Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 676

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interbiome Comparison of Stream Ecosystem Dynamics

Minshall, G. Wayne, Petersen, Robert C., Cummins, Kenneth W., Bott, Thomas L., Sedell, James R., Cushing, Colbert E., Vannote, Robin L.·1983·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

Studies were conducted in four distinct geographic areas (biomes/sites) in northern United States to examine changes in key ecosystem parameter: benthic organic matter (BOM), transported organic matter (TOM), community production and respiration, leaf pack decomposition, and functional feeding—group composition along gradients of increasing stream size. Four stations ranging from headwaters (1st or 2nd order) to midsized rivers (5th to 7th order) were examined at each site using comparable methods. The results for each parameter are presented and discussed in light of the River Continuum Concept of Vannote et al. (1980). The postulated gradual change in a stream ecosystem's structure and function is supported by this study. However, regional and local deviations occur as a result of variations in the influence of: (1) watershed climate and geology, (2) riparian conditions, (3) tributaries, and (4) location—specific lithology and geomorphology. In particular, the continuum framework must be visualized as a sliding scale which is shifted upstream or downstream depending on macroenvironmental forces (1 and 2) or reset following the application of more localized "micro"—environmental influences (3 and 4). Analysis of interactions between BOM and TOM permitted evaluation of stream retentiveness for organic matter. Headwaters generally were most retentive and downstream reaches the least. Estimates of organic matter turnover times ranged between 0.2 and 14 yr, and commonly were 1—4 yr. Both turnover times and distances were determined primarily by the interaction between current velocity and stream retention. Biological processes played a secondary role. However, the streams varied considerably in their spiraling of organic matter due to differences in the interplay between retentiveness and biological activity. Differences in the relative importance of retention mechanisms along the continuum suggest that headwater stream ecosystems may be functionally more stable, at least to physical disturbances, than are the r intermediate river counterparts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1942585

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 676

Metadata

Authors
Minshall, G. W., Petersen, R. C., Cummins, K. W., Bott, T. L., Sedell, J. R., Cushing, C. E., & Vannote, R. L.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1983-03
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
1-25
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2042250663
Cited by
676
References
2
FWCI
36.58
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: Interbiome Comparison of Stream Ecosystem Dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942585
The paper
Minshall, G. W., Petersen, R. C., Cummins, K. W., Bott, T. L., Sedell, J. R., Cushing, C. E., & Vannote, R. L. (1983). Interbiome Comparison of Stream Ecosystem Dynamics. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942585

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.