ORNL/CDIAC-120
                                                        NDP-072

          A DATABASE OF WOODY VEGETATION RESPONSES TO 
                    ELEVATED ATMOSPHERIC CO2
                                
                                
                         Contributed by
                                
                        Peter S. Curtis
    Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology
                   The Ohio State University
                         Columbus, Ohio
                                
                          Prepared by 
                                
         Robert M. Cushman and Antoinette L. Brenkert*
           Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
                                
                 *consultant, Washington, D.C.
                                
                                
                                
                Environmental Sciences Division
                      Publication No. 4888
                 Date Published: September 1999
                                
                                
                                
                        Prepared for the
                Environmental Sciences Division
        Office of Biological and Environmental Research
                   U.S. Department of Energy
              Budget Activity Number KP 12 04 01 0
                                
                        Prepared by the
           Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
                Environmental Sciences Division
                 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
                Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335
                           managed by
             LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY RESEARCH CORP.
                             for the
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464

					CONTENTS

     ABSTRACT

     1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

     2. APPLICATIONS OF THE DATA

     3. DATA LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

     4. DATA CHECKS AND PROCESSING PERFORMED BY CDIAC

     5. INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING THE DATA AND DOCUMENTATION

     6. REFERENCES

     7. LISTING OF FILES PROVIDED

     8. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTATION FILE

     9. DESCRIPTION, FORMAT, AND PARTIAL LISTINGS OF THE ASCII DATA FILES9

     10. DESCRIPTION AND FORMAT OF THE LOTUS 1-2-3 BINARY SPREADSHEET FILES

     11. SAS AND FORTRAN CODES TO ACCESS THE DATA

     APPENDIX A: SPECIES INCLUDED IN DATABASE

     APPENDIX B: FULL LISTING OF REFS.DAT (FILE 4)

     APPENDIX C: FULL LISTING OF COMMENTS.DAT (FILE 6)

            ABSTRACT

     Curtis, P. S., R. M. Cushman, and A. L. Brenkert. 1999. A Database of Woody Vegetation
     Responses to Elevated Atmospheric CO2. ORNL/CDIAC-120, NDP-072. Carbon Dioxide
     Information Analysis Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
     Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.

To perform a statistically rigorous meta-analysis of research results on the response by woody
vegetation to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, a multiparameter database of responses was
compiled. Eighty-four independent CO2-enrichment studies, covering 65 species and 35 response
parameters, met the necessary criteria for inclusion in the database: reporting mean response,
sample size, and variance of the response (either as standard deviation or standard error). Data
were retrieved from the published literature and unpublished reports.

This numeric data package contains a 29-field data set of CO2-exposure experiment responses by
woody plants (as both a flat ASCII file and a spreadsheet file), files listing the references to the
CO2-exposure experiments and specific comments relevant to the data in the data set, and this
documentation file (which includes SAS and Fortran codes to read the ASCII data file).

The data files and this documentation are available without charge on a variety of media and via
the Internet from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC).

NDP-072 is an enhancement of previously published CDIAC DB-1018, with additional quality
control and documentation (and some corrections to the data, detailed herein).

Keywords: carbon dioxide, meta-analysis, vegetation

            1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

To perform a statistically rigorous synthesis of research results on the response by vegetation to
increased atmospheric CO2 levels, a multiparameter database of woody-plant responses was
compiled (Curtis 1996; Curtis and Wang 1998). Eighty-four independent CO2-enrichment studies,
covering 65 species (listed in Appendix A) and
35 response parameters, met the necessary criteria for inclusion in the database: reporting mean
response, sample size, and variance of the response (either as standard deviation or standard
error). Data were retrieved from the published literature and in a few instances from unpublished
reports. Meta-analytical methods (Cooper and Hedges 1994; Gurevitch and Hedges 1993;
Gurevitch et al. 1992) have been applied to part of this database (Curtis 1996; Curtis and Wang
1998).

Physiological "acclimation" or "downward regulation" of photosynthetic rates, stomatal
conductance, dark respiration, and water-use efficiency of plants exposed to elevated CO2 levels
can be analyzed, keeping the following definitions in mind. "Acclimation" is in general defined as
"diminishing enhancement of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 with time" (Mousseau and Saugier
1992). "Downward regulation" can be defined as "the initial stimulation of enhanced
photosynthesis and growth by atmospheric enrichment eroding with time" (Idso and Kimball
1992). The phenomenon is also called "downward acclimation" (Curtis and Teeri 1992):
"following prolonged exposure to high CO2, photosynthetic capacity measured at either elevated
or ambient CO2 partial pressure falls to below that of plants exposed only to ambient CO2." When
more than one elevated CO2 treatment level was reported, only the elevated CO2 level that was
approximately twice the ambient level was included in the database. Only the longest lasting
exposure experiment results on photosynthetic rates, stomatal conductance, dark respiration and
water use efficiency are included, however, not multiple measurements over time from the same
plant. And only responses of plants measured at elevated levels of CO2 are included for evaluation
of acclimatory responses. Durations of experimental exposures are always reported.

            2. APPLICATIONS OF THE DATA

This database was produced to support a meta-analysis of the effects of elevated CO2 on woody
vegetation (Curtis 1996; Curtis and Wang 1998), and it was formatted accordingly. For other
applications, the user should be aware that the data may be reported in more than one unit for a
given variable (e.g., for dark respiration, the data are reported in units of mg/g/d, mmol/g/h,
mmol/m2/h, umol/g/s, and umol/m2/s; and the experimental CO2 concentrations are reported in
units of cm3/m3, Pa, ppm, ubar, ul/l, and umol/mol); this is not a problem for meta-analysis, but
for other applications the user may need to convert the data to consistent units.

The effects of environmental factors (e.g., nutrient levels, light intensity, temperature), stress
treatments (e.g., drought, heat, ozone, ultraviolet-B radiation), and the effects of experimental
conditions (e.g., duration of CO2 exposure, pot size, type of CO2 exposure facility) on plant
responses to elevated CO2 levels can be explored with this database.

            3. DATA LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
                                
In many papers, the data were reported graphically, rather than numerically. In such cases, the
data values reported herein were digitized from the printed figures and may therefore be less
accurate.

There might also have been some confusion because of the term "standard deviation." When a
"standard deviation" was reported in a published paper, it was not generally possible to verify
whether this value was a sample standard deviation or the standard deviation of the mean, which
is sometimes used synonymously with standard error (i.e., standard error of the mean).
Unfortunately, it was not possible to settle this issue definitively without personally contacting the
authors of the published papers. In all cases, where not specified or known to be otherwise, a
reported standard deviation was taken to be the sample standard deviation. If this was in error,
then the standard deviation, standard error, and coefficient of variation reported in this database
would all be incorrect.

In some cases an error bar in a figure or confidence interval in a table was not specified as
standard deviation or standard error, in which case the data contributors had to make an
assumption from the error bar or confidence interval and the sample size. Instances where data
were obtained by personal communication with the authors, or where standard deviation or
standard error was inferred from the published data, are documented in the comments.* files
(included as Appendix C). Where it was not possible to determine whether the reported variability
was standard deviation or standard error, it was assumed to be standard error, for the sake of
conservatism.

In some cases (e.g., in long-term exposures), duration of the CO2 exposure was approximated.

As noted in Sect. 2, various units may be used for the same parameter, so the user should apply
caution in integrating observations from more than one paper. The units are reported  in this
database.

            4. DATA CHECKS AND PROCESSING PERFORMED BY CDIAC

An important part of the data packaging process at CDIAC involves the quality assurance (QA)
of data before distribution. To guarantee data of the highest possible quality, CDIAC performs
extensive QA checks, examining the data for completeness, reasonableness, and accuracy, through
close cooperation with the data contributor.

This database was originally published as CDIAC DB-1018, for which all entries in the data file
were visually inspected for reasonableness and selected entries were spot-checked against the
original publications. Additional quality-assurance and documentation was performed in the
preparation of this numeric data package, and some data were corrected, as described herein.

The following describes the additional data checks that were performed in the preparation of this
numeric data package and the resulting revisions to the database.

Using Excel, the spreadsheet included in the original database (db1018.xls) was converted to
Lotus 1-2-3 format (ndp072.wk1). Headings were added to all columns.

Lists of entries for each field were generated, to identify possible spelling variants, typographical
errors, or order-of-magnitude errors in the original literature or in the compilation and data entry
of the database. In fact, some variant spellings of GENUS, SPECIES, and P_UNIT were
identified and corrected for the sake of consistency.

The definition of parameter LFTNC was corrected, from "leaf N (TNC free weight basis)" to
"leaf total nonstructural carbohydrate."

The internal consistency of the reported standard errors (s.e.), standard deviations (s.d.), and
sample sizes (n) was checked by calculating s.d. from the s.e. and n in DB-1018 and comparing
the resulting values of s.d. with the values in DB-1018; discrepancies were resolved by checking
the original publications.

The ratio of elev/amb for X, SE, SD, and N was calculated; then all observations were ranked on
the basis of each ratio to identify suspect values.

The following lists the changes that were made to the original database.

SOURCE: In entire spreadsheet, edited format of letters following T or F number to entirely
lowercase.

OBS 39 & 40 (PAP_NO 150): Corrected P_UNIT, from molH2O/m2/s to mmolH2O/m2/s.

OBS 142 (PAP_NO 340): Replaced existing value of SD_AMB (0.9798) with value calculated
from SE_AMB & N_AMB (2.4495).

OBS 143 & 151 (PAP_NO 340): Corrected P_UNIT, from 0.01g/m2 to 102 g/g.

OBS 150 (PAP_NO 340): Replaced existing value of SD_AMB (3.9192) with value calculated
from SE_AMB & N_AMB (1.9596).

OBS 191 (PAP_NO 505): Corrected SOURCE, from F2b to F2c.

OBS 191 (PAP_NO 505): Replaced existing values of SD_AMB (5.134) and SD_ELEV
(7.7972) with values calculated from SE & N (SD_AMB = 10.268 and SD_ELEV = 3.487).

OBS 192 (PAP_NO 505): Replaced existing values of SD_AMB (5.367), SD_ELEV (5.747),
SE_AMB (2.4), SE_ELEV (2.57), N_AMB (20), and N_ELEV (20) with values provided by
author: SD_AMB (5.484), SD_ELEV (4.406), SE_AMB (2.452), SE_ELEV (1.970), N_AMB
(5), and N_ELEV (5).

OBS 195 (PAP_NO 505): Corrected P_UNIT, from mgdvvt/cm3 to mgdwt/cm3.

OBS 210 & 211 (PAP_NO 506): Corrected P_UNIT, from umol/H2O/m2/s to mol/H2O/m2/s.

OBS 364 & 365 (PAP_NO 746): Corrected SPECIES name from tulipfera to tulipifera.

OBS 598-599, 606-607, and 612-613 (PAP_NO 2110): Existing values for means, standard
error, and standard deviation multiplied by 100, based on personal communication from author, to
correct for error in the published paper (in converting from % to mg/g, data were divided by 10
rather than multiplied by 10). Personal correspondence with author also confirmed that variance
values given parenthetically in Table 2 were standard deviations; the tabulated data were
corrected accordingly.

To search for possible confusion between standard error and standard deviation (see Sect. 3,
DATA LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS), coefficients of variation CV* (after Sokal
and Rohlf 1981) were calculated for each PARAM  from each mean, standard deviation, and
sample size. It was expected that, for any PARAM, an anomalously low coefficient of variation
for a given observation might signal that a standard error was mislabeled as a standard deviation;
but no such anomalies were obvious. The database was sorted by PARAM, then by CV*_AMB
and CV*_ELEV, and inspected for jumps of greater than fourfold between adjacent observations.
The following lists those adjacent observations that warranted further scrutiny, along with the
results of the checks:

PARAM = BD
          OBS 396, PAP_NO 2004 (CV*_AMB = 35.5828): Contacted author and verified that
     "mean  SD"actually referred to sample standard deviation rather than standard error of
     the mean.
          OBS 758, PAP_NO 2224 (CV*_AMB = 623.5): Verified tabulated value against
     publication.

PARAM = BGWT
          OBS 380, PAP_NO 2003 (CV*_AMB=0) and OBS 378, PAP_NO 2003
     (CV*_AMB=2.3864): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = LFC
          OBS 599, PAP_NO 2110 (CV*_AMB=3.2753): Personal correspondence with author
     confirmed that variance values given parenthetically in Table 2 were standard deviations;
     the tabulated data were corrected accordingly.
          OBS 490, PAP_NO 2043 (CV*_AMB=16.6223): Verified tabulated value against
     publication.

PARAM = LFNM
          OBS 414, PAP_NO 2027 (CV*_AMB=0.4532) and OBS 251, PAP_NO 550
     (CV*_AMB=2.3447): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = PN
          OBS 513, PAP_NO 2045 (CV*_AMB=-99.0208): Verified tabulated value against
     publication.
          OBS 638, PAP_NO 2120 (CV*_AMB=2.6460): Based on personal communication; did
     not verify.

PARAM = PN_AC
          OBS 520, PAP_NO 2045 (CV*_AMB=-99.0208) and OBS 622, PAP_NO 2117
     (CV*_AMB=4.6109): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = RD_AC
          OBS 589, PAP_NO 2068 (CV*_AMB=96.7737) and OBS 162, PAP_NO 468
     (CV*_AMB=1073.9583): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = INDLA
          OBS 18, PAP_NO 44 (CV*_ELEV=10.1423) and OBS 17, PAP_NO 44
     (CV*_ELEV=43.9153): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = LFC
          OBS 599, PAP_NO 2110 (CV*_ELEV=1.9585): Personal correspondence with author
     confirmed that variance values given parenthetically in Table 2 were standard deviations;
     the tabulated data were corrected accordingly.
          OBS 490, PAP_NO 2043 (CV*_ELEV=13.8699): Corrected PARAM to LFTNC.

PARAM = LFSTAR
          OBS 151, PAP_NO 340 (CV*_ELEV=39.3519) and OBS 143, PAP_NO 340
     (CV*_ELEV=554.3478): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = LFTNC
          OBS 416, PAP_NO 2027 (CV*_ELEV=1.2777) and OBS 773, PAP_NO 2224
     (CV*_ELEV=7.7891): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = RD_AC
          OBS 589, PAP_NO 2068 (CV*_ELEV=11.2191) and OBS 588, PAP_NO 2068
     (CV*_ELEV=129.3295): Verified tabulated values against publication.

PARAM = RGR
          OBS 759, PAP_NO 2224 (CV*_ELEV=10.8333): Verified tabulated value against
     publication.
          OBS 406 & 407, PAP_NO 2026 (CV*_ELEV=78.1250): The value for X_ELEV was
     corrected, from 0.0052 to 0.052, thereby lowering the calculated CV*_ELEV to a less
     anomalous 7.8125.
          OBS 192, PAP_NO 505 (CV*_ELEV=105.7878): Tabulated data changed, as described
     earlier in this section, based on personal communication from author.

PARAM = TOTN
          OBS 613, PAP_NO 2110 (CV*_ELEV=39.0833) - Personal correspondence with author
     confirmed that variance values given parenthetically in Table 2 were standard deviations;
     the tabulated data were corrected accordingly.
          OBS 243, PAP_NO 521 (CV*_ELEV=177.7945) - Error bar not labeled as to SD or
     SE. Assumed by data contributor to be SE, based on size of the error bars and the sample
     size.

            5. INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING THE DATA AND DOCUMENTATION

This database (NDP-072) is available free of charge from CDIAC. The files are available via the
Internet, from CDIAC's World-Wide-Web site (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov), or from CDIAC's
anonymous FTP (file transfer protocol) area (cdiac.esd.ornl.gov) as follows:

FTP to cdiac.esd.ornl.gov (128.219.24.36).
Enter "ftp" as the user id.
Enter your electronic mail address as the password (e.g., fred@zulu.org).
Change to the directory "pub/ndp072" (i.e., use the command "cd pub/ndp072").
Set ftp to get ASCII files by using the ftp "ascii" command.
Retrieve the ASCII database documentation file by using the ftp "get ndp072.txt" command.
Retrieve the ASCII data files by using the ftp "mget *.dat" command.
Set ftp to get binary files by using the ftp "binary" command.
Retrieve the binary spreadsheet files by using the ftp "mget *.wk1" command.
Exit the system by using the ftp "quit" command.

Uncompress files on computer, if obtained in compressed format. 

For non-Internet data acquisitions (e.g., floppy diskette or 8-mm tape), or for additional
information, contact:

     Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
     Oak Ridge National Laboratory
     P.O. Box 2008
     Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335
     U.S.A.

     Telephone: +1-423-574-3645
     Telefax: +1-423-574-2232
     E-mail: cdiac@ornl.gov

          Note: After 1 November 1999, the area code 423 will be changed to 865.

            6. REFERENCES

     Cooper, H., and L. V. Hedges. 1994. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage
     Foundation, New York.

     Curtis, P. S. 1996. A meta-analysis of leaf gas exchange and nitrogen in trees grown under
     elevated carbon dioxide. Plant, Cell and Environment 19:127-137.

     Curtis, P. S., and J. A. Teeri. 1992. Seasonal responses of leaf gas exchange to elevated carbon
     dioxide in Populus grandidentata. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22:1320-1325.

     Curtis, P. S., and X. Wang. 1998. A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on woody plant mass,
     form, and physiology. Oecologia 113:299-313.

     Gurevitch, J., and L. V. Hedges. 1993. Meta-analysis: Combining the results of independent
     experiments. Pp. 378-398. In S. M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch (eds.), Design and Analysis
     of Ecological Experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York.

     Gurevitch, J., L. L. Morrow, A. Wallace, and J. S. Walsch. 1992. A meta-analysis of competition
     in field experiments. American Naturalist 140:539-572.

     Idso, S. B., and B. A. Kimball. 1992. Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on photosynthesis,
     respiration, and growth of sour orange trees. Plant Physiology 99:341-343.

     Mousseau, M., and B. Saugier. 1992. The direct effect of increased CO2 on gas exchange and
     growth of forest tree species. Journal of Experimental Botany 43:1121-1130.

     Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.

     Strain, B. R., and J. D. Cure. 1994. Direct effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plants and
     ecosystems: An updated bibliographic database. ORNL/CDIAC-70. Carbon Dioxide
     Information Analysis Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National
     Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

            7. LISTING OF FILES PROVIDED
                                
The database consists of seven files (see Table 1), including this documentation file. The data file
(ndp072.dat and ndp072.wk1), reference file (refs.dat and refs.wk1), and comment file
(comments.dat and comments.wk1) are each formatted in two ways: as flat ASCII files and as
binary spreadsheet files (in Lotus 1-2-3 format, but readable by other spreadsheet programs).

The 29-field ndp072.dat and ndp072.wk1 files contain data (784 observations in all) relevant for
CO2-exposure meta-analysis for woody plants. The ndp072.dat file can be read into SAS  or
Fortran programs, using the access codes provided in Sect. 11 of this numeric data package. The
ndp072.dat file can also be converted into a spreadsheet file for processing, although it is simpler
to use the ndp072.wk1 spreadsheet file provided in this numeric data package.

The refs.* files list the selected literature represented in the data files (84 references in all), and the
comments.* files provide additional information about the studies, beyond what appears in the
ndp072.* data files. The reference numbers in the refs.* and comments.*  correspond to the paper
numbers in the ndp072.* data files.

Table 1.  Data files in the database

_____________________________________________________________________________________

File        File name        File size        File type             File description
number                         (kB)       
_____________________________________________________________________________________

  1        ndp072.txt           81        ASCII text               Documentation file
 
  2        ndp072.dat          185        ASCII text               Data file

  3        ndp072.wk1          391        Binary spreadsheet       Data file

  4        refs.dat             18        ASCII text               Reference file

  5        refs.wk1             20        Binary spreadsheet       Reference file

  6        comments.dat         23        ASCII text               Comment file

  7        comments.wk1         24        Binary spreadsheet       Comment file
_____________________________________________________________________________________

            8. DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTATION FILE

ndp072.txt (File 1)

This file is an ASCII text equivalent to this document.

            9. DESCRIPTION, FORMAT, AND PARTIAL LISTINGS OF THE ASCII DATA FILES

ndp072.dat (File 2)

Table 2 describes the format and contents of the ASCII data file ndp072.dat distributed with this
numeric data package. This table also indicates the column in the corresponding spreadsheet file
ndp072.wk1 in which each variable is found.

Table 2.  Contents and format of ndp072.dat (File 2)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Variable   Variable   Variable  Starting   Ending   Units  Spreadsheet   Definition 
            type       width     column    column            column     and comments
_____________________________________________________________________________________

OBSNO      Numeric        3         1        3                  A      Observation 
								       number

PAP_NO     Numeric        4         4        7    See below     B      Cited paper
                                                                       numbers

PARAM      Character      6         8       13    See below     C      Measured
                                                                       parameter

P_UNIT     Character     15        14       28                  D      Unit for PARAM

GENUS      Character     13        29       41                  E      Plant genus 
                                                                       name

SPECIES    Character     25        42       66                  F      Plant species
                                                                       name

DIV1       Character      5        67       71    See below     G      Functional
                                                                       division #1

DIV2       Character      5        72       76    See below     H      Functional
                                                                       division #2

AMB        Character      4        77       80    CO2_UNIT      I      Ambient CO2
                                                                       treatment 
                                                                       level

ELEV       Character      4        81       84    See           J      Elevated CO2
                                                  CO2_UNIT             treatment 
                                                                       level

CO2_UNIT   Character      8        85       92    See below     K      Units for CO2
                                                                       exposure
                                                                       concentration

TIME       Numeric        4        93       96    Days          L      Maximum
                                                                       duration of 
                                                                       CO2 exposure

POT        Character      6        97      102    See below     M      Growing method

METHOD     Character      4       103      106    See below     N      CO2-exposure
                                                                       facility

STOCK      Character      8       107      114    See below     O      Planting stock

XTRT       Character      6       115      120    See below     P      Interacting
                                                                       treatment

LEVEL      Character      7       121      127    See below     Q      Interacting
                                                                       treatment 
                                                                       level

QUANT      Character     24       128      151    See below     R      Quantity 
                                                                       and unit 
                                                                       associated
                                                                       with LEVEL
 
SOURCE     Character     6        152      157    See below     S      Figure, table,
                                                                       or page from
                                                                       which data 
                                                                       were taken

X_AMB      Numeric      10        158      167    See           T      Mean response
                                                  P_UNIT               of plants 
                                                                       grown in 
                                                                       ambient CO2                           
 
SE_AMB     Numeric       9        168      176    See           U      Standard error
                                                  P_UNIT               of X_AMB

SD_AMB     Numeric      10        177      186    See           V      Standard
                                                  P_UNIT               deviation of
                                                                       responses of
                                                                       plants grown
                                                                       in ambient CO2

CV*_AMB    Numeric      9         187      195      %           W      Coefficient of
                                                                       variation of
                                                                       responses of
                                                                       plants grown 
                                                                       in ambient CO2

N_AMB      Numeric      3         196      198                  X      Sample size of
                                                                       responses of
                                                                       plants grown 
                                                                       in ambient CO2

X_ELEV     Numeric     10         199      208     See          Y      Mean response 
                                                   P_UNIT              of plants  
                                                                       grown in 
                                                                       elevated CO2 

SE_ELEV    Numeric      9         209      217     See          Z      Standard error
                                                   P_UNIT              of X_ELEV

SD_ELEV    Numeric     10         218      227     See         AA      Standard
                                                   P_UNIT              deviation of
                                                                       responses of
                                                                       plants grown
                                                                       in elevated 
                                                                       CO2
 
CV*_ELEV   Numeric      9         228      236      %          AB      Coefficient of
                                                                       variation of
                                                                       responses of
                                                                       plants grown 
                                                                       in elevated 
                                                                       CO2

N_ELEV     Numeric      3         237      239                 AC      Sample size of
                                                                       responses of
                                                                       plants grown 
                                                                       in elevated 
                                                                       CO2
______________________________________________________________________________________

Where:

For PAP_NO, a value < 2000 indicates abstracts in Strain and Cure (1994), and a value >2000
indicates more recent literature.

For PARAM, the following define the possible measured parameters:

plant parts
     AGWT: total aboveground weight
     BD: basal diameter  
     BGWT: total belowground weight
     CRWT: coarse root weight
     FRWT: fine root weight
     HT: height
     LFWT: total leaf weight
     RGR: relative growth rate
     SEEDWT: reproductive biomass
     STWT: stem weight
     TOTWT: whole plant weight

leaf area components
     INDLA: maximum individual leaf area
     LAR: leaf area ratio (leaf area/unit mass of plant)
     MAXLA: maximum canopy leaf area
     SLA: specific leaf area (leaf area/unit mass of leaf)
     SLW: specific leaf weight (leaf mass/unit area of leaf)

gas-exchange parameters
     GS: stomatal conductance of ambient plants measured under ambient CO2 (X_AMB) and
          elevated plants measured under elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     GS_AC: stomatal conductance of ambient plants measured at elevated CO2 (X_AMB)
          and elevated plants measured at elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     JMAX: maximum rate of electron transport
     PIRC: rate of phosphate regeneration
     PN: net CO2 assimilation of ambient plants measured under ambient CO2 (X_AMB) and
          elevated plants measured under elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     PN_AC: net CO2 assimilation of ambient plants measured at elevated CO2 (X_AMB) and
          elevated plants measured at elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     RD: dark respiration of ambient plants measured under ambient CO2 (X_AMB) and
          elevated plants measured under elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     RD_AC: dark respiration of ambient plants measured at elevated CO2 (X_AMB) and
          elevated plants measured at elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     VCMAX: maximum carboxylation rate of Rubisco
     WUE: water use efficiency of ambient plants measured under ambient CO2 (X_AMB) and
          elevated plants measured under elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)
     WUE_AC: water use efficiency of ambient plants measured at elevated CO2 (X_AMB)
          and elevated plants measured at elevated CO2 levels (X_ELEV)

biochemical constituents
     LFC: leaf total C (unit mass basis) 
     LFNA: leaf N (unit area basis)
     LFNM: leaf N (unit mass basis)
     LFTNC: leaf total non-structural carbohydrate
     LFP: leaf P (unit mass basis)
     LFSTAR: leaf starch (unit mass basis)
     LFSUG: leaf sugar (unit mass basis)
     TOTN: total N (concentration) 

The value of PARAM is linked to that shown for P_UNIT (parameter units), X_AMB
(parameter value for plants grown under ambient CO2 exposure conditions), and X_ELEV
(parameter value for plants grown under elevated CO2 exposure conditions).

All entries for DIV1 are "WOODY" in this database.

Entries for DIV2 are:
     ANGIO: angiosperms
     GYMNO: gymnosperms
     N2FIX: nitrogen fixation by species in experiment

The values of AMB and ELEV are linked to that shown for CO2_UNIT.

Entries for CO2_UNIT are:
     Pa (Pascals)
     ubar (1 ubar = 0.1 Pa)
     ppm
     ul/l
     cm3/m3
     umol/mol

For POT, a numeric entry signifies pot size (in liters) used during the major part of the
experiment; the other entries are:
     GRND: plants rooted in the ground
     HYDRO: solution or aeroponic culture

Entries for METHOD are:
     BRANCH: branch chambers
     GC: indoor, controlled environment: growth chambers
     GH: sunlit greenhouses and chambers within greenhouses
     OTC: field-based open-top chambers
     SPAR: high-tech soil-plant-atmosphere chambers

Entries for STOCK are:
     BRANCH: branches exposed
     MATURE: mature plants exposed
     SAP: plants started from cuttings
     SEED: plants started from seeds

Entries for XTRT are:
     NONE: no treatment
     COMP: plant competition 
     FERT+L: soil fertility and light
     FERT: soil fertility
     H2O: well-watered vs drought
     LIGHT: light treatment
     TEMP: temperature treatment
     OZONE: ozone exposure
     UVB: ultraviolet-B radiation exposure

The entries for LEVEL (which qualitatively describes the treatment level) are treatment-
dependent and cannot be further categorized; this field is linked with XTRT (which characterizes
the treatment type) and QUANT (which quantifies the treatment level). 

               For XTRT = NONE, COMP, or FERT+L, LEVEL = . (missing value) (see entry for
          corresponding paper in comments.*  file)

     For soil fertility treatment:
          FERT - HI 
          LOW 
          CONTROL 
                    missing (.) when treatment can not be clearly described (see entry for
               corresponding paper in comments.*  file).

     For H2O treatment:
          DRT: drought
          WW: well-watered

     For LIGHT treatment:
          HI 
          LOW
     
     For TEMP treatment:
          HI
          LOW
          CONTROL
     
     For stress interactions:
          OZONE
               HI
               LOW 
           
          UVB
               HI 
               LOW

Entries for QUANT, which quantify the interacting treatment level, are treatment-dependent. The
combination of quantity and unit is reported in this one field (see also the corresponding entry in
comments.* file). The missing-value indicator for QUANT is a period (.).

Possible entry formats for SOURCE  are:
     F1a (Fig. 1a)
     T1 (Table 1)
     P235 (Page 235 of text)
     1emeta (personal communication with authors)

Entries for X_AMB, SE_AMB, SD_AMB, X_ELEV, SE_ELEV, and SD_ELEV are linked to
the units given for P_UNIT. The suffix "AMB" refers to measurements of plants grown under
ambient CO2 exposure conditions, and the suffix "ELEV" refers to measurements of plants grown
under elevated CO2 exposure conditions.

For CV*_AMB and CV*_ELEV, corrected (for small sample size) coefficient of variation was
calculated according to Sokal and Rohlf (1981) as follows:

     CV* = (1 + 1/4N)(SD x 100)/X

where SD = standard deviation, X = mean, and N = sample size.

     First two data records:

  1  44PN    umolCO2/m2/s   ALNUS        RUBRA                   
WOODYN2FIX 350 650ul/l      46   0.5GC    SEED  FERT  HI    
20mgN/l                 T3      11.7700   0.6400    1.4311  
12.7668  5  23.2000    4.6100   10.3083  46.6539  5
  2  44PN    umolCO2/m2/s   ALNUS        RUBRA                   
WOODYN2FIX 350 650ul/l      46   0.5GC    SEED  FERT  CONTROL.    
                  T3      11.7000   1.1600    2.5938   23.2777  5 
25.9000    1.4800    3.3094  13.4165  5

     Last two data records:

7832224TOTWT g              POPULUS      TREMULOIDES             
WOODYANGIO 385 642ul/l      60     6GC    SEED  NONE  .      .    
                  F1      69.7000   2.1000    3.6373    5.6534  3
102.6000    3.6000    6.2354   6.5838  3
7842224LFSTAR%              POPULUS      TREMULOIDES             
WOODYANGIO 385 642ul/l      60     6GC    SEED  NONE  .      .    
                  F2       2.7600   0.1900    0.3291   12.9176  3 
 8.5300    0.9300    1.6108  20.4576  3

refs.dat (File 4)

This ASCII file provides citations of papers included in the database. A full listing of the file is
included as APPENDIX B.

comments.dat (File 6)

This ASCII file provides experimental details from papers included in the database. A full listing
of the file is included as APPENDIX C.

            10. DESCRIPTION AND FORMAT OF THE LOTUS 1-2-3 BINARY SPREADSHEET FILES

Three Lotus 1-2-3 binary spreadsheet files (files 3, 5, and 7) contain the same information as the
corresponding *.dat ASCII files 2, 4, and 6.

ndp072.wk1 (File 3)

This Lotus 1-2-3 binary spreadsheet file corresponds to ASCII file ndp072.dat (File 2). Table 2,
which describes the contents and format of ndp072.dat, also indicates the column of
ndp072.wk1 in which each variable is found.

refs.wk1 (File 5)

This Lotus 1-2-3 binary spreadsheet file corresponds to ASCII file refs.dat (File 4).

comments.wk1 (File 7)

This Lotus 1-2-3 binary spreadsheet file corresponds to ASCII file comments.dat (File 6).

            11. SAS  AND FORTRAN CODES TO ACCESS THE DATA

The following is SAS  code to read file ndp072.dat

*SAS data retrieval routine to read ndp072.dat;

data ndp072;
infile 'ndp072.dat';
input OBSNO 1-3 @4 PAP_NO 4. @8 PARAM $char6. P_UNIT $ 14-28 GENUS $ 29-41
      SPECIES $ 42-66 DIV1 $ 67-71 DIV2 $ 72-76 AMB $ 77-80 ELEV $ 81-84 
      CO2_UNIT $ 85-92 TIME 93-96 POT $ 97-102 METHOD $ 103-106 
      STOCK $ 107-114 XTRT $ 115-120 LEVEL $ 121-127 QUANT $ 128-151 
      SOURCE $ 152-157 X_AMB 158-167 SE_AMB 168-176 SD_AMB 177-186
      CV_AMB 187-195 N_AMB 196-198 X_ELEV 199-208 SE_ELEV 209-217
      SD_ELEV 218-227 CV_ELEV 228-236 N_ELEV 237-239 ;

* In the above INPUT statement, the variables CV*_AMB and CV*_ELEV have
  been renamed CV_AMB and CV_ELEV, respectively.;
 
run;

The following is Fortran code to read file ndp072.dat

C *** Fortran program to read the file "ndp072.dat"
C
      INTEGER OBSNO, PAP_NO, N_AMB, N_ELEV, TIME
      DOUBLE PRECISION X_ELEV, SD_ELEV
      REAL X_AMB, SE_AMB, SD_AMB, CV_AMB, SE_ELEV, CV_ELEV
      CHARACTER PARAM*6, P_UNIT*15, GENUS*13, SPECIES*25, DIV1*5,
     + DIV2*5, AMB*4, ELEV*4, CO2_UNIT*8, POT*6, METHOD*4, STOCK*8,
     + XTRT*6, LEVEL*7, QUANT*24, SOURCE*6
C 
      OPEN (UNIT=1, FILE='NDP072.DAT')
C
C     Note that the variables CV*_AMB and CV*_ELEV have
C     been renamed CV_AMB and CV_ELEV, respectively    
C
   10 READ (1,100,END=99) OBSNO, PAP_NO, PARAM, P_UNIT, GENUS, SPECIES,
     + DIV1, DIV2, AMB, ELEV, CO2_UNIT, TIME, POT, METHOD, STOCK, XTRT,
     + LEVEL, QUANT, SOURCE, X_AMB, SE_AMB, SD_AMB,CV_AMB,N_AMB,X_ELEV,
     + SE_ELEV, SD_ELEV, CV_ELEV, N_ELEV
  100 FORMAT (I3,I4,A6,A15,A13,A25,2A5,2A4,A8,A4,A6,A4,A8,A6,A7,A24,
     + A6,F9.4,1X,F8.4,1X,2(F9.4,1X),I2,3(F9.4,1X),F8.4,1X,I2)
C
      GO TO 10
   99 CLOSE (UNIT=1)
      STOP
      END

            APPENDIX A: SPECIES INCLUDED IN DATABASE

Acacia mangium
Acer pensylvanicum
Acer pseudoplatanus
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharinum
Acer saccharum
Alnus glutinosa
Alnus rubra
Betula alleghaniensis
Betula lenta
Betula papyrifera
Betula pendula
Betula populifolia
Betula pubescens
Brachychiton populneum
Castanea sativa
Cecropia obtusifolia
Cedrus atlantica
Citrus aurantium
Citrus sinensis
Eucalyptus microtheca
Eucalyptus polyanthemus
Eucalyptus tetrodonta
Fagus grandifolia
Fagus sylvatica
Ficus obtusifolia
Fraxinus americana
Garcinia mangostana
Gliricidia sepium
Lindera Benzoin
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Malus domestica
Maranthes corymbosa
Myriocarpa longipes
Nothofagus fusca
Picea abies
Picea glauca
Picea mariana
Pinus banksiana
Pinus echinata
Pinus eldarica
Pinus nigra
Pinus ponderosa
Pinus radiata
Pinus strobus
Pinus sylvestris
Pinus taeda
Piper auritum
Poncirus trifoliata x citrusparadisi
Poncirus trifoliata x citrussinensis
Populus euramericana
Populus grandidentata
Populus interamericana
Populus tremuloides
Populus x euramericana
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Quercus alba
Quercus prinus
Quercus robur
Quercus rubra
Senna multijuga
Tabebuia rosea
Trichospermum mexicanum

            APPENDIX B: FULL LISTING OF REFS.DAT (FILE 4)

The number at the beginning of each entry corresponds to PAP_NO, the cited paper number, as
defined in Sect. 9.

44   Arnone, J.A., III, and J.C. Gordon. 1990. Effect of Nodulation, Nitrogen
Fixation and CO2 Enrichment on the Physiology, Growth and Dry Mass Allocation
of Seedlings of Alnus rubra Bong. New Phytologist 116:55-66.

2186 Bassow, S.L., K.D.M. McConnaughay, and F.A. Bazzaz. 1994. The Response
of Temperate Tree Seedlings Grown in Elevated CO2 to Extreme Temperature
Events. Ecological Applications 4(3):593-603.

2223 Bazzaz, F.A., and S.L. Miao. 1993. Successional Status, Seed Size,and
Responses of Tree Seedlings to CO2, Light and Nutrients. Ecology
74(1):104-112.

2037 Bazzaz, F.A., S.L. Miao, and P.M. Wayne. 1993. CO2-induced Growth
Enhancements of Co-occurring Tree Species Decline at Different Rates.
Oecologia 96:478-482.

2217 Berryman, C.A., D. Eamus, and G.A. Duff. 1993. The Influence of CO2
Enrichment on Growth, Nutrient Content and Biomass Allocation of Maranthes
corymbosa. Australian Journal of Botany 41:195-209.

112  Brown, K.R. 1991. Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Accelerates the Decline in
Nutrient Status and Relative Growth Rate of Populus tremuloides Michx.
Seedlings. Tree Physiology 8:161-173.

121  Bunce, J.A. 1992. Stomatal Conductance, Photosynthesis and Respiration
of Temperate Deciduous Tree Seedlings Grown Outdoors at an Elevated
Concentration of Carbon Dioxide. Plant, Cell and Environment 15:541-549.

2026 Callaway, R.M., E.H. DeLucia, E.M. Thomas, and W.H. Schlesinger. 1994.
Compensatory Responses of CO2 Exchange and Biomass Allocation and their
Effects on the Relative Growth Rate of Ponderosa Pine in Different CO2 and
Temperature Regimes. Oecologia 98:159-166.

2043 Cipollini, M.L., B.G. Drake, and D. Whigham. 1993. Effects of
ElevatedCO2 on Growth and Carbon/Nutrient Balance in the Deciduous Woody Shrub
Lindera Benzoin (L.) Blume (Lauraceae). Oecologia 96:339-346.

150  Conroy, J.P., M. Kuppers, B. Kuppers, J. Virgona, and E.W.R. Barlow.
1988. The Influence of CO2 Enrichment, Phosphorus Deficiency and Water Stress
on the Growth, Conductance and Water Use of Pinus radiata D. Don. Plant, Cell
and Environment 11:91-98.

159  Couteaux, M.M., P. Bottner, H. Rouhier, and G. Billes. 1992. Atmospheric
CO2 Increase and Plant Material Quality: Production, Nitrogen Allocation and
Litter Decomposition of Sweet Chestnut. IN: Responses of Forest Ecosystems to
Environmental Changes (A. Teller, P. Mathy, and J.N.R. Jeffers, eds.),
Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 429-436.

168  Curtis, P.S., and J.A. Teeri. 1992. Seasonal Responses of Leaf Gas
Exchange to Elevated Carbon Dioxide in Populus grandidentata. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 22:1320-1325.

2039 Curtis, P.S., C.S. Vogel, K.S. Pregitzer, D.R. Zak, and J.A. Teeri.
1995. Interacting Effects of Soil Fertility and Atmospheric CO2 on Leaf Area
Growth and Carbon Gain Physiology in Populus x euramericana (Dode) Guinier.
New Phytologist 129:253-263.

2129 Curtis, P.S., D.R. Zak, K.S. Pregitzer, and J.A. Teeri. 1994. Above- and
Belowground Response of Populus grandidentata to Elevated Atmospheric CO2 and
Soil N Availability. Plant and Soil 165:45-51.

184  Downton, W.J.S., W.J.R. Grant, and E.K. Chacko. 1990. Effect of Elevated
Carbon Dioxide on the Photosynthesis and Early growth of Mangosteen (Garcinia
mangostana L.). Scientia Horticulturae 44:215-225.

183  Downton, W.J.S., W.J.R. Grant, and B.R. Loveys. 1987. Carbon Dioxide
Enrichment Increases Yield of Valencia Orange. Australian Journal of Plant
Physiology 14:493-501.

2047 Eamus, D., C.A. Berryman, and G.A. Duff. 1993.     Assimilation, Stomatal
Conductance, Specific Leaf Area and Chlorophyll Responses to Elevated CO2 of
Maranthes corymbosa a Tropical Rain Forest Species. Australian Journal of
Plant Physiology 20:741-755.

2071 Eamus, D., C.A. Berryman, and G.A. Duff. 1995. The Impact of CO2
Enrichment on Water Relations in Maranthes corymbosa and Eucalyptus
tetrodonta. Australian Journal of Botany 43:273-282.

2070 Eamus, D., G.A. Duff, and C.A. Berryman. 1995. Photosynthetic Responses
to Temperature, Light, Flux-density, CO2 Concentration and Vapour Pressure
Deficit in Eucalyptus tetrodonta Grown under CO2 Enrichment. Environmental
Pollution 90:41-49.

208  El Kohen, A., J.-Y. Pontailler, and M. Mousseau. 1991. Effect of
Doubling of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration on Dark Respiration in Aerial Parts
of Young Chestnut Trees (Castanea sativa Mill.). Comptes Rendus des Sciences
(Paris) t. 312, Serie III:477-481.

209  El Kohen, A., H. Rouhier, and M. Mousseau. 1992. Changes in Dry Weight
and Nitrogen Partitioning Induced by Elevated CO2 Depends on Soil Nutrient
Availability in Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.). Annales des Sciences
Forestieres 49:83-90.

210  El Kohen, A., L. Venet, and M. Mousseau. 1993.    Growth and
Photosynthesis of Two Deciduous Forest Species at Elevated Carbon Dioxide.
Functional Ecology 7:480-486.

221  Ferguson, J.J., W.T. Avigne, L.H. Allen, and K.E. Koch. 1986. Growth of
CO2-enriched Sour Orange Seedlings Treated with Gibberellins/Cytokinins.
Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 99:37-39.

222  Fetcher, N., C.H. Jaeger, B.R. Strain, and N. Sionit. 1988. Long-term
Elevation of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and the Carbon Exchange Rates of
Saplings of Pinus taeda L. and Liquidambar styraciflua L. Tree Physiology
4:255-262.

2041 Garcia, R.L., S.B. Idso, G.W. Wall, and B.A. Kimball. 1994. Changes in
net Photosynthesis and Growth of Pinus eldarica Seedlings in Response to
Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment. Plant, Cell and Environment 17:971-978.

233  Gaudillere, J.-P., and M. Mousseau. 1989. Short Term Effect of CO2
Enrichment on Leaf Development and Gas Exchange of Young Poplars (Populus
euramericana cv I 214). Acta Oecologica/Oecologia Plantarum 10:95-105.

2002 Gorissen, A., P.J. Kuikman, and H. van de Beek. 1995. Carbon Allocation
and water Use in Juvenile Douglas Fir under Elevated CO2. New Phytologist
129:275-282.

2036 Grulke, N.E., J.L. Hom, and S.W. Roberts. 1993. Physiological Adjustment
of two Full-sib Families of Ponderosa Pine to Elevated CO2. Tree Physiology
12:391-401.

2035  Gunderson, C.A., R.J. Norby, and S.D. Wullschleger. 1993. Foliar Gas
Exchange Responses of two Deciduous Hardwoods during 3 Years of Growth in
Elevated CO2: no Loss of Photosynthetic Enhancement. Plant, Cell and
Environment 16:797-807. 

290  Hollinger, D.Y. 1987. Gas Exchange and Dry Matter Allocation Responses
to Elevation of Atmospheric CO2 Concentration in Seedlings of three Tree
Species. Tree Physiology 3:193-202.

314  Idso, S.B., and B.A. Kimball. 1991. Downward Regulation of
Photosynthesis and Growth at High CO2 Levels. Plant Physiology 96:990-992.

318  Idso, S.B., and B.A. Kimball. 1993. Effects of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment on Net Photosynthesis and Dark Respiration Rates of Three
AustralianTree Species. Journal of Plant Physiology 141:166-171.

313  Idso, S.B., B.A. Kimball, and S.G. Allen. 1991. CO2 Enrichment of Sour
Orange Trees: 2.5 Years into a Long-term Experiment. Plant, Cell and
Environment 14:351-353.

322  Idso, S.B., B.A. Kimball, and S.G. Allen. 1991. Net Photosynthesis of
Sour Orange Trees Maintained in Atmospheres of Ambient and Elevated CO2
Concentration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54:95-101.

2123 Jarvis, P.G., H.S.J. Lee, and C.V.M. Barton. 1994. The Likely Impact of
rising CO2 and Temperature on European Forests. Institute of Ecology and
Resource Management, University of Edinburgh.

2045 Johnsen, K.H. 1993.      Growth and Ecophysiological Responses of Black
Spruce Seedlings to Elevated CO2 under Varied Water and Nutrient Additions.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:1033-1042.

2109 Johnson, D., D. Geisinger, R. Walker, J. Newman, J. Vose, K. Elliot, and
T. Ball. 1994. Soil pCO2, Soil Respiration, and Root Activity in CO2-fumigated
and Nitrogen-fertilized Pondersosa Pine. Plant and Soil 165:129-138.

340  Kaushal, P., J.M. Guehl, and G. Aussenac. 1989. Differential Growth
Response to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Enrichment in Seedlings of Cedrus
atlantica and Pinus nigra ssp. Laricio var. Corsicana. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research 19:1351-1358.

362  Koch, K.E., P. Jones, W.T. Avigne, and L.H. Allen Jr. 1986. Growth, Dry
Matter Partitioning, and Diurnal Activities of RuBP Carboxylase in Citrus
Seedlings Maintained at Two Levels of CO2. Physiologia Plantarum 67:477-484.

2121 Kubiske, M.E., and K.S. Pregitzer. 1994. Effect of Elevated CO2 and
Light Availability on the Photosynthetic Light Response of Trees of
Contrasting Shade Tolerance. Tree Physiology; in press.

2120 Laboratorium Voor Plantecologie. 1992. Effect of Increased Atmospheric
CO2 Concentration on Primary Productivity and Carbon Allocation in Typical
Belgian Forest Ecosystems. Progress report 1992.

2028 Lavola, A., and R. Julkunen-Tiitto. 1994. The Effect of Elevated Carbon
Dioxide and Fertilization on Primary and Secondary Metabolites in Birch,
Betula pendula (Roth). Oecologia 99:315-321.

2165 Lewis, J.D., R.B. THomas, and B.R. Strain. 1994. Effect of Elevated CO2
on Mycorrhizal Colonization of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.) Seedlings. Plant
and Soil 165:81-88.

2224 Lindroth, R.L., K.K. Kinney, and C.L. Platz. 1993. Responses of
Deciduous Trees to Elevated Atmospheric CO2: Productivity, Phytochemistry, and
Insect Performance. Ecology 74(3):763-777.

2065 Liu, S., and R.O. Teskey. 1995. Responses of Foliar Gas Exchange to
Long-term Elevated CO2 Concentrations in Mature Loblolly Pine Trees. Tree
Physiology 15:351-359. 

2069 Marek, M.V., J. Kalina, and M. Matouskova. 1995. Response of
Photosynthetic Carbon Assimilation of Norway Spruce Exposed to Long-term
Elevation of CO2 Concentration. Photosynthetica 31:209-220. 

2117 Mortensen, L.M. 1994. Effects of Carbon Dioxide Concentration on
Assimilate Partitioning, Photosynthesis and Transpiration of Betula pendula
Roth. and Picea abies (L.) Karst. Seedlings at two Temperatures. Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B, Soil and Plant Sciences 44:164-169. 

2003 Mortensen, L.M. 1995. Effect of Carbon Dioxide Concentration on Biomass
Production and Partitioning in (Betula pubescens Ehrh.) Seedlings at Different
Ozone and Temperature Regimes. Environmental Pollution 87:337-343. 

468  Mousseau, M. 1993. Effects of Elevated CO2 on Growth, Photosynthesis and
Respiration of Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.). Vegetatio
104/105:413-419.

470  Mousseau, M., and H.Z. Enoch. 1989. Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Reduces
Shoot Growth in Sweet Chestnut Seedlings (Castanea sativa Mill.). Plant, Cell
and Environment 12:927-934. 

502  Norby, R.J., C.A. Gunderson, S.D. Wullschleger, E.G. O'Neill, and M.K.
McCracken. 1992. Productivity and Compensatory Responses of Yellow-poplar
Trees in Elevated CO2. Nature 357:322-324. 

505  Norby, R.J., and E.G. O'Neill. 1989. Growth Dynamics and Water Use of
Seedlings of Quercus alba L. in CO2-enriched Atmospheres. New Phytologist
111:491-500. 

506  Norby, R.J., and E.G. O'Neill. 1991. Leaf Area Compensation and Nutrient
Interactions in CO2-enriched Seedlings of Yellow-poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera L.). New Phytologist 117:515-528. 

503  Norby, R.J., E.G. O'Neill, W.G. Hood, and R.J. Luxmoore. 1987. Carbon
Allocation, Root Exudation and Mycorrhizal Colonization of Pinus echinata
Seedlings Grown under CO2 Enrichment. Tree Physiology 3:203-210. 

504  Norby, R.J., E.G. O'Neill, and R.J. Luxmoore. 1986. Effects of
Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment on the Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Quercus alba
Seedlings in Nutrient-poor Soil. Plant Physiology 82:83-89. 

2131 Norby, R.J., Wullschleger, and C.A. Gunderson. 1996. Tree Responses to
Elevated CO2 and Implications for Forests. IN: Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial
Ecosystems (G.W. Koch and H.A. Mooney, eds.), Academic Press, New York,
pp.1-21. 

510  O'Neill, E.G., R.J. Luxmoore, and R.J. Norby. 1987. Increases in
Mycorrhizal Colonization and Seedling Growth in Pinus echinata and Quercus
alba in an Enriched CO2 Atmosphere. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
17:878-883. 

521  Overdieck, D. 1990. Effects of Elevated CO2-concentration Levels on
Nutrient Contents of Herbaceous and Woody Plants. IN: The Greenhouse Effect
and Primary Productivity in European Agro-ecosystems; 5-10 April 1990;
Wageningen, The Netherlands (J. Goudriaan, H. van Keulen, and H.H. van Laar,
eds.), Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 31-37. 

550  Pettersson, R., and A.J.S. McDonald. 1992. Effects of Elevated Carbon
Dioxide Concentration on Photosynthesis and Growth of Small Birch Plants
(Betula pendula Roth.) at Optimal Nutrition. Plant, Cell and Environment
15:911-919.

2027 Pettersson, R., A.J.S. McDonald, and I. Stadenberg. 1993. Response of
Small Birch Plants (Betula pendula Roth.) to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen Supply.
Plant, Cell and Environment 16:1115-1121. 

553  Polle, A., T. Pfirrmann, S. Chakrabarti, and H. Rennenberg. 1993. The
Effects of Enhanced Ozone and Enhanced Carbon Dioxide Concentrations on
Biomass, Pigments and Antioxidative Enzymes in Spruce Seedlings. Plant, Cell
and Environment 16:311-316.

2110 Pregitzer, K.S., D.R. Zak, P.S. Curtis, M.E. Kubiske, J.A. Teeri, and
C.S. Vogel. 1995. Atmospheric CO2, Soil Nitrogen and Turnover of Fine Roots.
New Phytologist 129(4):579-585. 

582  Reekie, E.G., and F.A. Bazzaz. 1989. Competition and Patterns of
Resource Use among Seedlings of Five Tropical Trees Grown at Ambient and
Elevated CO2. Oecologia 79:212-222.

2046 Reid, C.D., and B.R. Strain. 1994. Effects of CO2 Enrichment on
Whole-plant Carbon Budget of Seedlings of Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum
in low Irradiance. Oecologia 98:31-39. 

596  Rochefort, L., and F.A. Bazzaz. 1992. Growth Response to Elevated CO2 in
Seedlings of Four Co-occurring Birch Species. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 22:1583-1587. 

2038 Roth, S.K., and R.L. Lindroth. 1994. Effects of CO2-mediated Changes in
Paper Birch and White Pine Chemistry on Gypsy Moth Performance. Oecologia
98:133-138. 

644  Sharkey, T.D., F. Loreto, and C.F. Delwiche. 1991. High Carbon Dioxide
and Sun/Shade Effects on Isoprene Emission from Oak and Aspen Tree Leaves.
Plant, Cell and Environment 14:333-338. 

655  Sionit, N., B.R. Strain, H. Hellmers, G.H. Riechers, and C.H. Jaeger.
1985.     Long-term Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment Affects the Growth and
Development of Liquidambar styraciflua and Pinus taeda Seedlings. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 15:468-471. 

666  Stewart, J.D., and J. Hoddinott. 1993. Photosynthetic Acclimation to
Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and UV Irradiation in Pinus banksiana.
Physiologia Plantarum 88:493-500. 

2042 Sullivan, J.H., and A.H. Teramura. 1994.     The Effects of UV-B Radiation
on Loblolly Pine. 3. Interaction with CO2 Enhancement. Plant, Cell and
Environment 17:311-317. 

676  Surano, K.A., P.F. Daley, J.L.J. Houpis, J.H. Shinn, J.A. Helms, R.J.
Palassou, and M.P. Costella. 1986. Growth and Physiological Responses of Pinus
ponderosa Dougl. ex P. Laws. to Long-term Elevated CO2 Concentration. Tree
Physiology 2:243-259. 

2005 Teskey, R.O. 1995. A Field Study of the Effects of Elevated CO2 on
Carbon Assimilation, Stomatal Conductance and Leaf Branch Growth of Pinus
taeda Trees. Plant, Cell and Environment 18:565-573. 

682  Thomas, R.B., D.D. Richter, H. Ye, P.R. Heine, and B.R. Strain.
1991.Nitrogen Dynamics and Growth of Seedlings of an N-fixing Tree (Gliricidia
sepium (Jacq.) Walp.) Exposed to Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Oecologia 88:415-421. 

2044 Tissue, D.T., R.B. Thomas, and B.R. Strain. 1993. Long-term Effects of
Elevated CO2 and Nutrients on Photosynthesis and Rubisco in Loblolly Pine
Seedlings. Plant, Cell and Environment 16:859-865. 

2032 Tschaplinski, T.J., R.J. Norby, and S.D. Wullschleger. 1993. Responses
of Loblolly Pine Seedlings to Elevated CO2 and Fluctuating Water Supply. Tree
Physiology 13:283-296. 

2122 Vogel, C.S., and P.S. Curtis. 1995. Leaf Gas Exchange and Nitrogen
Dynamics of N2-fixing, Field-grown Alnus glutinosa under Elevated Atmospheric
CO2. Global Change Biology 1:55-61. 

2068 Wang, K., S. Kellomaki, and K. Laitinen. 1995. Effects of Needle Age,
Long-term Temperature and CO2 Treatments on the Photosynthesis of Scots Pine.
Tree Physiology 15:211-218. 

2152 Williams, R.S., D.E. Lincoln, and R.B. Thomas. 1994. Loblolly Pine Grown
under Elevated CO2 Affects Early Instar Pine Sawfly Performance. Oecologia
98:64-71. 

747  Wullschleger, S.D., and R.J. Norby. 1992. Respiratory Cost of Leaf
Growth and Maintenance in White Oak Saplings Exposed to Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22:1717-1721. 

746  Wullschleger, S.D., R.J. Norby, and C.A. Gunderson. 1992. Growth and
Maintenance Respiration in Leaves of Liriodendron tulipifera L. Exposed to
Long-term Carbon Dioxide Enrichment in the Field. New Phytologist 21:515-523. 

2004 Wullschleger, S.D., R.J. Norby, and P.J. Hanson. 1995. Growth and
Maintenance Respiration in Stems of Quercus alba after Four Years of CO2
Enrichment. Physiologia Plantarum 93:47-54. 

7J45 Wullschleger, S.D., R.J. Norby, and D.L. Hendrix. 1992. Carbon Exchange
Rates, Chlorophyll Content, and Carbohydrate Status of Two Forest Tree Species
Exposed to Carbon Dioxide Enrichment. Tree Physiology 10:21-31. 

2048 Yakimchuk, R., and J. Hoddinott. 1994. The Influence of Ultraviolet-B
Light and Carbon Dioxide Enrichment on the Growth and Physiology of Seedlings
of Three Conifer Species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24:1-8. 

756  Ziska, L.H., K.P. Hogan, A.P. Smith, and B.G. Drake. 1991. Growth and
Photosynthetic Response of Nine Tropical Species with Long-term Exposure to
Elevated Carbon Dioxide. Oecologia 86:383-389.

            APPENDIX C: FULL LISTING OF COMMENTS.DAT (FILE 6)

The number at the beginning of each entry corresponds to PAP_NO, the cited paper number, as
defined in Sect. 9.

Listed are paper numbers, authors, CO2 exposure facility, light, temperature, 
watering and nutrient conditions when available, location of experimental 
set-up, and comments.  For the CO2 exposure facilities, watering regimes, and 
locations the following distinctions were made:
CO2-exposure facilities:
      BRANCH - branch chambers
      GC     - indoor, controlled environment: growth chambers
      GH     - sunlit greenhouses and chambers within greenhouses
      OTC    - field-based open-top chambers
      SPAR   - high tech soil-plant-atmosphere chambers
Watering regime:
     WW     - well watered
      W      - watered
Locations:
     NA     - North America
      CA     - Central America
     AU     - Australia
     EU     - Europe
        
==============================================================================

44   Arnone, J.A., III, and J.C. Gordon, 1990     
     GC
     Light: 400 umol/m2/s                Photoperiod: 16h
     Temperature: 26/20degC
     Watering regime: WW/drip       Humidity: 70%
     Nutrients: daily 1/4 strength Hoagland 
     N Treatment: 0 vs 20 mg NH4NO3-N/l
     NA: North Carolina
     Root nodules from inocculation with Frankia cells 

112  Brown, K.R., 1991   
     GC 
     Light: 400 umol/m2/s at canopy level    Photoperiod: 18h    
     Temperature: 22/17degC   
     Watering regime: WW 6 d/wk         Humidity: 45%  
     Macronutrients 6d/wk; N Treatment: 0.155 vs 15.5 mM NH4NO3-N
     NA: Canada: Alberta 
     SE estimated from confidence interval   

121  Bunce, J.A., 1992   
     GH   
     Light: 27-49 mol/m2/d
     Temperature: 30-19degC   
     Watering regime: WW 2e or 3e day        
     fertile sandy loam+fertilizer/3 wks     
     NA: Maryland   
     SE and SD pers. comm.    

     150  Conroy, J.P., M. Kuppers, B. Kuppers, J. Virgona, and E.W.R. Barlow,
     1988
     GC   
     Light: 450 umol/m2/s at top of plants   Photoperiod: 16h    
     Temperature: 25/18degC   
     Watering regime: daily water       
     nutrients added; P treatment: P levels at 4.4 vs 40 mg/pot
     AU   
     P-deficient needles of 0.7-0.8 mgP/gdrywt or 1-1.5 mgP/gdrywt    

159  Couteaux, M.M., P. Bottner, H. Rouhier, and G. Billes, 1992
     GC   
     soil with micro flora, fauna and litter 
     EU: S France   
     Se assumed     

168  Curtis, P.S., and J.A. Teeri, 1992 
     OTC  
     Temperature: local+1.5/1/2degC     
     Watering regime: Precip+W          
     available N: 2.7ug/g soil     
     NA: N-Michigan      

183  Downton, W.J.S., W.J.R. Grant, and B.R. Loveys,   1987 
     GH   
     Light: 600-350 umol/m2/s: top of plants-pot level   Photoperiod: 10h
     
     Temperature: 25/18degC   
     Watering regime: WW                       Humidity: 60-90%  
     1/2 strength Hoagland 2*wk    
     AU   
     fruit dry wt   

184  Downton, W.J.S., W.J.R. Grant, and E.K. Chacko,   1990 
     GC   
     Light: 450 umol/m2/s initially          Photoperiod: 14-12h 
     Temperature: 30/22degC   
     Watering regime: WW daily          Humidity: 50%  
     Oscomote each 3-4mo      
     AU        

208  El Kohen, A., J.-Y. Pontailler, and M. Mousseau, 1991  
     OTC  
     EU: France          

209  El Kohen, A., H. Rouhier, and M. Mousseau, 1992   
     GH
     Watering regime: WW/drip      
     NPK Treatment: 0 NPK vs 0.82g N, 0.78gP, 0.4gK/month
     EU: France          

210  El Kohen, A., L. Venet, and M. Mousseau, 1993     
     GH   
     Temperature: local+-1.8degC   
     Watering regime: W daily           
     EU: France     
     N(#) Castanea from total # plants Castanea; from Fagus from F4   

221  Ferguson, J.J., W.T. Avigne, L.H. Allen, and K.E. Koch, 1986     
     GH   
     Light: 85% from outside       
     Temperature: 31/23degC   
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added: NPK 20:20:20; Peter's  
     NA: Florida    
     part of gibberellin and cytokinin treatment experiment 

222  Fetcher, N., C.H. Jaeger, B.R. Strain, and N. Sionit, 1988
     GH   
     Light: 1900 umol/m2/s for gas exchange measurements    
     Temperature controlled for 30yr average 
     NA: N Carolina 
     N(#) for stomatal conductance assumed same as for assimilation rate

233  Gaudillere, J.-P., and M. Mousseau, 1989
     GC   
     Light: 250 umol/m2/s at top of canopy   Photoperiod: 16h    
     Temperature: 22/15degC
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 50%  
     EU: France          

290  Hollinger, D.Y., 1987    
     GC
     Light: 700 umol/m2/s at top of canopy   Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 20/10degC   
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 70/90%    
     AU   
     SE of mass estimated     

313  Idso, S.B., B.A. Kimball, and S.G. Allen, 1991    
     OTC  
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added          
     NA: Arizona         

314  Idso, S.B., and B.A. Kimball, 1991
     OTC  
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added     
     NA: Arizona    
     SD of mass estimated from area of F1    

318  Idso, S.B., and B.A. Kimball, 1993
     OTC  
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added     
     NA: Arizona
     Assimilation rate and N(#) estimated from F3 

322  Idso, S.B., B.A. Kimball, and S.G. Allen, 1991
     OTC
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added     
     NA: Arizona         

340  Kaushal, P., J.M. Guehl, and G. Aussenac, 1989
     GH   
     Light: 80% of natural outside light+160umol/m2/s at shoot level 6h/d
     Temperature: local:10-23degC  
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 80-90%    
     EU: France     
     SE/SD pers comm.    

362  Koch, K.E., P. Jones, W.T. Avigne, and L.H. Allen Jr., 1986
     GC   
     Light: 85% of incident light of outside      
     Temperature: 31/23degC   
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added (Peter's)
     NA: Florida    
     SE/SD pers comm     

468  Mousseau, M., 1993
     OTC  
     Temperature: 35-10/22-5degC   
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrients added     
     EU: France     
     N(#) of mass assumed as in T1 pap 471

470  Mousseau, M., and H.Z. Enoch, 1989
     OTC  
     Temperature: local+max4degC   
     Watering regime: WW/drip      
     nutrients added/yr
     EU: France          

502  Norby, R.J., C.A. Gunderson, S.D. Wullschleger, E.G. O'Neill, and 
     M.K. McCracken, 1992     
     OTC
     soils potentially NP deficient     
     NA: 35.9degN 84.4degW    
     note on drought and nutrient deficiency 

503  Norby, R.J., E.G. O'Neill, W.G. Hood, and R.J. Luxmoore, 1987    
     GC   
     Light: 540 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 25/7degC    
     Watering regime: W            Humidity: 65%  
     soils potentially NP deficient     
     NA: Tennessee  
     potential soil nutrient deficient  

504  Norby, R.J., E.G. O'Neill, and R.J. Luxmoore, 1986
     GC   
     Light: 660 umol/m2/s at top of canopy   Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 25/15degC   
     Watering regime: WW/drip      Humidity: 65%  
     soils potentially NP deficient     
     NA: Tennessee  
     SE/SD for F1,T1,T2: e-mail; soil potentially nutrient deficient  

505  Norby, R.J., and E.G. O'Neill,     1989 
     GH   
     Light: 580 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 26/10degC   
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 65/95%    
     NPK treatment: 0 NPK vs 5,1.5,1.9mg N,P,K/pot/wk
     NA: Tennessee  
     SE/SD: e-mail  

506  Norby, R.J., and E.G. O'Neill,1991 
     GC   
     Light: 600 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 26/12deg    
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 70/90%    
     nutrients: 20.0.4.5,16.5 mg NPK+/wk ; later 2*wk
     NA: Tennessee  
     N(#) from author    

510  O'Neill, E.G., R.J. Luxmoore, and R.J. Norby, 1987     
     GC   
     Light: 450 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 26/10degC   
     Watering regime: WW      
     no nutrients added  
     NA: Tennessee       

521  Overdieck, D., 1990
     GC   
     Watering regime: W as precip       
     soils of average fertility
     EU: Germany: 52degN 8degE          

550  Pettersson, R., and A.J.S. McDonald, 1992
     GC   
     Light: 600 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 18h    
     Temperature: 20degC 
     hydroponics                   Humidity: 45%  
     nutrient solution   
     EU: Sweden
     N(#) 2-5: pers comm for gas exchange; as T1 for other measures   

553  Polle, A., T. Pfirrmann, S. Chakrabarti, and H. Rennenberg, 1993
     GC
     controlled as for local environment     
     Watering regime: WW:drip acidic mists   
     Ozone Treatment:  0.02 vs 0.08 cm3/m3: 24hrs/d    like higher elevations
     EU: Germany:Bavaria      

582  Reekie, E.G., and F.A. Bazzaz, 1989
     GH   
     Light: local with 1000-1200 umol/m2/s max levels
     Temperature: local 30/27degC  
     Watering regime: WW      
     monthly Peter's fertilization(20:20:20) 
     Plant competition of tropical plants
     NA: Massachusetts        

596  Rochefort, L., and F.A. Bazzaz,    1992
     GH   
     Light: 900 umol/m2/s clear days         
     Temperature: 28/20degC   
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 73%  
     nutrients added each 2 weeks  
     NA: Massachusetts        

644  Sharkey, T.D., F. Loreto, and C.F. Delwiche, 1991
     GH   
     Light: 300-500 umol/m2/s (gas measurements at 900 umol/m2/s)     
     Photoperiod: 15h    
     Temperature: 25/20degC             Humidity: 70%/85%        
     NA: Wisconsin  
     Partly a shading and isoprene emission experiment 

655  Sionit, N., B.R. Strain, H. Hellmers, G.H. Riechers, and C.H. Jaeger,
     1985 
     GH
     Temperature: night temp controlled 
     Watering regime: WW/drip      Humidity: 70%  
     nutrients (Hoagland 1/15 strength daily 
     NA: North Carolina       

666  Stewart, J.D., and J. Hoddinott, 1993
     GH   
     Light: 600 umol/m2/s as maximum         Photoperiod: 18h
     Temperature: 15-32degC (local)     
     Watering regime: WW:2*wk      
     nutrients 1/wk 
     UVB Treatment:  0.005-0.03 vs 0.25-0.90 W/m2      
     NA: Canada: Alberta      

676  Surano, K.A., P.F. Daley, J.L.J. Houpis, J.H. Shinn, J.A. Helms,
     R.J. Palassou, and M.P. Costella, 1986  
     OTC  
     Light: 80-90% from outside    
     Temperature: local+upto5degC  
     Watering regime: WW:3*wk+          Humidity: down to 10%    
     nutrients added/month: NPK + 2.2,1.8,1.3 g/pot/month   
     NA: California      

682  Thomas, R.B., D.D. Richter, H. Ye, P.R. Heine, and B.R. Strain,  1991i
     GC   
     Light: 1000 umol/m2/s              Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 29/23degC   
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 70%  
     nutrients added daily with/without N    
     N Treatment: 0 vs 7.0 mM NH4NO3-N       
     NA: South Carolina  
     Seeds inocculated with Rhizobium   

745  Wullschleger, S.D., R.J. Norby, and D.L. Hendrix, 1992 
     OTC  
     gas exchange measures at 1300 umol/m2/s 
     NA: 35.9degN 84.4degW    
     Precip 169 cm at study site compared to 139 cm as 30 yr average  

746  Wullschleger, S.D., R.J. Norby, and C.A. Gunderson, 1992
     OTC  
     NA: 35.9degN 84.4degW         

747  Wullschleger, S.D., and R.J. Norby, 1992
     OTC  
     NA: 35.9degN 84.4degW         

756  Ziska, L.H., K.P. Hogan, A.P. Smith, and B.G. Drake, 1991
     OTC  
     Light: 740 umol/m2/s average; 1200umol/m2/s max    Photoperiod: 10h
     
     Temperature: 36.5/21.2degC    
     Watering regime: WW 2*day                  Humidity: 60%/85%     
     nutrients added (Osmocote)    
     CA: 83.9degN 9.2degW     
     Values differ slightly from Table: pers comm 

2002 Gorissen, A., P.J. Kuikman, and H. Van De Beek,   1995
     GC   
     Light: 400 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 16h    
     Temperature: 18/14degC   
     Watering regime: W            Humidity: 70-80%    
     EU: 52.2degN 5.8degE     

2003 Mortensen, L.M., 1995    
     GC   
     Light: 18 mol/m2/day for temp treatment 
     Light: 22 mol/m2/day for Ozone treatment       Photoperiod: 24h  
     Temperature: 17.3degC=control 
     Watering regime: WW 
     nutrients added     
     2 Treatments: Ozone: 7 vs 62 nmol/mol for 8 hrs 
                Temperature: 15.3 vs 20 degC      
     EU: 60.8degN 11.5degE         

2004 Wullschleger, S.D., R.J. Norby, and P.J. Hanson, 1995  
     OTC  
     NA: 35.9degN 84.4degW    
     Pisolithus tinctorius mycorrhizal inoculum; stem respiration     

2005 Teskey, R.O., 1995  
     BRANCH    
     Light: 1200 umol/m2/s for gas exchange measurements              
     Watering regime: irrigated                        
     NA: Georgia: 33.9degN 82.3degW          

2026 Callaway, R.M., E.H. DeLucia, E.M. Thomas, and W.H. Schlesinger, 1994
     GC   
     Light: 1000 umol/m2/s              Photoperiod: 12h    
     Temperature Treatment: 25/10degC vs 30/25degC          
     Watering regime: WW                Humidity: 45%i during day     
     nutrients 1/2 strength Hoagland    
     NA: Nevada          

2027 Pettersson, R., A.J.S. McDonald, and I. Stadenberg, 1993
     GC   
     Light: 600 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 18h    
     Temperature: 20degC 
     Hydroponic                    Humidity: 50%  
     nutrient solution   
     N Treatment:  0.07 vs 0.15 molN/molN/d       
     EU: Sweden          

2028 Lavola, A., and R. Julkunen-Tiitto, 1994
     GH   
     Light: local -- 1137-175 umol/m2/s 
     Temperature: 22/15degC   
     NKP Treatment: 0 vs 500 kg/ha      
     EU: Finland         

2032 Tschaplinski, T.J., R.J. Norby, and S.D. Wullschleger, 1993
     GC   
     Light: 720 umol/m2/s                    Photoperiod: 14h    
     Temperature: 26/16degC   
     H2O Treatment: weekly vs biweekly watering   Humidity: 85-90%
          fertilized/month (Peter's NPK 20:20:20) 
     NA: Tennessee       

2035 Gunderson, C.A., R.J. Norby, and S.D. Wullschleger, 1993
     OTC  
     Light: 1100-2300 umol/m2/s for gas exchange measurements
     Temperature: local       
     Watering regime: precip       
     NA: 35.9degN 84.4degW         

2036 Grulke, N.E., J.L. Hom, and S.W. Roberts, 1993    
     GC   
     Light: 713 umol/m2/s at canopy height   Photoperiod: 12hr later 14h
     Temperature: 25/19degC   
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 46-57%/81%     
     fertilized weekly
     NA: California      

2037 Bazzaz, F.A., S.L. Miao, and P.M. Wayne, 1993
     GH   
     Light: 37% and 75 % of full sun
     Temperature: 30/23degC                  
     2 Treatments: Light: 37% and 75% of full sun
                Fertilizer: 0.18 and 1.8 g Oscomote    
     NA: Massachusetts        

2038 Roth, S.K., and R.L. Lindroth, 1994
     GC   
     Light: 501 umol/m2/s               Photoperiod: 15h    
     Temperature: 25/20degC   
     Watering regime: WW/drip      Humidity: 70/85%    
     fertilized 1/2 strength Hoagland 2*per day   
     NA: Wisconsin       

2039 Curtis, P.S., C.S. Vogel, K.S. Pregitzer, D.R. Zak, and J.A. Teeri, 1995
     OTC  
     Light: gas exchange measures at 1800 umol/m2/s    
     Temperature: local       
     Watering regime: WW           
     Soil Treatment: 45 vs 346 ug N/g/d N mineralization in soils
                     64 vs 110 mg extractable PO4/kg soil   
     NA: N-Michigan      

2041 Garcia, R.L., S.B. Idso, G.W. Wall, and B.A. Kimball, 1994
     OTC  
     Watering regime: WW      
     fertilized
     NA: Arizona         

2042 Sullivan, J.H., and A.H. Teramura, 1994
     GH   
     Light: ~80-85% of outdoors    
     Temperature: 27/23degC   
     Watering regime: WW/daily          
     fertilized 1/2 strength Hoagland   
     UVB Treatment: 8 hrs daily 8.8 vs 13.8 kJ/m2      
     NA: Maryland   
     SE for T1 SE for F1 (e-mail)  

2043 Cipollini, M.L., B.G. Drake, and D. Whigham, 1993
     OTC  
     Light: 10-100-occasionally 1000 umol/m2/min  
     NA: Maryland        

2044 Tissue, D.T., R.B. Thomas, and B.R. Strain, 1993
     OTC  
     Watering regime: precip       
     1/2 strength Hoagland 2*week  
     2 Treatments: High NP:7mol/m2 NH4NO3+1mol/m3 PO4;
                low P:same N+0.2mol/m3P;
                lowN:1mol/m3NH4NO3+1mol/m3PO4          
     NA: North Carolina  
     N(#) in T1 does not match text     

2045 Johnsen, K.H., 1993
     GC   
     Light: 450 umol/m2/s at bench height    Photoperiod: 19h    
     Temperature: 20/15degC   
     watering treatment            Humidity: 70/90%    
     treatment within 1/3 strength Ingestad  
     2 Treatments: 
     WW vs drought cycles (fertilized with 8 mL 300 ppmN: Ingestad); 
     Fertilization: 6 mL/wk then 12 mL after 71 days vs 12mL, 
     18 mL, 24 mL, 32 mL after day 1, 42, 71 and 104
     NA: Canada: Ontario      

2046 Reid, C.D., and B.R. Strain, 1994
     GC   
     Light: 65 umol/m2/s           Photoperiod: 12h    
     Temperature: 19/15degC   
     Watering regime: WW daily          
     1/4 strength Hoagland    
     NA: North Carolina       

2047 Eamus, D., C.A. Berryman, and G.A. Duff, 1993
     OTC  
     Light: ambient local     
     Temperature: local-up to 1.5degC        
     AU        

2048 Yakimchuk, R., and J. Hoddinott, 1994
     GC   
     Light: 150 umol/m2/s+2hrs 40 umol/m2/s  Photoperiod: 18h    
     Temperature: 20/18degC   
     Watering regime: WW           Humidity: 65%  
     fertilized weekly   
     Ozone treatment: 1.1 uW/cm2 vs 150 uW/cm2 8hrs/day
     NA: Canada: Alberta 
     potsize: pers. com. 

2065 Liu, S., and R.O. Teskey, 1995     
     BRANCH    
     Light: gas exchange at 1000-2000 umol/m2/s   
     Temperature: 16.5degC    
     Watering regime: W+precip          
     low to medium soil fertility
     NA: 33.9degN 83.3degW    
     mature trees, low fertility site

2068 Wang, K., S. Kellomaki, and K. Laitinen, 1995
     OTC  
     Temperature treatment: ambient vs hot=amb+2degC in summer,amb+5-20degC
     Watering regime: W+precip          
     sandy soil     
     EU: 62.8degN 30.9degE    
     chamber around coniferous saplings; elevated CO2 only during daytime

2069 Marek, M.V., J. Kalina, and M. Matouskova, 1995   
     OTC  
     native    Coniferous     
     EU: 49.5degN 18.5degW    
     native    coniferous; elevated CO2 level is saturating level     

2070 Eamus, D., G.A. Duff, and C.A. Berryman, 1995
     SPAR 
     Light: 68% of full  
     Temperature: local minus upto 3degC
     Watering regime: WW/drip      
     Osmocote in soils   
     AU        

2071 Eamus, D., C.A. Berryman, and G.A. Duff, 1995     
     SPAR 
     Light: 66% of full  
     Temperature: local minus upto 3degC     
     Watering regime: WW 2*day          
     fertilized each 2 weeks            
     AU        

2109 Johnson, D., D. Geisinger, R. Walker, J. Newman, J. Vose, K. Elliot, 
     and T. Ball, 1994
     OTC  
     Watering regime: WW           
     N treatment: 0 vs 20 g/m2/yr ammonium sulfate          
     NA: California 
     SE vs SD estimates F5; chamber description in Ball et al (1992)  

2110 Pregitzer, K.S., D.R. Zak, P.S. Curtis, M.E. Kubiske, J.A. Teeri, 
     and C.S. Vogel,     1995 
     OTC
     Watering regime: WW      
     Soil treatment: 45 vs 348 ug N/g/d  N mineralization in soils; 
               64 vs 110 mg extractable PO4/kg soil         
     NA: N-Michigan      

2117 Mortensen, L.M., 1994    
     GC
     Light treatment: 15 mol/m2/d then 22 mol/m2/d for birch, 
                21 mol/m2/d for spruce              
        Photoperiod: 24h      
     Temperature Treatment: 15.3 vs 20.0 degC          
     Watering regime: WW 600 vs 1000 Pa as wvpd at 15.3 vs 20degC     
     fertilized, see Mortensen, 1994    
     EU: Norway          

2120 Laboratorium Voor Plantecologie    1992 
     GC   
     Light: 270umol/m2/s           Photoperiod: 16h    
     Temperature: 22/17.5degC 
     Watering regime: WW/drip      Humidity: 65%  
     fertilized at optimal levels  
     EU: Belgium         

2121 Kubiske, M.E., and K.S. Pregitzer, 1994 
     OTC  
     Light Treatment: low and high; understory imitation         
     NA: N-Michigan      

2122 Vogel, C.S., and P.S. Curtis, 1995
     OTC  
     Temperature: local+2.6degC    
     fertilized with 4.5 g/m2 N    
     NA: 45.6degN 84.7degW    
     nodule inoculations 

2123 Jarvis, P.G., H.S.J. Lee, and C.V.M. Barton, 1994
     OTC  
     Light and temperature not reported for growth
     EU: Scotland   
     N(#) pers comm for T2    

2129 Curtis, P.S., D.R. Zak, K.S. Pregitzer, and J.A. Teeri,     1994
     OTC  
     Temperature: local+3degC 
     Watering regime: precip+W          
     All rootboxes received 4.5 g/m2 N; similar to natural dry oak forest
     NA: N-Michigan      

2131 Norby, R.J., Wullschleger, and C.A. Gunderson, 1996
     OTC
     NA: Tennessee  
     Sample size and SD from pers comm.

2152 Williams, R.S., D.E. Lincolm, and R.B. Thomas, 1994    
     OTC  
     Watering regime: precip+W          
     modified Hoagland 7mmol NH4NO3+1mmolPO4 /wk
     NA: North Carolina       

2165 Lewis, J.D., R.B. Thomas, and B.R. Strain, 1994
     GH   
     Temperature: 28/17 - 28/22degC
     Watering regime: WW      
     1/2 strength Hoagland/wk; P Treatment: 0.083mM KH2PO4 vs 0.5mM KH2PO4: 
                                P stress          
     NA: North Carolina  
     inocculation Pisolithus tinctorius vs not    

2186 Bassow, S.L., K.D.M. McConnaughay, and F.A. Bazzaz, 1994
     GH   
     Light: natural+supplement when light<500umol/m2/s i
     Photoperiod local: 6-19h 
     Temperature: 28/22degC                  
     Fertilizer Treatment: 0.12 vs 1.2 g Osmocote > N input of 
                     40 vs 400 kg N/ha/yr; 3 mo after initial Osmocote 
                        weekly 200 ml Peter's solution (20:20:20) at
                     0.042 v s 0.42 g/l/wk   
     NA: Massachusetts   
     N(#) F1: pers. comm 

2217 Berryman, C.A., D. Eamus, and G.A. Duff, 1993
     OTC  
     Light: 65% of full  
     Temperature: 29.7degC    
     Watering regime: WW:3*day     
     nutrients added; also 5 g low P Osmocote
     AU        

2223 Bazzaz, F.A., and S.L. Miao, 1993
     GH   
     Light treatment: full gap light vs 37% thereof    
     Temperature: 27/20 > 30/23degC     
     Watering regime: WW      
     nutrient treatment: N equivalents of 40 vs 400 kg N/ha/yr i.e. 
                   0.18 vs 1.8 g Osmocote/pot          
     NA: Massachusetts        

2224 Lindroth, R.L., K.K. Kinney, and C.L. Platz, 1993
     GH   
     Light: 490 mol/m2/s 70cm above pots     Photoperiod: 15h    
     Temperature: 25/20degC   
     Watering regime: WW/drip      Humidity: 70/80%    
     1/2 strength Hoagland         
     NA: Wisconsin  
     native mycorrhiza in soil