Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 953

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resprouting as a key functional trait: how buds, protection and resources drive persistence after fire

Open access
Clarke, P. J., Lawes, M. J., Midgley, J. J., Lamont, B. B., Ojeda, F., Burrows, G. E., Enright, N. J., Knox, K. J. E.·2013·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Resprouting as a response to disturbance is now widely recognized as a key functional trait among woody plants and as the basis for the persistence niche. However, the underlying mechanisms that define resprouting responses to disturbance are poorly conceptualized. Resprouting ability is constrained by the interaction of the disturbance regime that depletes the buds and resources needed to fund resprouting, and the environment that drives growth and resource allocation. We develop a b uds‐p rotection‐r esources (BPR) framework for understanding resprouting in fire‐prone ecosystems, based on bud bank location, bud protection, and how buds are resourced. Using this framework we go beyond earlier emphases on basal resprouting and highlight the importance of apical, epicormic and below‐ground resprouting to the persistence niche. The BPR framework provides insights into: resprouting typologies that include both fire resisters (i.e. survive fire but do not resprout) and fire resprouters; the methods by which buds escape fire effects, such as thick bark; and the predictability of community assembly of resprouting types in relation to site productivity, disturbance regime and competition. Furthermore, predicting the consequences of global change is enhanced by the BPR framework because it potentially forecasts the retention or loss of above‐ground biomass. Contents Summary 19 I. Introduction 20 II. Resprouters rather than ‘sprouters’ 21 III. How do plants resprout? 21 IV. Life‐history consequences of resprouting 27 V. Environmental constraints on resprouting 28 VI. Resprouting, community patterns and assembly 29 VII. Global change, carbon storage and resprouting 30 VIII. Conclusions 31 Acknowledgements 31 References 32

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/nph.12001

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 953

Metadata

Authors
Clarke, P. J., Lawes, M. J., Midgley, J. J., Lamont, B. B., Ojeda, F., Burrows, G. E., Enright, N. J., & Knox, K. J. E.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-30
Volume
197
Issue
1
Pages
19-35
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2156141454
Cited by
953
References
6
FWCI
29.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Resprouting as a key functional trait: how buds, protection and resources drive persistence after fire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.12001
The paper
Clarke, P. J., Lawes, M. J., Midgley, J. J., Lamont, B. B., Ojeda, F., Burrows, G. E., Enright, N. J., & Knox, K. J. E. (2013). Resprouting as a key functional trait: how buds, protection and resources drive persistence after fire. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12001

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.