Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Where does the carbon go? A model–data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free‐air CO2 enrichment sites

Open access
De Kauwe, Martin G., Medlyn, Belinda E., Zaehle, Sönke, Walker, Anthony P., Dietze, Michael C., Wang, Ying‐Ping, Luo, Yiqi, Jain, Atul K., El‐Masri, Bassil, Hickler, Thomas, Wårlind, David, Weng, Ensheng, Parton, William J., Thornton, Peter E., Wang, Shusen, Prentice, I. Colin, Asao, Shinichi, Smith, Benjamin, McCarthy, Heather R., Iversen, Colleen M., Hanson, Paul J., Warren, Jeffrey M., Oren, Ram, Norby, Richard J.·2014·New Phytologist
DOI 10.1111/nph.12847
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration (eCO2) has the potential to increase vegetation carbon storage if increased net primary production causes increased long‐lived biomass. Model predictions of eCO2 effects on vegetation carbon storage depend on how allocation and turnover processes are represented. We used data from two temperate forest free‐air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments to evaluate representations of allocation and turnover in 11 ecosystem models. Observed eCO2 effects on allocation were dynamic. Allocation schemes based on functional relationships among biomass fractions that vary with resource availability were best able to capture the general features of the observations. Allocation schemes based on constant fractions or resource limitations performed less well, with some models having unintended outcomes. Few models represent turnover processes mechanistically and there was wide variation in predictions of tissue lifespan. Consequently, models did not perform well at predicting eCO2 effects on vegetation carbon storage. Our recommendations to reduce uncertainty include: use of allocation schemes constrained by biomass fractions; careful testing of allocation schemes; and synthesis of allocation and turnover data in terms of model parameters. Data from intensively studied ecosystem manipulation experiments are invaluable for constraining models and we recommend that such experiments should attempt to fully quantify carbon, water and nutrient budgets.

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.12847

Cites

77 of 77 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 77 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
De Kauwe, M. G., Medlyn, B. E., Zaehle, S., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C., Wang, Y., Luo, Y., Jain, A. K., El‐Masri, B., Hickler, T., Wårlind, D., Weng, E., Parton, W. J., Thornton, P. E., Wang, S., Prentice, I. C., Asao, S., Smith, B., McCarthy, H. R., Iversen, C. M., Hanson, P. J., Warren, J. M., Oren, R., & Norby, R. J.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
203
Issue
3
Pages
883-899
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
DOI
10.1111/nph.12847
OpenAlex
W2101823097
Cited by
323
References
77
FWCI
29.55
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: Where does the carbon go? A model–data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free‐air CO2 enrichment sites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.12847
The paper
De Kauwe, M. G., Medlyn, B. E., Zaehle, S., Walker, A. P., Dietze, M. C., Wang, Y., Luo, Y., Jain, A. K., El‐Masri, B., Hickler, T., Wårlind, D., Weng, E., Parton, W. J., Thornton, P. E., Wang, S., Prentice, I. C., Asao, S., Smith, B., McCarthy, H. R., . . . Norby, R. J. (2014). Where does the carbon go? A model–data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free‐air CO2 enrichment sites. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12847

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.