| 1. |
- Kattge, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
TRY plant trait database - enhanced coverage and open access
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1354-1013 .- 1365-2486. ; 26:1, s. 119-188
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Aronson, M.F.J., et al.
(författare)
-
A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences. - : The Royal Society. - 0962-8452 .- 1471-2954. ; 281:1780, s. 20133330-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Urbanization contributes to the loss of the world's biodiversity and the homogenization of its biota. However, comparative studies of urban biodiversity leading to robust generalities of the status and drivers of biodiversity in cities at the global scale are lacking. Here, we compiled the largest global dataset to date of two diverse taxa in cities: birds (54 cities) and plants (110 cities). We found that the majority of urban bird and plant species are native in the world's cities. Few plants and birds are cosmopolitan, the most common being Columba livia and Poa annua. The density of bird and plant species (the number of species per km2) has declined substantially: only 8% of native bird and 25% of native plant species are currently present compared with estimates of non-urban density of species. The current density of species in cities and the loss in density of species was best explained by anthropogenic features (landcover, city age) rather than by non-anthropogenic factors (geography, climate, topography). As urbanization continues to expand, efforts directed towards the conservation of intact vegetation within urban landscapes could support higher concentrations of both bird and plant species. Despite declines in the density of species, cities still retain endemic native species, thus providing opportunities for regional and global biodiversity conservation, restoration and education.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Williamson, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The distribution of range sizes of native and alien plants in four European countries and the effects of residence time
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Diversity & distributions. - : Wiley. - 1366-9516 .- 1472-4642. ; 15, s. 158-166
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AimDo the statistical distributions of range sizes of native and alien species differ? If so, is this because of residence time effects? And can such effects indicate an average time to a maximum?LocationIreland, Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic.MethodsThe data are presence or absence of higher plants in mapping units of 100 km² (Ireland and Britain) or c. 130 km² (Germany and the Czech Republic) in areas varying from 79 to 357 thousand km². Logit transforms of range sizes so defined were tested for normality, and examined by ANOVA, and by loess, ordinary least square (OLS) and reduced major axis regressions.ResultsCurrent range sizes, in logits, are near normally distributed. Those of native plants are larger than those of naturalized neophytes (plants introduced since 1500 ad) and much larger than those of casual neophytes. Archaeophytes (introduced earlier) have range sizes slightly larger than natives, except in Ireland. Residence time, the time since an invasivespecies arrived in the wild at a certain place, affects range sizes. The relationships of the range of naturalized neophytes to residence time are effectively straight in all four places, showing no significant curvature or asymptote back to 1500, though there are few records between 1500 and 1800. The relationships have an r² of only about 10%. Both OLS regressions and reduced major axes can be used to estimate the time it takes for the range of a naturalized neophyte to reach a maximum.Main conclusionsEstablished neophytes have smaller range size distributions than natives probably because many have not yet reached their maximum. We estimate it takes at least 150 years, possibly twice that, on average, for the maximum to be reached in areas of the order of 105 km². Policy needs to allow for the variation in rates of spread and particularly the long time needed to fill ranges. Most naturalized neophytes are still expanding their ranges in Europe.
|
|
