The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative Analyses of Carbon Dynamics in Native and Cultivated Ecosystems
Abstract
Plant productivity, litter decomposition rates, and soil organic matter accumulation for winter wheat and for unbroken tallgrass prairie in Central Missouri were analyzed and compared. As measured in this 3—yr study, annual production of dry matter above— and belowground for the cultivated system averaged slightly higher than that for the natural vegetation burned every 3—4 yr. Prairie was characterized by greater year—to—year fluctuation of productivity, which in some years exceeded productivity of the cultivated system. More litter and structural biomass older than 1 yr occurred in the prairie, reflecting the perennial nature of the root system. Principal pathways of carbon transfer in both ecosystems were modeled, and mean residence time in major storage compartments estimated. Combined CO 2 losses from above— and belowground litter decay, expressed as a percentage of total soil respiration, were twice as great under wheat as for native prairie. A relatively greater fraction of net primary production was available for synthesis of soil organic matter in native prairie. Under equilibrium conditions, decomposition constants for this compartment, however, were similar. Contrasts in community structure and phenology, seasonal dynamics of litter decay, and levels of soil disturbance are suggested influences affecting transfer and storage characteristics.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes
Ellert, B. H., & Bettany, J. R. (1995) · Canadian Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.4141/cjss95-075 · Cited by 1,686
Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems
GILL, R. A., & JACKSON, R. B. (2000) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00681.x · Cited by 1,300
Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils
Davidson, E. A., & Ackerman, I. L. (1993) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/bf00000786 · Cited by 927
Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration
Lemus, R., & Lal, R. (2005) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352680590910393 · Cited by 455
Tufekcioglu, A., Raich, J. W., Isenhart, T. M., & Schultz, R. C. (1998) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1006221921806 · Cited by 207
Metadata
- Authors
- Buyanovsky, G. A., Kucera, C. L., & Wagner, G. H.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-12
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2023-2031
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2117967938
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Comparative Analyses of Carbon Dynamics in Native and Cultivated Ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1939893
- The paper
- Buyanovsky, G. A., Kucera, C. L., & Wagner, G. H. (1987). Comparative Analyses of Carbon Dynamics in Native and Cultivated Ecosystems. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939893
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.