Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Re‐assessment of plant carbon dynamics at the Duke free‐air CO 2 enrichment site: interactions of atmospheric [CO 2 ] with nitrogen and water availability over stand development

Open access
McCarthy, Heather R., Oren, Ram, Johnsen, Kurt H., Gallet‐Budynek, Anne, Pritchard, Seth G., Cook, Charles W., LaDeau, Shannon L., Jackson, Robert B., Finzi, Adrien C.·2010·New Phytologist

Abstract

*The potential for elevated [CO(2)]-induced changes to plant carbon (C) storage, through modifications in plant production and allocation of C among plant pools, is an important source of uncertainty when predicting future forest function. Utilizing 10 yr of data from the Duke free-air CO(2) enrichment site, we evaluated the dynamics and distribution of plant C. *Discrepancy between heights measured for this study and previously calculated heights required revision of earlier allometrically based biomass determinations, resulting in higher (up to 50%) estimates of standing biomass and net primary productivity than previous assessments. *Generally, elevated [CO(2)] caused sustained increases in plant biomass production and in standing C, but did not affect the partitioning of C among plant biomass pools. Spatial variation in net primary productivity and its [CO(2)]-induced enhancement was controlled primarily by N availability, with the difference between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration explaining most interannual variability. Consequently, [CO(2)]-induced net primary productivity enhancement ranged from 22 to 30% in different plots and years. *Through quantifying the effects of nutrient and water availability on the forest productivity response to elevated [CO(2)], we show that net primary productivity enhancement by elevated [CO(2)] is not uniform, but rather highly dependent on the availability of other growth resources.

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.1469-8137.2009.03078.x

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
McCarthy, H. R., Oren, R., Johnsen, K. H., Gallet‐Budynek, A., Pritchard, S. G., Cook, C. W., LaDeau, S. L., Jackson, R. B., & Finzi, A. C.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11-06
Volume
185
Issue
2
Pages
514-528
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2124698989
Cited by
267
References
1
FWCI
23.05
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: Re‐assessment of plant carbon dynamics at the Duke free‐air CO 2 enrichment site: interactions of atmospheric [CO 2 ] with nitrogen and water availability over stand development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03078.x
The paper
McCarthy, H. R., Oren, R., Johnsen, K. H., Gallet‐Budynek, A., Pritchard, S. G., Cook, C. W., LaDeau, S. L., Jackson, R. B., & Finzi, A. C. (2010). Re‐assessment of plant carbon dynamics at the Duke free‐air CO 2 enrichment site: interactions of atmospheric [CO 2 ] with nitrogen and water availability over stand development. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03078.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.