The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rhizosphere feedbacks in elevated CO2
Abstract
Understanding rhizosphere processes in relation to increasing atmospheric CO(2) concentrations is important for predicting the response of forest ecosystems to environmental changes, because rhizosphere processes are intimately linked with nutrient cycling and soil organic matter decomposition, both of which feedback to tree growth and soil carbon storage. Plants grown in elevated CO(2) substantially increase C input to the rhizosphere. Although it is known that elevated CO(2) enhances rhizosphere respiration more than it enhances root biomass, the fate and function of this extra carbon input to the rhizosphere in response to elevated CO(2) are not clear. Depending on specific plant and soil conditions, the increased carbon input to the rhizosphere can result in an increase, a decrease, or no effect on soil organic matter decomposition and nutrient mineralization. Three mechanisms may account for these inconsistent results: (1) the "preferential substrate utilization" hypothesis; (2) the "priming effect" hypothesis; and (3) the "competition" hypothesis, i.e., competition for mineral nutrients between plants and soil microorganisms. A microbial growth model is developed that quantitatively links the increased rhizosphere input in response to elevated CO(2) with soil organic matter decomposition. The model incorporates the three proposed mechanisms, and simulates the complexity of the rhizosphere processes. The model also illustrates mechanistically the interactions among nitrogen availability, substrate quality, and microbial dynamics when the system is exposed to elevated CO(2).
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
Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects
Kuzyakov, Y., Friedel, J. K., & Stahr, K. (2000) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(00)00084-5 · Cited by 3,040
van Hees, P. A. W., Jones, D. L., Finlay, R., Godbold, D. L., & Lundström, U. S. (2005) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.06.010 · Cited by 653
Cheng, W. (2009) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.04.018 · Cited by 323
Self-citationBradford, M. A., Fierer, N., & Reynolds, J. F. (2008) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01404.x · Cited by 281
Rees, R. M., Bingham, I. J., Baddeley, J. A., & Watson, C. A. (2005) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.12.020 · Cited by 235
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, W.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-04-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4-5
- Pages
- 313-320
- ISSN
- 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-4469
- OpenAlex
- W2100327380
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.93
- 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: Rhizosphere feedbacks in elevated CO2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/19.4-5.313
- The paper
- Cheng, W. (1999). Rhizosphere feedbacks in elevated CO2. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/19.4-5.313
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.