Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Vegetation, soils, and forest productivity in selected forest types in interior Alaska

Viereck, Leslie A., Dyrness, C. T., Cleve, Keith Van, Foote, M. Joan·1983·Canadian Journal of Forest Research

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/x83-101

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 264

Metadata

Authors
Viereck, L. A., Dyrness, C. T., Cleve, K. V., & Foote, M. J.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
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.