Ten (mostly) simple rules to future‐proof trait data in ecological and evolutionary sciences

Keller, Alexander; Ankenbrand, Markus J.; Bruelheide, Helge; Dekeyzer, Stefanie; Enquist, Brian J.; Erfanian, Mohammad Bagher; Falster, Daniel S.; Gallagher, Rachael V.; Hammock, Jennifer; Kattge, Jens; Leonhardt, Sara D.; Madin, Joshua S.; Maitner, Brian S.; Neyret, Margot; Onstein, Renske E.; Pearse, William D.; Poelen, Jorrit; Salguero‐Gómez, Roberto; Schneider, F.; Tóth, Anikó B.; Penone, Caterina

doi:10.1111/2041-210x.14033

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 140 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Intraspecific variation is important since ecological interaction depends on species' traits and its variation alters the interaction strength and can simultaneously protect populations from extreme temporal density fluctuations (Bolnick et al, 2011). However, the choice of which traits are included in analyses can drastically change the conclusions of ecological processes (Wong and Carmona, 2020;Chacón-Labella et al, 2022;Keller et al, 2022). Furthermore, management practices of long-term experiments on biodiversity-ecosystem functioning may influence the mechanistic linkage between environment and traits since community-weighted values of a given responsive trait shift with changes of relative abundances of the species and management practices do not allow community assembly processes to operate (Lepš et al, 2011;Chacón-Labella et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Little evidence for land-use filters on intraspecific trait variation in three arthropod groups

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Declines in species richness and abundance of insects over the last decades are often driven by anthropogenic land use and can have severe consequences for ecosystem functioning. Many studies investigated the effects of land-use intensification on the distribution of phenotypic traits across species at the community level, often with mixed results. However, biotic and abiotic environmental filters and potential selection act on individuals within each species, i.e., at the species' population level, and thus drive the extent of intraspecific phenotypic variation. Here, we compare the morphological trait variation within selected species of dung beetles, bees and grasshoppers and link this variation to land-use intensity in forests and grasslands. Selected traits included absolute body size measures and relative leg, wing or eye size, or shape and are often interpreted as “functional traits” in the context of specific ecological responses or effects. We predicted that trait variability among individuals of arthropod species is reduced in intensively used ecosystems (with pronounced environmental filtering) compared to low-intensity ones, particularly for arthropod species that were more abundant in intensively used sites (“land-use winners” compared to “losers”). In general, only few effects of land-use intensity on trait variation were found showing a decreasing variation with increasing land-use intensity in forests but an increasing variation in grasslands. Although many studies confirmed strong land-use impacts on species composition, diversity and trait distribution, including evidence from the same land-use gradients, we were not able to confirm consistent effects at the intraspecific level. However, the choice of which traits are included in analyses and the linkage between phenotypic variation and genetic variability can strongly influence the conclusions drawn on ecological processes. Therefore, we suggest extending the use of intraspecific trait variation on other, more specific response or effect traits and a broader range of species in future studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Little evidence for land-use filters on intraspecific trait variation in three arthropod groups

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inspired by previous reviews that highlighted several relevant limitations in trait-based ecology (Green et al, 2022;Hevia et al, 2017), we hope this review will "propagate the good practices" advocated by Keller et al (2023). Even though the use of functional traits in ecological literature has increased dramatically in the last decade, there are fundamental limitations that must be addressed to advance trait-based animal ecology.…”

Section: Con Clus I On S and Pros Pec Tsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, several studies used traits without an appropriate explanation about the underlying mechanism explaining how environmental change affects trait variation or how trait variation ultimately alters ecosystem functioning. Because selecting traits in studies with animals based on theory has rarely been the case (Kearney et al, 2021 ), defining whether your specific question requires a response or effect trait (or both) is a relevant step to avoid unconscious and inadequate trait selection (see Keller et al, 2023 ). Importantly, this question‐driven selection may result in a list of core or relevant traits needed to establish taxonomic group protocols (Brousseau et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Improving Trait‐based Animal Ecology Through Effective Trait...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, using the “epistemic roadmap” outlined by Malaterre et al ( 2019 ) can assist in organizing the concepts, definitions, theories, and empirical evidence related to trait selection and measurement. Additionally, Keller et al ( 2023 ) have provided a clear set of 10 guidelines to enhance both the pre‐ and post‐trait collection process and improve trait‐based ecology research.…”

Section: Improving Trait‐based Animal Ecology Through Effective Trait...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bringing light onto the Raunkiæran shortfall: A comprehensive review of traits used in functional animal ecology

Gonçalves‐Souza

Chaves

Boldorini

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trait‐based approaches elucidate the mechanisms underlying biodiversity response to, or effects on, the environment. Nevertheless, the Raunkiæran shortfall—the dearth of knowledge on species traits and their functionality—presents a challenge in the application of these approaches. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the trends and gaps in trait‐based animal ecology in terms of taxonomic resolution, trait selection, ecosystem type, and geographical region. In addition, we suggest a set of crucial steps to guide trait selection and aid future research to conduct within and cross‐taxon comparisons. We identified 1655 articles using virtually all animal groups published from 1999 to 2020. Studies were concentrated in vertebrates, terrestrial habitats, the Palearctic realm, and mostly investigated trophic and habitat dimensions. Additionally, they focused on response traits (79.4%) and largely ignored intraspecific variation (94.6%). Almost 36% of the data sets did not provide the rationale behind the selection of morphological traits. The main limitations of trait‐based animal ecology were the use of trait averages and a rare inclusion of intraspecific variability. Nearly one‐fifth of the studies based only on response traits conclude that trait diversity impacts ecosystem processes or services without justifying the connection between them or measuring them. We propose a guide for standardizing trait collection that includes the following: (i) determining the type of trait and the mechanism linking the trait to the environment, ecosystem, or the correlation between the environment, trait, and ecosystem, (ii) using a “periodic table of niches” to select the appropriate niche dimension to support a mechanistic trait selection, and (iii) selecting the relevant traits for each retained niche dimension. By addressing these gaps, trait‐based animal ecology can become more predictive. This implies that future research will likely focus on collaborating to understand how environmental changes impact animals and their capacity to provide ecosystem services and goods.

show abstract

“…В этих моделях скрыта огромная информация, и игнорирование ее в наступившей эре больших данных (Big Data Era), искусственного интеллекта и нейронных сетей [18, 53] было бы неправомерно. Сегодня предлагается стандартизированный словарь, который позволяет объединять наборы данных о свойствах биологических объектов из разнородных источников и облегчает создание интерфейсов между программными средствами для обработки и анализа таких данных [71], и осознается необходимость систематизации данных о свойствах биологических объектов и управления ими для повторного использования [51].…”

unclassified

Сравнительный Мета-Анализ Аллометрических Моделей Биомассы Быстрорастущих Лиственных Пород

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Потенциальное истощение ископаемых ресурсов и необходимость стабилизации климата требуют все более широкого использования возобновляемых источников энергии, в частности, путем культивирования быстрорастущих пород, таких как ива (Salix L.), тополь (Populus L.) и ольха (Alnus L.), на микроротационных плантациях. Фактическая биомасса деревьев, определяемая на пробных площадях, редко приводится в научных статьях, а обычно дается в сжатом виде в форме уравнений зависимости биомассы от диаметра ствола и/или высоты дерева. В этой связи, а также из-за высокой трудоемкости получения эмпирических данных на пробных площадях получила распространение разработка обобщающих (generic) моделей биомассы на основе мета-анализа как способа объединения результатов независимых исследований. Целью настоящего исследования было (а) сформировать базу эмпирических данных, а также псевдоданных, восстановленных путем табулирования аллометрических моделей биомассы Salix, Populus и Alnus в известных диапазонах диаметров ствола по имеющимся опубликованным источникам; (б) разработать аллометрические мета-модели надземной биомассы трех названных родов и провести их сравнительный анализ; (в) выполнить анализ смещений при оценке надземной биомассы деревьев посредством мета-моделей относительно исходных данных; (г) разработать модели для оценки фракционного состава биомассы деревьев трех родов по значениям надземной биомассы, полученным по ее мета-моделям. Установлено, что всеобщие мета-модели объясняют около 99% изменчивости надземной биомассы и характеризуются незначительными отклонениями (в среднем около 2%) от исходных значений. Мета-модели биомассы фракций, связанные с мета-моделями надземной биомассы по рекурсивному принципу, объясняют изменчивость массы листвы, ветвей, стволов и корней соответственно на 70–90; 87–95; 99,3–99,7 и 93–99%. Предложенные мета-модели надземной биомассы деревьев могут быть применены в регионах, для которых отсутствуют аллометрические модели биомассы. При введении в модели корректировочного коэффициента, учитывающего форму нижней части ствола, они могут быть использованы для оценки углерод-депонирующей способности не только энергетических плантаций, но и насаждений управляемых лесов по данным таксации.

show abstract

Ten (mostly) simple rules to future‐proof trait data in ecological and evolutionary sciences

Cited by 20 publications

References 140 publications

Little evidence for land-use filters on intraspecific trait variation in three arthropod groups

Little evidence for land-use filters on intraspecific trait variation in three arthropod groups

Bringing light onto the Raunkiæran shortfall: A comprehensive review of traits used in functional animal ecology

Сравнительный Мета-Анализ Аллометрических Моделей Биомассы Быстрорастущих Лиственных Пород

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About