ArticleFunctional ecology2022
Soil carbon storage is related to tree functional composition in naturally regenerating tropical forests.
Article in Functional ecology, 2022. 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, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- From the 3rd to the 7th year after straw return, different straw-returning practices drive shifts in soil fungal community composition, functional differentiation, and the reconfiguration of community assembly processes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Integrating belowground recovery into tropical forest restoration design and monitoring.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Tree Diversity Increases Carbon Stocks and Fluxes Above-But Not Belowground in a Tropical Forest Experiment.Global change biology · 2025Article
- Age-Related Conservation in Plant-Soil Feedback Accompanied by Ectomycorrhizal Domination in Temperate Forests in Northeast China.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Soil carbon storage is related to tree functional composition in naturally regenerating tropical forests.Functional ecology · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regenerating tropical forests are increasingly important for their role in the global carbon cycle. Carbon stocks in above-ground biomass can recover to old-growth forest levels within 60-100 years. However, more than half of all carbon in tropical forests is stored below-ground, and our understanding of carbon storage in soils during tropical forest recovery is limited.Importantly, soil carbon accumulation does not necessarily reflect patterns in above-ground biomass carbon accrual during secondary forest succession, and factors related to past land use, species composition and soil characteristics may influence soil carbon storage during forest regrowth.Using tree census data and a measure of tree community shade tolerance (species-specific light response values), we assessed the relationship between soil organic carbon stocks and tree functional groups during secondary succession along a chronosequence of 40- to 120-year-old naturally regenerating secondary forest and old-growth tropical forest stands in Panama.While previous studies found no evidence for increasing soil C storage with secondary forest age, we found a strong relationship between tree functional composition and soil carbon stocks at 0-10 cm depth, whereby carbon stocks increased with the relative influence of light-demanding tree species. Light demanding trees had higher leaf nitrogen but lower leaf density than shade-tolerant trees, suggesting that rapid decomposition of nutrient-rich plant material in forests with a higher proportion of light-demanding species results in greater accumulation of carbon in the surface layer of soils.
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.