2022
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-30888-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Global relationships in tree functional traits

Abstract: Due to massive energetic investments in woody support structures, trees are subject to unique physiological, mechanical, and ecological pressures not experienced by herbaceous plants. Despite a wealth of studies exploring trait relationships across the entire plant kingdom, the dominant traits underpinning these unique aspects of tree form and function remain unclear. Here, by considering 18 functional traits, encompassing leaf, seed, bark, wood, crown, and root characteristics, we quantify the multidimensiona… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 95 publications
(187 reference statements)
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LA, representing leaf size, is closely related to plant energy balance (including energy uptake and conversion) and is a reliable indicator of GPP on a large scale 20 . A recent global-scale study revealed a strong relationship between LA and canopy size (including canopy height, diameter, and tree height), which reflects the total photosynthetic capacity of the whole tree 40 . While this explains why LA can predict large-scale variation in GPP, this coupling does not necessarily reflect causality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…LA, representing leaf size, is closely related to plant energy balance (including energy uptake and conversion) and is a reliable indicator of GPP on a large scale 20 . A recent global-scale study revealed a strong relationship between LA and canopy size (including canopy height, diameter, and tree height), which reflects the total photosynthetic capacity of the whole tree 40 . While this explains why LA can predict large-scale variation in GPP, this coupling does not necessarily reflect causality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The measured individual-level functional traits for woody and herbaceous plants included leaf area (LA, cm 2 ), leaf dry mass (LM, g), specific leaf area (SLA, cm 2 /g), leaf nitrogen concentration (LNC, mg/g), and leaf phosphorus concentration (LPC, mg/g), closely related to plant photosynthesis and growth 29 , 49 (Text S 4 ). Functional traits were divided into size traits, reflecting plant size and light competitiveness, and economic traits, reflecting leaf photosynthetic capacity and nutrient economic 40 , 50 . All of these traits selected in this study are closely related to the plant light competitiveness and ecosystem photosynthetic capacity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the one hand, species occurrence data from large databases such as GBIF or iNaturalist have been combined with machine learning techniques (Wolf et al, 2022) (Moreno-Martínez et al, in prep. ) in an effort to make use of the strong predictive power of species and phylogeny (Kattge et al, 2011;Vallicrosa et al, 2021;Maynard et al, 2022). On the other hand, hyperspectral reflectance of plant canopies in the visible and near-infrared range has already been successfully used to map foliar traits at regional scales based on airborne remote sensing Wang et al, 2020).…”
Section: Future Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have a broad understanding of how trade-offs between traits along the fast-slow spectrum relate to plant ecological strategies, yet the timing of the trade-offs between the traits and how this intraspecific variation impacts plant function is poorly understood. Furthermore, key evolutionary synapomorphies that separate seed-free lineages and seed-bearing lineages may have strong impacts on allocation and life-history variation including secondary growth (woodiness) (Pittermann et al, 2006(Pittermann et al, , 2011Chave et al, 2009;Maynard et al, 2022) and reproductive structures borne on sporophytic vegetative structures (seeds, cones, flowers, etc.) (Obeso, 2002;Queenborough et al, 2007;Wiley et al, 2017;Krieg et al, 2023).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%