Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Adaptive Significance of Tree Height

King, David A.·1990·The American Naturalist

Abstract

A game-theoretical model of tree growth is developed to evaluate the adaptive significance of height growth. The model balances the advantages of height for light interception against height-related costs, such as increased maintenance respiration, that reduce the energy available for stem growth. The model predicts an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) for trees of even-aged stands. This ESS consists of a prolonged interval of height growth that terminates when the trees reach 87% of the theoretical break-even height, at which stem maintenance and root and leaf renewal costs require all available photosynthate, leaving none for wood production. Tests of the model with data from forest yield tables indicate that (1) averagesized trees of even-aged stands follow the predicted ESS until reaching at least 70%-90% of their maximum height; (2) trees that are larger than average have thicker-than-expected trunks to withstand disproportionately greater wind forces in the upper canopy; (3) height growth may cease in very old stands, as predicted; and (4) height growth appears to cease gradually rather than suddenly. Features that are not in the model but might favor a gradual cessation of height growth include the greater wind exposure of the upper canopy and unpredictable environmental variation. The general success of the model in explaining patterns of tree growth suggests that competition for light is the primary factor responsible for the evolution and maintenance of the arboreal life form. The resulting evolutionarily stable growth pattern maximizes the competitive ability of the individual but reduces the collective wood production of older stands because of costs associated with height. This result is consistent with other analyses of individual versus group selection that have found productivity to be lower in individual-selected than in group-selected populations.

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 · 10.1086/285075

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
King, D. A.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
1990-06
Volume
135
Issue
6
Pages
809-828
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2074933525
Cited by
309
References
23
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The Adaptive Significance of Tree Height. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/285075
The paper
King, D. A. (1990). The Adaptive Significance of Tree Height. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/285075

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.