Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on soil carbon: a comparison of four meta‐analyses

Open access
HUNGATE, BRUCE A., Van GROENIGEN, KEES‐JAN, SIX, JOHAN, JASTROW, JULIE D., LUO, YIQI, De GRAAFF, MARIE‐ANNE, Van KESSEL, CHRIS, OSENBERG, CRAIG W.·2009·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Soil is the largest reservoir of organic carbon (C) in the terrestrial biosphere and soil C has a relatively long mean residence time. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2) concentrations generally increase plant growth and C input to soil, suggesting that soil might help mitigate atmospheric CO 2 rise and global warming. But to what extent mitigation will occur is unclear. The large size of the soil C pool not only makes it a potential buffer against rising atmospheric CO 2, but also makes it difficult to measure changes amid the existing background. Meta‐analysis is one tool that can overcome the limited power of single studies. Four recent meta‐analyses addressed this issue but reached somewhat different conclusions about the effect of elevated CO 2 on soil C accumulation, especially regarding the role of nitrogen (N) inputs. Here, we assess the extent of differences between these conclusions and propose a new analysis of the data. The four meta‐analyses included different studies, derived different effect size estimates from common studies, used different weighting functions and metrics of effect size, and used different approaches to address nonindependence of effect sizes. Although all factors influenced the mean effect size estimates and subsequent inferences, the approach to independence had the largest influence. We recommend that meta‐analysts critically assess and report choices about effect size metrics and weighting functions, and criteria for study selection and independence. Such decisions need to be justified carefully because they affect the basis for inference. Our new analysis, with a combined data set, confirms that the effect of elevated CO 2 on net soil C accumulation increases with the addition of N fertilizers. Although the effect at low N inputs was not significant, statistical power to detect biogeochemically important effect sizes at low N is limited, even with meta‐analysis, suggesting the continued need for long‐term experiments.

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.1365-2486.2009.01866.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
HUNGATE, B. A., Van GROENIGEN, K., SIX, J., JASTROW, J. D., LUO, Y., De GRAAFF, M., Van KESSEL, C., & OSENBERG, C. W.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-02
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
2020-2034
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2068091554
Cited by
212
References
5
FWCI
22.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Assessing the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on soil carbon: a comparison of four meta‐analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01866.x
The paper
HUNGATE, B. A., Van GROENIGEN, K., SIX, J., JASTROW, J. D., LUO, Y., De GRAAFF, M., Van KESSEL, C., & OSENBERG, C. W. (2009). Assessing the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on soil carbon: a comparison of four meta‐analyses. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01866.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.