The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organic Matter Production and Distribution in Slash Pine (Pinus Elliottii) Plantations
Abstract
The production and accumulation of total system organic matter (to 100 cm soil depth) in plantations of slash pine were analyzed using three replications of stands 2, 5, 8, 14, 18, 26, and 34 yr old. Maximum leaf area occurred at 5 yr. After this point aboveground net primary production (NPP) continued to increase to a maximum at 26 yr and then declined. After 5 yr stem biomass production composed a constant 50% of NPP. The forest floor increased at a constant rate through 34 yr, although total detritus (forest floor plus soil organic matter) was relatively constant at m160 Mg/ha. Live vegetation mass was less than detritus mass until =m25 yr, the current harvest rotation length. Total system organic matter showed no indication of a decline after site preparation, and was still increasing at 34 yr (340 Mg/ha). During site preparation -30 Mg/ha organic matter were lost through burning and decomposition. This loss was small enough to be completely offset by increases in live vegetation and forest floor over -3 yr following site preparation, which may be important in limiting losses of nutrients from these sites after a disturbance. rently 5.2 x 106 ha of commercial slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii), with -40% of the total in north- ern Florida. Fifty-two percent of the total is in plan- tations, representing 14% of the forested land area in Florida, and the rest is in naturally regenerated second growth (Scheffield et al. 1981); the proportion in plan- tations is rapidly increasing. Although the conversion of the natural stands to plantations amounts to landscape modification at a tre- mendous scale, we have little idea of the ecological consequences. Delcourt and Harris (1980) proposed
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
Soil carbon sequestration and land‐use change: processes and potential
Post, W. M., & Kwon, K. C. (2000) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x · Cited by 2,602
Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age
Pregitzer, K. S., & Euskirchen, E. S. (2004) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00866.x · Cited by 1,041
Thornton, P. E., Law, B. E., Gholz, H. L., Clark, K. L., Falge, E., Ellsworth, D. S., Goldstein, A. H., Monson, R. K., Hollinger, D., Falk, M., et al. (2002) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1923(02)00108-9 · Cited by 893
Self-citationAber, J. D., & Federer, C. A. (1992) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00317837 · Cited by 584
AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CAUSES OF FOREST GROWTH DECLINE WITH STAND AGE
Ryan, M. G., Binkley, D., Fownes, J. H., Giardina, C. P., & Senock, R. S. (2004) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/03-4037 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Gholz, H. L., & Fisher, R. F.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1982-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1827
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150095684
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.95
- 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: Organic Matter Production and Distribution in Slash Pine (Pinus Elliottii) Plantations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940124
- The paper
- Gholz, H. L., & Fisher, R. F. (1982). Organic Matter Production and Distribution in Slash Pine (Pinus Elliottii) Plantations. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940124
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.