Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

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

FLUXNET and modelling the global carbon cycle

FRIEND, ANDREW D., ARNETH, ALMUT, KIANG, NANCY Y., LOMAS, MARK, OGÉE, JÉRÔME, RÖDENBECK, CHRISTIAN, RUNNING, STEVEN W., SANTAREN, JEAN‐DIEGO, SITCH, STEPHEN, VIOVY, NICOLAS, IAN WOODWARD, F., ZAEHLE, SÖNKE·2007·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Measurements of the net CO 2 flux between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere using the eddy covariance technique have the potential to underpin our interpretation of regional CO 2 source–sink patterns, CO 2 flux responses to forcings, and predictions of the future terrestrial C balance. Information contained in FLUXNET eddy covariance data has multiple uses for the development and application of global carbon models, including evaluation/validation, calibration, process parameterization, and data assimilation. This paper reviews examples of these uses, compares global estimates of the dynamics of the global carbon cycle, and suggests ways of improving the utility of such data for global carbon modelling. Net ecosystem exchange of CO 2 (NEE) predicted by different terrestrial biosphere models compares favourably with FLUXNET observations at diurnal and seasonal timescales. However, complete model validation, particularly over the full annual cycle, requires information on the balance between assimilation and decomposition processes, information not readily available for most FLUXNET sites. Site history, when known, can greatly help constrain the model‐data comparison. Flux measurements made over four vegetation types were used to calibrate the land‐surface scheme of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies global climate model, significantly improving simulated climate and demonstrating the utility of diurnal FLUXNET data for climate modelling. Land‐surface temperatures in many regions cool due to higher canopy conductances and latent heat fluxes, and the spatial distribution of CO 2 uptake provides a significant additional constraint on the realism of simulated surface fluxes. FLUXNET data are used to calibrate a global production efficiency model (PEM). This model is forced by satellite‐measured absorbed radiation and suggests that global net primary production (NPP) increased 6.2% over 1982–1999. Good agreement is found between global trends in NPP estimated by the PEM and a dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM), and between the DGVM and estimates of global NEE derived from a global inversion of atmospheric CO 2 measurements. Combining the PEM, DGVM, and inversion results suggests that CO 2 fertilization is playing a major role in current increases in NPP, with lesser impacts from increasing N deposition and growing season length. Both the PEM and the inversion identify the Amazon basin as a key region for the current net terrestrial CO 2 uptake (i.e. 33% of global NEE), as well as its interannual variability. The inversion's global NEE estimate of −1.2 Pg [C] yr−1 for 1982–1995 is compatible with the PEM‐ and DGVM‐predicted trends in NPP. There is, thus, a convergence in understanding derived from process‐based models, remote‐sensing‐based observations, and inversion of atmospheric data. Future advances in field measurement techniques, including eddy covariance (particularly concerning the problem of night‐time fluxes in dense canopies and of advection or flow distortion over complex terrain), will result in improved constraints on land‐atmosphere CO 2 fluxes and the rigorous attribution of mechanisms to the current terrestrial net CO 2 uptake and its spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Global ecosystem models play a fundamental role in linking information derived from FLUXNET measurements to atmospheric CO 2 variability. A number of recommendations concerning FLUXNET data are made, including a request for more comprehensive site data (particularly historical information), more measurements in undisturbed ecosystems, and the systematic provision of error estimates. The greatest value of current FLUXNET data for global carbon cycle modelling is in evaluating process representations, rather than in providing an unbiased estimate of net CO 2 exchange.

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.1365-2486.2006.01223.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 291

Metadata

Authors
FRIEND, A. D., ARNETH, A., KIANG, N. Y., LOMAS, M., OGÉE, J., RÖDENBECK, C., RUNNING, S. W., SANTAREN, J., SITCH, S., VIOVY, N., IAN WOODWARD, F., & ZAEHLE, S.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-07
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
610-633
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2030145772
Cited by
291
References
1
FWCI
14.91
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: FLUXNET and modelling the global carbon cycle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01223.x
The paper
FRIEND, A. D., ARNETH, A., KIANG, N. Y., LOMAS, M., OGÉE, J., RÖDENBECK, C., RUNNING, S. W., SANTAREN, J., SITCH, S., VIOVY, N., IAN WOODWARD, F., & ZAEHLE, S. (2007). FLUXNET and modelling the global carbon cycle. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01223.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.