Back

Global trade-offs in tree functional traits

Maynard, D. S.; Bialic-Murphy, L.; Zohner, C. M.; Averill, C.; van den Hoogen, J.; Ma, H.; Mo, L.; Smith, G. R.; Aubin, I.; Berenguer, E.; Boonman, C. C. F.; Catford, J.; Cerabolini, B. E. L.; Dias, A.; Gonzalez-Melo, A.; Heitz, P.; Lusk, C. H.; Mori, A. S.; Niinemets, U.; Pillar, V. D.; Rosell, J. A.; Schurr, F. M.; Sheremetev, S. N.; da Silva, A. C.; Sosinski, E.; van Bodegom, P. M.; Weiher, E.; Bönisch, G.; Kattge, J.; Crowther, T. W.

2021-09-17 ecology
10.1101/2021.09.16.458157 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWDue to massive energetic investments in woody support structures, trees are subject to unique physiological, mechanical, and ecological pressures not experienced by herbaceous plants. When considering trait relationships across the entire plant kingdom, plant trait frameworks typically must omit traits unique to large woody species, thereby limiting our understanding of how these distinct ecological pressures shape trait relationships in trees. Here, by considering 18 functional traits--reflecting leaf economics, wood structure, tree size, reproduction, and below-ground allocation--we quantify the major axes of variation governing trait expression of trees worldwide. We show that trait variation within and across angiosperms and gymnosperms is captured by two independent processes: one reflecting tree size and competition for light, the other reflecting leaf photosynthetic capacity and nutrient economies. By exploring multidimensional relationships across clusters of traits, we further identify a representative set of seven traits which captures the majority of variation in form and function in trees: maximum tree height, stem conduit diameter, specific leaf area, seed mass, bark thickness, root depth, and wood density. Collectively, this work informs future trait-based research into the functional biogeography of trees, and contributes to our fundamental understanding of the ecological and evolutionary controls on forest biodiversity and productivity worldwide.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.