Individual-level leaf trait variation and correlation across biological and spatial scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even with increasing interest in the ecological importance of intraspecific trait variation (ITV) for better understanding ecological processes, few studies have quantified ITV in seedlings and assessed constraints imposed by trade-offs and correlations among individual-level leaf traits. Estimating the amount and role of ITV in seedlings is important to understand tree recruitment and long-term forest dynamics. We measured ten different size, economic, and whole leaf traits (lamina and petiole) for more than 2800 seedlings (height ≥ 10 cm and diameter at breast height < 1 cm) in 283 seedling plots, and then quantified the amount of ITV and trait correlations across two biological (intraspecific and interspecific) and spatial (within and among plots) scales. Finally, we explored the effects of trait variance and sample size on the strength of trait correlations. We found about 40% (6~63%) variation in leaf-level traits was explained by ITV across all traits. Lamina and petiole traits were correlated across biological and spatial scales, whereas leaf size traits (e.g., lamina area) were weakly correlated with economics traits (e.g., specific lamina area); lamina mass ratio was strongly related to the petiole length. Trait correlations varied among species, plots, and different scales but there was no evidence that the strength of trait relationships was stronger at broader than finer biological and spatial scales. While larger trait variance increased the strength of correlations, the sample size was the most important factor that was negatively related to the strength of trait correlations. Our results showed that a large amount of trait variation was explained by ITV, which highlighted the importance of considering ITV when using trait-based approaches in seedling ecology. In addition, sample size was an important factor that influenced the strength of trait correlations, which suggests that comparing trait correlations across studies should consider the differences in sample size.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".