MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Variation in leaf functional trait values within and across individuals and species: an example from a Costa Rican dry forest

2009· article· en· W2115959469 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyTraitEcologyAbiotic componentPlant communityCommunityBiodiversityVariation (astronomy)Range (aeronautics)Species richnessHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. Patterns of species co‐existence and species diversity in plant communities remain an important research area despite over a century of intensive scrutiny. To provide mechanistic insight into the rules governing plant species co‐existence and diversity, plant community ecologists are increasingly quantifying functional trait values for the species found in a wide range of communities. 2. Despite the promise of a quantitative functional trait approach to plant community ecology, we suggest that, along with examining trait variation across species, an assessment of trait variation within species should also be a key component of a trait‐based approach to community ecology. Variability within and between individuals and populations is likely widespread due to plastic responses to highly localized abiotic and biotic interactions. 3. In this study, we quantify leaf trait variation within and across ten co‐existing tree species in a dry tropical forest in Costa Rica to ask: (i) whether the majority of trait variation is located between species, within species, within individuals or within the leaves themselves; (ii) whether trait values collected using standardized methods correlate with those collected using unstandardized methods; and (iii) to what extent can we differentiate plant species on the basis of their traits? 4. We find that the majority of variation in traits was often explained by between species differences; however, between leaflet trait variation was very high for compound‐leaved species. We also show that many species are difficult to reliably differentiate on the basis of functional traits even when sampling many individuals. 5. We suggest an ideal sample size of at least 10, and ideally 20, individuals be used when calculating mean trait values for individual species for entire communities, though even at large sample sizes, it remains unclear if community level trait values will allow comparisons on a larger geographic scale or if species traits are generally similar across scales. It will thus be critical to account for intraspecific variation by comparing species mean trait values across space in multiple microclimatic environments within local communities and along environmental gradients. Further, quantifying trait variability due to plasticity and inheritance will provide a better understanding of the underlying patterns and drivers of trait variation as well as the application of functional traits in outlining mechanisms of species co‐existence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it