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.

No abstract

Field-margin diversification through conservation and restoration of hedgerows is becoming a prominent intervention for promoting biodiversity and associated ecosystem services in intensive agricultural landscapes. However, how increasing cover of hedgerows in the landscape can affect ecosystem services has rarely been considered.\ud Here, we assessed the effect of increased field-margin complexity at the local scale and increasing cover of hedgerows in the landscape on the provision of pest control, weed control and potential pollination. Locally, three types of field margin were compared as follows: (i) standard grass margin, (ii) simple hedgerow and (iii) complex hedgerow, along two independent gradients of hedgerow cover and arable land cover in the landscape. We performed an exclusion experiment to measure biological control of cereal aphids and assessed natural enemy and pest abundance in the field. We sampled plant weed communities and performed a phytometer experiment to test the effects of pollinators on plant reproductive success.\ud At the local scale, planting a new hedgerow or improving its structural complexity and vegetation diversity did not enhance the delivery of ecosystem services in the neighbouring field.\ud However, high cover of hedgerows in the landscape enhanced aphid parasitism (from 12 to 18%) and potential pollination (visitation rate and seed set increased up to 70%) irrespective of local margin quality. The cover of arable land in the landscape reduced the abundance of plant-dwelling predators and weed diversity, but did not affect the delivery of the investigated ecosystem services.\ud Synthesis and applications. Our results highlight the key importance of the surrounding landscape context, rather than local factors, to the delivery of ecosystem services. This suggests a need for new policies that pay particular attention to the conservation of hedgerows at large scales for promoting multiple ecosystem services in agroecosystems. Specifically, hedgerows can serve to develop a network of ecological corridors that can facilitate the movement of beneficial organisms, such as pollinators and natural enemies in the agricultural matrix. Such interventions may be a ‘low cost–high benefit solution’, since farmers can create or conserve high-quality habitats taking little or no land from crop production and without the need to change their crop management

Aim Urbanization as a major global trend profoundly changes biodiversity patterns, and homogenization of urban biotas due to expanding exotic species and declining native species is of increasing concern. Previous studies on this topic have mostly taken place at large scales that include high habitat heterogeneity. Here, we aimed at disentangling the effects of urbanization and plant invasion on species composition through the analysis of similarity patterns of urban plant assemblages at the community scale where species interact. \ud Location Berlin, Germany\ud Methods We analyzed how different levels of urbanization, specific components of the urban matrix and the dominance of a native (Betula pendula) versus an exotic tree species (Robinia pseudoacacia) affect alpha and beta diversity of urban woodland understory vegetation in 68 100-m² plots.\ud Results Exotic dominance reduced alpha diversity but not beta diversity of the total species pool. Comparing beta diversity among different species groups revealed significant but divergent effects of exotic dominance, habitat connectivity and levels of urbanization in native and nonnative species assemblages. In particular, urbanity proved to homogenize the native species pool, whereas the beta diversity of the nonnative species pool showed a more pronounced response to exotic dominance.\ud Main conclusions Our data provide evidence that both the urban context and the dominance of exotic species can modify homogenization processes at the community level. These novel insights into the mechanisms of biotic homogenization of urban floras may contribute to mitigating the effects of urbanization on biodiversity

Policies to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss often assume that protecting carbon‐rich forests provides co‐benefits in terms of biodiversity, due to the spatial congruence of carbon stocks and biodiversity at biogeographic scales. However, it remains unclear whether this holds at the scales relevant for management, and particularly large knowledge gaps exist for temperate forests and for taxa other than trees. We built a comprehensive dataset of Central European temperate forest structure and multi‐taxonomic diversity (beetles, birds, bryophytes, fungi, lichens, and plants) across 352 plots. We used Boosted Regression Trees (BRTs) to assess the relationship between above‐ground live carbon stocks and (a) taxon‐specific richness, (b) a unified multidiversity index. We used Threshold Indicator Taxa ANalysis to explore individual species’ responses to changing above‐ground carbon stocks and to detect change‐points in species composition along the carbon‐stock gradient. Our results reveal an overall weak and highly variable relationship between richness and carbon stock at the stand scale, both for individual taxonomic groups and for multidiversity. Similarly, the proportion of win‐win and trade‐off species (i.e., species favored or disadvantaged by increasing carbon stock, respectively) varied substantially across taxa. Win‐win species gradually replaced trade‐off species with increasing carbon, without clear thresholds along the above‐ground carbon gradient, suggesting that community‐level surrogates (e.g., richness) might fail to detect critical changes in biodiversity. Collectively, our analyses highlight that leveraging co‐benefits between carbon and biodiversity in temperate forest may require stand‐scale management that prioritizes either biodiversity or carbon in order to maximize co‐benefits at broader scales. Importantly, this contrasts with tropical forests, where climate and biodiversity objectives can be integrated at the stand scale, thus highlighting the need for context‐specificity when managing for multiple objectives. Accounting for critical change‐points of target taxa can help to deal with this specificity, by defining a safe operating space to manipulate carbon while avoiding biodiversity losses.

Sustainably managed non-native trees deliver economic and societal benefits with limited risk of spread to adjoining areas. However, some plantations have launched invasions that cause substantial damage to biodiversity and ecosystem services, while others pose substantial threats of causing such impacts. The challenge is to maximise the benefits of non-native trees, while minimising negative impacts and preserving future benefits and options. A workshop was held in 2019 to develop global guidelines for the sustainable use of non-native trees, using the Council of Europe – Bern Convention Code of Conduct on Invasive Alien Trees as a starting point. The global guidelines consist of eight recommendations: 1) Use native trees, or non-invasive non-native trees, in preference to invasive non-native trees; 2) Be aware of and comply with international, national, and regional regulations concerning non-native trees; 3) Be aware of the risk of invasion and consider global change trends; 4) Design and adopt tailored practices for plantation site selection and silvicultural management; 5) Promote and implement early detection and rapid response programmes; 6) Design and adopt tailored practices for invasive non-native tree control, habitat restoration, and for dealing with highly modified ecosystems; 7) Engage with stakeholders on the risks posed by invasive non-native trees, the impacts caused, and the options for management; and 8) Develop and support global networks, collaborative research, and information sharing on native and non-native trees. The global guidelines are a first step towards building global consensus on the precautions that should be taken when introducing and planting non-native trees. They are voluntary and are intended to complement statutory requirements under international and national legislation. The application of the global guidelines and the achievement of their goals will help to conserve forest biodiversity, ensure sustainable forestry, and contribute to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations linked with forest biodiversity.

No abstract

No abstract