The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Vegetation, soils, and forest productivity in selected forest types in interior Alaska
Abstract
Vegetation, forest productivity, and soils of 23 forest stands in the taiga of interior Alaska are described. The stands are arranged on an environmental gradient from an aspen (Populustremuloides Michx.) stand on a dry, steep south-facing bluff, to open black spruce (Piceamariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) stands underlain by permafrost on north-facing slopes. The coldest site is a mixed white spruce (Piceaglauca (Moench) Voss) and black spruce woodland at the treeline. Mesic upland sites are represented by successional stands of paper birch (Betulapapyrifera Marsh.) and aspen, and highly productive stands of white spruce. Several floodplain stands represent the successional sequence from productive balsam poplar (Populusbalsamifera L.) and white spruce to black spruce stands underlain by permafrost on the older terraces. The environmental gradient is described by using two soil factors: soil moisture and annual accumulated soil degree days (SDD), which range from 2217 SDD for the warmest aspen stand to 480 SDD for the coldest permafrost-dominated black spruce site. Soils vary from Alfie Cryochrepts on most of the mesic sites to Histic Pergelic Cryochrepts on the colder sites underlain by permafrost. A typical soil profile is described for each major forest type. A black spruce stand on permafrost has the lowest tree standing crop (15806 g•m−2) and annual productivity (56 g•m−2•year−1) whereas a mature white spruce stand has the largest tree standing crop (24 577 g•m−2) and an annual productivity of 540 g•m−2•year−1, but the successional balsam poplar stand on flood plain alluvium has the highest annual tree increment (952 g•m−2•year−1). The study supports the hypothesis that black spruce is a nutrient poor, unproductive forest type and that its low productivity is primarily the result of low soil temperature and high soil moisture.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen–phosphorus interactions
Vitousek, P. M., Porder, S., Houlton, B. Z., & Chadwick, O. A. (2010) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/08-0127.1 · Cited by 2,729
The Relationship Between Productivity and Species Richness
Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Steiner, C. F., Mittelbach, G., Gough, L., Dodson, S. I., Juday, G. P., & Parmenter, R. (1999) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.257 · Cited by 1,358
Environmental Factors And Ecological Processes In Boreal Forests
Bonan, G. (1989) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.20.1.1 · Cited by 829
Hou, E., Luo, Y., Kuang, Y., Chen, C., Lu, X., Jiang, L., Luo, X., & Wen, D. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14492-w · Cited by 760
Patterns of permafrost formation and degradation in relation to climate and ecosystems
Shur, Y. L., & Jorgenson, M. T. (2007) · Permafrost and Periglacial Processes · doi:10.1002/ppp.582 · Cited by 614
Metadata
- Authors
- Viereck, L. A., Dyrness, C. T., Cleve, K. V., & Foote, M. J.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Forest Research
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1983-10-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 703-720
- ISSN
- 0045-5067 (ISSN-L)
- 1208-6037
- OpenAlex
- W2010147500
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.92
- 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: Vegetation, soils, and forest productivity in selected forest types in interior Alaska. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/x83-101
- The paper
- Viereck, L. A., Dyrness, C. T., Cleve, K. V., & Foote, M. J. (1983). Vegetation, soils, and forest productivity in selected forest types in interior Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. https://doi.org/10.1139/x83-101
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.