Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 465

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpreting recruitment limitation in forests

Clark, J. S., Beckage, B., Camill, P., Cleveland, B., HilleRisLambers, J., Lichter, J., McLachlan, J., Mohan, J., Wyckoff, P.·1999·American Journal of Botany

Abstract

Studies of tree recruitment are many, but they provide few general insights into the role of recruitment limitation for population dynamics. That role depends on the vital rates (transitions) from seed production to sapling stages and on overall population growth. To determine the state of our understanding of recruitment limitation we examined how well we can estimate parameters corresponding to these vital rates. Our two‐part analysis consists of (1) a survey of published literature to determine the spatial and temporal scale of sampling that is basis for parameter estimates, and (2) an analysis of extensive data sets to evaluate sampling intensity found in the literature. We find that published studies focus on fine spatial scales, emphasizing large numbers of small samples within a single stand, and tend not to sample multiple stands or variability across landscapes. Where multiple stands are sampled, sampling is often inconsistent. Sampling of seed rain, seed banks, and seedlings typically span <1 yr and rarely last 5 yr. Most studies of seeding establishment and growth consider effects of a single variable and a single life history stage. By examining how parameter estimates are affected by the spatial and temporal extent of sampling we find that few published studies are sufficiently extensive to capture the variability in recruitment stages. Early recruitment stages are especially variable and require samples across multiple years and multiple stands. Ironically, the longest duration data sets are used to estimate mortality rates, which are less variable (in time) than are early life history stages. Because variables that affect recruitment rates interact, studies of these interactions are needed to assess their full impacts. We conclude that greater attention to spatially extensive and longer duration sampling for early life history stages is needed to assess the role of recruitment limitation in forests.

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 · 10.2307/2656950

Cites

45 of 45 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

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 465

Metadata

Authors
Clark, J. S., Beckage, B., Camill, P., Cleveland, B., HilleRisLambers, J., Lichter, J., McLachlan, J., Mohan, J., & Wyckoff, P.
Venue
American Journal of Botany
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-01
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
1-16
ISSN
  • 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2197
OpenAlex
W2118812640
Cited by
465
References
45
FWCI
12.32
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: Interpreting recruitment limitation in forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2656950
The paper
Clark, J. S., Beckage, B., Camill, P., Cleveland, B., HilleRisLambers, J., Lichter, J., McLachlan, J., Mohan, J., & Wyckoff, P. (1999). Interpreting recruitment limitation in forests. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.2307/2656950

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.