Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 643

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: A metaanalytical review

SUBKE, JENS‐ARNE, INGLIMA, ILARIA, FRANCESCA COTRUFO, M.·2006·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Partitioning soil carbon dioxide (CO 2) efflux (RS) into autotrophic (RA; including plant roots and closely associated organisms) and heterotrophic (RH) components has received considerable attention, as differential responses of these components to environmental change have profound implications for the soil and ecosystem C balance. The increasing number of partitioning studies allows a more detailed analysis of experimental constraints than was previously possible. We present results of an exhaustive literature search of partitioning studies and analyse global trends in flux partitioning between biomes and ecosystem types by means of a metaanalysis. Across all data, an overall decline in the RH/RS ratio for increasing annual RS fluxes emerged. For forest ecosystems, boreal coniferous sites showed significantly higher (P<0.05) RH/RS ratios than temperate sites, while both temperate or tropical deciduous forests did not differ in ratios from any of the other forest types. While chronosequence studies report consistent declines in the RH/RS ratio with age, no difference could be detected for different age groups in the global data set. Different methodologies showed generally good agreement if the range of RS under which they had been measured was considered, with the exception of studies estimating R H by means of root mass regressions against RS, which resulted in consistently lower RH/RS estimates out of all methods included. Additionally, the time step over which fluxes were partitioned did not affect RH/RS ratios consistently. To put results into context, we review the most common techniques and point out the likely sources of errors associated with them. In order to improve soil CO 2 efflux partitioning in future experiments, we include methodological recommendations, and also highlight the potential interactions between soil components that may be overlooked as a consequence of the partitioning process itself.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01117.x

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 643

Metadata

Authors
SUBKE, J., INGLIMA, I., & FRANCESCA COTRUFO, M.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03-14
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
921-943
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2142737108
Cited by
643
References
1
FWCI
42.80
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: Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: A metaanalytical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01117.x
The paper
SUBKE, J., INGLIMA, I., & FRANCESCA COTRUFO, M. (2006). Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: A metaanalytical review. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01117.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.