CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Forest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesForest ecology and managementForest Management and Policy

National parks in the eastern U nited S tates harbor important older forest structure compared with matrix forests

Open access
Miller, Kathryn M., Dieffenbach, Fred W., Campbell, J. Patrick, Cass, Wendy B., Comiskey, James A., Matthews, Elizabeth R., McGill, Brian J., Mitchell, Brian R. +5 more·2016·Ecosphere
DOI 10.1002/ecs2.1404
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We analyzed land‐cover and forest vegetation data from nearly 25,000 permanent plots distributed across 50 national parks in the eastern United States, along with the matrix around each park, to examine structural characteristics of park forests in relation to their surrounding landscape. Over 2000 of these plots are part of the National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring Program (I&M), and the remaining 22,500+ plots are part of the US Forest Service (USFS) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. This is the first study to compare forest structure in protected lands with the surrounding forest matrix over such a large area of the United States and is only possible because of the 10+ years of data that are now publicly available from USFS‐FIA and NPS I&M. Results of this study indicate that park forests, where logging is largely prohibited, preserve areas of regionally significant older forest habitat. Park forests consistently had greater proportions of late‐successional forest, greater live tree basal area, greater densities of live and dead large trees, and considerably larger volume of coarse woody debris. Park forests also had lower tree growth and mortality rates than matrix forests, suggesting different forest dynamics between park and matrix forests. The divergent patterns we observed between matrix and park forests were similar to those reported in studies that compared managed and old‐growth forests, although the differences in our study were less pronounced. With the majority of park forests in second growth, eastern parks may be a more realistic baseline to compare with the more intensively managed matrix forests. We recommend that park managers allow natural disturbance and the development of older structure to continue in park forests. In addition, long‐term maintenance of regional biodiversity will likely require increases in older forest structure in the matrix. As the NPS moves into its next century of land preservation, we encourage managers to consider parks important components of a larger regional effort to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem processes in eastern US forests. The data collected by NPS I&M programs will continue to provide important information and guidance toward these regional conservation efforts.

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/ecs2.1404

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Eastern park forests have greater structural complexity than unprotected forests in the surrounding ecoregions.

    “Since eastern park forests house greater tree diversity (Miller et al., 2018) and structural complexity (Miller et al., 2016) than unprotected forests in the surrounding ecoregions, forests in eastern national parks play a unique role in providing protected habitat for countless organisms and essential ecosystem services.”

    From Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks (2023) · cites this paper as Miller et al., 2016

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chapin, T. G., D. M. Phillips, D. J. Harrison, and E. C. york. 1997. Seasonal selection of habitats by resting martens in Maine. Pages 166-181 in G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodard, editors. Martes: tax- onomy, ecology, techniques, and management. The Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  2. Krieger, D. J. 2001. The economic value of forest eco- system services: a review. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C., USA.
  3. lindenmayer, D. B., and J. F. Franklin. 2002. Conserv- ing forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multi- scaled approach. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Miller, K. M., Dieffenbach, F. W., Campbell, J. P., Cass, W. B., Comiskey, J. A., Matthews, E. R., McGill, B. J., Mitchell, B. R., Perles, S. J., Sanders, S., Schmit, J. P., Smith, S., & Weed, A. S.
Affiliations
  • National Park Service (US)
  • University of Maine (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Kathryn M.
ORCID
Venue
Ecosphere
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07
Volume
7
Issue
7
ISSN
2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/ecs2.1404
OpenAlex
W2500033811
Cited by
29
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ecosphere (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
national parks, protected areas, forest structure, late-successional forest, coarse woody debris, tree mortality, tree growth, large trees, secondary forest, forest dynamics, natural disturbance, biodiversity conservation, eastern United States forests

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