Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

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

Separating the effects of climate and vegetation on evapotranspiration along a successional chronosequence in the southeastern US

Open access
STOY, PAUL C., KATUL, GABRIEL G., SIQUEIRA, MARIO B. S., JUANG, JEHN‐YIH, NOVICK, KIMBERLY A., McCARTHY, HEATHER R., CHRISTOPHER OISHI, A., UEBELHERR, JOSHUA M., KIM, HYUN‐SEOK, OREN, RAM·2006·Global Change Biology

Abstract

We combined Eddy‐covariance measurements with a linear perturbation analysis to isolate the relative contribution of physical and biological drivers on evapotranspiration (ET) in three ecosystems representing two end‐members and an intermediate stage of a successional gradient in the southeastern US (SE). The study ecosystems, an abandoned agricultural field [old field (OF)], an early successional planted pine forest (PP), and a late‐successional hardwood forest (HW), exhibited differential sensitivity to the wide range of climatic and hydrologic conditions encountered over the 4‐year measurement period, which included mild and severe droughts and an ice storm. ET and modeled transpiration differed by as much as 190 and 270 mm yr−1, respectively, between years for a given ecosystem. Soil water supply, rather than atmospheric demand, was the principal external driver of interannual ET differences. ET at OF was sensitive to climatic variability, and results showed that decreased leaf area index (L) under mild and severe drought conditions reduced growing season (GS) ET (ET GS) by ca. 80 mm compared with a year with normal precipitation. Under wet conditions, higher intrinsic stomatal conductance (gs) increased ET GS by 50 mm. ET at PP was generally larger than the other ecosystems and was highly sensitive to climate; a 50 mm decrease in ET GS due to the loss of L from an ice storm equaled the increase in ET from high precipitation during a wet year. In contrast, ET at HW was relatively insensitive to climatic variability. Results suggest that recent management trends toward increasing the land‐cover area of PP‐type ecosystems in the SE may increase the sensitivity of ET to climatic variability.

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.1365-2486.2006.01244.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 252

Metadata

Authors
STOY, P. C., KATUL, G. G., SIQUEIRA, M. B. S., JUANG, J., NOVICK, K. A., McCARTHY, H. R., CHRISTOPHER OISHI, A., UEBELHERR, J. M., KIM, H., & OREN, R.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-20
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
2115-2135
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W1999254748
Cited by
252
References
1
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Separating the effects of climate and vegetation on evapotranspiration along a successional chronosequence in the southeastern US. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01244.x
The paper
STOY, P. C., KATUL, G. G., SIQUEIRA, M. B. S., JUANG, J., NOVICK, K. A., McCARTHY, H. R., CHRISTOPHER OISHI, A., UEBELHERR, J. M., KIM, H., & OREN, R. (2006). Separating the effects of climate and vegetation on evapotranspiration along a successional chronosequence in the southeastern US. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01244.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.