Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ecohydrological consequences of drought‐ and infestation‐ triggered tree die‐off: insights and hypotheses

Adams, Henry D., Luce, Charles H., Breshears, David D., Allen, Craig D., Weiler, Markus, Hale, V. Cody, Smith, Alistair M. S., Huxman, Travis E.·2012·Ecohydrology

Abstract

Widespread, rapid, drought‐, and infestation‐triggered tree mortality is emerging as a phenomenon affecting forests globally and may be linked to increasing temperatures and drought frequency and severity. The ecohydrological consequences of forest die‐off have been little studied and remain highly uncertain. To explore this knowledge gap, we apply the extensive literature on the ecohydrological effects of tree harvest in combination with the limited existing die‐off ecohydrology research to develop new, relevant hypotheses. Tree mortality results in loss of canopy cover, which directly alters evaporation, transpiration, and canopy interception and indirectly alters other watershed hydrologic processes, including infiltration, runoff, groundwater recharge, and streamflow. Both die‐off and harvest research suggest that for most forests, water yield can be expected to increase following substantial loss of tree cover by die‐off. We hypothesize that where annual precipitation exceeds ∼500 mm or water yield is dominated by snowmelt, watersheds will experience significantly decreased evapotranspiration and increased flows if absolute canopy cover loss from die‐off exceeds 20%. However, recent observations suggest that water yield following die‐off can potentially decrease rather than increase in drier forests. To reliably predict die‐off responses, more research is needed to test these hypotheses, including observations of multiple water budget components and the persistence of ecohydrological effects with the post‐die‐off successional dynamics of tree recruitment, understorey growth, and interactions with additional disturbances. With die‐off, mitigation and restoration options are limited and costly, necessitating societal adaptation; therefore, die‐off ecohydrology should be a high priority for future research. Published in 2011. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eco.233

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Adams, H. D., Luce, C. H., Breshears, D. D., Allen, C. D., Weiler, M., Hale, V. C., Smith, A. M. S., & Huxman, T. E.
Venue
Ecohydrology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-07
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
145-159
ISSN
  • 1936-0584 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-0592
OpenAlex
W2104404130
Cited by
281
References
8
FWCI
12.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ecohydrological consequences of drought‐ and infestation‐ triggered tree die‐off: insights and hypotheses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/eco.233
The paper
Adams, H. D., Luce, C. H., Breshears, D. D., Allen, C. D., Weiler, M., Hale, V. C., Smith, A. M. S., & Huxman, T. E. (2012). Ecohydrological consequences of drought‐ and infestation‐ triggered tree die‐off: insights and hypotheses. Ecohydrology. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.233

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.