Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36171741›Full record

ArticleBiogeosciences (Online)2022

Intercomparison of methods to estimate gross primary production based on CO

Kukka-Maaria Kohonen, Roderick Dewar, Gianluca Tramontana, Aleksanteri Mauranen, Pasi Kolari, Linda M J Kooijmans, Dario Papale, Timo Vesala, Ivan Mammarella

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biogeosciences (Online), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Kukka-Maaria KohonenInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Roderick DewarInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Gianluca TramontanaImage Processing Laboratory (IPL), Parc Científic Universitat de València, Universitat de València, Paterna, Spain.
Aleksanteri MauranenInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Pasi KolariInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Linda M J KooijmansMeteorology and Air Quality, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Dario PapaleDIBAF, Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest Systems, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy.
Timo VesalaInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ivan MammarellaInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIAustralian National University · AUParc Científic de la Universitat de València · ESUniversità degli Studi della Tuscia · ITWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

European Research Council 755617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Separating the components of ecosystem-scale carbon exchange is crucial in order to develop better models and future predictions of the terrestrial carbon cycle. However, there are several uncertainties and unknowns related to current photosynthesis estimates. In this study, we evaluate four different methods for estimating photosynthesis at a boreal forest at the ecosystem scale, of which two are based on carbon dioxide (CO

Identifiers

PMID36171741
PMCPMC7613647
OpenAlexW4294018406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.