The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Treefalls Revisited: Gap Dynamics in the Southern Appalachians
Abstract
In 1976—1977, 284 gaps (canopy—opening sizes 1—1490 m 2) were sampled (age, size, species composition) from old—growth mesic forests in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Area and Walker Cove Research Natural Area. In 1983, the woody vegetation (stems @>1 cm dbh) of 273 of these gaps was resampled, rates of gap closure by canopy tree branch growth and sapling height growth were estimated, and incidences of disturbances occurring since 1976—1977 were noted. The average yearly crown extension growth rate was 18 cm/yr, with much variation among species and individuals. Some individual crowns grew into the canopy opening as much as 4 m in the 7 yr. Saplings grew an average of 30 cm/yr in height, again with much variation. Overall, taller saplings grew somewhat faster than smaller ones and saplings in large gaps grew faster than those in small gaps. These two rates of gap closure together suggest that most saplings will require two or more gap episodes to reach the forest canopy. For woody vegetation, basal area per unit gap area was originally highest in small gaps, though it increased between sampling dates most in large gaps. Stem density had been highest in small old gaps, but decreased the most in old gaps. Tsuga canadensis, Fagus grandifolia, Acer saccharum, and Halesia carolina were the most important species in the gaps studied. Most species did not change in relative density or dominance between the two sampling dates and showed no significant correlations between those parameters and gap size and age. Overall, Tsuga and Fagus decreased and Acer saccharum increased in importance. High rates of repeat disturbance favor species able to grow in intermediate light levels and to survive several periods of suppression before reaching the canopy.
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
Space-for-Time Substitution as an Alternative to Long-Term Studies
Pickett, S. T. A. (1989) · Long-Term Studies in Ecology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-7358-6_5 · Cited by 1,451
The Search for Generality in Studies of Disturbance and Ecosystem Dynamics
White, P. S., & Jentsch, A. (2001) · Progress in Botany · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56849-7_17 · Cited by 599
A theory of the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant communities
Smith, T., & Huston, M. (1989) · Vegetatio · doi:10.1007/bf00031680 · Cited by 537
The tortoise and the hare: ecology of angiosperm dominance and gymnosperm persistence
BOND, W. J. (1989) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1989.tb00492.x · Cited by 428
Functional ecology of advance regeneration in relation to light in boreal forests
Messier, C., Doucet, R., Ruel, J., Claveau, Y., Kelly, C., & Lechowicz, M. J. (1999) · Canadian Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1139/cjfr-29-6-812 · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Runkle, J. R., & Yetter, T. C.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 417-424
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2100901135
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.77
- 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: Treefalls Revisited: Gap Dynamics in the Southern Appalachians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1939273
- The paper
- Runkle, J. R., & Yetter, T. C. (1987). Treefalls Revisited: Gap Dynamics in the Southern Appalachians. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939273
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.