The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Forest carbon use efficiency: is respiration a constant fraction of gross primary production?
Abstract
Carbon‐use efficiency (CUE), the ratio of net primary production (NPP) to gross primary production (GPP), describes the capacity of forests to transfer carbon (C) from the atmosphere to terrestrial biomass. It is widely assumed in many landscape‐scale carbon‐cycling models that CUE for forests is a constant value of ∼0.5. To achieve a constant CUE, tree respiration must be a constant fraction of canopy photosynthesis. We conducted a literature survey to test the hypothesis that CUE is constant and universal among forest ecosystems. Of the 60 data points obtained from 26 papers published since 1975, more than half reported values of GPP that were not estimated independently from NPP; values of CUE calculated from independent estimates of GPP were greater than those calculated from estimates of GPP derived from NPP. The slope of the relationship between NPP and GPP for all forests was 0.53, but values of CUE varied from 0.23 to 0.83 for different forest types. CUE decreased with increasing age, and a substantial portion of the variation among forest types was caused by differences in stand age. When corrected for age the mean value of CUE was greatest for temperate deciduous forests and lowest for boreal forests. CUE also increased as the ratio of leaf mass‐to‐total mass increased. Contrary to the assumption of constancy, substantial variation in CUE has been reported in the literature. It may be inappropriate to assume that respiration is a constant fraction of GPP as adhering to this assumption may contribute to incorrect estimates of C cycles. A 20% error in current estimates of CUE used in landscape models (i.e. ranging from 0.4 to 0.6) could misrepresent an amount of C equal to total anthropogenic emissions of CO 2 when scaled to the terrestrial biosphere.
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
Odum, E. P. (1969) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.164.3877.262 · Cited by 5,433
Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems
Dixon, R. K., Solomon, A. M., Brown, S., Houghton, R. A., Trexier, M. C., & Wisniewski, J. (1994) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.263.5144.185 · Cited by 3,403
Terrestrial ecosystem production: A process model based on global satellite and surface data
Potter, C. S., Randerson, J. T., Field, C. B., Matson, P. A., Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., & Klooster, S. A. (1993) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/93gb02725 · Cited by 2,986
Clymo, R. S., & Whittaker, R. H. (1970) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2258550 · Cited by 2,436
Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests
Valentini, R., Matteucci, G., Dolman, A. J., Schulze, E.-D., Rebmann, C., Moors, E. J., Granier, A., Gross, P., Jensen, N. O., Pilegaard, K., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35009084 · Cited by 1,626
Running, S. W., & Coughlan, J. C. (1988) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/0304-3800(88)90112-3 · Cited by 1,479
Thermal acclimation and the dynamic response of plant respiration to temperature
Atkin, O. K., & Tjoelker, M. G. (2003) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/s1360-1385(03)00136-5 · Cited by 1,304
Building roots in a changing environment: implications for root longevity
EISSENSTAT, D. M., WELLS, C. E., YANAI, R. D., & WHITBECK, J. L. (2000) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00686.x · Cited by 1,092
Körner, C. (2003) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00742.x · Cited by 1,082
MEASURING NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION IN FORESTS: CONCEPTS AND FIELD METHODS
Clark, D. A., Brown, S., Kicklighter, D. W., Chambers, J. Q., Thomlinson, J. R., & Ni, J. (2001) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0356:mnppif]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 994
Cited by
Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W., Swenson, S. C., Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., van Kampenhout, L., Kennedy, D., et al. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2018ms001583 · Cited by 2,060
Self-citationThe fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment
Jiang, M., Medlyn, B. E., Drake, J. E., Duursma, R. A., Anderson, I. C., Barton, C. V. M., Boer, M. M., Carrillo, Y., Castañeda-Gómez, L., Collins, L., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2128-9 · Cited by 448
Self-citationConvergence of terrestrial plant production across global climate gradients
Michaletz, S. T., Cheng, D., Kerkhoff, A. J., & Enquist, B. J. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13470 · Cited by 373
Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently
Vicca, S., Luyssaert, S., Peñuelas, J., Campioli, M., Chapin, F. S., Ciais, P., Heinemeyer, A., Högberg, P., Kutsch, W. L., Law, B. E., et al. (2012) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01775.x · Cited by 371
Improving the monitoring of crop productivity using spaceborne solar‐induced fluorescence
Guan, K., Berry, J. A., Zhang, Y., Joiner, J., Guanter, L., Badgley, G., & Lobell, D. B. (2016) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13136 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- DeLUCIA, E. H., DRAKE, J. E., THOMAS, R. B., & GONZALEZ‐MELER, M.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-04-17
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1157-1167
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2008225934
- Cited by
- 493
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 16.25
- 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: Forest carbon use efficiency: is respiration a constant fraction of gross primary production? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01365.x
- The paper
- DeLUCIA, E. H., DRAKE, J. E., THOMAS, R. B., & GONZALEZ‐MELER, M. (2007). Forest carbon use efficiency: is respiration a constant fraction of gross primary production? Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01365.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.
