Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects.We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives. Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) and DIVERSITAS, the TRY database (TRY-not an acronym, rather a statement of sentiment; https ://www.try-db.org; Kattge et al., 2011) was proposed with the explicit assignment to improve the availability and accessibility of plant trait data for ecology and earth system sciences. The Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (MPI-BGC) offered to host the database and the different groups joined forces for this community-driven program. Two factors were key to the success of TRY: the support and trust of leaders in the field of functional plant ecology submitting large databases and the long-term funding by the Max Planck Society, the MPI-BGC and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, which has enabled the continuous development of the TRY database.

Including ecosystem functions into restoration ecology has been repeatedly suggested, yet there is limited evidence that this is taking place without bias to certain habitats, species, or functions. We reviewed the inclusion of ecosystem functions in restoration and potential relations to habitats and species by extracting 224 publications from the literature (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013). Most studies investigated forests, fewer grasslands or freshwaters, and fewest wetlands or marine habitats. Of all studies, 14% analyzed only ecosystem functions, 44% considered both biotic composition and functions, 42% exclusively studied the biotic component, mostly vascular plants, more rarely invertebrates or vertebrates, and least often microbes. Most studies investigating ecosystem functions focused on nutrient cycling (26%), whereas productivity (18%), water relations (16%), and geomorphological processes (14%) were less covered; carbon sequestration (10%), decomposition (6%), and trophic interactions (6%) were rarely studied. Monitoring of ecosystem functions was common in forests and grasslands, but the functions considered depended on the study organisms. These associations indicate research opportunities for certain habitats, species, and functions. Overall, the call to include ecosystem functions in restoration has been heard; however, a lack of clarity about the ecosystem functions to be included and deficits of feasible field methods are major obstacles for a functional approach. Restoration ecology should learn from recent advances in rapid assessment of ecosystem functions, and by a closer integration with biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Not all functions need to be measured in all ecosystems, but more functions than the few commonly addressed would improve the understanding of restored ecosystems.

Questions Plant communities in transitional zones between ecosystem types have potentially a large range of ecological strategies, even along short gradients. Exploring these regional differences and the drivers of variation is important to understand plant adaptations and changes in ecological processes between distinct ecosystems. Here, we ask whether distinct forest types in the subtropical region present plant communities with distinct ecological strategies and, if so, if these differences are driven by climatic variables. Location Subtropical forests in southern Brazil. Methods We compiled species lists from 112 sites distributed across rainforests, seasonal forests, Araucaria forests and Pampean forests. We used Grime's CSR scheme and calculated, for each species, CSR values based on information of three leaf traits: leaf area, specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content. Species CSR values were used to calculate the mean value for each community. We selected four climatic variables related to temperate and precipitation and analyzed their influence on plant strategies by linear mixed models. Results Our results showed a strong CS component for all subtropical forests studied, with a small contribution from component R. We found clear differences in ecological strategies between forest types: rainforest showed the highest values of component C, and Araucaria and Pampean forests presented the highest values of component S. We found a strong influence of temperature variables on ecological strategies. Conclusions Even along a short latitudinal gradient, we found differences in ecological strategies across forest types. Araucaria and Pampean forests were strongly associated with the stress‐tolerant strategy, as they face lower minimum temperatures and/or a larger temperature range, whereas rainforests, which face warmer temperatures and a lower range of variation, presented a strategy where competition is of higher importance. This highlights that regional environmental conditions in this transitional zone influence ecological strategies of tree communities.

No abstract

No abstract