The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pure and mixed forest plantations with native species of the dry tropics of Costa Rica: a comparison of growth and productivity
Open accessAbstract
In Costa Rica, most reforestation trials with native species were established in the tropical humid regions. In the dry tropics, research on the performance of native species in forest plantations is incipient and trials comparing pure and mixed designs are limited. This paper presents the results of two experimental plantations with native trees in pure and mixed plots in the dry tropics of Costa Rica. The growth and productivity of 13 native species in pure and mixed plantations was compared with Tectona grandis (L.f.) Lam., an exotic species broadly used in the region. In a plantation of relatively slower growing species, measurements taken at 68 months of age resulted in Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merril. and Dalbergia retusa Hemsl. demonstrating the best growth, followed by Astronium graveolens Jacq. and Swietenia macrophylla King. Measurements in a plantation of relatively faster growing species, at 68 months of age, showed that growth of Schizolobium parahyba (Vell.) Blake was greatest in the pure and mixed plots, followed by Terminalia oblonga (Ruiz & Pav.) Steud., Anarcadium excelsum (Bert. & Balb. ex Kunth) Skeels and Pseudosamanea guachapele (Kunth) Harms. The native species grew better in the mixed plots. The pure plots of T. grandis (L.f.) Lam. were the most productive, compared to all species and the mixture of species. Plantations of T. grandis (L.f.) Lam. seem to be well adapted to the region and are certainly a commercially interesting alternative. Nevertheless, mixed plantations with native species would contribute more to sustainable management, because while single-species plantations do not provide a great range of goods and services when compared to the natural forest, mixed plantations are likely to increase this range of benefits.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Global effects of non‐native tree species on multiple ecosystem services
Castro‐Díez, P., Vaz, A. S., Silva, J. S., van Loo, M., Alonso, Á., Aponte, C., Bayón, Á., Bellingham, P. J., Chiuffo, M. C., DiManno, N., et al. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12511 · Cited by 281
Forest ecosystem-service transitions: the ecological dimensions of the forest transition
Wilson, S. J., Schelhas, J., Grau, R., Nanni, A. S., & Sloan, S. (2017) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-09615-220438 · Cited by 109
“Most harvested timber comes from teak plantations (Piotto et al. 2004).”
BackgroundGonzalez, A., Mouquet, N., & Loreau, M. (2009) · Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547951.003.0010 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Piotto, D., Vı́quez, E., Montagnini, F., & Kanninen, M.
- Venue
- Forest Ecology and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 190
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 359-372
- ISSN
- 0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2271659873
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Pure and mixed forest plantations with native species of the dry tropics of Costa Rica: a comparison of growth and productivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.005
- The paper
- Piotto, D., Vı́quez, E., Montagnini, F., & Kanninen, M. (2004). Pure and mixed forest plantations with native species of the dry tropics of Costa Rica: a comparison of growth and productivity. Forest Ecology and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.11.005
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.