Trait coordination and environmental filters shape functional trait distributions of forest understory herbs

Extending the CWM approach to intraspecific trait variation: how to deal with overly optimistic standard tests?

Community weighted means (CWMs) are widely used to study the relationship between community-level functional traits and environment. For certain null hypotheses, CWM-environment relationships assessed by linear regression or ANOVA and tested by standard parametric tests are prone to inflated Type I error rates. Previous research has found that this problem can be solved by permutation tests (i.e., the max test). A recent extension of the CWM approach allows the inclusion of intraspecific trait variation (ITV) by the separate calculation of fixed, site-specific, and intraspecific CWMs. The question is whether the same Type I error rate inflation exists for the relationship between environment and site-specific or intraspecific CWM. Using simulated and real-world community datasets, we show that site-specific CWM-environment relationships have also inflated Type I error rate, and this rate is negatively related to the relative ITV magnitude. In contrast, for intraspecific CWM-environment relationships, standard parametric tests have the correct Type I error rate, although somewhat reduced statistical power. We introduce an ITV-extended version of the max test, which can solve the inflation problem for site-specific CWM-environment relationships and, without considering ITV, becomes equivalent to the "original" max test used for the CWM approach. We show that this new ITV-extended max test works well across the full possible magnitude of ITV on both simulated and real-world data. Most real datasets probably do not have intraspecific trait variation large enough to alleviate the problem of inflated Type I error rate, and published studies possibly report overly optimistic significance results.

Differential Investment Strategies in Leaf Economic Traits Across Climate Regions Worldwide

The leaf economics spectrum (LES) is the leading theory of plant ecological strategies based on functional traits, which explains the trade-off between dry matter investment in leaf structure and the potential rate of resource return, revealing general patterns of leaf economic traits investment for different plant growth types, functional types, or biomes. Prior work has revealed the moderating role of different environmental factors on the LES, but whether the leaf trait bivariate relationships are shifted across climate regions or across continental scales requires further verification. Here we use the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, a very widely used and robust criterion, as a basis for classifying climate regions to explore climatic differences in leaf trait relationships. We compiled five leaf economic traits from a global dataset, including leaf dry matter content (LDMC), specific leaf area (SLA), photosynthesis per unit of leaf dry mass (Amass), leaf nitrogen concentration (Nmass), and leaf phosphorus concentration (Pmass). Moreover, we primarily used the standardized major axis (SMA) analysis to establish leaf trait bivariate relationships and to explore differences in trait relationships across climate regions as well as intercontinental differences within the same climate type. Leaf trait relationships were significantly correlated across almost all subgroups (P < 0.001). However, there was no common slope among different climate zones or climate types and the slopes of the groups fluctuated sharply up and down from the global estimates. The range of variation in the SMA slope of each leaf relationship was as follows: LDMC-SLA relationships (from -0.84 to -0.41); Amass-SLA relationships (from 0.83 to 1.97); Amass-Nmass relationships (from 1.33 to 2.25); Nmass-Pmass relationships (from 0.57 to 1.02). In addition, there was significant slope heterogeneity among continents within the Steppe climate (BS) or the Temperate humid climate (Cf). The shifts of leaf trait relationships in different climate regions provide evidence for environmentally driven differential plant investment in leaf economic traits. Understanding these differences helps to better calibrate various plant-climate models and reminds us that smaller-scale studies may need to be carefully compared with global studies.