Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Foliage, fine-root, woody-tissue and stand respiration in Pinus radiata in relation to nitrogen status

Ryan, M. G., Hubbard, R. M., Pongracic, S., Raison, R. J., McMurtrie, R. E.·1996·Tree Physiology

Abstract

We measured respiration of 20-year-old Pinus radiata D. Don trees growing in control (C), irrigated (I), and irrigated + fertilized (IL) stands in the Biology of Forest Growth experimental plantation near Canberra, Australia. Respiration was measured on fully expanded foliage, live branches, boles, and fine and coarse roots to determine the relationship between CO(2) efflux, tissue temperature, and biomass or nitrogen (N) content of individual tissues. Efflux of CO(2) from foliage (dark respiration at night) and fine roots was linearly related to biomass and N content, but N was a better predictor of CO(2) efflux than biomass. Respiration (assumed to be maintenance) per unit N at 15 degrees C and a CO(2) concentration of 400 micro mol mol(-1) was 1.71 micro mol s(-1) mol(-1) N for foliage and 11.2 micro mol s(-1) mol(-1) N for fine roots. Efflux of CO(2) from stems, coarse roots and branches was linearly related to sapwood volume (stems) or total volume (branches + coarse roots) and growth, with rates for maintenance respiration at 15 degrees C ranging from 18 to 104 micro mol m(-3) s(-1). Among woody components, branches in the upper canopy and small diameter coarse roots had the highest respiration rates. Stem maintenance respiration per unit sapwood volume did not differ among treatments. Annual C flux was estimated by summing (1) dry matter production and respiration of aboveground components, (2) annual soil CO(2) efflux minus aboveground litterfall, and (3) the annual increment in coarse root biomass. Annual C flux was 24.4, 25.3 and 34.4 Mg ha(-1) year(-1) for the C, I and IL treatments, respectively. Total belowground C allocation, estimated as the sum of (2) and (3) above, was equal to the sum of root respiration and estimated root production in the IL treatment, whereas in the nutrient-limited C and I treatments, total belowground C allocation was greater than the sum of root respiration and estimated root production, suggesting higher fine root turnover or increased allocation to mycorrhizae and root exudation. Carbon use efficiency, the ratio of net primary production to assimilation, was similar among treatments for aboveground tissues (0.43-0.50). Therefore, the proportion of assimilation used for construction and maintenance respiration on an annual basis was also similar among treatments.

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 · 10.1093/treephys/16.3.333

Cites

25 of 25 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 25 references

Cited by

See all 544

Metadata

Authors
Ryan, M. G., Hubbard, R. M., Pongracic, S., Raison, R. J., & McMurtrie, R. E.
Venue
Tree Physiology
Published
1996-03-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
333-343
ISSN
  • 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-4469
OpenAlex
W2324007117
Cited by
544
References
25
FWCI
42.21
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: Foliage, fine-root, woody-tissue and stand respiration in Pinus radiata in relation to nitrogen status. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/16.3.333
The paper
Ryan, M. G., Hubbard, R. M., Pongracic, S., Raison, R. J., & McMurtrie, R. E. (1996). Foliage, fine-root, woody-tissue and stand respiration in Pinus radiata in relation to nitrogen status. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/16.3.333

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.