The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Forest Reorganization: A Case Study in an Old‐Growth Forest Catastrophic Blowdown
Abstract
We studied the patterns and mechanisms of regeneration of a 400—ha wind—throw in an old—growth beech—hemlock forest caused by a tornado on 31 May 1985. Starting in 1986, and over a period of six growing seasons, we recorded percent cover and density of woody stems, and monitored seedling demography of nearly 5000 seedlings in the windthrow and adjacent forest. Plant community response to the disturbance was dramatic: by August of 1986, species richness, tree seedling density and total percent cover were significantly greater in the windthrow than in the adjacent forest. Shade—intolerant herbs (e.g., Erechtites hieracifolia) and shrubs (e.g., Rubus allegheniensis) established and rapidly increased in abundance during the first 3 yr, but began declining by the 5th yr of the study. Tree seedlings established in decreasing amounts through the 6 yr of the study, and the young tree canopy was dominated in 1991 by seedlings and sprouts that established prior to 1987. Fagus grandifolia, a shade—tolerant species that established via advanced regeneration, was dominant the first 3 yr, but was surpassed in the 5th yr by Betula alleghaniensis, a species of intermediate tolerance that established from seed germination just before or shortly after the disturbance. Tsuga canadensis seedling densities were initially high, but deer browsing prevented substantial growth and a drought in 1988 caused heavy mortality of browsed seedlings. Regeneration thus differed from the predictions of the gap and Hubbard Brook models of forest regeneration (which predicts dominance by shade—intolerant species), and the severity model (which predicts dominance by shade—tolerant species). The differences point out important influences of availability of propagules and the impact of herbivory; and the need for more attention to models that incorporate multiple contingencies.
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
Augustine, D. J., & McNaughton, S. J. (1998) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3801981 · Cited by 1,129
Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman
CRAINE, J. M. (2005) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01043.x · Cited by 634
Tanentzap, A. J., Kirby, K. J., & Goldberg, E. (2012) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.005 · Cited by 135
Vegetation changes across edges of rainforest remnants
Fox, B. J., Taylor, J. E., Fox, M. D., & Williams, C. (1997) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(97)00011-6 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, C. J., & Pickett, S. T. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-04
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 763-774
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2142173907
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.85
- 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
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.