Functional groups differ in trait means, but not in trait plasticity to species richness in local grassland communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing interest in incorporating intraspecific variation of functional traits in community-level studies, it remains unclear whether species classified into functional groups based on interspecific trait differences are similar regarding their variation in trait expression in response to varying plant diversity and composition in local communities. In a large biodiversity experiment (Jena Experiment) designed on a trait-based a priori definition of functional groups (grasses, legumes, small herbs, tall herbs), we studied means, extent of variation (coefficient of variation across communities) and plasticity to increased plant diversity (slopes over a logarithmic species richness ranging from 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 to 60 species) for nine functional traits. Species means and extent of variation in traits related to nitrogen (N) acquisition and N use differed among functional groups and were more similar in phylogenetically closely related species than expected by chance. Species in the same functional group showed a weak phylogenetic signal and varied widely in means and extent of variation in traits related to shoot architecture and to a smaller extent in leaf traits related to carbon acquisition. This indicated that functional groups were less distinguishable in light than in nitrogen acquisition strategies. The direction and degree of trait plasticity to increasing species richness did not show a phylogenetic signal and were not different among functional groups, but varied largely among species within functional groups. Correlation structures in trait means, extent of trait variation and trait plasticity revealed functional tradeoffs in the acquisition of nitrogen and light across species. While correlations between trait means and extent of trait variation varied from trait to trait (positive, negative or unrelated), trait means and trait plasticity were mostly unrelated. Our results suggest that the concept of functional groups is viable, but context-specific trait measurements are required to improve our understanding about the functional significance of intraspecific trait variation and interspecific trait differences in local plant communities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".