Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of alternative trait‐scaling hypotheses for the maximum photosynthetic carboxylation rate (Vcmax) on global gross primary production

Open access
Walker, Anthony P., Quaife, Tristan, van Bodegom, Peter M., De Kauwe, Martin G., Keenan, Trevor F., Joiner, Joanna, Lomas, Mark R., MacBean, Natasha, Xu, Chongang, Yang, Xiaojuan, Woodward, F. Ian·2017·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: The maximum photosynthetic carboxylation rate (Vcmax) is an influential plant trait that has multiple scaling hypotheses, which is a source of uncertainty in predictive understanding of global gross primary production (GPP). Four trait‐scaling hypotheses (plant functional type, nutrient limitation, environmental filtering, and plant plasticity) with nine specific implementations were used to predict global Vcmax distributions and their impact on global GPP in the Sheffield Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (SDGVM). Global GPP varied from 108.1 to 128.2 PgC yr−1, 65% of the range of a recent model intercomparison of global GPP. The variation in GPP propagated through to a 27% coefficient of variation in net biome productivity (NBP). All hypotheses produced global GPP that was highly correlated (r = 0.85–0.91) with three proxies of global GPP. Plant functional type‐based nutrient limitation, underpinned by a core SDGVM hypothesis that plant nitrogen (N) status is inversely related to increasing costs of N acquisition with increasing soil carbon, adequately reproduced global GPP distributions. Further improvement could be achieved with accurate representation of water sensitivity and agriculture in SDGVM. Mismatch between environmental filtering (the most data‐driven hypothesis) and GPP suggested that greater effort is needed understand Vcmax variation in the field, particularly in northern latitudes.

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.14623

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 205

Metadata

Authors
Walker, A. P., Quaife, T., van Bodegom, P. M., De Kauwe, M. G., Keenan, T. F., Joiner, J., Lomas, M. R., MacBean, N., Xu, C., Yang, X., & Woodward, F. I.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-23
Volume
215
Issue
4
Pages
1370-1386
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2709096151
Cited by
205
References
2
FWCI
11.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The impact of alternative trait‐scaling hypotheses for the maximum photosynthetic carboxylation rate (Vcmax) on global gross primary production. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.14623
The paper
Walker, A. P., Quaife, T., van Bodegom, P. M., De Kauwe, M. G., Keenan, T. F., Joiner, J., Lomas, M. R., MacBean, N., Xu, C., Yang, X., & Woodward, F. I. (2017). The impact of alternative trait‐scaling hypotheses for the maximum photosynthetic carboxylation rate (Vcmax) on global gross primary production. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14623

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.