Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 432

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

Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate Free‐Air CO2Enrichment studies

Open access
Zaehle, Sönke, Medlyn, Belinda E., De Kauwe, Martin G., Walker, Anthony P., Dietze, Michael C., Hickler, Thomas, Luo, Yiqi, Wang, Ying‐Ping, El‐Masri, Bassil, Thornton, Peter, Jain, Atul, Wang, Shusen, Warlind, David, Weng, Ensheng, Parton, William, Iversen, Colleen M., Gallet‐Budynek, Anne, McCarthy, Heather, Finzi, Adrien, Hanson, Paul J., Prentice, I. Colin, Oren, Ram, Norby, Richard J.·2014·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: We analysed the responses of 11 ecosystem models to elevated atmospheric [CO2] (e CO2) at two temperate forest ecosystems (D uke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) F ree‐A ir CO2 E nrichment (FACE) experiments) to test alternative representations of carbon (C)–nitrogen (N) cycle processes. We decomposed the model responses into component processes affecting the response to e CO2 and confronted these with observations from the FACE experiments. Most of the models reproduced the observed initial enhancement of net primary production (NPP) at both sites, but none was able to simulate both the sustained 10‐yr enhancement at D uke and the declining response at ORNL: models generally showed signs of progressive N limitation as a result of lower than observed plant N uptake. Nonetheless, many models showed qualitative agreement with observed component processes. The results suggest that improved representation of above‐ground–below‐ground interactions and better constraints on plant stoichiometry are important for a predictive understanding of e CO2 effects. Improved accuracy of soil organic matter inventories is pivotal to reduce uncertainty in the observed C–N budgets. The two FACE experiments are insufficient to fully constrain terrestrial responses to eCO 2, given the complexity of factors leading to the observed diverging trends, and the consequential inability of the models to explain these trends. Nevertheless, the ecosystem models were able to capture important features of the experiments, lending some support to their projections.

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/nph.12697

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

Cited by

See all 432

Metadata

Authors
Zaehle, S., Medlyn, B. E., De Kauwe, M. G., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C., Hickler, T., Luo, Y., Wang, Y., El‐Masri, B., Thornton, P., Jain, A., Wang, S., Warlind, D., Weng, E., Parton, W., Iversen, C. M., Gallet‐Budynek, A., McCarthy, H., Finzi, A., Hanson, P. J., Prentice, I. C., Oren, R., & Norby, R. J.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-28
Volume
202
Issue
3
Pages
803-822
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2096477240
Cited by
432
References
1
FWCI
46.85
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

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.