Carbon balance gradient in European forests: Should we doubt 'surprising' results? A reply to Piovesan & Adams

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Contributed › peer-review

Contributors

  • P. G. Jarvis - , University of Edinburgh (Author)
  • A. J. Dolman - , Wageningen University & Research (WUR) (Author)
  • E. D. Schulze - , Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (Author)
  • G. Matteucci - , Tuscia University (Author)
  • A. S. Kowalski - , University of Antwerp, INRAE - National Institute of Agricultural Research (Author)
  • R. Ceulemans - , University of Antwerp (Author)
  • C. Rebmann - , Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (Author)
  • E. J. Moors - , Wageningen University & Research (WUR) (Author)
  • A. Granier - , Unité d'Ecophysiologie Forestière (Author)
  • P. Gross - , Unité d'Ecophysiologie Forestière (Author)
  • N. O. Jensen - , Technical University of Denmark (Author)
  • K. Pilegaard - , Technical University of Denmark (Author)
  • A. Lindroth - , Lund University (Author)
  • A. Grelle - , Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Author)
  • Ch Bernhofer - , Chair of Meteorology (Author)
  • T. Grünwald - , Chair of Meteorology (Author)
  • M. Aubinet - , University of Liege (Author)
  • T. Vesala - , University of Helsinki (Author)
  • Rannik - , University of Helsinki (Author)
  • P. Berbigier - , INRAE - National Institute of Agricultural Research (Author)
  • D. Loustau - , INRAE - National Institute of Agricultural Research (Author)
  • J. Guômundsson - , Agricultural University of Iceland (Author)
  • A. Ibrom - , University of Göttingen (Author)
  • K. Morgenstern - , University of Göttingen (Author)
  • R. Clement - , University of Edinburgh (Author)
  • J. Moncrieff - , University of Edinburgh (Author)
  • L. Montagnani - , Forest Services of the Autonomous Province of Bozen-Bolzano (Author)
  • S. Minerbi - , Forest Services of the Autonomous Province of Bozen-Bolzano (Author)
  • R. Valentini - , Tuscia University (Author)

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

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-150
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of vegetation science
Volume12
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2001
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

ORCID /0000-0003-2263-0073/work/163765978

Keywords

Sustainable Development Goals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Keywords

  • Carbon flux, Decomposition, EUROFLUX, Respiration, Soil organic matter