Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

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

Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion

Open access
Fischer, Joern, Stott, Jenny, Zerger, Andre, Warren, Garth, Sherren, Kate, Forrester, Robert I.·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Global food demand is growing rapidly. Livestock grazing can provide a valuable source of protein, but conventional grazing is often unsustainable. We studied an 800,000-ha section of a threatened ecoregion in southeastern Australia. Conventional management in the region involves continuous livestock grazing with few rest periods and regular fertilizer application. By using remotely sensed data on tree cover and extensive field data on livestock grazing regimes, soil chemistry, tree diameters, and tree regeneration, we show that the region is facing a tree regeneration crisis. Under conventional management, across the region, millions of hectares of land currently supporting tens of millions of trees will be treeless within decades from now. This would have severe negative ramifications for biodiversity and key ecosystem services, including water infiltration and shade provision for livestock. However, we identified an unexpected win–win solution for tree regeneration and commercial grazing. A relatively new practice in the region is fast-rotational grazing, characterized by prolonged rest periods in between short, intensive grazing events. The probability of regeneration under fast-rotational grazing was up to 4-fold higher than under conventional grazing, and it did not differ significantly from the probability of regeneration in ungrazed areas. In addition, trees were more likely to regenerate where soil nutrient levels were low. These findings suggest that the tree regeneration crisis can be reversed by applying low-input, fast-rotational grazing. New policy settings supporting these practices could signal a turning point for the region, from ecological decline to ecological recovery.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0900110106

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 195

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, J., Stott, J., Zerger, A., Warren, G., Sherren, K., & Forrester, R. I.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-06-23
Volume
106
Issue
25
Pages
10386-10391
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2115569697
Cited by
195
References
5
FWCI
16.20
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: Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0900110106
The paper
Fischer, J., Stott, J., Zerger, A., Warren, G., Sherren, K., & Forrester, R. I. (2009). Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900110106

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.