ArticleOecologia2026
'Fast' and 'slow' water handling strategies explain pinyon pine decline and juniper expansion.
Article in Oecologia, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Semiarid forests in the western USA have undergone large-scale shifts in dominance due to decreasing pinyon pine abundance and increasing juniper abundance. This shift has been attributed to fast water loss in aboveground pinyon tissues during a long-term drought. Water loss, or 'outputs', however, are only a part of a plant's water budget. Water inputs, or root water uptake, are also important, but rarely well understood. We used depth-controlled tracer experiments, root water potentials, and soil water flow models to estimate pinyon and juniper inputs (root water uptake) and stomatal conductance as a proxy for water outputs. Measurements were made over two years at three sites that crossed an aridity gradient, Utah, USA. Pinyon roots were good at 'following' water through the soil, but not good at absorbing water from dry soil. Pinyon tracer uptake profiles (1-90 cm) changed more from month to month than juniper (coefficient of variation = 0.25 ± 0.02 and 0.16 ± 0.02, respectively) in ways that provided 12% more water over time. However, because pinyon roots had higher water potentials, the net water uptake advantage for pinyon was smaller: over six sampling dates, pinyon absorbed 2% more tracer than juniper. Aboveground, pinyon stomatal conductance was 25% greater than juniper. Results indicate that pinyon both absorbs and releases water faster than juniper. These 'fast' aboveground and belowground strategies place pinyon at higher risk of rapid transitions from growth to mortality than previously thought from aboveground research alone and suggests continued pinyon mortality in the future.
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.