Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America

Open access
Masek, Jeffrey G., Cohen, Warren B., Leckie, Donald, Wulder, Michael A., Vargas, Rodrigo, de Jong, Ben, Healey, Sean, Law, Beverly, Birdsey, Richard, Houghton, R. A., Mildrexler, David, Goward, Samuel, Smith, W. Brad·2011·Journal of Geophysical Research

Abstract

[1] Incorporating ecological disturbance into biogeochemical models is critical for estimating current and future carbon stocks and fluxes. In particular, anthropogenic disturbances, such as forest conversion and wood harvest, strongly affect forest carbon dynamics within North America. This paper summarizes recent (2000–2008) rates of extraction, including both conversion and harvest, derived from national forest inventories for North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico). During the 2000s, 6.1 million ha/yr were affected by harvest, another 1.0 million ha/yr were converted to other land uses through gross deforestation, and 0.4 million ha/yr were degraded. Thus about 1.0% of North America's forests experienced some form of anthropogenic disturbance each year. However, due to harvest recovery, afforestation, and reforestation, the total forest area on the continent has been roughly stable during the decade. On average, about 110 m3 of roundwood volume was extracted per hectare harvested across the continent. Patterns of extraction vary among the three countries, with U.S. and Canadian activity dominated by partial and clear-cut harvest, respectively, and activity in Mexico dominated by conversion (deforestation) for agriculture. Temporal trends in harvest and clearing may be affected by economic variables, technology, and forest policy decisions. While overall rates of extraction appear fairly stable in all three countries since the 1980s, harvest within the United States has shifted toward the southern United States and away from the Pacific Northwest.

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 · 10.1029/2010jg001471

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 210

Metadata

Authors
Masek, J. G., Cohen, W. B., Leckie, D., Wulder, M. A., Vargas, R., de Jong, B., Healey, S., Law, B., Birdsey, R., Houghton, R. A., Mildrexler, D., Goward, S., & Smith, W. B.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research
Published
2011-04-15
Volume
116
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000081274
Cited by
210
References
5
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2010jg001471
The paper
Masek, J. G., Cohen, W. B., Leckie, D., Wulder, M. A., Vargas, R., de Jong, B., Healey, S., Law, B., Birdsey, R., Houghton, R. A., Mildrexler, D., Goward, S., & Smith, W. B. (2011). Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America. Journal of Geophysical Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jg001471

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.