Below‐ and aboveground traits explain local abundance, and regional, continental and global occurrence frequencies of grassland plants
Below‐ and aboveground traits explain local abundance, and regional, continental and global occurrence frequencies of grassland plants
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/oik.07874
复制
发表时间：
2020-11
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Tom Lachaise;Joana Bergmann;M. Rillig;M. van Kleunen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tom Lachaise;Joana Bergmann;M. Rillig;M. van Kleunen
植物的常见或罕见程度差异很大，但物种的共性是否与功能性状有关仍存在争议。这可能部分是因为共性可以在不同的空间尺度上测量，而且大多数研究只关注地面上的功能特征。我们测量了241种中欧草原物种的5个根系性状和种子质量，并从数据库中提取了它们的比叶面积、高度、菌根状态和芽库大小。然后，我们在7个空间尺度上测试了性状值是否与共性相关，从16平方米草地的丰度，到区域和欧洲范围内的发生频率，再到全球归化成功。在每个空间尺度上，共性至少与三个特征相关。这些性状解释了草地样地的丰度（42%）和归化成功（41%）变异比例最大，而欧洲和地中海的发生频率（2%）变异比例最小。根组织密度在各尺度下均较低，其他性状随尺度变化呈方向性变化。我们还发现，许多效应具有显著的非线性效应，在大多数情况下，共性-度量值在中间性状值处最高。在各个尺度上，地下性状对物种共性的总体解释（19.4%）高于地上性状（12.6%）。从一个空间尺度到另一个空间尺度，我们在性状和共性之间的关系中发现的变化，至少可以部分解释性状变异在自然界中的维持。最重要的是，我们的研究表明，在草原中，对于物种的共性来说，地下特征至少和地上特征一样重要。因此，植物功能生态学研究应更多地考虑地下性状。
Plants vary widely in how common or rare they are, but whether commonness of species is associated with functional traits is still debated. This might partly be because commonness can be measured at different spatial scales, and because most studies focus solely on aboveground functional traits.We measured five root traits and seed mass on 241 central European grassland species, and extracted their specific leaf area, height, mycorrhizal status and bud‐bank size from databases. Then we tested if trait values are associated with commonness at seven spatial scales, ranging from abundance in 16‐m2grassland plots, via regional and European‐wide occurrence frequencies, to worldwide naturalization success.At every spatial scale, commonness was associated with at least three traits. The traits explained the greatest proportions of variance for abundance in grassland plots (42%) and naturalization success (41%) and the least for occurrence frequencies in Europe and the Mediterranean (2%). Low root tissue density characterized common species at every scale, whereas other traits showed directional changes depending on the scale. We also found that many of the effects had significant non‐linear effects, in most cases with the highest commonness‐metric value at intermediate trait values. Across scales, belowground traits explained overall more variance in species commonness (19.4%) than aboveground traits (12.6%).The changes we found in the relationships between traits and commonness, when going from one spatial scale to another, could at least partly explain the maintenance of trait variation in nature. Most importantly, our study shows that within grasslands, belowground traits are at least as important as aboveground traits for species commonness. Therefore, belowground traits should be more frequently considered in studies on plant functional ecology.