Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate‐carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs)

SITCH, S., HUNTINGFORD, C., GEDNEY, N., LEVY, P. E., LOMAS, M., PIAO, S. L., BETTS, R., CIAIS, P., COX, P., FRIEDLINGSTEIN, P., JONES, C. D., PRENTICE, I. C., WOODWARD, F. I.·2008·Global Change Biology

Abstract

This study tests the ability of five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs), forced with observed climatology and atmospheric CO 2, to model the contemporary global carbon cycle. The DGVMs are also coupled to a fast ‘climate analogue model’, based on the Hadley Centre General Circulation Model (GCM), and run into the future for four Special Report Emission Scenarios (SRES): A1FI, A2, B1, B2. Results show that all DGVMs are consistent with the contemporary global land carbon budget. Under the more extreme projections of future environmental change, the responses of the DGVMs diverge markedly. In particular, large uncertainties are associated with the response of tropical vegetation to drought and boreal ecosystems to elevated temperatures and changing soil moisture status. The DGVMs show more divergence in their response to regional changes in climate than to increases in atmospheric CO 2 content. All models simulate a release of land carbon in response to climate, when physiological effects of elevated atmospheric CO 2 on plant production are not considered, implying a positive terrestrial climate‐carbon cycle feedback. All DGVMs simulate a reduction in global net primary production (NPP) and a decrease in soil residence time in the tropics and extra‐tropics in response to future climate. When both counteracting effects of climate and atmospheric CO 2 on ecosystem function are considered, all the DGVMs simulate cumulative net land carbon uptake over the 21st century for the four SRES emission scenarios. However, for the most extreme A1FI emissions scenario, three out of five DGVMs simulate an annual net source of CO 2 from the land to the atmosphere in the final decades of the 21st century. For this scenario, cumulative land uptake differs by 494 Pg C among DGVMs over the 21st century. This uncertainty is equivalent to over 50 years of anthropogenic emissions at current levels.

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.1365-2486.2008.01626.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,317

Metadata

Authors
SITCH, S., HUNTINGFORD, C., GEDNEY, N., LEVY, P. E., LOMAS, M., PIAO, S. L., BETTS, R., CIAIS, P., COX, P., FRIEDLINGSTEIN, P., JONES, C. D., PRENTICE, I. C., & WOODWARD, F. I.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08-06
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
2015-2039
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W1966715855
Cited by
1,317
References
4
FWCI
58.46
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: Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate‐carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01626.x
The paper
SITCH, S., HUNTINGFORD, C., GEDNEY, N., LEVY, P. E., LOMAS, M., PIAO, S. L., BETTS, R., CIAIS, P., COX, P., FRIEDLINGSTEIN, P., JONES, C. D., PRENTICE, I. C., & WOODWARD, F. I. (2008). Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate‐carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs). Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01626.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.