Understanding plant communities of the future requires filling knowledge gaps.

ABSTRACT

In their response to our letter, De Boek et al. (2019) and Muller, Ballhausen, Lakovic, and Rillig (2019) argue that our conclusion that we need more realistic climate change experiments is too "gloomy" and that we need a plurality of experiments including extremes and multifactorial approaches. We agree that a diversity of experimental approaches is required in order to anticipate the consequences for plant communities of alternative future environmental conditions. However, we argue that "realistic" experiments are underrepresented in the portfolio of previous experiments, and are urgently needed to understand how species communities of the future will look like and how they will function. This article is a response to Muller et al., 26, e4-e5 and De Boeck et al., 26, e6-e7.