Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating theories of drought‐induced vegetation mortality using a multimodel–experiment framework

Open access
McDowell, Nate G., Fisher, Rosie A., Xu, Chonggang, Domec, J. C., Hölttä, Teemu, Mackay, D. Scott, Sperry, John S., Boutz, Amanda, Dickman, Lee, Gehres, Nathan, Limousin, Jean Marc, Macalady, Alison, Martínez‐Vilalta, Jordi, Mencuccini, Maurizio, Plaut, Jennifer A., Ogée, Jérôme, Pangle, Robert E., Rasse, Daniel P., Ryan, Michael G., Sevanto, Sanna, Waring, Richard H., Williams, A. Park, Yepez, Enrico A., Pockman, William T.·2013·New Phytologist
DOI 10.1111/nph.12465
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Model–data comparisons of plant physiological processes provide an understanding of mechanisms underlying vegetation responses to climate. We simulated the physiology of a piñon pine–juniper woodland (Pinus edulis–Juniperus monosperma) that experienced mortality during a 5 yr precipitation‐reduction experiment, allowing a framework with which to examine our knowledge of drought‐induced tree mortality. We used six models designed for scales ranging from individual plants to a global level, all containing state‐of‐the‐art representations of the internal hydraulic and carbohydrate dynamics of woody plants. Despite the large range of model structures, tuning, and parameterization employed, all simulations predicted hydraulic failure and carbon starvation processes co‐occurring in dying trees of both species, with the time spent with severe hydraulic failure and carbon starvation, rather than absolute thresholds per se, being a better predictor of impending mortality. Model and empirical data suggest that limited carbon and water exchanges at stomatal, phloem, and below‐ground interfaces were associated with mortality of both species. The model–data comparison suggests that the introduction of a mechanistic process into physiology‐based models provides equal or improved predictive power over traditional process‐model or empirical thresholds. Both biophysical and empirical modeling approaches are useful in understanding processes, particularly when the models fail, because they reveal mechanisms that are likely to underlie mortality. We suggest that for some ecosystems, integration of mechanistic pathogen models into current vegetation models, and evaluation against observations, could result in a breakthrough capability to simulate vegetation dynamics. Contents Summary 305 I. Background 305 II. Model–experiment approach 306 III. Simulations of hydraulic failure and carbon starvation 310 IV. On thresholds vs duration of stress as drivers of mortality 311 V. Interdependence of hydraulic failure and carbon starvation 314 VI. Next‐generation, traditional, and empirical models 316 VII. A path forward 317 VIII. Conclusions 318 Acknowledgements 318 References 318

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nph.12465

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 420

Metadata

Authors
McDowell, N. G., Fisher, R. A., Xu, C., Domec, J. C., Hölttä, T., Mackay, D. S., Sperry, J. S., Boutz, A., Dickman, L., Gehres, N., Limousin, J. M., Macalady, A., Martínez‐Vilalta, J., Mencuccini, M., Plaut, J. A., Ogée, J., Pangle, R. E., Rasse, D. P., Ryan, M. G., Sevanto, S., Waring, R. H., Williams, A. P., Yepez, E. A., & Pockman, W. T.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-05
Volume
200
Issue
2
Pages
304-321
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
DOI
10.1111/nph.12465
OpenAlex
W2140982044
Cited by
420
References
105
FWCI
34.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.