↓ Skip to main content

The effect of tar spot pathogen on host plant carbon balance and its possible consequences on a tundra ecosystem

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
The effect of tar spot pathogen on host plant carbon balance and its possible consequences on a tundra ecosystem
Published in
Oecologia, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-4037-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shota Masumoto, Masaki Uchida, Motoaki Tojo, Maria Luz Herrero, Akira S. Mori, Satoshi Imura

Abstract

In Arctic tundra, plant pathogens have substantial effects on the growth and survival of hosts, and impacts on the carbon balance at the scale of ecological systems. To understand these effects on carbon dynamics across different scales including plant organ, individual, population and ecosystem, we focused on two primary factors: host productivity reduction and carbon consumption by the pathogen. We measured the effect of the pathogen on photosynthetic and respiratory activity in the host. We also measured respiration and the amount of carbon in the pathogen. We constructed a model based on these two factors, and calculated pathogenic effects on the carbon balance at different organismal and ecological scales. We found that carbon was reduced in infected leaves by 118% compared with healthy leaves; the major factor causing this loss was pathogenic carbon consumption. The carbon balance at the population and ecosystem levels decreased by 35% and 20%, respectively, at an infection rate of 30%. This case study provides the first evidence that a host plant can lose more carbon through pathogenic carbon consumption than through a reduction in productivity. Such a pathogenic effect could greatly change ecosystem carbon cycling without decreasing annual productivity.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Unspecified 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 27%
Environmental Science 2 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,585
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,869
of 440,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#57
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 440,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.