Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 181 of the 181 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrating plant–soil interactions into global carbon cycle models

Ostle, Nicholas J., Smith, Pete, Fisher, Rosie, Ian Woodward, F., Fisher, Joshua B., Smith, Jo U., Galbraith, David, Levy, Peter, Meir, Patrick, McNamara, Niall P., Bardgett, Richard D.·2009·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: 1. Plant–soil interactions play a central role in the biogeochemical carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and hydrological cycles. In the context of global environmental change, they are important both in modulating the impact of climate change and in regulating the feedback of greenhouse gas emissions (CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O) to the climate system. 2. Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) represent the most advanced tools available to predict the impacts of global change on terrestrial ecosystem functions and to examine their feedbacks to climate change. The accurate representation of plant–soil interactions in these models is crucial to improving predictions of the effects of climate change on a global scale. 3. In this paper, we describe the general structure of DGVMs that use plant functional types (PFTs) classifications as a means to integrate plant–soil interactions and illustrate how models have been developed to improve the simulation of: (a) soil carbon dynamics, (b) nitrogen cycling, (c) drought impacts and (d) vegetation dynamics. For each of these, we discuss some recent advances and identify knowledge gaps. 4. We identify three ongoing challenges, requiring collaboration between the global modelling community and process ecologists. First, the need for a critical evaluation of the representation of plant–soil processes in global models; second, the need to supply and integrate knowledge into global models; third, the testing of global model simulations against large‐scale multifactor experiments and data from observatory gradients. 5. Synthesis. This paper reviews how plant–soil interactions are represented in DGVMs that use PFTs and illustrates some model developments. We also identify areas of ecological understanding and experimentation needed to reduce uncertainty in future carbon coupled climate change predictions.

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.1365-2745.2009.01547.x

Cites

181 of 181 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 181 references

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Ostle, N. J., Smith, P., Fisher, R., Ian Woodward, F., Fisher, J. B., Smith, J. U., Galbraith, D., Levy, P., Meir, P., McNamara, N. P., & Bardgett, R. D.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08-11
Volume
97
Issue
5
Pages
851-863
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2051028021
Cited by
276
References
181
FWCI
30.81
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: Integrating plant–soil interactions into global carbon cycle models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x
The paper
Ostle, N. J., Smith, P., Fisher, R., Ian Woodward, F., Fisher, J. B., Smith, J. U., Galbraith, D., Levy, P., Meir, P., McNamara, N. P., & Bardgett, R. D. (2009). Integrating plant–soil interactions into global carbon cycle models. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.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.