ArticleAnnals of botany2008
Seasonal variation in CO2 efflux of stems and branches of Norway spruce trees.
Article in Annals of botany, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partitioning seasonal stem carbon dioxide efflux into stem respiration, bark photosynthesis, and transport-related flux in Scots pine.Journal of experimental botany · 2024Article
- Does lower water availability limit stem COAoB PLANTS · 2024Article
- Nitrogen concentration and physical properties are key drivers of woody tissue respiration.Annals of botany · 2022Article
- Temporal dynamics and vertical variations in stem COJournal of plant research · 2017Article
- Diurnal and seasonal change in stem respiration of Larix principis-rupprechtii trees, northern China.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsStem and branch respiration, important components of total forest ecosystem respiration, were measured on Norway spruce (Picea abies) trees from May to October in four consecutive years in order (1) to evaluate the influence of temperature on woody tissue CO2 efflux with special focus on variation in Q10 (change in respiration rate resulting from a 10 degrees C increase in temperature) within and between seasons, and (2) to quantify the contribution of above-ground woody tissue (stem and branch) respiration to the carbon balance of the forest ecosystem.
methodsStem and branch CO2 efflux were measured, using an IRGA and a closed gas exchange system, 3-4 times per month on 22-year-old trees under natural conditions. Measurements of ecosystem CO2 fluxes were also determined during the whole experiment by using the eddy covariance system. Stem and branch temperatures were monitored at 10-min intervals during the whole experiment. KEY
resultsThe temperature of the woody tissue of stems and branches explained up to 68% of their CO2 efflux. The mean annual Q10 values ranged from 2.20 to 2.32 for stems and from 2.03 to 2.25 for branches. The mean annual normalized respiration rate, R10, for stems and branches ranged from 1.71 to 2.12 micromol CO2 m(-2)s (-1) and from 0.24 to 0.31 micromol CO2 m(-2) s(-1), respectively. The annual contribution of stem and branch CO2 efflux to total ecosystem respiration were, respectively, 8.9 and 8.1% in 1999, 9.2 and 9.2% in 2000, 7.6 and 8.6% in 2001, and 8.6 and 7.9% in 2002. Standard deviation for both components ranged from 3 to 8% of the mean.
conclusionsStem and branch CO2 efflux varied diurnally and seasonally, and were related to the temperature of the woody tissue and to growth. The proportion of CO2 efflux from stems and branches is a significant component of the total forest ecosystem respiration, approx. 8% over the 4 years, and predictive models must take their contribution into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.