Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 518

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

COMPARISONS OF PLANT PRODUCTIVITY

WESTLAKE, D. F.·1963·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Summary: 1. This article discusses the principles of comparative productivity and the net primary productivity of different types of plant community. 2. Primary production is denned as the weight of new organic matter created by photosynthesis over a period; expressed as a rate it becomes productivity. Biomass is defined as the total weight of plant present at a particular time. Crop, yield and standing crop are comparable with production, productivity and biomass respectively, but refer to the parts of the plant normally harvested or sampled. 3. Net production is that part of the gross photosynthetic production which is not respired by the plant, and hence becomes available for utilization. 4. Ways of adjusting source data to a common form are examined at length, for meaningful comparisons are impossible if this is not done. Source data are published according to a great variety of criteria such as fresh weight, dry weight, oxygen production and carbon fixation. Standing crop or yield data need correction for omitted parts of the plant. The determination of productivity from changes in biomass may involve corrections for material accumulated from earlier periods and for losses due to death or grazing. Conversions from gross production to net production are usually required when photosynthetic determinations are made. 5. Problems raised by the use of different units are discussed and selected factors for conversions to the recommended units are listed. 6. The basis adopted for comparisons is the maximum average annual net productivity of organic (ash‐free) matter that can be attained over a large area. This facilitates the comparison of the productivity of different types of community by minimizing differences due to local site conditions and weather, and is the most useful measure for general ecological purposes. For some selected examples the productivity and biomass are expressed in a variety of other ways to facilitate direct comparisons with source data. 7. Methods for determining productivity are only discussed in so far as the details affect the comparability of the results. 8. The most productive temperate communities appear to be fertile reedswamps which may produce 30–45 metric tons per hectare in a year. Coniferous forests, and perennial plants under intensive cultivation, may produce 25–40 m.t./ha. Deciduous forests, uncultivated herbs and cultivated annual plants are less productive (10–25 m.t./ha.). 9. The most productive communities of all appear to be found in the tropics. Rain forests and perennial plants under intensive cultivation may produce 50–80 m.t./ha. in a year and it is probable that swamps are similar. Cultivated annual plants only attain 25–35 m.t./ha. 10. The phytoplankton of lakes and oceans are relatively poorly productive even on fertile sites, with an annual production of only 1–9 m.t./ha. Values greater than 3 m.t./ha. are only achieved in waters enriched by man's activities, or in the tropics. Submerged freshwater macrophytes are no more productive in the temperate region but may attain 13–21 m.t./ha. in warmer climates. Benthic marine plants in shallow waters may produce more; from 25–33 m.t./ha. in the temperate zone, rising to nearly 40 m.t./ha. by tropical coral reefs. Algae cultivated in sewage can produce up to 45 m.t./ha. and algae cultivated in mineral media, with carbon dioxide supplied artificially, may produce even more. 11. If it were possible to devise cultivation techniques which would enable plants to grow all the year at the rate normally attained for only short periods in their seasonal cycle, much greater annual productivities, up to 150 m.t./ha. year, might be attained. Eichhornia crassipes might be a suitable plant for such cultivation. 12. Assuming that the soil structure is good and that ample nutrients are available there appear to be three main ways of increasing yields; irrigating, using plants which maintain an active cover throughout the year, and developing techniques to obtain valuable products from plants, or parts of plants, not directly useable.

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.1469-185x.1963.tb00788.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 518

Metadata

Authors
WESTLAKE, D. F.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1963-08
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
385-425
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2128095177
Cited by
518
References
1
FWCI
0.50
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: COMPARISONS OF PLANT PRODUCTIVITY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1963.tb00788.x
The paper
WESTLAKE, D. F. (1963). COMPARISONS OF PLANT PRODUCTIVITY. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1963.tb00788.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.