Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review

Open access
HENDRICKS, JOSEPH J., HENDRICK, RONALD L., WILSON, CARLOS A., MITCHELL, ROBERT J., PECOT, STEPHEN D., GUO, DALI·2006·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Elucidation of the patterns and controls of forest net primary production at ecosystem scales has been hindered by a poor understanding of fine root production, due largely to technical limitations. Fine root (≤ 0.5 mm diameter) production was assessed using minirhizotron, soil core, ingrowth core, nitrogen budget and carbon budget techniques in three longleaf pine‐wiregrass forest ecosystem types (hydric, mesic and xeric) forming an edaphic resource availability and above‐ground productivity gradient. Fine root production estimates differed substantially in magnitude, e.g. values ranged from 0 to 4618 kg ha−1 year−1 for the soil core and minirhizotron techniques, respectively, in the hydric site. Minirhizotron production estimates in the hydric, mesic and xeric sites were 4618, 1905 and 2295 kg ha−1 year−1, respectively. Soil core and ingrowth core root production estimates were on average 81 and 54% lower, respectively, than corresponding minirhizotron production estimates, and minirhizotron estimates were negatively related to soil core and ingrowth core estimates across the resource gradient. The N budget method yielded unreliable root production estimates, presumably due to the underestimation of N availability for plant assimilation. C budget estimates of total below‐ground C allocation (6773, 5646 and 4647 kg C ha−1 year−1) were positively related to minirhizotron production estimates, but negatively related to soil core and ingrowth core production estimates. Critical evaluations of the assumptions, potential errors and results for each method suggest that the minirhizotron technique yielded the most reliable root production estimates, and that the negative relationship between minirhizotron and core‐based estimates may be attributed to the inherent deficiency of the core techniques in assessing root production when mortality and production occur simultaneously. Minirhizotron root production estimates were positively related to foliage production estimates, supporting the hypothesis of constant proportional allocation of production to foliage, wood and fine roots across resource availability gradients in temperate forests. These results suggest that fine root production is not negatively correlated with soil resource availability and foliage production as is commonly perceived in the ecological community and represented in ecosystem computer models.

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.1365-2745.2005.01067.x

Cites

70 of 70 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 70 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
HENDRICKS, J. J., HENDRICK, R. L., WILSON, C. A., MITCHELL, R. J., PECOT, S. D., & GUO, D.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-10-31
Volume
94
Issue
1
Pages
40-57
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2170909324
Cited by
406
References
70
FWCI
30.60
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 patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01067.x
The paper
HENDRICKS, J. J., HENDRICK, R. L., WILSON, C. A., MITCHELL, R. J., PECOT, S. D., & GUO, D. (2006). Assessing the patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01067.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.