↓ Skip to main content

Pervasive phosphorus limitation of tree species but not communities in tropical forests

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, March 2018
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 (97th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
57 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
244 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
352 Mendeley
Title
Pervasive phosphorus limitation of tree species but not communities in tropical forests
Published in
Nature, March 2018
DOI 10.1038/nature25789
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin L. Turner, Tania Brenes-Arguedas, Richard Condit

Abstract

Phosphorus availability is widely assumed to limit primary productivity in tropical forests, but support for this paradigm is equivocal. Although biogeochemical theory predicts that phosphorus limitation should be prevalent on old, strongly weathered soils, experimental manipulations have failed to detect a consistent response to phosphorus addition in species-rich lowland tropical forests. Here we show, by quantifying the growth of 541 tropical tree species across a steep natural phosphorus gradient in Panama, that phosphorus limitation is widespread at the level of individual species and strengthens markedly below a threshold of two parts per million exchangeable soil phosphate. However, this pervasive species-specific phosphorus limitation does not translate into a community-wide response, because some species grow rapidly on infertile soils despite extremely low phosphorus availability. These results redefine our understanding of nutrient limitation in diverse plant communities and have important implications for attempts to predict the response of tropical forests to environmental change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 X users 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 352 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 352 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 21%
Researcher 65 18%
Student > Master 37 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 7%
Student > Bachelor 24 7%
Other 49 14%
Unknown 78 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 109 31%
Environmental Science 78 22%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 23 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 13 4%
Unknown 112 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#455,129
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#21,400
of 98,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,432
of 348,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#480
of 914 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 348,794 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 914 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.