↓ Skip to main content

Relationships among leaf functional traits, litter traits, and mass loss during early phases of leaf litter decomposition in 12 woody plant species

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Relationships among leaf functional traits, litter traits, and mass loss during early phases of leaf litter decomposition in 12 woody plant species
Published in
Oecologia, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3951-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenna M. Zukswert, Cindy E. Prescott

Abstract

Litter 'quality' or decomposability has historically been estimated through measuring chemical attributes, such as concentrations of nitrogen or 'lignin'. More recently, foliar functional traits, which may incorporate indications of the physical structures of tissues, have been found to correlate with litter mass loss rates. However, these traits may not be adequate to predict early rates of mass loss, in which two factors are crucial: the amount of material quickly lost through leaching, and the ease of access of decomposer organisms to the more labile tissues in the interior of the litter. We investigated relationships among physical and chemical traits in foliage and litter of 12 species native to British Columbia and then observed how these traits related to mass loss during the first 3 months (Phase I) and between 3 and 12 months (Phase II). Novel traits measured in this study include cuticle thickness, litter leaching loss, and litter water uptake. Foliar and litter traits both co-varied along spectra, but several chemical traits, such as nitrogen concentration, changed from foliage to litter, i.e., during senescence. Phase I mass loss was best predicted by leaching loss and traits relating to leaching, such as cuticle thickness and specific leaf area. Phase II mass loss was predicted by traits that may relate to decomposer access and activity, such as leaf dry matter content and foliar nitrogen. Physical traits predicted mass loss as well or better than chemical traits, suggesting that physical characteristics of litter are important in determining early rates of decomposition.

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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 28%
Student > Master 13 14%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 36 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 38%
Unspecified 1 1%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,708,545
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#713
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,280
of 316,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#18
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 316,058 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 72% of its contemporaries.