Global patterns and environmental drivers of forest functional composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To determine the relationships between the functional trait composition of forest communities and environmental gradients across scales and biomes and the role of species relative abundances in these relationships. Location Global. Time period Recent. Major taxa studied Trees. Methods We integrated species abundance records from worldwide forest inventories and associated functional traits (wood density, specific leaf area and seed mass) to obtain a data set of 99,953 to 149,285 plots (depending on the trait) spanning all forested continents. We computed community‐weighted and unweighted means of trait values for each plot and related them to three broad environmental gradients and their interactions (energy availability, precipitation and soil properties) at two scales (global and biomes). Results Our models explained up to 60% of the variance in trait distribution. At global scale, the energy gradient had the strongest influence on traits. However, within‐biome models revealed different relationships among biomes. Notably, the functional composition of tropical forests was more influenced by precipitation and soil properties than energy availability, whereas temperate forests showed the opposite pattern. Depending on the trait studied, response to gradients was more variable and proportionally weaker in boreal forests. Community unweighted means were better predicted than weighted means for almost all models. Main conclusions Worldwide, trees require a large amount of energy (following latitude) to produce dense wood and seeds, while leaves with large surface to weight ratios are concentrated in temperate forests. However, patterns of functional composition within‐biome differ from global patterns due to biome specificities such as the presence of conifers or unique combinations of climatic and soil properties. We recommend assessing the sensitivity of tree functional traits to environmental changes in their geographic context. Furthermore, at a given site, the distribution of tree functional traits appears to be driven more by species presence than species abundance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".