Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 440

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intramolecular, compound‐specific, and bulk carbon isotope patterns in C3 and C4 plants: a review and synthesis

Open access
A. Hobbie, Erik, Werner, Roland A.·2004·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Studies using carbon isotope differences between C 3 and C 4 photosynthesis to calculate terrestrial productivity or soil carbon turnover assume that intramolecular isotopic patterns and isotopic shifts between specific plant components are similar in C 3 and C 4 plants. To test these assumptions, we calculated isotopic differences in studies measuring components from C 3 or C 4 photosynthesis. Relative to source sugars in fermentation, C 3‐derived ethanol had less 13 C and C 3‐derived CO 2 had more 13 C than C 4‐derived ethanol and CO 2. Both results agreed with intramolecular isotopic signatures in C 3 and C 4 glucose. Isotopic shifts between plant compounds (e.g. lignin and cellulose) or tissues (e.g. leaves and roots) also differed in C 3 and C 4 plants. Woody C 3 plants allocated more carbon to 13 C‐depleted compounds such as lignin or lipids than herbaceous C 3 or C 4 plants. This allocation influenced 13 C patterns among compounds and tissues. Photorespiration and isotopic fractionation at metabolic branch points, coupled to different allocation patterns during metabolism for C 3 vs C 4 plants, probably influence position‐specific and compound‐specific isotopic differences. Differing 13 C content of mobile and immobile compounds (e.g. sugars vs lignin) may then create isotopic differences among plant pools and along transport pathways. We conclude that a few basic mechanisms can explain intramolecular, compound‐specific and bulk isotopic differences between C 3 and C 4 plants. Understanding these mechanisms will improve our ability to link bulk and compound‐specific isotopic patterns to metabolic pathways in C 3 and C 4 plants. Contents Summary 371 I. Introduction 372 II. Methods and terminology 373 III. Results 373 IV. Discussion 376 V. Conclusions 382 Acknowledgements 382 References 382

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.1469-8137.2004.00970.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 440

Metadata

Authors
A. Hobbie, E., & Werner, R. A.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12-23
Volume
161
Issue
2
Pages
371-385
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2168509438
Cited by
440
References
3
FWCI
14.23
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: Intramolecular, compound‐specific, and bulk carbon isotope patterns in C3 and C4 plants: a review and synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00970.x
The paper
A. Hobbie, E., & Werner, R. A. (2004). Intramolecular, compound‐specific, and bulk carbon isotope patterns in C3 and C4 plants: a review and synthesis. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00970.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.