Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects.We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives. Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) and DIVERSITAS, the TRY database (TRY-not an acronym, rather a statement of sentiment; https ://www.try-db.org; Kattge et al., 2011) was proposed with the explicit assignment to improve the availability and accessibility of plant trait data for ecology and earth system sciences. The Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (MPI-BGC) offered to host the database and the different groups joined forces for this community-driven program. Two factors were key to the success of TRY: the support and trust of leaders in the field of functional plant ecology submitting large databases and the long-term funding by the Max Planck Society, the MPI-BGC and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, which has enabled the continuous development of the TRY database.

One of the most fundamental questions in ecology is how many species inhabit the Earth. However, due to massive logistical and financial challenges and taxonomic difficulties connected to the species concept definition, the global numbers of species, including those of important and well-studied life forms such as trees, still remain largely unknown. Here, based on global ground-sourced data, we estimate the total tree species richness at global, continental, and biome levels. Our results indicate that there are ∼73,000 tree species globally, among which ∼9,000 tree species are yet to be discovered. Roughly 40% of undiscovered tree species are in South America. Moreover, almost one-third of all tree species to be discovered may be rare, with very low populations and limited spatial distribution (likely in remote tropical lowlands and mountains). These findings highlight the vulnerability of global forest biodiversity to anthropogenic changes in land use and climate, which disproportionately threaten rare species and thus, global tree richness.

Safeguarding Earth’s tree diversity is a conservation priority due to the importance of trees for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services such as carbon sequestration. Here, we improve the foundation for effective conservation of global tree diversity by analyzing a recently developed database of tree species covering 46,752 species. We quantify range protection and anthropogenic pressures for each species and develop conservation priorities across taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity dimensions. We also assess the effectiveness of several influential proposed conservation prioritization frameworks to protect the top 17% and top 50% of tree priority areas. We find that an average of 50.2% of a tree species’ range occurs in 110-km grid cells without any protected areas (PAs), with 6,377 small-range tree species fully unprotected, and that 83% of tree species experience nonnegligible human pressure across their range on average. Protecting high-priority areas for the top 17% and 50% priority thresholds would increase the average protected proportion of each tree species’ range to 65.5% and 82.6%, respectively, leaving many fewer species (2,151 and 2,010) completely unprotected. The priority areas identified for trees match well to the Global 200 Ecoregions framework, revealing that priority areas for trees would in large part also optimize protection for terrestrial biodiversity overall. Based on range estimates for >46,000 tree species, our findings show that a large proportion of tree species receive limited protection by current PAs and are under substantial human pressure. Improved protection of biodiversity overall would also strongly benefit global tree diversity.

No abstract

Diversity–biomass relationships (DBRs) often vary with spatial scale in terrestrial ecosystems, but the mechanisms driving these scale‐dependent patterns remain unclear, especially for highly heterogeneous forest ecosystems. This study explores how mutualistic associations between trees and different mycorrhizal fungi, i.e., arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) vs. ectomycorrhizal (EM) association, modulate scale‐dependent DBRs. We hypothesized that in soil‐heterogeneous forests with a mixture of AM and EM tree species, (i) AM and EM tree species would respond in contrasting ways (i.e., positively vs. negatively, respectively) to increasing soil fertility, (ii) AM tree dominance would contribute to higher tree diversity and EM tree dominance to greater standing biomass, and that as a result (iii) mycorrhizal associations would exert an overall negative effect on DBRs across spatial scales. To empirically test these hypotheses, we collected detailed tree distribution and soil information (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, pH) from seven temperate and subtropical AM–EM mixed forest megaplots (16–50 ha). Using a spatial codispersion null model and structural equation modeling, we identified the relationships among AM or EM tree dominance, soil fertility, tree species diversity, and biomass and, thus, DBRs across 0.01‐ to 1‐ha scales. We found the first evidence overall supporting the three aforementioned hypotheses in these AM–EM mixed forests: (i) In most forests, with increasing soil fertility, tree communities changed from EM‐dominated to AM‐dominated; (ii) increasing AM tree dominance had an overall positive effect on tree diversity and a negative effect on biomass, even after controlling for soil fertility and number of trees. Together, (iii) the changes in mycorrhizal dominance along soil fertility gradients weakened the positive DBR observed at 0.01‐ to 0.04‐ha scales in nearly all forests and drove negative DBRs at 0.25‐ to 1‐ha scales in four out of seven forests. Hence, this study highlights a soil‐related mycorrhizal dominance mechanism that could partly explain why, in many natural forests, biodiversity–ecosystem functioning (BEF) relationships shift from positive to negative with increasing spatial scale.