Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dynamics of Canopy Structure and Light Interception in Pinus Elliottii Stands, North Florida

Gholz, H. L., Vogel, S. A., Cropper, W. P., McKelvey, K., Ewel, K. C., Teskey, R. O., Curran, P. J.·1991·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

In order to develop a model of the carbon cycle for mature slash pine (Pinus elliottii) stands in north Florida, we studied seasonal variation in leaf area index (LAI, allsided), aboveground biomass increment and litterfall, and light penetration through the forest canopy, over a 3—yr period. The primary approach to establishing monthly LAI included annual destructive analyses and monthly measurements of needle fall and elongation. Imagery from the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and pattern of light penetration were also used in attempts to derive less ardouous estimates; the TM imagery was most promising. LAIs ranged from 3.0 to 6.5 on control plots over the 3 yr, with repeated fertilization increasing maximum LAI by >40%. Seasonal variation was high (40%), as was variation from year to year. An average of 31% of the incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) penetrated the canopies annually, ranging from 18 to 42% seasonally. Seasonal light penetration could not be described using a simple application of the Beer—Lambert law, perhaps due to the highly aggregated nature of the canopies. Models incorporating more information on canopy structure are necessary to predict light penetration through slash pine stands accurately. A model of needle litterfall was derived that could account for much of the seasonal and annual variation using stand basal area and climate conditions from the spring of the previous year; this model may be useful for developing climate—driven predictions of LAI. Efficiencies of use of incoming and intercepted PAR were low compared to other forest types. Low light interception and high nutrient—use efficiencies (demonstrated in earlier studies) are important adaptive characteristics of slash pine stands to these relatively warm and nutrient—poor sites.

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 · 10.2307/1942998

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.

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

Cited by

See all 234

Metadata

Authors
Gholz, H. L., Vogel, S. A., Cropper, W. P., McKelvey, K., Ewel, K. C., Teskey, R. O., & Curran, P. J.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-03
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
33-51
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2118942226
Cited by
234
References
0
FWCI
22.52
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: Dynamics of Canopy Structure and Light Interception in Pinus Elliottii Stands, North Florida. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942998
The paper
Gholz, H. L., Vogel, S. A., Cropper, W. P., McKelvey, K., Ewel, K. C., Teskey, R. O., & Curran, P. J. (1991). Dynamics of Canopy Structure and Light Interception in Pinus Elliottii Stands, North Florida. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942998

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.