The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical analysis of root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes
Abstract
One of the most common descriptors of the relationship between root and shoot biomass is the root : shoot ratio, which has become a core method for estimating root biomass from the more easily measured shoot biomass. Previous reviews have examined root : shoot ratio data, but have only considered particular vegetation types and have not always critically reviewed the data used. Reliable root : shoot ratios are needed for a wide range of vegetation types in order to improve the accuracy of root biomass estimates, including those required for estimating the effects of land management and land use change in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. This study reviewed root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. A key facet of our analysis was a critical methodological review, through which unreliable data were identified and omitted on the basis of specific criteria. Of the 786 root : shoot ratio observations collated, 62% were omitted because of inadequate or unverifiable root sampling methods. When only the reliable data were examined, root : shoot ratios were found to be negatively related to shoot biomass, mean annual precipitation, mean annual temperature, forest stand age, and forest stand height. Although a single allometric equation derived in this study reliably predicted root biomass from shoot biomass for forests and woodlands, in general, the use of vegetation‐specific root : shoot ratios were found to be a more accurate method for predicting root biomass. When the root : shoot ratio data collated here were applied to an analysis of the global carbon budget, there was a 50% increase in estimated global root carbon stock, and a 12% increase in estimated total carbon stock of terrestrial vegetation. The use of the vegetation‐specific root : shoot ratios presented in this study is likely to substantially improve the accuracy of root biomass estimates for purposes such as carbon accounting and for studies of ecosystem dynamics.
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
A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes
Jackson, R. B., Canadell, J., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., & Schulze, E. D. (1996) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00333714 · Cited by 3,071
Cited by
Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees
Chave, J., Réjou‐Méchain, M., Búrquez, A., Chidumayo, E., Colgan, M. S., Delitti, W. B. C., Duque, A., Eid, T., Fearnside, P. M., Goodman, R. C., et al. (2014) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12629 · Cited by 3,131
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality
Gibbs, H. K., Brown, S., Niles, J. O., & Foley, J. A. (2007) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023 · Cited by 1,653
Freschet, G. T., Pagès, L., Iversen, C. M., Comas, L. H., Rewald, B., Roumet, C., Klimešová, J., Zadworny, M., Poorter, H., Postma, J. A., et al. (2021) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.17572 · Cited by 668
Natural climate solutions for the United States
Fargione, J. E., Bassett, S., Boucher, T., Bridgham, S. D., Conant, R. T., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Falcucci, A., Fourqurean, J. W., Gopalakrishna, T., et al. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869 · Cited by 588
Kell, D. B. (2011) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcr175 · Cited by 439
Metadata
- Authors
- MOKANY, K., RAISON, R. J., & PROKUSHKIN, A. S.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11-21
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-96
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W1976988124
- Cited by
- 1,588
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.80
- 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: Critical analysis of root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x
- The paper
- MOKANY, K., RAISON, R. J., & PROKUSHKIN, A. S. (2006). Critical analysis of root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.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.