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

Jarvis, P. G.; Dolman, A. J.; Schulze, E.-D.; Matteucci, G.; Kowalski, A. S.; Ceulemans, R.; Rebmann, C.; Moors, E. J.; Granier, A.; Gross, P.; Jensen, N. O.; Pilegaard, K.; Lindroth, A.; Grelle, A.; Bernhofer, Ch.; Grünwald, T.; Aubinet, M.; Vesala, T.; Rannik, Ü.; Berbigier, P.; Loustau, D.; Guðmundsson, J.; Ibrom, A.; Morgenstern, K.; Clement, R.; Moncrieff, J.; Montagnani, L.; Minerbi, S.; Valentini, R.

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Zur Ablage hinzufügen

Lokale TagsFreigabegeschichteDetailsÜbersicht

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

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

MPG-Autoren

/persons/resource/persons62549

Schulze, E.-D.
Department Biogeochemical Processes, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons62523

Rebmann, C.
Department Biogeochemical Processes, Prof. E.-D. Schulze, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Society;

Externe Ressourcen

Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt

Volltexte (beschränkter Zugriff)

Für Ihren IP-Bereich sind aktuell keine Volltexte freigegeben.

Volltexte (frei zugänglich)

Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Volltexte in PuRe verfügbar

Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)

Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar

Zitation

Jarvis, P. G., Dolman, A. J., Schulze, E.-D., Matteucci, G., Kowalski, A. S., Ceulemans, R., et al. (2001). Carbon balance gradient in European forests: should we doubt 'surprising' results? A reply to Piovesan & Adams. Journal of Vegetation Science, 12(1), 145-150.

Zitierlink: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000E-CDD1-8

Zusammenfassung

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. [References: 34]