Commit 14663bf0 authored by Kunstler Georges's avatar Kunstler Georges
Browse files

minor edits

parent 8ed0d56f
......@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ where:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep1pt\parskip0pt\parsep0pt
\item
$\alpha_{0,f,intra}$ and $\alpha_{0,f,inter}$ are respectively intra and interspecific trait independent competition for the focal
$\alpha_{0,f,intra}$ and $\alpha_{0,f,inter}$ are respectively \textbf{intra and interspecific trait independent competition} for the focal
species \(f\), modelled with a normally distributed random effect of
species \(f\) and each with normally distributed random effect of data set
\(s\) {[}as
......
......@@ -149,10 +149,10 @@ Phenotypic traits and their associated trade-offs have been shown to have global
effects on individual plant physiological
functions\citep{Westoby-2002, Wright-2004, Chave-2009}, but
it has remained unclear how these effects scale up to
influence competition a key of
influence competition a key driver of
community assembly in terrestrial
vegetation\citep{Keddy-1989}. Here we use growth data from
more than 3 million trees in more than 140000 plots across the world. We show how three key functional traits -- wood density, specific leaf area
more than 3 million trees in more than 140000 plots across the world, to show how three key functional traits -- wood density, specific leaf area
and maximum height -- consistently influence competitive interactions.
Fast maximum growth of a focal tree was correlated with low wood
density in all biomes and with high specific leaf area in most biomes. Low wood density
......@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ determined\citep{Keddy-1989}. A long-standing hypothesis is that competition is
similar trait values\citep{MacArthur-1967} (trait dissimilarity). The few
studies\citep{Uriarte-2010, Kunstler-2012, HilleRisLambers-2012, Lasky-2014, Kraft-2015, Mayfield-2010}
that have explored links between traits and competition have shown
that they were, however, more complex, as particular trait values may
that they were more complex; howver, as particular trait values may also
confer competitive advantage independently from trait dissimilarity\citep{Mayfield-2010, Kunstler-2012, Kraft-2014}. This
distinction is fundamental for species coexistence and the
local mixture of traits. If neighbourhood competition is driven
......@@ -247,13 +247,14 @@ facilitative effects Fig. \ref{res1}). The main effects of traits were that some
to a competitive advantage compared to others through two main
mechanisms. First, traits of the focal species had direct influences on its
maximum growth -- \emph{i.e.} in the absence of competition -- (parameter $m_1$ in Fig.
\ref{res1} and Extended data Table 3). The fastest growing species
had low wood density and high SLA, though the confidence interval spanned zero for SLA (Fig. \ref{res1}). This is in agreement with previous studies\citep{Wright-2010} of
\ref{res1} and Extended Data Table 3). The fastest growing species
had low wood density and high SLA, though the confidence interval
spanned zero in two out of five biomes for SLA (Fig. \ref{res1}). This is in agreement with previous studies\citep{Wright-2010} of
adult trees reporting a strong link between maximum growth and wood
density but a weak correlation for SLA. Second,
some trait values were associated with species having stronger
competitive effects, or better tolerance of competition (Extended
data Table 3; Fig.
Data Table 3; Fig.
\ref{res1}). High wood density was correlated with better tolerance of
competition from neighbours and with stronger competitive effect upon
neighbours, whereas low SLA was correlated only with stronger
......@@ -277,8 +278,8 @@ tree growth (Fig. \ref{res1}). Mechanisms explaining this effect are
unknown, but could possibly results from complementarity in
architectural niche\citep{Sapijanskas-2014, Jucker-2015}. Ratios of interspecific over intraspecific competition between
pairs of species -- a key indicator of stabilising mechanisms -- were thus
only weakly related to trait dissimilarity (see Extended data Fig
3). `Trait dissimilarity' effects have often been considered as a key
only weakly related to trait dissimilarity (see Extended Data Fig
3). Trait dissimilarity effects have often been considered as a key
mechanism by which traits might affect competition. But this has
rarely supported with
field data\citep{Mayfield-2010}, and our analysis confirms at
......@@ -288,7 +289,7 @@ is stronger than intraspecific competition independently of the traits
are unknown. Higher loads of shared specialised
pathogens\citep{Bagchi-2014} could plausibly contribute, but we do not
have trait data that would capture such an effect. This highlight that
other traits may show stronger trait dissimilarity effect.
other traits may show stronger trait dissimilarity effects.
Analyses that allowed for different effects among biomes did not show
strong evidence for any particular biome behaving consistently
......@@ -339,8 +340,8 @@ coexistence of species with diverse trait if forest disturbances
create a mosaic of successional stages. A challenge for the
future is moving beyond tree growth to analyse all key demographic rates
and life history stages of trees, to analyse how traits influence
competitive outcomes and stable coexistence at the population
level.
competitive outcomes at the population
level and control stable coexistence.
\textbf{Supplementary Information} is available in the online version of
the paper.
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment