A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Carbon storage in Chinese grassland ecosystems: Influence of different integrative methods. | LitMetric

Carbon storage in Chinese grassland ecosystems: Influence of different integrative methods.

Sci Rep

Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China.

Published: February 2016

The accurate estimate of grassland carbon (C) is affected by many factors at the large scale. Here, we used six methods (three spatial interpolation methods and three grassland classification methods) to estimate C storage of Chinese grasslands based on published data from 2004 to 2014, and assessed the uncertainty resulting from different integrative methods. The uncertainty (coefficient of variation, CV, %) of grassland C storage was approximately 4.8% for the six methods tested, which was mainly determined by soil C storage. C density and C storage to the soil layer depth of 100 cm were estimated to be 8.46 ± 0.41 kg C m(-2) and 30.98 ± 1.25 Pg C, respectively. Ecosystem C storage was composed of 0.23 ± 0.01 (0.7%) above-ground biomass, 1.38 ± 0.14 (4.5%) below-ground biomass, and 29.37 ± 1.2 (94.8%) Pg C in the 0-100 cm soil layer. Carbon storage calculated by the grassland classification methods (18 grassland types) was closer to the mean value than those calculated by the spatial interpolation methods. Differences in integrative methods may partially explain the high uncertainty in C storage estimates in different studies. This first evaluation demonstrates the importance of multi-methodological approaches to accurately estimate C storage in large-scale terrestrial ecosystems.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756709PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep21378DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

integrative methods
12
methods
9
carbon storage
8
storage chinese
8
methods three
8
spatial interpolation
8
interpolation methods
8
grassland classification
8
classification methods
8
storage
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!