The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production?
Abstract
Considerable progress has been made in our ability to model and measure annual gross primary production (GPP) by terrestrial vegetation. But challenges remain in estimating maintenance respiration (R(m)) and net primary production (NPP). To search for possible common relationships, we assembled annual carbon budgets from six evergreen and one deciduous forest in Oregon, USA, three pine plantations in New South Wales, Australia, a deciduous forest in Massachusetts, USA, and a Nothofagus forest on the South Island of New Zealand. At all 12 sites, a standard procedure was followed to estimate annual NPP of foliage, branches, stems, and roots, the carbon expended in synthesis of these organs (R(g)), their R(m), and that of previously produced foliage and sapwood in boles, branches, and large roots. In the survey, total NPP ranged from 120 to 1660 g C m(-2) year(-1), whereas the calculated fraction allocated to roots varied from 0.22 to 0.63. Comparative analysis indicated that the total NPP/GPP ratio was conservative (0.47 +/- 0.04 SD). This finding supports the possibility of greatly simplifying forest growth models. The constancy of the NPP/GPP ratio also provides an incentive to renew efforts to understand the environmental factors affecting partitioning of NPP above and 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
Hyvönen, R., Ågren, G. I., Linder, S., Persson, T., Cotrufo, M. F., Ekblad, A., Freeman, M., Grelle, A., Janssens, I. A., Jarvis, P. G., et al. (2007) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01967.x · Cited by 688
AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CAUSES OF FOREST GROWTH DECLINE WITH STAND AGE
Ryan, M. G., Binkley, D., Fownes, J. H., Giardina, C. P., & Senock, R. S. (2004) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/03-4037 · Cited by 396
Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently
Vicca, S., Luyssaert, S., Peñuelas, J., Campioli, M., Chapin, F. S., Ciais, P., Heinemeyer, A., Högberg, P., Kutsch, W. L., Law, B. E., et al. (2012) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01775.x · Cited by 371
Net ecosystem production and carbon balance of an SRC poplar plantation during its first rotation
Verlinden, M. S., Broeckx, L. S., Zona, D., Berhongaray, G., De Groote, T., Camino Serrano, M., Janssens, I. A., & Ceulemans, R. (2013) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.05.033 · Cited by 67
BUCKLEY, T. N., & ADAMS, M. A. (2011) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02228.x · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Waring, R. H., Landsberg, J. J., & Williams, M.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-02-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-134
- ISSN
- 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-4469
- OpenAlex
- W2086315738
- Cited by
- 686
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.70
- 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: Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/18.2.129
- The paper
- Waring, R. H., Landsberg, J. J., & Williams, M. (1998). Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production? Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/18.2.129
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.