Search

Your search keyword '"Vowles, T."' showing total 4 results
Start Over Author "Vowles, T." Topic ecosystem function
4 results on '"Vowles, T."'

1. Traditional plant functional groups explain variation in economic but not size-related traits across the tundra biome.

Author

Thomas, HJD, Myers-Smith, IH, Bjorkman, AD, Elmendorf, SC, Blok, D, Cornelissen, JHC, Forbes, BC, Hollister, RD, Normand, S, Prevéy, JS, Rixen, C, Schaepman-Strub, G, Wilmking, M, Wipf, S, Cornwell, WK, Kattge, J, Goetz, SJ, Guay, KC, Alatalo, JM, Anadon-Rosell, A, Angers-Blondin, S, Berner, LT, Björk, RG, Buchwal, A, Buras, A, Carbognani, M, Christie, K, Siegwart Collier, L, Cooper, EJ, Eskelinen, A, Frei, ER, Grau, O, Grogan, P, Hallinger, M, Heijmans, MMPD, Hermanutz, L, Hudson, JMG, Hülber, K, Iturrate-Garcia, M, Iversen, CM, Jaroszynska, F, Johnstone, JF, Kaarlejärvi, E, Kulonen, A, Lamarque, LJ, Lévesque, E, Little, CJ, Michelsen, A, Milbau, A, Nabe-Nielsen, J, Nielsen, SS, Ninot, JM, Oberbauer, SF, Olofsson, J, Onipchenko, VG, Petraglia, A, Rumpf, SB, Semenchuk, PR, Soudzilovskaia, NA, Spasojevic, MJ, Speed, JDM, Tape, KD, Te Beest, M, Tomaselli, M, Trant, A, Treier, UA, Venn, S, Vowles, T, Weijers, S, Zamin, T, Atkin, OK, Bahn, M, Blonder, B, Campetella, G, Cerabolini, BEL, Chapin Iii, FS, Dainese, M, de Vries, FT, Díaz, S, Green, W, Jackson, RB, Manning, P, Niinemets, Ü, Ozinga, WA, Peñuelas, J, Reich, PB, Schamp, B, Sheremetev, S, and van Bodegom, PM

Subjects
cluster analysis, community composition, ecosystem function, plant functional groups, plant functional types, plant traits, tundra biome, vegetation change, Ecology, Ecological Applications, Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience
Abstract

AimPlant functional groups are widely used in community ecology and earth system modelling to describe trait variation within and across plant communities. However, this approach rests on the assumption that functional groups explain a large proportion of trait variation among species. We test whether four commonly used plant functional groups represent variation in six ecologically important plant traits.LocationTundra biome.Time periodData collected between 1964 and 2016.Major taxa studied295 tundra vascular plant species.MethodsWe compiled a database of six plant traits (plant height, leaf area, specific leaf area, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen, seed mass) for tundra species. We examined the variation in species-level trait expression explained by four traditional functional groups (evergreen shrubs, deciduous shrubs, graminoids, forbs), and whether variation explained was dependent upon the traits included in analysis. We further compared the explanatory power and species composition of functional groups to alternative classifications generated using post hoc clustering of species-level traits.ResultsTraditional functional groups explained significant differences in trait expression, particularly amongst traits associated with resource economics, which were consistent across sites and at the biome scale. However, functional groups explained 19% of overall trait variation and poorly represented differences in traits associated with plant size. Post hoc classification of species did not correspond well with traditional functional groups, and explained twice as much variation in species-level trait expression.Main conclusionsTraditional functional groups only coarsely represent variation in well-measured traits within tundra plant communities, and better explain resource economic traits than size-related traits. We recommend caution when using functional group approaches to predict tundra vegetation change, or ecosystem functions relating to plant size, such as albedo or carbon storage. We argue that alternative classifications or direct use of specific plant traits could provide new insights for ecological prediction and modelling.

Published
2019

2. Traditional plant functional groups explain variation in economic but not size-related traits across the tundra biome

Author

Thomas, H.J.D., Myers-Smith, I.H., Bjorkman, A.D., Elmendorf, S.C., Blok, D., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Forbes, B.C., Hollister, R.D., Normand, S., Prevéy, J.S., Rixen, C., Schaepman-Strub, G., Wilmking, M., Wipf, S., Cornwell, W.K., Kattge, J., Goetz, S.J., Guay, K.C., Alatalo, J.M., Anadon-Rosell, A., Angers-Blondin, S., Berner, L.T., Björk, R.G., Buchwal, A., Buras, A., Carbognani, M., Christie, K., Siegwart Collier, L., Cooper, E.J., Eskelinen, A., Frei, E.R., Grau, O., Grogan, P., Hallinger, M., Heijmans, M.M.P.D., Hermanutz, L., Hudson, J.M.G., Hülber, K., Iturrate-Garcia, M., Iversen, C.M., Jaroszynska, F., Johnstone, J.F., Kaarlejärvi, E., Kulonen, A., Lamarque, L.J., Lévesque, E., Little, C.J., Michelsen, A., Milbau, A., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Nielsen, S.S., Ninot, J.M., Oberbauer, S.F., Olofsson, J., Onipchenko, V.G., Petraglia, A., Rumpf, S.B., Semenchuk, P.R., Soudzilovskaia, N.A., Spasojevic, M.J., Speed, J.D.M., Tape, K.D., Beest, M. te, Tomaselli, M., Trant, A., Treier, U.A., Venn, S., Vowles, T., Weijers, S., Zamin, T., Atkin, O.K., Bahn, M., Blonder, B., Campetella, G., Cerabolini, B.E.L., Chapin III, F.S., Dainese, M., Vries, F.T. de, Díaz, S., Green, W., Jackson, R.B., Manning, P., Niinemets, Ü, Ozinga, W.A., Penuelas, J., Reich, P.B., Schamp, B., Sheremetev, S., Bodegom, P.M. van, Systems Ecology, Spatial Ecology and Global Change, Environmental Sciences, External Funding, Research Centre for Ecological Change, and van Bodegom, PM

Subjects
Plant functional types, Evolution, NUTRIENT, TERM, plant functional groups, Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience, CARBON, vegetation change, Cluster analysis, Behavior and Systematics, ecosystem function, VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Plantegeografi: 496, Community composition, Plant functional groups, community composition, ARCTIC TUNDRA, Ekologi, Plant traits, Global and Planetary Change, CLIMATE-CHANGE, Ecology, LEAF TRAITS, Botany, food and beverages, Botanik, VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Plant geography: 496, plant functional types, Research Papers, Tundra biome, cluster analysis, plant traits, tundra biome, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Ecological Applications, 1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology, Vegetation change, Ecosystem function, VEGETATION, LITTER DECOMPOSITION RATES, RESPONSES, Research Paper
Abstract

Aim : Plant functional groups are widely used in community ecology and earth system modelling to describe trait variation within and across plant communities. However, this approach rests on the assumption that functional groups explain a large propor ‐ tion of trait variation among species. We test whether four commonly used plant functional groups represent variation in six ecologically important plant traits. Location : Tundra biome. Time period : Data collected between 1964 and 2016. Major taxa studied : 295 tundra vascular plant species. Methods : We compiled a database of six plant traits (plant height, leaf area, specific leaf area, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen, seed mass) for tundra species. We exam ‐ ined the variation in species‐level trait expression explained by four traditional func ‐ tional groups (evergreen shrubs, deciduous shrubs, graminoids, forbs), and whether variation explained was dependent upon the traits included in analysis. We further compared the explanatory power and species composition of functional groups to al ‐ ternative classifications generated using post hoc clustering of species‐level traits. Results : Traditional functional groups explained significant differences in trait expres ‐ sion, particularly amongst traits associated with resource economics, which were con ‐ sistent across sites and at the biome scale. However, functional groups explained 19% of overall trait variation and poorly represented differences in traits associated with plant size. Post hoc classification of species did not correspond well with traditional functional groups, and explained twice as much variation in species‐level trait expression. Main conclusions : Traditional functional groups only coarsely represent variation in well‐measured traits within tundra plant communities, and better explain resource economic traits than size‐related traits. We recommend caution when using func ‐ tional group approaches to predict tundra vegetation change, or ecosystem func ‐ tions relating to plant size, such as albedo or carbon storage. We argue that alternative classifications or direct use of specific plant traits could provide new insights for ecological prediction and modelling. © 2018 The Authors Global Ecology and Biogeography Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.

Published
2021

3. Traditional plant functional groups explain variation in economic but not size‐related traits across the tundra biome

Author

Thomas, H. J. (H. J. D.), Myers‐Smith, I. H. (I. H.), Bjorkman, A. D. (A. D.), Elmendorf, S. C. (S. C.), Blok, D. (D.), Cornelissen, J. H. (J. H. C.), Forbes, B. C. (B. C.), Hollister, R. D. (R. D.), Normand, S. (S.), Prevéy, J. S. (J. S.), Rixen, C. (C.), Schaepman‐Strub, G. (G.), Wilmking, M. (M.), Wipf, S. (S.), Cornwell, W. K. (W. K.), Kattge, J. (J.), Goetz, S. J. (S. J.), Guay, K. C. (K. C.), Alatalo, J. M. (J. M.), Anadon‐Rosell, A. (A.), Angers‐Blondin, S. (S.), Berner, L. T. (L. T.), Björk, R. G. (R. G.), Buchwal, A. (A.), Buras, A. (A.), Carbognani, M. (M.), Christie, K. (K.), Siegwart Collier, L. (L.), Cooper, E. J. (E. J.), Eskelinen, A. (A.), Frei, E. R. (E. R.), Grau, O. (O.), Grogan, P. (P.), Hallinger, M. (M.), Heijmans, M. M. (M. M. P. D.), Hermanutz, L. (L.), Hudson, J. M. (J. M. G.), Hülber, K. (K.), Iturrate‐Garcia, M. (M.), Iversen, C. M. (C. M.), Jaroszynska, F. (F.), Johnstone, J. F. (J. F.), Kaarlejärvi, E. (E.), Kulonen, A. (A.), Lamarque, L. J. (L. J.), Lévesque, E. (E.), Michelsen, A. (A.), Milbau, A. (A.), Nabe‐Nielsen, J. (J.), Nielsen, S. S. (S. S.), Ninot, J. M. (J. M.), Oberbauer, S. F. (S. F.), Olofsson, J. (J.), Onipchenko, V. G. (V. G.), Petraglia, A. (A.), Rumpf, S. B. (S. B.), Semenchuk, P. R. (P. R.), Soudzilovskaia, N. A. (N. A.), Spasojevic, M. J. (M. J.), Speed, J. D. (J. D. M.), Tape, K. D. (K. D.), te Beest, M. (M.), Tomaselli, M. (M.), Trant, A. (A.), Treier, U. A. (U. A.), Venn, S. (S.), Vowles, T. (T.), Weijers, S. (S.), Zamin, T. (T.), Atkin, O. K. (O. K.), Bahn, M. (M.), Blonder, B. (B.), Campetella, G. (G.), Cerabolini, B. E. (B. E. L.), Chapin III, F. S. (F. S.), Dainese, M. (M.), de Vries, F. T. (F. T.), Díaz, S. (S.), Green, W. (W.), Jackson, R. B. (R. B.), Manning, P. (P.), Niinemets, Ü. (Ü.), Ozinga, W. A. (W. A.), Peñuelas, J. (J.), Reich, P. B. (P. B.), Schamp, B. (B.), Sheremetev, S. (S.), and van Bodegom, P. M. (P. M.)

Subjects
vegetation change, plant traits, ecosystem function, food and beverages, tundra biome, community composition, plant functional types, plant functional groups, cluster analysis
Abstract

Aim: Plant functional groups are widely used in community ecology and earth system modelling to describe trait variation within and across plant communities. However, this approach rests on the assumption that functional groups explain a large proportion of trait variation among species. We test whether four commonly used plant functional groups represent variation in six ecologically important plant traits. Location: Tundra biome. Time period: Data collected between 1964 and 2016. Major taxa studied: 295 tundra vascular plant species. Methods: We compiled a database of six plant traits (plant height, leaf area, specific leaf area, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen, seed mass) for tundra species. We examined the variation in species‐level trait expression explained by four traditional functional groups (evergreen shrubs, deciduous shrubs, graminoids, forbs), and whether variation explained was dependent upon the traits included in analysis. We further compared the explanatory power and species composition of functional groups to alternative classifications generated using post hoc clustering of species‐level traits. Results: Traditional functional groups explained significant differences in trait expression, particularly amongst traits associated with resource economics, which were consistent across sites and at the biome scale. However, functional groups explained 19% of overall trait variation and poorly represented differences in traits associated with plant size. Post hoc classification of species did not correspond well with traditional functional groups, and explained twice as much variation in species‐level trait expression. Main conclusions: Traditional functional groups only coarsely represent variation in well‐measured traits within tundra plant communities, and better explain resource economic traits than size‐related traits. We recommend caution when using functional group approaches to predict tundra vegetation change, or ecosystem functions relating to plant size, such as albedo or carbon storage. We argue that alternative classifications or direct use of specific plant traits could provide new insights for ecological prediction and modelling.

Published
2019

4. Traditional plant functional groups explain variation in economic but not size-related traits across the tundra biome

Author

Thomas, H. J. D., Myers-Smith, I. H., Bjorkman, A. D., Elmendorf, S. C., Blok, D., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Forbes, B. C., Hollister, R. D., Normand, S., Prevéy, J. S., Rixen, C., Schaepman-Strub, G., Wilmking, M., Wipf, S., Cornwell, W. K., Kattge, J., Goetz, S. J., Guay, K. C., Alatalo, J. M., Anadon-Rosell, A., Angers-Blondin, S., Berner, L. T., Björk, R. G., Buchwal, A., Buras, A., Carbognani, M., Christie, K., Siegwart Collier, L., Cooper, E. J., Eskelinen, A., Frei, E. R., Grau, O., Grogan, P., Hallinger, M., Heijmans, M. M. P. D., Hermanutz, L., Hudson, J. M. G., Hülber, K., Iturrate-Garcia, M., Iversen, C. M., Jaroszynska, F., Johnstone, J. F., Kaarlejärvi, E., Kulonen, A., Lamarque, L. J., Lévesque, E., Little, C. J., Michelsen, A., Milbau, A., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Nielsen, S. S., Ninot, J. M., Oberbauer, S. F., Olofsson, J., Onipchenko, V. G., Petraglia, A., Rumpf, S. B., Semenchuk, P. R., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Spasojevic, M. J., Speed, J. D. M., Tape, K. D., te Beest, M., Tomaselli, M., Trant, A., Treier, U. A., Venn, S., Vowles, T., Weijers, S., Zamin, T., Atkin, O. K., Bahn, M., Blonder, B., Campetella, G., Cerabolini, B. E. L., Chapin III, F. S., Dainese, M., de Vries, F. T., Díaz, S., Green, W., Jackson, R. B., Manning, P., Niinemets, Ü., Ozinga, W. A., Peñuelas, J., Reich, P. B., Schamp, B., Sheremetev, S., van Bodegom, P. M., Spatial Ecology and Global Change, and Environmental Sciences

Subjects
vegetation change, plant traits, ecosystem function, food and beverages, tundra biome, community composition, plant functional types, plant functional groups, cluster analysis
Abstract

Aim Plant functional groups are widely used in community ecology and earth system modelling to describe trait variation within and across plant communities. However, this approach rests on the assumption that functional groups explain a large proportion of trait variation among species. We test whether four commonly used plant functional groups represent variation in six ecologically important plant traits. Location Tundra biome. Time period Data collected between 1964 and 2016. Major taxa studied 295 tundra vascular plant species. Methods We compiled a database of six plant traits (plant height, leaf area, specific leaf area, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen, seed mass) for tundra species. We examined the variation in species-level trait expression explained by four traditional functional groups (evergreen shrubs, deciduous shrubs, graminoids, forbs), and whether variation explained was dependent upon the traits included in analysis. We further compared the explanatory power and species composition of functional groups to alternative classifications generated using post hoc clustering of species-level traits. Results Traditional functional groups explained significant differences in trait expression, particularly amongst traits associated with resource economics, which were consistent across sites and at the biome scale. However, functional groups explained 19% of overall trait variation and poorly represented differences in traits associated with plant size. Post hoc classification of species did not correspond well with traditional functional groups, and explained twice as much variation in species-level trait expression. Main conclusions Traditional functional groups only coarsely represent variation in well-measured traits within tundra plant communities, and better explain resource economic traits than size-related traits. We recommend caution when using functional group approaches to predict tundra vegetation change, or ecosystem functions relating to plant size, such as albedo or carbon storage. We argue that alternative classifications or direct use of specific plant traits could provide new insights for ecological prediction and modelling.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results