↓ Skip to main content

Climatic Correlates of Tree Mortality in Water- and Energy-Limited Forests

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
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
Climatic Correlates of Tree Mortality in Water- and Energy-Limited Forests
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0069917
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian J. Das, Nathan L. Stephenson, Alan Flint, Tapash Das, Phillip J. van Mantgem

Abstract

Recent increases in tree mortality rates across the western USA are correlated with increasing temperatures, but mechanisms remain unresolved. Specifically, increasing mortality could predominantly be a consequence of temperature-induced increases in either (1) drought stress, or (2) the effectiveness of tree-killing insects and pathogens. Using long-term data from California's Sierra Nevada mountain range, we found that in water-limited (low-elevation) forests mortality was unambiguously best modeled by climatic water deficit, consistent with the first mechanism. In energy-limited (high-elevation) forests deficit models were only equivocally better than temperature models, suggesting that the second mechanism is increasingly important in these forests. We could not distinguish between models predicting mortality using absolute versus relative changes in water deficit, and these two model types led to different forecasts of mortality vulnerability under future climate scenarios. Our results provide evidence for differing climatic controls of tree mortality in water- and energy-limited forests, while highlighting the need for an improved understanding of tree mortality processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 137 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 26%
Researcher 33 23%
Student > Master 18 13%
Professor 6 4%
Student > Bachelor 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 51 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 29%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 10%
Engineering 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 28 19%
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 26 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,342,133
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,156
of 193,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,416
of 198,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,642
of 4,796 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 198,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,796 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.