↓ Skip to main content

Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Plants, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
233 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
531 Mendeley
Title
Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide
Published in
Nature Plants, September 2015
DOI 10.1038/nplants.2015.139
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy C. Bennett, Nathan G. McDowell, Craig D. Allen, Kristina J. Anderson-Teixeira

Abstract

The frequency of severe droughts is increasing in many regions around the world as a result of climate change(1-3). Droughts alter the structure and function of forests(4,5). Site- and region-specific studies suggest that large trees, which play keystone roles in forests(6) and can be disproportionately important to ecosystem carbon storage(7) and hydrology(8), exhibit greater sensitivity to drought than small trees(4,5,9,10). Here, we synthesize data on tree growth and mortality collected during 40 drought events in forests worldwide to see whether this size-dependent sensitivity to drought holds more widely. We find that droughts consistently had a more detrimental impact on the growth and mortality rates of larger trees. Moreover, drought-related mortality increased with tree size in 65% of the droughts examined, especially when community-wide mortality was high or when bark beetles were present. The more pronounced drought sensitivity of larger trees could be underpinned by greater inherent vulnerability to hydraulic stress(11-14), the higher radiation and evaporative demand experienced by exposed crowns(4,15), and the tendency for bark beetles to preferentially attack larger trees(16). We suggest that future droughts will have a more detrimental impact on the growth and mortality of larger trees, potentially exacerbating feedbacks to climate change.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 531 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Brazil 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 512 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 129 24%
Researcher 101 19%
Student > Master 89 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 43 8%
Professor 28 5%
Other 89 17%
Unknown 52 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 196 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 175 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 41 8%
Engineering 8 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 <1%
Other 18 3%
Unknown 89 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 146. 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 06 October 2019.
All research outputs
#108,189
of 14,091,558 outputs
Outputs from Nature Plants
#57
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,780
of 249,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Plants
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,091,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 249,203 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.