Previous mangrove tree ring studies attempted, unsuccessfully, to relate the δ(18) O of trunk cellulose (δ(18) O(CELL) ) to the δ(18) O of source water (δ(18) O(SW) ). Here, we tested whether biochemical fractionation associated with one of the oxygen in the cellulose glucose moiety or variation in leaf water oxygen isotope fractionation (Δ(LW) ) can interfere with the δ(18) O(SW) signal as it is recorded in the δ(18) O(CELL) of mangrove (saltwater) and hammock (freshwater) plants. We selected two transects experiencing a salinity gradient, located in the Florida Keys, USA. The δ(18) O(CELL) throughout both transects did not show the pattern expected based on that of the δ(18) O(SW) . We found that in one of the transects, biochemical fractionation interfered with the δ(18) O(SW) signal, while in the other transect Δ(LW) differed between mangrove and hammock plants. Observed differences in Δ(LW) between mangroves and hammocks were caused by a longer effective leaf mixing length (L) of the water pathway in mangrove leaves compared to those of hammock leaves. Changes in L could have caused the δ(18) O(CELL) to record not only variations in the δ(18) O(SW) but also in Δ(LW) making it impossible to isolate the δ(18) O(SW) signal.
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 18 July 2012.
All research outputs
#22,368,297
of 27,369,606 outputs
Outputs from Plant, Cell & Environment
#2,744
of 3,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,394
of 183,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant, Cell & Environment
#26
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,369,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 183,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
