| Title |
Alterations of nitrogen dynamics under elevated carbon dioxide in an intact Mojave Desert ecosystem: evidence from nitrogen-15 natural abundance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, May 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-002-0898-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Billings, S. Schaeffer, S. Zitzer, T. Charlet, S. Smith, R. Evans |
| Abstract |
We examined soil and vegetation N isotopic composition (δ(15)N) and soil inorganic N availability in an intact Mojave desert ecosystem to evaluate potential effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on N cycling. Vegetation from the dominant perennial shrub Larrea tridentata under elevated CO2 was enriched in (15)N. Over a 7-month sampling period, Larrea δ(15)N values increased from 5.7±0.1‰ to 9.0±1.1‰ with elevated CO2; under ambient conditions, δ(15)N values of shrubs increased from 4.9±0.3‰ to 6.6±0.7‰. No difference was found in soil δ(15)N under elevated and ambient CO2. Soil δ(15)N values under the drought deciduous shrubs Lycium spp. were greatest (7.2±0.3‰), and soil under the C4 perennial bunchgrass Pleuraphis rigida had the lowest values (4.5±0.2‰). Several mechanisms could explain the enrichment in (15)N of vegetation with elevated CO2. Results suggest that microbial activity has increased with elevated CO2, enriching pools of plant-available N and decreasing N availability. This hypothesis is supported by a significant reduction of plant-available N under elevated CO2. This indicates that exposure to elevated CO2 has resulted in significant perturbations to the soil N cycle, and that plant δ(15)N may be a useful tool for interpreting changes in the N cycle in numerous ecosystems. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 43% |
| Environmental Science | 14 | 15% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2007.
All research outputs
#7,533,912
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,683
of 4,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,997
of 121,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 121,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.