Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

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 access
Hafner, Silke, Unteregelsbacher, Sebastian, Seeber, Elke, Lena, Becker, Xu, Xingliang, Li, Xiaogang, Guggenberger, Georg, Miehe, Georg, Kuzyakov, Yakov·2012·Global Change Biology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02557.x

Cites

44 of 44 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 44 references

Cited by

See all 255

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.