↓ Skip to main content

Defoliating Insect Mass Outbreak Affects Soil N Fluxes and Tree N Nutrition in Scots Pine Forests

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Defoliating Insect Mass Outbreak Affects Soil N Fluxes and Tree N Nutrition in Scots Pine Forests
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.00954
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maren M. Grüning, Judy Simon, Heinz Rennenberg, Anne l-M-Arnold

Abstract

Biotic stress by mass outbreaks of defoliating pest insects does not only affect tree performance by reducing its photosynthetic capacity, but also changes N cycling in the soil of forest ecosystems. However, how insect induced defoliation affects soil N fluxes and, in turn, tree N nutrition is not well-studied. In the present study, we quantified N input and output fluxes via dry matter input, throughfall, and soil leachates. Furthermore, we investigated the effects of mass insect herbivory on tree N acquisition (i.e., organic and inorganic (15)N net uptake capacity of fine roots) as well as N pools in fine roots and needles in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forest over an entire vegetation period. Plots were either infested by the nun moth (Lymantria monacha L.) or served as controls. Our results show an increased N input by insect feces, litter, and throughfall at the infested plots compared to controls, as well as increased leaching of nitrate. However, the additional N input into the soil did not increase, but reduce inorganic and organic net N uptake capacity of Scots pine roots. N pools in the fine roots and needles of infested trees showed an accumulation of total N, amino acid-N, protein-N, and structural N in the roots and the remaining needles as a compensatory response triggered by defoliation. Thus, although soil N availability was increased via surplus N input, trees did not respond with an increased N acquisition, but rather invested resources into defense by accumulation of amino acid-N and protein-N as a survival strategy.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 20 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 23%
Environmental Science 8 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Unknown 24 46%
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 12 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#16,340
of 20,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,076
of 317,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#514
of 593 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,449 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 317,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 593 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.