to determine how soil fertility affects belowground allocation patterns. We used soil CO(2) efflux and litterfall measurements to estimate total belowground carbon allocation (root production and root respiration) by the carbon balance method, established root-free trenched plots to examine treatment effects on microbial respiration, estimated fine root production by sequential coring, and developed allometric equations to estimate coarse root production. Fine root production ranged from 150 to 284 g m(-2) year(-1) and was significantly lower for fertilized plots than for unfertilized plots. Coarse root production ranged from 60 to 90 g m(-2) year(-1) and was significantly lower for fertilized plots than for unfertilized plots. Annual soil CO(2) fluxes ranged from 331 to 541 g C m(-2) year(-1) and were significantly lower for fertilized plots than for unfertilized plots. Annual foliage litterfall ranged from 110 to 187 g C m(-2) year(-1) and was significantly greater for fertilized plots than for unfertilized plots. Total belowground carbon allocation ranged from 188 to 395 g C m(-2) year(-1) and was significantly lower for fertilized than for unfertilized plots. Annual soil CO(2) flux was lower for trenched plots than for untrenched plots but did not differ between fertilized and unfertilized trenched plots. Collectively, these independent estimates suggest that fertilization decreased the relative allocation of carbon belowground.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis
Guo, L. B., & Gifford, R. M. (2002) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x · Cited by 3,972
Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems
GILL, R. A., & JACKSON, R. B. (2000) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00681.x · Cited by 1,300
Fenn, M. E., Poth, M. A., Aber, J. D., Baron, J. S., Bormann, B. T., Johnson, D. W., Lemly, A. D., McNulty, S. G., Ryan, D. F., & Stottlemyer, R. (1998) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0706:neinae]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 788
Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis
De Stefano, A., & Jacobson, M. G. (2017) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9 · Cited by 299
Kucharik, C. J., Brye, K. R., Norman, J. M., Foley, J. A., Gower, S. T., & Bundy, L. G. (2001) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0007-2 · Cited by 178
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Haynes, B. E., & Gower, S. T.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-05-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 317-325
- ISSN
- 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-4469
- OpenAlex
- W1966656616
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Belowground carbon allocation in unfertilized and fertilized red pine plantations in northern Wisconsin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/15.5.317
- The paper
- Haynes, B. E., & Gower, S. T. (1995). Belowground carbon allocation in unfertilized and fertilized red pine plantations in northern Wisconsin. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/15.5.317
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.