The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Species and Stand Response to Catastrophic Wind in Central New England, U.S.A.
Abstract
(1) The effect of catastrophic hurricane wind on forest vegetation in central New England was examined at the species and stand level. (2) Species susceptibility to wind is largely explained by canopy position: fast-growing, pioneer species that form overstorey dominants (Pinus strobus, P. resinosa, Populus spp. and Betula papyrifera) suffered much greater damage than slower growing, or tolerant species occurring primarily in codominant, intermediate and suppressed canopy positions (Carya spp., Acer rubrum, Quercus alba, Q. velutina and Tsuga canadensis). Uprooting was much more important than breakage as the primary form of damage. This result, which contrasts with the findings of most studies of wind damage, may perhaps be explained by the very high levels of precipitation that accompanied the storm, saturating the soil and loosening the roots. (3) Damage to forest stands exhibits a positive, linear relationship with stand age and height and negative relationship with density. Conifer forests are significantly more susceptible than hardwood forests. Pinus strobus and P. resinosa stands are susceptible to wind at 15 years of age and are completely destroyed at 30 years; hardwood stands exhibit increasing damage from age 20 years, but are not completely blown down until age 80-100 years. (4) Within stands, damage shifts progressively from the dominant trees in young stands to include trees in the codominant, intermediate and suppressed layers in older forests. Parallel changes with age in the type of damage include a decline in the number of leaning trees and increase in uprooting. (5) Damage to species and stands from a catastrophic windstorm occurs quite predictably and specifically within the forests studied. This discriminating impact of wind has profound consequences on the vegetation at a range of spatial scales and is largely mediated by historical factors and structural and compositional aspects of the vegetation mosaic.
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
Landscape Ecology: The Effect Of Pattern On Process
Turner, M. G. (1989) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.20.1.171 · Cited by 3,273
The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative management
Attiwill, P. M. (1994) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/0378-1127(94)90114-7 · Cited by 853
Land-Use History (1730-1990) and Vegetation Dynamics in Central New England, USA
Foster, D. R. (1992) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2260864 · Cited by 658
Self-citationLandscape Patterns and Legacies Resulting from Large, Infrequent Forest Disturbances
Foster, D. R., Knight, D. H., & Franklin, J. F. (1998) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s100219900046 · Cited by 485
Self-citationEviner, V. T., & Chapin III, F. S. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132342 · Cited by 473
Metadata
- Authors
- Foster, D. R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Ecology
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135
- ISSN
- 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2167840246
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.21
- 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: Species and Stand Response to Catastrophic Wind in Central New England, U.S.A. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2260458
- The paper
- Foster, D. R. (1988). Species and Stand Response to Catastrophic Wind in Central New England, U.S.A. The Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2260458
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.