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

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.

Global plant trait relationships extend to the climatic extremes of the tundra biome.

The majority of variation in six traits critical to the growth, survival and reproduction of plant species is thought to be organised along just two dimensions, corresponding to strategies of plant size and resource acquisition. However, it is unknown whether global plant trait relationships extend to climatic extremes, and if these interspecific relationships are confounded by trait variation within species. We test whether trait relationships extend to the cold extremes of life on Earth using the largest database of tundra plant traits yet compiled. We show that tundra plants demonstrate remarkably similar resource economic traits, but not size traits, compared to global distributions, and exhibit the same two dimensions of trait variation. Three quarters of trait variation occurs among species, mirroring global estimates of interspecific trait variation. Plant trait relationships are thus generalizable to the edge of global trait-space, informing prediction of plant community change in a warming world.

Global change and the boreal forest: thresholds, shifting states or gradual change?

Changes in boreal climate of the magnitude projected for the 21st century have always caused vegetation changes large enough to be societally important. However, the rates and patterns of vegetation change are difficult to predict. We review evidence suggesting that these vegetation changes may be gradual at the northern forest limit or where seed dispersal limits species distribution. However, forest composition may be quite resilient to climate change in the central portions of a species range until some threshold is surpassed. At this point, changes can be rapid and unexpected, often causing a switch to very different ecosystem types. Many of these triggers for change are amenable to management, suggesting that our choice of policies in the coming decades will substantially influence the ecological and societal consequences of current climatic change.