The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Temporal Succession in a Desert Stream Ecosystem Following Flash Flooding
Abstract
Recovery of a desert stream after an intense flash flooding event is described as a model of temporal succession in lotic ecosystems. A late summer flood in Sycamore Creek, Arizona, virtually eliminated algae and reduced invertebrate standing crop by 98%. Physical and morphometric conditions typical of the preflood period were restored in 2 d and the biota recovered in 2—3 wk. Algal communities responded rapidly and achieved a standing crop of nearly 100 g/m 2 in 2 wk. Community composition was dominated by diatoms early in succession and by filamentous greens and blue—greens later. Macroinvertebrates also recolonized denuded substrates rapidly, largely by immigration of aerial adults and subsequent oviposition. Growth and development were rapid and several generations of the dominant mayfly and dipteran taxa were completed during the 1st mo of recovery. Invertebrate dry biomass reached 7.3 g/m 2 in 1 mo. Gross primary production (P g) measured as O 2 increased in a similar asymptotic fashion and reached 6.6 g°m—2°d—1 in 30 d. P g exceeded community respiration (R) after day 5 and P g/R averaged 1.46 for the remainder of the 2—mo sequence. This ecosystem is thus autotrophic and exports organic matter downstream and by drying, laterally. Uptake of nitrate and phosphorus were proportional to net primary production and exhibited a marked downstream decline in concentration during both light and dark periods. Temporal trajectories of various community and ecosystem attributes are compared with those suggested by Odum (1969) to be diagnostic of successional status. Agreement was poor in attributes which are especially modified in open, frequently disturbed ecosystems such as streams.
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
Cites
Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Cushing, C. E. (1980) · Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · doi:10.1139/f80-017 · Cited by 9,984
Cited by
Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones
BAXTER, C. V., FAUSCH, K. D., & CARL SAUNDERS, W. (2005) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01328.x · Cited by 1,204
Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Forces in Food Webs: Do Plants Have Primacy
Power, M. E. (1992) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1940153 · Cited by 1,077
Stream Fish Ecology: A Landscape Perspective
Schlosser, I. J. (1991) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1311765 · Cited by 844
Linkages between flow regime, biota, and ecosystem processes: implications for river restoration
Palmer, M., & Ruhi, A. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaw2087 · Cited by 791
A review of allochthonous organic matter dynamics and metabolism in streams
Tank, J. L., Rosi-Marshall, E. J., Griffiths, N. A., Entrekin, S. A., & Stephen, M. L. (2010) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.1899/08-170.1 · Cited by 760
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, S. G., Gray, L. J., Grimm, N. B., & Busch, D. E.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1982-03
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-110
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2007131168
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.66
- 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: Temporal Succession in a Desert Stream Ecosystem Following Flash Flooding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2937346
- The paper
- Fisher, S. G., Gray, L. J., Grimm, N. B., & Busch, D. E. (1982). Temporal Succession in a Desert Stream Ecosystem Following Flash Flooding. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937346
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.