Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Below‐ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: a discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models

Pendall, Elise, Bridgham, Scott, Hanson, Paul J., Hungate, Bruce, Kicklighter, David W., Johnson, Dale W., Law, Beverly E., Luo, Yiqi, Megonigal, J. Patrick, Olsrud, Maria, Ryan, Michael G., Wan, Shiqiang·2004·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Rising atmospheric CO 2 and temperatures are probably altering ecosystem carbon cycling, causing both positive and negative feedbacks to climate. Below‐ground processes play a key role in the global carbon (C) cycle because they regulate storage of large quantities of C, and are potentially very sensitive to direct and indirect effects of elevated CO 2 and temperature. Soil organic matter pools, roots and associated rhizosphere organisms all have distinct responses to environmental change drivers, although availability of C substrates will regulate all the responses. Elevated CO 2 increases C supply below‐ground, whereas warming is likely to increase respiration and decomposition rates, leading to speculation that these effects will moderate one another. However, indirect effects on soil moisture availability and nutrient supply may alter processes in unexpected directions. Detailed, mechanistic understanding and modelling of below‐ground flux components, pool sizes and turnover rates is needed to adequately predict long‐term, net C storage in ecosystems. In this synthesis, we discuss the current status of below‐ground responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature and potential feedback effects, methodological challenges, and approaches to integrating models and measurements.

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.1469-8137.2004.01053.x

Cites

118 of 118 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 118 references

Cited by

See all 417

Metadata

Authors
Pendall, E., Bridgham, S., Hanson, P. J., Hungate, B., Kicklighter, D. W., Johnson, D. W., Law, B. E., Luo, Y., Megonigal, J. P., Olsrud, M., Ryan, M. G., & Wan, S.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03-11
Volume
162
Issue
2
Pages
311-322
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2166062099
Cited by
417
References
118
FWCI
39.66
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: Below‐ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: a discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01053.x
The paper
Pendall, E., Bridgham, S., Hanson, P. J., Hungate, B., Kicklighter, D. W., Johnson, D. W., Law, B. E., Luo, Y., Megonigal, J. P., Olsrud, M., Ryan, M. G., & Wan, S. (2004). Below‐ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: a discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01053.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.