Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34795348›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Transpiration rates of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) differ between management contexts in urban forests of Maryland, USA.

Sarah Ponte, Nancy F Sonti, Tuana H Phillips, Mitchell A Pavao-Zuckerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah PonteDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1428 Anim. Sci/Agr. Eng Bldg., College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Nancy F SontiUSDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Tuana H PhillipsDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1428 Anim. Sci/Agr. Eng Bldg., College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Mitchell A Pavao-ZuckermanDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1428 Anim. Sci/Agr. Eng Bldg., College Park, MD, 20742, USA. mpzucker@umd.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hydrological functioning of urban trees can reduce stormwater runoff, mitigate the risk of flood, and improve water quality in developed areas. Tree canopies intercept rainfall and return water to the atmosphere through transpiration, while roots increase infiltration and storage in the soil. Despite this, the amount of stormwater that trees remove through these functions in urban settings is not well characterized, limiting the use of urban forests as practical stormwater management strategies. To address this gap, we use ecohydrological approaches to assess the transpiration rates of urban trees in different management settings. Our research questions are: Do transpiration rates of trees of the same species vary among different management contexts? Do relationships between environmental drivers and transpiration change among management contexts? These management settings included single trees over turfgrass and a cluster of trees over turfgrass in Montgomery County, MD, and closed canopy forest with a leaf litter layer in Baltimore, MD. We used sap flux sensors installed in 18 mature red maple (Acer rubrum L.) trees to characterize transpiration rates during the growing season. We also measured soil volumetric water content, air temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation at each site. In agreement with our initial hypothesis, we found that single trees had nearly three times the daily sum of sap flux density (J

Identifiers

PMID34795348
PMCPMC8602653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.