g: should we doubt "surprising" results?; a reply to Piovesan & Adams

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)


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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-150
JournalJournal of Vegetation Science
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2001


Dive into the research topics of 'g: should we doubt "surprising" results?; a reply to Piovesan & Adams'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this