Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 8;13(1):3185.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30888-2.

Global relationships in tree functional traits

Affiliations

Global relationships in tree functional traits

Daniel S Maynard et al. Nat Commun. .

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 multidimensional relationships in tree trait expression. We find that nearly half of trait variation is captured by two axes: one reflecting leaf economics, the other reflecting tree size and competition for light. Yet these orthogonal axes reveal strong environmental convergence, exhibiting correlated responses to temperature, moisture, and elevation. By subsequently exploring multidimensional trait relationships, we show that the full dimensionality of trait space is captured by eight distinct clusters, each reflecting a unique aspect of tree form and function. Collectively, this work identifies a core set of traits needed to quantify global patterns in functional biodiversity, and it contributes to our fundamental understanding of the functioning of forests worldwide.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Overview of the 18 functional traits.
a The unique geographic locations (n = 8683) where tree functional traits were recorded. The size of the circles denotes the relative number of unique traits (out of 18 possible) that were measured at each location, regardless of species identity. b Summary statistics for the 18 traits considered here (see Supplementary Table 1–3, Supplementary Figs. 1, 2 for additional information). The analysis included 491,001 trait measurements, encompassing 13,189 unique tree species and 2313 unique genera.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. The dominant trait axes and relationships.
Shown are the first two principal component axes capturing trait relationships across the 18 functional traits. a All tree species (n = 30,146 observations), b angiosperms only (n = 24,658), and c gymnosperms only (n = 5498). In a the three variables that load most strongly on each axis are shown in dark black lines, with the remaining variables shown in light grey. These same six variables are highlighted in b and c illustrating how the same relationships extend to angiosperms and gymnosperms (see Supplementary Figs. 10–12 for the full PCAs with all traits visible, and Supplementary Table 5 for the PC loadings).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. The relationship between environmental variables and trait axes.
a, b The relative influence of the environmental variables on the two dominant PC axes. The ten variables are sorted by overall variable importance in the models (see Methods). Yellow points are observations which have high values of that environmental variable; blue values are the lowest. Points to the right of zero indicate a positive influence on the PC axis; points to the left indicate a negative influence (see also Supplementary Figs. 17, 18). ch The relationships between environmental variables and PC axis values for the three variables in a with the strongest influence. Values above zero show a positive influence on PC axis values; values less than zero indicate a negative influence.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Trait correlations and functional clusters.
a Trait clusters with high average intra-group correlation. The upper triangle gives the species-weighted correlations incorporating intraspecific variation. The lower triangle gives the corresponding correlations among phylogenetic independent contrasts, which adjusts for pseudo-replication due to the non-independence of closely related species. The size of the circle denotes the relative strength of the correlation, with solid circles denoting positive correlations and open circles denoting negative correlations (see Supplementary Fig. 19 for the numeric values). b PC loadings for each trait and each of the first two principal component axes, illustrating which functional trait clusters align most strongly with the dominant axes of trait variation (see Supplementary Table 5 for the full set of PC loadings). c The species-level phylogenetic signal of each trait (Pagel’s λ), calculated using only the raw trait values.

References

    1. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Phillips OL, Jackson RB. The structure, distribution, and biomass of the world’s forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2013;44:593–622. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135914. - DOI
    1. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 2013;61:167–234. doi: 10.1071/BT12225. - DOI
    1. Kraft NJB, Godoy O, Levine JM. Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2015;112:797–802. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1413650112. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Westoby M, Wright IJ. Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006;21:261–268. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Díaz S, et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature. 2015;529:1–17. - PubMed

Publication types