↓ Skip to main content

Rooting depth varies differentially in trees and grasses as a function of mean annual rainfall in an African savanna

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Rooting depth varies differentially in trees and grasses as a function of mean annual rainfall in an African savanna
Published in
Oecologia, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-4011-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo M. Holdo, Jesse B. Nippert, Michelle C. Mack

Abstract

A significant fraction of the terrestrial biosphere comprises biomes containing tree-grass mixtures. Forecasting vegetation dynamics in these environments requires a thorough understanding of how trees and grasses use and compete for key belowground resources. There is disagreement about the extent to which tree-grass vertical root separation occurs in these ecosystems, how this overlap varies across large-scale environmental gradients, and what these rooting differences imply for water resource availability and tree-grass competition and coexistence. To assess the extent of tree-grass rooting overlap and how tree and grass rooting patterns vary across resource gradients, we examined landscape-level patterns of tree and grass functional rooting depth along a mean annual precipitation (MAP) gradient extending from ~ 450 to ~ 750 mm year(-1) in Kruger National Park, South Africa. We used stable isotopes from soil and stem water to make inferences about relative differences in rooting depth between these two functional groups. We found clear differences in rooting depth between grasses and trees across the MAP gradient, with grasses generally exhibiting shallower rooting profiles than trees. We also found that trees tended to become more shallow-rooted as a function of MAP, to the point that trees and grasses largely overlapped in terms of rooting depth at the wettest sites. Our results reconcile previously conflicting evidence for rooting overlap in this system, and have important implications for understanding tree-grass dynamics under altered precipitation scenarios.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 38%
Environmental Science 20 26%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 15 19%
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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,959,314
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,180
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,533
of 294,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#52
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 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 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 is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 294,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.