↓ Skip to main content

Novel and Lost Forests in the Upper Midwestern United States, from New Estimates of Settlement-Era Composition, Stem Density, and Biomass

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Novel and Lost Forests in the Upper Midwestern United States, from New Estimates of Settlement-Era Composition, Stem Density, and Biomass
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0151935
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon J. Goring, David J. Mladenoff, Charles V. Cogbill, Sydne Record, Christopher J. Paciorek, Stephen T. Jackson, Michael C. Dietze, Andria Dawson, Jaclyn Hatala Matthes, Jason S. McLachlan, John W. Williams

Abstract

EuroAmerican land-use and its legacies have transformed forest structure and composition across the United States (US). More accurate reconstructions of historical states are critical to understanding the processes governing past, current, and future forest dynamics. Here we present new gridded (8x8km) reconstructions of pre-settlement (1800s) forest composition and structure from the upper Midwestern US (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most of Michigan), using 19th Century Public Land Survey System (PLSS), with estimates of relative composition, above-ground biomass, stem density, and basal area for 28 tree types. This mapping is more robust than past efforts, using spatially varying correction factors to accommodate sampling design, azimuthal censoring, and biases in tree selection. We compare pre-settlement to modern forests using US Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data to show the prevalence of lost forests (pre-settlement forests with no current analog), and novel forests (modern forests with no past analogs). Differences between pre-settlement and modern forests are spatially structured owing to differences in land-use impacts and accompanying ecological responses. Modern forests are more homogeneous, and ecotonal gradients are more diffuse today than in the past. Novel forest assemblages represent 28% of all FIA cells, and 28% of pre-settlement forests no longer exist in a modern context. Lost forests include tamarack forests in northeastern Minnesota, hemlock and cedar dominated forests in north-central Wisconsin and along the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and elm, oak, basswood and ironwood forests along the forest-prairie boundary in south central Minnesota and eastern Wisconsin. Novel FIA forest assemblages are distributed evenly across the region, but novelty shows a strong relationship to spatial distance from remnant forests in the upper Midwest, with novelty predicted at between 20 to 60km from remnants, depending on historical forest type. The spatial relationships between remnant and novel forests, shifts in ecotone structure and the loss of historic forest types point to significant challenges for land managers if landscape restoration is a priority. The spatial signals of novelty and ecological change also point to potential challenges in using modern spatial distributions of species and communities and their relationship to underlying geophysical and climatic attributes in understanding potential responses to changing climate. The signal of human settlement on modern forests is broad, spatially varying and acts to homogenize modern forests relative to their historic counterparts, with significant implications for future management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Professor 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 18 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 16%
Engineering 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 24 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,531,517
of 24,996,701 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#31,210
of 216,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,029
of 431,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#577
of 4,006 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,996,701 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,006 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.