Weak phylogenetic and habitat effects on root trait variation of 218 Neotropical tree species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Tropical forests harbor a large diversity of closely related tree species that can thrive across habitats. This biodiversity has been found to correspond to large functional diversity in aboveground traits, and likely also relates to belowground trait variation. Globally, root trait (co-)variation is driven by different belowground resource strategies of species, environmental variation, and phylogeny; however, these patterns mostly reflect observations from temperate biomes and remain unconfirmed in tropical trees. We examine phylogenetic and environmental effects on root trait (co-)variation of trees across habitats in an Amazonian rainforest. Methods Roots of 218 tree species from ten dominant families were sampled across three major habitats near Manaus, Brazil. We quantified five morphological and architectural root traits to (i) investigate how they reflected different resource strategies across species, (ii) compare them between families and superorders to test phylogenetic effects, and (iii) compare them between habitats to determine environmental effects on root trait expressions and variability. Results Root traits discriminated species along a tradeoff between root diameter and root branching and, secondly, due to variation in root tissue density. Our results further show weak phylogenetic effects on tropical tree root variation, for example, families from the same superorder showed large divergence in their root traits, while those from different superorders often overlapped in their root morphology and architecture. Root traits differed significantly between habitats but habitat type had only little effect on overall root trait variation. Discussion Our work suggests that the dimensions and drivers that underlie (co-)variation in tropical root traits may differ from global patterns defined by mostly temperate datasets. Due to (a)biotic environmental differences, different root trait dimensions may underlie the belowground functional diversity in (Neo)tropical forests, and we found little evidence for the strong phylogenetic conservatism observed in root traits in temperate biomes. We highlight important avenues for future research on tropical roots in order to determine the degree of, and shifts in functional diversity belowground as communities and environments change in tropical forests.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".