↓ Skip to main content

A synthesis of radial growth patterns preceding tree mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Global Change Biology, November 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

41 tweeters
1 Facebook page


166 Dimensions

Readers on

388 Mendeley
2 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.
A synthesis of radial growth patterns preceding tree mortality
Published in
Global Change Biology, November 2016
DOI 10.1111/gcb.13535
Pubmed ID

Maxime Cailleret, Steven Jansen, Elisabeth M. R. Robert, Lucía Desoto, Tuomas Aakala, Joseph A. Antos, Barbara Beikircher, Christof Bigler, Harald Bugmann, Marco Caccianiga, Vojtěch Čada, Jesus J. Camarero, Paolo Cherubini, Hervé Cochard, Marie R. Coyea, Katarina Čufar, Adrian J. Das, Hendrik Davi, Sylvain Delzon, Michael Dorman, Guillermo Gea‐Izquierdo, Sten Gillner, Laurel J. Haavik, Henrik Hartmann, Ana‐Maria Hereş, Kevin R. Hultine, Pavel Janda, Jeffrey M. Kane, Vyacheslav I. Kharuk, Thomas Kitzberger, Tamir Klein, Koen Kramer, Frederic Lens, Tom Levanic, Juan C. Linares Calderon, Francisco Lloret, Raquel Lobo‐Do‐Vale, Fabio Lombardi, Rosana López Rodríguez, Harri Mäkinen, Stefan Mayr, Ilona Mészáros, Juha M. Metsaranta, Francesco Minunno, Walter Oberhuber, Andreas Papadopoulos, Mikko Peltoniemi, Any M. Petritan, Brigitte Rohner, Gabriel Sangüesa‐Barreda, Dimitrios Sarris, Jeremy M. Smith, Amanda B. Stan, Frank Sterck, Dejan B. Stojanović, Maria L. Suarez, Miroslav Svoboda, Roberto Tognetti, José M. Torres‐Ruiz, Volodymyr Trotsiuk, Ricardo Villalba, Floor Vodde, Alana R. Westwood, Peter H. Wyckoff, Nikolay Zafirov, Jordi Martínez‐Vilalta


Tree mortality is a key factor influencing forest functions and dynamics, but our understanding of the mechanisms leading to mortality and the associated changes in tree growth rates are still limited. We compiled a new pan-continental tree-ring width database from sites where both dead and living trees were sampled (2,970 dead and 4,224 living trees from 190 sites, including 36 species), and compared early and recent growth rates between trees that died and those that survived a given mortality event. We observed a decrease in radial growth before death in ca. 84% of the mortality events. The extent and duration of these reductions were highly variable (1-100 years in 96% of events) due to the complex interactions among study species and the source(s) of mortality. Strong and long-lasting declines were found for gymnosperms, shade- and drought-tolerant species, and trees that died from competition. Angiosperms and trees that died due to biotic attacks (especially bark-beetles) typically showed relatively small and short-term growth reductions. Our analysis did not highlight any universal trade-off between early growth and tree longevity within a species, although this result may also reflect high variability in sampling design among sites. The inter-site and inter-specific variability in growth patterns before mortality provides valuable information on the nature of the mortality process, which is consistent with our understanding of the physiological mechanisms leading to mortality. Abrupt changes in growth immediately before death can be associated with generalized hydraulic failure and/or bark beetle attack, while long-term decrease in growth may be associated with a gradual decline in hydraulic performance coupled with depletion in carbon reserves. Our results imply that growth-based mortality algorithms may be a powerful tool for predicting gymnosperm mortality induced by chronic stress, but not necessarily so for angiosperms and in case of intense drought or bark-beetle outbreaks. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 388 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 380 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 25%
Researcher 92 24%
Student > Master 51 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 19 5%
Other 63 16%
Unknown 41 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 38%
Environmental Science 139 36%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 <1%
Engineering 3 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 69 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 17 January 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,050,863 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
of 4,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 296,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,050,863 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 296,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.