↓ Skip to main content

Multiple Browsers Structure Tree Recruitment in Logged Temperate Forests

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Multiple Browsers Structure Tree Recruitment in Logged Temperate Forests
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0166783
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward K. Faison, Stephen DeStefano, David R. Foster, Joshua M. Rapp, Justin A. Compton

Abstract

Historical extirpations have resulted in depauperate large herbivore assemblages in many northern forests. In eastern North America, most forests are inhabited by a single wild ungulate species, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and relationships between deer densities and impacts on forest regeneration are correspondingly well documented. Recent recolonizations by moose (Alces americanus) in northeastern regions complicate established deer density thresholds and predictions of browsing impacts on forest dynamics because size and foraging differences between the two animals suggest a lack of functional redundancy. We asked to what extent low densities of deer + moose would structure forest communities differently from that of low densities of deer in recently logged patch cuts of Massachusetts, USA. In each site, a randomized block with three treatment levels of large herbivores-no-ungulates (full exclosure), deer (partial exclosure), and deer + moose (control) was established. After 6-7 years, deer + moose reduced stem densities and basal area by 2-3-fold, Prunus pensylvanica and Quercus spp. recruitment by 3-6 fold, and species richness by 1.7 species (19%). In contrast, in the partial exclosures, deer had non-significant effects on stem density, basal area, and species composition, but significantly reduced species richness by 2.5 species on average (28%). Deer browsing in the partial exclosure was more selective than deer + moose browsing together, perhaps contributing to the decline in species richness in the former treatment and the lack of additional decline in the latter. Moose used the control plots at roughly the same frequency as deer (as determined by remote camera traps), suggesting that the much larger moose was the dominant browser species in terms of animal biomass in these cuts. A lack of functional redundancy with respect to foraging behavior between sympatric large herbivores may explain combined browsing effects that were both large and complex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 30%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 30%
Environmental Science 10 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 December 2016.
All research outputs
#16,216,294
of 24,666,614 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#142,152
of 213,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,505
of 426,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,409
of 3,988 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,666,614 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 213,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 426,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,988 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.