↓ Skip to main content

Forest ecosystem respiration estimated from eddy covariance and chamber measurements under high turbulence and substantial tree mortality from bark beetles

Overview of attention for article published in Global Change Biology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Forest ecosystem respiration estimated from eddy covariance and chamber measurements under high turbulence and substantial tree mortality from bark beetles
Published in
Global Change Biology, October 2014
DOI 10.1111/gcb.12731
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather N. Speckman, John M. Frank, John B. Bradford, Brianna L. Miles, William J. Massman, William J. Parton, Michael G. Ryan

Abstract

Eddy covariance nighttime fluxes are uncertain due to potential measurement biases. Many studies report eddy covariance nighttime flux lower than flux from extrapolated chamber measurements, despite corrections for low turbulence. We compared eddy covariance and chamber estimates of ecosystem respiration at the GLEES Ameriflux site over seven growing seasons under high turbulence (summer night mean friction velocity (u*) = 0.7 m s(-1) ), during which bark beetles killed or infested 85% of the aboveground respiring biomass. Chamber-based estimates of ecosystem respiration during the growth season, developed from foliage, wood and soil CO2 efflux measurements, declined 35% after 85% of the forest basal area had been killed or impaired by bark beetles (from 7.1 ±0.22 μmol m(-2) s(-1) in 2005 to 4.6 ±0.16 μmol m(-2) s(-1) in 2011). Soil efflux remained at ~3.3 μmol m(-2) s(-1) throughout the mortality, while the loss of live wood and foliage and their respiration drove the decline of the chamber estimate. Eddy covariance estimates of fluxes at night remained constant over the same period, ~3.0 μmol m(-2) s(-1) for both 2005 (intact forest) and 2011 (85% basal area killed or impaired). Eddy covariance fluxes were lower than chamber estimates of ecosystem respiration (60% lower in 2005, and 32% in 2011), but the mean night estimates from the two techniques were correlated within a year (r(2) from 0.18-0.60). The difference between the two techniques was not the result of inadequate turbulence, because the results were robust to a u* filter of > 0.7 m s(-1) . The decline in the average seasonal difference between the two techniques was strongly correlated with overstory leaf area (r(2) =0.92). The discrepancy between methods of respiration estimation should be resolved to have confidence in ecosystem carbon flux estimates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 118 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 31%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 6 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 36 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 13%
Engineering 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 30 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#3,525,602
of 24,453,338 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#3,636
of 6,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,867
of 263,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#34
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,453,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 263,886 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.