The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems
Abstract
“Ecological integrity” provides a useful framework for ecologically based monitoring and can provide valuable information for assessing ecosystem condition and management effectiveness. Building on the related concepts of biological integrity and ecological health, ecological integrity is a measure of the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in relation to the system's natural or historical range of variation, as well as perturbations caused by natural or anthropogenic agents of change. We have developed a protocol to evaluate the ecological integrity of temperate zone, forested ecosystems, based on long‐term monitoring data. To do so, we identified metrics of status and trend in structure, composition, and function of forests impacted by multiple agents of change. We used data, models, and the scientific literature to interpret and report integrity using “stoplight” symbology, ie “Good” (green), “Caution” (yellow), or “Significant Concern” (red). Preliminary data indicate that forested ecosystems in Acadia National Park have retained ecological integrity across a variety of metrics, but that some aspects of soil chemistry and stand structure indicate potential problems. This protocol was developed for the National Park Service Vital Signs Monitoring Program and holds promise for application in the temperate zone, forested ecosystems of eastern North America.
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
Cites
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity
Fahrig, L. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 · Cited by 7,879
On defining and quantifying biotic homogenization
Olden, J. D., & Rooney, T. P. (2006) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-822x.2006.00214.x · Cited by 801
Cited by
Egorova, K. S., & Ananikov, V. P. (2014) · ChemSusChem · doi:10.1002/cssc.201300459 · Cited by 441
Ager, A. A., Vaillant, N. M., & Finney, M. A. (2010) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.032 · Cited by 308
Waterbird response indicates floodplain wetland restoration
Hagy, H. M., Hine, C. S., Horath, M. M., Yetter, A. P., Smith, R. V., & Stafford, J. D. (2017) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-016-3004-3 · Cited by 51
Using a bird community index to evaluate national parks in the urbanized national capital region
Goodwin, S. E., & Shriver, W. G. (2014) · Urban Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0363-2 · Cited by 13
Self-citationMiller, K. M., & Mitchell, B. R. (2014) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00113.1 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tierney, G. L., Faber-Langendoen, D., Mitchell, B. R., Shriver, W. G., & Gibbs, J. P.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01-28
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 308-316
- ISSN
- 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-9309
- OpenAlex
- W2134155369
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.78
- 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: Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/070176
- The paper
- Tierney, G. L., Faber-Langendoen, D., Mitchell, B. R., Shriver, W. G., & Gibbs, J. P. (2009). Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1890/070176
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.