The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of grazing on carbon stocks and assimilate partitioning in a Tibetan montane pasture revealed by 13CO2 pulse labeling
Open accessAbstract
Since the late 1950s, governmental rangeland policies have changed the grazing management on the T ibetan P lateau (TP). Increasing grazing pressure and, since the 1980s, the privatization and fencing of pastures near villages has led to land degradation, whereas remote pastures have recovered from stronger overgrazing. To clarify the effect of moderate grazing on the carbon (C) cycle of the TP, we investigated differences in below‐ground C stocks and C allocation using in situ 13CO 2 pulse labeling of (i) a montane Kobresia winter pasture of yaks, with moderate grazing regime and (ii) a 7‐year‐old grazing exclosure plot, both in 3440 m asl. Twenty‐seven days after the labeling, 13C incorporated into shoots did not differ between the grazed (43% of recovered 13C) and ungrazed (38%) plots. In the grazed plots, however, less C was lost by shoot respiration (17% vs. 42%), and more was translocated below‐ground (40% vs. 20%). Within the below‐ground pools, <2% of 13C was incorporated into living root tissue of both land use types. In the grazed plots about twice the amount of 13C remained in soil (18%) and was mineralized to CO 2 (20%) as compared to the ungrazed plots (soil 10%; CO 2 9%). Despite the higher contribution of root‐derived C to CO 2 efflux, total CO 2 efflux did not differ between the two land use types. C stocks in the soil layers 0–5 and 5–15 cm under grazed grassland were significantly larger than in the ungrazed grassland. However, C stocks below 15 cm were not affected after 7 years without grazing. We conclude that the larger below‐ground C allocation of plants, the larger amount of recently assimilated C remaining in the soil, and less soil organic matter‐derived CO 2 efflux create a positive effect of moderate grazing on soil C input and C sequestration.
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
World Reference Base for Soil Resources
Driessen, P., Nachtergaele, F., Spaargaren, O., & Seppe Deckers, J. (2005) · Encyclopedia of Soil Science, Second Edition · doi:10.1201/noe0849338304.ch410 · Cited by 7,248
Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation
Rasse, D. P., Rumpel, C., & Dignac, M.-F. (2005) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-004-0907-y · Cited by 1,861
Critical analysis of root : shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes
MOKANY, K., RAISON, R. J., & PROKUSHKIN, A. S. (2006) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x · Cited by 1,588
Organic Carbon in Soils of the World
Eswaran, H., Van Den Berg, E., & Reich, P. (1993) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700010034x · Cited by 1,458
Harris, D., Horwáth, W. R., & van Kessel, C. (2001) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2001.1853 · Cited by 1,325
The retention of organic matter in soils
Oades, J. M. (1988) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/bf02180317 · Cited by 1,184
Sources of CO2 efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods
Kuzyakov, Y. (2006) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.020 · Cited by 1,183
Self-citationThe global carbon sink: a grassland perspective
Scurlock, J. M. O., & Hall, D. O. (1998) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00151.x · Cited by 789
Plant decomposition and soil respiration in terrestrial ecosystems
Singh, J. S., & Gupta, S. R. (1977) · The Botanical Review · doi:10.1007/bf02860844 · Cited by 788
Bardgett, R. D., Wardle, D. A., & Yeates, G. W. (1998) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(98)00069-8 · Cited by 705
Cited by
Carbon input by roots into the soil: Quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale
Pausch, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13850 · Cited by 1,010
Self-citationAbdalla, M., Hastings, A., Chadwick, D. R., Jones, D. L., Evans, C. D., Jones, M. B., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2018) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.023 · Cited by 537
Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits
(Han) Weng, Z., Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B. P., Tavakkoli, E., Joseph, S., Macdonald, L. M., Rose, T. J., Rose, M. T., Kimber, S. W. L., Morris, S., et al. (2017) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3276 · Cited by 388
Wilson, C. H., Strickland, M. S., Hutchings, J. A., Bianchi, T. S., & Flory, S. L. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14070 · Cited by 319
Nutrients and defoliation increase soil carbon inputs in grassland
Ziter, C., & MacDougall, A. S. (2013) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-2070.1 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Hafner, S., Unteregelsbacher, S., Seeber, E., Lena, B., Xu, X., Li, X., Guggenberger, G., Miehe, G., & Kuzyakov, Y.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-10-27
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 528-538
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2050267028
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 12.38
- 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: Effect of grazing on carbon stocks and assimilate partitioning in a Tibetan montane pasture revealed by 13CO2 pulse labeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02557.x
- The paper
- Hafner, S., Unteregelsbacher, S., Seeber, E., Lena, B., Xu, X., Li, X., Guggenberger, G., Miehe, G., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2012). Effect of grazing on carbon stocks and assimilate partitioning in a Tibetan montane pasture revealed by 13CO2 pulse labeling. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02557.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.