Cited by 230Climate change and permafrostPolar Research and EcologyEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Status and trends in Arctic vegetation: Evidence from experimental warming and long-term monitoring

Open access
Bjorkman, Anne D., García Criado, Mariana, Myers-Smith, Isla H., Ravolainen, Virve, Jónsdóttir, Ingibjörg Svala, Westergaard, Kristine Bakke, Lawler, James P., Aronsson, Mora +5 more·2020·Ambio

Abstract

Changes in Arctic vegetation can have important implications for trophic interactions and ecosystem functioning leading to climate feedbacks. Plot-based vegetation surveys provide detailed insight into vegetation changes at sites around the Arctic and improve our ability to predict the impacts of environmental change on tundra ecosystems. Here, we review studies of changes in plant community composition and phenology from both long-term monitoring and warming experiments in Arctic environments. We find that Arctic plant communities and species are generally sensitive to warming, but trends over a period of time are heterogeneous and complex and do not always mirror expectations based on responses to experimental manipulations. Our findings highlight the need for more geographically widespread, integrated, and comprehensive monitoring efforts that can better resolve the interacting effects of warming and other local and regional ecological factors.

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 · 10.1007/s13280-019-01161-6

Cites

108 of 108 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?

  • Changing vegetation diversity, abundance, composition, and phenology in the Arctic are well documented.

    “Changing vegetation diversity, abundance, composition, and phenology in the Arctic are all well documented (Sturm et al. 2001; Walker et al. 2006; Bjørkman et al. 2020).”

    From Muskox status, recent variation, and uncertain future (2020) · cites this paper as Bjørkman et al. 2020

    The Introduction and Results (page numbers unavailable) document studies of Arctic vegetation composition, abundance, and phenology. But the Introduction says published observations of diversity change are relatively scarce, and “Other vegetation trends: functional traits and diversity” calls the evidence mixed. The source therefore does not support saying that changes in all four attributes are well documented. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. T.F. Stocker, D. Quin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bjorkman, A. D., García Criado, M., Myers-Smith, I. H., Ravolainen, V., Jónsdóttir, I. S., Westergaard, K. B., Lawler, J. P., Aronsson, M., Bennett, B., Gardfjell, H., Heiðmarsson, S., Stewart, L., & Normand, S.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Norwegian Polar Institute (NO)
  • University of Iceland (IS)
  • Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO)
  • National Park Service (US)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Náttúrufræðistofnun (IS)
Corresponding author
Bjorkman, Anne D.
Venue
Ambio
Published
2019-03-30
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
678-692
ISSN
  • 0044-7447 (ISSN-L)
  • 1654-7209
OpenAlex
W2929963482
Cited by
230
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 7
FWCI
9.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AMBIO (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/M016323/1)
  • Villum Fonden (VKR023456)
  • Natur og Univers, Det Frie Forskningsr?d (DFF 4181-00565)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Climate change and permafrost
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Polar Research and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
Arctic vegetation, tundra ecosystems, experimental warming, long-term vegetation monitoring, floristic composition, phenology, climate change impacts, climate feedbacks, vegetation change trends
MeSH terms
Arctic Regions, Plants, Seasons, Ecosystem, Climate Change, Tundra

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