Carbon balance gradient in European forests: Should we doubt 'surprising' results? A reply to Piovesan & Adams
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Übersichtsartikel (Review) › Beigetragen › Begutachtung
Beitragende
Abstract
This paper responds to the Forum contribution by Piovesan & Adams (2000) who criticized the results obtained by the EUROFLUX network on carbon fluxes of several European forests. The major point of criticism was that the data provided by EUROFLUX are inconsistent with current scientific understanding. It is argued that understanding the terrestrial global carbon cycle requires more than simply restating what was known previously, and that Piovesan & Adams have not been able to show any major conflicts between our findings and ecosystem or atmospheric-transport theories.
Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 145-150 |
| Seitenumfang | 6 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Journal of vegetation science |
| Jahrgang | 12 |
| Ausgabenummer | 1 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 2001 |
| Peer-Review-Status | Ja |
Externe IDs
| ORCID | /0000-0003-2263-0073/work/163765978 |
|---|
Schlagworte
Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung
- SDG 15 – Lebensraum Land - Carbon flux, Decomposition, EUROFLUX, Respiration, Soil organic matter
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Ökologie - Carbon flux, Decomposition, EUROFLUX, Respiration, Soil organic matter
- Pflanzenkunde - Carbon flux, Decomposition, EUROFLUX, Respiration, Soil organic matter
Schlagwörter
- Carbon flux, Decomposition, EUROFLUX, Respiration, Soil organic matter