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.

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

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

MPS-Authors

/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;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

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.

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

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. [References: 34]