Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling carbon allocation in trees: a search for principles

Open access
Franklin, O., Johansson, J., Dewar, R. C., Dieckmann, U., McMurtrie, R. E., Brannstrom, A., Dybzinski, R.·2012·Tree Physiology

Abstract

We review approaches to predicting carbon and nitrogen allocation in forest models in terms of their underlying assumptions and their resulting strengths and limitations. Empirical and allometric methods are easily developed and computationally efficient, but lack the power of evolution-based approaches to explain and predict multifaceted effects of environmental variability and climate change. In evolution-based methods, allocation is usually determined by maximization of a fitness proxy, either in a fixed environment, which we call optimal response (OR) models, or including the feedback of an individual's strategy on its environment (game-theoretical optimization, GTO). Optimal response models can predict allocation in single trees and stands when there is significant competition only for one resource. Game-theoretical optimization can be used to account for additional dimensions of competition, e.g., when strong root competition boosts root allocation at the expense of wood production. However, we demonstrate that an OR model predicts similar allocation to a GTO model under the root-competitive conditions reported in free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiments. The most evolutionarily realistic approach is adaptive dynamics (AD) where the allocation strategy arises from eco-evolutionary dynamics of populations instead of a fitness proxy. We also discuss emerging entropy-based approaches that offer an alternative thermodynamic perspective on allocation, in which fitness proxies are replaced by entropy or entropy production. To help develop allocation models further, the value of wide-ranging datasets, such as FLUXNET, could be greatly enhanced by ancillary measurements of driving variables, such as water and soil nitrogen availability.

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/tpr138

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Franklin, O., Johansson, J., Dewar, R. C., Dieckmann, U., McMurtrie, R. E., Brannstrom, A., & Dybzinski, R.
Venue
Tree Physiology
Published
2012-01-25
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
648-666
ISSN
  • 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-4469
OpenAlex
W2131235141
Cited by
280
References
5
FWCI
19.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Modeling carbon allocation in trees: a search for principles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/tpr138
The paper
Franklin, O., Johansson, J., Dewar, R. C., Dieckmann, U., McMurtrie, R. E., Brannstrom, A., & Dybzinski, R. (2012). Modeling carbon allocation in trees: a search for principles. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr138

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.