↓ Skip to main content

Apparent climatically induced increase of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, July 2007
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
277 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
439 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Apparent climatically induced increase of tree mortality rates in a temperate forest
Published in
Ecology Letters, July 2007
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01080.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip J van Mantgem, Nathan L Stephenson

Abstract

We provide a first detailed analysis of long-term, annual-resolution demographic trends in a temperate forest. After tracking the fates of 21,338 trees in a network of old-growth forest plots in the Sierra Nevada of California, we found that mortality rate, but not the recruitment rate, increased significantly over the 22 years of measurement (1983-2004). Mortality rates increased in both of two dominant taxonomic groups (Abies and Pinus) and in different forest types (different elevational zones). The increase in overall mortality rate resulted from an increase in tree deaths attributed to stress and biotic causes, and coincided with a temperature-driven increase in an index of drought. Our findings suggest that these forests (and by implication, other water-limited forests) may be sensitive to temperature-driven drought stress, and may be poised for die-back if future climates continue to feature rising temperatures without compensating increases in precipitation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 439 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 22 5%
Spain 6 1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 389 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 119 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 19%
Student > Master 64 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 6%
Professor 20 5%
Other 74 17%
Unknown 53 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 152 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 34%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 8%
Engineering 4 <1%
Unspecified 4 <1%
Other 21 5%
Unknown 75 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,932,966
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,019
of 3,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,963
of 79,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 79,571 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 67% of its contemporaries.