↓ Skip to main content

Inferring foliar water uptake using stable isotopes of water

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Inferring foliar water uptake using stable isotopes of water
Published in
Oecologia, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3917-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory R. Goldsmith, Marco M. Lehmann, Lucas A. Cernusak, Matthias Arend, Rolf T. W. Siegwolf

Abstract

A growing number of studies have described the direct absorption of water into leaves, a phenomenon known as foliar water uptake. The resultant increase in the amount of water in the leaf can be important for plant function. Exposing leaves to isotopically enriched or depleted water sources has become a common method for establishing whether or not a plant is capable of carrying out foliar water uptake. However, a careful inspection of our understanding of the fluxes of water isotopes between leaves and the atmosphere under high humidity conditions shows that there can clearly be isotopic exchange between the two pools even in the absence of a change in the mass of water in the leaf. We provide experimental evidence that while leaf water isotope ratios may change following exposure to a fog event using water with a depleted oxygen isotope ratio, leaf mass only changes when leaves are experiencing a water deficit that creates a driving gradient for the uptake of water by the leaf. Studies that rely on stable isotopes of water as a means of studying plant water use, particularly with respect to foliar water uptake, must consider the effects of these isotopic exchange processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 39%
Environmental Science 19 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#8,422,595
of 25,155,561 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,761
of 4,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,895
of 321,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#25
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,155,561 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 321,466 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.