raits, broadly speaking, are measurable attributes or characteristics of organisms. Traits related to function (for example, leaf size, body mass, tooth size or growth form) are often used to understand how organisms interact with their environment and other species via key vital rates such as survival, development and reproduction 1-5. Trait-based approaches have long been used in systematics and macroevolution to delineate taxa and reconstruct ancestral morphology and function 6-8 and to link candidate genes to phentoypes 9-11. The broad appeal of the trait concept is its ability to facilitate quantitative comparisons of biological form and function. Traits also allow us to mechanistically link organismal responses to abiotic and biotic factors with measurements that are, in principle, relatively easy to capture across large numbers of individuals. For example, appropriately chosen and defined traits can help identify lineages that share similar life-history strategies for a given environmental regime 12,13. Documenting and understanding the diversity and composition of traits in ecosystems directly contributes to our understanding of organismal and ecosystem processes, functionality, productivity and resilience in the face of environmental change 14-19. In light of the multiple applications of trait data to address challenges of global significance (Box 1), a central question remains: How can we most effectively advance the synthesis of trait data within and across disciplines? In recent decades, the collection, compilation and availability of trait data for a variety of organisms has accelerated rapidly. Substantial trait databases now exist for plants 20-23 , reptiles 24,25 , invertebrates 23,26-29 , fish 30,31 , corals 32 , birds 23,33,34 , amphibians 35 , mammals 23,36-38 and fungi 23,39 , and parallel efforts are no doubt underway for other taxa. Though considerable effort has been made to quantify traits for some groups (for example, Fig. 1), substantial work remains. To develop and test theory in biodiversity science, much greater effort is needed to fill in trait data across the Tree of Life by combining and integrating data and trait collection efforts.

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, and multiple targets be pursued concurrently 1 . To support governments and political conventions, spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature's contribution to people (NCP). Here we present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

Aim To quantify the impact of the 2019–2020 megafires on Australian plant diversity by assessing burnt area across 26,062 species ranges and the effects of fire history on recovery potential. Further, to exemplify a strategic approach to prioritizing plant species affected by fire for recovery actions and conservation planning at a national scale. Location Australia. Methods We combine data on geographic range, fire extent, response traits and fire history to assess the proportion of species ranges burnt in both the 2019–2020 fires and the past. Results Across Australia, suitable habitat for 69% of all plant species was burnt (17,197 species) by the 2019–2020 fires and herbarium specimens confirm the presence of 9,092 of these species across the fire extent since 1950. Burnt ranges include those of 587 plants listed as threatened under national legislation (44% of Australia's threatened plants). A total of 3,998 of the 17,197 fire‐affected species are known to resprout after fire, but at least 2,928 must complete their entire life cycle—from germinant to reproducing adult—prior to subsequent fires, as they are killed by fire. Data on previous fires show that, for 257 species, the historical intervals between fire events across their range are likely too short to allow regeneration. For a further 411 species, future fires during recovery will increase extinction risk as current populations are dominated by immature individuals. Main conclusion Many Australian plant species have strategies to persist under certain fire regimes, and will recover given time, suitable conditions and low exposure to threats. However, short fire intervals both before and after the 2019–2020 fire season pose a serious risk to the recovery of at least 595 species. Persistent knowledge gaps about species fire response and post‐fire population persistence threaten the effective long‐term management of Australian vegetation in an increasingly pyric world.

paragraph 64 65To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, countries and the 66 international community require clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially, 67and multiple targets be pursued concurrently 1 . To support governments and political conventions, 68 spatial guidance is needed to identify which areas should be managed for conservation to generate 69 the greatest synergies between biodiversity and nature's contribution to people (NCP). Here we 70 present results from a joint optimization that maximizes improvements in species conservation 71 status, carbon retention and water provisioning and rank terrestrial conservation priorities globally. 72We found that, selecting the top-ranked 30% (respectively 50%) of areas would conserve 62.4% 73 (86.8%) of the estimated total carbon stock and 67.8% (90.7%) of all clean water provisioning, in 74 addition to improving the conservation status for 69.7% (83.8%) of all species considered. If 75 priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for 76 conservation may be sufficient to improve the conservation status of 86.3% of plant and vertebrate 77 species on Earth. Our results provide a global baseline on where land could be managed for 78conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritisation framework can support the 79 implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions. 80 81 82(SDGs), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the CBD 97 emphasize that habitat conservation and restoration should contribute simultaneously to 98 biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation 4 . Recent analyses of conservation 99priorities for biodiversity and carbon have spatially overlaid areas of importance for both assets, 100effectively treating the two goals as to be pursued separately (e.g. 6,9 ). However, multi-criteria 101 spatial optimization approaches applied to conservation and restoration prioritisation have shown 102 that carbon sequestration could be doubled, and the number of extinctions prevented tripled, if 103 priority areas were jointly identified rather than independently 10,11 . Yet, no comparable 104 optimization analyses exist at a global scale. 105A number of recent studies have attempted to map spatial conservation priorities on land 12 , 106relying on spatial conservation prioritisation (SCP) methods . However, these approaches are 107 limited, in that: they (i) are limited by geographic extent 22 or focus on only a subset of global 108 biodiversity, notably ignoring either reptiles or plant species, which show considerable variation 109 in areas of importance compared to other taxa 18,19 ; (ii) focus on species representation only, rather 110 than reducing extinction risk, as per international biodiversity targets, and often ignore other 111 dimensions of biodiversity, e.g. evolutionary distinctiveness 20,21 ; (iii) do not investigate the extent 112 to which synergies between biodiversity and NCPs, such as carbon seq...

Questions:The taxonomic and functional composition of plant communities captures different dimensions of diversity. Functional diversity (FD) -as calculated from species traits -typically increases with species richness in communities and is expected to be higher in less extreme environments, where a broader range of functional strategies can persist. Further, woody and herbaceous plant families may contribute disproportionately to FD in different bioregions. To build an understanding of these questions using Australia as a case study, we aimed to quantify how FD varies: (a) with species richness, (b) with climate, and (c) between major plant families representing different growth forms. Location: Australia.Methods: Data on species distribution and functional traits for 14,003 species were combined and FD approximated using hypervolumes (i.e. multidimensional species assemblage trait niche) based on three traits key to understanding plant ecological strategies: leaf size, seed mass and adult height. Plant assemblage hypervolumes were calculated including all species with suitable habitat in each 10 × 10 km grid cell across Australia, and in each of 85 bioregions. Within bioregions FD was also calculated separately for a suite of largely woody and herbaceous plant families.Relationships between FD, species richness and climate were explored.Results: As predicted, FD was positively related to species richness and annual precipitation, and negatively related to summer maximum temperature, both in analyses of 10 km × 10 km grid cells and of bioregions (all p < 0.005). However, FD was lowest at intermediate winter minimum temperatures. Patterns identified in families representing different growth forms varied to those observed for all species analysed together. Conclusions:Strong links between FD and climate could mean significant shifts in the FD of ecosystems with climate change. Monitoring changes in FD and associated ecosystem functions requires a detailed understanding of FD, which we begin to develop in this study.