Are trait‐based species rankings consistent across data sets and spatial scales?

By E. Kazakou, C. Violle, C. Roumet, M. Navas, D. Vile, Jens Kattge, Eric Garnier. 2014

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ec903ce19b30d737e8263ef883a9857b910f17b2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Fertilization decreases species diversity but increases functional diversity: A three-year experiment in a Tibetan alpine meadow (2014, background): “It is assumed that species hierarchy was mostly well conserved for SLA and mature height across years and environments (Garnier et al., 2001; Kazakou et al., 2013).”
Spatial patterns and climate relationships of major plant traits in the New World differ between woody and herbaceous species (2018, background): “Although some traits show greater plasticity than others (Kattge et al., 2011; Kazakou et al., 2014), intra-specific trait variation may be more important to incorporate when exploring species assembly processes at smaller scales than at larger scales that cover multiple and strongly heterogeneous b”
BHPMF – a hierarchical Bayesian approach to gap-filling and trait prediction for macroecology and functional biogeography (2015, background): “, 2011), differences between species are consistent across spatial scales (Kazakou et al., 2014) and mean trait values at native ranges are appropriate estimates at invaded areas (McMahon, 2002; Ordonez, 2014).”
Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies (2013, methodology): “By using mean trait values for each species, typically measured in locations far from the site of the demographic observations, we ignored between-population variation in both functional traits (37, 38) and demography (39, 40).”
A global meta-analysis of the relative extent of intraspecific trait variation in plant communities. (2015, unknown): “Comparative studies have found that leaf nutrient concentrations are highly labile within species, displaying strong plastic responses to resource availability, whereas leaf morphology tends to be more stable (Rozendaal et al. 2006; Kazakou et al. 2014).”
Spatial scale and intraspecific trait variability mediate assembly rules in alpine grasslands (2017, background): “2015), particularly: (i) for the study of certain functional traits like vegetative height that are inherently very variable within species (Kazakou et al. 2014) and (ii) at small spatial scales where species turnover is limited and intraspecific variability accounts for most of the functional turno”
Climate, soil and plant functional types as drivers of global fine‐root trait variation (2017, background): “It is therefore necessary to determine to what extent fine-root trait values measured in highly or partly controlled conditions (e.g. pots or common-gardens respectively) differ from those in natural conditions (e.g. Cordlandwehr et al. 2013; Kazakou et al. 2014).”
Towards a trait‐based ecology of wetland vegetation (2017, background): “In terrestrial plants, intraspecific variability is known to be higher for leaf nitrogen and phosphorus concentration than for SLA, and smallest for LDMC and maximum height (Albert et al. 2011; Kazakou et al. 2014).”