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.

No abstract

No abstract

We performed a gap analysis of protected area networks in Italy to assess the representatives of potential natural vegetation (PNV) types of the European Natura 2000 network compared with the National Protected Area network. In this context, the PNV map, reflecting the diversity and spatial arrangement of the natural terrestrial ecosystems, can be considered as an appropriate proxy of environmental and biogeographical diversity of Italy. In this country, 775 protected areas are registered in the Official List of Protected Areas (OLP Lambda), 2281 sites are listed as Sites of Community Interest and 590 as Special Protection Areas, constituting the Natura 2000 network. The adopted conservation target considered that any PNV type included for less than the 10% in the PAs network (OLP Lambda, Natura 2000) was defined as a gap in the system, In particular we defined as a "total gap" (i.e., under-protected); any PNV type with a representation of less than 10% in either the OLP Lambda of the N2000 was defined as a "partial gap"; any PNV type with a representation of less than 10% in either the OLP Lambda or the N2000 was defined as a "partial gap"; and PNV type with a representation of between 10 and 50% in both the OLP Lambda and N2000 was defined as "protected"; lastly, any PNV type with a representation of more than 50% in both the OLP Lambda and N2000 was defined as "widely-protected". Digital overlays of PNV and P Lambda s networks were seperately performed and statistics produced, indicating the current state of protection of Potential natural Vegetation types in the two networks (OLP Lambda and Natura 2000). We found that more than 59% of PNV types recognized on the Italian territory is not protected by the OLP Lambda network. On the contrary, regarding Natura 2000 network, 68% of PNV types are protected, accounting for 27% more than OLP Lambda. Compared to the National network of OLP Lambda, the European network Natura 2000 is characterized by a larger percentage of territory in terms of area (18% of the Italian territory for Natura 2000 vs 10% of OLP Lambda) but also by a smaller size of the sites, allowing for a more coherent distribution and efficiency in the protection of habitat remnants (68% PNV types protected by Natura 2000 vs 41% by OLP Lambda). The proposed PNV approach can help guiding decisions on where and how to spend scarce conservation management resources

No abstract