The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial analysis of growing season length control over net ecosystem exchange
Abstract
Using data from 28 flux measurement sites, we performed an analysis of the relationship between annual net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and the length of the carbon uptake period (CUP) (the number of days when the ecosystem is a net carbon sink). The observations suggest a linear correlation between the two quantities. The change in annual carbon exchange per day of the CUP differs significantly between deciduous and evergreen vegetation types. The sites containing vegetation with short‐lived foliage (less than 1 year) have higher carbon uptake and respiration rates than evergreen vegetation. The ratio between mean daily carbon exchange rates during carbon uptake and release periods is relatively invariant (2.73±1.08) across different vegetation types. This implies that a balance between carbon release and uptake periods exists despite different photosynthetic pathways, life forms, and leaf habits. The mean daily carbon sequestration rate for these ecosystems never exceeds the carbon emission rate by more than a factor of 3. Growing season lengths for the study sites were derived from the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) of advanced very‐high‐resolution radiometer and from the enhanced vegetation index (EVI) of VEGETATION SPOT‐4. NDVI and EVI were found to be closely related to the CUP, and consequently they also can be used to approximate annual carbon exchange of the ecosystems. This approach has potential for allowing extrapolation of NEE over large areas from remotely sensed data, given a certain amount of ancillary information. This method could complement the currently existing techniques for extrapolation, which rely upon modeling of the individual gross fluxes.
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
Cites
Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316801 · Cited by 7,344
Cited by
Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming
Piao, S., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Peylin, P., Reichstein, M., Luyssaert, S., Margolis, H., Fang, J., Barr, A., Chen, A., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06444 · Cited by 1,157
Baldocchi, D. (2008) · Australian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1071/bt07151 · Cited by 1,123
Influence of spring and autumn phenological transitions on forest ecosystem productivity
Richardson, A. D., Andy Black, T., Ciais, P., Delbart, N., Friedl, M. A., Gobron, N., Hollinger, D. Y., Kutsch, W. L., Longdoz, B., Luyssaert, S., et al. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0102 · Cited by 936
Why does phenology drive species distribution?
Chuine, I. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0142 · Cited by 734
Finzi, A. C., Abramoff, R. Z., Spiller, K. S., Brzostek, E. R., Darby, B. A., Kramer, M. A., & Phillips, R. P. (2015) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12816 · Cited by 630
Metadata
- Authors
- Churkina, G., Schimel, D., Braswell, B. H., & Xiao, X.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-17
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1777-1787
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2040782515
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.09
- 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: Spatial analysis of growing season length control over net ecosystem exchange. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001012.x
- The paper
- Churkina, G., Schimel, D., Braswell, B. H., & Xiao, X. (2005). Spatial analysis of growing season length control over net ecosystem exchange. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001012.x
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.