2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Twentieth-century decline of large-diameter trees in Yosemite National Park, California, USA

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
105
1
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 103 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
7
105
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The constructed variables were: tree density for all trees and partitioned into four dbh classes, proportion of stand basal area by four species groups, derived canopy cover, live tree carbon, and density of large pines. The four dbh classes used to report partitioned tree density were: 15.2-30.4 cm, 30.5-61.0 cm, 61.1-91.4 cm, .91.4 cm, and were based on a stand classification scheme used in forest management throughout the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2004) and in previous work (Lutz et al 2009). The four species groups that we investigated for potential changes in proportion of stand basal area were: (1) pine-ponderosa pine and sugar pine, (2) true fir-white fir and red fir, (3) incensecedar, and (4) Douglas-fir.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The constructed variables were: tree density for all trees and partitioned into four dbh classes, proportion of stand basal area by four species groups, derived canopy cover, live tree carbon, and density of large pines. The four dbh classes used to report partitioned tree density were: 15.2-30.4 cm, 30.5-61.0 cm, 61.1-91.4 cm, .91.4 cm, and were based on a stand classification scheme used in forest management throughout the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2004) and in previous work (Lutz et al 2009). The four species groups that we investigated for potential changes in proportion of stand basal area were: (1) pine-ponderosa pine and sugar pine, (2) true fir-white fir and red fir, (3) incensecedar, and (4) Douglas-fir.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These datasets allow for detailed quantitative comparisons of current vs. historical forest structure and composition (Stephens 2000, Lutz et al 2009). However, there are a number of concerns associated with historical datasets: (1) limited geographic extent, (2) unknown or unrepeatable study site selection/inventory methodologies, (3) uncertainty in accurately re-locating sampled areas (Kelly et al 2008), and (4) limited temporal depth.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Changes to structure and composition of California forests.-Comparison of the VTM plots with current vegetation (using both relocated plots and contemporary vegetation maps) revealed consistent evidence of an increase in young-growth and small-diameter trees across the state and decreases in large trees (Minnich et al 1995;Fellows and Goulden 2008;Goforth and Minnich 2008;Lutz et al 2009;Dolanc et al 2013aDolanc et al , 2014McIntyre et al 2015), as well as changes in forest composition (Minnich et al 1995;Dolanc et al 2013a;McIntyre et al 2015). Much of this evidence of change in forest age structures derives from resurveyed VTM plots (Table 1).…”
Section: Th Century Changes To Vegetation Communitiesmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The plots cover a gradient of vegetation types and include data regarding tree stand structure (number per diameter class), percent cover of dominant overstory and understory vegetation by species, soil type, parent material, leaf litter, elevation, slope, aspect, parent material, and other environmental variables. All plot data were stored on paper data sheets and individual plots were numbered according to map name, quad section Goforth and Minnich 2008;Fellows and Goulden 2008;Lutz et al 2009;Lutz et al 2010;Swanson et al 2013;Dolanc et al 2013a;Dolanc et al 2013b;Dolanc et al 2014;Maxwell et al 2014Walker 2000* Dodge 1975Taylor 2000 Conifer and hardwood forest Crimmins et al 2011;Dobrowski et al 2011;Crimmins et al 2013;Crimmins et al 2014 None None Land cover 6 Plots: Maps:…”
Section: Plot Data and Plot Mapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation