Towards an Ecological Trait-data Standard

Schneider, F.; Eisenhauer, Nico; Provost, Gaëtane Le; Ostrowski, Andreas; Penone, Caterina; Fichtmüller, David; Güntsch, Anton; Goßner, Martin M.; König-Ries, Birgitta; Manning, Peter; Simons, Nadja K.

doi:10.1101/328302

Cited by 36 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore fuzzy coding, a procedure to structure the biological and environmental information and to describe the affinity of a species to specific trait categories might constitute a valuable approach (Chevenet, Dolédec, & Chessel, ; Persat, Olivier, & Pont, ). Several authors have also proposed solutions to standardise heterogeneous trait data in order to improve the reliability linked to ambiguity of traits (Kattge, Ogle, et al, ; Schneider et al, ). Generic database structures facilitate the exchange and analysis of information, and ensure compatibility and comparability among databases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability analysis of fish traits reveals discrepancies among databases

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trait‐based approaches are commonly used in ecology to understand the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, environmental filtering or biotic responses to anthropogenic perturbations. However, little is known about the reliability of assigned traits and the consistency of trait information among different databases currently in use. Using 99 native and alien Iberian inland fish species, we investigated a total of 27 biological and ecological traits for their consistency among 19 different databases and identified less reliable traits, that is, traits with high disagreement among databases. Specifically, we used generalised linear models and inter‐rater reliability statistics (Krippendorff's α) to test for differences in trait values among databases. We also identified well‐studied versus data‐deficient traits and species. Our results show notable discrepancies and low reliability for several biological and ecological traits such as microhabitat preference, omnivory, invertivory, rheophily, and limnophily. Least reliable traits were mainly categorical (rather than continuous) and established by expert judgment and without a clear definition or a common methodology. Interestingly, categorical traits such as rheophily or limnophily, which showed significantly lower reliability, concurrently showed higher data availability and use than continuously scaled traits. Such uncertainties in trait assignments could affect bioassessment and other ecological analyses. Species with smaller distributional ranges and those that have been described more recently, presented lower coverage and data availability in trait databases. We encourage further standardisation of fish trait measurement protocols to help improve the robust application of bioassessment indices and trait‐based approaches.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability analysis of fish traits reveals discrepancies among databases

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, publication of results from genetic data has long required centralized deposition of raw sequences with meta-data; A similar approach within collectors of locations and trait data would broaden the base of contributors and rapidly increase availability of both spatial and trait data (Schneider et al 2018). First, grant programs can have direct impacts on the future of the shortfalls we have demonstrated by incentivizing work which creates overlapping species data, and such opportunities should be expanded.…”

Section: Closing the Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What we (don't) know about global plant diversity

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The era of big biodiversity data has led to rapid, exciting advances in the theoretical and applied biological, ecological and conservation sciences. While large genetic, geographic and trait databases are available, these are neither complete nor random samples of the globe. Gaps and biases in these databases reduce our inferential and predictive power, and this incompleteness is even more worrisome because we are ignorant of both its kind and magnitude. We performed a comprehensive examination of the taxonomic and spatial sampling in the most complete current databases for plant genes, locations and functional traits. To do this, we downloaded data from The Plant List (taxonomy), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (locations), TRY (traits) and GenBank (genes). Only 17.7% of the world's described and accepted land plant species feature in all three databases, meaning that more than 82% of known plant biodiversity lacks representation in at least one database. Species coverage is highest for location data and lowest for genetic data. Bryophytes and orchids stand out taxonomically and the equatorial region stands out spatially as poorly represented in all databases. We have highlighted a number of clades and regions about which we know little functionally, spatially and genetically, on which we should set research targets. The scientific community should recognize and reward the significant value, both for biodiversity science and conservation, of filling in these gaps in our knowledge of the plant tree of life.

show abstract

“…Handbooks and protocols exist for various taxa (e.g. To improve the uptake, scope and scale of trait-based research within and across taxa, there is a concerted effort to create global, multi-taxa trait databases (Schneider et al 2018, the Open Traits Initiative (http:// opentraits.org/)). The creation of trait databases and datasets facilitates functional analyses across a diversity of taxa, including invertebrates, microbes, plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fungi and coral (see Schneider et al 2018 Appendix Table A1 for a full list).…”

Section: Advancements and Limitations In Cross-taxa Comparisons Of Fumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…plants (Cornelissen et al 2003, Pérez-Harguindeguy et al 2013, terrestrial invertebrates (Fountain-Jones et al 2015, Moretti et al 2017, Brousseau et al 2018, benthic invertebrates (Degen et al 2018), soil invertebrates (Pey et al 2014), protists (Altermatt et al 2015), lotic species (Schmera et al 2015) and macrofungi (Dawson et al 2019)). The creation of trait databases and datasets facilitates functional analyses across a diversity of taxa, including invertebrates, microbes, plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fungi and coral (see Schneider et al 2018 Appendix Table A1 for a full list). To improve the uptake, scope and scale of trait-based research within and across taxa, there is a concerted effort to create global, multi-taxa trait databases (Schneider et al 2018, the Open Traits Initiative (http:// opentraits.org/)).…”

Section: Advancements and Limitations In Cross-taxa Comparisons Of Fumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A unification of functional trait approaches is needed to address discontinuity, improve standardization and allow for taxonomic comparisons (Vandewalle et al 2010, Fountain-Jones et al 2015, Moretti et al 2017, Perronne et al 2017, Degen et al 2018, Schneider et al 2018. Several studies have sought to better standardize trait selection within and across taxa, and many have found trait convergence with community assembly processes (Frenette-Dussault et al 2013, Pedley and Dolman 2014, Brousseau et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unifying functional trait approaches to understand the assemblage of ecological communities: synthesizing taxonomic divides

Weiss

Ray

2019

Ecography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional traits have long been considered the 'holy grail' in community ecology due to their potential to link phenotypic variation with ecological processes. Advancements across taxonomic disciplines continue to support functional ecology's objective to approach generality in community assembly. However, a divergence of definitions, aims and methods across taxa has created discord, limiting the field's predictive capacity. Here, we provide a guide to support functional ecological comparisons across taxa. We describe advances in cross-taxa functional research, identify gaps in approaches, synthesize definitions and unify methodological considerations. When deciding which traits to compare, particularly response traits, we advocate selecting functionally analogous traits that relate to community assembly processes. Finally, we describe at what scale and for which questions functional comparisons across taxa are useful and when other approaches may be more constructive. Our approach promotes standardized methods for integrative research across taxa to identify broad trends in community assembly.

show abstract

Towards an Ecological Trait-data Standard

Cited by 36 publications

References 55 publications

Reliability analysis of fish traits reveals discrepancies among databases

Reliability analysis of fish traits reveals discrepancies among databases

What we (don't) know about global plant diversity

Unifying functional trait approaches to understand the assemblage of ecological communities: synthesizing taxonomic divides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About