SynthesisAmbio2022
Revaluating forest drought experiments according to future precipitation patterns, ecosystem carbon and decomposition rate responses: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Moisture availability is a strong determinant of decomposition rates in forests worldwide. Climate models suggest that many terrestrial ecosystems are at risk from future droughts, suggesting moisture limiting conditions will develop across a range of forests worldwide. The impacts of increasing drought conditions on forest carbon (C) fluxes due to shifts in organic matter decay rates may be poorly characterised due to limited experimental research. To appraise this question, we conducted a meta-analysis of forest drought experiment studies worldwide, examining spatial limits, knowledge gaps and potential biases. To identify limits to experimental knowledge, we projected the global distribution of forest drought experiments against spatially modelled estimates of (i) future precipitation change, (ii) ecosystem total above-ground C and (iii) soil C storage. Our assessment, involving 115 individual experimental study locations, found a mismatch between the distribution of forest drought experiments and regions with higher levels of future drought risk and C storage, such as Central America, Amazonia, the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, equatorial Africa and Indonesia. Decomposition rate responses in litter and soil were also relatively under-studied, with only 30 experiments specifically examining the potential experimental impacts of drought on C fluxes from soil or litter. We propose new approaches for engaging experimentally with forest drought research, utilising standardised protocols to appraise the impacts of drought on the C cycle, while targeting the most vulnerable and relevant forests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.