The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems
Abstract
Carbon allocation plays a critical role in forest ecosystem carbon cycling. We reviewed existing literature and compiled annual carbon budgets for forest ecosystems to test a series of hypotheses addressing the patterns, plasticity, and limits of three components of allocation: biomass , the amount of material present; flux , the flow of carbon to a component per unit time; and partitioning , the fraction of gross primary productivity (GPP) used by a component. Can annual carbon flux and partitioning be inferred from biomass ? Our survey revealed that biomass was poorly related to carbon flux and to partitioning of photosynthetically derived carbon, and should not be used to infer either. Are component fluxes correlated ? Carbon fluxes to foliage, wood, and belowground production and respiration all increased linearly with increasing GPP (a rising tide lifts all boats). Autotrophic respiration was strongly linked to production for foliage, wood and roots, and aboveground net primary productivity and total belowground carbon flux (TBCF) were positively correlated across a broad productivity gradient. How does carbon partitioning respond to variability in resources and environment ? Within sites, partitioning to aboveground wood production and TBCF responded to changes in stand age and resource availability, but not to competition (tree density). Increasing resource supply and stand age, with one exception, resulted in increased partitioning to aboveground wood production and decreased partitioning to TBCF. Partitioning to foliage production was much less sensitive to changes in resources and environment. Overall, changes in partitioning within a site in response to resource supply and age were small (<15% of GPP), but much greater than those inferred from global relationships. Across all sites, foliage production plus respiration, and total autotrophic respiration appear to use relatively constant fractions of GPP – partitioning to both was conservative across a broad range of GPP – but values did vary across sites. Partitioning to aboveground wood production and to TBCF were the most variable – conditions that favored high GPP increased partitioning to aboveground wood production and decreased partitioning to TBCF. Do priorities exist for the products of photosynthesis ? The available data do not support the concept of priorities for the products of photosynthesis, because increasing GPP increased all fluxes. All facets of carbon allocation are important to understanding carbon cycling in forest ecosystems. Terrestrial ecosystem models require information on partitioning, yet we found few studies that measured all components of the carbon budget to allow estimation of partitioning coefficients. Future studies that measure complete annual carbon budgets contribute the most to understanding carbon allocation.
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
Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE
Leakey, A. D. B., Ainsworth, E. A., Bernacchi, C. J., Rogers, A., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erp096 · Cited by 1,678
McCormack, M. L., Dickie, I. A., Eissenstat, D. M., Fahey, T. J., Fernandez, C. W., Guo, D., Helmisaari, H., Hobbie, E. A., Iversen, C. M., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2015) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13363 · Cited by 1,456
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
Nutrient availability as the key regulator of global forest carbon balance
Fernández-Martínez, M., Vicca, S., Janssens, I. A., Sardans, J., Luyssaert, S., Campioli, M., Chapin III, F. S., Ciais, P., Malhi, Y., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2177 · Cited by 508
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
Metadata
- Authors
- LITTON, C. M., RAICH, J. W., & RYAN, M. G.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-22
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2089-2109
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2044238703
- Cited by
- 1,063
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 33.08
- 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: Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01420.x
- The paper
- LITTON, C. M., RAICH, J. W., & RYAN, M. G. (2007). Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01420.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.