↓ Skip to main content

Regional Contingencies in the Relationship between Aboveground Biomass and Litter in the World’s Grasslands

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Regional Contingencies in the Relationship between Aboveground Biomass and Litter in the World’s Grasslands
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0054988
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lydia R. O’Halloran, Elizabeth T. Borer, Eric W. Seabloom, Andrew S. MacDougall, Elsa E. Cleland, Rebecca L. McCulley, Sarah Hobbie, W. Stan Harpole, Nicole M. DeCrappeo, Chengjin Chu, Jonathan D. Bakker, Kendi F. Davies, Guozhen Du, Jennifer Firn, Nicole Hagenah, Kirsten S. Hofmockel, Johannes M. H. Knops, Wei Li, Brett A. Melbourne, John W. Morgan, John L. Orrock, Suzanne M. Prober, Carly J. Stevens

Abstract

Based on regional-scale studies, aboveground production and litter decomposition are thought to positively covary, because they are driven by shared biotic and climatic factors. Until now we have been unable to test whether production and decomposition are generally coupled across climatically dissimilar regions, because we lacked replicated data collected within a single vegetation type across multiple regions, obfuscating the drivers and generality of the association between production and decomposition. Furthermore, our understanding of the relationships between production and decomposition rests heavily on separate meta-analyses of each response, because no studies have simultaneously measured production and the accumulation or decomposition of litter using consistent methods at globally relevant scales. Here, we use a multi-country grassland dataset collected using a standardized protocol to show that live plant biomass (an estimate of aboveground net primary production) and litter disappearance (represented by mass loss of aboveground litter) do not strongly covary. Live biomass and litter disappearance varied at different spatial scales. There was substantial variation in live biomass among continents, sites and plots whereas among continent differences accounted for most of the variation in litter disappearance rates. Although there were strong associations among aboveground biomass, litter disappearance and climatic factors in some regions (e.g. U.S. Great Plains), these relationships were inconsistent within and among the regions represented by this study. These results highlight the importance of replication among regions and continents when characterizing the correlations between ecosystem processes and interpreting their global-scale implications for carbon flux. We must exercise caution in parameterizing litter decomposition and aboveground production in future regional and global carbon models as their relationship is complex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 114 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 30%
Researcher 24 20%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Professor 8 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 7 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 57 47%
Environmental Science 34 28%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 12 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 February 2013.
All research outputs
#7,151,095
of 24,829,155 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#95,974
of 215,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,943
of 294,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,686
of 5,052 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,829,155 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215,014 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 294,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,052 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.