Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 864

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model

Open access
Smith, B., Wårlind, D., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Leadley, P., Siltberg, J., Zaehle, S.·2014·Biogeosciences

Abstract

Abstract. The LPJ-GUESS dynamic vegetation model uniquely combines an individual- and patch-based representation of vegetation dynamics with ecosystem biogeochemical cycling from regional to global scales. We present an updated version that includes plant and soil N dynamics, analysing the implications of accounting for C–N interactions on predictions and performance of the model. Stand structural dynamics and allometric scaling of tree growth suggested by global databases of forest stand structure and development were well reproduced by the model in comparison to an earlier multi-model study. Accounting for N cycle dynamics improved the goodness of fit for broadleaved forests. N limitation associated with low N-mineralisation rates reduces productivity of cold-climate and dry-climate ecosystems relative to mesic temperate and tropical ecosystems. In a model experiment emulating free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) treatment for forests globally, N limitation associated with low N-mineralisation rates of colder soils reduces CO2 enhancement of net primary production (NPP) for boreal forests, while some temperate and tropical forests exhibit increased NPP enhancement. Under a business-as-usual future climate and emissions scenario, ecosystem C storage globally was projected to increase by ca. 10%; additional N requirements to match this increasing ecosystem C were within the high N supply limit estimated on stoichiometric grounds in an earlier study. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for C–N interactions in studies of global terrestrial N cycling, and as a basis for understanding mechanisms on local scales and in different regional contexts.

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 · 10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 864

Metadata

Authors
Smith, B., Wårlind, D., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Leadley, P., Siltberg, J., & Zaehle, S.
Venue
Biogeosciences
Published
2014-04-10
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
2027-2054
ISSN
  • 1726-4170 (ISSN-L)
  • 1726-4189
OpenAlex
W2142130713
Cited by
864
References
5
FWCI
42.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014
The paper
Smith, B., Wårlind, D., Arneth, A., Hickler, T., Leadley, P., Siltberg, J., & Zaehle, S. (2014). Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014

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.