A comparison of pre-European settlement (1857) and current (1981-1995) forest composition in central Ontario
Abstract
Presettlement forest composition along a 278 km long transect through central Ontario was recreated from Ontario land survey notes (1857) and compared with existing forest composition as derived from Forest Resource Inventories (1981-1995). Trends through time were analyzed by means of detrended correspondence analysis and univariate statistics (paired t tests and Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-ranks tests). Ordinations based on the first tree taxon listed in a stand and on all tree taxa provided similar results. The eastern half of the transect was initially dominated by boreal conifers, whereas the western half supported stands typical of Ontario's Great Lakes - St. Lawrence (GLSL) region. Significant reductions of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.), balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), and eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) and significant increases of poplar (Populus spp.) and white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) were observed within the boreal half. A significant reduction in eastern white cedar and an increase poplar were observed in the western half. Changes in the boreal region strongly support previous studies conducted over shorter time periods and may be attributed to clear-cut harvesting. The persistence of shade-tolerant hardwoods within the GLSL region can be attributed to the prevalence of small-scale disturbances associated with partial-cut harvesting systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Industrial logging of conifer stands in Ontario's forests has resulted in widespread regeneration of intolerant hardwoods, despite attempts to establish conifers.
“For instance, according to Hearndon et al. (1992) and Jackson et al. (2000), industrial logging of conifer stands in Ontario's forests has resulted in widespread regeneration of intolerant hardwoods, despite attempts to establish conifers.”
From Adapting forestry practices to address old-growth concerns in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forests of Ontario (2003) · cites this paper as Jackson et al. (2000)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pinto, F. (2003) · The Forestry Chronicle · doi:10.5558/tfc79613-3 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Jackson, S. M., Pinto, F., Malcolm, J. R., & Wilson, E. R.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Forest Research
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2000-04-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 605-612
- ISSN
- 0045-5067 (ISSN-L)
- 1208-6037
- OpenAlex
- W2021485024
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Forest Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Keywords
- forest composition change, central Ontario, boreal conifers, yellow birch, balsam fir, eastern white cedar, poplar, white birch, forest disturbance
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