Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Regional and seasonal patterns of litterfall in tropical South America

Open access
Chave, J., Navarrete, D., Almeida, S., Álvarez, E., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Bonal, D., Châtelet, P., Silva-Espejo, J. E., Goret, J.-Y., von Hildebrand, P., Jiménez, E., Patiño, S., Peñuela, M. C., Phillips, O. L., Stevenson, P., Malhi, Y.·2010·Biogeosciences

Abstract

Abstract. The production of aboveground soft tissue represents an important share of total net primary production in tropical rain forests. Here we draw from a large number of published and unpublished datasets (n=81 sites) to assess the determinants of litterfall variation across South American tropical forests. We show that across old-growth tropical rainforests, litterfall averages 8.61±1.91 Mg ha−1 yr−1 (mean ± standard deviation, in dry mass units). Secondary forests have a lower annual litterfall than old-growth tropical forests with a mean of 8.01±3.41 Mg ha−1 yr−1. Annual litterfall shows no significant variation with total annual rainfall, either globally or within forest types. It does not vary consistently with soil type, except in the poorest soils (white sand soils), where litterfall is significantly lower than in other soil types (5.42±1.91 Mg ha−1 yr−1). We also study the determinants of litterfall seasonality, and find that it does not depend on annual rainfall or on soil type. However, litterfall seasonality is significantly positively correlated with rainfall seasonality. Finally, we assess how much carbon is stored in reproductive organs relative to photosynthetic organs. Mean leaf fall is 5.74±1.83 Mg ha−1 yr−1 (71% of total litterfall). Mean allocation into reproductive organs is 0.69±0.40 Mg ha−1 yr−1 (9% of total litterfall). The investment into reproductive organs divided by leaf litterfall increases with soil fertility, suggesting that on poor soils, the allocation to photosynthetic organs is prioritized over that to reproduction. Finally, we discuss the ecological and biogeochemical implications of these results.

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-7-43-2010

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.

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

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
Chave, J., Navarrete, D., Almeida, S., Álvarez, E., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Bonal, D., Châtelet, P., Silva-Espejo, J. E., Goret, J.-Y., von Hildebrand, P., Jiménez, E., Patiño, S., Peñuela, M. C., Phillips, O. L., Stevenson, P., & Malhi, Y.
Venue
Biogeosciences
Published
2010-01-05
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
43-55
ISSN
  • 1726-4170 (ISSN-L)
  • 1726-4189
OpenAlex
W2120013349
Cited by
365
References
0
FWCI
20.44
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: Regional and seasonal patterns of litterfall in tropical South America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/bg-7-43-2010
The paper
Chave, J., Navarrete, D., Almeida, S., Álvarez, E., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Bonal, D., Châtelet, P., Silva-Espejo, J. E., Goret, J.-Y., von Hildebrand, P., Jiménez, E., Patiño, S., Peñuela, M. C., Phillips, O. L., Stevenson, P., & Malhi, Y. (2010). Regional and seasonal patterns of litterfall in tropical South America. Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-43-2010

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.