Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 709

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mortality Rates of 205 Neotropical Tree and Shrub Species and the Impact of a Severe Drought

Condit, Richard, Hubbell, Stephen P., Foster, Robin B.·1995·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

Mortality rates of 205 tree and shrub species were estimated during two intervals, 1982—1985 and 1985—1990, in two size classes, 1—10 and ≥ 10 cm in diameter, in a 50—ha census plot in tropical moist forest on Barro Colorado Island in Panama. The severe dry season of 1983 was the focus of the study, since prior observations had demonstrated that it caused mortality in the forest. Here we document that forest—wide mortality was ≈ 3%/yr during the drought interval but only 2%/yr during the period afterwards, and that excess mortality during the first interval amounted to 2% of stems in the larger size class and 1% in the smaller. Overall, just under 70% of all species had higher mortality during the first census interval, but not all species were equally affected. Canopy trees had significantly higher mean mortality rates during 1982—1985 than during 1985—1990, but treelets and shrubs showed no or slight differences. This was counter to our prediction that species with short root systems would suffer more from a long drought. Shrubs did, however, have higher mortality rates than trees and treelets during both census intervals. We also evaluated mortality rates for subgroups of species that specialized on different microhabitats in the forest. As we predicted, colonist species (those associated with light gaps) had higher mortality rates than generalist species, 7—10%/yr compared to 2—4%/yr, but only in the smaller size class. Unexpectedly, colonizers had similar mortality rates as non—colonizers in the larger size class. Gap colonizers and generalist species were similarly affected by the drought–both had elevated mortality during 1982—1985. Species whose distributions were associated with moister soils (on the slopes around the island's plateau or in a swamp in the midst of the 50—ha plot) also had elevated mortality during the drought period, but no more so than generalist species. This was counter to our prediction that species from moist microhabitats would suffer more during an extended drought than generalists. Understory treelets that were slope specialists had higher mortality than generalists during both census intervals, but not large trees that were slope specialists. Our conclusions emphasize diversity as well as pattern. Every trend we illustrated had well—documented exceptions: large trees with lower mortality during the drought period, for example. Clearly, accurate predictions about how tropical forests will respond to climatic perturbations will require much detailed information from many species.

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 · 10.2307/2963497

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 709

Metadata

Authors
Condit, R., Hubbell, S. P., & Foster, R. B.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-11
Volume
65
Issue
4
Pages
419-439
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2079742492
Cited by
709
References
0
FWCI
18.52
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: Mortality Rates of 205 Neotropical Tree and Shrub Species and the Impact of a Severe Drought. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2963497
The paper
Condit, R., Hubbell, S. P., & Foster, R. B. (1995). Mortality Rates of 205 Neotropical Tree and Shrub Species and the Impact of a Severe Drought. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/2963497

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.