The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Small Mammals in Managed, Naturally Young, and Old‐Growth Forests
Abstract
Forest managers in the Pacific Northwest are faced with new challenges of providing for all wildlife in managed forests. Our objective was to elucidate the factors governing the composition and biomass of forest floor mammal communities that are amenable to management. We sampled small mammal communities in forests of various management histories on the Olympic Peninsula and contrasted our results with those of other large studies in the Pacific Northwest. Forest floor mammal communities in forests >35 yr old in the Western Hemlock Zone of Washington and Oregon are composed of 5‐8 characteristic species. These include Sorex trowbridgii (numerically the most dominant); one species each of Clethrionomys, the Sorex vagrans complex, and Peromyscus; and Neurotrichus gibbsii. Species composition changes from south to north, and the communities on the Olympic Peninsula contain two or three additional species compared to communities to the south. Communities in naturally regenerated and clearcutting regenerated (managed) young forests are similar in composition to those in old growth, old growth, however, supports 1.5 times more individuals and biomass than managed forest. Community diversity seems related to the south‐north moisture‐temperature gradient that is reflected in increased diversity of canopy conifers, development of forest floor litter layers, accumulation of coarse woody debris, and abundance of herbs, deciduous shrubs, and shade‐tolerant seedlings (as opposed to understories dominated by evergreen shrubs). Previous work found few habitat variables that were good predictors of species abundance in natural young and old‐growth stands. Naturally regenerated young stands had higher levels of coarse woody debris than old growth. Managed stands had much lower abundance of coarse woody debris and tall shrubs than old growth. Understory vegetation (herbs and shrubs) and coarse woody debris accounted for a major part of the variation in abundance of six of eight species in managed stands, but only two species in old growth. Management of Western Hemlock Zone forest for conservation of biodiversity and restoration of old‐growth conditions should concentrate on providing multispecies canopies, coarse woody debris, and well‐developed understories.
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
The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches
Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abl4649 · Cited by 831
Habitat associations of small mammals at two spatial scales in the Northern Sierra Nevada
Coppeto, S. A., Kelt, D. A., Van Vuren, D. H., Wilson, J. A., & Bigelow, S. (2006) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1644/05-mamm-a-086r1.1 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Carey, A. B., & Johnson, M. L.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-05
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 336-352
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2144865218
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.83
- 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: Small Mammals in Managed, Naturally Young, and Old‐Growth Forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942026
- The paper
- Carey, A. B., & Johnson, M. L. (1995). Small Mammals in Managed, Naturally Young, and Old‐Growth Forests. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942026
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.