The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Composition and Dynamics of the Tree Stratum
Abstract
The synecology of tree species was studied in a mature second—growth forest in the Hubbard Brook ecosystem. The forest, on a 13—ha undisturbed watershed ecosystem covering a 245—m range of elevation, has a basal area of about 23 m 2 ha—1. Dominance is shared by Acer saccharum, Fagus grandifolia, and Betula alleghaniensis. Direct gradient analysis and regression analysis indicated a strong response in both stand and species characteristics to an elevational complex gradient. Basal area per hectare, basal area per tree, deciduousness, and canopy height decreased with increasing elevation, whereas density, evergreenness, and species diversity increased. A lower rate of net primary productivity is correlated with higher elevations. Gradient analyses indicated that no two tree species have identical patterns of importance values over the elevational complex gradient. Sugar maple shows a decreasing trend; balsam fir, paper birch, and mountain ash show increasing trends. Beech, red spruce, mountain maple, and striped maple show intermediate patterns. Seedlings and saplings respond to the elevational gradient as do larger trees; however, the behavior of trees, seedlings, and saplings of the same species is clearly different. The Hubbard Brook ecosystem is located in relation to the vegetational zonation systems of earlier authors. The only generally agreed upon vegetational boundary, ca. 760 m (2,500 ft), is accounted for by a steepened rate of environmental change in the vicinity of that elevation. Various lines of evidence indicate that the present second—growth forest at Hubbard Brook approximates old—age mature northern hardwood forest. Therefore, the biogeochemical, productivity, and ecological data obtained from this study are representative of a mature ecosystem in dynamic balance with regional and local controlling factors, i.e., climate, geology, and topography.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The 1300 m of relief in the White Mountains currently has three major vegetation zones: deciduous hardwood forest 200-700 m, coniferous forests 750-1450 m, and alpine tundra >1450 m.
“The 1300 m of relief in the White Mountains currently has three major vegetation zones: deciduous hardwood forest 200-700 m, coniferous forests 750-1450 m, and alpine tundra> 1450 m (Bormann et al. 1970, Reiners and Lang 1979, Spear 1981).”
From Late Quaternary History of Low‐ and Mid‐Elevation Vegetation in the White Mountains of New Hampshire (1994) · cites this paper as Bormann et al. 1970
The upper limits for red oak and white pine are 415 m, and hemlock 650 m.
“Bormann et al. (1970) give the upper limits for red oak and white pine as 415 m, and hemlock 650 m.”
From Late Quaternary History of Low‐ and Mid‐Elevation Vegetation in the White Mountains of New Hampshire (1994) · cites this paper as Bormann et al. 1970
Cool summers put hemlock and beech at a competitive disadvantage with faster growing hardwoods such as sugar maple and yellow birch, which are more abundant at higher elevations.
“Cool summers put them at a competitive disadvantage with faster growing hardwoods, such as sugar maple and yellow birch, which are more abundant at higher elevations (Bormann et al. 1970).”
From Late Quaternary History of Low‐ and Mid‐Elevation Vegetation in the White Mountains of New Hampshire (1994) · cites this paper as Bormann et al. 1970
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Late Quaternary History of Low‐ and Mid‐Elevation Vegetation in the White Mountains of New Hampshire
Spear, R. W., Davis, M. B., & Shane, L. C. K. (1994) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/2937056 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Bormann, F. H., Siccama, T. G., Likens, G. E., & Whittaker, R. H.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1970-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 373-388
- ISSN
- 0012-9615
- 1557-7015
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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