Grelle, Achim
- Department of Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
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.
Keywords
carbon flux; decomposition; EUROFLUX; respiration; soil organic matter
Published in
Journal of Vegetation Science
2001, volume: 12, number: 1, pages: 145-150
Publisher: OPULUS PRESS UPPSALA AB
SLU Authors
UKÄ Subject classification
Climate Science
Environmental Sciences
Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences
Publication identifier
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2001.tb02626.x
Permanent link to this page (URI)
https://res.slu.se/id/publ/43543