2013
DOI: 10.1214/13-ba806
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feedback and Modularization in a Bayesian Meta–analysis of Tree Traits Affecting Forest Dynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
58
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

6
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
1
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The influence of intra-specific variability is likely to be negligible because we quantified tradeoffs based on 23 traits, with many traits describing morphological features (e.g., leaf arrangement) that are expected to be largely fixed for a given species; however, some traits (e.g., SLA) are likely to varying within a species (Ogle et al 2012). However, Albert et al (2010) found that the PCoA solution based on continuous traits exhibiting considerable intra-specific variability remains stable irrespective of whether an analysis was conducted at the species, population, or individual level.…”
Section: Significance Of the Results In Terms Of Data And Methodologimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The influence of intra-specific variability is likely to be negligible because we quantified tradeoffs based on 23 traits, with many traits describing morphological features (e.g., leaf arrangement) that are expected to be largely fixed for a given species; however, some traits (e.g., SLA) are likely to varying within a species (Ogle et al 2012). However, Albert et al (2010) found that the PCoA solution based on continuous traits exhibiting considerable intra-specific variability remains stable irrespective of whether an analysis was conducted at the species, population, or individual level.…”
Section: Significance Of the Results In Terms Of Data And Methodologimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two traits leaf type with 3 levels (needle-leaved, scale-like, broadleaved) and leaf deciduousness with 3 levels (evergreen, deciduous, evergreen/deciduous) were combined to one nominal trait with 6 levels (called leaf type) to reduce the strong separating effects of the traits with a low number of levels. SLA was a standardized species specific estimate based on a comprehensive meta-analysis for North America which accounts for phylogeny and intra-specific variability (Ogle et al 2012).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used quantiles instead of minimum and maximum values to minimize the effect of outliers caused by potential mismatches intersecting species range maps with climate. We collected the five continuous traits [wood density (in gram per cubic centimeter), seed mass (in milligrams), SLA (in square centimeter per gram), plant maximum height (in meters), and tree longevity (in years)] from literature sources (52,53), databases (54)(55)(56) and, in the case of SLA, species-specific estimates corrected for high intraspecific variation (57). We compiled species-specific mean trait values for each of the 250 tree species as described in Stahl et al (58).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wood density sample means, standard errors, samples sizes, associated covariates and details of the study location were entered into the TreeTraits data base (Kattge et al 2011;Ogle, Barber & Sartor 2013). When available, covariates extracted from published studies included wood moisture content (%), moisture content type (i.e.…”
Section: Wood Density Data Basementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, Flores & Coomes (2011) described a hierarchical Bayesian (HB) model that incorporates phylogenies using branch lengths to define covariance matrices, which they employed to obtain species-specific WD estimates for hundreds of species. We significantly build-upon Chamberlain et al (2012) and Flores & Coomes (2011) by employing a new model-based HB meta-analysis approach that has been recently described (Ogle, Barber & Sartor 2013); the approach employs a flexible, probabilistic framework for incorporating species relationships, addressing within study non-independence, accommodating incomplete reporting and quantifying the effects of important covariates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%