Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Growth and production dynamics of boreal mosses over climatic, chemical and topographic gradients

VITT, DALE H.·1990·Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society

Abstract

Three basic questions arc addressed in this paper. Each of them considers a separate aspect of moss growth and production. A common theme throughout is that moss populations are dynamic, highly active entities. The study of these dynamics can tell us not only about the mosses themselves but also about the systems in which they live. The following conclusions are reached. (1) Moss populations are organized into complex canopies, some having at least 6000 leaves cm“‘. Drought-tolerant mosses may achieve high rates of growth when moist, but generally are dry and inactive a large percentage of lime. (2) For the ectohydric, drought-tolerant moss, Hylocomium splendens, growth is highly variable over its North American boreal range and can be related to precipitation and continentality. However, for the endohydric, less drought-tolerant moss, Polytrichum strictum, growth is more constant over its North American range and is not as distinctly related to broad macroclimatic patterns. It may have nutrient limited growth, whereas Hylocomium splendens may have climatically limited growth. (3) (a) In mires, calcium, magnesium, sodium and hydrogen ions are important chemical factors that are closely correlated to mire type. Available amounts of nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus and total organic nitrogen in surface waters do not correlate with mire type; likewise, they do not increase across the bog-rich fen gradient. Extreme-rich fens and bogs have about the same concentrations of these components, but water-flow differences may modify the total nutrient input during a season in fens, (b) Moss production in extreme-rich fens is similar to, or somewhat less than, in bogs and poor fens. However, decomposition is much greater in extreme-rich fens. Peat accumulation may, therefore, be greater in bogs and poor fens than in extreme-rich fens, (c) Net production on bog hummocks is about half that of hollows, whereas in poor fens and rich fens, production on hummocks is greater than or equal to that in the hollows. Decomposition in poor fens and bogs is much less on hummocks, while there are few differences between height extremes in rich fens. Hummocks appear to be maintained in bogs due to low decomposition rates, while in rich fens they are maintained by relatively high production, (d) Production rates of Sphagnum species are generally similar to or higher than those of brown mosses. Different species of Sphagnum dominate different parts of the chemical and topographic gradients in bogs while different brown moss species dominate parts of comparable gradients in rich fens.

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 · 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1990.tb02210.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
VITT, D. H.
Venue
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society
Published
1990-09
Volume
104
Issue
1-3
Pages
35-59
ISSN
0024-4074 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015346695
Cited by
187
References
0
FWCI
10.09
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: Growth and production dynamics of boreal mosses over climatic, chemical and topographic gradients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1990.tb02210.x
The paper
VITT, D. H. (1990). Growth and production dynamics of boreal mosses over climatic, chemical and topographic gradients. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1990.tb02210.x

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.