Cited by 117

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Composition and Dynamics of the Tree Stratum

Bormann, F. H., Siccama, T. G., Likens, G. E., Whittaker, R. H.·1970·Ecological Monographs

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

Crossref · 10.2307/1942336

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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.”
  • 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).”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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