Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 318

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing uncertainties in a second‐generation dynamic vegetation model caused by ecological scale limitations

Open access
Fisher, Rosie, McDowell, Nate, Purves, Drew, Moorcroft, Paul, Sitch, Stephen, Cox, Peter, Huntingford, Chris, Meir, Patrick, Ian Woodward, F.·2010·New Phytologist

Abstract

*Second-generation Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) have recently been developed that explicitly represent the ecological dynamics of disturbance, vertical competition for light, and succession. Here, we introduce a modified second-generation DGVM and examine how the representation of demographic processes operating at two-dimensional spatial scales not represented by these models can influence predicted community structure, and responses of ecosystems to climate change. *The key demographic processes we investigated were seed advection, seed mixing, sapling survival, competitive exclusion and plant mortality. We varied these parameters in the context of a simulated Amazon rainforest ecosystem containing seven plant functional types (PFTs) that varied along a trade-off surface between growth and the risk of starvation induced mortality. *Varying the five unconstrained parameters generated community structures ranging from monocultures to equal co-dominance of the seven PFTs. When exposed to a climate change scenario, the competing impacts of CO(2) fertilization and increasing plant mortality caused ecosystem biomass to diverge substantially between simulations, with mid-21st century biomass predictions ranging from 1.5 to 27.0 kg C m(-2). *Filtering the results using contemporary observation ranges of biomass, leaf area index (LAI), gross primary productivity (GPP) and net primary productivity (NPP) did not substantially constrain the potential outcomes. We conclude that demographic processes represent a large source of uncertainty in DGVM 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.1469-8137.2010.03340.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 318

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, R., McDowell, N., Purves, D., Moorcroft, P., Sitch, S., Cox, P., Huntingford, C., Meir, P., & Ian Woodward, F.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-19
Volume
187
Issue
3
Pages
666-681
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W1969062474
Cited by
318
References
4
FWCI
18.29
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: Assessing uncertainties in a second‐generation dynamic vegetation model caused by ecological scale limitations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03340.x
The paper
Fisher, R., McDowell, N., Purves, D., Moorcroft, P., Sitch, S., Cox, P., Huntingford, C., Meir, P., & Ian Woodward, F. (2010). Assessing uncertainties in a second‐generation dynamic vegetation model caused by ecological scale limitations. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03340.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.