Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 608

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and resource supply

Open access
Körner, Christian·2006·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: In this review I am drawing attention to some constraints and biases in CO 2 enrichment experiments and the analysis of data in the literature. Conclusions drawn from experimental works differ when the data are grouped in a way such that the relative frequency of test conditions does not determine the emerging trends, for instance unrealistically strong CO 2–‘fertilization’ effects, which are in conflict with some basic ecological principles. I suggest separating three test conditions: uncoupled systems (plants not depending in a natural nutrient cycle) (I); expanding systems, in which plants are given ample space and time to explore otherwise limited resources (II); and fully coupled systems in which the natural nutrient cycling governs growth at steady‐state leaf area index (LAI) and fine root renewal (III). Data for 10 type III experiments yield rather moderate effects of elevated CO 2 on plant biomass production, if any. In steady‐state grassland, the effects are water‐related; in closed tree stands, initial effects decline rapidly with time. Plant–soil coupling (soil conditions) deserves far greater attention than plant–atmosphere coupling (CO 2 enrichment technology). Contents Summary 393 I. A traditionally scarce resource becomes abundant 394 II. Photosynthesis is not saturated at current CO 2 concentrations 395 III. The fate of extra carbon 396 IV. Co drivers of plant growth responses to elevated CO 2 397 V. Plant CO 2 responses as a function of time 399 VI. Plant CO 2 responses per unit land area, a matter of definition 401 VII. CO 2 effects on biomass carbon stores depend on tree demography 402 VIII. Biomass responses to elevated CO 2 in steady state and expanding systems 403 IX. Conclusions 405 Acknowledgements 406 References 406

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.1469-8137.2006.01886.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 608

Metadata

Authors
Körner, C.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-27
Volume
172
Issue
3
Pages
393-411
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2118390206
Cited by
608
References
5
FWCI
40.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and resource supply. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01886.x
The paper
Körner, C. (2006). Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and resource supply. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01886.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.