↓ Skip to main content

Size-related shifts in carbon gain and growth responses to light differ among rainforest evergreens of contrasting shade tolerance

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Size-related shifts in carbon gain and growth responses to light differ among rainforest evergreens of contrasting shade tolerance
Published in
Oecologia, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00442-018-4125-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerrie M. Sendall, Peter B. Reich, Christopher H. Lusk

Abstract

Recent work suggests that plant size affects light requirements and carbon balance of juvenile trees, and such shifts may be greater in light-demanding species than in their more shade-tolerant associates. To explore the physiological basis of such shifts, we measured juvenile light interception, carbon gain and growth of four subtropical Australian rainforest trees differing in shade tolerance, comparing individuals ranging from 13 to 238 cm in height, across a wide range of understory environments. We hypothesized that even in a standardized light environment, increasing sapling size would lead to declines in net daily carbon gain of foliage and relative growth rates (RGR) of all species, with declines more pronounced in light-demanding species. Crown architecture of individuals was recorded using a 3-dimensional digitizer, and the YPLANT program was used to estimate the self-shaded fraction of each crown and model net carbon gain. Increased sapling size caused a significant increase in self-shading, and significant declines in net daily carbon gain and RGR of light-demanding species, while such ontogenetic variations were minimal or absent in shade-tolerant species. Additionally, differences in the slope of the relationship between light and RGR led to crossovers in RGR among shade-tolerant and light-demanding species at low light. Our results show that the magnitude of ontogenetic variation in net daily carbon gain and RGR can be substantial and may depend on successional status, making it unsafe to assume that young seedling performance can be used to predict or model responses of larger juvenile trees.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 48%
Environmental Science 6 18%
Engineering 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 18%
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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,568,236
of 23,934,504 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,237
of 4,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,787
of 332,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#49
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,934,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 332,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.